Colonialism and Immigration Restriction Act of 1901

Colonialism and Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 Alan Taylor Are Colonialism and the â€Å"Immigration Restriction Act of 1901† really dead in Australia? In this essay I will propose that colonialism and the ‘Immigration Restriction Act aka White Australia policy’,[1] are not dead, not just yet anyway. I will briefly outline some of the tensions in the community which led to the implementation of this policy in 1901. I will also investigate how the media of the day helped this policy along. I will then go on to explain how this policy, which was enacted to stop non Europeans entering Australia, effected the Indigenous population throughout the life of said policy. I will then go on to see if some points from this policy are being revived in today’s political environment, or is it just coincidence that these new legislations seem to align themselves with the White Australia policy of yesteryear. Also I will briefly examine if these new policies breach the ‘Human Rights Act’. One in particular, Operation Sovereign Borders,[2] designed to stop refugees entering the country illegally. By the end if this es say I should be able to answer the question posed above. The Immigration Restriction Act was the main component of a package of legislation acknowledged by the new Federal Parliament in 1901. It was premeditated to exclude all non-European migrants and also the Indigenous population who were deemed as not being Australian. This package also incorporated the ‘Pacific Islander Labourers Act and Section 15 of the 1901 Post and Telegraph Act’,[3] which provided that ships hauling Australian mail, and therefore funded by the Commonwealth, should provide work for white labour only.[4] The attitudes were in line with Australian nationalism of the late 1800s. And was a move to control non-European immigration to most of the Australian colonies dating back to the 1850s. The beginning of the White Australia policy began with the mining boom of the 1850s. The white miners anger towards the hard-working Chinese diggers ended in violence in Victoria and New South Wales. These two colonies governments initiated restraints on the immigration of Chinese people. Later, it was the turn of hard-working indentured labourers from the Pacific South Sea Islands known as Kanakas in the northern region of Queensland. The employees of factories in the south became strongly opposed to all forms of immigration which might threaten their employ; predominantly by non-white people who they thought would accept an inferior standard of living and also would work for lower wages. A number of influential Queenslanders felt that they would be expelled from the impending Federation if the Kanaka trade did not stop. Leading NSW and Victorian politicians advised that there would be no place for Asiatics or coloureds in the Australia of the future. In 1901, the new federal government voted for an Act ending the employment of Pacific Islanders and other non-white people. The Immigration Restriction Act 1901 obtained royal approval on the 23rd December1901. It was depicted as an Act to deliver certain limitations on immigration and for the removal from the Commonwealth of forbidden immigrants. The Act banned from immigration those considered to be insane, anyone expected to become a burden upon the public or upon any public or charitable institution. This also included any person suffering from an infectious or contagious disease of a loathsome or dangerous character. Other limitations put in place included a dictation test which was used to eliminate certain aspirants by entailing them to pass a written test. Often these tests were carried out in a language that the aspirant was not familiar with and had been selected by an immigration officer. With these strict measures in place the enactment of the White Australia policy was w armly applauded by most sections of the community. In 1919 the Prime Minister, William Morris Hughes, hailed it as the greatest thing we have achieved.[5] The Immigration Restriction Act demonstrates Australias stance toward immigration from federation until the later part of the 20th century, which preferred applicants from certain countries, most of these applicants were mainly of European nationality. The abolition of this policy occurred over a period of 25 years. After the 1949 election win of the alliance between the Liberal and Country parties, Immigration Minister Harold Holt permitted 800 non-European refugees to stay in Australia and Japanese war brides were allowed to enter Australia. Over succeeding years Australian governments steadily dismantled the policy with the final remnants being removed in 1973 by the new Labor government. The Immigration Restriction Act 1901 represents the official adoption by Commonwealth of Australia of racist policies that resulted in a form of immigration apartheid that grew out of racist 19th century community attitudes. Up until the middle of the20th century, these types of racist attitudes limited the Indigenous population from realizing the same rights as the white Australians. In the 1950s, many of the Indigenous population were relocated in missions where they had to abide to stringent conditions and to rely on handouts of food. A number were even forced to assimilate into white Australian society after being removed from their family homes as