Journal articles on the topic 'Bird scaring'

Birds attracted to citys waste landfills represent a significant hazard and additional inconvenience to people. It is necessary to understand not only the reasons for which birds enter the given territory, but also the economic components of the scaring process. The article analyzes the results of bird control management work at several waste management facilities. Based on these calculations, its possible to determine of costs level and select the optimal model for the work of specialists in bird scaring.

The problem of scaring birds, which has turned into a problem of protecting economic objects from biological damage caused by birds, was born in ancient times and remains relevant to this day. Elevators, fishing and animal husbandry facilities, and other agricultural structures have become the favorite habitats of synanthropic birds. The first ones cause irreparable economic damage to agriculture, destroying, in particular, crops in fields and gardens. One of the solutions to this problem, which became the goal of this work, is to increase the efficiency of protecting agricultural facilities from synanthropic birds with the help of electric bird repellents. To carry out this research work, an experimental stand was designed and constructed in the laboratory of the State Agrarian University of the Northern Trans-Urals, which received a positive decision for a patent. With its help, an analytical dependence of the magnitude of the scaring pulse on the mass of the bird was obtained; a method for calculating the minimum and maximum distances of the scaring range for the blue pigeon was developed. Keywords: SYNANTHROPIC BIRDS, AGRICULTURAL STRUCTURES, ELECTRIC BIRD REPELLER, DESIGN PARAMETERS PULSE, ELECTRIC CURRENT, EFFICIENCY

Flocks of birds may cause major damage to fruit crops in the ripening phase. This problem is addressed by various methods for bird scaring; in many cases, however, the birds become accustomed to the distraction, and the applied scaring procedure loses its purpose. To help eliminate the difficulty, we present a system to detect flocks and to trigger an actuator that will scare the objects only when a flock passes through the monitored space. The actual detection is performed with artificial intelligence utilizing a convolutional neural network. Before teaching the network, we employed videocameras and a differential algorithm to detect all items moving in the vineyard. Such objects revealed in the images were labeled and then used in training, testing, and validating the network. The assessment of the detection algorithm required evaluating the parameters precision, recall, and F1 score. In terms of function, the algorithm is implemented in a module consisting of a microcomputer and a connected videocamera. When a flock is detected, the microcontroller will generate a signal to be wirelessly transmitted to the module, whose task is to trigger the scaring actuator.

In connection with the increase in the number of household facilities attractting birds and the widespread growth of synanthropic bird populations, the problem of ornithological safety is becoming more and more urgent. For effective scaring away of birds from territories where their presence is undesirable, it is necessary to understand what has brought these birds to this territory, its important to find out the reasons for the ornithological attractiveness of the economic object. This article describes a method by which its possible to calculate the ornithological attractiveness of any business object. These calculations allow to plan the place, time and mode of work of bird repellent specialists.

A brief history of the tradition of birds as motifs on textiles is followed by a catalogue of the birds in the Bayeux Tapestry and a discussion of their function. The possible significance of identifiable birds (cocks, doves, peacocks, storks), the birds of Aesop's fables and the creatures in the border ‘bird scaring scene’ is analysed. The individuality, in colouring and position, of all the border birds is demonstrated and the apparent interest which many of them take in the action of the main register is highlighted to suggest that the border birds present a commentary on, and audience-participation in, the narrative.

AbstractSeabird bycatch is widely regarded as the greatest threat globally to procellariiform seabirds. Although measures to reduce seabird–fishery interactions have been in existence for many years, uptake in fleets with high risk profiles remains variable. We recorded seabird bycatch and other interactions in the Namibian demersal longline fishery. Interaction rates were estimated for seasonal and spatial strata and scaled up to fishing effort data. Bycatch rates were 0.77 (95% CI 0.24–1.39) and 0.37 (95% CI 0.11–0.72) birds per 1,000 hooks in winter and summer, respectively. Scaling up to 2010, the most recent year for which complete data are available, suggests 20,567 (95% CI 6,328–37,935) birds were killed in this fishery that year. We compared bycatch rates to those from experimental fishing sets using mitigation measures (one or two bird-scaring lines and the replacement of standard concrete weights with 5 kg steel weights). All mitigation measures significantly reduced the bycatch rate. This study confirms the Namibian longline fishery has some of the highest known impacts on seabirds globally, but implementing simple measures could rapidly reduce those impacts. In November 2015 the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources introduced regulations requiring the use of bird-scaring lines, line weighting and night setting in this fishery. A collaborative approach between NGOs, industry and government was important in achieving wide understanding and acceptance of the proposed mitigation measures in the lead up to the introduction of new fishery regulations.

<p>The complex of measures on safety, considerable importance is the monitoring system and integrated the fight to reduce the number of air flight hazard species of birds (rooks, crows, magpies, hawks, etc.). Experience has shown that even periodic shooting does not give the desired effect, ie. A. The bird population is very mobile and able to move quickly scattered and maneuvering that practically negates all efforts for their physical elimination. The use of poisoned baits is prohibited and is ineffective, t. To. Various species of birds have different food preferences. Our research is devoted to finding a solution to this problem. As the main operational measures for scaring birds we offer the use of bio-acoustic instrument with a sound recording, effectively acting on air flight hazard species of birds, including corvids and Black Kite, which are not optional in many similar devices. Application of bioacoustics devices does not require an additional set of fireworks scare, but also an integral character of the device significantly increases the efficiency of the impact on birds and allows for a few minutes to eliminate concentrations of birds in large areas.</p><p>The study analyzed information on aircraft collisions with birds, considered the scheme of air traffic, as well as the general plan for the landfill site, the Civil Aviation documents ornithological flight operations, carried out the operational test site survey. OAO Ekokompleks operates only in Barnaul licensed landfills for disposal of solid waste, located at the address: Barnaul, Cosmonavtov Prospekt, 74. The total area of the polygon - 328,679.7 square meters, the amount of dumping per year - 1800 thousand cubic meters Coordinates: 53 ° 23'24 "N, 83 ° 37'54" E.</p><p>Availability of the current municipal landfill waste at a distance of 6.3 km from the aerodrome reference point Barnaul, in violation of the requirements of Claim 59 of the Federal Rules of use of air space of the Russian Federation of 11.03.2010 number 138. The conditions of surrounding environment determine the composition and behavior of birds, attending a training ground and pose a potential hazard to aircraft operations. On landfill dumping is carried out various types of waste, including food, are used by some species of birds as food. According to a preliminary survey, the main species of birds that use the landfill as a forage habitat - black kite, corvids - gray, crow, rook, jackdaw and gulls - silver and black-headed gull. Based on many years of observations and data analysis of the circumstances and consequences of collisions of Russian aircraft with birds stand air flight hazard species of birds, creating the greatest threat to flight safety. To the list of air flight hazard species include the black vulture, hooded crow, rook, magpie, jackdaw.</p>

This study assessed division of labour in rice production and processing across gender in Ogun state, Nigeria. Multistage sampling procedure was used in sampling 120 rice farmers who are both producers and processors. Primary data were obtained from the respondents with the use of structured interview schedule. Data were analysed using frequency, percentage, charts, mean and t-test statistic. The findings revealed that, in rice production; clearing of farm land (90.0%), de-stumping/packing (98.3%), and tilling of land (98.3%) were mainly carried out by men while women were more involved in activities such as planting (52.5%), weeding (50.8%), bird scaring (69.%), harvesting and packing (74.2%). In rice processing; men performed major activities in milling (95.8%), de-stoning (95.0%) and transportation (91.6%) while women were more involved in threshing (84.2%), sun drying (80.9%), and winnowing (87.5%). The result of t- test showed that, there was significant differences in the average quantity of rice (kg) produced by men and women in year 2012 (t=3.930; p≤0.05), 2013 (t=4.748; p≤0.05), 2014 (t=3.570; p≤0.05) and 2016 (t=3.096); p≤0.05) but there was no significant difference between the average rice produced by men and women (t=0.308; p>0.05) in year 2015. Interventions to address the rice production and processing in major energy require activities (like clearing, milling) should be tailored towards men while low energy activities (like planting, harvesting, marketing) interventions should be tailored towards women in order to enhance high productivity and quality processing. Keywords: gender division of labour, rice production, rice processing

The data about staroverstvo, i.e. about the pre-Christian religion in three regions in Slovenia are reviewed. The most archaic of them is the Poso&scaron;ko staroverstvo - the Old Religion around the upper Soča River valley. For it is characteristic the single, female god, the Great Mother, a number of spirits, importance of triangular features, rocks, caves, stone and wood, way of life in peace, reincarnation of souls. The Kra&scaron;ko staroverstvo - the Old Religion in the Karst region is intermediate between it and the East Slavic pre-Christian religion. The influence of the arrival of agriculture about 7,500 years ago is indicated in it. The Dolenjsko staroverstvo - the Old Religion in Western Lower Carniola reflects the Iron Age situation. Characteristic for it is the revering of waters as well as the neighboring hill-forts and bird-hills. The hill-forts started to be erected on the intrusion from east of the Y chromosome haplogroup R1b people about 6,500 years ago. The bird-hills served the birds, which would carry the soul of the deceased into the other world, possibly onto the other side of the moon. All these Old Religions indicate that the ancestors of Slovenes did not arrive in the 6th Century AD from east of the Carpathian Mountains but were aboriginal in Slovenia.

Abstract Many animals are marked with conspicuous circular features often called ‘eyespots’, which intimidate predators, preventing or halting an attack. It has long been assumed that eyespots work by mimicking the eyes of larger animals, but recent experiments have indicated that conspicuousness and contrast is important in eyespot function, and not eye mimicry. We undertake two further experiments to distinguish between the conspicuousness and mimicry hypotheses, by using artificial prey presented to wild avian predators in the field. In experiment 1, we test if eyespot effectiveness depends on the marking shape (bar or circle) and arrangement (eye-like and non-eye-like positions). We find no difference between shapes or arrangement; all spots were equally effective in scaring birds. In experiment 2, we test if the often yellow and black colors of eyespots mimic the eyes of birds of prey. We find no effect of shape, and no advantage to yellow and black spots over non-eye-like but equally conspicuous colors. The consistent finding is that eyespot function lies in being a conspicuous signal to predators, and not necessarily due to eye mimicry.

Up to 40% of whitefish (Coregonus nasus and C. clupeaformis) sampled during spawning migrations from the area of the Mackenzie Delta, N.W.T., had external scars. Percent frequency of scarred individuals varied geographically from the Mackenzie mainstem and tributaries, where 20% were scarred, to Anderson river (2%), Cox Lake (16%), and Alaska (0–7%). Within the Mackenzie system fish captured at mainstem locations had approximately twice the frequency of scarring than did fish from tributary locations. Scars were classified as either slash or round type. Both scar types were located more frequently on the left side of the fishes and below the lateral line. Details of orientation and location on the body provided clues permitting the assignment of putative causation. Small round scars were restricted to locations with connections to the Arctic Ocean and were probably caused by the marine parasitic copepod Coregonicola or by Arctic lampreys (Lampetra japonica). Larger round scars were either the result of attacks by lampreys or by previous gill net capture. Unequal distribution and orientation on the body of slash scars indicated previous capture in gill nets or predation attempts by bears, birds, or piscivorous fishes.

Liver fibrosis or scarring is the most common pathological feature caused by chronic liver injury, and is widely considered one of the primary causes of morbidity and mortality. It is primarily characterised by hepatic stellate cells (HSC) activation and excessive extracellular matrix (ECM) protein deposition. Overwhelming evidence suggests that the dysregulation of several noncoding RNAs (ncRNAs), mainly long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), microRNAs (miRNAs) and circular RNAs (circRNAs) contributes to the activation of HSC and progression of liver fibrosis. These ncRNAs not only bind to their target genes for the development and regression of liver fibrosis but also act as competing endogenous RNAs (ceRNAs) by sponging with miRNAs to form signaling cascades. Among these signaling cascades, lncRNA-miRNA-mRNA and circRNA-miRNA-mRNA are critical modulators for the initiation, progression, and regression of liver fibrosis. Thus, targeting these interacting ncRNA cascades can serve as a novel and potential therapeutic target for inhibition of HSC activation and prevention and regression of liver fibrosis.

Background: This 40-year-old man with extensive and severe epidermolysis bullosa acquisita (EBA) developed an esophageal stricture that caused dysphagia and limited his nutritional intake. Objective: The purpose of the evaluation and management was to relieve the symptomatic obstruction so that he could better swallow food and medications. Methods: Endoscopic visualization of the stricture allowed for balloon dilation to be effected. The radial forces applied probably allowed for a less traumatic intervention than the linear shearing forces of bougienage. Results: The stricture widened and immediately provided less dysphagia and better tolerance in ingesting food. Medical treatment with sucralfate, known to bind to and protect ulcer bases, also improved his symptoms. Conclusions: Esophageal strictures are relatively uncommon in patients with EBA; however, when faced with a stricture in this or other scarring bullous diseases that affect the esophagus, endoscopic balloon dilation combined with postprocedure sucralfate offers improvement with advantages over older methods of intervention.

Ostrich skin when tanned forms distinctive and exclusive leather which is much sought after in the fashion industry. Promotion and marketing are focused on its distinctive quill pattern, durability and suppleness. The leather commands a high price by comparison with other livestock leather. The industry in southern Africa is currently export focused with the highest number of tanned skins being exported from South Africa principally to Japan. There are currently many debates on the optimum age for slaughter, skin size being dependent on buyer demand. Skins are subjected to strict grading criteria. Many factors need to be considered to maximise skin yield and quality including adequate nutrition, preventing on-farm scarring and bruising during transport, preventing feather pecking and treating birds for parasitic and arthropod infestations. Stringent conditions during the processing of the skins at the abattoirs and tanneries are crucial in preventing damage and subsequent downgrading. Environmental impacts of tanning are crucial and harmful by- products, including trivalent chromium, must be extracted from the effluent. The establishment of a strategy that ensures improvements in both the local ostrich and skin industry, and in the export market is necessary if southern Africa is to become a global player.

AbstractUnderwater detonations have the potential for serious injury in marine vertebrates such as fishes, reptiles, birds and mammals. The high detonation velocity creates a shock wave. The main reason for injury is the extremely short signal rise time combined with a high overpressure. A negative pressure phase generating cavitation shortly after the peak overpressure can increase organ and tissue damage. Due to surface reflection generating a reversed phase replica of the detonation, this phenomenon is very pronounced in shallow waters. Organs most seriously affected by detonations are those with gas/tissue interfaces (e.g., ears, lungs, swim bladders, air sacs, intestines). Observed injuries include disruption of cells and tissues by differential displacement, internal bleeding, embolism, and auditory damage. Furthermore, compression of the thorax by the shock wave initiates a rapid increase in blood pressure, which can cause damage in the brain and ears. In order to protect marine life, all possible attempts should be made to avoid underwater detonations. For detonations that cannot be avoided due to safety considerations, a number of mitigation measures are presented including bubble curtains, scaring devices, visual and acoustic monitoring, and seasonal and spatial planning. However, mitigation measures have varying degrees of efficiency. Low-order detonations are not a real alternative due to the release of toxic munitions constituents to the environment. For each detonation, a proper site- and munitions-specific risk assessment and mitigation strategy must be developed.

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) remain of great interest in regenerative medicine because of their ability to home to sites of injury, differentiate into a variety of relevant lineages, and modulate inflammation and angiogenesis through paracrine activity. Many studies have found that despite the promise of MSC therapy, cell survival upon implant is highly limited and greatly reduces the therapeutic utility of MSCs. The matrikine tenascin C, a protein expressed often at the edges of a healing wound, contains unique EGF-like repeats that are able to bind EGFR at low affinities and induce downstream prosurvival signaling without inducing receptor internalization. In this study, we utilized tenascin C in a collagen/GAG-based polymer (TPolymer) that has been shown to be beneficial for skin wound healing, incorporating human MSCs into the polymer prior to application to mouse punch biopsy wound beds. We found that the TPolymer was able to promote MSC survival for 21 days in vivo, leading to associated improvements in wound healing such as dermal maturation and collagen content. This was most marked in a model of hypertrophic scarring, in which the scar formation was limited. This approach also reduced the inflammatory response in the wound bed, limiting CD3e+ cell invasion by approximately 50% in the early wound-healing process, while increasing the numbers of endothelial cells during the first week of wound healing as well. Ultimately, this matrikine-based approach to improving MSC survival may be of great use across a variety of cell therapies utilizing matrices as delivery vehicles for cells.

Abstract The molecular mechanisms governing the secretion of the non-coding genome are poorly understood. We show herein that cyclin D1, the regulatory subunit of the cyclin-dependent kinase that drives cell-cycle progression, governs the secretion and relative proportion of secreted non-coding RNA subtypes (miRNA, rRNA, tRNA, CDBox, scRNA, HAcaBox. scaRNA, piRNA) in human breast cancer. Cyclin D1 induced the secretion of miRNA governing the tumor immune response and oncogenic miRNAs. miR-21 and miR-93, which bind Toll-Like Receptor 8 to trigger a pro-metastatic inflammatory response, represented &gt;85% of the cyclin D1-induced secreted miRNA transcripts. Furthermore, cyclin D1 regulated secretion of the P-element Induced WImpy testis (PIWI)-interacting RNAs (piRNAs) including piR-016658 and piR-016975 that governed stem cell expansion, and increased the abundance of the PIWI member of the Argonaute family, piwil2 in ERα positive breast cancer. The cyclin D1-mediated secretion of pro-tumorigenic immuno-miRs and piRNAs may contribute to tumor initiation and progression.

AbstractSurvey questionnaires were administered to 50 farmers in three chiefdoms in the Moyamba District of southern Sierra Leone. The study was undertaken to gain insight into the indigenous farming practices for cowpea with emphasis on pest management. This is to serve as a guide in drawing up a research agenda and identifying appropriate measures for the control of cowpea pests. Farm sizes were generally small, usually less than 2 ha of intercropped cowpea. This suggests that the farmers were mostly subsistent and would require low cost inputs to boost production. Vertebrate and insect pests were identified by the farmers as limiting cowpea grain production. Insect pests were considered more serious than vertebrates. Pest control was mostly traditional and involved cultural measures such as weeding of plots, fencing, trapping and scaring of birds. These may be inefficient and labour intensive. Varieties planted by the farmers were mostly land races that have low yield potential and lack some other desirable agronomic character like semi-erectness and bold seeds. Selection criteria in breeding programmes should incorporate farmers' preferences which include high yields, sweet taste, resistance to pests and diseases, compatibility with the farming systems and acceptable seed appearance that would enhance marketing. The study further revealed that at present cowpea is grown mostly as a secondary crop. Therefore, introduced pest control efforts would have to be cheap, easy to adopt and integrative. These would include:(a) education on control options hitherto unknown to the farmers;(b) identifying and developing effective strategies that are low cost, labour insensitive, environmentally friendly and compatible with the socioculturel background of the farming community; and(c) creating awareness on the necessity for the inputs to be readily available and affordable at the local government level.

