----- Original Message -----

From: JR
To: Lindsay, Peter (MP)
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 8:22 PM
Subject: Spam .....

The Hon Peter Lindsay,                                              
Member for Herbert,                                                          
Parliament House,
CANBERRA.  
ACT.   2600.                                          February
23, 2006. 
 

Dear Peter, 

I must say that I was devastated
to receive your email letter earlier today, wherein you advised me that you no
longer wished to receive my email messages because “they take too long to open
& waste time” & “the content is not useful to you as a member of
Parliament". 

You will be pleased to know that
there are a number of courses available that could help you to learn how to
open your emails more quickly. If you’d like, I could recommend a couple of
these for your consideration? 

As to content ….. well, yes, I
can understand your concern. It must be difficult having to confront the same
kind of embarrassing messages day-in & day-out: messages that lampoon your
government & highlight its dishonesty, deceit & incompetence.  

You certainly have my sympathies.
 

Frankly, if I were in your shoes,
I wouldn’t want to be constantly reminded of my association with a bunch of
incompetent dills either. It certainly must disrupt your peaceful enjoyment of
the massive 80 days a year that you have to set aside to hold-down the awesome
challenges of your job. How is Palm Island going by the way? 

I’m not certain whether your note
was actually sent in jest or by an over-zealous, anonymous lackey & would
appreciate your clarifying that for me, as you say that your request is made
“under the Spam Act” & that “Failure to remove (your) name will leave (me)
open to prosecution and penalty”. 

Now Peter, I know I’m not the
sharpest shovel in the shed but if you are referring to the Spam Act 2003, I
understand that that particular legislation pertains to unsolicited “commercial
electronic messages”, “that offer to supply goods or services, or which
advertise goods and services, land or business investment opportunities, or
which direct the recipient to a location where goods & services are sold or
advertised, or which are to assist or enable a person to dishonestly obtain
property, financial advantage or gain from another person”. 

My messages might be a lot of
things Peter, including unappreciated, but I certainly don’t believe they are
“spam”, as defined by the Spam Act 2003.  

As a member of Parliament at the
time this legislation was passed (indeed, you were probably told to vote for
it), I’m astonished that you are apparently ignorant of its scope &
purpose: all the more-so given your willingness to threaten people with
prosecution for allegedly breaching provisions of a law which I believe doesn’t
exist. But then, that’s one of the hallmarks of your government isn’t it Peter:
advocating the rule of law, provided it’s a law, real or imagined, that suits
your political convenience? 

I’m also not sure whether it’s
actually legal to threaten people with prosecution & penalties without
grounds & whether it’s legal to send electronic messages containing such
threats. Indeed, I suspect that it’s actually illegal to do either. But don’t
worry, I’ll refer your letter to the Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock, who is
well known to me, & the Minister for Communications, Information Technology
and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan, for clarification & l’Il get back to
you on that. 

In the meantime, I want to say
that I think that it’s a great shame that our relationship has to end on such a
sour note. Had you written to me & explained that you had simply grown
tired of our dalliance, I would have reluctantly but immediately obliged your
request, with regret. 

I’ll be back in touch soon Peter.

Sincerely,

John Richardson.

CC:    The Attorney-General, the Hon Philip Ruddock MP

The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator the Hon Helen Coonan