Japanese Whaling [Archive] - Okinawa Japan Forum

Asshat

08-15-2007, 02:04 PM

I don't think "highly intelligent" should qualify a species from protection from hunting or not. Swine are highly intelligent for example and might even recognize the fact they are bred for slaughter.

No one supports whaling except for those involved with its profit, including those who hunt, and those in the GOJ who are paid off to deal with the rest of the world.

If this wasn't Japan, I would blame the consumer, but they are either ignorant of the plight, or too apathetic to give a damn. I see that a lot.

As far as "fishing" in general, (ignoring someone's morality of the issue for a moment) simply stopping fisherman for five years will do little. The halibut season for example in Oregon in 1991 cost $500 USD and lasted 24 hours.

As watersheds are destroyed by timber harvest, salmon can not spawn, and all erosion and pollution eventually find their way into the sea killing fish. Climatic change has a huge effect on the world's fisheries.

TP has made his views on animal rights well known. No matter how one feels about hunting or eating animals, as caretakers of the planet, humans should strive to protect any species from extinction, and that perhaps is also a moral view.

P_chan

08-15-2007, 03:29 PM

I don't see anything wrong with wanting to save animals. I don't think humans should just go around destorying the enviornment on purpose. However, some destruction is unavoidable. Also, I don't see a problem with an animal suffer or having to go to slaughter if that is what they were breed for.

Fonze

08-15-2007, 04:19 PM

can anybody really say if animals were as advanced and capable of doing human like things they wouldn't eat us right up

cosweetgirl

10-31-2007, 02:07 PM

I am not sure how I feel about this yet.

TheNoNamedOne

11-01-2007, 09:44 PM

I don't think "highly intelligent" should qualify a species from protection from hunting or not. Swine are highly intelligent for example and might even recognize the fact they are bred for slaughter.

I think I had missed this post from you, Umi.

In any event, I agree with your whole post, but wanted to quote the point above because I especially agree with that. "Intelligence" should not be what qualifies any being from being hunted. I did, however, used that as a marker just for the sake of not turning the thread into an AR thread.

But you are quite right, swine are quite intelligent, too -- perhaps more so than dogs. The real reason is simply what you mentioned, profit. Backing that up is just a mish mash of inconsistent reasoning and prejudice.

blacktulip

11-12-2007, 06:32 PM

I am furious. Japan has the nerve to call on our government to protect their whaling fleets from environmental groups while they hunt whales illegally in our water. This year they'll be targeting Humpback whales for the first time. I think we should send in the navy to sink them instead. I am against whaling, period.

TheNoNamedOne

11-12-2007, 06:46 PM

Perhaps the Sea Shepherd and his crew will wreak some havoc on those Japanese killers.

btw, blacktulip, are you against the Jpn hunting whale out of conservation concerns, or for some other reason? What if they did not ask for Australian security assistance and were definitely outside of Australian waters? Would you be ok with it then?

What if they could just prove that there is no worry about the whales' numbers or overhunting to lead toward extinction. Would that then convince you it is ok to kill these creatures?

Just trying to find out what the real reason you are against it.

btw, thanks for bringing this thread back to the top.

P_chan

11-12-2007, 07:36 PM

I think we should send in the navy to sink them instead.

That's the spirit, let those true ARist colors show! Kill the people who are killing the whales just because you don't like what they're doing:thumbdown: Kinda hypocritical if you ask me.

Now, I wonder who is worse, the japanese whalers for killing whales, or the activist who would rather see the whalers killed? Easy question if you ask me.

blacktulip

11-13-2007, 06:24 AM

That's the spirit, let those true ARist colors show! Kill the people who are killing the whales just because you don't like what they're doing:thumbdown: Kinda hypocritical if you ask me.

Now, I wonder who is worse, the japanese whalers for killing whales, or the activist who would rather see the whalers killed? Easy question if you ask me.

That's what we did to the Indonesian fishing boats fishing illegally in our northern coast. We take the fishermen on board, sink their boats and deport them home. The same should apply to the Japanese whaling fleets. Since when did I say kill the whalers? Please don't put words in my mouth.

The Japanese had been caught red handed whaling in the Southern Ocean, which is Australian territory (also a listed UNESCO World Heritage Site), and under Australian law, whaling is banned. You come to our country, you break the law, you should face the consequences.

Try entering Japan illegally and bludgeon their snow monkeys to death and see what will happen to you.

blacktulip

11-13-2007, 06:26 AM

P_chan

11-13-2007, 07:43 AM

Since when did I say kill the whalers?

I didn't put any words in your mouth, you left yourself open to interpratation. Well let's take a look at that. You said that your navy should sink their ships. Now, common sense would tell you that if you're on a sinking ship, there is a a high probablity of you drowning. No where in your previous post did you say the navy would take all the people off the boat before sinking it. So maybe you should be more specific and people wouldn't jump to conclusions about your motives?

Oh and why would you sink the vessel in your protected waters? After all they're protected waters and wouldn't you just be polluting the ocean with the ship wreckage? Save the whales, but pollute their habitat with wreckage and oil from the sunken ship.:thumbdown:

TheNoNamedOne

11-22-2007, 10:05 PM

That's what we did to the Indonesian fishing boats fishing illegally in our northern coast. We take the fishermen on board, sink their boats and deport them home. The same should apply to the Japanese whaling fleets. Since when did I say kill the whalers? Please don't put words in my mouth.

Yes, the Australian Navy is more than capable of boarding, apprehending, and confiscating these ships. They could easily empty whatever fuel these ships have in them and then scuttle them to create a reef for marine life to attatch itself to and flourish on.

In the meantime they can deport all these Japanese sailors back to Japan, or dump them at the Japanese embassy and tell them and its scientific whaling community to pay for their rapatriation.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

11-23-2007, 09:39 AM

Try entering Japan illegally and bludgeon their snow monkeys to death and see what will happen to you.
Though I sympathize with your position, using Japan and monkeys may not be the best example:D

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1170/is_n2_v26/ai_18246326
The concentration of macaques in shrinking forests has created what some biologists call a civil war between monkeys and humans. The conflict occurs because the monkeys, seeking food, come out of the degraded forests to raid farm crops. A macaque troop can destroy a farmer's entire harvest, so farmers try to exterminate the animals. Farmers trap thousands of monkeys yearly, and professional hunters account for many more. Biologists who study the monkeys are increasingly concerned about the primate's future.

The Japanese have destroyed most of the wildlife on their islands, and have the battle against the remaining pests well in hand.

TheNoNamedOne

11-23-2007, 11:44 AM

Science science science. Gotta kill for science. Well, at least that is the reason given for keeping traditional culinary tastes alive. Why should the rarity (or respect for the inherent value of life for that matter) of an animal get in the way of that?

Japan might kill world's only white whale (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/12/eawhale112.xml)

Australians fear that the world's only known white humpback whale could be slaughtered as Japan's whaling fleet prepares to embark on its annual hunt in the Southern Ocean.

The unique male whale, named Migaloo - an Aboriginal word for "white fella" - has become a celebrity in Australia since being spotted for the first time in 1991. ...

The Fisheries Agency in Tokyo refused to rule out killing Migaloo today, with officials offering a blunt "no comment" to media inquiries. ...

Scientists are uncertain whether Migaloo is a true albino, or simply has white pigmentation.

On the last part, scientists should promptly kill Migaloo to study him to put the question to rest. In fact, killing Migaloo should be a scientific duty of the scientists on these ocean death stars. You know -- all for science.

There. Neatly justified.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/06/16/migaloo_wideweb__430x322.jpg
http://www.migaloowhale.org/images/migaloo_alongside.jpg
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/06/whaleEPA270606_228x256.jpg
http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5542372,00.jpg
http://www.silverseries.com.au/IMAGES/migaloo_200.gif

ryukyuboi

11-23-2007, 11:55 AM

This white whale is very beautiful.

Go-Shay

11-24-2007, 05:55 PM

I disagree with the way they kill the whales regardless of their population, in addition I'm sick of the Japanese hiding behind "scientific studies" when all the information could be obtained without killing

TheNoNamedOne

11-24-2007, 07:47 PM

ryukyuboi

11-25-2007, 08:40 AM

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20071124a3.html

This link is about European aquariums boycotting Japanese goods due to their hunt for whales.

Go-Shay

11-25-2007, 10:56 AM

Go-shay, I agree with you. But, why would you still disagree to killing them if there were a large population of them? Is it just because it takes a fairly long time for them to die, and, therefore, they suffer?

What if a larger more powerful weapon could kill them instantly? Would you be ok with killing these creatures then? A lot of whales have quite curious natures and will come up very close to boats to get a good look at those onboard, who are visitors to their world, and when they bobbed up to take a peek at those on the boat to satisfy its curiosity, the whalers could blast it with the new weapon right in the face, head, or eye -- killing it instantly (of course with the new weapon I have mentioned [if we could develope it]).

Would this sit well with you? http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=36612#
Moreke
All forms of commercial fishing are wrong especially net fishing and long lining because of the fact that the smaller and or undesirable fish are already dead before you can return them to the water. Perhaps by forcing to change their kill method coupled with the cost incurred they would take smaller numbers. I think that asking them to stop completely is unrealistic at best. It will take allot of external political and economic pressure before they will listen to the world. After all the whole program is paid for by the tax payers of Japan.

Go-Shay

11-27-2007, 12:02 PM

This an interesting article on the defense of the whale hunt. I think TP will like the duality of this one

Japan defends whale hunt (http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-whaling24nov24,1,6414843.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=3&cset=true)

Go-Shay

12-06-2007, 09:53 AM

here is a day to day blog from the Esperanza (Green Peace Ship) that is currently tracking the Japanese whale fleet.

Defending Whales (weblog.greenpeace.org/whales/)

If you are not interested please just ignore. Thank you :o

TheNoNamedOne

12-06-2007, 10:42 AM

Thanks Go-Shay for posting that. Will check in on it from time to time.

Personally, I feel Greenpeace is too soft. I am in more support of Sea Shepherd. That is where the real action is.

Go-Shay

12-06-2007, 10:56 AM

Thanks Go-Shay for posting that. Will check in on it from time to time.

Personally, I feel Greenpeace is too soft. I am in more support of Sea Shepherd. That is where the real action is.

Sea Shepherd just left port (Australia) yesterday in their newly renamed ship "The Steve Irwin".

Anti-whaling group launches (mdn.mainichi.jp/international/news/20071205p2g00m0in009000c.html)

the term radical fits, these cats stop at nothing to get the message across

TheNoNamedOne

12-06-2007, 11:03 AM

the term radical fits, these cats stop at nothing to get the message across

I always chuckle when I hear these buzzwords like "radical" or "extremist" applied to orgs like Sea shepherd.

Sure isn't a calm way to die with exploding harpoons in your body from naked midget apes harrassing you in your world. Taking minutes to die and see other members of your family being killed and then strung up and gutted. Yeah, that is a pretty radical and extreme way to die.

Just who are the extremists willing to go to such lengths for their pleasures?

TheNoNamedOne

01-11-2008, 06:47 PM

Something about Japan's flag reminds me of the bloody mess women go through once a month -- on the back drop of a white bedsheet....

Oh, I am mistaken -- just a very creative activist pointing out unnecessary killing of whales and the farce of its importance -- i.e. "scientific" whaling.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5826521,00.jpg

Whaling protest staged outside Japan mission in Melbourne (http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jZMnMTu2QWVMgns0a_A_8IyppgGA)
Jan 2, 2008

MELBOURNE (AFP) — Australian anti-whaling protesters staged a demonstration outside the Japanese consulate in Melbourne Thursday, unfurling a giant Japanese flag with a woman in a pool of blood replacing the rising sun.

Protesters wearing bio-hazard suits and smeared with fake blood held signs saying "ban whaling" on the footpath outside the consulate as police looked on.

Animal Liberation Victoria (ALV) spokesman Noah Hannibal said about 250 protesters joined the demonstration against Japanese plans to kill almost 1,000 whales this year in waters off Antarctica.

Go-Shay

01-11-2008, 10:36 PM

By Junichi Sato, oceans project leader in JapanThe Japanese media also well knows that the national whaling industry is very small and that most ordinary Japanese people were either not aware of or interested in the whaling debate.

Until now, whaling has not been considered a significant national issue worthy of headline news.

The fact that whaling was a non-issue to most Japanese was reflected in a 2006 survey conducted by the Nippon Research Centre, which showed that more than 95 per cent of the public had never or very rarely eaten whale meat.

It also found that 90 per cent of Japanese people had no idea their government hunted whales in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary, and once they were aware of it, 69 per cent disagreed with it.

Japan currently has 4000 tonnes of frozen whale meat in storage, and in an attempt to get rid of the unwanted meat it is fed to schoolchildren and served free at some local festivals.

Despite the government's attempts to make eating whale meat synonymous with Japanese culture, the public just aren't interested.

Some members of the older generations who are not opposed to whaling remember how eating whale meat helped save their lives during World War II when they were starving.

These minority views are changing.

Recently, an older Japanese man wrote in to a prominent newspaper to say that perhaps it is time that Japan stopped whaling.

Due to media self-censorship and indifference among the Japanese public on the issue, a "whalers' sanctuary" has been created inside Japanese society.

It protects a small number of bureaucrats, whalers and politicians so they can enjoy vested interests in whaling and keep their nationalistic stance. All at the expense of Japanese taxpayers.

The "whalers' sanctuary" had been very hard to tackle in the past, but this year it looks quite different.

Why? Political and public pressure from all over the world, especially from Australia, created a completely different atmosphere in the debate.

The latest message that came from Australia was not communicated as anti-Japanese, rather it was focused on the facts of whaling, taking into account the science and possible economic damage to the Australian whale watching industry.

The Japanese Government had a much harder time countering such arguments with its usual defence of claiming those who are pro-whale conservation "are too emotional and denying the Japanese culture".

They have now lost their method of protecting the "whalers' sanctuary".
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/whales/2008/01/whalers_sanctuary_protects_bur.html#more
is it just me or does this sound like a bunch of sh*t and it is unfortunately coming from someone in Green Peace

TheNoNamedOne

01-11-2008, 11:49 PM

Over the last few years I have lost a lot of respect for Green Peace. Just last year they sent a mission to Japan, docked, and then had a publicity stunt of having their members eat whale meat as a way to show the Japanese that they respected their culture. Gee...wtf!

Why not head on down to a terrorist camp and join in on the beheadings to show respect for a violent culture and then protest against it the next day?

Go-Shay

01-14-2008, 01:29 PM

By RAY LILLEY, Associated Press Writer Sun Jan 13, 5:22 PM ET

WELLINGTON, New Zealand - Greenpeace said Monday it has disrupted the Japanese whale hunt off Antarctica by chasing the fleet's whale processing factory ship out of the whaling zone.

The six-vessel fleet "scattered and ran" early Saturday when it realized the Greenpeace vessel Esperanza was "heading toward them at high speed," Greenpeace expedition leader Karli Thomas told New Zealand's National Radio.

The fleet's three whale hunter vessels "can't operate without the (factory ship) Nisshin Maru there to process the kill," she added.

Greenpeace has pledged to take nonviolent action to try to stop the ships from killing whales, which in the past has led to activists in speed boats trying to put themselves between whales and Japanese harpoons, and once led to a ship collision.

A spokesman for Japan's whale hunt called Greenpeace's actions illegal and demanded it stop its disruptive actions.

"Greenpeace actions are illegal under international law (and) it's time the public stopped treating Greenpeace as heroes," Glenn Inwood, spokesman for the Institute of Cetacean Research, in Tokyo, Japan, said Monday. "It's time the public saw this fringe group for what they really are: environmental imperialists who are trying to dictate their morals to the world."

Japan dispatched its whaling fleet to the icy waters of Antarctica in November to kill about 1,000 whales under a program that Tokyo says is for scientific purposes, but which anti-whaling nations and activists say is a front for commercial whaling.

In this photo released by Greenpeace, the Japanese whaling vessel Nisshin Maru is seen from the Greenpeace ship Esperanza in the Southern Ocean near Antarctica Sunday, Jan. 13, 2008. The Esperanza drove the Japanese whaling fleet out of the Southern Ocean hunting grounds Sunday morning after a 24 hour chase, Greenpeace said. (AP Photo/Greenpeace, Jiri Rezac, HO) Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080113/ap_on_re_au_an/antarctica_whaling_1)

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-15-2008, 05:56 PM

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/425058

Court orders Japan whalers out of Australian Antarctic waters

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 16:11 EST
SYDNEY — An Australian court issued an injunction Tuesday, ordering Japanese whalers to stop killing the ocean mammals in Australian Antarctic waters. Justice James Allsop at the Federal Court found the whalers had acted illegally by targeting whales in Australia's whale sanctuary and must be restrained.

The Humane Society International argued in the court that the Japanese whaling company, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd, is breaking Australian law by hunting in a protected region of Australia's territorial claim of the Antarctic. The region is included in Australia's exclusive economic zone but is not recognized by Japan.

"This is a historic decision. The Japanese company has been whaling in Australia's territorial waters since 1987 in clear breach of Australian law. The court has confirmed that today," said Nicola Beynon, HSI Wildlife and Habitat Program manager.

It is now up to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and his government to enforce the injunction by intercepting the Japanese fleet in the Antarctic and ordering them to cease their hunt, Beynon said.

Australia's government has supported the HSI case, and before winning last November's general election, indicated it would enforce a whaling injunction if it was granted by the court.

Attorney General Robert McClelland told Sky News he welcomed the decision but ruled out using the customs vessel Oceanic Viking, which is currently in the Antarctic shadowing the whalers on behalf of the government, to enforce the injunction.

"That would not be wise. That would literally put lives at risk in a very very dangerous part of the ocean," he said.
Such a strategy would only succeed in entrenching further opposition from Japan in regards to ending the hunt, McClelland said.

