In addition to
threatening to have me ‘forcibly removed’, (the forcible removal of Cambodians
from their homes and land being a regular occurrence in Cambodia) Pastor Brian
Mulheran writes in his 21st Feb letter:
“Using the law
is the last thing that we want to see happen, because for you to be convicted
of a crime and serve a sentence may mean that you will never have the
opportunity to re-enter Cambodia again.”
This is without
a doubt the most extreme instance of intimidation I have ever experienced in my
life.
Dear Brian
In relation to
your letter to me of 21st. Feb.
To make it
easier for readers of my blog I have included here, in this first installment,
all that you write – with my own responses indented and italicized. Given the
sheer length of your letter I imagine that it will take me three or so
installments to respond to all of your letter.
21st.
Feb
Dear James
I write on
behalf of Citipointe church in an attempt to resolve the impasse that exists
between us.
While we
believe that you do have the family’s and the girl’s best interests at heart
for their reintegration you bias and self-interest towards finishing your film
has continued to cloud your judgment.
Yes, I have the best
interests of Chanti’s family at heart in terms of reintegration. I have had for
the past close to five years, as is evidenced in all of my correspondence with
Citipointe church. I have put my money where my mouth is. Citipointe has not.
Citipointe is all talk, no action, when it comes to reintegration.
No, my judgment is not
clouded by my desire to finish my film. After 18 years of filming, with no
completed film in sight, you will appreciate that I am a relatively patient
person. I am in no hurry to finish CHANTI’S WORLD. More importantly, the fate
of Chanti’s family is more important to me than the fate of my film.
This letter is
divided into the following sections:
(i) Background
and requests,
(ii) Cambodian
laws relating to issues,
(iii) Our
heart and duty of care for the girls, and our relationship with the Kingdom of
Cambodia government.
(iv)Clarifying
the status of the girls for being in the home (This is confidential
information. For the protection of the girls this information must not be
disclosed in relation to their identities to anyone outside the girls’ family
in accordance with Cambodia law. This information is only being shared with you
as the girl’s mother has authorized you to receive such information.
(v) Concluding
remarks.
(i)
Background
and Requests
Our contention
began late in 2008 when you refused to sign our visitor child protection policy
as a member of the Chab Dai coalition. Two of the Behavioral Protocols being:
-
It
will not be permissible for visitors to take photographs or video footage of
children, youth or project locations without prior authorization from the Chab
Dai Director or Steering Committee; in which case strict regulations will be
implemented on the nature of how photographs are taken and used. * This is in
accordance with Cambodia Trafficking Law 2007 (article 49); and MoSVYs Minimum
Standards on Residential Care (Article 9)
-
Chab
Dai visitors shall not disclose any information ((names of children, names of
staff) events, locations, stories of specific victims, etc.) relating to
children, youth or member organizations that are considered confidential and/or
internal to to any outside party. This includes verbal disclosure, distributing
internal documents, sharing project locations and posting information on the
internet. *This is in accordance with Cambodia Trafficking Law 2007 (Article
49); and MoSVY’s Minimum Standards on Residential Care (Article 9)
I direct you
to your response “in part” on Saturday, 8th Nov 2008 11.12 am:
“In relation
to Chab Dai the document you sent me makes this consortium of Christian NGO’s
policy quite clear, though it raises a whole host of questions – most of which
I will not explore here. One, however, is necessary: What right does Chab Dai
(either legally or morally) to dictate the terms under which children can
relate to their families, friends and communities? Given that Chab Dai has
money and the families of children in NGO’s care, by definition, do not, these
families are clearly not in a position to negotiate or even ask questions or
raise doubts. I am, however. I have a long term relationship with ---- and
----and I do not recognize Chab Dai’s right to dictate on what terms I can
continue my relationship with the girls unless, that is, Chab Dai can
demonstrate that I am, in some way, a danger to them. (The blank underlined
section is our editing to conceal identities of the girls.)
I have little further to
add to the comments of mine that you have quoted in relation to Chab Dai other
than the following:
You have removed my
comments from their context and changed their meaning. I will, in the next day
or so, publish online the bulk of the correspondence between myself and
Citipointe from Nov 2008 such that readers of my blog can understand the
context in which I made the above statement.
Rosa
and Chita have never been victims of human trafficking and any pretense on the
part of Citipointe church that they are is just that – a pretense. Given that
you so often refer to the law of the land, please read and digest the contents
of another part of:
Law on Suppression of
Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation
Article 8:Definition of
Unlawful Removal
The act of unlawful
removal removal in this act shall mean to:
1)
Remove a person from his/her current
place of residence to a place under the actor’s or a third persons 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 to take a minor person under general custody or
curatoship or legal custody away from the legal custody of the parents, care
taker or guardian.
Article 9: Unlawful
removal, inter alia, of Minor
A person who unlawfully
removes a minor or a person under general custody or curatorship or legal
custody shall be punished with imprisonment for 2 to 5 years.
******
For fifteen months
Citipointe did NOT have legal custody of Rosa and Chita. Fir fifteen months
Citipointe church was in breach of Cambodia’s Law on Suppression of Human
Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation
Your response
and your formal refusal to comply with the policy to refrain from filming the
girls was the cause of restricting access visits to the family when you were
accompanying them.
