Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 16:54:58 -0800 (PST)
From: Alice McCombs <amccombs@igc.apc.org>

Contents

1. Rio Tinto Attempting to De-Unionise its Operations
  a. Global Labor Campaign On Rio Tinto
  b. Mandela To Meet Unions Over Rio Tinto
2. MAI: Globalisation Gone Mad
3. CANADA: BC Human Rights Report Raises Gustafsen Inquiry

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1. Rio Tinto Attempting to De-Unionise its Operations

a. Global Labor Campaign On Rio Tinto

labornews                        labr.global              10:43 PM  Feb  4, 1998

Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 14:48:12 GMT-1000
From: Vikki John <VIKKI@lexsun.law.uts.edu.au>

GLOBAL CAMPAIGN ON RIO TINTO

PLEASE LEND YOUR SUPPORT

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU)
is writing to ask you to join the campaign to stop Rio Tinto,
the world's largest private mining company, which is attempting
to de-unionise its operations.  At issue is the right of workers to
act collectively within a union to protect their employment and
workplace conditions.

Rio Tinto's approach to workers rights has caused serious conflict
at many of its operations in Australia, Indonesia, Norway, Namibia
and Portugal.  Within Australia the CFMEU, the Australian
Manufacturing Workers Union, the Communications, Electrical and
Plumbing Union and the Australian Collieries Staff Association are
all being targeted by Rio Tinto, which is seeking to purge union
members from its coal mining operations (a policy supported by
the Federal Government).

However, Rio Tinto's challenge to the rights of coal mine workers
is not a problem confined to a few unions and a small number of
coal mines.  If the company succeeds in de-unionising its operations
many other companies will attempt to follow suit.  Rio Tinto's
anti-union activities are one step along the profit trail for this giant
multinational whose record shows scant regard for human and
workers rights and for environmental protection.  For Rio Tinto,
as with many other multinationals, the right to belong to a union,
undertake community action or  insist on environmental protection,
is simply viewed as obstacles which get in the way of maximising
profits.  This is why the CFMEU is working with human rights and
environment groups to stop Rio Tinto implementing its agenda.

PLEASE LEND YOUR SUPPORT

From 7-9 February, unions from all over the world will meet at
a conference in Johannesburg, hosted by the National Union of
Mineworkers in South Africa and sponsored by the CFMEU and
the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, Mine and
General Workers' Unions (ICEM) to launch a global campaign on
Rio Tinto.  The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) and
affiliates are sending a large delegation to the conference to put
the Australian view and offer support.

The ACTU and CFMEU are calling on you to make a small contribution
of your time and energy to this campaign.  We want to show Rio Tinto
that this is a community wide campaign prepared to work collectively
to uphold internationally recognised rights.

SEND A FAX OF SUPPORT (up to 5th February) to
John Maitland, National Secretary, CFMEU Head Office,
Australia 02-9262.1928.  After 5th February to:
James Motlatsi, National President of the NUM of South Africa
on 00 15 27 11 836.6051 or to the conference centre at
00 15 27 11 339.7440 - marked John Maitland.

Messages do not have to be long - every word of support will
be welcomed.

ALL FAXES WILL BE DISPLAYED AT THE CONFERENCE.

For further information and input to the campaign, stay on the mailing
list, write or fax the CFMEU office at
3rd Floor, 361 Kent Street, Sydney. NSW. 2000,
Telephone 02-9292.1011, Facsimile 02-9262.1928
or email pcolley@cfmeu.com.au
The CFMEU website http:www.cfmeu.asn.au/mining-energy
has information on Rio Tinto's operations in Australia.  It also
provides further website addresses on Rio Tinto's overseas operations.

Back to top

--------------------------------------------

b. Mandela To Meet Unions Over Rio Tinto

labornews                        labr.global              10:41 PM  Feb  4, 1998

ICEM UPDATE

No. 6/1998

2 February 1998

MANDELA TO MEET WORLD'S UNIONS OVER RIO TINTO ABUSES?

South African President Nelson Mandela is likely to meet next week with
leaders of trade unions organising worldwide in Rio Tinto, the world's
biggest minerals company.

The talks with Mandela are scheduled as part of a meeting in
Johannesburg on 7-9 February, aimed at establishing a global network of
unions with members in Rio Tinto. Former Australian Prime Minister Bob
Hawke will also be taking part in the meeting, which will draw up a
long-term trade union strategy vis-a-vis Rio Tinto.

The company's anti-union stance in many parts of the world is of growing
concern to the 20-million-strong International Federation of Chemical,
Energy, Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM), which is organising the
Johannesburg meeting. Rio Tinto is als o under attack by many community
groups because of its poor social and environmental record.

Some 40 representatives of unions from Australia, Brazil, Canada,
Namibia, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Portugal, Sweden, South Africa, UK,
USA and Zimbabwe will attend the talks. All participants will represent
workers in major Rio Tinto operations.

Hosting the event is South Africa's National Union of Mineworkers (NUM),
whose President James Motlatsi will be among the principal speakers.
Motlatsi is a Vice-President of the ICEM.

One country where unions have been feeling the full brunt of Rio Tinto's
de-unionisation attempts recently is Australia. John Maitland, ICEM
Vice-President and General President of Australian miners' union the
CFMEU, will make a major presentation on the aims of the planned new Rio
Tinto union network, as will ICEM General Secretary Vic Thorpe.

The meeting will also hear from British solicitor Richard Meeran. He is
acting on behalf of Scottish engineer Edward Connelly, who is currently
pursuing Rio Tinto through the British courts. Connelly contracted
cancer of the larynx after working at Rio Ti nto's Rossing uranium mine
in Namibia.

Messages of support for the ICEM Rio Tinto campaign can be faxed to the
NUM on +27 11 836 6051.

For further details of the Johannesburg meeting, please contact ICEM
Mines Officer Damien Roland. Up to Thursday 5 February on +32 2 6262028.
From Friday 6 February on +27 11 403 5740 (phone) or +27 11 339 7440
(fax).

A PRESS CONFERENCE will be held at 13.00 on 7 February at the Parktonian
Hotel, 120 De Korte Street, Braamfontein, Johannesburg 2001, tel. +27 11
403 5740; fax +27 11 339 7440.

_________________

Individual ICEM UPDATE items can be supplied in other languages on request.

Our print magazines ICEM INFO and ICEM GLOBAL are available in Arabic, English,
French, German, Russian, Swedish and Spanish.

Visit us on the Web at http://www.icem.org

ICEM
avenue Emile de Beco 109, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium.
tel.+32.2.6262020   fax +32.2.6484316
Internet: icem@geo2.poptel.org.uk

Editor: Ian Graham, Information Officer

Publisher: Vic Thorpe, General Secretary.

Back to top

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2. MAI: Globalisation Gone Mad

newsdesk                IGC Networks Headlines Digest      1:56 PM  Feb  5, 1998

/* Written 7:48 PM  Feb  2, 1998 by afb2@pegasus.com.au in econ.international */
/* ---------- "Mew material on MAI." ----------

Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 08:50:59 +1100
From: Mark Horstman <acfres@peg.apc.org
Two MAI texts from ACF - an article for February's Habitat, and an
info sheet.

Globalisation gone mad
Mark Horstman, Research Coordinator, Australian Conservation Foundation

"Government by organised money is just as dangerous as government by
organised mobs."
 US President Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933

The world's 29 richest industrialised nations are negotiating a treaty
about foreign investment that dramatically shifts the power of choice
from the citizens and their governments to multinational corporations.
It's called the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), organised by
the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development).

The MAI is designed to require governments to treat foreign companies
exactly the same as domestic companies.  Tax incentives and subsidies
for home-grown industries would have to be offered equally to
multinationals, or removed entirely.  'Buy Australia' campaigns would
become a thing of the past!

The MAI has been described as a Bill of Rights for Multinationals -
without the Responsibilities.
If our governments decide to remove lead from petrol, or move timber
production out of native forests into plantations, or protect national
parks from mining, they would be discouraged from making these decisions
because they can be sued for compensation by a foreign investor if they
breach the MAI.

For example, mining the stunning white dunes and freshwater lakes of
Shelburne Bay in eastern Cape York Peninsula was prevented by the use of
Foreign Investment Review Board guidelines in 1987.  It is likely that
the use of foreign investment controls to ban mining in such a valuable
ecosystem, in the national interest, would not be possible under the
MAI.

