When Globalist “Protectors” Become Predators; UNICEF, Grooming, and the Global Battle for Childhood, By Mrs. Vera West and Peter West

There was a time when UNICEF conjured up wholesome images of blue-t-shirted volunteers handing out vaccines and clean water to the world's most vulnerable children, never mind the long-term consequences of the vax. Now, if the latest analysis from the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) is to be believed, that image has cracked. Instead of guarding childhood innocence, critics say UNICEF is spending hundreds of millions of dollars pushing sexually explicit content onto the very children it is supposed to shield.

If that sounds like an extraordinary claim, that's because it is. But it's also one that cannot be dismissed with a shrug. When the world's largest children's agency is accused of grooming rather than protecting, it deserves more than a polite press release. It deserves scrutiny.

According to C-Fam's Friday Fax, UNICEF has veered far off its original mandate, pouring resources into "comprehensive sexuality education" (CSE) programs that, in the eyes of critics, normalise early sexual activity and smuggle explicit material into classrooms under the guise of "health."

One flashpoint: a now-withdrawn UNICEF study that suggested pornography might even be beneficial for children. Yes, you read that correctly. That claim caused such backlash that the agency hastily buried the study, but the damage to its credibility lingers.

Another case: a 2021 UNICEF report blandly observed that "not all children are adversely affected by viewing pornographic or sexually explicit materials." The bureaucratic language is astonishing: some children might be harmed, some might not, as though this is a question for a lab trial rather than a matter of safeguarding the young.

C-Fam President Austin Ruse put it bluntly: "The sexual radicals have your children, MY CHILDREN, in their crosshairs."

The fault line here isn't just over content, but over philosophy. Critics argue that UNICEF's model of sexuality education ranks "sexual rights" over "sexual responsibility."

Take South Africa for example. C-Fam cites UNICEF-backed CSE programs there as a cautionary tale: a society already struggling with family breakdown, fatherlessness, and widespread sexual exploitation, found itself saddled with curricula that critics say accelerated the damage. Instead of reinforcing parental authority or cultural boundaries, programs encouraged premature exposure to sexual themes, leaving communities more vulnerable, not less.

For parents, the underlying message is unsettling: the global agency supposedly protecting your child is now telling you it knows better than you how to raise them.

To understand why this is happening, you have to zoom out. C-Fam and other conservative observers see UNICEF as part of a broader UN globalist agenda that has been brewing for decades. The blueprint goes like this:

Push nations to liberalise abortion laws.

Codify sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) rights into international norms.

Reframe parental authority as an obstacle to "human rights."

All of this is packaged as progressive inevitability. It's about "empowering" young people, we are told, though critics say the empowerment looks suspiciously like indoctrination.

The real danger here isn't just bad curriculum. It's the slow creep of ideology, smuggled into classrooms by glossy UN reports that most parents will never read.

UNICEF would argue it is addressing the realities of a digital world. Children are exposed to pornography online, often without parental knowledge. The agency's defenders insist CSE is about arming kids with tools to protect themselves against abuse, exploitation, and disease. Or, so their story goes.

That's the counterpoint: what critics see as grooming, supporters frame as harm reduction. From this perspective, silence and ignorance are the real threats.

The problem, however, is not that children need guidance in a digital minefield; they do. The problem is that UNICEF appears incapable of drawing a firm line between education and sexualisation. The withdrawn pornography study and the shrugging language of the 2021 report, reveal an agency dangerously tone-deaf to the very anxieties that parents and communities feel most deeply.

At stake here is not a minor bureaucratic misstep, but the public trust in one of the largest institutions in the world. UNICEF commands billions in funding, influences school curricula across continents, and positions itself as the moral authority on children's rights.

If parents cannot trust it to defend innocence rather than erode it, then its credibility collapses. It shows that such international bodies are less about protecting children and more about advancing cultural revolutions through the back door.

The central question is stark: who gets to decide what kind of sexual knowledge a child receives: parents, local communities, or global technocrats?

The C-Fam report is a shot across UNICEF's bow, and the agency would be unwise to dismiss it as mere conservative noise. Protecting children means more than drafting high-minded reports. It means recognising the limits of what children can and should be exposed to.

Transparency is the minimum requirement here. Parents deserve to know exactly what content UNICEF is promoting. Legislators should demand clarity on how funds are being spent.

Innocence is not a renewable resource. Once lost, it cannot be regained. If UNICEF is truly committed to protecting children, it must draw a bright red line between education and exploitation, and then stay firmly on the right side of it.

https://www.lifenews.com/2025/08/22/unicef-caught-sexually-grooming-children/

"A recent analysis by researchers at the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-Fam) has raised alarms over the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), accusing the agency of promoting explicit and potentially pornographic sexual content for children worldwide.

The findings, published in C-Fam's Friday Fax, claim UNICEF is diverting from its mission to protect vulnerable children, instead advancing programs that critics argue groom young people for sexual exploitation.

According to the report, "UNICEF spends hundreds of millions of dollars promoting explicit, even pornographic, sexual content for children around the world."

The analysis points to UNICEF's funding of comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) programs, which critics say include age-inappropriate materials that normalize early sexual activity and expose children to explicit content. The report highlights a now-withdrawn UNICEF study that suggested pornography could be beneficial for children, a claim that sparked significant backlash.

C-Fam's investigation alleges that UNICEF's actions contradict its mandate to safeguard children's well-being.

"The sexual radicals have your children, MY CHILDREN, in their crosshairs," wrote C-Fam president Austin Ruse in a related statement, emphasizing the agency's push for "UN-style family planning" that critics argue undermines traditional family values and parental authority.

The report also references a 2021 UNICEF publication, "Digital Age Assurance Tools and Children's Rights Online Across the Globe," which claimed that "not all children are adversely affected by viewing pornographic or sexually explicit materials." This assertion, described as "outrageous" by critics, fueled concerns that UNICEF is downplaying the risks of exposing minors to harmful content.

Pro-life advocates argue that UNICEF's programs prioritize sexual rights over responsibility, particularly in regions like South Africa, where C-Fam claims such initiatives have been "catastrophic" in communities grappling with family breakdown and widespread sexual exploitation. "The 'sexual rights' rather than 'sexual responsibility' focus of South Africa's sexuality education programs have proved catastrophic in a culture grappling with endemic family breakdown, fatherless homes, and plagued by widespread sexual exploitation and abuse of vulnerable women and children exacerbated by a failing criminal justice system," the C-Fam report stated.

The controversy comes amid broader tensions at the United Nations, where conservative groups like C-Fam have accused progressive factions of pushing agendas that undermine traditional values. The Friday Fax report notes that "countries around the world are under pressure to liberalize their abortion laws and enshrine special protections and recognition on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in their laws and policies, all in the name of human rights."

Pro-life advocates are calling for greater scrutiny of UNICEF's funding and programs, urging the agency to refocus on its core mission of protecting children from harm rather than promoting initiatives they believe expose young people to exploitation.