The restrictions placed
on visits of Rosa and Chita to their family occurred right from the outset and
have continued whether I am in Phnom Penh or not. As a rule I am in Cambodia
for between three and four weeks per annum only. Chanti has virtually no access
to her own children now – just a few hours a month of supervised visits. Trying
now, close to five years down the track, to blame me for the fact that
Citipointe allows so few visits between Chanti and her daughters, is just
nonsense – particularly given the relatively short period of time I spend in
Phnom Penh each year. One question that will arise for viewers of CHANTI’S
WORLD is: Why does this supposedly Christian organization so severely restrict
a mothers access to her own children and the children to their mother?
When you
mentioned, “What right does Chab Dai (either legally or morally) to dictate the
terms under which children can relate to their families, friends and
communities?” This was self-evident as the laws are included with the
statements. We were bound by Cambodian law not to permit you to contravene
these laws – filming or photographing any of the girls in our care.
I repeat: Rosa and Chita
are not and never have been victims of human trafficking and Citipointe’s
presentation of them as victims is disingenuous to say the least.
The refusal
not to film the girls resulted in cancelling visits when you were in Cambodia,
this caused significant distress upon the family and the girls in not being
able to see each other. On numerous occasions we were weeks away from
reintegration and your visit to them and the country resulted in the process
having to slow down and has hindered it from moving forward.
In what way has my
presence in the country slow down integration? On which occasions this past
close to five yours was Citipointe just weeks away from reintegration? On these
occasions that Citipointe was just weeks away from reintegration, on what basis
was the reintegration going to occur? You write elsewhere in your letter of 21st.
Feb that one of the conditions of the Ministry for reintegration to occur is
that the family must be able to sustain itself without outside help. Which
occasions are you referring to between 2008 and 2013 when these conditions
prevailed? When, this past five years has the family been able to sustain
itself without outside help? To blame me for the distress Citipointe has caused
in doing nothing to facilitate reintegration over a period of close to five
years is hypocrisy of the worst kind.
By continually
communicating your opinion of us to Chanti on every visit caused her confusion
and distress and disbelief in our genuine desire to reintegrate her girls in a
timely fashion. You must personally take responsibility for the distress you
imposed upon the family and the girls.
Brian, you have got it
the wrong way around. On my every visit to Phnom Penh this past close to five
years it is Chanti who has expressed her distress to me – often with tears in
her eyes – at having Citipointe, yet again, renege on a promise it has made to
her. Just today Chanti told me that
Citipointe had told her that Rosa and Chita would be coming home in a month. In
a month’s time the church will, yet again, renege on its promise and Chanti
will be heartbroken again. And in the
Alice in Wonderland that Citipointe church inhabits you will, no doubt, try to
make it seem that I am responsible for her distress. Your reference to
reintegrating Rosa and Chita in a ‘timely fashion’ is just nonsense. They have
now spent half of their lives living in an institution and during this time
Citipointe has done nothing (not one thing) to set in motion the process of
reintegration. Citipointe has provided no assistance at all to the rest of the
family – not even when, as was the case two weeks ago, Chanti’s high fever
threatened the life of her soon to be born baby.
By continuing
to film the girls with the intent of revealing their identity, their stories,
the location of the Home, the staff and the organization you were/are
contravening Cambodian Law. We cannot understand why you are unable to see this
and continue to defy this law.
The Cambodian Law applies
to girls who are victims of Human Trafficking. Rosa and Chita are not victims
of Human Trafficking or of any other form of sexual abuse. They are the
daughters of a poor family only – a family that sought temporary assistance
from Citipointe and then had its two eldest daughters stolen from it. And for
the record, I have never filmed in or around Citipointe’s She Rescue Home and
your various references to this are clearly designed, as is much you write, to
throw up a smokescreen: throw as much mud as possible at me and see how much
sticks! Do point out to me, Brian, any one occasion when I have revealed the
names of She Rescue Home staff or the location of the Home?
We have no
problem whatsoever with the concept of a documentary film being made for the
sole purpose of highlighting the atrocities of Child Trafficking in Cambodia,
however, to explicitly reveal the identities and stories of child victims is
not only against Cambodian law but a moral breach of their individual rights.
Why should my documentary
or any other documentary have a ‘sole purpose’? And what make you think that
Citipointe or any other NGO has the right to decide what the sole purpose of a
documentary should be? This is not the way documentaries work. My documentary
is entitled CHANTI’S WORLD because it is about the world she lives within and
is a part of. It has been so since I started filming with her and her family in
1995 – 13 years before Citipointe appeared on the scene and decided that the
church now owned Rosa and Chita. My record of Chanti’s life is the kind of
thing documentary filmmakers do, Brian, and I can assure you most of us do it
for love and not for money. To date CHANTI’S WORLD has been financed primarily
with my earnings as a taxi driver. And the small amounts of money I have been
able to give to the family to help out with food etc. has come from my taxi
driving.
This is
sufficient for the time being. There is a long way to go but I have other
things to do whilst in Phnom Penh other than respond to your letter.
…to be
continued…
No comments:
Post a Comment