HSI originally launched the court case in 2004, but the legal action was derailed in 2005 when the previous conservative Liberal-led government raised concerns an injunction could spark a major diplomatic row with Japan.

HSI won the right to continue with the case with an appeal in 2006, and the trial was finally heard in late 2007.
"It has been a long road to get here and a lot of whales have been killed while we have been in court. Now we want to see the injunction take effect immediately so we can save as many whales as possible," Beynon said.

TheNoNamedOne

01-15-2008, 06:33 PM

w00t! Get that period stained sheeted flag out of the sanctuary!!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5826521,00.jpg

Hang on Mr. Splashy. Sea Shepherd is on their way.

Go-Shay

01-15-2008, 07:07 PM

w00t! Get that period stained sheeted flag out of the sanctuary!!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5826521,00.jpg

Hang on Mr. Splashy. Sea Shepherd is on their way.

Mon Jan 14, 8:48 AM ET

SYDNEY (AFP) - The militant environmental group Sea Shepherd said Monday that it had located the Japanese whaling fleet near Antarctica and threatened to ram them if they resumed slaughtering the giant sea creatures.
ADVERTISEMENT

Paul Watson, captain of the Sea Shepherd's ship, said the leading Japanese vessel, the Nisshin Maru, was now outside the hunting area and had not killed any whales in the past 48 hours.

"I think they're running scared really," he told AFP via telephone from on board the ship.

"When we found them originally they were down by the icebergs and as we were moving in they started running and they've been running ever since."

In response to a question, Watson confirmed he would ram the Japanese fleet if his ship came upon them killing whales.

But he added: "It is something we have to do very carefully because it's very remote and rough waters down here."

Australia, which has led international opposition to the hunt, has warned environmentalists against dangerous manoeuvres in the ice-cold conditions due to the difficulty of any rescue operation.

But Watson said his group felt empowered to ram the boats because of global opposition to Japan's plans to kill 1,000 whales.

Tokyo exploits a loophole in a 1986 international moratorium on commercial whaling to kill whales for what it calls scientific research, while admitting the meat from the hunt ends up on dinner plates.

"We didn't come down here to protest, really we came down intervene and to disable them if need be," Watson said. "As long as we don't injure any of their crew. We certainly can damage their equipment."

The global environmental pressure group Greenpeace also has a vessel in the area tracking the whalers.

Karli Thomas, expedition leader on the Greenpeace ship Esperanza, said her boat had caught up with the Nisshin Maru early Saturday.

"As long as we can keep her on the run we can stop the entire fleet from catching whales," she told AFP.

Thomas said the Greenpeace activists were prepared to put their boats and themselves between the harpoons and the whales if the Nisshin Maru turned back to the hunting ground.

"We'll do anything we can within the boundaries of non-violent direct action to stop them from killing whales," she said.

Society, in Antarctic waters. The militant environmental group has located the Japanese whaling fleet near Antarctica and threatened to ram them if they resumed slaughtering the giant sea creatures.(Sea Shepherd Conservation Society)
yahoo news (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080114/ts_afp/australiajapanantarcticawhalingenvironment_0801141 34808)

can u say SWEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTT:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

TheNoNamedOne

01-15-2008, 07:25 PM

Yes, I can. SWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTTT!

TheNoNamedOne

01-15-2008, 07:43 PM

And from another just posted news article (http://news.theage.com.au/sea-shepherd-ship-catches-japan-whalers/20080115-1m38.html):

The organisation said the Steve Irwin was 11km behind the fleet with a helicopter in the air and a fast boat approaching the whalers.

"We have them on the run," ship captain Paul Watson said in statement.

"We will hound these poachers for as long as we can and when we catch up with them we will disable their equipment and do everything physically possible short of inflicting injury on the crew in order to stop their illegal activities."

Dem dar a fight'n words!

Blood red for the bloody flag!

Stay tuned for more developments...

TheNoNamedOne

01-15-2008, 08:24 PM

Check out this Youtube video of the whaler ship being rammed by Sea Shepherd last year. This is great because it was taken from the Jpn ship deck. The pirate flag of Sea Shepherd is clearly visible as it comes up on the Jpn ship.

Last year the Jpn tried to use this video to say that Sea Shepherd was wrong in this incident and tried to ram them, but when the video was shown to authorities it became quite clear that the whalers had purposely moved from a parallel position to a crossing motion right in front of the Sea Shepherd and the Sea Shepherd gives a clear warning of that danger by blasting their horns. But by then it was too late to stop the ships movement forward and the ramming happens. You can hear all the Japanese voices narrating it and after the ramming the woman voices seems to be quivering a bit.

Ha!

YouTube - Sea Shepherd Attacks Japanese Whaling fleet. Feb 12, 2007

P_chan

01-15-2008, 11:09 PM

Hmmmmmmmmmm

Go-Shay

01-16-2008, 05:51 PM

TP you need to check the news. The whalers have two of your boys tied to their mast

TheNoNamedOne

01-16-2008, 08:45 PM

Whoa! Drama on the high seas! A real life forceful ship boarding caught on film and then the activists kidnapped.

This exciting 50 second clip was just posted on Youtube showing the boarding:
YouTube - Sea Shepherd Whale Defenders Kidnap by the Japanese

and here is a report on it from an Australian station:
YouTube - 15 Jan-08 Japanese Whaling Fleet Detained Anti Whaling Crew

Two members (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article3196025.ece) of a radical environmentalist group, including a British man, remain under lock and key aboard a Japanese whaling ship as a tense stand-off in the Antarctic enters its second day.

Go get 'em Sea Shepherd! Show Greenpeace how it is done!!

Go-Shay

01-16-2008, 08:51 PM

Go get 'em Sea Shepherd! Show Greenpeace how it is done!!
to shay (sp) my brother:thumbup1:

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-16-2008, 08:52 PM

Fisheries Agency says it will release two anti-whaling activists

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 15:02 EST
TOKYO — Japan's Fisheries Agency said Wednesday it has decided to release two anti-whaling activists who have been detained after they boarded one of Japanese whaling vessels operating in the Antarctic Ocean.

The agency also said it will temporarily suspend the whaling operations until the activists are freed so that the Japanese fleet will not meet resistance again.

The agency said it has called on the anti-whaling group, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, to take back its activists.
Sea Shepherd so far has never responded possibly because it wants to vilify Japan for having taken the two hostage or it is trying to bar the Japanese whalers from resuming their work, an agency official said.

The agency now intends to notify the Australian government that it is releasing the activists.

After consulting with the relevant ministries and agencies including the Foreign Ministry, the agency has decided to free the activists — a 35-year-old British citizen and a 28-year-old Australian — after concluding that they boarded a Japanese vessel, named the Yushin Maru No. 2, in order to hand a letter of protest and that they did not intend to harm the boat.

The agency also admitted that the Japanese crew temporarily tied up the activists while they were onboard as Sea Shepherd has accused them of doing.

"It is quite deplorable to use violent tactics to sabotage legal research activities based on the international whaling convention," an agency official said.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Nobutaka Machimura also said the same day, "The Japanese government strongly condemns the dangerous act of the anti-whaling campaigners."

According to Machimura, the Sea Shepherd members threw a bottle containing liquid that was "not poisonous, but had a strong foul odor," into the Japanese boat and tried to stop it by using a rope on its propeller.

In regard to the Australian Federal Court ruling handed down Tuesday to call on the Japanese to halt their whaling operations, Machimura flatly dismissed it, calling it "unacceptable."

The ruling ordered Japan to halt whaling in the "whale sanctuary" set up by Australia along the coasts of Antarctica, but the top Japanese government spokesman said, "The international consensus is that no country has territorial jurisdiction over Antarctica."

"The ruling will have no impact on the Japanese whaling fleet's legal activities in the high seas," he added.
Commercial whaling was banned by the International Whaling Commission in 1986. But the whaling convention allows Japan to kill the mammals so long as it is for scientific purposes.

Sea Shepherd maintains that what Japan is doing is illegal and contravenes global treaties such as the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species. Japan claims that the populations of certain whale species have recovered sufficiently to warrant whaling.

The Japanese plan to kill 935 minke whales and 50 fin whales in its quota during this year's three-month season.

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/425072

P_chan

01-16-2008, 08:56 PM

TheNoNamedOne

01-16-2008, 08:56 PM

E, add some wit against the poachers for commentary!

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-16-2008, 09:00 PM

It seems the activists are better able to run interference this year. I wish them success.

TheNoNamedOne

01-16-2008, 09:00 PM

So, they say they were kidnapped and held hostage after they forcefully boarded the ship. I don't get it. That would be like if I broke into someone's house, then got pissed once they knocked me out and held me until the police got there.

Sure, if they owned the land the house sat on. Now, if the house is built illegally well... then things get a little messier.

P_chan

01-16-2008, 09:03 PM

Sure, if they owned the land the house sat on. Now, if the house is built illegally well... then things get a little messier.

It's their boat.

TheNoNamedOne

01-16-2008, 09:04 PM

It seems the activists are better able to run interference this year. I wish them success.

Up until last year they had only one ship, the Farley Mowat, which could not keep up with the Japanese ships. But last year they had raised funds to add one more ship to their org and this one is a faster one able to keep up, so I am sure that is helping them.

Like years past though, they have always had to call off their activities before the whaling ended because they could not keep enough fuel stored to stay out at sea the whole time with the Japanese fleet. I am sure at some point this year, too, they will have to call off the hunt and turn around leaving the whalers to try and catch up to their quota and missed whales due to the interference.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-16-2008, 09:06 PM

TheNoNamedOne

01-16-2008, 09:09 PM

It's their boat.

Yes, but not their ocean. If I am hiking in a sanctuary and I come across a cabin that was built by a family that did not recognize the legality of this sanctuary and were there illegally, and I broke the door open to sleep on the floor, I am pretty sure a good lawyer would put up a good defense for me against any claims of property damage, when THAT is an illegal property i.e. cabin.

If it were a mobile home illegally there, maybe it would be even more messy legally. What if that illegal mobile home were acting as a skinning and tanning headquarters for slaughtering rare wildlife in a sanctuary and I wanted to make a civilian arrest and broke the door open to apprehend the person inside?

Again, not as simple as you would like it to be or think it is.

TheNoNamedOne

01-16-2008, 09:13 PM

I think the activists were released from the harpoon vessel because one was an Aussie national. As the fleet is the Aussie exclusive economic zone, and the Aussie court just ruled the hunt illegal, Japan didn't want to chance interference from the Royal Australian Navy.

E, did the story say it had released them? I think it just said "it has decided to release them." I think Sea Shepherd is still awaiting their release.

I am sure they will be soon though. Definitely in the morning by latest.

I think this is going to be more bad PR for Japan whaling. It just sounds bad having people detained on a whaling vessel.

retributionnk

01-16-2008, 09:34 PM

Yes, but not their ocean. If I am hiking in a sanctuary and I come across a cabin that was built by a family that did not recognize the legality of this sanctuary and were there illegally, and I broke the door open to sleep on the floor, I am pretty sure a good lawyer would put up a good defense for me against any claims of property damage, when THAT is an illegal property i.e. cabin.

If it were a mobile home illegally there, maybe it would be even more messy legally. What if that illegal mobile home were acting as a skinning and tanning headquarters for slaughtering rare wildlife in a sanctuary and I wanted to make a civilian arrest and broke the door open to apprehend the person inside?

Again, not as simple as you would like it to be or think it is.

I think it is that simple. You're analogies are incorrect. Talking about a house built on a wildlife sanctuary, or even a mobile home, is much different than a ship. It seems that your arguments in this post are that the boat was somewhere illegaly, when in fact it was not. While I don't choose to debate whether or not their actions were illegal, the boat being in an exclusive economic zone is not illegal. Even if it were, an activist group has no authority to enforce international maritime laws. Therefore, I don't see these activists groups as being any less criminals than the whalers themselves.

P_chan

01-16-2008, 09:34 PM

So according to your logic I guess two wrongs make a right huh?

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-16-2008, 09:40 PM

So according to your logic I guess two wrongs make a right huh?
Actually, that's the logic of those who support torture because the enemy may use/have used it...

TheNoNamedOne

01-16-2008, 09:41 PM

So according to your logic I guess two wrongs make a right huh?

When an act is wrong, the second act to prevent the first act is not wrong.

If you think so then you would have to say it was wrong for blacks to break anti-segregationist laws as a way to protest wrongful laws and acts of enforcement of those laws by southern states and their police forces. Are you willing to say that?

When dilemmas are faced, sometimes a utilitarian philosophy must be accepted to affect an over all good.

P_chan

01-16-2008, 09:41 PM

Or committing acts of piracy because someone is hunting illegally.

Then calling yourself a hostage once they detain you.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-16-2008, 09:42 PM

retributionnk, could you kindly point us to your source of information regarding international law?

P_chan

01-16-2008, 09:44 PM

Two wrongs do not make a right.

When an act is wrong, the second act to prevent the first act is not wrong.Says who? You? I know you think your views and beliefs are right, but that doesn't mean they're right for everyone else. What gives someone the right to force their beliefs on someone else?

While we're running circles, I guess detaining these "liberators" is the right thing to do. After all, they boarded their ship illegally, so detaining them is right!:rolleyes:

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-16-2008, 09:47 PM

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Says who? You? I know you think your views and beliefs are right, but that doesn't mean they're right for everyone else. What gives someone the right to force their beliefs on someone else?

That's an excellent point! By that logic, the US should not be forcing it's beliefs upon the Iraqi population.

P_chan

01-16-2008, 09:48 PM

That's an excellent point! By that logic, the US should not be forcing it's beliefs upon the Iraqi population.

Neither should ARist then!

retributionnk

01-16-2008, 09:49 PM

retributionnk, could you kindly point us to your source of information regarding international law?

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea states that in a 200nm EEZ, there is freedom of navigation and overflight. It also states that the country claiming the EEZ has exclusive rights to natural resources, etc. That means, by merely being there, the whaling ship was not in violation of any international laws. Like I said, I wasn't disputing the legality of what the whaling ship was DOING, just the legality of it being where it was.

TheNoNamedOne

01-16-2008, 09:51 PM

Or committing acts of piracy because someone is hunting illegally.

Actually, IIRC, any vessel has the right to board and detain another vessel if that vessel is operating illegally and counter to international treaties. I will have to dig for this information, but I know Sea Shepherd has built up quite an argument for doing what it does and have been acquited of all past charges when others accused them of piracy when they interferred.

Why do you think that is, Pchan? Just lucky? Or do you think law has been protecting them and their actions?

Then calling yourself a hostage once they detain you.

Well, once your will is thwarted to leave an area when requested to be able to, and that detaining group having no jurisdiction in an area to detain those who have created no crime, what would you call that?

This news has just happened, so I won't go out on a limb and say the word "hostage" is fully accurate. Not sure what the appropriate term would be. But, that will become clearer with time.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-16-2008, 09:51 PM

Neither should ARist then!
I see we are in full agreement...ARists, as well as well as the US, should leave Iraq the heck alone!

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-16-2008, 09:55 PM

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea states that in a 200nm EEZ, there is freedom of navigation and overflight. It also states that the country claiming the EEZ has exclusive rights to natural resources, etc. That means, by merely being there, the whaling ship was not in violation of any international laws. Like I said, I wasn't disputing the legality of what the whaling ship was DOING, just the legality of it being where it was.
You are engaged in doublespeak now. You know full well that the Japanese fleet is not merely transiting Australian waters. As the said same fleet has engaged in illegal practices on numerous occasions, it is perfectly valid to assume they will do so again. Their stated intention is to whale in those very waters, after all. Do you assume all your detractors are daft?

P_chan

01-16-2008, 09:56 PM

Actually, IIRC, any vessel has the right to board and detain another vessel if that vessel is operating illegally and counter to international treaties. I will have to dig for this information, but I know Sea Shepherd has built up quite an argument for doing what it does and have been acquited of all past charges when others accused them of piracy when they interferred.

Why do you think that is, Pchan? Just lucky? Or do you think law has been protecting them and their actions?

Well, once your will is thwarted to leave an area when requested to be able to, and that detaining group having no jurisdiction in an area to detain those who have created no crime, what would you call that?

This news has just happened, so I won't go out on a limb and say the word "hostage" is fully accurate. Not sure what the appropriate term would be. But, that will become clearer with time.

Well then, by your logic, they both have the right to board each other! Maybe we'll get lucky and they will board each other and everyone will beat each other to death! That way we don't have to hear about this crap every year!

I see we are in full agreement...ARists, as well as well as the US, should leave Iraq the heck alone!

.....and ARist should leave me alone once I say I don't hold animals in as high regard as ARist do!

retributionnk

01-16-2008, 10:00 PM

You are engaged in doublespeak now. You know full well that the Japanese fleet is not merely transiting Australian waters. As the said same fleet has engaged in illegal practices on numerous occasions, it is perfectly valid to assume they will do so again. Their stated intention is to whale in those very waters, after all. Do you assume all your detractors are daft?

What I may or may not know is irrelevant. I won't sit here and argue with you back and forth about what the whaler's intentions were, as that is also irrelevant. The only relevant fact is that the Japanese ship was attacked. Projectiles (in the form of stink bombs, I believe), were thrown at the ship, and the ship was illegaly boarded. Even Australian authorities say that this event could easily be considered an act of piracy, or even terrorism. Neither Sea Shepherd nor their vessel were acting within the limits of international law.

TheNoNamedOne

01-16-2008, 10:02 PM

I know you think your views and beliefs are right, but that doesn't mean they're right for everyone else.

Of course not. It is a fact that there are losers in society whose freedoms or desire to do things are infringed upon by law.

What gives someone the right to force their beliefs on someone else?

The freedom to engage in activism allows for assisting in changing the pubic view of something and then that affects democracies whose legislatures pass law to reflect those views. Activism against things seen as unjust and immoral even when those were permitted by law has a long history. Don't you know this?

While we're running circles, I guess detaining these "liberators" is the right thing to do. After all, they boarded their ship illegally, so detaining them is right!:rolleyes:

Actually a very bad decision for the whalers to do that. How do you think it is going to play around the world when the next posters come out showing activists tied to ship rails? PR is part of chess and the Japanese whalers cannot really afford to lose any more pieces.

DougP

01-16-2008, 10:42 PM

Man I hope someone video tapes all the action on the high seas.:D It had better have some eye patches, peg legs, sabers, cannons and a bottle of rum.:)

TheNoNamedOne

01-17-2008, 12:03 AM

The only relevant fact is that the Japanese ship was attacked. Projectiles (in the form of stink bombs, I believe), were thrown at the ship, and the ship was illegaly boarded. Even Australian authorities say that this event could easily be considered an act of piracy, or even terrorism. Neither Sea Shepherd nor their vessel were acting within the limits of international law.

Well, it isn't so clear, retri, and besides, Sea Shepherd has not in years past with using these tactics had its leader or ship confiscated due to violating international law. Why don't you think that is when they make port? Never has been the case.

Perhaps it may be that they have a good team of lawyers using the World Charter for Nature (http://eelink.net/~asilwildlife/wcn.html) giving them cover, eh?

21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:

(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment;

(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;

(e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

23. All persons, in accordance with their national legislation, shall have the opportunity to participate, individually or with others, in the formulation of decisions of direct concern to their environment, and shall have access to means of redress when their environment has suffered damage or degradation.

24. Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter, acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met.

Sure, there are a lot of points in that charter that can be wrangled over, and you can bet lawyers for Sea Shepherd are expert at that. Now, if that charter guides Sea Shepherd and no prosecutor has been able to bring Sea Shepherd to court for violating international law, then just what is that telling you?

A lot of the language of this charter is written in such an ambiguous way that it provides a lot of legal maneuvering to those who are guided by it.

macker

01-17-2008, 01:05 AM

Listen...

The ONLY reason Japan is doing this is because they think it's "tradition" and the world is against it. Japan is in fear of loosing it's "Japanese-ish".
I think these vessels should be sunk by the auusies, greenpeace, whomever...

I'm hardly an activist either, just there is NO GOOD reason for it....

retributionnk

01-17-2008, 02:30 AM

Sure, there are a lot of points in that charter that can be wrangled over, and you can bet lawyers for Sea Shepherd are expert at that. Now, if that charter guides Sea Shepherd and no prosecutor has been able to bring Sea Shepherd to court for violating international law, then just what is that telling you?

A lot of the language of this charter is written in such an ambiguous way that it provides a lot of legal maneuvering to those who are guided by it.

You are talking about a charter, not international maritime law, as established by the UN. And you were right in your earlier posts about activists never being condemned for their illegal actions. I find that to be a problem with our society; looking past an illegal deed because doing otherwise might be considered the stifling of someone's opinion, albeit that opinion may be quite unfounded, and also in the minority. I believe it was you who commented on the wishy-washy morality of modern society... and here it is, giving ARists the advantage in what would otherwise be a clearly factual case against them.

TheNoNamedOne

01-17-2008, 12:22 PM

You are talking about a charter, not international maritime law, as established by the UN.

That charter, too, was established by the U.N. And in fact it was used as a basis of defense in Canada when Sea Shepherd Captain Watson was arrested and prosecuted in 1995 by Canadian authorities outside Canada's 200 mile zone of sovereign authority. He was charged with felony mischief.

The Canadian judge told the jury that since Canada was a signatory to the Charter they were obligated to take that into full account. And guess what? He was acquitted by reason of colour of right and that set the precedent which Sea Shepherd has operated on the high seas since in their actions against Japan and whaling.

You have to remember, those who are taken into custody for illegal activities on the seas are not whisked off to some international UN court to be tried, but rather are tried in countries under those laws. Hence, in this case Canadian law and the fact that Canada was a signatory to the Charter were the points of issue.

Look who won! Captain Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd did!! Ha!

And you were right in your earlier posts about activists never being condemned for their illegal actions.

Direct action is not always illegal...or if it is deemed such, a court case can set a precedent to change that.

I find that to be a problem with our society; looking past an illegal deed because doing otherwise might be considered the stifling of someone's opinion, albeit that opinion may be quite unfounded, and also in the minority. I believe it was you who commented on the wishy-washy morality of modern society... and here it is, giving ARists the advantage in what would otherwise be a clearly factual case against them.

Direct Action is not always immoral, and laws that are wrong which are targeted by direct action are challenged to see if they hold up in court.

Man, I guess all those colonialists who dressed up like Indians (framing) to vandalize English ships by throwing their cargo into the harbor should all be condemned by us today, eh?

Now someone give me a "thanks" to balance out the one Retributionist was given.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-17-2008, 01:34 PM

British anti-whaling protester held hostage on Japanese harpoon ship offered whale meat for dinner

The crew of a Japanese harpoon ship holding a British anti-whaling protester captive insist they are treating him well - and have even offered him a meal of whale meat.

British protester Giles Lane remained a captive on board the Japanese harpoon ship tonight as accusations flew across the icy, fog-shrouded waters of Antarctica.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=508674&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490&ctgnum=1501&mode=2&gid=-1&rnum=0

DougP

01-17-2008, 02:44 PM

buwahahahahahahaha :D garrr there be trouble on the high seas. <pirate-smilie>

retributionnk

01-17-2008, 09:16 PM

That charter, too, was established by the U.N. And in fact it was used as a basis of defense in Canada when Sea Shepherd Captain Watson was arrested and prosecuted in 1995 by Canadian authorities outside Canada's 200 mile zone of sovereign authority. He was charged with felony mischief.

Thank you for the information. I hadn't done much research on the charter at the time. Now, being properly researched on both the Charter and Sea Shepherd's actions throughout history, I am even more convinced that they are in the wrong in this situation and many others. Their history is laden with many acts of terrorism, to include sinking Icelandic ships in 1986.

Direct action is not always illegal...or if it is deemed such, a court case can set a precedent to change that.

In this particular situation, the activists first tried to seize the propeller of the Japanese whaling ship, and then threw butyric acid(which has been proven harmful to marine life; harsh, for a marine life activist group?) onto the deck of the ship. They showed blatant disregard for human life. Sea Shepherd has proven in deed that they will put the welfare of animals ahead of the lives and safety of human beings. I think any psychologist worth his salt would have a field day with folks like that. Think I might be going overboard by saying that? Read what the beloved Paul Watson has to say about Newfoundland: "I have relatives in all parts of Canada except Newfoundland and for that I am greatful... Newfoundland is a place where priests rape orphans... they debased Canada when they joined in 1949." How about another Watson quote: “Earthworms are far more valuable than people.”

This man is little more than a cult leader. The people that are stupid enough to be coaxed in to joining him have to be some of the most ignorant people on the planet.

I apologize for a bit of a tangent there, but what Sea Shepherd is doing is obviously illegal, and its' members, to include Paul Watson, have been tried and convicted several times. But they are often being lauded for what they do(mostly because people don't know exactly what it is they do. It's hard to come out against animal activism politically(especially in the US), so the powers that be are hard pressed to stop it, for now. With situations like this happening though, it brings to light the unspeakable words and deeds of these environmental terrorists.

http://www.icrwhale.org/eng/history.pdf (Sea Shepherd's Violent history)

Not only are you wrong in saying the Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd have come out 'unscathed' from their tyrades, you'd also be wrong in assuming the global community will allow this to continue. The actions of Sea Shepherd were blatantly illegal, and should be punished. On a personal note, I really enjoyed the fact that the Japanese offered the detained activists a meal of whale meat.

TheNoNamedOne

01-17-2008, 09:32 PM

Dar sure be trouble on dem dar seas, ye scalliwag!

And guess what? Captain Paul Watson confesses to being a pirate!

But first, let's look at some lyrical wisdom:

“Yes I am a pirate,
200 years too late,
The cannons don’t’ thunder, there’s nothing to plunder
I’m an over forty victim of fate.”
– Jimmy Buffet

Excerpts of Captain Paul Watson's confession (FULL CONFESSION HERE) (http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_051228_1.html):

“Shiver me timbers boys and girls, we is awash in a sea of pirates down here.”

The Southern Oceans, specifically in the area formally known as the Australian Antarctic Territory, now rivals the 17th Century Caribbean for the reported acts of piracy during the last two weeks.

The Japanese whalers are accusing Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace crewmembers of being pirates. Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace are accusing the whalers of being pirates. Australian and New Zealand politicians are throwing the word piracy about as freely as the Governor of Jamaica once did a few hundred years ago.

Forget about going to Disneyland to see Pirates of the Caribbean. We now have the new, improved Pirates of the Southern Oceans. ...

We decided years ago that if people were going to be silly and call us pirates we would adopt our own Jolly Roger. Thus we designed the crossed Neptune Trident and Shepherd’s staff with the skull. Set in the skull are a whale and dolphin in a yin yang design.

As soon as we hoisted that black flag, kids from around the world began to write us in support. Our Jolly Roger hats and shirts have become our most popular merchandise.

Why? Because there is a romance of piracy that is separate from the reality of piracy. Some pirates were great heroes and some were dastardly villains.

Back in the 17th Century it was not the British Navy that shut down piracy in the Caribbean. They and the British politicians were not interested. Captain Horatio Nelson was actually sued by British merchants for attempting to shut down piracy. There was simply too much money in the form of bribery and collusion to motivate more than an appearance of addressing the problem.

Piracy was finally shut down on the Spanish Main by the pirate Henry Morgan. It took a pirate to end piracy. His reward was that he was appointed Governor of Jamaica where he was able to pilfer more booty through politics than he ever did from the deck of a ship. ...

But piracy has a long list of renowned and admirable practitioners. It was the pirate John Paul Jones who founded both the navies of the United States and Russia. It was the pirate Jean LaFitte who stood with General Andrew Jackson in defense of New Orleans. It was the pirate Francis Drake who was knighted by Queen Elizabeth I.

So, I stand in honorable company as a modern day pirate. I’ve not shot anyone, burned any ships, looted any cargos, kidnapped anyone, nor do I drink rum and carry a parrot on my shoulder for that matter.

What I do is defend the whales from the illegal slaughter by ruthless and merciless killers of whales. If people want to call me a pirate for that than blow me down buckos, I’m proud to be a damn pirate.

Yo ho!

GUILTY AS CHARGED! YARG!!!

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2007/01/359462.jpg
Sea Shepherd flies its pirate flag the Jolly Roger

P_chan

01-17-2008, 10:29 PM

I can see the court proceedings now!

Whalers: "You're a pirate"

SS/GP: "No, you're a pirate"

The_Zach2681

01-17-2008, 11:45 PM

I'm pro-whaling - let's rally Ahab and harpoon that narwhale Rosie O'Donnell! Yar!

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-18-2008, 12:27 AM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v406/otokonoyama/savethewhales.jpg

TheNoNamedOne

01-18-2008, 01:15 PM

The Sea Shepherd swashbuckling "pirates" have been released from the South Sea's Japan Death Star whaling ship. But not after a fight for their lives!

Anti-whaling pair back aboard Sea Shepherd ship (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10487541)
NEW 2:46PM Friday January 18, 2008

Australian anti-whaling activist Benjamin Potts says he had to fight for his life when he was captured by a Japanese crew on Tuesday. ...

Speaking to AAP today via satellite phone shortly after his return, Potts said Japanese crew attacked him once he boarded their ship and tried to throw him overboard.

"A number of them grabbed us and they attempted to throw me overboard. They were unsuccessful because I held onto a guard rail. One bloke picked up my shoulders and the gunner picked up my legs," he said.

"My only thought was to prevent it from happening. It is not the sort of water you want to end up in. You can't live for very long in these waters," he said.

After he and Lane were captured Potts said he was tied to a lower deck, where sea water came up to his knees, before he was transferred to a mast where he was restrained for some time before being taken to a communications room. ...

"We would do more of the same without a second thought," Lane said.

"We did deliver our letter. They weren't overly happy to receive it, but it was passed up to the head of the fleet and no doubt the Japanese government as well," Lane said.

Yo ho mates! Shiver me timbers and ye be staying tuned to the news here, lest ye find your scurvey self at the end of me sword walking the plank! Yarg!

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/1/14/300px-Seashepherd_small_pt.jpg
http://shiftingbaselines.org/blog/images/sie_watson.jpg
And here be the "pirate" leader at the helm of his "pirate" ship all decked out in pirate regalia. Yarg!

P_chan

01-18-2008, 02:16 PM

Hmmmmm "fight for his life", seems like he's blowing things out of proportion to me.

I wonder if that book he/she is holding is leather bound:D

TheNoNamedOne

01-18-2008, 02:21 PM

lol. I hope not! Most importantly I hope it isn't whale skin. Yikes!

It'd be cool though if he had an eye-patch or peg leg.

Yarg!

Asshat

01-18-2008, 02:25 PM

He boarded a ship???? He was lucky he wasn't killed. There is a still a very active pirate trade, and merchant ships are now armed and trained to repell them. Killing pirates is common.

A friend shot a pirate with a shotgun a couple of years ago, fired into the pirate's boat, then ran them over with his steel sail boat. No questions asked later. (And no one interested in the event)

TheNoNamedOne

01-18-2008, 02:27 PM

Umi, go up in the thread. There is a 50 second video of the boarding.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-18-2008, 02:29 PM

Asshat

01-18-2008, 02:30 PM

We haven't come to any agreement over just who are the real pirates. The ones whaling in an australian sanctury, when an Australian court has ruled the hunt illegal, for their own financial gain (i.e. plundering resources from Aussie waters), or...

The real pirates are the ones who board another boat. I can't view the video from here.

Edited: Also, if there is a question of soverignty (sp) it is NOT the duty of a private entity to enforce that unless granted powers to do so. (Much like the privateers of old)

The whaler would have been within their rights to detain the boarders and return them to Japan to face proscecution.

TheNoNamedOne

01-18-2008, 03:49 PM

... it is NOT the duty of a private entity to enforce that unless granted powers to do so. (Much like the privateers of old)

I don't think you are too accurate on this, Umi. Signatories to the UN Charter on Nature (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=56271&postcount=71) disagree with you on "individual duty."

retributionnk

01-18-2008, 06:07 PM

The real pirates are the ones who board another boat. I can't view the video from here.

Edited: Also, if there is a question of soverignty (sp) it is NOT the duty of a private entity to enforce that unless granted powers to do so. (Much like the privateers of old)

The whaler would have been within their rights to detain the boarders and return them to Japan to face proscecution.

I think you 'missed the boat' on this topic, and I no longer call Sea Shepherds pirates. They are terrorists.

TheNoNamedOne

01-18-2008, 08:33 PM

... I no longer call Sea Shepherds pirates. They are terrorists.

lol! Really? Well, let's hear your definition of terrorist and see how consistent that is with agencies that have their own definition, too, and see how they are or can be applied here.

You are reaching.

But, going over the previous story I found this interesting:

After he and Lane (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10487541) were captured Potts said he was tied to a lower deck, where sea water came up to his knees, before he was transferred to a mast where he was restrained for some time before being taken to a communications room.

Sounds like the Japanese need to learn effective water boarding techniques to those they restrain, eh?

"We were denied any contact with our ship or with the Australian or British governments. The information we got we had to fight for and it came to us slowly and through someone who spoke minimal English," he said.

Wait! STOP THE BOAT!! You are telling me that on a scientific research vessel there are no proficient scientists who speak the international language of English which language their scientific data should be published in for their argument of scientific research? You're kiddin', aren'cha?

Maybe the interrogation went like this:

Jpn Whaler Scientist: You did bely bad ting. You viorated our sheep.
Hostage: Huh? You have sheep on board, too, that you are slaughtering?
JWS: Reabu ass arone.
Hostage: Don't you speak English?
JWS: abu cos we speaku Engrish.
Hostage: Huh?
JWS: You blaku raw of she.
Hostage: Yes, I am a raw vegan.
JWS: Yes, raw blaka.
Hostage: You're short.
JWS: No shot anyone. You are long.
Hostage: Yeah, my girlfriend told me so, too.

TheLastDon

01-18-2008, 08:37 PM

DAMMM TP, why don't you boycott Japan by moving out of the country:D

TheNoNamedOne

01-18-2008, 08:39 PM

Becazu raughing at da sararimen izu weary fan.

TheLastDon

01-18-2008, 08:41 PM

U maku me raff sooo har dou.

retributionnk

01-18-2008, 09:29 PM

lol! Really? Well, let's hear your definition of terrorist and see how consistent that is with agencies that have their own definition, too, and see how they are or can be applied here.

Let's skip my definition, and go straight to some agencies. First off, we'll use the good old US of A.
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/pl102346.htm (Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992)
Many activists have already been jailed for much lesser offenses than what Sea Shepherd has done in this situation.

US not good enough? How about the world. Here's an international example.
This is part of a treaty signed by Australia, called Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cafpa1992318/ (CRIMES (Ships and fixed platforms) ACT 1992)

You are reaching.

Is it really that much of a stretch? It's all there in black and white. I don't think there's much to debate. The law is fairly clear in this matter

Sounds like the Japanese need to learn effective water boarding techniques to those they restrain, eh?

I'll make sure to write my congressman, so we can get the Japanese trained on proper 'coercion' techniques.

Wait! STOP THE BOAT!! You are telling me that on a scientific research vessel there are no proficient scientists who speak the international language of English which language their scientific data should be published in for their argument of scientific research? You're kiddin', aren'cha?

Oh, no! The Japanese people don't speak English! Yes, all scientists speak English, these people didn't, so they were whalers. I see the logical fallacy you've thrown at me. The fact is, I am not debating whether or not they were whaling, nor am I debating the legality of their alleged whaling. I am talking about the legality of Sea Shepherd's actions, which I am now done talking about.