children, these were to become known as the stolen generations. The media throughout this period used cartoon images and headlines such as to put across the Government views on who should be allowed entry into Australia. While the policy which was enacted in 1901 to restrict the immigration of non Europeans has been dead, since 1973, I fear some components of said Policy are creeping back into today’s Policy making, in an age where we are considered to be in the post colonialism era. The measures undertaken during this period were helped along by the print media of the day, as it is today. On 21 June 2007, the Australian Government announced a ‘national emergency response to protect Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory’ from sexual abuse and family violence. This has become known as the ‘NT intervention’ or the ‘Emergency Response’.[6] The medium for the actions was the release of ‘Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse, titled Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle: ‘Little Children are Sacred’.’[7] Some parts of the ‘NT intervention’ policy, was to initiate extensive alcohol restrictions on the Aboriginal lands in the Northern Territory. The enforcing of school attendance by linking income support and family assistance payments to school attendance for all people living on Aboriginal lands and providing meals for children at school at the expense of the parents. Also the introduction of obligatory health checks for all Aboriginal children to aid in the recognizing and treating of health problems and any causes of abuse. As part of the urgent response to this emergency, there was an increase in policing levels in prescribed communities, including requesting verbal agreements from other jurisdictions to enhance NT resources, funded by the Australian Government. This was accomplished by improving authority by assigning managers of all government business to agreed communities.[8] As it stands, there is a need for considerable change for the NT intervention measures to be considered steady with Australia’s international human rights requirements. The Social Justice Report of 2007 outlined ten steps, to which I only mention a few, to modifying the intervention so that it is consistent with these obligations and ensures Indigenous individuals in Aboriginal communities in the NT equal treatment and full human dignity. In the 1990’s the Australian Government initiated Mandatory detention for Asylum seekers, under mandatory detention, any person who enters the Australian migration zone without a visa is located in a holding facility while health and security checks are carried out. At which time seemed fair. This in turn led to the Pacific Solution: 2001–2007 the Australian government policy of conveying asylum seekers to detention centres on island nations in the Pacific Ocean, while their refugee status was verified. In 2007, the Labor Party under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd discarded the Pacific Solution, by installing a more liberal asylum policy. Rudds government guaranteed to resolve all asylum claims within three months and closed the Nauru detention facility. In November 2012 Australia with the approval of Papua New Guinea opened an offshore processing facility on Manus Island, a remote location 800kms to the north of Papua New Guinea. It then started sending asylum seekers from Christmas Island, an Australian territory south of Java, to the Manus Island facility, over 4,800kms away. In July 2013 Australia then announced that all asylum seekers arriving in its territory by boat would, if they ascertain that these asylum seekers are actual refugees, would be resettled in Papua New Guinea, and not in Australia. In 2013 Amnesty International Australia released a report entitled ‘This Is Breaking People.’[9] This report looked into the Manus Island detention facility to see if the Labor government was in violation of the asylum seekers human rights. Also in the same year Amnesty International Australia also released another report entitled ‘The truth about Manus Island.’[10] They found that nearly five months into this new policy of sending the asylum seekers to Manus Island, it was clear that the Regional Resettlement Arrangement has resulted in a host of violations to their human rights. Some of the violations that they found were: ‘Asylum seekers are detained in the absence of any individualized assessment of the need for detention. Contrary to international law, the Regional Resettlement Arrangement with Papua New Guinea discriminates against asylum seekers on the basis of their means and date of arrival, treats as suspect all asylum seekers who arrive by boat, and penalizes them for their manner of arrival.’[11] One of the recommendations to fix these and other human rights violations was to: ‘Immediately review the Regional Resettlement Arrangement with Papua New Guinea and end offshore processing and the offshore detention of asylum seekers. All asylum seekers held in the Manus Island detention centre must be transferred back to Australian territory and given full access to asylum procedures in Australia.’[12] Today the Government is turning back the boats as promised with their policy Operation Sovereign Borders. ‘Operation Sovereign Borders is the Abbott governments military-led plan to combat people smugglers and treat the arrival of asylum seeker boats to Australia as a national emergency and a border protection crisis’.[13] In one cartoon from the White Australia policy era it depicts an Aboriginal looking menacing towards a landing party from England, the slogan reads ‘Trying to STOP THE BOATS’ these types of images were common under the Immigration Restriction Act. In the lead up to the 2013 Federal election, one of the slogans the then opposition party used for their campaign was ‘STOP THE BOATS’ in reference to asylum seekers arriving in Australia illegally by boat. At the very top of the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, it states: ‘To place certain restrictions on Immigration and to provide for the removal from the Commonwealth of prohibited Immigrants. [Assented to 23rd December 1901]’[14] Are these policies influenced by the long dead Immigration Restriction Act, or is it just by coincidence that they appear similar. In conclusion it seems that the Immigration Restriction Act or ‘White Australia’ policy is creeping back into today’s political and national environment, but I hope that it is just coincidence that it looks that way. We did help write the human rights charter, yet it seems that we have been in violation of this charter for some time. Also with ‘NT intervention’ policy let’s hope it does not lead to another stolen generation. As a nation we should have learnt from previous mistakes made, to strive toward a nation that can be a role model for the global community. Let us not regress to our colonial past where we were perceived as a country of racists, for we as a nation live in a post colonial world. Finally to answer the question, ‘Are Colonialism and the â€Å"Immigration Restriction Act of 1901† really dead in Australia?’ Yes I do believe these to be a thing of the past and are dead in Australia. But if the I and the people of Australia cannot be tolerant off other people and their cultures, surely we will regress back to the days of colonialism and the ways of the ‘White Australia’ policy. Bibliography Amnesty International Australia, This Is Breaking People human rights violations at Australia’s asylum seeker processing centre on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea. accessed february 20, 2014. http://www.amnesty.org.au/images/uploads/about/Amnesty_International_Manus_Island_report.pdf.. Amnesty International Australia, The truth about Manus Island: 2013 report. Accessed February 10, 2014. http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/33587/. (The truth about Manus Island: 2013 report) Australian Human Rights Commission, The Northern Territory ‘Emergency Response’ intervention – A human rights analysis. Accessed February 22, 2014. http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/social_justice/sj_report/sjreport07/pdf/chap3.pdf. Australian Human Rights Commission, Social Justice Report 2007 Chapter 3: The Northern Territory Emergency Response intervention. Accessed February 22, 2014. http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/social-justice-report-2007-chapter-3-northern-territory-emergency-response-intervention Museum of Australian Democracy, Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (Cth). Accessed February 19, 2014. http://foundingdocs.gov.au/item-did-16.html. National Communications Branch, Department of Immigration and Border Protection, Canberra, Fact Sheet 8 – Abolition of the White Australia Policy. Accessed February 09, 2014. http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/08abolition.htm. SBS. Factbox: Operation Sovereign Borders. News. http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/19/factbox-operation-sovereign-borders (accessed February 10, 2014). Thompson, Stephen. Migration Heritage Centre, Objects Through Time. Last modified 2011. (Accessed February 12, 2014) http://www.migrationheritage.nsw.gov.au/exhibition/objectsthroughtime/immigration-restriction-act/. Transcript. No. 17 of 1901. No. 17 of 1901. Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House, 1901. http://foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/cth4ii_doc_1901a.pdf. (accessed 10 Feb 2014). Other Skwirk.com. History of racist attitudes and fear, White Australia: Immigration Restriction Act 1901, Australia to 1914, SOSE: History Year 9, NSW | Online Education Home Schooling Skwirk Australia. 2014. http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-56_u-127_t-350_c-1213/history-of-racist-attitudes-and-fear/nsw/history-of-racist-attitudes-and-fear/australia-to-1914/white-australia-immigration-restriction-act-1901 (accessed 11 Feb) [1] An Act to place certain restrictions on Immigration and to provide for the removal from the Commonwealth of prohibited Immigrants (No.17 of 1901) [2] Term the Government uses instead of ‘Stop the Boats’ [3] Immigration Restriction Act 1901 (Cth) [4] Fact Sheet 8 – Abolition of the White Australia Policy [5] Fact Sheet 8 – Abolition of the White Australia Policy [6] Social Justice Report 2007 Chapter 3: The Northern Territory Emergency Response intervention [7] Northern Territory ‘Emergency Response’ intervention – A human rights analysis [8] Brough, M., (Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs), National emergency response to protect children in the NT, Media Release, 21 June 2007. [9] This Is Breaking People 2013, 3 12 [10] The truth about Manus Island: 2013 report [11] This Is Breaking People 2013, 3 [12] This Is Breaking People 2013, 4 [13] Factbox: Operation Sovereign Borders. September 19, 2013 [14] Transcript 1901, 1

