Leigh Ramsay
Citipointe church
322 Wecker Rd
Carindale QLD
4152
31st
July 2012
Dear Leigh
It is now nine days since
my letter of 22nd July and a week since I proposed, in my letter of
24th July, a concrete proposal for how R and SM might be
re-integrated back into their family. You have been in Phnom Penh for four days
and it is three days since we met and you said, many times, that it was your
wish, that it was Citipointe’s intention, to work towards the re-integration of
R and SM into their family. These words have not been backed up by action, as
has been the case this past four years. Citipointe clearly has no intention of returning
R and SM to their mother’s care.
Citipointe obtained the
custody of R and SM by false pretences, tricking C into placing her thumb print
on a ‘contract’ that she could not read and whose contents were not explained
to her at the time. Later, Citipointe told C that the ‘contract’ contained
certain conditions relating to her visitation rights and that she had given
Citipointe the right to keep R and SM until they were 18 years old. Neither of
these two assertions was correct. The ‘contract’ contained no terms and
conditions at all and was unsigned by any representative of Citipointe church.
In terms of Cambodian, Australian and international law the ‘contract’ had no
legal standing. Over the following 15 months C repeatedly asked Citipointe to
return her daughters to her. Citipointe refused to do so. In short, having
obtained custody of R and SM through deception Citipointe was now retaining
custody of the girls in a manner that was contrary to Cambodian law. In
strictly legal terms, Citipointe was itself guilty of people trafficking. This
is all very well documented and, as you know, another long letter of demand
from your lawyers will have no impact on me at all. Indeed I would be delighted
if Citipointe were to sue me for defamation because the church would then be
obliged by the court to answer the very questions it has gone to such lengths
not to answer this past four years. And it would lead journalists in Australia
to the asking of questions that Citipointe would rather not answer.
It was only after 15 months
of holding R and SM contrary to their mother’s express wishes (and Camnbodian
law) that Citipointe obtained from the Ministry for Social Affairs permission
to care for R and SM. Or so Citipointe claimed at the time and has claimed this
past three years. Since that time Citipointe’s actions may have been legal in
terms of Cambodian law (and I stress the word ‘may’) but, in my view, immoral
in terms of acknowledging the rights of C, their mother. C has also been in the
very difficult position of not knowing any of the details of the agreement that
Citipointe has entered into with the Ministry for Social Affairs and so is not
in a position to know what she must do to have her daughters returned to her
care. C’s requests of both Citipointe that she be given a copy of this
agreement and know what her rights are have fallen on deaf ears. That C’s
rights, as a mother who loves her children, should be abrogated in this way by
an Australian NGO constitutes an abuse of C’s human rights. Compare the reality
of what is going on with C’s children this past four years and what continues
to this day, with what is to be found on the Citipointe website:
“Leigh has a passion to
speak for those who cannot speak for themselves – whether it be the young, the
old, the disadvantaged or the poor. In 2006 Leigh was challenged to reach out
to children in the nation of Cambodia who have been sexually exploited &
trafficked. Since that time Leigh has founded the SHE Home which aims to see
these girls lives restored & rebuilt.”
This is nonsense. R and SM
are not the victims of sexual exploitation or trafficking. They are victims of
poverty only. For Citipointe to be passing off the daughters of poor families
as victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking is hypocrisy of the worst kind.
The problem is not simply that Citipointe’s assertions are untrue. Such false
claims, whilst they may be of value in the raising of revenue for Citipointe
church (who doesn’t want to help children rescued from the sex industry?)
ultimately undermines the work done by NGOs that are genuinely involved in
rescuing children from sexual exploitation. How? Because when the spurious
claims of NGOs such as Citipointe come to light the public, upon which NGOs are
reliant for donations, becomes suspicious of all NGOs and reluctant to give
money to NGOs that are truly deserving of the money they need to rescue and
rehabilitate victims of sexual abuse.
Over the past four years I
have spoken with many people who have either been resident at Citipoonte’s
‘She’ refuge, who have worked there or who have had children staying there.
Despite my very direct questioning I have yet to hear of even one girl resident
at ‘She’ who is the victim of trafficking or sexual exploitation. I have asked
this question many times but I’ll ask it again: How many of the girls who have
been or are resident at the ‘She’ refuge have been rescued from sexual
exploitation of trafficking? You will not, of course, answer this question as
Citipointe has no commitment at all to transparency or accountability. Another
question: How many of the girls residing at the ‘She’ refuge have one or more
living parents? Or, to phrase the question in another way: Are there any
orphans residing in the ‘She’ refuge? Are there any girls who have no family?
It is my understanding that every girl residing at the ‘She’ refuge has a
family. If this is so (and again I am sure you will not answer the question)
all of the girls at the ‘She’ refuge are victims of nothing other than their
family’s poverty. In which case, what financial help does Citipointe give to
the families in order to keep the families intact? Certainly in the case of C,
the answer is ‘nothing’. Citipointe has shown no interest at all in the welfare
of C’s family – even when her children have been showing clear signs of
malnutrition.
Citipointe’s primary
objective, after using these girls to raise revenue for ‘She’, is to win souls
for Jesus Christ. Citipointe is more concerned with saving the souls of the
girls resident in the ‘She’ refuge than it is with feeding and helping the
families that these girls are a part of. This is not a form of Christianity
that commands my respect. I will leave it up to readers of my blog to form
their own conclusions.
I have spent the morning at
the Ministry of Social Affairs talking with the Director, Mr Oum Sophannara and
with the ‘Trafficking’ section of the Ministry. I am now in possession of much
more information that I have been to date and will now write a letter to the
Minister to deliver to his desk personally this afternoon. A copy of this
letter will also be provided to the Australian Embassy.
C has asked me, as her
advocate, that R and SM be returned to her care today.
best wishes
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment