Pastor Brian Mulheran
Citipointe church
322 Wecker Road
Carindale
QLD 4152
1st April 2013
Dear Brian
Clearly, Citipointe has no intention
of letting facts stand in the way of the church’s desire to hang onto Rosa and
Chita at all costs. That Chhork drives a tuk tuk and makes $35 a week is of no
relevance. That Rosa and Chita wish to be reunited with their family is of no
relevance. That Chanti and Chhork now own a home in the village of Chhok’s
family in Prey Veng is of no consequence.
Citipointe can get away with what
amounts to stealing Chanti;s children because there is no body, no
organization, in Cambodia that is going to prevent the church from abrogating
the most basic of Chanti and Chhork’s human rights – which is that she be
allowed to bring up her own children unless there is compelling evidence that
her daughters would be at risk living with their family. If there is compelling
evidence, this should have been presented to Chanti and Chhork in 2008, 2009,
2010, 2012 or now, in April 2013. If there is a presumption on the part of
Citipointe of MOSAVY that Rosa and Chita are ‘at risk’, should Chanti and
Chhork not be appraised of precisely what risk they are at? Should they not be
provided with any and all documents/agreements Citipointe has entered into with
the ministries of Foreign and Social Affairs so that they can contest, if need
be, some of the facts that have led to Citipointe/MOSAVY making a determination
regarding whether or not Rosa and Chita are better off growing up in an institution
or with their family?
A recap of some old correspondence
might help shed some light on the facts for those who are following this blog.
On 9th July 2010, you
wrote to me:
“We are also bound to abide by the Unicef protection of
Child Victims of Trafficking.
Article 2.6 (and Article 6.3) (Right to
Confidentiality) protects not only the identity, the name and the address of
the protected children (child victims) but also of "all other
information" that could lead to the identification of the child victim
or his or her family members.”
This presupposes that Rosa and Chita
were ever victims of Human Trafficking. As you know, they were not. The 31st
July 2008 ‘contract’ Citipointe induced Chanti and her mother Vanna to sign
with their thumb prints is quite clear: Here were a poor mother and grandmother
seeking assistance.
If Rosa and Chita were, in fact,
‘victims of Human Trafficking’ why would Citipointe have needed to enter into a
‘contract’ with Chanti at all? Why did Citipointe not deal directly with
MOSAVY? Why is no mention made of Rosa and Chita being ‘victims’in the
‘contract? Why was there never any mention, in my conversations with Leigh and
Rebecca in Phnom Penh in June 2008 of the girls being ‘victims of Human
Trafficking’? Why, in Citipointe’s and my first months of communication
regarding Rosa and Chita is there no mention at all at ‘Human Trafficking’?
You write in July 2010:
“According to the Inter-Ministerial Guideline on
Protection of Victims of Human Trafficking:
Article 65: "in case anyone, who claimed to be victim of human
trafficking, requests for staying in the center, then the Director of the
center shall report in writing to the local police for legal action", and
Article 63 states that "Accepting a victim to stay in the shelter must be
in full consent of the victim or the parents, or the guardian of the victim and
the center". These Articles have been fully complied with by Citipointe
for all the children in our care.”
When Chanti and Vanna requested that Rosa and Chita
stay in ‘the center’ it was poverty that
led them to do so, as you know and is clear from the 31st July 2008
‘contract’. It was not because Chanti believed her daughters to be either
victims of Human Trafficking or ‘at risk’ of becoming victims.
Insofar as the 31st. July 2008
‘contract’ constitutes Chanti’s ‘consent’, it was consent on Chanti’s part
based on her poverty and had nothing to do with Human Trafficking. She did not
give you consent to remove her daughters on the basis of their being victims or
potential victims of Human Trafficking.
Did the Director of the centre, in June 2008,
report in writing “to the local police for legal action?” If so, is not Chanti
entitled to have a copy of whatever documents passed between Citipointe and the
police in June 2008 regarding the status of her daughters as ‘victims’? Did
Citipointe, in June 2008, notify Chanti’s village Commune Chief in writing of its
intention to take care of Rosa and Chita? Did Citipointe have any communication
at all with Chant’s commune chief? If so, is Chanti entitled to be provided
with copies of any such documents relating to the Commune Chief’s agreement to
allow Citipointe to take care of Rosa and Chita?