Environmental issues and quality of life in Hamilton Essay

Randle Reef it positioned at Hamilton Harbor. It is regarded as a complex and the most spoiled pitch among the Canada’s areas of concern. Randle Reef pitch has huge deposits of Poly nuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in black substances. Poly nuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons are moving allover to form food chains. This area needs a priority in Hamilton in order to obey the Ecosystem of Greats Lakes region. This projects aims at lowering the disclosure for organisms at the harbor to more naughty toxic levels in the area. In 2001 environment Canada lead a Project Advisory Group (PAG) made of 17 participating firms. This helped to form consensus for a solution to give the aims for the project together with all partisan shareholders. Later on, Project Advisory Group was to give a design for solving the problem at Randle Reef. An extensive engineering enquiry was to give the design for environments evaluation. Cleaning the Randle Reef has been slow but Environmental conservatives are gaining strength slowly. Toxic levels are being reduced because this is what has ruined both plant and animal life at Hamilton. Isolation of Toxic sediments is being considered. The solution has been experiencing some flaws because perfection has not yet being achieved. Capping will consist of building up a berm around Randle Reef and sediments are to be covered by a clean fill. Contaminated sediment dredged from other sides of the Hamilton Harbour has been contained. Capping should be for the Public benefit. The size of the capping materials is to be determined together with related costs. Capping is the best way to solve te frustration caused by Randle Reef to the residents of Hamilton. Petitions were made to alert on the presence of the site at Hamilton Harbor. The coal tar had Polycyclic Aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). Tom O. 2007 Hips of carcinogenic silt are dipped at around five meters and Toxins are used to harm the aquatic animals because they are harmful. Living creatures, which cause contamination, are finished and the excretion by these creatures does not spoil the Randle reef any more. Substances used for capping bring about a neutralization effect whereby the site is considered to be not spoiled. Contamination spreads everywhere and absorption all over the water place occurs. The steel industry’s disposals need to be dealt with to avid more pollutions through emissions. Government’s supports is also noted in making efforts for ensuring that all what the Randle reef is going through is restored by reducing the rate of contamination. Funds have been invested in restoration Young J. 2007 Adequate benefits have been derived from capping and they include environment improvement, which has yielded a good public image for the Hamilton. Hamilton is a tourist destination and results of capping can be noted through increased tourist numbers. The Hamilton project has some of the departments managed by professionals and experts in the environmental science and capping, which involves putting a thin waterproof layer on the Randle reef site to reduce the penetration of contaminated materials into the site Vic E. 2007 Waste deposits from all manufacturing companies are treated before they can be disposed by water into the Randle Reef site. Most of the industries release emissions through water and such may lead to more contamination. Capping has resulted in great success in improving the life of those living around the site and health issues from these areas are not a major worry. Contaminations are substances that spoil the purity of Randle reef and make it poisonous. These spoiling substances include metals, oil grease and PAHs. Some environmental scientists argue that these substances can be removed at a low cost reducing the rate and accumulation of deposits. Tom, 2007 Heavy investment has been made towards the removal of contaminations. The Hamilton Government for the removal gives a lot of support, more than the capping because it relates to total eradication and avoidance of toxic effects of the PAHs. All the Aluminum, Antimony, lead, magnesium, Nickel, Silver, and Thallium has been extracted and recycled to produce consumer goods. Paul, 2007 Support for the removal of contamination is obtained from the Federal Government, principle Government and negotiations are in progress to get more financing for the removal of these pollution materials. All industries in the area are expected to show concern for the environment by contributing to the removal carrying out the extraction at their own cost. Those who support the removal of contamination argue that it is better than capping because some economic and financial benefits can be derived from the materials extracted. Jays, 2007 Restoration of the Randle reef entails restoring the site to the position that it was sometimes back and doing away with all what is considered to be useless to the site. Removal of around twenty thousand cubic meters of deposits in the Randle Reef site has positively been identified as the major source of restoration of the site such sediments can be treated biologically, organically or by thermal means and then recycled into saleable products. My views Both