18th.
November 2008
Dear
Citipointe
You
have, over this past 10 days, proved adept at not answering questions – this
not answering of questions raising yet more questions in the mind of an
inquisitive filmmaker. Following are some really easy questions. They require
only a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ answer:
Are
any of the girls residing at Citipointe’s SHE Rescue Home victims of human
trafficking? Yes or no?
Have
any of the girls residing at Citipointe’s SHE Rescue Home been sex slaves? Yes
or no?
Do
any of the girls residing at Citipointe’s SHE Rescue Home fit the description
of the girls to be found on Citipointe’s SHE website? Yes or no?
Are
any of the girls residing at Citipointe’s SHE Rescue Home orphans? Yes or no?
Do
all of the girls residing at the Citipointe’s SHE Rescue Home have parents? Yes
or No?
Have
all of the impoverished parents of girls residing at the Citipointe’s SHE
Rescue Home signed a ‘contract’ similar to that ‘signed’ by C and V? Yes or no?
Did
the illiterate parents of girls now residing at the Citipointe’s SHE Rescue
Home understand the wording of what they were signing? Yes or no?
Were
any of the parents told (or was it implied?) that they were entering into a
contract with the human rights organization LICADHO? Yes or No?
Have
the parents of other girls residing at the Citipointe’s SHE Rescue Home been
accorded visiting rights to their children similar to those that have been
accorded to C? Yes or No?
Does
Citipointe Church believe it to be appropriate to limit the visiting hours of a
parent to his or child to 24 hours (of supervised visit) per annum? Yes or No?
Does
Citipointe believe that the contracts it has asked parents to sign are legal –
despite neither Citipointe nor SHE being a signatory to them? Yes or No?
If
an independent party such as LICADHO declares that these contracts are
unsatisfactory, will Citipointe draw up new contracts with the parents of the
children in its care? Yes or No?
In
the case of new contracts drawn up with parents of children residing in the SHE
Rescue Home will Citpointe allow the parents to have somebody or some
organization acting as an advocate on their behalf? Yes or No?
Leaving
aside the legality or otherwise of these ‘contracts’ does Citipointe agree that
it is acting in a fostering role only in the lives of these children? Yes or
No?
When
and if the financial fortunes of any of the parents of residing at the
Citipointe’s SHE Rescue Home improve, such that they are no longer in need of
the fostering services being offered by Citipointe, will Citipointe return the
children to their parents? Yes or No?
Has
Citipointe decided not to take any genuine orphans into the SHE Rescue Home
because it does not wish to be accused of ‘stealing’ children? Yes or No?
Has
Citipointe concentrated exclusively on recruiting the children of poor parents
so that, by acquiring either one or both parent’s thumbprints, it can claim to
have entered into a legal contract with the parents? Yes or No?
None
of these questions requires more than a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, though please
feel free to expand on your ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers if you so wish.
None
of these questions requires that Citipointe divulge any information about the
children or their parents – their names, their ages or any other identifying features.
I can see no reason why a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ answer to any of these questions
would be a breach of confidentiality or in any way impede Citipointe in the
good work it believes it is doing with these children.
To
refuse to answer any of these questions, which I fear will be the case, will
raise doubts in the minds of all those who are aware that the questions have
been asked as to what it is that Citipointe is trying to hide.
I
will leave my questioning here for the time being but please be under no illusions
that I intend to stop asking questions. With each new email I will alert an
ever-increasing circle of interested parties to Citipointe’s secretive
operation in Cambodia.
I
look forward to simple ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers to my questions within the next
24 hours.
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
19th.
Novemeber 2008
Dear
Naly
At
present LICADHO has done nothing more than express some mild concern that
Citipointe has been careless in the use of LICADHO’S name. At this point
LICADHO has refused to meet and speak with me. (I have requested this a few
times). And LICADHO has ignored my request or invitation to go on record about
the rights and responsibilities of NGOs to their Cambodian clients.
As
was the case when C was approached by Citipointe she has asked me for my
advice. My main advice to her has been that she should not sign any new
contract with Citipointe without my having an opportunity to view it first. I
would appreciate it if you, in whatever role you may play in new contracts (the
current contracts are worthless) see to it that I am recognized as C’s advocate
in this matter. If you wish to have confirmation of this from C, please ask her.
