We
are, hopefully, moving into the home stretch in dealing with Pastor Mulheran’s
letter. Pastor Mulheran writes…
Please
read through this letter very carefully and understand the following points -
these are the facts whether you wish to believe them or not:
The
girls are legally in the custody of the Cambodian government and we hold them
in care on their behalf;
The
Government deems both girls as child victims of Human Trafficking according to
the law.
Excuse
me for belabouring the point but you know, everyone at Citipointe church knows
and the Ministry of Social Affairs knows that Rosa and Chita are not victims of
Human Trafficking. You can repeat this till you are blue in the face but this
will not make it true. Reality doesn’t work that way!
The
government is the one that determines when reintegration will occur.
For the
government to determine when integration will occur would require that someone
from the government do a little homework and write a report for the Minister to
consider. I presume that this would be a small team of MOSAVY Social Workers. I
presme that these Social Workers would talk to Chanti and her family; that they
would talk to Chanti’s landlady (whom the family rents her home from); that the
Social Workers would speak to Chanti’s neighbours and others in her community;
that these Social Workers would speak with Chanti’s Commune Chief; that the
Social Workers would like to see documentary evidence that Chanti and Chhork do
actually own a home in Srey Veng; that the Social Workers travel to Srey Veng
and speak with the families of Chanti and of Chhork to determine how supportive
they will be of the family when it moves back to Srey Veng. When the Social
Workers have completed their investigation they will, presumably, write a
report for the Minister. A copy of this report will be provided to Chanti and
she will be given an opportunity to either correct errors or to make comments
in response to what the Social Workers have written. I imagine also that I, as
Chanti’s advocate and as her sponsor, will be required to make a submission
also. I imagine that Citipointe will write a report of its own and that this
will also be shown to Chanti and myself.
To this
end I have written a letter to the Minister for Social Affairs and will, in the
next 24 hours, have it translated and delivered to the Minister’s office. The
Minister has never responded to any letter from me to date but perhaps this
time will be an exception. I live in hope!
For the
record, no one in Chanti’s community has any recollection of any Social Worker
from the Ministry visiting Chanti and her family.
By
revealing the girl’s identities, stories, location of the home and, our staff
and organization in association with them on the internet and also what you
have communicated to us concerning the content of your documentary film, you
are breaking the Cambodia Exploitation Laws;
Yet
again, Brian, these laws apply to the victims of Human Trafficking and Rosa and
Chita are not victims of Human Trafficking. Nor are 84% of the other girls in
the She Rescue Home. Why don’t you advertise the She Rescue Home for what it is
and not in such a way as to enhance your fund-raising potential?
Your
statements about us ‘kidnapping’ or
having ‘stolen’ the children are defamatory and vexdatious;
Sue me!
Your
intent concerning the documentary film of the girls and seeking to reveal their
identities and your continued support of the family is hindering the
reintegration.
Since my
documentary has not been completed and has been seen by non-one, how is it
hindering reintegration? Ohm, and while we are on this point, what has
Citipointe done in close to five years to even initiate the process of
reintegration?
(g)
Your email 12 February 2013 contains a blackmail threat against our
organization.
Sue me!
(i)
Cambodian Laws and Guidelines
I
am not going to type up the laws you quite in full. Life is too short. These
are available to anyone who wishes to consult the internet. I will pick up my transcription of your
letter close to the bottom of page 6 where you write:
Both
the girls are deemed by Cambodian law to be victims of Human Trafficking.
Irrespective of your opinion or the opinion of others, Cambodian law and the
Cambodian Government deem the girls to be victims of Human Trafficking.
I can do no better than quote Daniel
Patrick Moynihan: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but
not to his own facts.” Neither your opinion nor mine is
of any relevance here. Rosa and Chita are not and never were victims of Human
Trafficking.
The
definition of Human Trafficking includes begging and a child who is the progeny
of a trafficked relationship.
Rosa and
Chita have never been beggars and nor are either of them the progeny of a
trafficked relationship. You are clutching at straws here, Brian.
(ii)
Our heart and duty of care for the girls, and our relationship with the Kingdon
of Cambodia Government.
We
have no desire to keep any of the girls within our care any longer than is
deemed necessary by the Cambodian government. The Cambodian government, through
the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veteran and Youth Rehabilitation (MOSAVY) are
the legal guardians of all the girls in our care. The government through their
agreement with us, grant us authority to care for the children on their behalf,
but the children are children of the state.
We are
back now to a critical point in this story and it is worth going through it
step by step:
- Chanti,
Chhork and her children (Rosa, Chita and Srey Mal) were living in a small room
just a few streets back from the river when they first encountered Citipointe
church. I have filmic proof of this.