capping and removal of contamination are necessary because they contribute to the restoration of the Randle reef life to its original state and no more contamination occurs. The two methods and processes of restoration have economic gains, which yield financial benefits for all the parties involved. Support from the Federal government can only be granted if industries depositing at the Randle reef play their part. Randle Reef restoration has not been at its maximum and more efforts and funds are needed to ensure a complete success for the project. The Randle Reef has received much publicity out of the state in which it exists in a healthy environment that surround s the area. The existence of Randle reef can be considered to be extraordinary and it requires a portion of the Governments budget. Some industries, which excrete poisonous substances and mineral materials, have been very negative about Randle reef restoration. This has resulted in heavy fines by the government and the relationship between the governing authority and these companies has been spoiled. Randle restoration projects at times do not get enough funding from the governments budget and the process is delayed. Tom, 2007 Some industries and persons are not for the idea of capping or removal of contamination at all due to political reason. Politics in Hamilton have also lead to the deterioration of the Randle reef and this has created a negative image for the Hamilton community. The Do nothing is the only negative attitude towards the environmental improvement at Hamilton. Environmental issues and the quality of life in Hamilton deal with bringing back the glamour of Hamilton environment. Quality of life can only be improved if less contamination of Randle Reef is achieved through capping or removing the existing deposits of contaminated substances. Environment is said to be surrounding or where industries exist and do business. The Randle Reef at Hamilton has been created or formed by the existing industries pollution. Jim, 2007 Restoration of Randle reef will help improve the quality of life around the place and more productivity of environment. Vegetation which at times can be of economic value can not be grown around Randle reef and the situation can only be reversed if relevant authorities, organizations and industries play their part to minimize extended degradation of the Hamilton. Both capping and removal of sediments are necessary to ensure success of the restoration project.

NYSE:KKD, A Case Study of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. Financial Statements

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts was formed in 1933 when Vernon Carver Rudolph bought a doughnut shop in Kentucky. By 1937 the business had branched into a wholesale operation, supplying local grocery stores. Today, the business is owned by Krispy Kreme franchises and there are approximately 449 factory stores throughout the world.Krispy Kreme first floated on the NASDAQ in 2000 and, with a share price of $40.64, immediately gained a market capitalization of $500 million.   A year later they switched to the NYSE where they now trade under the ticker symbol KKD.In order to perform a financial analysis of Krispy Kreme we will utilize three main financial statements; the income statement, the statement of cash flow and the balance statement.The Income Statement, or profit and loss statement, will allow us to observe how much profit has been generated by KKD and will allow us to observe how profitable the business is.   Whereas the income statement reports the results from operating the busine ss over a given period of time, the balance sheet provides a picture of the firm’s value at a snapshot period in time by presenting details of its assets, liability and owner equity.Whilst an income statement reports a company’s profits this is not actually the same as their cash flows.   It is therefore important that we also look at this when analyzing the financial health and wellbeing of a company.   By looking at the free cash flows we are able to observe how much cash is available to the company after they have paid for their investments in operating capital and fixed assets.   The free cash will be the amount that is available to redistribute to the owners and creditors.The financial reports for Krispy Kreme between the years 2005 and 2007 can be found in Appendix A.   At first glance it is evident that a has been made over the last three years since their 2005 filing.   This could be potentially attributed to their rapid growth and extension that has necessitated large investments in property, plant, equipment and investments in equity method franchises.   The losses, however, have reduced from $7.2 million in 3rd quarter 2006 to $798 in the 3rd quarter of 2007 that could indicate an improvement.The operating income, excluding the $21.05 million in depreciation, of Krispy Kreme at the end of the 3rd quarter 2007 was $22.11. The company has reported an investment of 12.63 that their annual report (www.krisykreme.com) attributed to the sale of property and the reacquisition of some of the franchises.   In addition to this KKD retired some of their long debt leading to a net loss of $15.48 in financing activities.The statement of cash flows reveal a net credit to impairment and lease termination of $268,000 in the 3rd quarter of 2007, a huge shift from the charge of $5.4million of 3rd quarter 2006.   