Leigh Ramsay
322 Wecker Road
Carindale
QLD 4152
15th. March 2013
Dear Leigh
Here, in brief, is what Citipointe church
considers to be a ‘family visit’ for Rosa and Chita:
1 pm. Call Chanti and tell here that her daughters’ monthly two hour
visit will commence in one hour. Citipointe makes this arrangement in the full
knowledge that Rosa and Chita’s father, Chhork, will be driving his tuk tuk to
earn a living and so will not see his daughters. It does not occur to
Citipointe that Chanti may have arranged her day such that a 2pm Thursday
afternoon visit is not convenient. As it happens, I had arranged to take Chanti
and her new baby to see a doctor to make sure that all is OK with baby Poppy. I
had planned to take her other children to the doctor as well to get a proper
medical assessment of their health.
2pm. A young Khmer woman from the She Rescue Home arrives with Rosa and
Chita. The visit will take place on the boulevard down by the Bassac River. It
is a very hot afternoon and there is no shade. The Khmer woman from SHE never
moves more that five feet from Rosa and Chita, as I imagine she has been
instructed to do. The stilted encounter between mother and daughters has been
arranged to guarantee that it is impossible for Chanti, Rosa and Chita to spend
any quality time together or for there to be any spontaneous expression of love
between them. The Khmer woman explains to Chanti, myself and my friend that
Citipoite wants to release Rosa and Chita back into the care of their family
but that ‘the police’ will not allow it. Chanti makes a telephone call to ‘the police’.
Shortly thereafter, at 2.36pm, I wrote
the following to yourself and Pastor Mulheran in an email:
Dear Brian and Leigh
This afternoon, with no
notice at all given to Chanti or Chhork, a representative of Citipointe arrived
with Rosa and Chita for their monthly visit. This young woman spoke with Chanti
and Chanti then spoke with whom she referred to as 'the police'. Chanti
explained to me in her broken English that Citiupointe wanted to give her
daughters back to her but that the police had said no; that the police wanted money.
It is quite possible that a
good deal has been lost in translation here and I would appreciate
it if you could clarify Citipointe's position in writing.
Is it true that Citipointe
is prepared to release Rosa and Chita back into the care of their family?
If so, is the decision not
to release the girls back to the care of the family one that has been
made by 'the police'?
Clearly, at this critical
juncture, we all need to be very clear here about what is going on, who is
making what decisions and so on.
I would appreciate a response
as soon as possible please.
best wishes
Half an hour later, I sent the following to you
both in an email:
Dear Brian and Leigh
With a slightly more competent translator I have learnt that
Chanti was called one hour before the visit of Rosa and Chita to announce that
the visit would occur. Citipointe was not taking into account that Chhork is a
tuk tuk driver and that at this time of day he is normally driving a tuk tuk.
The 'visit' took place on the boulevard down by the river in a
place where there is virtually no shade - on a hot afternoon. The Citipointe church
representative did not allow Rosa and Chita to be more than five feet from her
at any time. It was the most uncomfortable possible way for a mother to be
spending her precious two hours a month with her daughters. The girls
themselves felt uncomfortable to have their 'minder' just a few feet away from
them. There was no possibility for any kind of spontaneous affection between
mother and daughters.
Why does Citipointe believe that such supervised visits are
necessary? Has Chanti ever done anything to warrant such supervision?
I am still no closer to any kind of clarification of just where
and how 'the police' fit into all this but it seems that 'the
police' are quite a separate entity to MOSAVY.
You have never answered any of my questions this past five years
and I do not really expect you to respond in any way to this email. However, I
would be delighted to be surprised.
best wishes
James Ricketson
I have not received any response to my
emails. This letter, posted online, is yet another attempt on my part to get
Citipointe to clarify its position vis a vis Rosa and Chita’s being returned to
the care of their family.
To repeat what I have said many times, Rosa and
Chita are not victims of Human Trafficking. They are the daughters of poor
parents who accepted temporary assistance offered by your church only to find
Rosa and Chita stolen by Citipointe. The 31st July 2008 ‘contract’,
unsigned by any member of Citipointe and containing no terms and conditions,
has no legal status at all. The ‘contract’s’ purpose was to convince Chanti
that she had, with her thumb print, agreed to give up her daughters to the
church until they were 18. Chanti believed at the time that she was entering into
a contract with LICADHO - a human rights organization she was familiar with and
which she had every reason to trust. Whether LICADHO was involved in the
drawing up or execution of this ‘contract’ I have no idea. Given that there is
no signiature on it from anyone from LICADHO my suspicion is that Citipointe
was lying when the church told Chanti of LICADHO’S involvement with it.
On 11th August 2008, as far as I can
tell, on the basis of all the documents available to me, Rebecca Brewer had no
legal right to be telling either Chanti or myself that Rosa and Chita would
stay with the church until they were 18. Given that in August 2008 Chanti and
Chhork made it quite clear that they wished their daughters to be returned to
their care I believe that between 11th August and November 2008 (at
least) Rosa and Chita were victims of human trafficking in accordance with Article 8 (Definition of Unlawful Removal) of Cambodia’s Law on
Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation.
I will,
today, write to the Minister of Social Affairs and request that his Ministry
investigate the circumstances surrounding the removal of Rosa and Chita from
their family between 31st July and November 2008 in relation to this
law.
best wishes
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment