Prayer Intention for the Month:
We pray that
international bodies and foreign donors may respect African traditional family
values.
Getting treasures by a lying tongue is the fleeting fantasy of those who seek death. (Prov 21:6)
The hypocrite with his mouth destroys his
neighbor….. (Prov 11:9)
Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who deal truthfully are His delight (Prov. 12:22)
Let no corrupt word
proceed out of your mouth, but what is good for necessary edification, that it
may impart grace to the hearers. (Eph 4:29)
SEMANTIC DECEPTION INSIDE THE
MOST DANGEROUS HONEY-COATED ‘gift’ EVER TO AFRICA
Today, many of us are
familiar with the phrase “sexual and reproductive health and rights” propagated
by women’s liberation movements (variously called “the women’s movements”,
“women’s rights movements”, or the feminist movements). The movements have gained international
recognition with their agitation or struggle for women’s emancipation. However, some of the women’s demands through
“sexual and reproductive health and rights” advocacy are laudable, while a
number of them are quite controversial and morally questionable. For instance,
their versions of “right to family planning services”, “right to sexual
health”, “right to reproductive health”, “right to sex education”, and their
advocacy for the “right to consensual sexual relations”, “right to sexual
pleasure”, “right to free and responsible reproductive choices”, and the like
have deeper connotations that have serious moral implications. Thus, the phrase “sexual and reproductive
health and rights” coined by these feminists and endorsed by international
bodies is apparently positive at face value, but is largely negative in its
interpretation or description of women’s reproductive health services. Through this advocacy too, these feminist
groups defend the “reproductive rights” of those outside normal heterosexual
relationships: the lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals or intersex people
(LGBT) since women are also found among this group of people. The advocacy targets adolescents as well
thereby defending their so-called “sexual and reproductive health and rights.” There is urgent need, therefore, to dig
into these ambiguities, to decode these euphemisms, and to present to Africans
the real issues involved in this propaganda and their moral implications for
their traditional and Christian life. This is very important as the claim to these
“rights” negate the proper understanding of human sexuality, the dignity and
sanctity of human life, especially life at its beginning. They also touch on marriage and human
procreation, the family, and other Christian values. The investigation is necessary since the use
of the sugar-coated phrase, “sexual and reproductive health and rights”,
amounts to a deliberate attempt to hide their real hidden agenda.
Semantic Corruption of Reality
The advocates of “sexual and reproductive health
rights” are very proficient and efficient in distorting reality so as to make
their advocacy palatable and acceptable.
They employ semantic
corruption. Experts such as William
Brennan, the author of Dehumanizing the Vulnerable: When Word Games Take Lives and George Orwell, an English essayist and
novelist, in his work, 1984 detailed the
effects of word manipulation to achieve the manipulator’s aim. I will dwell largely on their insights in
this subsection. William Brennan emphasizes that behind some linguistic
derision is a kind of ideology; that is, a philosophy, a social theory, a set
of interrelated ideas, concepts, beliefs, and values that generate and sustain
the dissemination of such a terminology.
Accordingly, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s keener insight into the
significance of ideology is highly revelatory.
He writes:
Ideology – that is what gives evil-doing its
long-sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness
and determination. That is the social
theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and
others’ eyes, so that he won’t hear reproaches and curses but will receive
praise and honour. Thanks to ideology; the twentieth century was fated to
experience evil-doing on a scale calculated in the millions.
Contemporary ideology remains largely characterised by
the manipulative use of language as a resource. It uses words to indicate
things that are foreign to their natural meaning. This is what is commonly referred to as “verbal
engineering” or “manipulation of language”.
Verbal engineering is the “the conscious effort to change the way in
which reality is perceived through the way in which reality is depicted and as
a consequence introduces changes in the ways persons behave.” In other words,
the object of verbal engineering is to carefully manipulate public opinion to
produce behavioural changes. The place
of authentic reality is taken over by a fictitious reality; the perception is
indeed still directed toward an object, but now it is a pseudo-reality,
deceptively real, so that it becomes almost impossible to discern the
truth. Verbal engineering normally is
achieved through a subtle manipulation of words – words that traditionally had
a positive meaning are given other meanings or shades of meanings. To change social attitudes, therefore,
frequently euphemistic language is used that tries to obscure reality. The
power of language, therefore, to colour one’s view of reality is profound.
In many
instances, the most significant factor in determining how an object will be
perceived is not the nature of the object itself, but the words employed to
characterize it. William Brennan gives
examples that show how Native Americans, African Americans, Soviet enemies,
European Jews, women, unwanted children, and physically challenged persons have
been labeled as “deficient humans”, “nonhumans”, “animals”,
parasites/diseases”, “inanimate objects”, “waste products”, and “non-persons”.