Indeed, there are many questions you should ask C in the next 24 hours.
cheers
James
19th.
November 2008
Dear
Citipointe
I
did not really need to get a second legal opinion but I did anyway. It confirms
the first legal opinion. The ‘contract’ with C, without a signiature from
Citipointe, without terms and conditions, is not legally binding. If Citipointe
wishes to continue with its policy of removing poor children from their parents
(as opposed to helping the whole family or taking in genuine orphans) it will
have to draw up new contracts. I trust that LICADHO will see to it that these
are fair and that the parents understand the clearly expressed terms and
conditions of the contract and what the parents must do to have their children
returned to them.
In
the case of C I will be her Advocate and will advise her whether or not I feel
the contract is a fair one. It must be one which lays out clearly what
Citipointe expects from C and what C can expect from Citipointe. Most
importantly the new contract must make it clear that C has a right to have her
children returned to her if she is in a position, in Cambodian terms, to take
care of them. This brings us back to the non-existence definitions of a ‘safe
environment’. Given that no-one has yet come up with a definition, perhaps
Citipointe could do the international NGO community a favour by coming up with one.
Lest
there be any confusion about my role as Advocate to C please speak with her –
in the presence of an impartial observer. Most definitely not in the presence
of the ‘social worker’ who managed to convince C that she was signing a contract
with LICADHO.
Close
to 24 hours have elapsed since I sent you my list of simple questions. It comes
as no surprise at all that I have received no answers. The correct answers –
legally, morally, in terms of SHE policy, in the eyes of God – would be all too
easy to answer and take less than five minutes.
I
will be surprised if I get straight answers to these questions, but then life
is full of surprises!
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
2oth.
Nov. 2008
Dear
Citipointe
It
is now close to two weeks since I began to ask pertinent questions relating to
Citipointe’s SHE programme in Phnom Penh Cambodia. Given that Citipointe has,
at this time, no legal authority to deny C access to her children and hence has
effectively kidnapped her children, I will wait four more hours for a response
to my questions – most particularly the questions asked two days ago which
required only ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. If I have received no answers within four
hours I will send out another email with an even larger readership than those I
have sent out already. I will leave it to these recipients of my email to
decide, on the basis of the facts and using their own common sense, whether my
assertion that Citipointe is in the process of ‘stealing’ Cambodian children is
a false allegation (and hence defamatory and actionable under Australian law)
or whether the questions I have asked and which Citipointe refuses to answer
raise serious doubts about the legitimacy and legality of Citipointe’s international
aid programmes.
I
have, below, pasted my email to Citipointe dated 18th. Nov. so that newcomers
to this matter can understand the questions to which I refer.
I
believe that my accumulated emails of this past two weeks make it clear that I
am in favour of an amicable resolution to the problem that Citipointe has
created and not to a battle which will be damaging to Citipointe Church.
I
await your prompt response to my many questions.
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
20th.November
2008
Dear
Naly
Mid
week has come and gone and, in the absence of any response from you in the next
ninety minutes, and answers to my questions from Citipointe (asked over the
past 10 or so days), I will send out my next email. It will be one which not
only raises serious doubts about Citipointe but also, by implication, doubts
about the role that LICADHO is playing in this matter. Perhaps LICADHO cannot
afford, in any sense of the word, to be critical of Chab Dai - a consortium of
Christian NGOs which has, in writing, endorsed Citippointe's activites in
Cambodia.
Leaving
aside Citipointe's worthess 'contract' (which I trust you now have in your
possession) it must be abundantly clear to you that Citipointe has lied to me,
to C and to LICADHO about the role that LICADHO has played in all this. Unless
you immediately disassociate LICADHO from Citipointe's lies it is inevitable
that questions will be raised as to just how effective LICADHO is or can be
when monitoring the human rights abuses of fellow NGOs in Cambodia.
I
do not wish, in any way, to damage the reputation of LICADHO but also believe
that the organization should be as rigorous in defending poor Cambodians from
exploitation by international NGOs (even well-meaning Christians) as it is in
defending them from their own government.
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
2nd August 2012
Citipointe has not answered any of the questions I have asked of the church this past 4 years. It does not feel that it is obliged to do so. The church has no commitment at all to the precepts of transparency and accountability.
I will leave the chronological telling of the story as it has unfolded this past three and a half years and leap straight to July 2012 in my next blog entry - with a brief 2010 detour.