- Citipointe
church staff conducted an impromptu church service at the river’s edge, after
which food parcels were handed out to the children and their parents – all
members of the riverside community I knew well and had been filming with for
many years. I filmed this impromptu service and the handing out of food parcels
down by the river. (Please note that I will not be revealing the identity of
the Citipointe staff involved.)
- The following
day I met with Leigh Ramsay and Rebecca Brewer and we discussed the possibility
that Citipointe might help care for Chanti’s two eldest daughters.
- The
following night Leigh Ramsay, Rebecca Brewer and I had dinner together and
discussed it further. No mention was made of the girls staying with Citipointe
until they were 18. What was proposed was a short term solution to Chanti’s
financial problems - an arrangement that
she could terminate whenever she wished.
- The
following day Chanti asked me if I thought the offer being made by the church
was a good one. I told her that I thought it was – based on what Leigh and
Rebecca had told me.
- The
following day Rosa and Chita left their mother’s and father’s home to stay at
the She Rescue Home. Neither Chanti nor myself had any reason to believe that
the church would not keep its word.
- I
returned to Australia.
- On 31st
July 2008 Chanti and her mother put
their thumb prints on a document that they neither understood nor had explained
to them. The document, clearly drawn up by someone else, included the fact that
they had no home – which was not true. As I have mentioned, I filmed inside
this home two days before Rosa and Chita went to stay with Citipointe. As with
pretty much everything that has occurred this past close to five years I have a
comprehensive filmic record of what has transpired.
- On 11th
August 2008 Rebecca informed me in an
email that Rosa and Chita would stay with Citipointe until they were 18.
- In
November 2008 Chanti was told in a telephone conversation (filmed) that Rosa and Chita would be returned to hers
and Chhork’s care at the end of the water festival. The church reneged on this
agreement.
- I was
informed by more than one source that in Nov 2008 there was not one girl in the
She Rescue Home who was a victim of Human Trafficking; that all of the girls
had one or more parents who had, like Chanti and Vanna, signed contracts that
they could neither read nor understand.
- Between
31st, July and 11th August 2008 the only document that
either Chanti or myself are aware of that relates to Rosa and Chita being in
the care of the She Rescue Home is the 31st. July document that has
not been countersigned by Citipointe and that contains no terms or conditions
at all. Cambodian and Australian lawyers have informed me that this is not a valid legal contract.
- Citipointe
subsequently claims that it was justified in holding Rosa and Chita against
their parents wishes in Nov 2008 on the basis of an agreement the church had
entered into with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. If this contract exists it
is one that Citipointe entered into without the knowledge of Chanti, without
any consultation with her and without Citipointe consulting Chanti’s Commune Chief.
What legal right did Citipointe have to enter into such an agreement with the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding the custody of her daughters when all
Chanti and Chhork had sought at the outset was temporary help whilst they were
in the midst of a financial crisis? How did Foreign Affairs get involved
anyway?
I have
asked these questions countless times. Citipointe has refused to answer them
countless times. Transparency and accountability are not Citipointe’s strongest
points.
- Fifteen
months later Citipointe entered into a secret agreement with the Ministry of
Social Affairs – an agreement that replaced the one that Citipointe claims it
had entered into with the ministry of Foreign Affairs. Chanti’s repeated
requests that she be provided with a copy of this agreement between Citipointe
and MOSAVY and my own multiple requests, in my role as Chanti’s advocate, have
been ignored by both Citipointe church and the Ministry of Social Affairs.
It may
be, at this juncture, now that Chanti and her family have a home of their own
and an income, that the Ministry of Social Affairs will get around to sending
some Social Workers around to look at the facts of this matter.
I have
spent close to five years trying to work with the church to help Chanti’s whole
family. I have failed. Citipointe has no desire and certainly no intention of
helping the whole family. The church has made this clear with its actions.
I have
also spent the past four years trying to avoid placing this matter in the hands
of the Australian Federal Police. I am merely a filmmaker and not a
professional investigator. I can also be ignored by Citipointe, whereas the
Federal Police cannot.
On the
basis of the facts that I have at my disposal (and which I will give to the
Federal Police on my return to Australia) I believe that a strong case can be
made that Citipointe acquired custody and control of Rosa and Chita in 2008 in
contravention of both Cambodian and Australian law. If Citipointe did enter
into a legally binding contract with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the church
has nothing to fear from an investigation – though questions still remain as to
the reason why this contract was entered into and why neither Chanti nor her
Commune Chief had any knowledge of it.
…to be
continued…