Verbal engineering and manipulation evidently clear in these cases, can be said
to be the violation of the most basic human dignity, because the members of
society against whom this procedure of dehumanization is used are no longer
treated as human beings, but as objects to be manipulated, to be dominated
afterwards, to be “handled” and controlled, and even killed. This semantics of oppression led to the death
of millions of Jews, and the massacre of millions and millions of unborn babies
to date. Those who control language
control thought, and eventually semantic corruption leads to the adulteration
of thought itself. It is also profoundly
immoral because it is planned deception of those made to accept the labels as
true.
Semantic Distortion in “Sexual and Reproductive Health
and Rights” Advocacy
Linguistic gymnastics, as underlined above, have
slipped into international gatherings and influence decision makers and those
who propose programmes of action. The implication of this is that to understand
or decode the full imports of words employed by these feminist movements in
their indoctrination of peoples, or the full imports of documents emanating
from United Nations Conferences and Assemblies as well as national policies
written with “external assistance”, it requires some knowledge of “UN Speak” and “feminist Speak”. The knowledge is
particularly necessary for understanding such terms as “sexual and reproductive
rights” “freedom of sexual expression”, “reproductive rights”, “sexual rights”,
“reproductive healthcare and services”, “reproductive health services”, “family
planning services”, “family life education”, “adolescent sexual and
reproductive rights”, “gender equality or equity”, “safe or safer sex”, “safe
abortion”, “enforced pregnancy”, “consensual sexual relations”, “sexual
identity”, and so on. What really do the proponents of these terms mean by them?
Verbal
engineering is also blatant in other terms related to “sexual and reproductive
health and rights” advocacy. For example, “abortion” is called by different
names mainly out of a desire to hide the truth about the nature of abortion
itself - killing. In various
international documents, it is defined as a ‘right’ and/or a “choice”: “right
to the freedom of choice”, “right to the free choice of pregnancy”, “right to interruption
of pregnancy”, “right to the free choice of the interruption of pregnancy”, “right
to choose to terminate pregnancy”. Other terminologies include: “right to make personal decisions”, “ right to
integrity of the person”, by including the period of pregnancy in it; “right to
freedom from motherhood”, right to “control one’s own body”, “right to choose”,
“pro-choice”, “reproductive choice”.
These are euphemistically employed to mean abortion. An abortion clinic is frequently described as
“reproductive health center”. These
terms are freely scattered in various UN documents and feminist literature.
The foregoing is just an attempt to uncover the real
issues in the “sexual and reproductive health and rights” advocacy prevalent in
the world today. It is a euphemistic way
of propagating abortion, contraception and sterilization. In order words, sexual and
reproductive health and rights means abortion, contraception and
sterilization. It is a means employed to
depopulate mainly the developing nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America by
the rich western nations of North America and western Europe. This advocacy is the greatest lie told these
poor nations in centuries. The “big
brother” lures these poor countries into killing their own children in millions
while pretending to improve their health.
The
Maputo Protocol and the Word Games
In Africa, the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
spearheads “sexual and reproductive health and rights” advocacy. UNFPA is heavily influenced by feminists
groups, World Bank, multi-national corporations, foreign donor organisations,
and anti-life groups such as Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and Marie
Stopes International (MSI). There is
hardly any African country without the presence of IPPF or MSI or both. These
groups, (as we shall see) saw to the emergence of a very dangerous “gift” to
Africa – The
Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of
Women in Africa (The Maputo Protocol).
Human Life International,
a renowned pro-life organisation, provides an insightful summary of this
document. It says that the Maputo
Protocol was drafted by an expert group of members of the African Commission on
Human and Peoples’ Rights, African NGOs (of course, influenced and funded by
foreign donors who promote abortion), and international observers including the
International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), and the International
Commission of Jurists (ICJ). The values of these groups are
not African in any way, shape or form. So, how could they have the good of
Africa at heart? For instance, IPPF, the
largest abortion-promoting organisation in the world, has no regard for national or local traditions
and customs in its efforts to legalise abortion worldwide. It has stated in its VISION 2000 Strategic
Plans that the objective of its affiliated organisations is to campaign for
policy and legislative change to remove restrictions against safe abortions.
Its Vision 2020 reiterates the same objective, making sexual and reproductive
health advocacy central to that vision (http://ippf.org/vision2020). Since the
people never want abortion, IPPF and other pro-abortion groups must resort to deception.
The Maputo Protocol is the ideal instrument to legalise abortion all over
Africa. The Protocol allegedly is an instrument to fight female genital
mutilation (FGM), but in all of its 23 pages, it mentions FGM (female genital
mutilation) in only one sentence. Thus, it appears to be a gift to the African
people — but is actually another thing which is far deadlier (http://www.hli.org/files/maputo_protocol_english.pdf).
