Impartiality gone mad
Filmmaker James Ricketson shares his experience with the ABC’s policy of impartiality, following Andrew Pike’s case last week.
In the interests of debate about the ABC’s commitment to ‘balance’, in its programming, this is a record of my experience with one project presented to the ABC.
My documentary Sleeping with Cambodia was broadcast on the ABC in 1996. The film rated very well. Sleeping with Cambodia was implicitly critical of money-wasting NGOs in Cambodia – one of them the high profile Christian NGO World Vision. After Sleeping with Cambodia’s screening the ABC was deluged with correspondence from World Vision and other NGOs accusing the documentary of bias.
A long battle of words ensued. I was asked again by the ABC to verify the factual basis of the statements I had made in the film relating to how much it cost World Vision to support one child in a street kids’ centre – 10 times per annum what it would have cost to support an entire Cambodian family. I did so to the ABC’s satisfaction – as I had already prior to the screening. World Vision did not give up, however. The deluge of criticism of the film continued. The ABC was in a double bind. It supported Sleeping with Cambodia as being factually correct and yet wanted to get the NGOs off its back. The solution? Broadcast, late at night when virtually no-one would see it, a statement to the effect that the ABC acknowledged that this powerful lobby group did not believe the film to be factually correct. I was informed of the ABC’s decision only hours before the statement was broadcast. This statement did not accuse me of lying, but nor could it have been construed as support for my integrity as a filmmaker. Very few people would have seen it at 10.30 but it had the effect that the ABC desired. The deluge of correspondence from World Vision stopped.
Fast forward 10 years. I have continued to film in Cambodia – the focus of my attention being Chanti – one of the ‘stars’ of Sleeping with Cambodia. Chanti is in her mid-teens now. I want to make a follow-up documentary about what has and hasn’t changed in Cambodia in the past decade. One thing that hasn’t changed is the sheer numbers of NGOs working in the country – a very high proportion of them funded by Christian churches from around the world. Many of these Christian NGOs are evangelical and, despite Cambodian laws forbidding proselytizing, are involved in winning souls for Christ, in the conversion of impoverished (and sometimes orphaned) Buddhist children into Christians. Many other Christian NGOs are not evangelical and have no desire to convert the young charges in their care.
When I approached Stuart Menzies, Head of ABC Documentaries, with my plan for a follow up film (entitled Chanti’s World) he told me that he would never put to air (and hence could not commission) a documentary that discouraged viewers from donating to charities. This amounts to censorship of any documentary that looks at ineffective, inefficient or money wasting charities that may be breaching Australian law and the laws of the counties in which they are operating. The desire on the ABC’s part not to discourage public support for ‘good’ charities leaves the ‘bad’ charities free to do what they like with no fear of public exposure – at least not on the ABC. Stuart Menzies will not deny that this conversation took place. He has subsequently admitted to it in writing to me.
Fast forward another five years. My now 15 year record of Chanti growing up on the streets of Phnom Penh includes two of her children (Rasa and Chita) having been essentially abducted by an Australian based Christian NGO run by a Brisbane based church – Citipointe. This was achieved by getting Chanti to place her thumb print on a document that the Church told her was merely giving the Church permission to take care of her children on a temporary basis whilst she was in dire financial straits.
I was in Phnom Penh at the time and encouraged Chanti to accept the Church’s offer. Her two older daughters would have a roof over their heads (as Chanti had not), would get three meals a day (which Chanti struggled to provide) and be given access to education and medical care that were beyond Chanti’s meagre income – derived from selling cigarettes, drinks and snacks to tourists down by the river. The children would be just a few streets away and Chanti would have regular access to them and they would be able, on the weekends, to visit her down by the river where she lived. It was, it seemed, a win-win scenario for Chanti and for the children.
No sooner had I left Phnom Penh than the Church informed Chanti that she would only be allowed to see her children for 2 hours each month (a total of 24 hours a year) and that these visits would be monitored by Church staff. The children would remain with the Church until they were 18. Chanti turned to me for help. Understandable not only because of my long association with her but because I had recommended to her that she accept the offer of Citipointe church to help her.