Already there are signs of things to come.  A US company has sued the
Canadian Government for $251 million for daring to ban a potentially
toxic fuel additive that the company mixes and sells in Canada.  Under
the MAI, companies can take governments to a 'Qspecial international
court' for breaching the agreement by allegedly 'expropriating'
investments or 'discriminating' against foreign companies (for example,
by passing laws to protect the public interest).

The MAI is a legal agreement that advances the rights of multinational
companies while limiting the rights of national governments to impose
their own requirements for foreign investment, such as for environmental
protection.  Reforming economies to work for the benefit of the
environment is a global challenge too complex and important to rely
solely on the free market to address.  The MAI would make it very
difficult for our governments to direct foreign investment into economic
activities that are ecologically sustainable and socially useful.

The economic crisis in Thailand and other Asian countries is a clear
warning about the effects of unencumbered capital investment flows into
short term, highly profitable, but essentially non-productive sectors of
the economy.  The investors have gone and Thailand is left with a
foreign debt of US $89 billion, of which 80 percent is owned by the
private sector.  It is questionable whether an MAI such as the one being
secretly negotiated in Paris would have prevented this.

As drafted, the agreement could prevent governments from limiting what
foreign investors can own (such as fossil fuels, land, water, minerals,
or the media).  The MAI could prevent governments from imposing
performance requirements (to prevent low wages, hazardous conditions, or
dirty production, or to protect World Heritage areas or sacred sites) on
foreign investments, such as for mining, logging, agriculture, tourism,
or energy production.

State and local governments would be automatically bound once the
Federal Government has signed.  Most international treaties require six
months notice if a country wants to withdraw.  A country that signs the
MAI, however, must give five years notice before escaping, and the MAI
rules will continue to cover existing foreign investment for a further
fifteen years.

The first time I heard about the MAI was in a convent in Cebu, in the
Philippines, at a meeting of people from countries throughout the
Asia-Pacific region who are concerned about the environmental, social,
and economic impacts of freeing up trade and investment regulations.

On the Internet, the MAI is mentioned at least one thousand times.
Citizen's movements to oppose the MAI are growing rapidly in the United
States, United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific.  "By
going out of its way to knock down barriers to foreign investment", says
Andrea Durbin, of Friends of the Earth, "the MAI would put up new
barriers to our democratic rights to regulate our local affairs in ways
that make good economic and environmental sense."  Public debate will
intensify over the next few months as the OECD intends to have the MAI
ready for signing by May this year.

Yet in Australia, we appear to be unaware that our government has been
involved in international negotiations of the MAI since 1995.  And we
are not alone - US politicians, both Republican and Democrat, wrote to
their House of Representatives in August 1997 that "if you have never
heard of this agreement, you are in good company.  Most Members of
Congress havenM-^Rt either."

At best, the Australian Government appears confused and uncertain about
the effect of the MAI on AustraliaM-^Rs social, environmental, and economic
standards.  Contrary to their rejection of calls for the need to reform
and update the Australian Constitution, Government Senators enthuse
about joining the new MAI as a "constitution for a global economy."

The Howard Government says that being part of international action to
prevent global warming is a threat to AustraliaM-^Rs national interest.
Yet it is ready to sign a deal that would prevent them from passing
policies and laws to look after Australian business before multinational
companies, or to say no to developments that are against the national
interest.  This is totally out of step with what people expect from
their government.

Senator Bob Brown warns that the agreement aims to remove "national
protection from international investment by multinational corporations"
In response to concerns that the MAI will prevent our government from
imposing standards on investment to protect the environment, we are
assured by Senator Kemp that "Australia supports suitable non-mandatory
provisions in the MAI on codes of practice in the environmental
protection area."

The US Council for International Business, a lobby group representing
multinationals in the drafting of the MAI, declares that "we will oppose
any and all measures to create or even imply binding obligations for
governments or business related to the environment or labour."   It
appears they wonM-^Rt be getting any arguments from the Australian
Government.

Senator Hill promises that "when we reach a conclusion, it will have to
go through the treaty process that we have in relation to other such
agreements."   The Howard GovernmentM-^Rs Foreign Affairs policy for the
1996 election - entitled M-^QA Confident AustraliaM-^R - recognises that the
growth of international law-making has "direct and undesirable impacts
on our domestic laws" in the absence of adequate treaty-making
processes.

This policy was probably born of conservative concern about
international environmental agreements such as the Conventions on World
Heritage, Biodiversity, and Climate Change.  However, it does commit the
Howard Government to deal with international economic agreements by
preparing "national interest analyses", providing for "significant
debate in the Federal Parliament", working with the States to ensure
domestic legislation is in place, and examining them through a Joint
House Treaties Committee - before the treaty is ratified.

Despite these policy commitments, the MAI has not yet been the subject
of Parliamentary debate, it has not been referred to the Joint House
Treaties Committee, and it is provoking concern from the States about
their potential loss of sovereignty.

Signing the MAI is one of the most significant policy decisions a
government can make - it will affect not only the powers of Federal
Governments but also the rights of State and local governments, all
Australian owned businesses, and all Australian communities.

The MAI raises a number of important dilemmas for the Federal
Government, particularly in an election year:

… When will the implications of the MAI be debated in State and Federal
Parliaments, and how will the Australian public be afforded the
opportunity to have a say?

… The National Party believes the deregulation of land use on pastoral
leases is necessary "if Australia is to keep pace with trading
partners."   Will amending the native title laws to allow States to
compulsorily acquire property rights for the diversification of land use
on pastoral leases pave the way for greater levels of foreign investment
under the MAI?

… If the Government backed down on tariff reform due to domestic
upheaval in several Australian industries, why would it push through an
agreement that puts international capital ahead of the interests of all
Australian industries?

… Will the proposed amendment of AustraliaM-^Rs environment laws be an
effective counter-balance against international trade and investment
laws that exclude the environment?

Australian Conservation Foundation, acfres@peg.apc.org, p 03-99266705 -
January 1998

Excellent information about the MAI, including the October 1997 version
of the draft agreement, can be found on the Internet at
http://mai.flora.org/ and
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/policy/papers/mai.htm.  Also try
http://www.RTK.NET:80/preamble/mai/maihome.html and
http://www.citizen.org/pctrade/mai.html

Australian Conservation Foundation - Information Update
_________________________________________________________

The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI)

- Rights without Responsibilities -

The world's 29 industrialised nations are negotiating a treaty about
foreign investment that dramatically shifts the power of choice away
from citizens and their governments, towards multinational
corporations.  ItM-^Rs called the Multilateral Agreement on Investment
(MAI), organised by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development).

The MAI is a legally binding agreement that advances the rights of
multinational companies while limiting the rights of national
governments to impose their own requirements for foreign investment,
such as for environmental protection.  The MAI is due to be finalised as
a treaty in May 1998, yet it has been negotiated with minimal public
debate or consultation.

Some of ACFM-^Rs concerns about the MAI as it currently stands are:

… The agreement would greatly expands the rights of foreign investors
without being balanced by increased responsibilities. The agreement
would allow corporations to sue governments if they breach the MAI or do
not provide "full and constant protection and security". However,
governments and citizens would not be able to sue corporations if the
investor causes damage.  In essence it gives the investor a superior
legal status to both governments and citizens.

… The MAI would restrict a governmentM-^Rs rights to regulate foreign
investment on behalf of the community. The MAI would restrain
governments from introducing policies that ensure investment is suited
to the needs of the nation.  Policies requiring investors to create a
certain number of jobs, reserve jobs for local people, use a certain
standard of technology, comply with an environmental standard or pay a
new tax, may be in breach of the MAI and therefore not enforceable on
foreign investors.

… Unlike the GATT, the MAI does not contain an exemption from the treaty
if a government wants to take action to protect human health and the
environment.

… The MAI would prevent a government from deciding that certain sectors
are best kept in public ownership or controlled by Australian
businesses.  Land, natural resources and basic utilities would have to
be made available to all investors, and governments would have limited
ability to regulate the way these sectors are managed.

… While governments are negotiating exemptions or M-^QreservationsM-^R from
the MAI for certain sectors, these will be temporary.  The agreement
will include M-^Qroll back measuresM-^R committing governments to work towards
removing all exemptions.  M-^QStandstill measuresM-^R will prevent the
introduction of new domestic laws that do not comply with the MAI.  (See
the final paragraph for how to find out more).

… State and local governments would be automatically bound once the
Federal Government has signed.  Most international treaties require six
months notice if a country wants to withdraw.  A country that signs the
MAI, however, must give five years notice before withdrawing, and the
MAI rules would continue to cover existing foreign investment for a
further fifteen years.