You write:
“SHE Rescue Home is operated by Citipointe for the benefit
of child victims. Please note that child victims are not always defined within
the category of sexual trafficking.”
You have subsequently referred to both
Rosa and Chita as ‘victims of Human Trafficking’ on several occasions. If Rosa
and Chita are not victims of sexual trafficking, in what way, in June 2008,
were they victims of Human Trafficking? I spent every day with Chanti and her
family in the two weeks prior to Rosa going to stay with Citipointe and there is nothing in anything I filmed (or in
anything I witnessed when not filming) to suggest that they were either victims
of Human Trafficking or at risk of becoming so. Could you please clarify what
Rosa and Chita were victims of in June 2008 – other, of course, than of
poverty?
You write in July 2010:
“While Citipointe International Care and Aid (SHE Rescue Home) operates
according to the principles of the Christian faith, each child within our care
retains their right to freedom of religion…”
This is not true. Rosa and Chita have been denied
the right, for close to five years now, to take part in any religious or
cultural events with their family. They have been denied the right, as recently
as Feb 2013, to attend the weddings of
their aunts in the village in Prey Vent in which Chhork’s family lives. That
Rosa and Chita have been indoctrinated into the Christian faith and alienated
from their own culture and religion is well documented.
You write in July 2010:
“(Citipointe’s) intent is first and foremost is to
work with the child and the family toward the earliest possible time for
reintegration and to provide follow-up support subsequent to reintegration.”
In close to five years Citipointe has done
absolutely nothing to work towards re-intergration – despite many requests from
Chanti and myself that a reinteration plan be put in writing so all involved
know where they stand Citipointe has refused all such requests from Chanti and
myself. Please, Brian, provide one document that relates to the re-integration
of Rosa and Chita with their family this past close to five years?
You write in July 2010:
“We give substantial support not only to the children in our care but
also their families in order to foster the process
whereby reintegration may take place at a faster rate than if the
families were unsupported.”
This is not true. In close to five years Citipointe
has provided no support at all to Chanti and her family – not when her children
were suffering from malnutrition and had no choice but to eat the corpse of a
dog found at the side of the road and not when Chanti had a tumour on her wrist
that needed to be removed. Citipointe has provided no assistance at all to see
that Chanti’s other children can receive an education. Citipointe has done
nothing at all. Citipointe did not even offer to help Chanti when, 8 months
pregnant in Feb this year, she needed to be hospitalized with pneumonia if her
unborn baby was not to be placed at risk as a result of her fever. That
so-called Christians could treat Chanti and her soon-to-be-born baby is this
way beggars belief.
If you wish to challenge my assertion that
Citipointe has done nothing to help Chanti since August 2008, please provide
some evidence of what Citipointe claims to have done – bearing in mind, of
course, Rebecca’s statement of 24th October 2008:
“Regarding continued support to Chanti, we are unable to assist with
distributing this sort of aid. Our focus is to assist the children in our care
as needed and the work we do with the parents is limited. If we were to be seen
giving handouts to one individual parent it could prove very disruptive to the
rest of the community.”
Citipointe’s hypocrisy is astounding –
claiming to assist families when it suits Citipointe’s money-raising agenda and
claiming not to assist parents on the grounds that “it could prove disruptive
to the rest of the community.” The community that Rebecca is referring to, of
course is the community of poor people down by the river the parents whom
Citipointe courted with boxes of food (all this filmed) and empty promises.
You are very quick, Brian, to quote
pieces of Cambodian legislation that bolster your case that your actions in
relation to the forced removal of Rosa and Chita from their family back in
June, July and August 2008 were legal. The one piece of legislation you never
quite is the following:
Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual
Exploitation
Article
8:Definition of Unlawful Removal
The act of unlawful 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.
The italics are mine and are a neat
summary of the way in which Chanti and Chhork’s daughters, Rosa and Chita, were
removed from their care in July, July and August 2008.
best wishes
No comments:
Post a Comment