Data were obtained on the basis of the results of research carried out on the territory of the educational and experimental farm of the Timiryazev State Agrarian University, in Moscow during 2018-2019. As a result of the surveys, the most dangerous diseases and pests of pome crops on the territory of this farm were established. The most resistant apple and pear varieties to major diseases have been identified. Peculiarities of development of alternariosis on pear are described, the harmfulness of the disease on pear and apple seedlings is noted. A possible role in the transfer of alternariosis infection from garden-protective plantations and weed vegetation to fruit trees was noted. A possible role has been established in the transport of septoriosis, powdery dew infection from dicotyledonous weeds plants. The peculiarities of the spread of infection under the influence of wind direction are noted. The results and peculiarities of the application of various methods of scaring birds in the orchard are presented. As a result of route surveys the most harmful weed plants have been identified. The possibility of using herbicides of different mechanism of action in fruit gardens for weed control has been studied. High efficiency and relative safety of application of herbicides of contact action in nursery fields, operational orchards and for control of piglets on fruit trees are shown. Recommendations are given for the use of soil and systemic herbicides of soil in seedlings beds, the first and second fields of the nursery, as well as in the process of production of large-scale planting material and operational orchards of fruit crops. The safety of the herbicides in question is established when used in accordance with the recommended methods of use.

Suture biomaterials are critical in wound repair by providing support to the healing of different tissues including vascular surgery, hemostasis, and plastic surgery. Important properties of a suture material include physical properties, handling characteristics, and biological response for successful performance. However, bacteria can bind to sutures and become a source of infection. For this reason, there is a need for new biomaterials for suture with antifouling properties. Here we report two types of cellulose fibers from coconut (Cocos nucifera) and sisal (Agave sisalana), which were purified with a chemical method, characterized, and tested in vitro and in vivo. According to SEM images, the cellulose fiber from coconut has a porous surface, and sisal has a uniform structure without internal spaces. It was found that the cellulose fiber from sisal has mechanical properties closer to silk fiber biomaterial using Ultimate Tensile Strength. When evaluating the cellulose fibers biodegradability, the cellulose from coconut showed a rapid weight loss compared to sisal. The antifouling test was negative, which demonstrated that neither possesses intrinsic microbicidal activity. Yet, a weak biofilm was formed on sisal cellulose fibers suggesting it possesses antifouling properties compared to cellulose from coconut. In vivo experiments using healthy mice demonstrated that the scarring and mechanical connection was like silk for both cellulose fibers. Overall, our results showed the potential use of cellulose fibers from vegetal for surgical sutures due to excellent mechanical properties, rapid degradation, and no bacterial adhesion.

Fishing gear in the Baltic is often raided by grey seals (Halichoerus grypus). The seals remove the fish and damage the nets, or entangle themselves and drown. In order to develop ways of mitigating the seals-fisheries conflict, it is important to know exactly how the seals locate the fishing gear. A field experiment was conducted in order to clarify whether seals use their vision above water to do this. Bait (herring; Clupea harengus) was attached to the anchor lines of buoys of the type that is commonly used to mark the position of fishing gear. In all, 643 buoys were set. Some of the buoys (210) were also fitted with camera traps. Weather data were collected from official weather stations nearby. Bait loss (mean 18%) was significantly correlated with buoy size (P = 0.002) and wind speed (P = 0.04). There was a significant association between bait loss and seal observations near the buoys (P = 0.05). Five photos of grey seals were obtained from the camera traps. No fish-eating birds, such as cormorants or mergansers, were ever observed near the buoys or caught on camera. It was concluded that a main cause of missing bait was scavenging by grey seals, and that they did use above-water vision to locate the buoys. It was also concluded that wind strength (i.e. wave action) contributed tothe bait loss. The camera trap buoys had a somewhat lower bait loss than the other buoys (P = 0.054), which was attributed to a scaring effect. Neither the number of seal observations nor the bait loss differed significantly between the 2 study areas in the experiment (P = 0.43 and P = 0.83, respectively). Bait loss was not affected by the buoy colour (red, white, or grey; P = 0.87). We suggest that the findings of this experiment could be put into practice in a seal-disturbed area by deploying a number of decoy buoys, or by hiding live buoys below the surface of the water. This would increase the cost of foraging for the seals, and hence discourage them from exploiting fishing gear as a feeding place.

Summary Bycatch is one of the main threats to marine biodiversity, affecting ocean ecosystems at a worldwide scale. The main focus of bycatch studies has been on the impact of larger vessels, with few studies assessing the impact of artisanal fisheries. Moreover, bycatch studies are often limited to a small number of marine regions, and significant gaps still exist in our knowledge of the spatial and temporal patterns of seabird bycatch. Here we present a multi-approach method to accurately quantify seabird bycatch driven by small- and medium-sized fishing fleets operating in a high priority area for seabird conservation on the Portuguese mainland. Results of three mitigation measures to reduce seabird bycatch on fishing gear where seabird bycatch is most likely to occur were also tested: high contrast panels in bottom gillnets, black hooks in demersal longlines and a bird scaring device in purse seines. The efficacy, acceptance, and economic viability were tested for each mitigation measure. Sixty-seven individuals of seven seabird species were bycaught during 295 monitored fishing trips between 2015 and 2018. Bycatch occurred mainly in demersal longlines (0.07 birds fishing event-1), followed by purse seines (0.02 birds fishing event-1) and bottom gillnets (0.01 birds fishing event-1). Nevertheless, the bird scaring device caused birds to interact less with the vessel (the presence of gulls was reduced by 11%), thus decreasing the likelihood of bycatch. This device has proved to be low-cost (representing less than 5% income of a single day’s landings) and easy to implement, being also well accepted by purse seine fishermen. It was not possible to evaluate the efficacy of high contrast panels and black hooks, as no bycatch events were recorded during trials.

Determinants of child Labour use among rural household crop farmers in Anambra State of Nigeria were studied. A multistage random sampling technique was used to select one hundred (100) respondents for the detailed study. A structured questionnaire was used to elicit information from the respondents for the study. Percentage response was used to capture objective i and iii. Objective ii was capture using Probit model analysis. The result showed that majority of the respondents were married, youthful, had moderate household size, educated and highly experienced in farming. The determinant factors to the use of child labour among rural household were relationship between the child and household heads, access to credit and educational level. The major operations accomplished by the children in the study area were bird scaring, fertilizer application and planting. The child right act should be enforced by appropriate government agencies and the offenders brought to book, free education to all children and social mobilization on change of attitude to use of child labour were recommended. Keywords; Determinants, Child Labour, Crop Production, Anambra State, Nigeria