Yu rikey whare meet?

01-18-2008, 09:32 PM

ROR @ Tp. Rmfao!!!

TheNoNamedOne

01-18-2008, 09:55 PM

Retri, how are you linking to your sources? Strange. Your links do not take me directly to the source. It takes me to another page, and then I have to click on that and then a menu of different search results to choose from pops up and I have to guess exactly which one you are referring to. Try to link to a specific page and not a whole search result.

Let's skip my definition, and go straight to some agencies. First off, we'll use the good old US of A.
http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/pl102346.htm (Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992)
Many activists have already been jailed for much lesser offenses than what Sea Shepherd has done in this situation.

US not good enough? How about the world. Here's an international example.
This is part of a treaty signed by Australia, called Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cafpa1992318/ (CRIMES (Ships and fixed platforms) ACT 1992)

Is it really that much of a stretch? It's all there in black and white. I don't think there's much to debate. The law is fairly clear in this matter

Well, Retri, which one is it? Decide. Courts do not operate on the principle that a prosecutor goes in with 10 different definitions for something. Surely Australia does not think they have a case or else they would have arrested the two. Why didn't Japan whisk them back to Japan to try them in court as terrorists? They know that to do so would be reaching, something they do not want to do even though you are prone to do so.

I'll make sure to write my congressman, so we can get the Japanese trained on proper 'coercion' techniques.

Yeah, seems like they may have forgotten the skills of their grandfathers in WW2.

Oh, no! The Japanese people don't speak English! Yes, all scientists speak English, these people didn't, so they were whalers.

Actually, Jpn scientists are sorely under represented at scientific symposiums around the world because of their low English ability. Not only are they fewer in attendance, they are very few in presenting papers in front of peers because of their low English ability. This is no secret and it has been reported in Japanese newspapers several times in recent years i.e. some healthy self criticism on the point.

I see the logical fallacy you've thrown at me. The fact is, I am not debating whether or not they were whaling, nor am I debating the legality of their alleged whaling. I am talking about the legality of Sea Shepherd's actions, which I am now done talking about.

The UN Charter for Nature makes that illegality which you think is clear rather foggy. Again, why didn't Japan whisk them back to Japan to stand trial as terrorists if their actions are so clearly illegal?

Yu rikey whare meet?

I can see you are not very familiar with Japan-engrish. Here let me help with your attempted translation:

"Yu raiku weiru meeto?"

Fixed for free.

retributionnk

01-18-2008, 10:49 PM

Apologies for the poor linkage.

As for the reason that they have not been/will not be tried, my answer is simple.
Everyone is scared to go after a group labeled as an activist group. Doing so has always been a PR nightmare, because of the way (some of) these groups are falsely portrayed in the media. From anti-abortionists to zombie rights groups, illegal actions are common, and are rarely punished because of the social stigma that comes from attacking a group that claims to only be there for the protection of something. This holds especially true in the US because our nation stands so firmly on its Bill of Rights. Although the intent of those people may have only been to deliver a message, the end does not justify the means.

I can see you are not very familiar with Japan-engrish. Here let me help with your attempted translation:

"Yu raiku weiru meeto?"

Fixed for free.

I know, I know. My Engrish is poor, and I should hang my head in shame.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-18-2008, 11:33 PM

As for the reason that they have not been/will not be tried, my answer is simple.
Everyone is scared to go after a group labeled as an activist group. Doing so has always been a PR nightmare, because of the way (some of) these groups are falsely portrayed in the media...
Really? Some folks have no problem going after activists...

TV star Hayden Panettiere has been involved in a violent confrontation with Japanese fishermen as she tried to disrupt their annual dolphin slaughter.

The 18-year-old actress, who stars in TV blockbuster Heroes, paddled out on a surfboard in an attempt to reach a pod of dolphins to stop them being driven into a nearby cove and killed.

But the six surfers, from Australia and the United States, were intercepted by a fishing boat before they could reach the dolphins.

The fishermen used the boat's propellers to block their way and at one point struck out with a boathook.

It was an ugly and potentially life-threatening confrontation that lasted more than 10 minutes before the surfers were forced to return to the beach.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1291049,00.html

YouTube - Hayden Panettiere's fight to save the dolphins in Japan

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-18-2008, 11:39 PM

YouTube - Hayden Panettiere & Dolphins

P_chan

01-19-2008, 02:28 AM

Really? Some folks have no problem going after activists...

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1291049,00.html

YouTube - Hayden Panettiere's fight to save the dolphins in Japan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1pqfzfIpJ4)

I would of hooked that little whiny bitch too.

Here those little trained monkey clowns who just agreed with what she was saying?

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-19-2008, 09:28 AM

I would have...

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/couldof.html

kombu_kid

01-19-2008, 09:45 AM

You shouldn't of corrected him like that.

P_chan

01-19-2008, 09:47 AM

Yeah, excuse me. Why is everyone so butt hurt about grammar now?

Last I remember, I was online in an internet forum. Not writing a ******* formal paper.

:edited to add this link:

Here's some words you might like to use eel:

http://www.pompousasswords.com/home.htm

retributionnk

01-19-2008, 09:57 AM

Really? Some folks have no problem going after activists...

Hey look, they were chased away because they were illegally interfering with animal enterprise! Wow, what a shocker! They're lucky they didn't end up in a can of Chicken of the Sea like those dolphins did.

kombu_kid

01-19-2008, 10:08 AM

Would it still taste like tuna?:D:D:D

Asshat

01-19-2008, 10:26 AM

I don't think you are too accurate on this, Umi. Signatories to the UN Charter on Nature (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=56271&postcount=71) disagree with you on "individual duty."

I was not speaking in terms of the environmental BS that is included as some sort of PC fluffyness. Might be fun to compare the signatories with their pollution output.

My comments were centered on law on the high seas, as well as a nations rights concerning soverienty.

To put this in perspective, consider the attempted boarder of my friend's boat I posted earlier. Or consider the Iranian Navy's incarceration of RMS sailors.

It is unlawful for anyone to board a ship in international waters, and it is unlawful for anyone to board a ship in any waters without express representation by that country.

The ends do not justify the means TP. (Talk about a moral relativist!)

I know the shallow minds will assume that my stand on the soverienty of a ship means I somehow endorse whaling. I don't. However, to restate what I said earlier, the Japanese whaler was within their rights to incarcerate boarders, and would have been within their rights to shoot them as they boarded.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-19-2008, 12:10 PM

Sorry P_san, I had to give Worthington, my manservant, a right dressing down for not remembering to fetch another jar of Grey Poupon while he was out on errands. Now, what was that?

TheNoNamedOne

01-19-2008, 12:59 PM

Let's refer to other members accurately by their member names or non-antagonizing abbreviations. We've been lenient on this in the past and it has caused some trouble. Several of us have been guilty of it. Time to move on from this kind of thing. Thanks. -- TP, moderator

TheNoNamedOne

01-19-2008, 01:20 PM

Ye scurvey dogs who be a followin' the adventures of the South Sanctuary Sea Shepherd pirate raids on those scalliwag Japanese whale poachers; a new batch of news has landed on me desk with an updated story that'll shiver ye timbers!

Whale activists 'attack second ship' (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23076309-29277,00.html)
By Melissa Jenkins
January 19, 2008 02:38pm

A JAPANESE whaling group has accused the Sea Shepherd activist group of attacking a second ship in the Southern Ocean. ...

“At 2am 18th of January, SS (Sea Shepherd) zodiac boat sneaked up during the dark night and attacked her sister ship, Yushin Maru No. 3, one of the Antarctic research expedition vessels owned by the Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, by throwing 10 butyric acid bottles,” the JWA said . ...

“Nevertheless, SS attacked our vessel again during the night.

“Such action should be condemned as an inhumane terrorist attack.

ROR. Somebody please tell us what "humane" terrorism would be. Oh this is too freakin funny. Sounds like this Japanese spokesmen went to the Engrish Skuru fo Sararimen.

JWA president Keiichi Nakajima said the Australian Government had wrecked the efforts of the International Whaling Commission to ensure safety at sea.

“The Australian Government has rejected and thus spoiled the International Whaling Commissions' efforts to ensure safety at sea and protection of the environment with its desire to give limousine service to two illegal Sea Shepherd intruders,” he said.

Boo hoo. Protests against violence seems to be pretty empty with those crying having the bloodiest hands of all.

“These two violent pirates have been provided a first-class delivery service straight back to The Steve Irwin via Australian customs.

“(The) Government of Australia should have detained the two illegal intruders and held them on board the Oceanic Viking for investigation of their criminal activities, but it is obvious they would rather assist Sea Shepherd with its violent illegal actions against Japan's perfectly legal research program.

Mr Nakajima said Australia's decision to hand back Mr Potts and Mr Lane to Sea Shepherd showed it would rather side with a vigilante group of extremists rather than the international community.

Yo ho and pass the bottle o' rum me mate!

Somebody be not spying the international community with focused lense! The Japaners are losing the PR war. Most are against them.

Yarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Full steam ahead!! Awaiting ramming order, Captain me Captain!!!

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-19-2008, 02:19 PM

Being Australian waters, the Aussies can do as they bloody please. The Canuckistanis chased the Spanish fleet out of their EEZ, and may have even captured a Spaniard or two IIRC.

edit: Yup! How the mighty Spanish Empire has fallen! Defeated by the Department of Fisheries & Oceans, of Canada!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War

retributionnk

01-19-2008, 08:32 PM

I think I've made all the points I'm able to on this topic, to continue would only lead to talking in circles.

And for my final thought, here is my opinion on the morality, not the legality of the situation.

Killing animals, even endangered ones, be it for research or for profit, is neither immoral or unethical in my opinion. Why, you may ask? I suppose there is a single phrase answer to that question. You may even be expecting it. Natural Selection. For some reason, animal rights activists believe that humans are an exception to natural selection. When humans kill something (be it one animal, or an entire species), it is just as much a result of natural selection as the unlucky gazelle who is too slow to get away from the lion. Neither our ability to reason nor our morality changes the fact that we are animals. We will kill weaker animals, the motivation just isn't the same as it was thousands of years ago. We can kill more efficiently now than we ever could, yet species that are strong enough still survive. Just because we are using ships and harpoons instead of our hands and teeth doesn't make death any less 'natural'.

I only posted this because a few people had asked me what my actual opinion on the subject was, so here it is.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-19-2008, 09:55 PM

The natural selection argument doesn't hold up. Are people killing whales out of necessity? No, they are not needed as a food source, and the economic impact of whaling must be quite minimal in the national economy. Hunting whales actually removes prime individuals from a population and leaves smaller and weaker individuals to reproduce and carry on the species. A kind of evolution in reverse.

retributionnk

01-20-2008, 12:07 AM

Wrong... and wrong. Natural selection doesn't limit itself to necessity. Just because humans kill for reasons other than to survive, doesn't mean that these kills don't fall under the umbrella of natural selection, just as I stated in my argument.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-20-2008, 12:40 AM

Asshat

01-21-2008, 09:54 AM

Being Australian waters, the Aussies can do as they bloody please.

The Australian Government can limit/restrict activity in their waters. First off, I am not convinced this was in soverign terroritory. I am positive that the Australian Government did not give permission to these assholes to board ships in it's name, when they have a Naval Service at it's beck and call. It is as simple as that.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-21-2008, 10:24 AM

retributionnk

01-21-2008, 05:22 PM

Actually, natural selection is survival of the fittest. The most robust individuals pass on their genes to perpetuate the species. With hunting, the fittest individuals are singled out for death, and the sub-prime are the ones who breed and perpetuate the species. Each successive generation getting smaller and weaker. Have you ever seen so-called purebred dogs with genetic defects. Would you call that natural selection too?

Your view here is skewed, IMO. Natural selection is genetic adaptation for survival, which is basically what you said. Human reason says that when we kill an animal, we want it to be meaty and delicious etc etc etc. If that's the case, then it looks like the thinner, uglier, and less tasty animals (be it an entire species, or a single animal within a species) are more fit to survive. In time, animals will genetically adapt accordingly. Tell me how that is not natural selection. You make it sound like we are 'Playing God' (pardon the cliché), when what we are actually doing is killing animals for their resources (or just for sport in some cases). It's all part of a natural cycle of events. That is my main problem with the animal rights activist mindset: they exclude humans as part of the natural world.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-21-2008, 07:44 PM

Your view here is skewed, IMO. Natural selection is genetic adaptation for survival, which is basically what you said. Human reason says that when we kill an animal, we want it to be meaty and delicious etc etc etc. If that's the case, then it looks like the thinner, uglier, and less tasty animals (be it an entire species, or a single animal within a species) are more fit to survive. In time, animals will genetically adapt accordingly.
You mean like the mammoth, dodo, woodland bison, Eastern elk, Merriam's elk, the red wolf, passenger pidgeon, Carolina parakeet; those sorts of genetic adaptations? Yes, tell us how killing off all the best breeding stock worked out for those species...

Tell me how that is not natural selection. You make it sound like we are 'Playing God' (pardon the cliché), when what we are actually doing is killing animals for their resources (or just for sport in some cases). It's all part of a natural cycle of events. That is my main problem with the animal rights activist mindset: they exclude humans as part of the natural world.
Well, right off the top of my head, I'd say that reducing a population to numbers below the viable breeding population would not allow a species the chance to adapt to changing conditions. See, the thing you missed about hunting is that once the fittest are slaughtered, the weaker animals become targets too. Wiping out animals faster than they can breed is not natural. While punctuated equilibrium (long periods of decent conditions for life with occasional great catastrophes wiping out large numbers), there's always some animals with some adaptive quality to perpetuate their species. With man, there is no equilibrium. Once you become the prey of man, you are hunted until your kind is gone.

retributionnk

01-21-2008, 08:17 PM

Well, right off the top of my head, I'd say that reducing a population to numbers below the viable breeding population would not allow a species the chance to adapt to changing conditions. See, the thing you missed about hunting is that once the fittest are slaughtered, the weaker animals become targets too. Wiping out animals faster than they can breed is not natural. While punctuated equilibrium (long periods of decent conditions for life with occasional great catastrophes wiping out large numbers), there's always some animals with some adaptive quality to perpetuate their species. With man, there is no equilibrium. Once you become the prey of man, you are hunted until your kind is gone.

You still aren't paying much mind to the meat and potatoes of my argument. Everything that happens in the natural world in which we live is very much natural. Human beings are a part of the natural world just as much as any whale, cockroach, or cow. Therefore, no matter how many species are wiped out by humans (and we help exponentially more species than we kill), natural life will still go on (with the exception, of course, of us killing everything that provides us with resources for our survival. and hey, that's where human reason comes in :thumbup:). There is no such thing as 'unnatural' killing, or unnatural anything for that matter. Everything is nature. I don't see a logical argument against that.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-21-2008, 08:25 PM

I see. Pollution of the water and air is natural, smog and acid rain are natural, holes in the ozone layer are natural, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were natural. Thank you for clarifying.

retributionnk

01-21-2008, 08:30 PM

Yes, yes, and yes. Please, oblige me, and tell me what makes them unnatural.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-21-2008, 08:34 PM

They render the environment unfit for life. Can you give me an example of animals rendering an environment unfit for life? What hunting (or other) animal does that?

retributionnk

01-21-2008, 08:38 PM

Yes I can. Human beings do it. We're animals. Termites do it. Lots of parasites do. Just because something makes an environment unsuitable for life doesn't mean that thing isn't natural. Take wild fires, volcanoes, or other natural disasters. Wow... they even have natural in the name.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-21-2008, 08:44 PM

Yes, we've established that human beings have a habit of destroying environments, and not via natural disasters, which as you so perceptively pointed out, are natural. Termites and parasites do not destroy entire environments, and more than lions, tigers, and bears do. While they destroy homes, and kill hosts, they don't lay waste to an entire area rendering it unsuitable for all other life. Next I suppose you'll be quoting me the plagues of Egypt from the Bible?

TheNoNamedOne

01-21-2008, 08:46 PM

There is no such thing as 'unnatural' killing, or unnatural anything for that matter. Everything is nature. I don't see a logical argument against that.

Sure, everything is nature/natural in the sense that we are in a closed universe (or closed something that is an infinite regress) but that is moot, and it has long been the nature of man to divorce himself as much as possible from the affects of nature. Therefore, all actions of man cannot be justified by just saying they are within nature so they are permitted. Ridiculous to do so.

Man subdues nature just as surely as we create laws to keep me from crapping naturally on the streetside.

At first one may be tempted to think that subjugation of nature is what makes it ok to kill whales, but an evolving philosophical outlook with evolving ethical systems has made it so that our nature to kill is what is being subdued and looking at askance and targeted for change. While we may retain the urge to kill, we create laws to thwart that urge and to widen those creatures which fall under their protection, just as surely as we did for weaker human societies which found themselves at the raw end of might makes right that would enslave and exploit them.

retributionnk

01-21-2008, 09:13 PM

Sure, everything is nature/natural in the sense that we are in a closed universe (or closed something that is an infinite regress) but that is moot, and it has long been the nature of man to divorce himself as much as possible from the affects of nature. Therefore, all actions of man cannot be justified by just saying they are within nature so they are permitted. Ridiculous to do so.

While human society does have repercussions for such things, I hardly see how that equals humans divorcing themselves from the affects of nature.

At first one may be tempted to think that subjugation of nature is what makes it ok to kill whales, but an evolving philosophical outlook with evolving ethical systems has made it so that our nature to kill is what is being subdued and looking at askance and targeted for change. While we may retain the urge to kill, we create laws to thwart that urge and to widen those creatures which fall under their protection, just as surely as we did for weaker human societies which found themselves at the raw end of might makes right that would enslave and exploit them.

