Citipointe church
322 Wecker Rd
Carindale QLD 4152
31st. Oct 2012
Dear Leigh
As is your custom, you ignore my letters. On yet another trip to
Cambodia I have again made no progress at all in assisting Chanti in
her quest to get Citipointe to return Rosa and Chita (Srey Mal) to her
care. Each day I see the tears of distress that this causes Chanti
and Chhork and, as the person whom Chanti’s calls ‘Papa’ I feel for
her and roundly condemn Citipointe church for the contemptuous and
unfeeling way it has treated Chanti and Chhork for four years now.
As a filmmaker I keep a record of all that transpires (or fails to
transpire) in Chanti’s never-ending attempts to get Citipointe to
release Rosa and Srey Mal back into her care. You clearly have no
intention of doing so and it seems that the Ministry of Social Affairs
has as little interest as yourself in the right of a mother, no matter
how poor, to take care of her own children and not to see them brought
up by foreigners in an institution. In Australia, as you know, you
would not be allowed to get away with the way in which you treat
Chanti. Apart from any moral considerations, your illegal removal of
Rosa and Chita from the family home would see you in court on charges
of kidnapping and Citipointe church on the front pages of newspapers
exposed for fraud, having raised money from gullible members of
Citipointe church who have been led to believe that girls like Rosa
and Chita have been rescued for the sex trade. There is a word for
this, Leigh. It is ‘scam’.
As you know well, from previous correspondence, my finished film about
17 years in the life of Chanti, one part of which will deal with
Citipointe church’s removal of Chanti’s daughters from her care, will
be vetted by lawyers - both my own and those of domestic and
international broadcasters that wish to broadcast the film. It will
not be possible for legal reasons (and nor is it my intention) to
include anything in the film that is defamatory. I will merely present
the facts as they are and let members of the audience make up their
own minds as to the appropriateness or inappropriatness of
Citipointe’s activities in Cambodia in relation to the circumstances
under which Rosa and Srey Mal were removed from the care of Chanti; of
Citipointe church’s retaining custody of the girls for more than four
years contrary to the wishes of their mother.
I had hoped that Citipointe might, if only for reasons of public
relations, see the advantages of putting a lot of time, energy and
money (much less than it costs to keep Rosa and Chita in an
institution) into formulating a family re-integration program for Rosa
and Chita and assisting the entire family over the next few years to
become self-sufficient. It is not to be. Citipointe church
has no interest at all in re-integration; no interest in the welfare
of the entire family, as has been borne out this past four years by
Citipointe’s refusal to offer support of any kind to Chanti - not even
when her children’s hair turned red from malnutrition or when Chanti
required surgery to remove a tumour from her wrist. Citipointe
church’s interests (borne out by your actions) lie in maintaining
control of Rosa and Chita; in turning them into Christians in the
Citipopinte church mold. You practice a form of Christianity, Leigh,
that is a mystery to me - one that places the need or desire on the
part of your church to save souls for Jesus Christ above meeting the
needs not just of Rosa and Chita but of the entire family. Why on
earth the government of Cambodia allows NGOs such as Citipointe’s
‘She’ refuge to replicate the insitutionalization of children along
lines practiced by the Khmer Rouge is a mystery to me!
I will now seek legal advice as to how best to proceed in this matter
- both in Cambodia and Australia. One thing is clear from the evidence
available to me - when Citipointe church took control of Rosa and
Chita against the wishes of their mother four years ago and refused to
return the girls when asked, repeatedly, by Chanti that it do so, the
church was in breach of Cambodia’s 2008 Law on Suppression of Human
Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation.
You and Citipointe’s lawyers might like to acquaint yourselves with Article 8:
Definition of Unlawful Removal
The act of unlawful removal in this law shall mean to:
1) remove a person from his/her current place of residence to a place
under the actor’s or a third person’s control by means of force,
threat, deception, abuse of power, or enticement, or
2) without legal authority or any other legal justification to do so,
take a minor or a person under general custody or curatorship or legal
custody away from the legal custody of the parents, care taker or
guardian.
You should be ashamed of yourself, Leigh. Everyone associated with
Citipointe (especially those making donations to the ‘She’ refuge)
should be ashamed that the church could be involved in activities that
are not only against the law in Cambodia and a breach of the human
rights of Chanti and her daughters but which are also contrary to all
that Citipointe profess on its website and contrary to the basic
principles of Christianity.
best wishes
No comments:
Post a Comment