18th. November 2008
Dear Citipointe
You have, over this
past 10 days, proved adept at not answering questions – this not answering of
questions raising yet more questions in the mind of an inquisitive filmmaker.
Following are some really easy questions. They require only a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’
answer:
Are any of the
girls residing at Citipointe’s SHE Rescue Home victims of human trafficking?
Yes or no?
Have any of the
girls residing at Citipointe’s SHE Rescue Home been sex slaves? Yes or no?
Do any of the girls
residing at Citipointe’s SHE Rescue Home fit the description of the girls to be
found on Citipointe’s SHE website? Yes or no?
Are any of the
girls residing at Citipointe’s SHE Rescue Home orphans? Yes or no?
Do all of the girls
residing at the Citipointe’s SHE Rescue Home have parents? Yes or No?
Have all of
the impoverished parents of girls residing at the Citipointe’s SHE Rescue Home
signed a ‘contract’ similar to that ‘signed’ by Chanti and Vanna? Yes or no?
Did the illiterate
parents of girls now residing at the Citipointe’s SHE Rescue Home understand
the wording of what they were signing? Yes or no?
Were any of the
parents told (or was it implied?) that they were entering into a contract
with the human rights organization LICADHO? Yes or No?
Have the parents of
other girls residing at the Citipointe’s SHE Rescue Home been accorded visiting
rights to their children similar to those that have been accorded to Chanti?
Yes or No?
Does Citipointe
Church believe it to be appropriate to limit the visiting hours of a parent to
his or child to 24 hours (of supervised visit) per annum? Yes or No?
Does Citipointe
believe that the contracts it has asked parents to sign are legal – despite
neither Citipointe nor SHE being a signatory to them? Yes or No?
If an independent
party such as LICADHO declares that these contracts are unsatisfactory, will
Citipointe draw up new contracts with the parents of the children in its care?
Yes or No?
In the case of new
contracts drawn up with parents of children residing in the SHE Rescue Home
will Citpointe allow the parents to have somebody or some organization acting
as an advocate on their behalf? Yes or No?
Leaving aside the
legality or otherwise of these ‘contracts’ does Citipointe agree that it is
acting in a fostering role only in the lives of these children? Yes or No?
When and if the
financial fortunes of any of the parents of residing at the Citipointe’s SHE
Rescue Home improve, such that they are no longer in need of the fostering
services being offered by Citipointe, will Citipointe return the children to
their parents? Yes or No?
Has Citipointe
decided not to take any genuine orphans into the SHE Rescue Home because it
does not wish to be accused of ‘stealing’ children? Yes or No?
Has Citipointe
concentrated exclusively on recruiting the children of poor parents so that, by
acquiring either one or both parent’s thumbprints, it can claim to have entered
into a legal contract with the parents? Yes or No?
None of these
questions requires more than a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, though please feel free to
expand on your ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers if you so wish.
None of these
questions requires that Citipointe divulge any information about the children
or their parents – their names, their ages or any other identifying features. I
can see no reason why a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ answer to any of these questions would
be a breach of confidentiality or in any way impede Citipointe in the good work
it believes it is doing with these children.
To refuse to answer
any of these questions, which I fear will be the case, will raise doubts in the
minds of all those who are aware that the questions have been asked as to what
it is that Citipointe is trying to hide.
I will leave my
questioning here for the time being but please be under no illusions that I
intend to stop asking questions. With each new email I will alert an
ever-increasing circle of interested parties to Citipointe’s secretive
operation in Cambodia.
I look forward to
simple ‘yes’ and ‘no’ answers to my questions within the next 24 hours.
best wishes
James Ricketson
19th. Novemeber
2008
Dear Naly
At present LICADHO
has done nothing more than express some mild concern that Citipointe has been
careless in the use of LICADHO’S name. At this point LICADHO has refused to
meet and speak with me. (I have requested this a few times). And LICADHO has
ignored my request or invitation to go on record about the rights and
responsibilities of NGOs to their Cambodian clients.