The evolving philosophy that you speak of is where my argument ends. I do not share an animal activist's philosophical outlook. I could continue to speak in circles about my own philosophical outlook, but I'll never agree that we need to proceed with the deconstruction of human identity to go against our animal urges (particularly the urge to kill other animals). While society has rules that influence to how we interact as a species (as do most animal societies), there should be no rules as to our interactions with other species.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-21-2008, 11:26 PM

So, what you're saying ret, is that because we can, we should. We can clone humans, so we should. We can nuke Iran, so we should. We can reconstitute dinosaurs, so we should. And we can wipe every other species off the planet, so we should. In your version of Jurassic Park, the dinosaurs are brought back to life, and then nuked in some sort of grande finale.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-21-2008, 11:41 PM

The Japanese view...

STIFF as a board, polished and precise as a Nikon camera, unbending in his devotion to the cause, Kazuo Shima carried the Rising Sun forward. "The anti-whaling groups constructed their campaigns like a drama, with high emotional content to wring money from the public," Shima said. "They cast themselves as heroes seeking to protect the fair maiden [whales] from a villain [Japan]. Their campaigns were designed to evoke fear [the alleged extinction of the world's largest mammals], love and hate. "To Westerners, the Japanese were the perfect villains. All of the stereotypes of Pacific War propaganda were rolled out to depict Japanese as cruel, barbaric and inhumane"...This is the conundrum for anti-whaling Westerners. What's in it for Japan? "The answer is both simple and complex," Shima said. "Pride is a large part of it. The Japanese have been badly treated: demonised and maligned." And if the resource was sustainable, why not use it? "The principle of sustainable use of renewable marine food resources, the maintenance of our culture and traditions, and the importance of defending truth and reason are too important to be abandoned in the face of an irrational ideology imposed by Western eco-cultists"
http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/slaughtering-a-western-sacred-cow/2008/01/18/1200620212194.html

The Western View...

Japan argues that whaling is a cultural tradition practiced by the Japanese for centuries. As such they believe they have an inherent right to continue this tradition.

But how traditional is it?

There were a few isolated Japanese villages that had killed whales in the past, but Japan as a whole demonstrated very little interest in whaling until a man named Jura Oka made his way to Norway, the Azores, and Newfoundland in the mid 1890’s to study whaling. He learned whaling and purchased the equipment from the Norwegians. Hence, modern, commercial whaling began in Japan in 1898 long after the industry had been established in Europe and the Americas.

http://www.seashepherd.org/editorials/editorial_060627_1.html

Graph: The daily amount of meat supplied per person per day
http://www.greenpeace.or.jp/campaign/oceans/factsheet/images/meat.gif

http://www.greenpeace.or.jp/campaign/oceans/factsheet/index_en_html

TheNoNamedOne

01-21-2008, 11:50 PM

While society has rules that influence to how we interact as a species (as do most animal societies), there should be no rules as to our interactions with other species.

Well, I guess that sure is a good way to usher in The Era of Solitude for homo rapeans on this rock whirling through space. Let's go about increasing the odds that we are alone out here, huh?

retributionnk

01-22-2008, 12:11 AM

Thanks for taking much of what I say completely out of context. I initially thought I'd get in a friendly debate about the legality of whaling, but I found myself defending my world view. I'm sure you'd already formed your opinions on me as soon as I came out against eco-terrorism. I'm cold-hearted, probably a card-carrying NRA member, eats babies while performing abortions, etc etc etc. None of these are true. Well... I like veal, so that is eating babies (just not human babies). Truth is, I just see things through the fishbowl of my own eyes (as do all of you). So please, stop with the judgment. I'd already gotten tired after 1 or 2 posts of people telling me that it's folks like me that are the downfall of mankind (be it directly or subtly). I keep an open mind, and even if I disagree, I sure don't tell the party with whom I disagree that they are crazy, stupid, or emotionless. Especially when that party doesn't get angry or judgmental at all; And generally presents a thoughtful, non-condescending argument. That'd be downright ignorant, wouldn't it?

TheNoNamedOne

01-22-2008, 12:22 AM

Retri, I am still friendly towards you. I don't think anyone has thrown any expletives at you. I don't think showing a little incredulity at some things you have said warrants the thought that we are unfriendly.

I think we all agree that whaling is legal in so far as a loophole can be used to continue supplying commercial markets under the guise of scientific research. Does that make it right that the spirit of the moratorium is being violated? I don't think it does, and I would say that if one does, and especially if one is going to state there should be no rules governing our interaction with other species, a world view is being put forth and a defense is necessary for that if it is questioned.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-22-2008, 12:23 AM

Thanks for taking much of what I say completely out of context. I initially thought I'd get in a friendly debate about the legality of whaling, but I found myself defending my world view.
Sounds like sour grapes from one unwilling or unable to defend his world view. You did read the links provided you, yes?

According to American Secretary of State Dean Acheson in 1946, “The world’s whale stocks are a truly international resource in that they belong to no single nation, nor to a group of nations, but rather they are the wards of the entire world.”

The problem was that there was one particular American who was a law unto himself in 1946 and that was the American Shogun of Japan, General Douglas MacArthur.

The modern day pelagic whaling fleet of Japan is actually the creation of the United States. In 1946, General Douglas MacArthur proposed the creation of a Japanese whaling fleet to secure protein for the conquered Japanese people. He did so in order to cut down on the United States’ costs of transporting food to post war Japan.

It was on August 6th, 1946 that MacArthur signed the directive authorizing two factory ships and twelve catcher boats to begin whaling in the Antarctic for the 1946-47 season.

The deal was that Japan would get the meat and the oil would be turned over to the United States. The United States provided $800,000 in fuel for the ships and received over 4 million dollars in whale oil in return.

The two ships sent down to Antarctic waters were the Hashidate Maru and the Nishin Maru.

This initial whaling venture was ordered by MacArthur without permission of the newly formed IWC, which means that the very first Japanese Antarctic whaling expedition was illegal.

The ships carried American and Australian observers, but they were not there to enforce conservation regulations. Observer David R. McCracken, the author of Four Months on a Jap Whaler, regularly shot albatross for sport from the deck of the Hashidate Maru.
He wrote; “On the fourth shot of the second clip I winged a bird. The extreme end of his right wing dangled helplessly. It did not kill him, and he looked puzzled as he attempted to flap the crippled wing. Gradually he lost altitude. At the end of a long glide he hit the water and attempted to rise again. But he could not do it. A slow death from starvation awaited the poor victim and satisfied I put away my carbine for the day.”

McCracken also caught a penguin, named it Penny ,and kept it for his amusement until the bird starved to death. He had tried to force feed the penguin and described it “as a riot to watch.”

McCracken skinned Penny and had the pelt confiscated by U.S. Customs on his return to the United States. They let him keep a whale fetus in a jar of formaldehyde.

He did not have much to say about the whale killing except that he observed one harpooned fin whale dragging a 350-ton catcher boat at four knots until he weakened and they harpooned him again to kill him.
Japan killed whales outside of the inspection and the regulations of the IWC until they finally agreed to join in 1951. During that time, the United States profited greatly from the sale of illegal whale oil.

With the help of the United States Japan became the largest whaling operation in the world by the 1970’s.

Asshat

01-22-2008, 06:57 AM

Well Uminchu, as the Aussie gov't has seen fit to pick up two of the protestors who boarded a whaler, and return them to their ship right away, it would appear that they sanction the actions of the activists.

So when the US rescues it's citizens from foreign abductors, they too are sanctioning the abduction?

Or (to TP) let's say that tonight I am choosing to eat whale. I am not breaking any laws. Just having my dinner.

But TP (et.al) walks up to my home, enters it, and stands in front of the drawer where I keep my chop sticks.

Not only would I be vindicated after applying some degree of force to keep this from happening, the Japanese government would enter my home and rescue the invader.

You see where I am going with this.....

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-22-2008, 09:24 AM

No Uminchu, I don't see where you are going, and I suspect neither do you. It was one thing for the Aussie government to "rescue" the one Aussie and one Brit, and quite another to return them to the ship "acting illegally" in their EEZ. Why do you suppose they returned them to the SS Farley Mowat if they were engaged in criminal or terroristic behavior? Why would a country put terrorists right back in the field after having the alleged criminals in their custody? Have you really thought this through?

Asshat

01-22-2008, 09:42 AM

No Uminchu, I don't see where you are going, and I suspect neither do you.

You suspect wrongly. Read up some more on what Paul Watson, skipper of the Farley Mowat says about the Oz government. Quite the opposite of what has been alluded to here; that somehow the Oz Gov supports the efforts of the Farley Mowat and Greenpeace.

Also, Australia's claim to the EEZ as it pertains to the Antartic penninsula is far-fetched.

Giles David Lane, a British subject and crew member of the boat told the Japanese whaler; "I am empowered to act to uphold these laws in accordance with the United Nations World Charter for Nature and the laws of Australia."
This is a complete farce.

We could debate Australias claim of a mult-million killometer EEZ, but as I stated in my first post, no one had the "right" to board the ship.

Of course the crew of the Farley Mowat claim Japan has no right to enter and OZ harbor so one of the crewmen can receive emergency medical treatment.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-22-2008, 09:56 AM

Asshat

01-22-2008, 10:03 AM

You have yet to deal with the fact that the Australians returned the crew turned over by the Japanese to their ship, where they will certainly continue their attempts to interfere with whaling. If the Aussies disapproved of the SS's actions why did they do that? A government that did not support the activists, and believed their actions to be criminal, would most certainly remand in custody any activists handed over to them by the assailed party, and incarcerate or deport as necessary.

"Deal" with it? You know the answer to that as well as I do. It would not be politically expedient to do so.

So deal with the fact that the Australian government did not escort the Japanese ships out of it's self-appointed EEZ?

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-22-2008, 10:06 AM

It would not be economically expedient to do so.

However, I think you're wrong about the political backlash you anticipated if the activists picked up from the whaling vessel would have been returned to port and let go there. The two who boarded the whaler took themselves out of the game by their own actions. Picking them up and dropping them off on dry land could have come at no political cost to the Australian government, and indeed it likely would have been seen as doing the captives a favor. Incarceration, on the other hand, would likely have resulted in some political backlash. By returning them to their cohorts on the Sea Shepard ship, the activists received the implict blessing of the Australian government.

Asshat

01-22-2008, 01:04 PM

By returning them to their cohorts on the Sea Shepard ship, the activists received the implict blessing of the Australian government.

The Sydney Morning Herald and the National Post do not agree with you.

As I read the latest news, (trying to beat TP to his Google search) :) I note that this has far-reaching implications within the OZ Gov.

Also, Paul Watson "brags" about sending whalers to the bottom. In my original comment, I stated they were lucky they were not shot.

Having spent some time on the ocean, in the middle of no-where, I can say with the utmost authority that shooting pirates (that means un-invited boarders) is resulting in death.

I also note the disagreement between Green Peace and Watson in his methods. He is doing nothing to further his cause, but is distancing himself from those who are non-violent.

Ammoyankee

01-22-2008, 01:24 PM

While I attempt to remain neutral on AR issues (I would kill only to eat)... I think Little Miss Heroes needs to have her box kicked, she should have been arrested promptly. If her and the Aussies want to protest "down under" or in US territorial waters, so be it. But when they come to another country and protest a part of the local culture in that countries waters or property or whatever, it's BS. As for the part of the video where someone quotes "Here comes a real Heroe" as she is rowing her board back in before the last "tears" finale, give me a GD break. That was poor acting on her part...

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-22-2008, 01:47 PM

The Sydney Morning Herald and the National Post do not agree with you.

Links to the articles or editorials you are referring to would go a long way to confirming whether or not this is a factual statement, or some creative interpretation.

Asshat

01-22-2008, 01:53 PM

Links to the articles or editorials you are referring to would go a long way to confirming whether or not this is a factual statement, or some creative interpretation.

Ah come on, do a Google search and click on the top two or three. I did that as you went to lunch. :)

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-22-2008, 01:58 PM

It's a heck of a lot easier to say "such and such a newspaper" doesn't agree with you than it is to prove it, huh.

Asshat

01-22-2008, 02:11 PM

It's a heck of a lot easier to say "such and such a newspaper" doesn't agree with you than it is to prove it, huh.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/hiho-me-hearties-hiho-and-a-buccaneering-well-go/2008/01/21/1200764168306.html

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posted/archive/2008/01/16/intrigue-amid-the-icebergs-japanese-whalers-seize-sea-shepherd-hostages-then-can-t-give-them-back.aspx

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-22-2008, 02:29 PM

On your first link:

Which brings us to the motivation of those pirates in Canberra. What is in it for them that they consistently refuse to protect Australian territory from illegal foreign exploitation? The answer is the same for Australian politicians today as it was for British politicians in 1650: there's money to be made, under the table, trade agreements to consider.

Some pirates, especially the Japanese, have good public relations firms and powerful financial backing. So we have Australia condemning the Japanese pirates but doing very little to stop their plunder of whales from the Australian Antarctic Territorial waters.

Same as my contention that it was not economically expedient for Australia to act on her own to stop the hunt.

This bit makes your outrage at the sinking of the ocean poachers' vessels harder to swallow:

We are pirates with a sense of humour and a moral code of non-violence. In 30 years of eco-piracy we have never injured a single poacher, although we've sent nine whalers to the bottom.

OK, nothing in there to contradict a single thing I've written so far. On to the second link.

Ah, you must be referring to this bit:

None of this is happy news for Rudd, who pledged during Australia’s election campaign to get tough with Japan over its whaling activities. Adding to the discomfort, an Australian court ruled on Tuesday that the Japanese fleet was violating Australian law and ordered it driven out of the sanctuary. Rudd is now faced with trying to enforce a domestic court ruling on a foreign country over which it does not have jurisdiction, over activites in a region over which Australia’s claims are now widely recognized. And this despite Tokyo’s demonstrated willingness to ignore such pressures in the past.

What’s he to do? The Australian opposition — which was opposed to Rudd’s policy of stepping up the rhetoric on whaling and is likely enjoying his discomfort — says he should back up his tough talk and get Japan’s prime minister on the blower, pronto. (Australians apparently talk like that). Humane Society International, which started the court case, agrees.

“Under Australian law the government can intercept the ship and stop this hunt,” said spokeswoman Nicola Beynon (http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23056778-948,00.html).

Again, nothing that goes against what I've said. The PM is under pressure to do something (talk to the Japanese PM is what the Australian opposition party wants, and the Humane Society wants Aussies ships to intervene), and by returning the activists to their ship, he can be seen as implicitly supporting the cause. It seems the move to return the activists was a skillful balancing act between actually become involved in the intervention itself, and just observing.

Interestingly, the article in your second link contradicts itself. Early in the piece, it claims only four countries recognize the Aussie claims of an EEZ. Later, it claims wide recognition of Australia's claims.

Asshat

01-22-2008, 02:52 PM

I do not understand why you are turning this into an argument E. I do know, understand and have been involved with maritime law....at least as much as 50,000 miles will expose me to.

That was my only comment...that the boarders could have been shot. When I read that this asshole had sank nine boats, I was aghast that he is still alive.

I know people, personally, who have killed on the ocean. To ram, or sink a ship for any reason is either an overt act of war, or attempted murder.

Now I could argue the basic nuances with you until the cows come home. I really don't care to. I suggest that you learn a bit more about maritime law as it applies to sovern nations first, THEN research what every body of evidence says about sinking ships on the oceans.

It's called piracy, and any skipper who attempts murder should be tried for it.

DougP

01-22-2008, 02:55 PM

I wonder why its ok to ram another boat at sea (if neither one are regarded as law enforcement or military) but its not ok to do so with a car on land.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-22-2008, 03:03 PM

I do see your point here, speaking in a general, high seas sense. But, in the Sea Shepard ramming incident last year, the video I saw and the write-ups about it also said, the pursued Japanese ship suddenly slowed and turned broadside to the pursing activist ship. Like jamming the brakes hard and cranking the wheel on a tailgater. So it wasn't like the Japanese were trying to avoid a collision. In that particular case, it's hard to blame Sea Shepard, as they were just chasing a ship out of the whale sanctuary. Do we have any evidence that Captain Paul has tried to kill people?

As the Sea Shepard people were unarmed, and being filmed, it would have created an international shit storm had the whalers decided to shoot the boarding party. It was not politically expedient to shoot. Nor justified. These weren't unknown "pirates", with unknown motives. Just some kids high on whale love. OK, they could have had rancid butter. I think the crew of the whaler handled the situation as well as can be expected.

Asshat

01-22-2008, 03:15 PM

...in the Sea Shepard ramming incident last year, the video I saw and the write-ups about it also said, the pursued Japanese ship suddenly slowed and turned broadside to the pursing activist ship. Like jamming the brakes hard and cranking the wheel on a tailgater. So it wasn't like the Japanese were trying to avoid a collision. In that particular case, it's hard to blame Sea Shepard, as they were just chasing a ship out of the whale sanctuary.

Sea Shepherd claims to have sunk ten whaling ships since 1979, referring to these ships as "pirates".The claimed attacks include:

1979 – the whaler Sierra rammed and sunk in Portugal;
1980 – the whalers Isba I and Isba II sunk in Vigo, Spain;
1980 – the whalers Susan and Theresa sunk in South Africa;
1981 – the whaling ships Hvalur 6 and Hvalur 7 sunk in Iceland;
1992 – the whaler Nybraena sunk in Norway;
1994 – the whaler Senet sunk in Norway;
1998 – the whaler Morild sunk in Norway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Shepherd

As the Sea Shepard people were unarmed, and being filmed, it would have created an international shit storm had the whalers decided to shoot the boarding party. It was not politically expedient to shoot. Nor justified. These weren't unknown "pirates", with unknown motives. Just some kids high on whale love. OK, they could have had rancid butter. I think the crew of the whaler handled the situation as well as can be expected.