The world populationsupposed to reach 9.8 billion by 2050 and is difficult of feed such population . So for feeding the entire population the agriculture sector should be embed with IOT and farmers also should adopt this technology [1]. It is essential to increase the productivity of farming and agricultural process with the help of technologies like IoT.IoT can make farming easier by reducing the cost by decreasing the intervention of farmers in this field through automation. This paper aim is to develop a self- autonomous agriculture system works by connecting physical devices and systems to the internet. IoT is a very promising technology to drive the agricultural sector, it is the backbone for sustainable development mainly in developing countriesthat are experiencing rapid population growth like China, India etc, stressed natural resources, agricultural productivity reduction due to climate change. Hence the paper aims at making the agriculture smart using IoT technologies. The projects include a GPS based robot to perform tasks like weeding, spraying, moisture sensing, bird scaring, keeping vigilance, etc. This project requires smart irrigation with smart control and best decision making based on accurate real time data. Thisincludes crop management, waste management, warehouse management, theft control etc. Controlling of all the operations will be through a remote smart device like phone or computer connected to Internet and the operations will be performed by using sensors, Wi-Fi or ZigBee modules, cellular, LoRa,camera and actuators with micro-controller and raspberry pi [2]

ABSTRACT The immune modulatory protein herpes virus entry mediator (HVEM) is one of several cellular receptors used by herpes simplex virus 1 (HSV-1) for cell entry. HVEM binds to HSV-1 glycoprotein D (gD) but is not necessary for HSV-1 replication in vitro or in vivo. Previously, we showed that although HSV-1 replication was similar in wild-type (WT) control and HVEM−/− mice, HSV-1 does not establish latency or reactivate effectively in mice lacking HVEM, suggesting that HVEM is important for these functions. It is not known whether HVEM immunomodulatory functions contribute to latency and reactivation or whether its binding to gD is necessary. We used HVEM−/− mice to establish three transgenic mouse lines that express either human WT HVEM or human or mouse HVEM with a point mutation that ablates its ability to bind to gD. Here, we show that HVEM immune function, not its ability to bind gD, is required for WT levels of latency and reactivation. We further show that HVEM binding to gD does not affect expression of the HVEM ligands BTLA, CD160, or LIGHT. Interestingly, our results suggest that binding of HVEM to gD may contribute to efficient upregulation of CD8α but not PD1, TIM-3, CTLA4, or interleukin 2 (IL-2). Together, our results establish that HVEM immune function, not binding to gD, mediates establishment of latency and reactivation. IMPORTANCE HSV-1 is a common cause of ocular infections worldwide and a significant cause of preventable blindness. Corneal scarring and blindness are consequences of the immune response induced by repeated reactivation events. Therefore, HSV-1 therapeutic approaches should focus on preventing latency and reactivation. Our data suggest that the immune function of HVEM plays an important role in the HSV-1 latency and reactivation cycle that is independent of HVEM binding to gD.

UL20, an essential HSV-1 protein, is involved in cytoplasmic envelopment of virions and virus egress. We reported recently that UL20 can bind to a host protein encoded by the zinc finger DHHC-type containing 3 (ZDHHC3) gene (also known as Golgi-specific DHHC zinc finger protein {GODZ}). Here, we show for the first time that HSV-1 replication is compromised in murine embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) isolated from GODZ-/-mice. The absence of GODZ resulted in reduced palmitoylation of UL20 and altered localization, expression of UL20 and gK; the expression of gB and gC; and the localization and expression of tegument and capsid proteins within HSV-1-infected MEFs. Electron microscopy revealed that the absence of GODZ limited the maturation of virions at multiple steps, and affected the localization of virus and endoplasmic reticulum morphology. Virus replication in the eyes of ocularly HSV-1 infected GODZ-/-mice was significantly lower than in HSV-1 infected WT mice. The levels of UL20, gK and gB transcripts in the corneas of HSV-1 infected GODZ-/-mice on day 5 post infection were markedly lower than in WT mice, whereas only UL20 transcripts were reduced in trigeminal ganglia (TG). In addition, HSV-1-infected GODZ-/-mice showed notably lower levels of corneal scarring, and HSV-1 latency/reactivation was also reduced. Thus, normal HSV-1 infectivity and viral pathogenesis is critically dependent on GODZ-mediated palmitoylation of viral UL20.IMPORTANCEHSV-1 infection is widespread. Ocular infection can cause corneal blindness; however, approximately 70-90% of American adults exposed to the virus show no clinical symptoms. In this study, we show for the first time that the absence of a zinc finger protein called GODZ affects primary and latent infection as well as reactivation in ocularly infected mice. The reduced virus infectivity is due to the absence of the GODZ interaction with HSV-1 UL20. These results strongly suggest that binding of UL20 to GODZ promotes virus infectivityin vitroand viral pathogenesisin vivo.