It turned out that the ‘contract’ Chanti had applied her thumb print to (Chanti can neither read nor write) made no mention of Chanti’s visiting rights or of how long Citipoine church would take care of her daughters. Indeed, the contract contained no conditions at all, was not counter-signed by anyone representing Citipointe church and was illegal even by the shoddy standards of Cambodia. Two years later the Church still has Chanti’s children. They are being brought up as Christians and have very limited access to their mother. Whilst they live, in Cambodian terms, in the lap of luxury, Rosa and Srey Mal’s mother and her two remaining children live on the street still. Citipointe church has not only stolen Chanti’s children but has reneged on its promise to provide her with assistance.
All of this is very well documented but despite the overwhelming evidence that Chanti’s children have been removed from her care illegally (under Cambodian, Australian and international law) Stuart Menzies tells me that it cannot be involved in the production of my documentary because I am not in a position to present the viewpoint of the Christian church! “Your lack of access to the relevant organizations hamstrings your journalistic endeavours to tell a balanced story,” writes Stuart. “This is obviously crucial for any investigative film on the ABC.”
And why can’t I present a ‘balanced story’? Because Citopointe Church refuses to answer any questions; refuses to allow a representative to speak on behalf of the Church.
I have been trying for close on two years to get Citipointe Church to answer questions, to justify its actions in terms of Cambodian and Australian law and it terms of its Christian principles. Other than sending a threatening letter to me by the church’s lawyer, Citipointe has remained silent. I have copied Stuart Menzies on all the emails I have sent to Citiponte Church this past 18 months but his position remains unchanged: without the cooperation of the Church that has essentially kidnapped Chanti’s children the ABC cannot be involved in the production of Chanti’s World. Stuart insists that his statement of five years ago, to the effect that he would never put to air a documentary that discourages ABC viewers from giving to charity, has no bearing on the ABC’s decision not to back Chanti’s World without the cooperation of Citipointe church.
I believe that my 15 year record of what has happened to the ‘star’ of Sleeping with Cambodia would be of interest to ABC viewers and can only conjecture as to why Stuart Menzies insists on the willing participation in Chanti’s World by a church that I allege has illegally removed Chanti’s children from her care. I will posit two possibilities and hope, in this forum, that the ABC may respond:
- The ABC does not wish, again, to be deluged with emails etc. from Citipointe Church and other evangelical Christians who believe that they have been called upon by God to save the souls of poor kids in third world countries.
- That the religious beliefs of certain members of senior management at the ABC influence the national broadcaster’s decisions vis a vis broadcasting documentaries that are implicitly critical of the way in which certain members of their shared faith behave in third world countries.
In the case of Chanti’s World I would be quite happy to include in the documentary whatever audio-visual contribution it may wish to make to it. I would include it edited in the way in which Citipointe church has edited it so that the audience can make up its own mind regarding the legality or otherwise of Citipoint church’s actions.
Note from the editor: the ABC has been contacted for comment.
Mr. James Ricketson who is so eager to criticise the church for taking care of the children, has he done anything for the Cambodian Children from the money he made from selling the shows made about the children? Some journalists just have no shame, anything for the story.
User ID not verified.
I am a little shocked to read this. On the facts as presented, one can only assume the ABC arbitrarily restricts the type of investigative journalism it is willing to support. The comments of Stuart Menzies are hard to understand and have no relevance to journalism, as surely the public should consider who it gives aid money to, just like AusAid is being forced to do. The fact the church mentioned is unwilling to cooperate suggests there is something to the story, even if a formal complaint has not been lodged with any authority (maybe Chanti needs to do so in Cambodia). The specific case of Chanti and her children may not be particularly newsworthy or even unique, but within the broader context of NGO practice in developing countries, deserves a proper and balanced assessment.
User ID not verified.
Dear Heike
I have spent fifteen years helping Chanti and her family – along with many others that I have met in Cambodia in my capacity of a filmmaker. But even if I hadn’t, the points that I am making in what I have written – in relation to both Citipointe Church and the ABC – are valid. Tellingly, the ABC seems reluctant to make any comment at all in relation to either Andrew Pike’s article or my own.
User ID not verified.
Having seen the clip on You Tube extracted from HOPE IN A SLINGSHOT it occurs to me that perhaps one of the reasons why the ABC knocked the documentary back may have to do with the quality of the film itself. It may be that one of the reasons why the ABC knocked back Mr Ricketson’s film also has more to do with the ABC’s perception of the quality of the story he wishes to tell than with what he seems to perceive as bias against documentaries that are critical of Christian charities. We only have his point of view (and his word!) on this question at present. It is important not to confuse these two possible reasons for deciding not to broadcast or support a documentary.