… The MAI would allow investors to make financial transfers into and out
of the country freely. It is likely to exacerbate the problem of nations
competing to attract investment by driving down standards or offering
subsidies and tax breaks. Such practices work against smaller domestic
interests and create anti-competitive conditions.

A major blow to environmental standards:

The community wants development that brings jobs and improved quality of
life. In 1997, the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that 70% of
Australians believe economic development and environmental quality are
of equal importance.  Advocates of the MAI want rights to make money and
use resources without having any responsibilities to meet the
communityM-^Rs desire for environmental protection.

In response to concerns that the MAI would prevent our government from
imposing standards on investment to protect the environment, Senator
Kemp says that "Australia supports suitable non-mandatory provisions in
the MAI on codes of practice in the environmental protection area."  The
US Council for International Business, a lobby group representing
multinationals in the drafting of the MAI, declares that "we will oppose
any and all measures to create or even imply binding obligations for
governments or business related to the environment or labour."

There is no balance to an agreement that offers new rights without
expecting new responsibilities.  Voluntary codes of conduct are not an
adequate guarantee for the community when the MAI will shape investment
patterns across the world.  Voluntary codes do not prevent good
performers being undercut by unethical businesses, and offer no
enforcement remedies for governments when codes are ignored.  Will the
proposed amendment of AustraliaM-^Rs environment laws be an effective
counter-balance against international trade and investment laws, such as
the MAI, that exclude the environment?

Growing awareness about the MAI:

CitizenM-^Rs movements to oppose and question the MAI are growing rapidly
in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and the
Asia-Pacific.  "By going out of its way to knock down barriers to
foreign investment", says Andrea Durbin, of Friends of the Earth, "the
MAI would put up new barriers to our democratic rights to regulate our
local affairs in ways that make good economic and environmental sense."

Yet in Australia, we appear to be unaware that our government has been
involved in international negotiations of the MAI since 1995.  And we
are not alone - US politicians, both Republican and Democrat, wrote to
their House of Representatives in August 1997 that "if you have never
heard of this agreement, you are in good company.  Most Members of
Congress havenM-^Rt either."

Signing the MAI is one of the most significant policy decisions a
government can make - it will affect not only the powers of Federal
Governments but also the rights of State and local governments, all
Australian owned businesses, and all Australian communities.

Write to the Australian Treasurer - today!

Write to the Hon Peter Costello MP, Treasurer, at Parliament House,
Canberra ACT 2600, or fax 02-62733420.  Ask him to send you the most
up-to-date list of reservations from the MAI that Australian Government
negotiators are seeking for our domestic laws.  Seeing the list will
give you an idea of what types of laws the government thinks will be
threatened by the MAI.  It also lets you assess which laws or sectors
have been missed that you believe could be vulnerable.  Your letter will
also demonstrate that the government is obliged to inform the public
about the MAI.

Back to top

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

3. CANADA: BC Human Rights Report Raises Gustafsen Inquiry

DEBRA                          hrnet.indigenous            9:55 AM  Feb  2, 1998
(at OLN.comlink.apc.org)                                  (From News system)

Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Edited/Distributed by HURINet - The Human Rights Information Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------
## author     : SISIS@envirolink.org
## date       : 22.01.98
---------------------------------------------------------------------
:-:-:-:S.I.S.I.S.  Settlers In Support of Indigenous Sovereignty:-:-:-:
January 8, 1998                                      Bulletin

BC HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT RAISES GUSTAFSEN INQUIRY

In August 1997, the BC Human Rights Commission (BCHRC) began
a process of community hearings designed to get public
feedback on B.C's existing Human Rights Code and the BCHRC's
proposed recommendations for changes to the code. The
question the Commission asked the public was:

   "What human rights protections do we wish to leave to the
   next generation and which ones should accompany us into
   the next decade and the next millenium?"

The commission held 13 public meetings across B.C., attended
by 355 participants with a total of 136 oral submissions. An
additional 365 individuals or groups made written
submissions to the BCHRC.

On January 19, 1998 the British Columbia Human Rights
Commission (BCHRC) released a report summarizing the results
of their consultation process and announcing the
recommendations they would be making to Ujjal Dosanjh,
Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Human Rights.

