VIVIENDAS PARTICULARES OCUPADAS CON PERSONAS

By Section 38(1) of the 1999 constitution,

―every person shall be entitled to freedom of thought,

conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom (either alone or in community with others, and in public or in private)

391 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography to the Human Rights Council of 23 December 2013 (A/HRC/25/45).

392 See for instance, the concluding observations of the UN Committee on Turkey, (CRC/C/OPSC/TUR/CO/1) of June 2, 2006, paras. 17-19; on the Sudan (CRC/C/OPSC/SDN/CO/1) of June 8, 2007, paras. 23-24.

154 to manifest and propagate his religion or belief

in worship, teaching, practice and observance.³⁹³

‗Every person‘ here would include a child of eight or even five. It is obvious the draftsman was not considering children when that section was penned; or he thought a reasonable man would know that section can‘t possibly apply to a child of ten or twelve.

Section 7 of the Child‘s Rights Act provides:

(1) Every child has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

(2) Parents and, where applicable, legal guardians shall provide guidance and direction in the exercise of these rights having regard to the evolving capacities and best interest of the child.

(3) The duty of parents and, where applicable legal guardians to provide guidance and direction in the enjoyment of the right in Subsection (1) of this section by their child or ward shall be respected by all persons, bodies, institutions and authorities.

The import of this provision is, a child has the right to change his religion or adopt a religion different from the one being practiced by his parents; he also has the right to practice said newfound religion in the privacy of his parents‘ home. So if the parents of a fifteen year old are Christians, the child can decide to adopt Islam in exercise of his fundamental right, then proceed to wash and bow in his father‘s sitting room. Is that freedom? or confusion? What about the parents‘ right to freedom of religion? Their right to their privacy? Their right not to be confronted with something they don‘t like?

Possibly something they abhor, in their own very home? We must not forget that religion is one of the most important aspects of a man‘s life, many wars have been fought on this front. Can we in all seriousness and with good conscience bring it down to the home? Into the family?

393 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1990. CAP C38, LFN 2004.

155 A Nigerian writer said, ―Those who think that there is no justification for these rights really need to think otherwise. For example, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion means that it is not in the interest of the child for parents to foist their ideas and religious idiosyncrasies on the child taking into cognisance the ever-evolving choices which the child may make in the future.‖³⁹⁴ He obviously subscribes to the liberationist idea of the child‘s right to an open future. If the child is to be left blank to grow up and form his own ideas, then why does he go to school? The school system will still indoctrinate him, teach him all the theories and formulas he should be left to propagate and form by himself when he grows up. Or is it only parental ―indoctrination‖ that must be stopped and resisted at all cost? If the child is left blank, what is the basis on which he will make all those future choices?

What would be the basis for comparison of new ideas? What would be the foundation on which he would build?

The provision in the CRA is a replica of the one in the CRC,³⁹⁵giving parents and guardians the duty of providing guidance and direction. This duty would seem to have cured the obvious anomaly inherent in the provision; but---has it? The Committee interpreted ‗guidance and direction‘ to mean

‗counselling and advice‘ which the child has the liberty to accept or reject. If the child‘s newfound religion leads him to believe he has to kill ―unbelievers or heretics‖ to make heaven while the parents‘

religious belief is one should forgive people that have wronged him. What possible guidance or direction can they give this child?

More importantly, how possible is it for these polar opposite groups to enjoy this religious freedom while cooped up in the same space? And especially while one is still largely dependent on the other for survival. Equal rights agitators appear to have provided the answer: give children the freedom to choose whether to leave the home or not. When children have been chased out of their homes, we can then raise another campaign on how to take care of street children. In a number of federal cases in the US, parents have sought to have their children exempted from certain school activities on the grounds that the children‘s participation in those activities violates their right to freedom of religion. In Mozert

394 C F Madu, What is a Child‘s Right to Freedom. Avilable at http://www.voicesofyouth.org/en/posts/what-is-a-child-s-right-to-freedom- Accessed 21/10/15.

395 Article 14, CRC.

156 v. Hawkin’s County Public Schools³⁹⁶, fundamentalist parents of several Tennessee public school children brought civil action against the school board for violating their constitutional right of freedom of religion. They claim that elementary school readers introduce ideas repugnant to their and their children‘s deeply held religious tenets. The readers in question depict children who question parental authority, discuss situation ethics, consider the tenability of divergent religious beliefs and advocate tolerance of opposing views---views to which the parents of the children strenuously object.

So the parents brought a civil action against the school board for violating their constitutional right of freedom of religion. Those parents sought to prevent their children from exposure to beliefs or practices opposed to their (the parents‘) religious convictions; and invoked the constitutional protection of their right to religiously instruct their children. The district court upheld the parents‘

claim, but that decision was overturned by the appellate court and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal, effectively killing the parents‘ case.

The view of Judge Douglas in a similar case -Wisconsin v. Yoder³⁹⁷ was:

All parties seem to agree that parents have the right to control the religious upbringing of the child, yet also think it is important to determine if the children find the readers offensive. However, if parents have the right to control their children‘s religious beliefs, as the parents aver, then the children cannot have any rights in the matter which need to be or could be protected. In fact that children agree with their parents---if they indeed do---is legally irrelevant;

even mentioning the children‘s agreement is a diversion from the presumed fundamental legal issue. On the other hand, if children have rights which merit mention in this legal proceedings, then

396 (1987) 827 F. 2^d 1058.

397 (1972) 406 U.S. 205.

157 the parents cannot have a right to control the children‘s religious

upbringing. If the children have rights, these may need protecting not only from state intrusion, but at least in some instances, from parental indoctrination. The parents cannot consistently argue for both rights; nor can the judge consistently recognise both.

The crux of the matter in this case appears to be the contention that the parents‘ right to guide and direct cannot stand side by side with the child‘s right and freedom. One must step down, and we all know which one. I am particularly baffled that the court did not at all consider the age of the children involved in this case. The court seemed to have completely forgotten the part about ―having regard to the evolving capacities of the child‖. Elementary school children are mostly ten years old or below.

What kind of freedom was the court thinking of when it decided that parents should not interfere in their lives? Such young children are very easily impressionable and one can imagine what message the children got out of the whole episode. Putting it in black and white, those children must have learned that they can do just about anything without fear since the State will surely intervene to ensure there are no repercussions from parents. Then they would go on to practice what they learned from those readers i.e. questioning parental authority at every conceivable turn. And at such young age?

Totally incompatible with harmony in the family.