We ask you now, reader, to put your mind, as a citizen of the Australian Commonwealth, to the facts presented in these pages. We ask you to study the problem, in the way that we present the case, from the Aborigines’ point of view. We do not ask for your charity; we do not ask you to study us as scientific-freaks. Above all, we do not ask for your “protection”. No, thanks! We have had 150 years of that! We ask only for justice, decency, and fair play. (Patten and Ferguson 3-4) Jack Patten and William Ferguson’s above declaration on “Plain Speaking” in Aborigines Claim Citizenship Rights! A Statement of the Case for the Aborigines Progressive Association (1938), outlining Aboriginal Australians view of colonisation and the call for Aboriginal self-determinacy, will be my guiding framework in writing this paper. I ask you to study the problem, as it is presented, from the viewpoint of an Indigenous woman who seeks to understand how “sorry” has been uttered in political domains as a word divorced from the moral freight attached to a history of “degrading, humiliating and exterminating” Aboriginal Australians (Patten and Ferguson 11). I wish to argue that the Opposition leader’s utterance of “sorry” in his 13 February 2008 “We Are Sorry – Address to Parliament” was an indicator of the insidious ways in which colonisation has treated Aboriginal Australians as less than, not equal to, white Australians and to examine the ways in which this particular utterance of the word “sorry” is built on longstanding colonial frameworks that position ‘the Aborigine’ as peripheral in the representation of a national identity – a national identity that, as shown by the transcript of the apology, continues to romanticise settler values and ignore Indigenous rights. Nelson’s address tries to disassociate the word “sorry” from any moral attachment. The basis of his address is on constructing a national identity where all injustices are equal. In offering this apology, let us not create one injustice in our attempts to address another. (Nelson) All sorrys are equal, but some are more equal than others. Listening to Nelson’s address, words resembling those of Orwell’s ran through my head. The word “sorry” in relation to Indigenous Australians has taken on cultural, political, educational and economic proportions. The previous government’s refusal to utter the word was attached to the ways in which formations of rhetorically self-sufficient arguments of practicality, equality and justice “functioned to sustain and legitimate existing inequalities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Australia” (Augoustinos, LeCouteur and Soyland 105). How then, I wondered as I nervously waited for Nelson to begin apologising, would he transform this inherited collective discursive practice of legitimised racism that upheld mainstream Australia’s social reality? The need for an apology, and the history of political refusal to give it, is not a simple classification of one event, one moment in history. The ‘act’ of removing children is not a singular, one-off event. The need to do, the justification and rationalisation of the doing and what that means now, the having done, as well as the impact on those that were left behind, those that were taken, those that were born after, are all bound up in this particular “sorry”. Given that reluctance of the previous government to admit injustices were done and still exist, this utterance of the word “sorry” from the leader of the opposition precariously sat between freely offering it and reluctantly giving it. The above quote from Nelson, and its central concern of not performing any injustice towards mainstream Australia (“let us not” [my italics]) very definitely defines this sorry in relation to one particular injustice (the removing of Indigenous children) which therefore ignores the surrounding and complicit colonialist and racist attitudes, policies and practices that both institutionalised and perpetuated racism against Australia’s Indigenous peoples. This comment also clearly articulates the opposition’s concern that mainstream Australia not be offended by this act of offering the word “sorry”. Nelson’s address and the ways that it constructs what this “sorry” is for, what it isn’t for, and who it is for, continues to uphold and legitimate existing inequalities between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. From the very start of Nelson’s “We Are Sorry – Address to Parliament”, two specific clarifications were emphasised: the “sorry” was directed at a limited time period in history; and that there is an ‘us’ and a ‘them’. Nelson defines this distinction: “two cultures; one ancient, proud and celebrating its deep bond with this land for some 50,000 years. The other, no less proud, arrived here with little more than visionary hope deeply rooted in gritty determination to build an Australian nation.” This cultural division maintains colonising discourses that define and label, legitimate and exclude groups and communities. It draws from the binary oppositions of self and other, white and black, civilised and primitive. It maintains a divide between the two predominant ideas of history that this country struggles with and it silences those in that space in between, ignoring for example, the effects of colonisation and miscegenation in blurring the lines between ‘primitive’ and ‘civilised’. Although acknowledging that Indigenous Australians inhabited this land for a good few thousand decades before the proud, gritty, determined visionaries of a couple of hundred years ago, the “sorry” that is to be uttered is only in relation to “the first seven decades of the 20th century”. Nelson establishes from the outset that any forthcoming apology, on behalf of “us” – read as non-Indigenous Anglo-Australians – in reference to ‘them’ – “those Aboriginal people forcibly removed” – is only valid for the “period within which these events occurred [which] was one that defined and shaped Australia”. My reading of this sectioning of a period in Australia’s history is that while recognising that certain colonising actions were unjust, specifically in this instance the removal of Indigenous children, this period of time is also seen as influential and significant to the growth of the country. What this does is to allow the important colonial enterprise to subsume the unjust actions by the colonisers by other important colonial actions. Explicit in Nelson’s address is that this particular time frame saw the nation of Australia reach the heights of achievements and is a triumphant period – an approach which extends beyond taking the highs with the lows, and the good with the bad, towards overshadowing any minor ‘unfortunate’ mistakes that might have been made, ‘occasionally’, along the way. Throughout the address, there are continual reminders to the listeners that the “us” should not be placed at a disadvantage in the act of saying “sorry”: to do so would be to create injustice, whereas this “sorry” is strictly about attempting to “address another”. By sectioning off a specific period in the history of colonised Australia, the assumption is that all that happened before 1910 and all that happened after 1970 are “sorry” free. This not only ignores the lead up to the official policy of removal, how it was sanctioned and the aftermath of removal as outlined in The Bringing Them Home Report (1997); it also prevents Indigenous concepts of time from playing a legitimate and recognised role in the construct of both history and society. Aboriginal time is cyclical and moves around important events: those events that are most significant to an individual are held closer than those that are insignificant or mundane. Aleksendar Janca and Clothilde Bullen state that “time is perceived in relation to the socially sanctioned importance of events and is most often identified by stages in life or historic relevance of events” (41). The speech attempts to distinguish between moments and acts in history: firmly placing the act of removing children in a past society and as only one act of injustice amongst many acts of triumph. “Our generation does not own these actions, nor should it feel guilt for what was done in many, but not all cases, with the best of intentions” (Nelson). What was done is still being felt by Indigenous Australians today. And by differentiating between those that committed these actions and “our generation”, the address relies on a linear idea of time, to distance any wrongdoing from present day white Australians. What I struggle with here is that those wrongdoings continue to be felt according to Indigenous concepts of time and therefore these acts are not in a far away past but very much felt in the present. The need to not own these actions further entrenches the idea of separateness between Indigenous Australia and non-Indigenous Australia. The fear of being guilty or at blame evokes notions of wrong and right and this address is at pains not to do that – not to lay blame or evoke shame. Nelson’s address is relying on a national identity that has historically silenced and marginalised Indigenous Australians. If there is no blame to be accepted, if there is no attached shame to be acknowledged (“great pride, but occasionally shame” (Nelson)) and dealt with, then national identity is implicitly one of “discovery”, peaceful settlement and progress. Where are the Aboriginal perspectives of history in this idea of a national identity – then and now? And does this mean that colonialism happened and is now over? State and territory actions upon, against and in exclusion of Indigenous Australians are not actions that can be positioned as past discriminations; they continue today and are a direct result of those that preceded them. Throughout his address, Nelson emphasises the progressiveness of “today” and how that owes its success to the “past”: “In doing so, we reach from within ourselves to our past, those whose lives connect us to it and in deep understanding of its importance to our future”. By relying on a dichotomous approach – us and them, white and black, past and present – Nelson emphasises the distance between this generation of Australia and any momentary unjust actions in the past. The belief is that time moves on – away from the past and towards the future. That advancement, progression and civilisation are linear movements, all heading towards a more enlightened state. “We will be at our best today – and every day – if we pause to place ourselves in the shoes of others, imbued with the imaginative capacity to see this issue through their eyes with decency and respect”. But where is the recognition that today’s experiences, the results of what has been created by the past, are also attached to the need to offer an apology? Nelson’s “we” (Anglo-Australians) are being asked to stop and think about how “they” (Aborigines) might see things differently to the mainstream norm. The implication here also is that “they” – members of the Stolen Generations – must be prepared to understand the position white Australia is coming from, and acknowledge the good that white Australia has achieved. Anglo-Australian pride and achievement is reinforced throughout the address as the basis on which our national identity is understood. Ignoring its exclusion and silencing of the Indigenous Australians to whom his “sorry” is directed, Nelson perpetuates this ideology here in his address: “In brutally harsh conditions, from the small number of early British settlers our non Indigenous ancestors have given us a nation the envy of any in the world”. This gift of a nation where there was none before disregards the acts of invasion, segregation, protection and assimilation that characterise the colonisation of this nation. It also reverts to romanticised settler notions of triumph over great adversities – a notion that could just as easily be attached to Indigenous Australians yet Nelson specifically addresses “our non Indigenous ancestors”. He does add “But Aboriginal Australians made involuntary sacrifices, different but no less important, to make possible the economic and social development of our modern [my emphasis] Australia.” Indigenous Australians certainly made voluntary sacrifices, similar to and different from those made by non Indigenous Australians (Indigenous Australians also went to both World Wars and fought for this nation) and a great deal of “our modern” country’s economic success was achieved on the backs of Blackfellas (Taylor 9). But “involuntary sacrifices” is surely a contradiction in terms, either intellectually shoddy or breathtakingly disingenuous. To make a sacrifice is to do it voluntarily, to give something up for a greater good. “Involuntary sacrifices”, like “collateral damage” and other calculatedly cold-blooded euphemisms, conveniently covers up the question of who was doing what to whom – of who was sacrificed, and by whom. In the attempt to construct a basis of equal contribution between Indigenous and non-Indigenous, as well as equal acts of struggle and triumphing, Nelson’s account of history and nation building draws from the positioning of the oppressors but tries to suppress any notion of racial oppression. It maintains the separateness of Indigenous experiences of colonisation from the colonisers themselves. His reiteration that these occasional acts of unjustness came from benevolent and charitable white Australians privileges non-Indigenous ways of knowing and doing over Indigenous ones and attempts to present them as untainted and innate as opposed to repressive, discriminatory and racist. We honour those in our past who have suffered and all those who have made sacrifices for us by the way we live our lives and shape our nation. Today we recommit to do so – as one people. (Nelson) The political need to identify as “one people” drives assimilation policies (the attitude at the very heart of removing Aboriginal children on the basis that they were Aboriginal and needed to be absorbed into one society of whites). By honouring everyone, and therefore taking the focus off any act of unjustness by non-Indigenous peoples on Indigenous peoples, Nelson’s narrative again upholds an idea of contemporary national identity that has not only romanticised the past but ignores the inequalities of the present day. He spends a good few hundred words reminding his listeners that white Australia deserves to maintain its hard won position. And there is no doubt he is talking to white Australia – his focus is on Western constructs of patriotism and success. He reverts to settler/colonial discourse to uphold ideas of equity and access: These generations considered their responsibilities to their country and one another more important than their rights. They did not buy something until they had saved up for it and values were always more important than value. Living in considerably more difficult times, they had dreams for our nation but little money. Theirs was a mesh of values enshrined in God, King and Country and the belief in something greater than yourself. Neglectful indifference to all they achieved while seeing their actions in the separations only, through the values of our comfortable, modern Australia, will be to diminish ourselves. In “the separations only…” highlights Nelson’s colonial logic, which compartmentalises time, space, people and events and tries to disconnect one colonial act from another. The ideology, attitudes and policies that allowed the taking of Indigenous children were not separate from all other colonial and colonising acts and processes. The desire for a White Australia, a clear cut policy which was in existence at the same time as protection, removal and assimilation policies, cannot be disassociated from either the taking of children or the creation of this “comfortable, modern Australia” today. “Neglectful indifference to all they achieved” could aptly be applied to Indigenous peoples throughout Australian history – pre and post invasion. Where is the active acknowledgment of the denial of Indigenous rights so that “these generations [of non-Indigenous Australians could] consider their responsibilities to their country and one another more important than their rights”? Nelson adheres to the colonialist national narrative to focus on the “positive”, which Patrick Wolfe has argued in his critique of settler colonialism, is an attempt to mask disruptive moments that reveal the scope of state and national power over Aboriginal Australians (33). After consistently reinforcing the colonial/settler narrative, Nelson’s address moves on to insert Indigenous Australians into a well-defined and confined space within a specific chapter of that narrative. His perfunctory overview of the first seven decades of the 20th century alludes to Protection Boards and Reserves, assimilation policies and Christianisation, all underlined with white benevolence. Having established the innocent, inherently humane and decent motivations of “white families”, he resorts to appropriating Indigenous people’s stories and experiences. In the retelling of these stories, two prominent themes in Nelson’s text become apparent. White fellas were only trying to help the poor Blackfella back then, and one need only glance at Aboriginal communities today to see that white fellas are only trying to help the poor Blackfella again. It is reasonably argued that removal from squalor led to better lives – children fed, housed and educated for an adult world of [sic] which they could not have imagined. However, from my life as a family doctor and knowing the impact of my own father’s removal from his unmarried teenaged mother, not knowing who you are is the source of deep, scarring sorrows the real meaning of which can be known only to those who have endured it. No one should bring a sense of moral superiority to this debate in seeking to diminish the view that good was being sought to be done. (Nelson) A sense of moral superiority is what motivates colonisation: it is what motivated the enforced removal of children. The reference to “removal from squalor” is somewhat reminiscent of the 1909 Aborigines Protection Act. Act No. 25, 1909, section 11(1) which states: The board may, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Apprentices Act, 1901, by indenture bind or cause to be bound the child of any aborigine, or the neglected child of any person apparently having an admixture of aboriginal blood in his veins, to be apprenticed to any master, and may collect and institute proceedings for the recovery of any wages payable under such indenture, and may expend the same as the board may think fit in the interest of the child. Every child