User ID not verified.
Note from the editor:
Dee F, the ABC has been contacted so we can have THEIR point of view. So far, they have not responded to our requests.
Re Heike,
It is not the filmmakers responsibility to look after these people, it is the charities who are ‘preaching’ it, and receive funding for that role. Obviously the filmmaker has a kind sense of charity and is discussing a major issue over there or else those ‘charities’ wouldn’t be there in the first place. If their cause is legitimate you would think they would be grateful for this kind of attention to help their cause. No wonder not enough people help from foreign countries, the money raised it seems, may not reach it’s intended ‘victims’ and get whittled down by greedy organisers. Ahh… how money makes the world goes around.
User ID not verified.
2 Things:
Firstly, The term “kidnapped” is used so freely in your article. The definition of this word is as follows: to steal, carry off, or abduct by force or fraud, esp. for use as a hostage or to extract ransom.
I dont think feeding and housing and schooling children would be defined as kidnapping in any sense. And this certainly does not sound very much like there are selfish motives at all on the NGO and Churches behalves… except in a warped mind that might think it would be “cost-effective” to raise and care for children and receive donations using the plight of these children, only to be greedy with it somehow? Hello – does anyone out there actually know what it would cost to clothe and feed even one child, let alone the millions of children in the world that are being cared for by these NGO’s and churches! Besides, someone, somewhere, would have access to these children to see that they are well cared for (or not – as per your implied comments), and would make some sort of complaint to bring dodgy NGO’s and churches out into the open…
Secondly, in response to Vicki’s comment: ” If their cause is legitimate you would think they would be grateful for this kind of attention to help their cause.”
Are you kidding? This kind of attention? I wouldn’t say this is good “attention” at all. Its pretty much implying that all NGO’s and Christian organisations are exploiting the people of Cambodia by using their children to raise money for themselves!
We should be focusing on what we can do to help these people, instead of writing articles and making “documentaries” in our cushy lifestyles, and passing judgements on people who ARE trying to do something, while we are really not doing anything at all!
User ID not verified.
Perhaps you are not getting comments from these NGO’s and Citipoint etc for legal reasons. I would think that this would be common law anywhere in the world that no information would be divulged to people other than direct family.
I see that you say you have been a part of Chanti’s life for many years but in what sense? You seem to have spent many years on this that it is peculiar to me as to what the nature of your relationship with these people is.
I find it strange that a man would take such interest in this women and her children without wanting anything for himself…
User ID not verified.
Saddened or angered. I oscilate bewteen the two. I stumbled across your article James because I myself visited Cambodia a short while ago and was shocked, sincerely shocked at the poverty the majority of the country lived in. I was stunned that the rest of the world could function whilst right next door to us whole countries existed on less than a ten of the opulence we deem normal. Over my weeks there however, as I explored the cities, i became familiar with the various NGO’s that were operating in the areas and my heart sang with relief and pride at the efforts, big or small that these organisations were making. Their small bricks in a wall of China that needs to be built to restore the Country.
James, you make me sad and simultaneously leave a bitter taste in my moth with your article. I sincerely believe that you have no idea of the facts, efforts, costs and sacrifices these organisations and the people running them are making to make any impact at all in these lives. I commend your journalistic efforts to write a story that attracts attention, but the attention you attract is the negative attention that noone can use, that does not inspire anyone to be more, give more, change more in anyones lives. Instead we are left encouraged to cynicism, money grabbing off these NGO’s that already have so little and still continue with their valiant efforts and in turn the girls you profess concern for. Really James?
I believe when you walk into a room, you should leave the people there enouraged, happy, better than who they were when you got there. If you can’t do that, leave them the same. You my friend have left us and who ever reads this – less.
I will continue to support the different oragnisations I visited there.
To any other readers, you would do yourselves good to be more discerning about the articles you read and believe and if not that, just be more grace filled. There’s more air there.
Ps. Please be assured I will not be checking responses to this. Once was enough for me on this site.
User ID not verified.
Dear Dan
I did not imply that all NGOs are exploiting the people of Cambodia. Most are not. Most do terrific work. As for the word ‘kidnapping’, ‘stolen’ will suffice. In terms of Cambodian law what Citipointe Church has done in this instance is illegal.
Kim, why is it strange that a man would take such an interest in a woman and her children? I have known Chanti since she was 7. And her mother. I have watched her 4 children grow from infancy. Three generations of this family call me ‘Papa’. To the extent that I have been able to I have helped the family out financially for 15 years. I have rented them places to live, paid for groceries, clothes, school. What is strange about this? Now two of the children have been illegally removed from their mother. I am trying to help Chanti obtain, at the very least, appropriate access to her children. If you want to know more, please feel free to write to me at jamesrciketson@gmail.com
Dear Saddened
Alas, not all journalism and nor all documentaries can be unrelentingly positive. What would you have done, as a journalist or documentary filmmaker, if you had stumbled upon the story of the Haitian children ‘kidnapped’ by Christians after the earthquake some months ago? Not pursue it out of a desire not to leave readers/viewers “discouraged” or “unhappy”? Burying ones head in the sand doesn’t help. Most NGOs helping kids are doing terrific work. Some have another agenda – as did the Christians who, with the best of intentions, illegally removed ‘orphans’ from Haiti. If you have broken your own promise not to re-visit this site and wish to know more, please feel free to send me an email.
User ID not verified.
There is more than one side to this story for those gullible enough to believe Mr Ricketson’s twisted version of the truth. The following article was on the front page of the Phnom Penh Post a few days ago and will force Mr Ricketson to eat some humble pie!
THE leaders of a church that operates a shelter in Phnom Penh are planning to sue an Australian filmmaker for defamation unless he publicly retracts allegations that children in their care have been “essentially abducted”.
The filmmaker, James Ricketson, is producing a documentary on the life of a 22-year-old who says that the SHE Rescue Home – run by Citipointe Church, which is based in Brisbane, Australia – has assumed full custody of her children illegally. Ricketson most recently aired the allegations in a June 4 interview with the Australian film magazine Encore.
Brian Mulheran, a pastor at Citipointe Church, said by email that the church was preparing to take legal action against Ricketson because the allegations were threatening its work and the safety of its charges.
“After showing grace to Mr Ricketson over the last few years it has reached a point where we are now required to protect the main purpose of our organisation – to protect the lives of the innocent Cambodian children in our care,” he said.
A lawyer for the church, Simon Fisher, said Wednesday that Ricketson would be given the opportunity to retract the allegations publicly this week. If he fails to do so, Fisher said he would file complaints against him in Cambodian and Australian courts and seek an injunction against the release of the film.
The subject of the film – who first met Ricketson when she was a 7-year-old child beggar – said in an interview last month that she voluntarily transferred her children into the care of the SHE Rescue Home in July 2008. At the time, she was living along the riverfront on Sisowath Quay, and did not want her children rounded up in street sweeps by local police, she said.
The woman – whose name is being withheld to protect the identities of her children, ages 5 and 8 – said she was then informed that she would only be able to visit them for two hours every two weeks until they turned 18.
“I was surprised that I could not take my children out of the home to stay with me when I wanted to. I was not aware of that,” she said.
Four other families or single parents – all of them acquaintances of the 22-year-old – said they, too, had seen their visitation rights restricted after they transferred their young children into the care of the SHE Rescue Home.
A project agreement signed in November 2009 by Citipointe and the Ministry of Social Affairs, Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation says the shelter can hold up to 17 children. Pastor Mulheran declined to comment on specific complaints against the shelter, but said access to children was never restricted.
The agreement stipulates that Citipointe is to run a shelter for victims of sexual trafficking, and to give them access to counselling and health services.
Khuon Ranin, an undersecretary of state at the Social Affairs Ministry, said in a letter that Citipointe is also required to “work towards family and Khmer culture reintegration”.
Though he didn’t comment on allegations of wrongdoing at the SHE Rescue Home, he said, “The ministry has programmes to inspect projects and locations of NGOs, and when mistakes are found, the ministry will take legal action”.
Ricketson said he had become convinced that the church was operating illegally, in part because it began assuming custody of children before the agreement was signed.
Steve Morrish, director of the anti-trafficking organisation South East Asia Investigations into Social and Humanitarian Activities (SISHA), said the shelter should not have assumed custody of any children before signing an agreement with the government. “If they go to poor families and they’re not involving the government or the police and the family complains, they’ve got some problems,” he said.
For his part, Ricketson said he had no plans to retract his statements. “If Citipointe wishes to sue me, so be it,” he said.
User ID not verified.
Phillip D
I wrote the following letter to the Phnom Penh Post n response to its article. The newspaper declined to publish it for legal reasons:
“I will quite happily apologize to Citipointe if the church will reveal the legal basis on which it held the two children in question between July 2008 and Nov. 2009. I have been asking this question of Citipointe for 18 months now. Perhaps the church will provide readers of the Phnom Penh Post with an answer.
The question of legality of Citipointe’s actions must be considered within the context of the mother being denied meaningful access by the church to her two young daughters residing in the SHE refuge.
In July 2008, in conversations with the mother and myself, Citipointe offered to help take care of her two oldest daughters (then aged 3 and 6) until such time as the family’s financial situation improved. The family comprises the mother, her husband, her own mother (grandmother to the girls in question) and a third daughter. Its meager income derived at the time from a small stall down by the river from which it sold drinks and snacks. Citipointe informed the mother (and myself) that she would have regular access to her children within the church’s SHE refuge. She was told that her daughters would be allowed to visit her in the family home (a tiny apartment) one day a week. The two girls were not being rescued from the sex trade; they had not been trafficked. They were merely the daughters of poor parents who were experiencing great difficulties at the time feeding, clothing and educating their children. Citipointe’s offer to help out in the short term seemed like a Godsend – guaranteeing the two girls three meals a day, access to medical and dental services and regular schooling whilst at the same time allowing the girls regular contact with their mother, grandmother, stepfather, baby sister and with the community of which they were a part. It seemed to me, in my discussions with Citipointe, to be a win-win situation all around. When the mother, whom I have known for 15 years, asked my advice I recommended that she take up Citipointe church’s offer.
After I had left Phnom Penh Citipointe induced the mother and grandmother to place their thumbprints on a document that they could not read, did not understand and that had been presented to them (according to the mother) as an agreement between herself and LICADHO. Having ‘signed’ this ‘contract’ the mother was then informed by Citipointe that she had entered into an agreement with the church giving it custody of her daughters until they were 18. She was told that she had agreed she would be entitled to only two hours of supervised visits with her daughters every two weeks. She was told that she had no right to take her children to her own home, that they could not participate in Water Festival festivities with their family and that they could not accompany their mother on a trip to the provinces to visit their relatives. This was not what the mother had agreed to. This was contrary to assurances provided to me by Citipointe.
Upon learning of the restrictions placed on her access to her children, the mother’s response was ‘kidnap’ her older daughter for 6 days. When the daughter was returned to the SHE refuge Citipointe told the mother that her visitation rights would now be limited to 2 hours every month – a condition laid down, the church insisted, by LICADHO. It is highly unlikely that Citipointe will dispute this account as it is very well documented and neither the church nor myself are in a position to play fast and loose with the truth.
The ‘contract’ that the mother and grandmother placed their thumbprint on (the Phnom Penh Post is in possession of a copy) contains no references to the mother’s visitation rights with her daughters. It contains no mention of the mother having agreed that Citipointe could keep her children until they were 18. Indeed, the ‘contract’ contains no conditions at all and is not countersigned by any member of Citipointe church. From a legal point of view the one page ‘contract’ is worthless.
It would be another 15 months before Citipointe entered into an agreement with the Ministry of Social Affairs that gave the church certain custodial rights in relation to the two girls. I have no idea what these rights consist of and Citipointe church has consistently failed to inform either myself or the mother of what they are. The mother still believes that Citipointe intends to keep her children until they are 18 and has no idea what her legal rights.
Between July 2008 and Nov. 2009 what legal right did Citipointe church have to tell the mother that she could only see her children for 24 hours per year in supervised visits for the next 12 to 15 years? My apology to Citipointe church is contingent upon a satisfactory answer to this question.”
User ID not verified.
Well, yes he has actually. Just about everything he has. Your criticism is totally wrong. But then,
Some opinionated people just have no shame….
Stern A Albifrons
User ID not verified.