Clearly in the latter stages of 2006 a number of stores were closed or the franchises were terminated.   The third quarter 20 07 balance sheet shows that KKD had cash of $23 million and a debt of $88 million.In order to fully understand KKD’s position in the market we need to understand the data in relative terms, i.e. how is KKD performing in comparison to their competitors or similar companies. An analysis of KKD’s financial rations provides us with further insight into their operations and can allow us to better highlight their strengths and weaknesses.   The debt ratio indicates how much debt KKD are using to finance their assets.   KKD’s debt ratio discloses that the company has a debt level that matches their level of assets.   This is clearly bad news.Furthermore they have negative earnings per share ratio of -5.45.   This EPS ratio is significantly below the industry average of -2.75 will entail that it will be extremely difficult to attract new investors as they are unable to offer earnings on the investment, at the moment they are offering a loss.   In addition to t his, if the company financials do not pick up and they are forced to default there will be no return for the investors at all.The Return on Sales ratio is currently at .39.   This is also below the industry average.   Such a low ratio indicates that the sales are not equivalent to the company’s current operating expenses.However, on a positive note, the Current Ratio (an indication of the firm’s liquidity as measured by its liquid assets) of 1.71 shows some recovery and demonstrated that KKD have the resources to meet short-term obligations.One potential source of this could be cash generated by financing activities that can help to offset the unrewarded investments in finance acquisitions.   However, this is a short-term option and will not significantly offset investors concerns.KKD currently has a quick inventory turnover and averages 20 days.   This indicates that the company is managing their inventory well and is running an efficient operation with minima l waste.   In addition to this the turnover in receivable is 8 – 11 days which is much lower than one of their major competitors; Starbucks.   Their accounts payable turnover is also high relative to Satrbucks but this is probably a direct outcome of their franchise model.KKD as an investment has received a great deal of negative publicity recently and this will undoubtedly have impacted their share price.   Accusations relating to their accounting practices and the potential over inflation of profit levels will undoubtedly have lowered investor’s confidence in the company and has also triggered a number of lawsuits.Through analyzing their current financial status and taking into consideration their ongoing issues with the SEC, I would not invest in this company.Reference PageKrispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc KKD (NYSE) Full Description. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from Reuters FundamentalsWeb site: http://stocks.us.reuters.com/stocks/fullDescription.asp?symbol=KKDKrispy K reme History. Retrieved April 3, 2008, from Krispy KremeWeb site: http://www.krispykreme.com/history.htmlKrispy Kreme Quarterly Financial Report. (2007). Retrieved March 3, 2008, from Krispy KremeWeb site: http://www.krispykreme.com/investorrelations.html   

Updating Cookies in JavaScript

Actually updating a cookie is slightly different from just replacing a cookie in that the new value we want to place in the cookie is dependent in some way on whether the cookie already exists and if so on what it contains. This means that we need to read the existing cookie before we can write a replacement for it. One thing to note is that when we read a cookie we have no way of telling when the existing cookie is due to expire or whether the cookie is restricted to a specific folder or available across the entire domain. You need to set a new retention period when you replace the cookie and need to keep track of what scope you want the cookie to have within your pages so as to apply the same domain or path option each time. The only thing that you are actually able to read when updating rather than just replacing a cookie is the actual value of the data stored in the cookie. In this example, we are going to use a cookie named accesscount to count the number of times that our visitor has accessed our page where no more than seven days has elapsed between visits. Should more than seven days elapse between visits then the cookie will expire and the next visit will restart counting from zero. We are using the allCookies() and writeCookie() functions from the prior examples so the only piece of new code we need in order to actually do the update is in the last two lines. var cookie;allCookies function() {var cr, ck, cv;cr []; if (document.cookie ! ) {ck document.cookie.split(; );for (var ick.length - 1; i 0; i--) {cv ck.split();cr[ck[0]]ck[1];}}return cr;};writeCookie function(cname, cvalue, days,opt) {var dt, expires, option;if (days) {dt new Date();dt.setTime(dt.getTime()(days*24*60*60*1000));expires ; expiresdt.toGMTString();} else expires ;if (opt) {if (/ substr(opt,0,1)) option ; pathopt;else option ; domainopt;} else option ;document.cookie cnamecvalueexpiresoption;}cookie allCookies();if (cookie.accesscount ! null) writeCookie(mycookie, cookie.accesscount 1,7);else writeCookie(mycookie, 1,7);