Leigh Ramsay
Citipointe church
322 Wecker Rd
Carindale QLD 4152 2nd Nov 2012
Dear Leigh
Chanti, Chhork and the family are now the proud owners of a tuk tuk and in a position make a significant step towards self-sufficiency. I have also paid the family’s rent for the next three months and will continue to pay it until such time as both Chhork’s business (driving the tuk tuk) and Chanti’s (selling books, scarves and other odds and ends to tourists) bring in sufficient income for my aid to be no longer necessary. In the meantime I will see to it that the family has plenty of rice. They have close to 100 kilos at present. I will also see to it that Rosa and Srey Mal are able to continue with their schooling, have access to regular medical and dental care. In short, Citipointe’s financial assistance to the girls (denied to the rest of the family) is no longer required.
The ostensible reason given by Citipointe for its removal of Rosa and Srey Mal from the care of their mother four years ago (illegal in accordance with Cambodian law) was that Chanti was too poor to care for them. havingt taken custody of the girls through deception (the sham ‘contract’ the church got Chanti to apply her thumb print to) Citipointe did absolutely nothing to help alleviate Chanti’s povery at this time, as is well documented. At no point in the past four years has Citipointe done anything tro help alleviate the family’s poverty. Again, this is well documented.
Poverty no longer exists as a reason to keep Rosa and Chita in the ‘She’ refguge and on these grounds alone Citipointe church should release therm back into their mother’s care today. The church will not do so, however, because the poverty of the family was never the real reason why Citipointe has retained custody of Rosa and Chita against the express wishes of their mother and father. Citipointe is in the business of saving souls for Jesus Christ under the guise of rescuing of girls from the sex trade. In reality Citipointe is doing nothing other than ‘rescuing’ girls from poor families, leaving the remainder of the family in poverty, indoctrinating these girls into Citipointe’s form of Christianity and conducting ‘poverty tours’ for gullible Citipointe church parishioners.
I need not repeat here what I have written before but again invite Citipointe church, if it believes I am defaming it, to commence legal action against me. I would be delighted to meet you in court and have he matters raised in y correspondence argued in a public forum. In the meantime, as you consult with your lawyers, you might like to visit the Australian Federal Police website - on which you will find the following:
In 2003, the Federal Government announced a whole-of-government package to address crimes committed against humanity; specifically human trafficking. As part of this package, the AFP received additional funds to strengthen its capacity to detect, investigate and provide specialist training in relation to:
- Division 270 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 which makes it an offence to possess a slave or exercise over a slave any powers attaching to the right of ownership, engage in slave trading or enter into any commercial transaction involving a slave.
‘Slave;’ may be, in our colloquial use of it, too strong a word to describe Citipoponte’s illegal removal of Rosa and Chita from their mother’s care but there is no doubt that for the first 15 months that the church held Rosa and Chita it was exercizing a ‘right of ownership.’
- Trafficking in Persons and Debt Bondage: Division 271 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 makes it an offence to traffic persons, whether internationally or domestically. There are also offences relating to debt bondage of persons, forced labour and the trade in human organs.
It is the ‘debt bondage’ aspect that is of interest here - Citipointe’s insistence that Chanti meet certain conditions before the church would release the girls back into her care. These conditions related to Chanti’s income and her capacity to feed and house her children. However, even when Chanti was able to prove that she had a place to live and an income Citipointe refused to release the girls. All of this is, as you know, very well documented. The techniques used by brothel owners to keep young women in debt bondage are not that different to those applied by Citipointe church. You could, of course, prove me wrong in this by releasing Rosa and Chita today.
Australia's response to human trafficking reflects our obligations as party to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC) since 2004 and its supplementary Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children since 2005.
The legal advice I have received to date suggests that Citippointe has indeed broken various Australian laws with its illegal (in terms of Cambodian law) removal of Rosa and Chita from their family four years ago. When I return to Australia I will explore this further with a view to having Citipointe church charged with, to use the Cambodian expression, ‘people trafficking’.
An alternative to going down this path would be for Citipointe to join with me in helping get this family back on its feet such that it no longer needs the help of either myself or any NGO. I have been suggesting this for four years now.
best wishes
James Ricketson
