At this point in this blog
record of my communication with Citipointe church I am going to leapfrog (for
the time being) over the next two years – the highlight of which was
Citipointe’s ham-fisted attempt to sue me for defamation or, should I say,
threaten to sue me. It was clearly an ambit claim on the part of the church.
Citipointe was hoping, by having its lawyers send me an 18 page threatening
letter, that I would buckle, stop asking questions and retract comments I had
made in public about the church ‘stealing’ the children of poor Cambodian
families – ’stealing’ in the sense that the word is used to describe the
removal of poor Aboriginal children from the care of their poor parents. When
it became apparent that Citipointe would not follow through with its threat, I
sent the following to Pastor Halloran:
Pastor Halloran
Citipointe church
322 Wecker Rd
Carindale QLD
4152
27th.
Sept 2010
Dear Pastor Halloran
Following on from my letter
of 12th.August.
It is now two months since
the 3rd. July deadline passed. I have not apologized
publically and Citipointe has not commenced legal proceedings against
me. Hopefully such threats from Citipointe are now a thing of the past and we
can get down to the business of finding a way out of the dilemma that the
church and C are confronted by: Citipointe wishes to retain complete and total
control of C’s children until they are 18 years old and C wants her daughters
back living with her.
The rigidity of
Citipointe’s position is both distressing to C and causes her to adopt her own
rigid position. There is, of course, a middle way – the one that Citipointe
presented to both C and myself over two years ago: that C be given regular
access to her children and, of course, that R and SM have regular access to
their mother, grandmother, friends and community. Is Citipointe prepared to
abide by the terms of its original agreement with C? If not, why not?
Several times this past two
years C has expressed her wish to me that she be able to go and visit her
family in the Provinces. And she has invited me to come with her – a not
unreasonable proposition given than I have known C most of her life and have
known her children all of their lives. C informs me that Citipointe has refused
this request of hers to be able to take R and SM with her to visit their
family. If C is speaking truthfully, why has Citipointe refused her
request? What legal or moral argument can the church present for
alienating C and her children from their family in the Provinces? I am here
requesting permission to accompany C, her children (including R and SM), mother
and husband to visit her family.
Whilst on the subject of
C’s family, did Citipointe ever acquire from C’s Village Chief permission to
remove her children from her care? I remember, when speaking with Leigh Ramsay
in Phnom Penh prior to R going to live at the SHE refuge, being told that she
was on her way, that same week, to acquire such permission from the Village
Chief. It is my understanding that this visit was never made and that the
removal of C’s children does not have the blessing of C’s Village Chief, as it
ought to in accordance with Cambodian custom and law. Please correct me if this
is wrong.
One last matter that I
would like to raise with you. Using the figures provided on the SHE website and
with some understanding of the cost of living in Phnom Penh I estimate that it
costs roughly $500 a month to keep one girl in the SHE Refuge. I would like to
be as accurate as I possibly can be in quoting this figure and so would
appreciate if you could let me know if I am roughly correct or way off beam –
in ether direction?
Your lawyers have stated in
the past that Citipointe is under no obligation to answer any questions at all
regarding its activities in Cambodia. Fair enough, but please don’t kick up a
fuss if I quote this $500 figure, adding that Citipointe refused to comment on
whether the figure was correct or not.
I have had a brief meeting
with Mark Scott, General Manager, ABC and a longer one with Kim Dalton, Head of
ABC TV to discuss (my documentary). The net result of these meetings is that
the ABC will not, under any circumstances, provide financial support for C’S
WORLD or broadcast the film. One of the reasons given to me is that I cannot
tell a balanced story if Citipointe refuses to answer any questions and hence
provide its own point of view as to what has transpired this past two years
with R, SM, C and the SHE refuge. The position adopted by the ABC provides
Citipointe with a cogent reason to maintain its silence, as I imagine it will
in relation to this letter. On the other hand, Citipointe may now realize that
the church cannot prevent me from completing my film and see the advantages (if
only from a public relations point of view) in acknowledging C and her
children’s right to maintain regular contact with each other. This story
(insofar as Citipointe is concerned) can have a happy ending but the ball is
well and truly in Citipointe’s court.
If you wish to discuss this
and the contents of my previous letters I would quite happily come to Brisbane
to do so.
cheers
James Ricketson
Pator Halloran did not
respond to this letter. The questions contained in it remain unanswered to this
day. Citippinte church operates under a cloak of secrecy and for good reason.
The church has much that it would prefer to remain hidden from the view not
only of its own parishioners but from those who believe that in giving money to
Citipointe they are assisting in the rescue of young girls from the sex trade
when in fact they are financing the removal of girls from the care of their
poor parents.
The next section of this
blog will involved leaping over another two years to July 2012. It will
comprise the nine letter I wrote in the past two weeks to Leigh Ramsay in an
attempt to get answers to questions and in hopes of finding a way of working
with the Citipointe to have R and SM returned to the care of their mother C and
the rest of their family. These letters will speak for themselves.
…to be continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment