[recoznet2] Letters to the editor (extract)
The Sydney Morning Herald Letters: Playing semantics with organised brutality Date: 22/05/2000 Former Aboriginal affairs minister Mr Peter Howson's persistent and vitriolic attacks on the Bringing them Home report and one of its authors, Sir Ronald Wilson, is unacceptable. Mr Howson has mounted a campaign against the report into the forced removal of indigenous children from their families - denigrating Sir Ronald, questioning the validity of the report and falsely claiming former administrators were blocked from giving evidence. He should be aware that the inquiry was advertised widely and that no-one was prevented from giving evidence. In fact, one former senior public servant from Queensland, believed to have crucial evidence about the policies of removing children, had to be requested formally to attend because he was reluctant to front the inquiry. On another occasion, Sir Ronald drove to the house of a former administrator from Carnarvon, now living outside Melbourne, to take evidence on a small tape recorder in the man's lounge room. The witness was too frail to come to a hearing. Furthermore, it is ludicrous for Mr Howson to claim welfare officers were convicted without trial. The inquiry was not, and never purported to be, a "trial". No individual welfare officer was singled out but, more importantly, the governments which were in fact the employers of these welfare and other officers, all gave evidence to the inquiry of their policies and practices of the time. The report acknowledges that some children were voluntarily surrendered to the welfare system by their parents, but the overwhelming amount of evidence suggests the removals in many circumstances were forced. The inquiry was conducted on behalf of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the commission stands by the report and its findings. The relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians has moved on considerably since the years when Mr Howson was Aboriginal affairs minister. Both sides of politics accept that the forced removal of indigenous Australians is a dark stain on our history. It is regrettable that Mr Howson cannot accept this also, and move on in a spirit of acknowledgment and reconciliation. Professor Alice Tay, President, HREOC, Chris Sidoti, Human Rights Commissioner, Dr Bill Jonas, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Susan Halliday, Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Sydney. Allan Passmore (Letters, May 17) falsely accused Robert Manne (Herald, May 15) of equating the Holocaust with Australia's treatment of Aborigines. Even so, to deprive Aborigines of land and livelihood was an anti-decimate act (where not 10 per cent died, but only 10 per cent survived), and is surely genocide. If white Zimbabwean farmers were forced from their homes and livelihoods, denied refuge, employment, or safe haven, and only 10 per cent survived, would Mr Passmore blame "misguided state policies which were intended to be benevolent"? Like Sir Ronald Wilson, Robert Manne is not one of Paddy McGuiness's left-wing do-gooding elitists. They prove that reconciliation need not be politicised, and offend some by injecting facts into the sloganeering that currently passes for debate. Dr L.R.Devine, Mallabula. Mr Passmore is fed up. So am I. However, I'm fed up with opinionated correspondents such as Mr Passmore who refuse to acknowledge (or read) documented fact. Genocide is genocide just as a spade is a spade. The actions of Lieutenant Governor Arthur in Tasmania with his 2,000 troops in the early 1830s. The history of punitive expeditions from Governor Phillip in 1790 to the last official expedition lead by Constable Murray in 1928, known as the Coniston Massacre. The process of forced assimilation with the intent of extinguishing the various indigenous cultures (the recent history of the stolen generations). These and many other official acts were not misguided state policies intended to be benevolent. These official acts were acts of genocide, as defined by the UN and any dictionary you care to consult. A sincere apology to the indigenous people of Australia (including the "s" word) is not a large price to pay for this great land of ours. Jason Leske, Marrickville. Rob Jackson is wrong to claim an apology to indigenous Australians is an apology for being white (Letters, May 17). It is true that neither he nor his direct ancestors committed the atrocities. But he misses the crucial distinction between guilt and shame. Likewise I feel no personal guilt for what was done to indigenous Australians. But I do belong to the white tribe and this greatly affects my personal identity and self-esteem. I feel entitled to take pride in the achievement of past generations of my tribe. But I also have to acknowledge that some members of my tribe behaved destructively toward indigenous Australians. Basic standards of decency were violated, and I belong to the tribe that
[recoznet2] Letters to the editor (extract)
The Sydney Morning Herald Letters: A divisive voice from the past Date: 11/05/2000 Peter Howson, who was minister for Aboriginal affairs in 1971-72, should of all people understand why there should be an apology for past injustices to Aborigines (Herald, May 10). As a minister, he must have been involved in many negotiations. An apology, in this case, is the beginning of sincere negotiations or reconciliation. It is the "peace pipe" between white Australians and Aborigines. Where are Peter Howson's statistical samples that "the majority of Australians are opposed" to an apology? Did he ask 50 people in a shopping centre on a busy Saturday morning? And is this the same "majority" that endorsed John Howard's GST and now is nowhere to be seen? There will never be reconciliation with the Aborigines as long as people think along the same lines as Peter Howson, who advises us "to forget the childish demands for apologies". If childishness is the trait attributed to compassionate people who demand an apology, then pitilessness must be the trait attributed to the non-apologists such as Peter Howson. Vincent Scoppa, Leichhardt. And so from the primordial sludge crawls Peter Howson, displaying all the acumen one would expect from a second-string minister in the McMahon government. His bitter diatribe has it all: gross paternalism (those who favour an apology are "childish"), underlying racism (the "barbarism" of some Aboriginal communities), bizarre unsubstantiated claims (that land rights cause deprivation, and that support for Aboriginal languages causes illiteracy), support for the Howard position that all (non-white) symbolism is humbug, and endorsement of good old-fashioned assimilationism (Aboriginal people should be moved out of "traditional" communities and policed more closely - apparently the mission system is not "outdated" in Howson's view). Most incredible is the claim that the urbanisation and Christianity of a significant proportion of Aboriginal people are evidence of "assimilation". Thus Howson declares that Australia was terra ferme nullius, the indigenous population consisting of a rump of heathens wandering in the hinterland. In fact, Aboriginal people were everywhere, including where whites chose to found cities. We were here, and we remain here. This man held responsibility for the (then) newly granted Commonwealth powers concerning Aboriginal affairs. In itself, that is a striking illustration of what Aboriginal people have had to endure from past governments. Wylie Bradford,Bondi Beach. Why does Peter Howson appear to feel it's an either/or situation? Offering an apology does not preclude also offering better employment and educational opportunities. Jack Spiegel, St Leonards. Unwittingly Hugh Mackay, in bagging Prime Minister John Howard in his usual inimitable style (Herald, May 6), gave support and authority to the PM's stance on that apology. "A Howard apology would lack integrity," he proclaimed, apparently failing to understand this is the very factor governing the Howard refusal to apologise - and the very factor which governs the refusal of a majority of Australians to do so. None of us can bear anybody else's pain or their guilt and each one of us can apologise only for oneself. Equally, it lacks integrity to apologise for something we did not do. It is facile to profess otherwise. Hopefully, having achieved reconciliation with the Prime Minister on that issue, Hugh Mackay may now move on. Ron Elphick, Buff Point. A reconciliation document agreed between the Australian Government and the Aboriginal people must surely include an apology from Australia to the stolen generations. In response from the Aboriginal side, this would require an article similar to Article 19 of the San Francisco Peace Treaty signed between Allied powers and Japan (1951) in which the Japanese Government gave away the right to demand compensation for the survivors of the atomic bombings. For the stolen generations this would not preclude the assistance they need. Oliver Howes, Wollstonecraft. Geoff Clark's article about reconciliation (Herald, May 8) brings out some interesting points about the Prime Minister's mind-set on "true reconciliation with the Aboriginal people of Australia". As the PM's main pre-occupation is tax, shareholders and companies, couldn't "practical reconciliation" take the form of registering the Council For Aboriginal Reconciliation as a public company and at Corroboree 2000, on May 27, the PM could wholeheartedly encourage mums and dads to take up shares in the reconciliation process? John Hay, Bellingen. -- ** 'Click' to protect the rainforest: Make the Rainforest Site your homepage! http://www.therainforestsite.com/ ** -- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To
[recoznet2] Letters to the editor (extract)
The Canberra Times Monday May1, 2000 PM can talk of 'generation' when it suits him! ALTHOUGH John Howard is unable to say sorry on behalf of the Australian Government as an institution and his ministers "interpret" the facts regarding what does and does not constitute a generation, he appears more than willing to utilise his own version of a generation for grubby political gain and conservative mythmaking. In his oratory at Anzac Cove on Anzac Day he spoke of how this "great-hearted generation" . . . . gave their lives for freedom and liberty. In fact these poor souls were fighting for continued British imperialism and were used consistently throughout the war as cannon fodder and lambs to the slaughter. They joined up for adventure and travel, and that is exactly how the whole thing was portrayed to them in the propaganda and media of the time. The true Anzac values of egalitarianism and looking after one another are far from Howard's concerns as a political decision maker. If they were truly his concerns, then why do these "stolen" people still cry out for recognition and why is Shirley Shackleton still holding out for justice from her own Government? Howard's Anzac obsession is little more than political grandstanding and opportunism from a cynical, callous and misguided little man. GRAEME TUNKS Macarthur Reconciliation statement THE COUNCIL for Aboriginal Reconciliation would be wasting its time if it expects the current Prime Minister of Australia to say the magic word of reconciliation "Sorry". Instead, the council should leave a space in that part of its final statement of reconciliation where the Prime Minister would have been expected to endorse a statement of "Sorry" and insert a statement along the following lines: "The above space is reserved for a future Prime Minister of Australia who, with integrity, sincerity, strength of character, courage and honesty, will show true leadership and state, on behalf of the majority of the people of Australia, how truly sorry we are for the immense wrongs that have been done to Australia's indigenous people. Sorry for the attempts to either wipe out or absorb into extinction, through the Stolen Generations, the native peoples of this land. "We recognise that even if the present Prime Minister were to say 'Sorry' no-one would believe he meant it, nor would he try to change the wrongs that continue to trouble so many of Australia's indigenous people." It may take a bit of time, but it will happen eventually. We will know the succes of our efforts when black and white (and every other colour) can agree that Australia Day, January 26, is at long last a day we can celebrate together. IAN BUCHANAN Mawson -- _ Truth is a pathless land. --- Krishnamurti - -- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
[recoznet2] Letters to the editor (extract)
The Canberra Times
Letters to the editor (extract)
Thursday, April 27, 2000
Zimbabweans and Kosovars
I HAVE to strongly disagree with Australian Democrats Leader Meg
Lees. If the Australian Government were to offer temporary refuge to
displaced white farmers from Zimbabwe ("Door open to white farmers",
CT, April 22, p.1), I very much hope in the name of fairness and
even-handed treatment that they get exactly the same treatment as
did the Kosovar refugees. I deplore the cold, Scrooge-like mentality
that sent the Kosovars back under conditions that the media has
brought to us. If the Government were to act with greater liberality to
Zimbabwean refugees then there ought rightly to be a great outcry
about the discriminatory and shabby way we handled the Kosovars
and a demand that the Zimbabweans be decanted instantly to
whatever part of the country appeared safe enough to dump them in.
What was good for the one should be good for the other. If we treat
white English-speaking Zimbabweans better than we did the Kosovars,
what on earth will it look like to the rest of the world?
KEN SMITH
Queanbeyan
Doubly blessed
OF COURSE John Howard will welcome Zimbabwean
migrants/refugees (Letters , April 25). They're doubly blessed, aren't
they? White and farmers!
DAMARIS WILSON
O'Connor
--
_
Truth is a pathless land. --- Krishnamurti
-
--
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
[recoznet2] Letters to the editor (extract)
The Canberra Times Letters to the editor Tuesday, 25 April, 2000 Treatment of Aborigines harms us throughout the world AS A PROUD, patriotic Australian who for business reasons lives overseas and travels internationally very regularly, it is extremely distressing to observe and feel the enormous damage being done to our reputation by the Aboriginal situation. The coverage in the world's media of the Aboriginal plight in general, and mandatory sentencing and the stolen children in particular, is significant and will only be exacerbated by the media in Australia for the Olympic Games. I was recently addressing a global technology forum in England and even there the issue was the subject of a question. The issue, as I am seeing it discussed, is much less emotional and biased than the debate at home and focuses on the following: 1. Our long-term treatment of Aborigines borders on being a crime against humanity. 2. In light of apologies for past humanity crimes by a host of leaders including President Clinton, the Pope, De Klerk and leaders of Germany, Canada and New Zealand among others, John Howard's excuses appear hollow and racist. 3. Australia's selective ringing endorsement of United Nations decisions when they apply to other countries' affairs and total dismissal when it comes to our own is seen as hypocritical, to say the least, and lessens the value of our opinions. 4. The attitude of the Australian Government is seen as racist and a reflection of the public's attitude. References to the "White Australia" policy of the past are increasing and used as confirmation that things have not really changed. This hurts our country and our businesses and also reflects on each of us as individuals, which I strongly resent. Indigenous people throughout the world have made significant gains in the past decade and our treatment of Aborigines is seen as a travesty against the trend. This stigma will last for generations. Take a look at the Aboriginal quality of life. It is also the moral and right thing to do. BOB PRITCHARD - Malibu, California, -- _ Truth is a pathless land. --- Krishnamurti - -- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
[recoznet2] Letters to the editor of the SMH
Letters: If we sign a treaty we must abide by it Date: 01/04/00 The Government's response to the UN's CERD report is chilling. I remember when Australia used to sneer at South Africa and China for lamely arguing that the UN should butt out of their "domestic political issues". Alexander Downer last night claimed that the UN should only act against "egregious" human rights violations. The implication was that Australia should be able to commit some human rights violations and not be held accountable. It is a disgusting position for any "civilised" nation to hold. The Government seems singularly incapable of understanding that we are not being told what to do. Australia, by signing various human rights treaties, has told the world that we will abide by certain fundamental principles. The UN's role is to notify us of when we have not acted in accordance with that contract. If we want to renege on that contract, then we must do so publicly and thereby join the ranks of the world's pariah states. It is a measure of this Government's appalling lack of morality that it holds Australia's commercial contracts sacrosanct but our social contracts utterly dispensable. This morning I cried for my country. I never thought I would be ashamed to be Australian. Brendan Jones, Leichhardt I have an uneasy feeling of deja vu. A UN committee criticises a government on social justice issues. The government protests "but we are a liberal democracy, we can't be guilty of these unfair accusations". The government announces it will investigate the UN committee's operations. Now I remember! South Africa, circa 1970. Those who live dangerously, die dangerously. Good luck, Howard Government. Ian De Saxe, Macquarie Park The Howard Government's decision to review its co-operation with the UN treaty process comes as a surprise, but it is a necessary step in the right direction that One Nation has been advocating for a long time. We elect our own parliamentarians to make our laws, we don't need UN officials, who we have no say in choosing, from countries like Cuba and Communist China, to tell us what to do. The move should win the Government a few votes, and let's face it, with the GST coming, they'll need every vote they can get. Bob Vinnicombe, Sefton I woke to hear the news that Australia will review its reporting to the UN on racial treaties. I momentarily thought there had been an overnight coup with One Nation taking over the government of Australia. G. Mortensen, Goulburn When I was young, there was a saying attributed to a doting mother watching children march: "They're all out of step except my Johnny." Now Mr Howard claims United Nations committee findings lack credibility in the eyes of the Australian people and the world community, I'm inclined to think he's well named! Gai Smith, Redfern International obligations deriving from treaties signed by Australia under the auspices of the UN are designed to protect human rights and freedoms and combat the spread of prejudice and oppression. Our government refuses to recognise these obligations, denigrates the tribunals and committees who deal with them and seeks to white-ant the treaties which created these obligations, while preaching the domestic sovereignty of our States and Territories. International obligations deriving from treaties signed by Australia under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation are designed to protect corporate powers and privileges and combat the spread of regulations and policies that might conflict with their profit-making. Our government slavishly accedes to these obligations, brooks no criticism of the secretive and unaccountable tribunal which enforces them and seeks to strengthen and extend the WTO's hold over government policy both here and in other countries, while ignoring the domestic sovereignty of our States and Territories, and, more importantly, the Australian people. It is heartening that we should be granted such insight as to whom our government serves. Robert Cook, Bondi The Howard Government has a mandate to govern for three years only. It therefore has absolutely no mandate to turn against the United Nations and the principles of human rights to which this country is rightly committed. To put perceived political advantage ahead of the basic principles of universal human rights is disgusting and deeply shameful. I have never been as embarrassed for this country as I am now. The government must either start acting like a modern, democratic and civilised government or call an election. Also isn't it time the Liberal Party changed its name? It clearly does not uphold principles of liberalism any more. Max Phillips, Marrickville Gee, luckily the UN did not look into our tax reform. We could all be branded crooks. B.A. Dean, Herberton -- _ Truth is a pathless land. --- Krishnamurti -
[recoznet2] Letters to the editor
There are some very good letters to the editor you might want to take a look at at the URL below http://www.smh.com.au/news/0003/11/text/letters.html Trudy -- * Make the Hunger Site your homepage! http://www.thehungersite.com/index.html * --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
Re: [recoznet2] Letters to the editor
irene watson the programme whiteys like us, a good historical document glad someone thought of filming the process, i hope it goes some way in explaining to white people about how onerous the role of educating them about their own racism is and even furhter in finding ways of doing it well without further traumatising us nungas into the overall process -- From: Trudy and Rod Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: RecOzNet2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [recoznet2] Letters to the editor Date: Saturday, August 28, 1999 9:01 AM The Motion of Regret has unleashed a flurry of letters to the editor. Unfortunately, it seems to have flushed a lot of racists out of the woodwork. Read them at: http://www.smh.com.au/news/9908/28/text/letters.html Trudy PS Does anyone who watched 'Whiteys like Us' last night have any comments? --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/ --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
[recoznet2] Letters to the editor at SMH
http://www.smh.com.au/news/9908/26/text/letters.html For letters on the 'apology' have a look at the above URL Trudy --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/ To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use." RecOzNet2 is archived for members @ http://www.mail-archive.com/
[recoznet2] Letters to the editor
If you haven't sent your letter to the editor of your chosen paper yet, please do so today! Howard is trying to distract people from his racist legislation by releasing his draft preamble but we can't let him avoid scrutiny of his breach of the UN convention and human rights in that way. The Sydney Morning Herald has only one letter today and that is from a dingbat who agrees with Howard on his Australian legislation for Australia statement and then concludes that 'a committee isn't answerable to anyone'. Obviously no understanding of what is involved. Trudy --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
Re: [recoznet2] Letters to the editor
Trudy, I don't know the answer to that, but they say that your best chance of getting pubished is to mark it "exclusive to the Australian (or whatever)". This must remove the doubt in the Letters editor page about whether or not the same letter will appear in their rivals paper. there is another consideration. When i read letters which are obviously distributed in mass to all types of papers - especially country papers - i don't read them in the same way as i do a letter which appears to be written to that particular paper. Something of the 'broadcasting' character comes through, and i don't 'feel' that it is addressed specifically to me as a person. Instead of getting the intented message, my mind wanders to what kind of organisation lies behind the letter. One good letter in a major paper is a real achievement, especially when others are also writing. Increase it's chances by marking it "Exclusive" is my approach. It is almost as though a ban had been placed on covering the CERD decision, and yes a letter writing campaign is an excellent idea. Australia's people need to be well informed on this one. Bruce -- From: Trudy and Rod Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: RecOzNet2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [recoznet2] Letters to the editor Date: Saturday, 20 March 1999 17:56 Does anyone know if sending the same letter to more than one paper is ethical, frowned upon or? Trudy --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
[recoznet2] Letters to the editor
Does anyone know if sending the same letter to more than one paper is ethical, frowned upon or? Trudy --- RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body of the message, include the words:unsubscribe announce or click here mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission from the copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further without permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
