Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation Article 8:Definition of Unlawful Removal

A response to Brian Mulheran's 11th letter to myself:

Dear Brian

I will be brief. You write: “This letter (21st February 2013) in no way is an exhaustive list of corrections to errors of fact in your material.”

Please provide me with the errors of fact you believe that I am guilty of?

As for your reference, yet again, to ‘Article 49 of the Cambodian Exploitation Law’ could you please answer the following question with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer:

Are Rosa and Chita the victims of Human Trafficking?

As to your reference to my being “legally bound by Cambodian law,” please read the following:

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.

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 by your church.

You will also be aware of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child,  to which Australia is a signatory:

Built on varied legal systems and cultural traditions, the Convention is a universally agreed set of non-negotiable standards and obligations. These basic standards—also called human rights—set minimum entitlements and freedoms that should be respected by governments…. It spells out the basic human rights that children everywhere have: the right to survival; to develop to the fullest; to protection from harmful influences, abuse and exploitation; and to participate fully in family, cultural and social life.

Rosa and Chita have been denied, by Citipointe church, the right “to participate fully in family, cultural and social life”. They have been denied to right to participate in any way at all in family, cultural and social life – other, that is, than a few hours of supervised visits each month – amounting to around 24 hours per annum. This has been the case for close to five years now.

You write, “to reveal the identity of the girls in mass media due to an impasse between yourself and us is altogether inappropriate morally.” Brian, you miss the point completely. The impasse is not between me and Citipointe church. I am merely acting as an advocate for Chanti. She has asked me to do so and she has, as you know, signed a legal document (a copy of which you are in possession of) giving me the right to ask questions on her behalf. Rosa and Chita are hers and Chhork’s daughters. They are not the property of Citipointe church. I am merely trying to help her get her daughters back – two girls who, as you know, have never been the victims of Human Trafficking but are the victims of being trafficked by Citipointe church in accordance with Cambodia’s ‘Law on Suppression of Human Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation.’

Finally, we come to your comment: “In closing we can assure you that we both have one unified goal, the reintegration of the girls with their family. We will continue to strive to work with MOSAVY to that end as soon as possible.”

This is nonsense, Brian. Name one thing that Citipointe church has done this past close to five years to even begin the process of reintegration? Just one! This is not a rhetorical question. The church has done nothing. The church clearly has no intention of doing anything and nor does MOSAVY have any intention to insisting that Citipointe return Rosa and Chita to their family - regardless of the family's income or home ownership. That Citipointe church was prepared to risk the lives of Chanti and her soon to be born baby a few weeks ago when Chanti’s high fever from pneumonia required her hospitalization, says all that needs to be said about the level of care Citipointe has for Chanti and her family. You are Christians in name only. Your actions, your lack of compassion and caring brings shame on true Christians who demonstrate their faith through their actions and not through whatever words they believe will con donors and sponsors into enriching Citipointe church. 

best wishes

James Ricketson