As Attorney General, Ujjal Dosanjh was responsible for a
number of the key decisions related to the Ts'peten (aka
Gustafsen Lake) fiasco in 1995, and the ongoing legal
persecution of the native and non-native people who were
held under siege at Ts'peten Sundance Grounds by Canadian
police and military forces. Local, national, and
international groups documented massive human rights abuses
by the police and government at Ts'peten. The RCMP openly
admitted to carrying out a "smear and disinformation
campaign" against the Ts'peten Defenders and their
supporters. And we had the Minister responsible for Human
Rights directing police to violate human rights on behalf of
the B.C. government -- an obvious conflict of interest.

Since 1995, the Ts'peten Defenders and their supporters have
demanded an inquiry to bring to light the truths concealed
by the RCMP, government and media in their concerted efforts
to manufacture public consent for military suppression and
attempted murder of the Ts'peten Defenders.

Simultaneously, national and international groups have
called for an inquiry into the police murder of an unarmed
native man participating in a re-occupation of native lands
seized illegally by the Ontario government at Stoney Point
(aka Ipperwash).

When S.I.S.I.S. became aware of the BCHRC hearings, we
encouraged people to make submissions to the Commission
calling for inquiries.

AND THEY HEARD YOU!

On page 3 of the BCHRC report "Human Rights for the Next
Millenium", the BCHRC states:

    "Many views were expressed as the consultations prompted
    discussions about human rights and how far, as a
    society, we should go to protect the rights of British
    Columbians. Some comments were directed at the specific
    recommendations being debated and other comments took
    broader perspectives. By e-mail, for example, the
    Commission representatives heard from those calling for
    a public inquiry into the incidents at Ipperwash in
    Ontario and Gustafsen Lake in BC."

Keep up the pressure! Let Ujjal Dosanjh, the BC Human Rights
Commission, and other Canadian officials know that you will
continue to call for an inquiry:

BC Human Rights Commission
306 - 815 Hornby St., Vancouver, BC,  V6Z 2E6   Canada
Phone: (604) 660-6811  Toll-free: 1-800-663-0876   Fax: (604) 660-0195
email: <bc.human_rights_commission@ag.gov.bc.ca>

BC Premier Glen Clark
Room 156 Parliament Buildings,  Victoria, BC   V8V 1X4   Canada
Phone: (250) 380-6506   Fax: (250) 387-0087

Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien
Room 309-S Centre Block, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ont. K1A OA6  Canada
Phone: (613) 992-4211   Fax: (613) 941-6900
Faxing by email: remote-printer.Jean_Chretien@16139416900.iddd.tpc.int

For more information on Ts'peten (Gustafsen Lake), visit:
     http://kafka.uvic.ca/~vipirg/SISIS/gustmain.html

To sign the petition for a public inquiry, visit:
     http://kafka.uvic.ca/~vipirg/SISIS/GustLake/support.html
or send an email to <sisis@envirolink.org> with "petition" in the subject
header and your name, city/country of residence and the words "I support
the petition demanding a public inquiry into Gustafsen Lake" in the body
of your message.

:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
    S.I.S.I.S.   Settlers In Support of Indigenous Sovereignty
        P.O. Box 8673, Victoria, "B.C." "Canada" V8X 3S2
        EMAIL: SISIS@envirolink.org

Back to top

Disclaimer

EarthWINS Daily is a project of EarthWINS.

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, material in this issue of EarthWINS Daily is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. **

The articles in EarthWINS Daily are PHOTOCOPIES for personal informational purposes--please seek reprint permission directly from the source listed. You are encouraged to utilize this information for personal campaign use; including writing letters, organizing campaigns and forwarding. All efforts are made to provide accurate, timely pieces; though ultimate responsibility for verifying all information rests with the reader.

If you distribute information contained in EarthWINS Daily, please:

(1) Copy the information in its exact form,
(2) Cite the author, publisher, and date of the information.
(3) Include this subscription information for EarthWINS Daily - 

To subscribe to EarthWINS Daily send an email to 
EarthWINS-Daily-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Subscribe to EarthWINS_Daily

EarthWINS P O Box 573 Shawano, WI 54166 Ph: 715-524-5998 FAX (call first): 715-524-9958 EarthWINS-Daily@earthwins.com www.earthwins.com

Please sign my guestbook

Back to top