I disagree with the "no justification" of deadly force in some of these attacks:

"Sea Shepherd threw smoke pots onto the Kaiko Maru and released ropes and nets to entangle her screw. Its propeller has been damaged by them. The vessel is stranded at the moment and has already put out several distress calls." said Dr Hiroshi Hatanaka, the Director General of the Institute of Cetacean Research on the ICR website.

After the collision between the Robert Hunter and Kaiko Maru, the Japanese vessel was effectively blockaded against sea ice."

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/02/12/18361811.php

Based on the incidents above, any prudent captain would have just cause to fear for the loss of his ship or crew.

DougP

01-22-2008, 03:18 PM

Now there's break checking all day everyday on land. And in a lot of cases the tail gaiter is often found guilty. It would seem that its more responsible to follow at a safe distance to avoid collision regardless. Not doing so in my mind could make someone guilty of negligence and possibly guilty of manslaughter if death were to result. This of course could go for both ships. Now threats on the other hand are not welcome on land but they seem to be ok on the high seas.

Society, in Antarctic waters. The militant environmental group has located the Japanese whaling fleet near Antarctica and threatened to ram them if they resumed slaughtering the giant sea creatures.(Sea Shepherd Conservation Society)

If I were to threaten a fellow motorist with ramming them I could be fined or serve jail time. Now they do go on to say this..

We will hound these poachers for as long as we can and when we catch up with them we will disable their equipment and do everything physically possible short of inflicting injury on the crew in order to stop their illegal activities."

Now damaging property is usually a big "no-no" on land as well and I would not be allowed to damage someone else's property. It seems as though they once again can.

Asshat

01-22-2008, 03:33 PM

Now damaging property is usually a big "no-no" on land as well and I would not be allowed to damage someone else's property. It seems as though they once again can.

Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, 1988

http://www.imo.org/Conventions/mainframe.asp?topic_id=259&doc_id=686

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-22-2008, 04:11 PM

Well, bottom line is the activists have the support of Australia, in whose waters this whole drama is playing out.

Asshat

01-22-2008, 04:32 PM

Well, bottom line is the activists have the support of Australia, in whose waters this whole drama is playing out.

The bottom line is that the pirates who are thousands of miles south of Australia in a self-determined EEZ are going to eventually kill someone or themselves.

They are doing more damage to anti-whaling then they are good by their acts of aggression and violence.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-22-2008, 04:48 PM

So you have no problem with the Greenpeace efforts?

TheNoNamedOne

01-22-2008, 06:40 PM

The bottom line is that the pirates who are thousands of miles south of Australia in a self-determined EEZ are going to eventually kill someone or themselves.

Bottom line is that direct action involving some sort of risk has often been a part of changes in history and the laws that were targeted for change. IF direct action by civilians never raised up against the status quo that was viewed as just by those who profit from it, there would be little change in this world's laws.

They are doing more damage to anti-whaling then they are good by their acts of aggression and violence.

Not at all. How are you measuring this Umi to declare such a thing? Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace every year seem to get richer and richer with funds from new supporters donating to them -- enough that Sea Shepherd could buy another vessel last year fast enough to let it keep up with the Japanese whaling ships.

Sea Shepherd and other anti-whaling forces undeniably are winning the PR war, for most reports seem to be without condemnation of them -- except for the quotes mostly made by Japanese officials. Very few media editorials demonize anti-whaling groups, and most letters to the editors are usually supportive of their cause and more often than not damn the whalers.

The Japanese have a lot more to learn about PR savvy it appears. Where are its legion of defenders blanketing world media with its side of the story in a better light?:

Sea Shepherd on top in PR war (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23069678-7582,00.html)

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-22-2008, 07:52 PM

The Japanese effort to promote and legalize whaling in in the IWC itself. By bringing a lot of new, small, poor countries into the commission, and giving huge amounts of aid to those countries if they promise to vote for the legalization of whaling.

TheNoNamedOne

01-22-2008, 08:09 PM

And Japan is suspected of trading their votes to African states by promising to vote for an end to the ban on elephant ivory sales if those countries also vote to an end to the ban on commercial whaling.

DougP

01-22-2008, 11:47 PM

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-22-2008, 11:56 PM

DougP

01-22-2008, 11:59 PM

I think I see where Doug is coming from...

Take responsibility for yourself. Next for your family, your community, and your town. Then for your state, your country, and continent. Only then should you take on The World.

Sounds a lot like something a certain president should have adhered to.:D He definitely skipped steps 3 through 7. 1 and 2 were well taken care of.:)

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-23-2008, 08:44 AM

Japan asks Australia to take legal action against anti-whaling activists

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 07:04 EST

TOKYO — Japan urged Australia in a ministerial meeting Tuesday to take legal action against two anti-whaling activists who boarded a Japanese whaling vessel in the Antarctic Ocean without permission and to take measures to prevent a recurrence, the Japanese Foreign Ministry said.

Foreign Minister Masahiko Komura made the demands in talks with Australian Trade Minister Simon Crean in Tokyo, although the two also reaffirmed that the recent clashes over the whaling issue should not affect overall friendly bilateral relations, Press Secretary Kazuo Kodama said.

Only an hour after the two men were handed to an Australian customs boat on Friday, the crew of a Sea Shepherd ship hurled butyric acid bombs, or "stink bombs," onto the deck of the harpoon boat.
Komura told Crean that the actions of the group posed a danger and he urged cooperation to prevent "the recurrence of such an incident," according to the ministry statement.

He also asked Canberra to "take appropriate action" under national laws "should the Sea Shepherd boat call at an Australian port."

Australia has long opposed the hunt in the area, which includes a self-declared sanctuary, but has stopped short of physically intervening.

A customs ship tracked down the whalers and sent officers in smaller boats to gather video and photographic evidence, said a spokeswoman for Home Affairs Minister Bob Rebus.

"They are trying to get closer to see what the whaling fleet is doing," she said on condition of anonymity.

The customs ship, Oceanic Viking, had lost contact with the whalers after picking up the two activists after last week's stand-off.

Australia's Labor government vowed when elected last year to collect evidence of Japanese whaling in Antarctic waters, stepping up pressure on Tokyo to end its annual hunt.

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/425829

Asshat

01-23-2008, 12:18 PM

Bottom line is that direct action involving some sort of risk has often been a part of changes in history and the laws that were targeted for change. IF direct action by civilians never raised up against the status quo that was viewed as just by those who profit from it, there would be little change in this world's laws.

Yes, history is a good teacher. Killing for Jesus, killing for whales. Yeah. I got it. Do you need to go back and check the history of these anti-whaling nut cases? As a mariner, I take endangering lives and ships very seriously. So do the anti-whaling terrorist "really" want to continue this deadly game on the high seas?

How are you measuring this Umi to declare such a thing? Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace every year seem to get richer and richer with funds from new supporters donating to them -- enough that Sea Shepherd could buy another vessel last year fast enough to let it keep up with the Japanese whaling ships.

And so when they kill someone, will the anti-whaling Nazi's celebrate the deaths of crewmen trying to feed their families?

Sea Shepherd and other anti-whaling forces undeniably are winning the PR war, for most reports seem to be without condemnation of them -- except for the quotes mostly made by Japanese officials. Very few media editorials demonize anti-whaling groups, and most letters to the editors are usually supportive of their cause and more often than not damn the whalers.

Power of the people, right on. Well perhaps it is only we people who have a clue about the ocean- we people who understand the difference between violence for the sake of violence who are getting fed up with extremists endangering the lives of other humans.

Yes, let's go to war over this. War's are fought for stupider idiology.

As I have read this thread, it is interesting to note how endangering the lives of other humans is being justified. That a mariner can BRAG about sinking ships, then is applauded.

Totally pathetic from any standpoint, but that of the ignorant who doesn't understand what it means to be on the ocean, or those who will foment violence and use anti-whaling as an excuse for it.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-23-2008, 12:35 PM

As I have read this thread, it is interesting to note how endangering the lives of other humans is being justified. That a mariner can BRAG about sinking ships, then is applauded.

Totally pathetic from any standpoint, but that of the ignorant who doesn't understand what it means to be on the ocean, or those who will foment violence and use anti-whaling as an excuse for it.
Has anyone ever been killed in the history of active opposition to whaling? How about hurt? I can see some of the activists being injured.

DougP

01-23-2008, 12:43 PM

Has anyone ever been killed in the history of active opposition to whaling? How about hurt? I can see some of the activists being injured.

Whether they have or have not the danger is still there. Things such as ramming ships, even if only suggested should not be taken lightly. Dangerous activities can still result in death even if they haven't yet. It would be like saying "We haven't had a diving related fatality here in a few decades so throw caution to the wind.:thumbdown:

Go-Shay

01-23-2008, 04:32 PM

Activists clash with Japanese whalers (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/01/22/activists.ship.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest) cool pic:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

01-23-2008, 04:39 PM

The protesters were drenched with freezing water from Japanese hoses as they piloted an inflatable boat between the factory ship Nisshin Maru and supply ship Oriental Bluebird, a Greenpeace spokesman said from a ship trailing the Japanese fleet.
Bet that was fun!

TheNoNamedOne

01-23-2008, 07:09 PM

I can see what you're saying here. I've noticed that the reference to the Boston Tea Party pops up every now and then when we are talking about bringing on change for the better. But times have changed and violent acts of any kind should not be warranted just because they used to work 200 years ago.

They work now, too, Doug.

But why shouldn't direct action using violence targeted at property be used now to change what one perceives as wrong but it was ok 200 years ago? You do see that this is just an arbitrary placement for where it should or not be used, don't you? I think you don't want it used now merely because you find yourself in this time period. However, I am sure the Loyalists living in the colonies felt it wrong and cowardly to frame Indians for property damage at that time.

How about the ANC militant wing that fought Apartheid in S. Africa just a few years ago? Hell, have you ever seen any U.S. publications exported to Nicaragua a few decades ago that were mini books instructing citizens on how to monkey wrench their societies by damaging the industry and infrastructure? Seems to me that Sea Shepherd is taking some lessons from governments elected by citizens on the point of monkey-wrenching what they believe wrong.

We can [did you mean "can't" here, DougP? -- TP] complain about taking it to terrorists in the middle east without first taking diplomatic measures [so] why should this be any different?

I am not too sure what you mean here. Usually diplomacy at the state level is conducted between states. Terrorists lack that standing. As much as I disagree with our present situation in the U.S., it is wrong to say that no diplomatic efforts (however flawed they may have been) were never made to Iraq or Afghanistan.

There are more peaceful solutions to this. I don't think that such risks and or any violent actions should be condoned. Regardless of the outcome. It doesn't make much sense to argue for the value and quality of life and then go and risk and or endanger life to prove that point. Let alone to protect life.

To some it does make sense to risk life to put an end to what they view as immoral behaviour. I really do not see how you can say it doesn't make sense. I think what you really wanted to say is that you do not think it makes sense to risk lives for animals. But then that brings you back to the argument of AR, or you are forced to defend anthropocentrism as some kind of universal truth.

When warlords are starving and slaughtering millions in some far off land is it the best recourse to go in there and start killing the opposition?

You have jumped analogies in targeting here, Doug. Sea Shepherd is not targeting whalers with deliberate actions with the intent kill them like your question poses with its analogy. Therefore, the analogy is off.

Does violence such as that drive home the point that violence and murder are wrong? This is the 21st century not the 16th or 19th.

Aside from the point that your analogy is wrong, the period we are in is no different in that direct action can get results if it is correctly applied. Have you any evidence that homo rapeans have genetically changed from the 16th or 19th century to now that predisposes them to less violence or a willingness to take direct action when a wrong is perceived? I don't think you do, and time is illusory to use. Sure, our laws come about through social engineering which has evolved, but if those laws fall out of line with the views of people, people will resort to direct action if they view those laws as wrong -- particularly if the injustice of them lead to exploitation and suffering resulting in death as a goal. And that brings you back to ARists' world view -- or even in this case some conservationists.

DougP

01-23-2008, 07:36 PM

They work now, too, Doug.

But why shouldn't direct action using violence targeted at property be used now to change what one perceives as wrong but it was ok 200 years ago? You do see that this is just an arbitrary placement for where it should or not be used, don't you? I think you don't want it used now merely because you find yourself in this time period. However, I am sure the Loyalists living in the colonies felt it wrong and cowardly to frame Indians for property damage at that time.

Slavery was ok 200 years ago as well. Now I know someones going to say "But Doug, this is nothing like slavery!" You're right its not. But if its destruction of private property or violence towards others then its still wrong. Slavery is still wrong. So what am I getting at? Both are wrong and just because it worked or was right 200 years ago doesn't mean it should be used or acceptable today.

I think or at least I hope man kind has matured enough over the last two centuries or so to where violence of any kind whether towards animals, property or other people should not be tolerated. No maybe if it was one of those backed into a corner scenarios I could understand.
How about the ANC militant wing that fought Apartheid in S. Africa just a few years ago? Hell, have you ever seen any U.S. publications exported to Nicaragua a few decades ago that were mini books instructing citizens on how to monkey wrench their societies by damaging the industry and infrastructure? Seems to me that Sea Shepherd is taking some lessons from governments elected by citizens on the point of monkey-wrenching what they believe wrong.

So by this standard if I was against a certain industry or institution I should be able to go on and destroy their infrastructure? I still think that at least in the civilized world this is not allowed. All be it not too civilized at best. And come on just because the US was handing out pamphlets on how to revolt doesn't make it right.

I am not too sure what you mean here. Usually diplomacy at the state level is conducted between states. Terrorists lack that standing. As much as I disagree with our present situation in the U.S., it is wrong to say that no diplomatic efforts (however flawed they may have been) were never made to Iraq or Afghanistan.

What I was saying is that people were screaming bloody murder when the US forces went into the middle east in an attempt to wipe out terrorism without resorting to diplomatic measures first. So why is ok for others to take to war on the high seas without continuing diplomatic pressure? Sanctions? They seem to be the weapon of choice among the antiwar protesters so why should it not be suitable for the anti whalers?

1.)To some it does make sense to risk life to put an end to what they view as immoral behaviour. I really do not see how you can say it doesn't make sense. 2.) I think what you really wanted to say is that you do not think it makes sense to risk lives for animals. But then that brings you back to the argument of AR, or you are forced to defend anthropocentrism as some kind of universal truth.

1.) To some it makes sense to eat meat. To some it makes sense to kill animals. To some it makes sense to do a lot of things. Doesn't always make it right in the eyes of others.

2.) No not at all. Regardless of whether or not animals are involved in this, using violence or destructive behavior to drive home the point that destructive behavior and violence is wrong doesn't make sense.

and no I'm not being forced to defend anything. If anything I'm going out on a limb and going against former stances I've held before. Stances which ok'ed acts of violence, war etc as means to an end.

You have jumped analogies in targeting here, Doug. Sea Shepherd is not targeting whalers with deliberate actions with the intent kill them like your question poses with its analogy. Therefore, the analogy is off.

Ah sorry if I mislead you. This was not an analogy for the Sea Shepherd. This was another way to look at what I'm trying to convey. That violence on any level doesn't seem to be a rational tool of convincing others that violence is wrong. Although it does seem to work I'll give you that. There is no denying that. I would like to think that those who value life and are so altruistic as to look out for other beings of sentience that they wouldn't resort to using violence or destructive behavior. I figured they would take the lead by example.. one that points towards a more peaceful existence.

Aside from the point that your analogy is wrong, the period we are in is no different in that direct action can get results if it is correctly applied. Have you any evidence that homo rapeans have genetically changed from the 16th or 19th century to now that predisposes them to less violence or a willingness to take direct action when a wrong is perceived? I don't think you do, and time is illusory to use. Sure, our laws come about through social engineering which has evolved, but if those laws fall out of line with the views of people, people will resort to direct action if they view those laws as wrong -- particularly if the injustice of them lead to exploitation and suffering resulting in death as a goal. And that brings you back to ARists' world view -- or even in this case some conservationists.

And as you've pointed out just because its the way its always been doesn't mean it has to be that way forever. Using violence and destructive behavior/acts to get what we want or eating meat to survive. It is another example of what is the status quo. Not something thats right per say.

Go-Shay

01-23-2008, 07:43 PM

Bones

01-23-2008, 07:46 PM

Kind of reminds me of an old song by Bruce Hornsby and the Range: "That's Just The Way It Is".

People are resistant to change.

NBTP

retributionnk

01-23-2008, 07:52 PM

bottom line gentlemen... stop the crap, we are destroying the Ocean- overfishing, net fishing, shark finning, and list goes on. The Japanese Ministry of Fishing stated on Monday that Japan wants to resume commercial whaling as soon as possible.....WTF.. they have over 30,000 tons of whale meat in freezers that no one wants???? so lets go kill some more???

Wow, I am surprised and pleased that you actually chimed in. You had formerly just been a thank you bot for the parties debating your side of this issue. That said, I don't think that the current debate is about the morality or legality of whaling. I think most would agree that the Japanese whaling industry is doing some quite illegal and unethical things by modern society's standards. The topic at hand, however, is whether or not using violence as a means to stop violence is morally, ethically or legally right. What do you think?

TheNoNamedOne

01-23-2008, 07:57 PM

Doug, I'm going to answer your post over a few posts by cutting it up. Just do not want to spend an hour in one sitting on it.

Slavery was ok 200 years ago as well. Now I know someones going to say "But Doug, this is nothing like slavery!" You're right its not. But if its destruction of private property or violence towards others then its still wrong.

Doug, you still have not explained why it is wrong to destroy property to advance a moral cause if what is being targeted causes pain and suffering? You are just declaring here.

Saying it is now the 21st century or that we have advanced is ridiculous. Advanced how? In our laws? Genetics? Having laws to prevent exploitation and suffering is the damning evidence pointing the fact that we have not advanced. If we have not advanced and a law is being kept in place that the people do not agree with and that position which is protected by the law is not necessary, then it is a pretty fair bet people are going to use Direct Action to stop that activity if those who do that do not take it upon themselves to stop it.

Slavery is still wrong. So what am I getting at? Both are wrong and just because it worked or was right 200 years ago doesn't mean it should be used or acceptable today.

But why?! You are just saying it is because it is "today." Well, WHY is today any different than then?

I think or at least I hope man kind has matured enough over the last two centuries or so to where violence of any kind whether towards animals, property or other people should not be tolerated.

When you eat meat you do realize how hollow this argument rings, don't you? Or are you saying there is no violence done to animals as they are pushed on their way to your plate -- be that chicken, pork, beef, fish, or whale? Obviously man has not matured enough to not resort to violence to get what they want. Exhibit A: YOU.

Go-Shay

01-23-2008, 08:05 PM

Wow, I am surprised and pleased that you actually chimed in. You had formerly just been a thank you bot for the parties debating your side of this issue. That said, I don't think that the current debate is about the morality or legality of whaling. I think most would agree that the Japanese whaling industry is doing some quite illegal and unethical things by modern society's standards. The topic at hand, however, is whether or not using violence means to stop violence is morally, ethically or legally right. What do you think?

Sometimes a bold statement needs to be made before the other party will back down. I do not think that it takes violence but then again my definition of violence is pretty broad. Sometimes a situation takes a really bold and strong move in order to gain attention. If Capt Paul is willing to make that statement who am I to say he is wrong in doing so?

DougP

01-23-2008, 08:08 PM

01-23-2008, 08:13 PM

If Capt Paul is willing to make that statement who am I to say he is wrong in doing so?
Good point. I have said in the past that unless Okinawans are willing to step up their game in terms of protesting, they will not be taken seriously to the point of action. Who am I to judge the captain for acting out on something he believes in.

However, having said that, I do think it'd be pretty gratifying to shoot freezing water at a bunch of activists on a blow up boat. :D

DougP

01-23-2008, 08:15 PM

I hope that what I just posted earlier clears things up a bit more.
Doug, I'm going to answer your post over a few posts by cutting it up. Just do not want to spend an hour in one sitting on it.

Doug, you still have not explained why it is wrong to destroy property to advance a moral cause if what is being targeted causes pain and suffering? You are just declaring here.

I view it as wrong because it is destructive behavior. The same type of behavior that is being exhibited when whalers go off on a killing spree. I would rather things get resolved more peacefully.

Saying it is now the 21st century or that we have advanced is ridiculous. Advanced how? In our laws? Genetics? Having laws to prevent exploitation and suffering is the damning evidence pointing the fact that we have not advanced. If we have not advanced and a law is being kept in place that the people do not agree with and that position which is protected by the law is not necessary, then it is a pretty fair bet people are going to use Direct Action to stop that activity if those who do that do not take it upon themselves to stop it.

I'm hoping that we have advanced from using such archaic methods. But you're probably right in saying we haven't

But why?! You are just saying it is because it is "today." Well, WHY is today any different than then?

For a lot of the same reasons why today is different then yesterday on many of the topics we discuss. It may not be different per say but then again maybe it should be. After all whaling is still going on.

When you eat meat you do realize how hollow this argument rings, don't you? Or are you saying there is no violence done to animals as they are pushed on their way to your plate -- be that chicken, pork, beef, fish, or whale? Obviously man has not matured enough to not resort to violence to get what they want. Exhibit A: YOU.

Yes I do see how ironic I sound and have you to thank.:) Seriously take it as a compliment, as my ears absorb my eyes can't help but widen more and see things differently.

TheNoNamedOne

01-23-2008, 08:28 PM

Yes, history is a good teacher. Killing for Jesus, killing for whales. Yeah. I got it.

How about killing to stop more killing? In any event, you erroneously conflate the two. Sea Shepherd does not have the intent of killing whalers to prevent the killing of whales; they have the intent of disrupting their operations.

Do you need to go back and check the history of these anti-whaling nut cases? As a mariner, I take endangering lives and ships very seriously. So do the anti-whaling terrorist "really" want to continue this deadly game on the high seas?

I think they view it as anything other than a game, and obviously, yes, they "really" do want to continue with their activities. Of course you are free to throw the term "nut case" around, but you can be sure Sea Shepherd activists have harsh terms to throw towards the whalers as well. Ad homs rarely mean anything (let alone accurate) except to the one throwing them around. However, there are some well respected people around the world who support Sea Shepherd -- the Dalai Lama being one of them.

And so when they kill someone, will the anti-whaling Nazi's celebrate the deaths of crewmen trying to feed their families?

When? Surely this is a fallacy of some kind.

Give me a break..."trying to feed their families." These are not family farmers. I guess I have a little more compassion for a mother whale who is harpooned and whose calf which may still be on the tete is left to starve. Time those whalers moved into a more honest form of living. Perhaps some government retraining program could help them with that.

Power of the people, right on. Well perhaps it is only we people who have a clue about the ocean- we people who understand the difference between violence for the sake of violence who are getting fed up with extremists endangering the lives of other humans.

It sure is an "extreme" way to die, taking minutes to expire after grenade exploding harpoons are embedded in one. It is an extremely cruel way to die. It sure is an extreme chase for culture or profits to go to extreme distances of thousands of miles to kill an animal.

Funny...just who are the extremists here? Maybe both. I know one of the two are seeking to put an end to the extreme of one that calls out the extreme in another.

Yes, let's go to war over this. War's are fought for stupider idiology.

A tad hyperbole here, Umi.

As I have read this thread, it is interesting to note how endangering the lives of other humans is being justified. That a mariner can BRAG about sinking ships, then is applauded.

The zeitgeist is always moving, Umi.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-23-2008, 08:34 PM

So, if both the whalers and the activists can be called pirates, what's the objection to a pirate fight?

DougP

01-23-2008, 08:35 PM

So, if both the whalers and the activists can be called pirates, what's the objection to a pirate fight?

hmm, well since you put it that way... none.:) game on!:thumbup:

TheNoNamedOne

01-23-2008, 09:14 PM

Ok just to add a bit more to this. TP I know there is some common ground in all of this and I hope I haven't been coming off as argumentative. As much as I like a good debate I'm not at all in disagreement with the Sea Shepherd's overall mission. I'm very much against whaling. I too would like to see it stopped. Just not at all costs.

Well, obviously Sea Shepherd, too, does not want to stop it at all costs, or if they did they would be armed and shooting at them and being much more aggressive with ramming maneuvers. So, perhaps that is the common ground you speak of. We are already standing on it.

So lets use our debates/situation as an example here and relate it to the discussion. Now you know I am obviously not a vegetarian so I consume things that you do not approve of. (1)Now lets say I was on the way to the grocery store to buy some steaks. I'll be the whalers in this analogy and you can be Sea Shepherd. Now you spot me on the way to the store and are more than aware of my intent, which is not for scientific research. (2)Would it be reasonable for you to take your car and ram it into mine or block traffic to prevent me from entering the store[slaughterhouse]? Even if it meant that this one time you can keep me from contributing to animal slaughter? (3) Or would you find that approaching me in a less threatening manner and explaining or trying to level with me that what I'm doing is wrong would be the better option?

Doug, I really do like analogies, and I seem to enjoy them more when they are wrong so I can pick them apart and show why their constructs are not analogical:

1. You have yourself on the way to the end product already packaged and are not doing the killing here. The whalers on the other hand are going to be doing the killing. Your analogy would be better had you said you were on your way to the slaughterhouse to do your 8 hours shift on the kill floor doing your sticking. But rather than dismiss your whole analogy because of the flaw, let's just say you agree to my correction of it so I can get on with addressing the real issues you are wanting to discuss -- which I do not mind.

2. Doug, you know I am answering from an AR view, which is the egalitarian view of beings and the world -- not an anthropocentric view. That said, the answer to your question is easily discerned by whether or not the Jewish Resistence was justified in sabotaging the tools and infrastructure that allowed the killers to go to their work in Germany or the transport vehicles that shipped Jews to their death. They, too, were treated no different than animals, and their laws of that country supported that treatment. Would you say any Jewish resistance fighter was wrong for hindering a death camp guard from going to their work or destroying a track of rail to stop a box car train from moving towards its destination?

Now, the only way you can answer (an inconsistent way may I mind you) is to embrace anthropocentrism, which really does arise from theistic belief systems, which I think you are won't to not do since you are an atheist.

3. Past attempts would answer this. Sea Shepherd and many activists will approach their target for months and years with arguments for change before they finally realize the time for talk has to be matched with action. Surely talk cannot go on ad infinitum. The status quo hopes for that at times and after a while it makes a mockery out of the attempts to get change as exploitation and suffering is caused to continue. Sea Shepherd continuously tries to apply arguments as well.

It is a fair assessment that sometimes talks do not bear fruit. That is why direct action comes about.

What I'm getting at is the more direct approach may get better faster results but it still wont ultimately drive home the point.

Whenever has there ever been a final consensus on anything in the world where something has been ultimately driven home on something? I think your point is too simplistic and that there is a mix of things that go towards changing the view of many people.

I still wont understand that what I'm doing is wrong. Now if I were like these whalers maybe I would be to old and set in my ways to care but there's still hope for the future right? I guess what I'm trying to say is that it makes more sense to try the other approach, the diplomatic approach.

And when that bears no fruit? Do you talk/use diplomacy ad infinitum? I do not think you understand, but direct action is applied when diplomacy has failed. It is the last resort after past attempts to change things have failed. Why do you think countries have armies with offensive abilities?

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-23-2008, 09:25 PM

TP, you have the patience of Job.

TheLastDon

01-23-2008, 09:29 PM

1. You have yourself on the way to the end product already packaged and are not doing the killing here. The whalers on the other hand are going to be doing the killing. Your analogy would be better had you said you were on your way to the slaughterhouse to do your 8 hours shift on the kill floor doing your sticking. But rather than dismiss your whole analogy because of the flaw, let's just say you agree to my correction of it so I can get on with addressing the real issues you are wanting to discuss -- which I do not mind.

Hmmm...

I had this exact same thought in my head. I was a little hesitant to post on this thread fearing I would add to the drama.

Now I don't want to strip up any crap BUT for all the people that are so for what the Seashepard and Green Peace are doing why don't you take your opinionated butt and take action. Mess with people going to the slaughter houses, sabotage some fishing boats, and vandalize some MickeyDs. It's the same thing right?:thumbup:

Go for it! It will do more good than harm, right.

TheNoNamedOne

01-23-2008, 09:39 PM

...for all the people that are so for what the Seashepard and Green Peace are doing why don't you take your opinionated butt and take action. Mess with people going to the slaughter houses, sabotage some fishing boats, and vandalize some MickeyDs. It's the same thing right?

TLD, do you think anyone who would do that is so obtuse to announce personal intent and action on an open board like this? Yes, some may on other boards, and if their goal is to stay a soldier in the field as long as possible and not taken out of action, it would behoove them to not let their pride get in the way by beating their chest and bragging about such things.

The most one should ever admit to on a forum board is picketing, petitioning, and pamphleting. I've admitted to the latter. Anything other by any direct action activist should always stay off boards such as this.

The prudent soldier soldiers on longer. Can't do much for The Movement if you are behind bars.

DougP

01-23-2008, 09:45 PM

TP thanks for the reply and yes I would have to agree with eel on your patience. Yes I wasn't 100% accurate on my analogy. Would it be more correct to consider it a parody of the current discussion? I must admit that I did feel that using the store was as equally fitting considering there are those that view the consumers to be just as guilty as the slaughterers. Never the less I will agree to your corrections on it.:) Now, you have said that the Sea Shepherd and possibly its fellow anti whalers do not want to stop it(whaling) at all costs, to include injury to either party. If this is truly the case then I really have no further argument. They are obviously not trying to partake in methods that disagree with me.

You also brought up that sometimes talks do not bear fruit. That is why direct action comes about. Well I cannot disagree with this. Its the truth. I know I've mentioned this as well in other threads on other topics. As usual though that's not up to me to decide if talks have indeed failed and action is required. If UN sanctions and inspections have failed and an invasion is in order. I may not always agree with it but the world keeps on spinning... or at least until man kind somehow throws a wrench into that as well.:)

DougP

01-23-2008, 09:49 PM

Hmmm...

I had this exact same thought in my head. I was a little hesitant to post on this thread fearing I would add to the drama.

Now I don't want to strip up any crap BUT for all the people that are so for what the Seashepard and Green Peace are doing why don't you take your opinionated butt and take action. Mess with people going to the slaughter houses, sabotage some fishing boats, and vandalize some MickeyDs. It's the same thing right?:thumbup:

Go for it! It will do more good than harm, right.

Now just to ask to anyone that could answer... Would this be considered the same??? Would it be considered acceptable to do so? Would anything like this(sabotaging equipment property) be considered as just? Would anyone here cheer someone on for doing this?(hypothetically speaking)

TheNoNamedOne

01-23-2008, 09:50 PM

Fair enough on all above, Doug (post #185). Thanks for the posts. Not sure if I should go back and answer a post or two of yours further back that I said I was going to answer by cutting up.

This post of yours just now leads me to believe that maybe that is not necessary...but if you would like me to...please let me know and I will do so.

DougP

01-23-2008, 09:55 PM

Well if you feel it hasn't been covered yet or that there might be unanswered questions then please feel free to. I'm pretty sure there's not much else to debate(for me at least) If you'd like to respond to a previous post I'll reply back and try to answer any questions you may have.

edit to add: I'm sure you may have gotten the just of it but I'm more inclined to want to solve matters through discussions(diplomacy) rather than throwing punches(questionable or violent actions) Not saying that's what Sea Shepherd and the likes of are doing. Just saying that if they were I would disagree with it.

TheNoNamedOne

01-23-2008, 09:56 PM

Now just to ask to anyone that could answer... Would this be considered the same??? Would it be considered acceptable to do so? Would anything like this(sabotaging equipment property) be considered as just? Would anyone here cheer someone on for doing this?(hypothetically speaking)

Doug, I am not sure why you are asking this after I have mentioned that the AR view has an egalitarian world view of beings, and not one of anthropocentrism. If the police were on strike and you heard blood curling screams coming from your neighbors basement everynight after reports of a serial killer being in the neighborhood, would you take direct action to investigate the screams, perhaps break a lock on a ground window to peer in and see what was going on, and upon confirming your worst fears do something about it?

I sure would.

TheLastDon

01-23-2008, 09:57 PM

TLD, do you think anyone who would do that is so obtuse to announce personal intent and action on an open board like this? Yes, some may on other boards, and if their goal is to stay a soldier in the field as long as possible and not taken out of action, it would behoove them to not let their pride get in the way by beating their chest and bragging about such things.

The most one should ever admit to on a forum board is picketing, petitioning, and pamphleting. I've admitted to the latter. Anything other by any direct action activist should always stay off boards such as this.

The prudent soldier soldiers on longer. Can't do much for The Movement if you are behind bars.
TP,

I am not asking you or anyone to admit anything. It was just an analogy. A dead on one at that I believe.

So the if the protesters against whaling succeeded, what is next?

You don't think it's the same thing?

You pretty much accuse Doug of being a hypocrite because he is against whaling but eats meat.

No hard feelings TP but his whaling thread seems like it has turned into another full blown AR thread.

Now let's all go and have friendly chat. How about it fellas.

DougP

01-23-2008, 10:02 PM

Doug, I am not sure why you are asking this after I have mentioned that the AR view has an egalitarian world view of beings, and not one of anthropocentrism. If the police were on strike and you heard blood curling screams coming from your neighbors basement everynight after reports of a serial killer being in the neighborhood, would you take direct action to investigate the screams, perhaps break a lock on a ground window to peer in and see what was going on, and upon confirming your worst fears do something about it?

I sure would.

But are those the same thing? Now I get what you're talking about. Well if that's how it appears from that point of view then I guess I can't blame you or them. I would have to at least add that the scenario you painted and the scenario unfolding out on the seas do appear to be on two completely different levels of urgency. Well at least up until the whales actually start getting slaughtered. Then yes I can see how that would apply. Hey what can I say I'm dense some times.:D

TheNoNamedOne

01-23-2008, 10:06 PM

So the if the protesters against whaling succeeded, what is next?

Things are not lined up, TLD. There are already many campaigns going on simultaneously. Nothing "next" about it. Just what "is" already going on. Virtually every animal exploitation industry is being targeted by activists.

You pretty much accuse Doug of being a hypocrite because he is against whaling but eats meat.

No, I did not accuse him of being a hypocrite because he ate meat and is against whaling. I told him his argument of "no cruelty to animals" rang hollow when since he did eat meat. A detail worthy of noticing.

No hard feelings TP but his whaling thread seems like it has turned into another full blown AR thread.

No hard feelings taken, TLD. AR always sits on the periphery about topics of animal exploitation. Once someone brings up the point of an animal not intrinsically being as valuable as a human or that humans are worthy to protect with deadly force or risky action but not animals, then AR is going to be touched on. No way to avoid that once those points are brought up -- unless the only person on the animal side is an animal welfarist and not an AR. I am AR.

Someone like Eelecurb, though, who is more AW (Eele and I do not share the exact same view of the animal-human relationship) would more likely stick to legal issues and not philosophical issues. And looking at his posts that pretty much bears that out. YOu can clearly see the differences in our styles of addressing the situation.

For as much as possible, though, AWists and ARists try not to backbite each other. Though sometimes they, too, will find themselves debating one another.

TheLastDon

01-23-2008, 10:09 PM

Fair enough TP.:thumbup:

DougP

01-23-2008, 10:22 PM

No, I did not accuse him of being a hypocrite because he ate meat and is against whaling. I told him his argument of "no cruelty to animals" rang hollow when since he did eat meat. A detail worthy of noticing.