As was the case
when Chanti was approached by Citipointe she has asked me for my advice. My
main advice to her has been that she should not sign any new contract with
Citipointe without my having an opportunity to view it first. I would
appreciate it if you, in whatever role you may play in new contracts (the
current contracts are worthless) see to it that I am recognized as Chanti’s
advocate in this matter. If you wish to have confirmation of this from Chanti,
please ask her. Indeed, there are many questions you should ask Chanti in the
next 24 hours.
cheers
James
19th. November 2008
Dear Citipointe
I did not really
need to get a second legal opinion but I did anyway. It confirms the first
legal opinion. The ‘contract’ with Chanti, without a signiature from Citipointe,
without terms and conditions, is not legally binding. If Citipointe wishes to
continue with its policy of removing poor children from their parents (as
opposed to helping the whole family or taking in genuine orphans) it will have
to draw up new contracts. I trust that LICADHO will see to it that these are
fair and that the parents understand the clearly expressed terms and conditions
of the contract and what the parents must do to have their children returned to
them.
In the case of
Chanti I will be her Advocate and will advise her whether or not I feel the
contract is a fair one. It must be one which lays out clearly what Citipointe
expects from Chanti and what Chanti can expect from Citipointe. Most
importantly the new contract must make it clear that Chanti has a right to have
her children returned to her if she is in a position, in Cambodian terms, to
take care of them. This brings us back to the non-existence definitions of a
‘safe environment’. Given that no-one has yet come up with a definition,
perhaps Citipointe could do the international NGO community a favour by coming
up with one.
Lest there be any
confusion about my role as Advocate to Chanti please speak with her – in the
presence of an impartial observer. Most definitely not in the presence of the
‘social worker’ who managed to convince Chanti that she was signing a contract
with LICADHO.
Close to 24 hours
have elapsed since I sent you my list of simple questions. It comes as no
surprise at all that I have received no answers. The correct answers – legally,
morally, in terms of SHE policy, in the eyes of God – would be all too easy to
answer and take less than five minutes.
I will be surprised
if I get straight answers to these questions, but then life is full of
surprises!
best wishes
James Ricketson
2oth. Nov. 2008
Dear Citipointe
It is now close to
two weeks since I began to ask pertinent questions relating to Citipointe’s SHE
programme in Phnom Penh Cambodia. Given that Citipointe has, at this time, no
legal authority to deny Chanti access to her children and hence has effectively
kidnapped her children, I will wait four more hours for a response to my
questions – most particularly the questions asked two days ago which required
only ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers. If I have received no answers within four hours I
will send out another email with an even larger readership than those I have
sent out already. I will leave it to these recipients of my email to decide, on
the basis of the facts and using their own common sense, whether my assertion
that Citipointe is in the process of ‘stealing’ Cambodian children is a false
allegation (and hence defamatory and actionable under Australian law) or
whether the questions I have asked and which Citipointe refuses to answer raise
serious doubts about the legitimacy and legality of Citipointe’s international
aid programmes.
I have, below,
pasted my email to Citipointe dated 18th. Nov. so that newcomers to this matter
can understand the questions to which I refer.
I believe that my
accumulated emails of this past two weeks make it clear that I am in favour of
an amicable resolution to the problem that Citipointe has created and not to a
battle which will be damaging to Citipointe Church.
I await your prompt
response to my many questions.
best wishes
James Ricketson
20th.November 2008
Dear Naly
Mid week has come
and gone and, in the absence of any response from you in the next ninety
minutes, and answers to my questions from Citipointe (asked over the past 10or
so days), I will send out my next email. It will be one which not only raises
serious doubts about Citipointe but also, by implication, doubts about the role
that LICADHO is playing in this matter. Perhaps LICADHO cannot afford, in any
sense of the word, to be critical of Chab Dai - a consortium of Christian NGOs
which has, in writing, endorsed Citippointe's activites in Cambodia.
Leaving aside
Citipointe's worthess 'contract' (which I trust you now have n your possession)
it must be abundantly clear to you that Citipointe has lied to me, to Chanti
and to LICADHO about the role that LICADHO has played in all this. Unless you
immediately disassociate LICADHO from Citipointe's lies it is inevitable that
questions will be raised as to just how effective LICADHO is or can be when
monitoring the human rights abuses of fellow NGOs in Cambodia.
I do not wish, in
any way, to damage the reputation of LICADHO but also believe that the
organization should be as rigorous in defending poor Cambodians from
exploitation by international NGOs (even well-meaning Christians) as it is in
defending them from their own government.
best wishes
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment