James Ricketson
316 Whale Beach Road
Palm Beach 2108
0400959229
Kate
Duff
Assistant
Secretary
South
East Asia Branch
Department
of Foreign Affairs and Trade
9th
July 2013
Dear
Ms Duff
I
could see little point in responding to your letter of 17th April
until I had received a response from the Australian Federal police. I have
enclosed a copy of this, along with a copy of my response to the AFP – both of
which can also be found on my blog at:
I
must comment on the following statement you make in your letter:
“As you have said in your letter that the girls
have not been victims of human trafficking the matter would not appear to be
covered by the terms of Australia’s extraterritorial law.”
No,
Rosa and Chita are not and never have been victims of human trafficking and yet
it is on the grounds that they were (and are) ‘victims’ that Citipointe church
continues, five years after removing them from their family, to hold them
contrary to the express wishes of their parents. If Rosa and Chita were not
victims of human trafficking, what grounds did Citipointe have for removing
them from their family? An agreement with the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Citipointe insists. “May I have a copy of the agreement?” asks Yem
Chanthy and, when no response is forthcoming, through me whom she has nominated
as her legal advocate. I ask the question – many times this past five years.
Citipionte refuses to even acknowledge that the question has been asked.
In
Australia Citipointe would be charged with kidnapping; with deprivation of
liberty or some such serious offence if the church could not prove the legality
of its actions. In Cambodia such behavior is not only acceptable but common.
As
for a poor family such as Yem Chanthy’s being able to afford a lawyer (the
family’s annual income is less than $2000) this suggestion from Australia’s
Ambassador to Cambodia is quite impractical. Even if the family could afford to
hire a lawyer (or if I could afford to hire one for them) courts in Cambodia
are, as I am sure you are aware, not necessarily the appropriate venue to go to
see justice meted out on the basis of facts and evidence.
As
my letter to Scott Sykes at the AFP makes clear, there is no person, no body,
no organization that is in a position to ask Citipointe to demonstrate that the
church has acted in accordance with Cambodian law – let alone Australian or
international law.
Some
months back an NGO run by an Australian, Ruth Golder, was closed down because
(ostensibly, at least) she had failed to register the NGO with the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It does seem,
from what I have read, that Ms Golder may have made an innocent mistake – one
that she probably would not have made if the Australian Embassy had asked her
if the NGO was registered. Similarly, a great deal of time and effort could
have been saved if, when it became apparent that the removal of Rosa and Chita
from their parents was contentious, the Australian Embassy had simply asked
Citipointe to produce evidence of the legality of its actions. The Australian
Embassy could have done so in Nov 2008. If Citipointe had then produced the
relevant legal agreement for the Australian Embassy (and, of course, for Risa
and Chita’s parents) the only question remaining would have been how, when and
under what circumstances could Chanti and Chhork regain custody of their
children. With no agreement or contract to refer to between Citipointe and the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (and later the Ministry of Social Affairs) Yem
Chanthy and Chhork have no idea what hoops they must jump through to get their
daughters back. Owning their own house in the province of Prey Veng is , it
seems, not enough. Chhork’s ownership of a tuk tuk, from which he earns sufficient
income to feed the family is, it seems, not enough. That most of Chhor’s
extended family lives in the same village is, it seems, not enough. And nor is the fact
that a second family support system exists 20 minutes up the road in the form
of Chanti’s mother Vanna’s extended family. Who is going to ask Citipointe what
further hoops Rosa and Chita’s parents must jump through before the girs can
return home and live with their family?
Rosa
and Chita are not orphans, they are not victims of human trafficking, they have
a home and community to be returned to. Why does Citipointe church continue to
retain custody of the girls? Who is there, in a position to ask this question and
insist on an answer? Other than myself, there is no-one. And if no-one even
bothers to ask Citipointe to provide documents demonstrating the legality of
the church’s actions, Citipointe will be free to retain custody of Rosa and
Chita until they are 18 (which is what the church announced was its intention
in 2008) and be free to remove whatever girls it wishes to from any poverty-stricken
family it chooses under similar pretexts with no-one to hold the church
accountable.
After
the debacle that we refer to in Australia as the ‘stolen generation’ (and for
which a formal apology has been issued) it is hard to believe, in 2013, that we allow
this discredited form of social engineering to be exported to third world
countries by NGOs such as Citipointe. If Citipointe takes exception to this
characterization of its activities in Cambodia let the church make public the
agreement or contract it entered into with the Cambodian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs in 2008.
best
wishes
James
Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment