# 81 Questions for APLE'S Samleang Seila re CAMBODIA'S CHILD PREDATORS

Dear Mr Seila

Upon viewing CAMBODIA’S CHILD PREDATORS, recently screened by Channel NewsAsia, it is clear that you and I agree on at least one thing:

A large number of ‘orphanages’ in Cambodia should be closed down.

These ‘orphanages’ could be placed into three categories:

(a) Those that are unregistered,

(b) Those that have a preponderance of children living in them that have one or more parents and

(c) Those that do not have procedures and protocols in place to protect children from predatory NGOs.

Drawing up a list of ‘orphanages’ that fall into these three categories would be a very easy exercise but it is one that LICADHO, ADHOC, SISHA, CEOP and other such human rights-oriented NGOs have no interest in. It is also a list that none of the relevant Cambodian Ministries is interested in drawing up or acting on either.

I will not, right now, conjecture as to the reason for this.

If you agree with the 3 categories of ‘orphanage’ that should be closed down you will be aware that the Cambodian Children’s Fund fits into at least 1 of the 3 categories.

Of course Scott Neeson will insist that CCF is not an ‘orphanage’. However,  by his own admission, the bulk of the children in residential care at the Cambodian Children’s Fund, living in communal dormitories, have one or more parent.

Scott Neeson refused to return this girl and her sister to their parents, as requested by them, citing a contract between CCF and the parents which he refuses to produce.

Indeed, these children sleep 3 and 4 to a bed and some sleep on the floor – as would be apparent to any independent observer who was granted access to CCF’s institutional living and allowed to talk with the children and staff without CCF staff present. This is not possible. CCF institutions are fortresses and no ‘outsiders’ are allowed to visit – unless, that is, they are potential donors with a lot of money. Under these circumstances visits are allowed, though the visitors are not allowed to speak with any members of staff or with any other than selected children - with staff present to guarantee that the children do not veer away from the script they have been given.

Getting back to CAMBODIA’S CHILD PREDATORS.

The documentary is replete with shadowy images of foreigners walking with, holding hands with, being in close physical proximity with children. The voice over commentary is designed to make it appear that such men must be pedophiles. And some of them may be. Indeed Mr Leach appears to be, and in this instance APLE has done good work. However, there is a problem with these covertly shot images!

CAMBODIA’S CHILD PREDATORS contains images of Scott Neeson cuddling children in a way that would, were he being stalked by APLE, render him a prime suspect as a pedophile. Indeed, if you go through the photos of Scott available on his Facebook page and on the internet you will find countless images of Scott with a child in his arms. Scott seems unable to resist the temptation, when there is a camera around, to demonstrate how affectionate he is with children – particularly girls.

My own reservations about these images of Scott do not have to do with his expression of physical affection but with the message he is sending children – namely that if a nice friendly man gives you some rice, some money and in other ways offers to take care of you and your family it is OK (and perhaps mandatory) to allow yourself to be picked up and cuddled by him. Common sense suggests that Scott and others in his position should not allow such photos to be taken (especially not when surrounded by other children) and make it very clear through their actions (and not merely their words) that allowing men to touch and cuddle you in public just because they are ‘nice’ is not a good idea.

A few days ago I write to Scott Neeson regarding the closing down of ‘orphanages’. Scott did not respond to my email. Scott never responds to questions I put to him or, indeed, questions put to him by any journalist. He has no commitment at all to transparency and accountability. See:

http://cambodia440.blogspot.com.au/2015/01/80-cambodias-child-predators-some.html

I had not intended this particular blog to elicit the comments it did. I had hoped that it would generate a discussion (vigorous debate long overdue) about the closing of orphanages. However, the debate that has occurred about the appropriateness of Scott’s expressions of physical affection for children is one that needs to take place given the double standards that apply to men being stalked by APLE and the Cambodian Children’s Fund’s Child Protection Unit. Why is it OK for Scott Neeson to have close close physically intimate relationships with children whilst the CPU and APLE use images much more benign than these as evidence that the man in such images is a pedophile?

It is clear from viewing CAMBODIA’S CHILD PREDATORS that the filmmakers have got all their facts from yourself and Scott Neeson. How many of these facts are correct?

(1) The references to David Fletcher being a pedophile are not correct. The word ‘pedophile’ carries a lot of weight with it and needs to be used with care. It is worth having a look at how pedophile is defined. Here are a few definitions:

A pedophile is a person who has a sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally under aged 13 or younger

A sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object

A young human being below the age of puberty.

Given that puberty occurs between the ages of 10 and 14 in girls I think it fair to say that David Fletcher having consensual sex with a young woman just a few months shy of the age of 16 (whilst illegal) does not render him a ‘pedophile’.

It is also worth bearing in mind that in the United Kingdom, where David Fletcher’s offence occurred, 1 in 4 young women lose their virginity before the age of 16.

In accordance with the definition of pedophile applied by CAMBODIA’S CHILD PREDATORS (and others in the media) one in four women in the UK are victims of pedophile abuse and their sexual partners eligible to be described as ‘pedophiles’ by journalists and filmmakers.

It is not my intention here to get bogged down in trying to define the word ‘pedophile’ but to point out that there is no definition of the word that is applicable to David Fletcher’s having had consensual sex with a 15 year old girl.

There was, incidentally, no reference to David Fletcher being a pedophile until a variety of people (journalists being the main offenders) decided that this word would give the stories they wrote a sensational edge that they would otherwise lack.

The words that are used to describe someone and the context in which they are used are important.  In the case of CAMBODIA’S CHILD PREDATORS, in the context in which the word is used, describing David Fletcher as a ‘pedophile’ is clearly done with the intent to defame; not to honestly describe the crime for which he was charged and found guilty.

Voice over from CAMBODIA’S CHILD PREDATORS:

“Fletcher preyed on the desperation of the children, building up trust while handing out bread.” 

This both inaccurate and defamatory. What evidence did you provide to the producers that David Fletcher “preyed on the desperation of children”? Did the producers ask for any evidence of this allegation? Has any evidence been presented by APLE to Channel NewsAsia to support this allegation – other than the case of Yang Dany?

As with the use of the word ‘pedophile’, the use of the phrase “preyed on the desperation of the children” is designed to present David Fletcher in the worst possible light. That the documentary presents no evidence at all in support of this proposition stems, I suspect, from the fact that you and Scott have played fast and loose with the truth and that the filmmakers have not bothered to do even the most basic of online homework before broadcasting defamatory comments such as this one.

It is clear from the images used in this documentary that David Fletcher is handing out more than bread. And if the producers of the documentary had done their homework they would have discovered that Fletcher handed out fruit and vegetables; that he helped entire families with medical bills and in many other ways that are not implied by the suggestion that it was merely bread he was handing out.

Now to the allegation that David Fletcher spent a “good deal of time grooming the mother of…15 year old Dany.”  Not true!

Court documents made it quite clear that Yang Dany was 17 at the time of the alleged rapes, not 15. 17 years and 8 months to be precise.

Court documents also reveal that the allegation David Fletcher raped Yang Dany must be called into question by the facts that (a) her hymen remained intact after two alleged ‘brutal rapes’ and that both Yang Dany and her mother, Sekun, insist that no rapes took place.

The safety of David Fletcher’s conviction must be called into question as a result of his never having been given a trial that meets even the basic minimum of rights of the accused as outlined in what Cambodian Code of Criminal Procedure. Such a trial was supposed to have taken place in November 2014 but the judges changed their minds. Even if the trial had taken place Yang Dany would not have been able to attend as she had, at the request of APLE, left Cambodia and gone to China. And, in order to guarantee that no journalists could speak with her mother, APLE gave her money on the condition that she not speak with any member of the media. Sekun, very keen in September 2014, to clear her conscience and tell the truth, has abided by APLE’S instructions and will speak no longer to anyone in the media for fear of going to jail.

The reference to Fletcher again here (where his rape of Yang Dany is presented as a fact beyond any reasonable doubt) as a “convicted pedophile” is both factually incorrect and defamatory.

CAMBODIA’S CHILD PREDATORS is yet another instance of trial by media in the case of David Fletcher. Any viewer not aware of the facts could be forgiven for arriving at the conclusion that David Fletcher’s 10 year jail sentence is deserved. And it can only be ‘deserved’ if he is found guilty in a properly constituted court of law in which he is able to present a defense. This has been denied him. Indeed, in Mr Fletcher’s last court appearance, the lawyer representing APLE expressly asked the judges not to allow Mr Fletcher a ‘re-trial’. I put the words in inverted commas because he was not granted the right to a first trial, in reality.

Presenting David Fletcher as a predatory monster is, of course, the impression that APLE wanted to create in this documentary. This is APLE’s modus operandi – to use the media to blacken the name of any man in APLE’s sights such that neither the media nor human rights organizations will take any interest at all when the man in question appears before the courts.

It is clearly imperative, on both legal and human rights grounds, that children should not be coerced by NGOs into giving false testimony. And, of course, nor should men such as David Fletcher be convicted as a result of the false testimony of children so coerced.

Would you agree, does APLE agree, that  protocols and procedures need to be set in place such that all children interviewed in the course of an investigation only need to do so once; that all such interviews with children be videotaped in the presence of trained professionals; that these trained professionals should not be in the employ of any NGO that has a vested interest in the outcome of whatever trial may ensue as a result of the children’s testimonies being used as evidence?

best wishes

James Ricketson