Those behind
this dangerous treaty cajoled African Union into adopting the killing of their
unborn children and many African nations have either signed or/and ratified
it. Following this deceptive document,
South Africa and Cape Verde have already legalised abortion in their
countries. Maputo Protocol practically
promotes abortion on demand and presents contraception as sine qua non for African women’s health and survival. Article 14 of the Protocol practically
endorses abortion, authorising “medicalised abortion” for women who have been
raped or where pregnancy endangers the woman's health. The Protocol was praised as being the first
international document that provides a legal framework for issues ranging from
marriage and property rights to domestic violence to female genital mutilation.
As usual, the treaty mixes up values and disvalues. The disvalues are craftily drafted to make
them readily acceptable as values. To stop domestic violence, female
mutilation, (if it is really a mutilation), or to let women have political or property
rights are laudable, but what about “reproductive rights”? What is entailed in this phrase, (as we have
already emphasised) is more than meets the eye. It is a coded language that
needs to be decoded. Why should Africa be the first to provide such a law that
allows the killing of its babies, while western nations with their long history
of human laws are yet so sign such a law? Yet, Africans are made to be that the
‘big brother’s interest is the health of their women and girls. How many of
those who signed the Maputo Protocol really understood the semantic distortion
in it? Were they even allowed to make
contributions or to study the Protocol before appending their signatures? It was drafted in far away west and presented
to African leaders as a Trojan gift.
This year, 2013, marks the tenth anniversary of the initiation of
deliberate killing of African unborn children through the murderous programmes
of IPPF and MSI in various parts of Africa.
Of course, the number of African children killed within this period
undoubtedly runs into millions. The
Protocol is an assault on African family and values – a continent generally
known as “a continent of families”.
Education
is Necessary to Understand the Language of “Externally Assisted” Policies and
Bills
It is high time
African leaders learnt the language of policies and bills they adopt or sign
into law in their various countries, especially, in “sexual and reproductive
health” propaganda. Before signing any
policy or bills drafted with “external assistance” coming from these world
bodies, these leaders should seek to thoroughly study the documents by inviting
relevant stakeholders in the government, experts, and the private sector. Private sectors here include faith-based
organisations that could be described as the watchdogs of the society. Those African countries that are yet to
ratify the Protocol have the opportunity to look closely into the real issues
in this deceptive document.
Particularly, if Rochas Okorocha, the Imo State governor (Nigeria) had
studied the bill presented to him as stated above, he would not have signed
into law a Bill that authorizes the killing of the unborn citizen's of his State. Fortunately,
he has learnt his lessons and has recently retraced his steps, directing the
relevant Office to abrogate the dangerous sections of the Bill. (http://www.vanguardngr.com/2013/09/abortion-saga-rochas-okorocha-bows/).
The word
games are central to the “sexual and reproductive health” advocacy and its
power in changing patterns of thought and behaviour is enormous. Awareness of the semantic abuse and this form
of thought control should allow us, the Africans, to resist the advocacy
through constant process of presenting the eternal truth in a clear and organic
fashion. The truth shall set us free, indeed. Africa loves life. Africa is a continent of families. Anybody or group that destroys the African
family is her greatest enemy and can NEVER be allowed to triumph.
For
Personal Reflection:
Do African women really need the
so-called “reproductive health” programmes?
Who actually benefit from these
“programmes”?
·
Pharmaceutical companies?
·
Pro-abortion Organisations?
·
Manufacturers of medical equipment?
·
Medical doctors, nurses, biologists, and other related scientists?
Foreign donors are more interested in
contraception and abortion in Africa than in the deadly diseases of malaria,
HIV/AIDS, or malnutrition. True?
Many industries and peoples must push
their deadly products/programmes to Africa, otherwise they risk staying out of
business. True?
LIFE QUOTE
“We would like to draw the attention of
the political leaders of Africa to our strong reservations concerning some
aspects of Article 14 of the Maputo Protocol.…We observe that the rights of
women to protect and promote their sexual and reproductive health in this
article exclude the rights of the couple, the family and the larger society
(civil, traditional, cultural and religious) from playing a part in promoting
precisely the women’s rights to their health care. For instance, the
authorization to have recourse to abortion and the choice of any method of
contraception by the women (cf. Article 14, # 1, c and # 2, c) are particularly
incompatible with our Catholic Church teaching, tradition and practice….
Additionally, the Church has continually affirmed since the first century that
it is a moral evil for any person or agent to procure an abortion. This
teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable…. In the light of this, we
observe that abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes to almost all of
our African cultures, traditional societies and religions.”
(Joint Statement by African
Bishops)
No comments:
Post a Comment