so apprenticed shall be under the supervision of the board, or of such person that may be authorised in that behalf by the regulations. (144) Neglect was often defined as simply being Aboriginal. The representation that being removed would lead to a better life relies on Western attitudes about society and culture. It dismisses any notion of Indigenous rights to be Indigenous and defines a better life according to how white society views it. Throughout most of the 1900s, Aboriginal children that were removed to experience this better life were trained in positions of servants. Nelson’s inclusion of his own personal experience as a non Indigenous Australian who has experienced loss and sorrow sustains his textual purpose to reduce human experiences to a common ground, an equal footing – to make all injustices equal. And he finishes the paragraph off with the subtle reminder that this “sorry” is only for “those” Aboriginal Australians that were removed in the first seven decades of last century. After retelling the experience of one Indigenous person as told to the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, he retells the experience of an Indigenous woman as told to a non-Indigenous man. The appropriate protocols concerning the re-using of Indigenous knowledge and intellectual copyright appeared to be absent in this address. Not only does the individual remain unacknowledged but the potential for misappropriating Indigenous experiences for non Indigenous purposes is apparent. The insertion of the story dismisses the importance of the original act of telling, and the significance of the unspeakable through decades of silence. Felman presents the complexities of the survivor’s tale: “the victim’s story has to overcome not just the silence of the dead but the indelible coercive power of the oppressor’s terrifying, brutal silencing of the surviving, and the inherent speechless silence of the living in the face of an unthinkable, unknowable, ungraspable event” (227). In telling this story Nelson unravelled the foundation of equality he had attempted to resurrect. And his indication towards current happenings in the Northern Territory only served to further highlight the inequities that Indigenous peoples continue to face, resist and surpass. Nelson’s statement that “separation was then, and remains today, a painful but necessary part of public policy in the protection of children” is another reminder of the “indelible coercive power of the oppressor’s terrifying” potential to repeat history. The final unmasking of the hypocritical and contested nature of Nelson’s national ideology and narrative is in his telling of the “facts” – the statistics concerning Indigenous life expectancy, Indigenous infant mortality rates, “diabetes, kidney disease, hospitalisation of women from assault, imprisonment, overcrowding, educational underperformance and unemployment”. These statistics are a result not of what Nelson terms “existential aimlessness” (immediately preceding paragraph) but of colonisation – theft of land, oppression, abuse, discrimination, and lack of any rights whether citizenship or Aboriginal. These contemporary experiences of Indigenous peoples are the direct linear result of the last two hundred years of white nation building. The address is concluded with mention of Neville Bonner, portrayed here as the perfect example of what reading, writing, expressing yourself with dignity and treating people with decency and courtesy can achieve. Bonner is presented as the ‘ideal’ Blackfella, a product of the assimilation period: he could read and write and was dignified, decent and courteous (and, coincidentally, Liberal). The inclusion of this reference to Bonner in the address may hint at the “My best friend is an Aborigine” syndrome (Heiss 71), but it also provides a discursive example to the listener of the ways in which ‘equalness’ is suggested, assumed, privileged or denied. It is a reminder, in the same vein of Patten and Ferguson’s fights for rights, that what is equal has always been apparent to the colonised. Your present official attitude is one of prejudice and misunderstanding … we are no more dirty, lazy stupid, criminal, or immoral than yourselves. Also, your slanders against our race are a moral lie, told to throw all the blame for your troubles on to us. You, who originally conquered us by guns against our spears, now rely on superiority of numbers to support your false claims of moral and intellectual superiority. After 150 years, we ask you to review the situation and give us a fair deal – a New Deal for Aborigines. The cards have been stacked against us, and we now ask you to play the game like decent Australians. Remember, we do not ask for charity, we ask for justice. Nelson quotes Bonner’s words that “[unjust hardships] can only be changed when people of non Aboriginal extraction are prepared to listen, to hear what Aboriginal people are saying and then work with us to achieve those ends”. The need for non-Indigenous Australians to listen, to be shaken out of their complacent equalness appears to have gone unheard. Fiumara, in her philosophy of listening, states: “at this point the opportunity is offered for becoming aware that the compulsion to win is due less to the intrinsic difficulty of the situation than to inhibitions induced by a non-listening language that prevents us from seeing that which would otherwise be clear” (198). It is this compulsion to win, or to at least not be seen to be losing that contributes to the unequalness of this particular “sorry” and the need to construct an equal footing. This particular utterance of sorry does not come from an acknowledged place of difference and its attached history of colonisation; instead it strives to create a foundation based on a lack of anyone being positioned on the high moral ground. It is an irony that pervades the address considering it was the coloniser’s belief in his/her moral superiority that took the first child to begin with. Nelson’s address attempts to construct the utterance of “sorry”, and its intended meaning in this specific context, on ‘equal’ ground: his representation is that we are all Australians, “us” and ‘them’ combined, “we” all suffered and made sacrifices; “we” all deserve respect and equal acknowledgment of the contribution “we” all made to this “enviable” nation. And therein lies the unequalness, the inequality, the injustice, of this particular “sorry”. This particular “sorry” is born from and maintains the structures, policies, discourses and language that led to the taking of Indigenous children in the first place. In his attempt to create a “sorry” that drew equally from the “charitable” as well as the “misjudged” deeds of white Australia, Nelson’s “We Are Sorry – Address to Parliament” increased the experiences of inequality. Chow writes that in the politics of admittance the equal depends on “acceptance by permission … and yet, being ‘admitted’ is never simply a matter of possessing the right permit, for validation and acknowledgment must also be present for admittance to be complete” (36-37). References Augoustinos, Martha, Amanda LeCouteur, and John Soyland. “Self-Sufficient Arguments in Political Rhetoric: Constructing Reconciliation and Apologizing to the Stolen Generations.” Discourse and Society 13.1 (2002): 105-142.Bringing Them Home: National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1997.Aborigines Protection Act 1909: An Act to Provide for the Protection and Care of Aborigines; To Repeal the Supply of Liquors Aborigines Prevention Act; To Amend the Vagrancy Act, 1902, and the Police Offences (Amendment) Act, 1908; And for Purposes Consequent Thereon or Incidental Thereto. Assented to 20 Dec. 1909. Digital Collections: Books and Serial, National Library of Australia. 24 Mar. 2008 < http://www.nla.gov.au/apps/cdview?pi=nla.aus-vn71409-9x-s1-v >.Chow, Rey. “The Politics of Admittance: Female Sexual Agency, Miscegenation and the Formation of Community in Frantz Fanon.” In Anthony C. Alessandrini, ed. Frantz Fanon: Critical Perspectives. London: Routledge, 1999. 34-56.Felman, Shoshana. “Theaters of Justice: Arendt in Jerusalem, the Eichmann Trial and the Redefinition of Legal Meaning in the Wake of the Holocaust.” Critical Inquiry 27.2 (2001): 201-238.Fiumara, Gemma Corradi. The Other Side of Language: A Philosophy of Listening. London and New York: Routledge, 2006.Heiss, Anita. I’m Not a Racist But… UK: Salt Publishing, 2007.Janca, Aleksandar, and Clothilde Bullen. “Aboriginal Concept of Time and Its Mental Health Implications.” Australian Psychiatry 11 (Supplement 2003): 40-44.Nelson, Brendan. “We Are Sorry – Address to Parliament.” 14 Feb. 2008 < http://www.liberal.org.au/info/news/detail/20080213_ WearesorryAddresstoParliament.php >.Patten, Jack, and William Ferguson. Aborigines Claim Citizen Rights! A Statement for the Aborigines Progressive Association. Sydney: The Publicist, 1938.Taylor, Martin, and James Francis. Bludgers in Grass Castles: Native Title and the Unpaid Debts of the Pastoral Industry. Chippendale: Resistance Books, 1997.William, Ross. “‘Why Should I Feel Guilty?’ Reflections on the Workings of White-Aboriginal Relations.” Australian Psychologist 35.2 (2000): 136-142.Wolfe, Patrick. Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event. London and New York: Cassell, 1999.