:argh3:Hmm I must need to proof read my stuff more. I know I eat meat and I clearly said I was against whaling and I don't like being cruel to animals but wouldn't that just put me in another category? "hollow?"

My argument was clearly against the use of violence or destruction to negate violence and animal cruelty/murder. I might have been trying to use instances and my understandings that have developed through our earlier discussions(on AR/AW) to appeal my case a bit more. Maybe that's where I came off sounding hollow.

I guess it goes back to the old "A drunk can't tell kids not to drink" :) *sigh* fair enough:(

TheNoNamedOne

01-23-2008, 10:27 PM

lol.

Doug, I wasn't meaning YOU as a person that makes up your total self is hollow (that would be a rather harsh indictment), but just that THAT particular argument I referenced was "hollow." Sorry for the confusion from my side. Wasn't meant as a jab.

DougP

01-23-2008, 10:30 PM

cool no worries, wasn't taking it personal.:) And I think I am done with this thread. Cheers TP.:)

Gentlemen, Ladies fight the good fight its been a whale of a debate for me.:D In another thread.

TheNoNamedOne

01-24-2008, 12:27 AM

Whoa! U.S. multinational corporation Coca-cola company may officially get involved in supporting 'terrorists', eeeeerrrrr....I mean Sea Shepherd, that is.

So, my question is to all of you guys who like to misrepresent things is this: will U.S. law enforcement now be listing Coke Co. along with Islamic charities in the U.S. that send support to terrorists and start arresting Coke executives? lol.

Coke may join anti-whaling bout (http://business.smh.com.au/coke-may-join-antiwhaling-bout/20080123-1nq6.html)
Julian Lee
January 24, 2008

WHOEVER said large corporations such as Coca-Cola don't engage in risky marketing might have to swallow their words. The company's Australian bottler, Coca-Cola Amatil, has not ruled out sponsoring, of all things, anti-whaling activism.

Fresh back from a holiday in Africa, CCA's nature-loving boss, Terry Davis, has equated the killing of whales to that of poaching elephants and has said he might reactivate Bluetongue's sponsorship of the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd after it finished last year.

Pacific Beverages - a joint venture between CCA and SABMiller - paid $30 million late last year for Bluetongue Brewery.

This time last year Bluetongue's previous owner, John Singleton, handed the Sea Shepherd activists - who are battling Japanese whalers in the Antarctic - a large cheque and promised an extra $1 for every case sold. A graphic internet ad showing a harpooned Japanese diner proclaimed Bluetongue as the whale-safe beer. ...

... "Bluetongue did their bit when it counted: we donated $250,000 and helped raise awareness of Sea Shepherd's campaign to stop whaling in the Southern Ocean," ...

One should be careful in being overly rabid in applying the emotional terms of our time, lest one looks ridiculous. Though, I sincerely hope that there are many of you supporting Sea Shepherd by purchasing soft drinks that are part of the Coke Co. There are many, and every time you may drink one in the future, you will be helping piracy in the Antarctic Seas.

But why haven't world governments moved to freeze all the accounts of Coke Co. and its executives? Oh, you guys are funny with your piracy and terrorist accusations flying around.

Chill out, and have a Coke! It's the real thing!!

Asshat

01-24-2008, 08:10 AM

How about killing to stop more killing? In any event, you erroneously conflate the two. Sea Shepherd does not have the intent of killing whalers to prevent the killing of whales; they have the intent of disrupting their operations.

Ramming vessels at sea and sinking them is attempted murder. Show up at an abortion clinic and ram the vehicles of women as they attempt to park. Ram them to the point where their vehicle is unsafe, and they have the chance of dying.

Hold up a 7-11 with a gun which is not loaded.

I think they view it as anything other than a game, and obviously, yes, they "really" do want to continue with their activities. Of course you are free to throw the term "nut case" around, but you can be sure Sea Shepherd activists have harsh terms to throw towards the whalers as well. Ad homs rarely mean anything (let alone accurate) except to the one throwing them around. However, there are some well respected people around the world who support Sea Shepherd -- the Dalai Lama being one of them.

Yes, plenty of ignorant people will jump on the popular bandwagon. People who do not know, or who do not care that the captain of the ships is engaged in his personal piracy euphamism. I read the interviews TP. The guys sounds like a wanker, and says more about his culturaly correct piracy than he does whaling. And note that in the latest case, the specis of whale had not been determined? The ship was involved in "legal" whaling.

Give me a break..."trying to feed their families." These are not family farmers. I guess I have a little more compassion for a mother whale who is harpooned and whose calf which may still be on the tete is left to starve. Time those whalers moved into a more honest form of living. Perhaps some government retraining program could help them with that.

Yes, perhaps a government program could assist with that. How about instead of spending all those donations on attempted murder of ship hands, they offer them alternative employment? Oh, that wouldn't be as fun as ramming ships and calling yourself a "pirate" now would it?

I would love to face these wankers at sea. I would love to take out the ignorant folks wearing the current brand of the emporers new clothes and let them see what it is like to have someone try to kill you.

Vicarious living, calling themselves swashbucklers, as the rest of the world say's "it's for a good cause." What a bunch of calous, moronic bullshit.

I note from the additional three pages of posts during the eve that folks are getting wrapped around the axle on this. The ends DO NOT justify the means, and I sincerely hope the whalers decide to arm themselves.

I also wish that the masses out there crying about the environment would take the time to educate themselves before making judgements based on newspaper articles. No one mentions the destruction of watersheds for instance in the decline of the fishery, nor the legislation in the US that has all but ended commercial fishing.

Yep, sit behind the key board, make a donation. It's safe. It's vicarious. It's fomenting terrorism.

Asshat

01-24-2008, 08:14 AM

My argument was clearly against the use of violence or destruction to negate violence and animal cruelty/murder. I might have been trying to use instances and my understandings that have developed through our earlier discussions(on AR/AW) to appeal my case a bit more. Maybe that's where I came off sounding hollow.

Violence to accomplish anything is wrong. Thus, those who would applaud violence to stop violence are as germaine as any other "do as I say, not as I do" scenario.

Let's kill people at abortion clinics to protest the murder of babies in the womb.

Let's boycot salmon while purchasing items made of wood from the PNW.

At least the people crewing the terrorist ships are out there "doing it" and not hiding behind a semblance of civility while funding it. Reminds me of our Government sending young people to die for their oil buddies.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-24-2008, 11:53 AM

Legal whale hunt Umin? Not really:

Antarctic (2) – JARPA II
A new large-scale Antarctic programme (called JARPA II) commenced during the austral summer of 2005/06. The first two seasons were feasibility studies. The objectives for JARPA II differ from those for JARPA and are defined by Japan as:

monitoring of the Antarctic ecosystem;
modelling competition among whale species and developing future management objectives;
elucidation of temporal and spatial changes in stock structure;
improving the management procedure for Antarctic minke whale stocks. JARPA II will focus on Antarctic minke, humpback and fin whales and possibly other species in the Antarctic ecosystem that are major predators of Antarctic krill. During the 2-year feasibility study a maximum of 850±10% Antarctic minke whales and ten fin whales were killed and sampled in each season. Annual sample sizes for the proposed full-scale research (lethal sampling) are 850 (with 10% allowance) Antarctic minke whales (Eastern Indian Ocean and Western South Pacific stocks), 50 humpback whales (D and E stocks) and 50 fin whales (Indian Ocean and the Western South Pacific stocks). Humpback whales were not taken during the feasibility study. The research methods for cetaceans for JARPA II are similar to those for JARPA. The programme also includes non-lethal research techniques to be used such as sighting surveys, biopsy sampling, acoustic surveys for prey species and the collection of oceanographic data.
At the 2007 Annual meeting here was considerable disagreement over the value of this research both within the Scientific Committee and the Commission. As in previous years, there was severe disagreement within the Committee regarding advice that should be provided on a number of issues, including: the relevance of the proposed research to management, appropriate sample sizes and applicability of alternate (non-lethal) research methods.
In 2005 a Resolution (http://www.iwcoffice.org/meetings/resolutions/resolution2005.htm#1) was passed (30 votes to 27 votes with 1 abstention) that strongly urged the Government of Japan to withdraw its JARPA II proposal or to revise it so that any information needed to meet the stated objectives of the proposal is obtained using non-lethal means. Japan withdrew a proposed resolution in favour of the research programmes.
Present status
The 2-year feasibility study has now been completed and Japan has issued permits for 2007/08.

http://www.iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm

The International Whaling Commission allowance for Japanese whale 'research' ran out in the 2004/5 season, and additional proposals by Japan have been rejected over concerns regarding methodology, applicability, and purpose of the proposed 'research'. Japan issues permits to the fleet in defiance of the IWC resolution.

So basically what we have is a Wild West type of situation. The sanctuary for whales is claimed, recognized by some countries, unrecognized by others. The whaling is not supported by the IWC, but like the UN, they have no teeth to do anything about Japan ignoring the resolution. Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd have no special status allowing them to enforce whaling moratoriums, yet the countries in whose waters they operate implicitly support their activism. Many countries allow them to make calls-of-port safely and without harassment, and to conduct fundraising and other activities on their soil.

Asshat

01-24-2008, 12:13 PM

It's not illegal either. However, as I have stated here a hundred times, endangering the lives of ships crew is.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-24-2008, 12:27 PM

Thanks for agreeing Umin. All groups are operating in murky waters legally, as it were.

Asshat

01-24-2008, 12:30 PM

More on Paul Watson, and yes TP, I call him a nutcase.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1217

In 1992, despite his animals-first/humans-last stance, he threatened to sink a fleet of ships reenacting Columbus' voyage of the discovery of America on its 500th anniversary if the participants did not sign an apology for Columbus' mistreatment of American Indians.

http://www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/3370

Wearing a long bowie knife and carrying AK-47s on board, he threatens to ram any ship that won’t give in to his demands. Watson was a founder of Greenpeace, but the group banished him in 1977 in disapproval of his violent tactics.

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/archive/2006/12/paul_watson.html

Years ago a man called Paul Watson used to work for Greenpeace. He now runs an organisation called Sea Shepherd. He frequently makes less than flattering remarks about Greenpeace and the people who work for the organisation. Recently he asked if we would collaborate with him in the Southern Ocean. We said no.

TheNoNamedOne

01-24-2008, 12:42 PM

Ramming vessels at sea and sinking them is attempted murder. Show up at an abortion clinic and ram the vehicles of women as they attempt to park. Ram them to the point where their vehicle is unsafe, and they have the chance of dying.

Umi, I don't think Sea Shepherd is trying to ram pregnant whales. Not like the pregnant whales are going to the whaling ships to get abortions.

Now, if doctors were out patrolling the streets in their vehicles looking for women to butcher, and no law enforcement officials had clear jurisdiction in those areas, I doubt few would protest others who when they spotted those doctors, did ram those doctors' vehicles.

Let's keep analogies accurate and parallel if we are going to use them.

Hold up a 7-11 with a gun which is not loaded.

Same here. Flawed analogy.

Go-Shay

01-24-2008, 11:02 PM

Sea Shepherd News
News Releases

01/22/2008
Steve Irwin Bushwhacks Japanese Spy Ship

The Fukuyoshi Maru No. 68 is a mystery ship. It’s a large fast drag trawler without fishing gear, bristling with surveillance gear and it has been tailing the Sea Shepherd Conservation ship Steve Irwin for a week, always keeping a distance of 7 to 10 miles away.

For the last day, the two ships have been moving rapidly to the east towards the location of the Japanese fleet. Both ships have been threading their way through a floating archipelago of small to medium sized icebergs.

Today, the Sea Shepherd crew prepared a surprise for the spy ship. Ducking behind an iceberg, the Steve Irwin dropped a fast Delta boat to hang close to the berg. The Sea Shepherd helicopter the "Kookaburra" landed on the berg and both the boat crew and the chopper waited as the Steve Irwin resumed course to the east.

The Fukuyoshi Maru No. 68 sailed right into the trap and the Delta crew roared out from behind the berg to confront the Japanese vessel and the helicopter flew overtop to document the encounter. The engagement was staged in an attempt to expose the purpose of the Fukuyoshi Maru No. 68.

At the sight of the Delta and the helicopter the Japanese ship turned tail and ran to the west as the Steve Irwin came around 180 degrees to turn the tables, chasing the spy ship instead. The vessel was clearly intimidated by the sudden appearance of the Delta boat and the helicopter while they were focused on tailing the Steve Irwin some 9 miles ahead of them.

The Delta crew did not attempt to damage the Fukuyoshi Maru No. 68. "They are not part of the whaling fleet," said Captain Paul Watson. "Although there is no doubt they are connected to the fleet. We were not going to waste our disruption materials on a vessel not involved with the actual killing of whales."

The Steve Irwin continues to head eastward towards the Japanese whaling fleet which continues to lie some 20 hours to the east.

"They know we are coming and they have two choices. They can keep running and not kill whales or they can stop to catch whales and we will catch up with them," said Captain Watson. "We prefer to engage them but we have the satisfaction of knowing that while they continue to run from us, whales will not be killed."
link (http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_080122_2.html)

01-24-2008, 11:11 PM

"They know we are coming and they have two choices. They can keep running and not kill whales or they can stop to catch whales and we will catch up with them," said Captain Watson. "We prefer to engage them but we have the satisfaction of knowing that while they continue to run from us, whales will not be killed."
So, they prefer that the ship stop to kill whales rather than continue running? Is this about saving whales? Or confrontation? Because you'd think they'd simply rather chase the whaling fleet away.

Go-Shay

01-24-2008, 11:16 PM

So, they prefer that the ship stop to kill whales rather than continue running? Is this about saving whales? Or confrontation? Because you'd think they'd simply rather chase the whaling fleet away.
OK not to over simplify but by chasing the fleet they (SS) know that no whales will be killed. Almost as if the fleet knows it's wrong but if know ones there watching it's OK. Kind of like children

Asshat

01-25-2008, 07:01 AM

I'm against any kind of extremism. This is just one more Jihad, so a self-proclaimed "pirate" can get his jollies.

TheNoNamedOne

01-25-2008, 12:22 PM

I'm against any kind of extremism.

Always a nice soundbite, eh, Umi? Not so different than slapping the word "patriot" on an act, and anyone who comes out against it knows they risk looking anti-patriotic.

Extreme acts often require extreme responses. Slavery rebellions are pretty extreme, but then again they are in direct response to the extreme people that brought about the situation. Police killing a sniper firing on citizens is pretty extreme, but then again they have acted in direct response to the extreme situation brought about by the other. Toppling the Taliban regime is extreme, but then again there we see extreme situations created which invite extreme responses. I am sure glad abolitionists were extremists to break the law, assist in escapes, and provide assistance to rebellions if they had the opportunity to do so.

I think you are being dishonest, Umi, seeing that you said you'd kill (or not hold it against someone who did so, or that they were within their rights to do so) someone boarding your ship in the ocean. Of course you are meeting what you view as an extreme action with extreme countermeasures.

What you really want to say, Umi, is: "I am against extreme actions on behalf of helping animals against their exploiters." There! See how honest that is? And you get to affirm the prejudicial philosophy of anthropocentrism at the same time!

Well, I am in good company with the Dalai Lama who supports the Sea Shepherd. Aren't you Buddhist, Umi?

Asshat

01-25-2008, 01:26 PM

TP- I edited my post here, since I was a bit miffed when I wrote it.

So let me try again:

1. I "never" do sound bytes. In our personal conversations, you should have realized this.

2. The individual who supports terrorism, or endangers the lives of humans over animals is a sub-human. If they really want to prove their point, they have my permission to remove themselves from the planet. I hope they leave a note, so we will know of their martyr status.

If you really subscribe to attempted murder to save whales, then anything you may wish to say about the rest of the world's bloodshed falls on my deaf ears. If you subscribe to the notion that animals are more dear than humans, then perhaps you need to go and live with them.

No floating about in a nice warm heated boat. (with daddy footing the airplane ticket) No sitting in front of a keyboard buring electrons while you bandy about your neo-conservationist terror, no driving, no market.

I could then take you or anyone else who foments violence in their causes seriously. In this instance, I just see a cowboy who is either going to kill someone, or get killed. If that is what whale conservation is all about, better to kill them all.

After all, the seals would then be able to eat the krill and they might not become extinct.

My last post in this thread. You may have the last word, but be sure it includes an apology for the comment about my religion, and the sound byte. My religion and how it affects my views on humanity are really quite personal.

Anon.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

01-28-2008, 01:54 PM

Update:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/spy-v-spy-as-airbus-joins-the-fight-against-whaling/2008/01/21/1200764171935.html

Spy v spy as Airbus joins the fight against whaling

AUSTRALIA has flown its first whaling surveillance mission as forces opposing the Japanese fleet in the Antarctic are stepped up.
The flight by an extended range Airbus, along with the sighting of a Japanese fishing boat said to be shadowing Sea Shepherd, raise spying over the "scientific" whaling program to a new level.

There are also signs that international attention on the program is creating unrest in Tokyo.

The aircraft performed well on a six-hour low-level search out of Hobart on Sunday, locating two foreign fishing vessels in Antarctic seas, a spokeswoman for the Home Affairs Minister, Bob Debus, said yesterday.

Greenpeace International's whales campaign co-ordinator, Sara Holden, said the vessel Esperanza was still following the Nisshin Maru and in turn was being tailed by the Yushin Maru No. 2, the catcher ship at the centre of last week's detention crisis involving Sea Shepherd activists.

Sea Shepherd's leader, Paul Watson, said his vessel, the Steve Irwin, had been followed for three days by a Japanese trawler.

A Japanese Government spokesman could not be reached for comment.
Ms Holden said: "So long as they are not whaling, that's the point. The fact we are in day 10 without any whales being taken is fantastic. We suspect that the orders from Tokyo are for nobody to see them whaling. This is a delicate time for them politically."

She said Japanese people were raising doubts about whaling.
Greenpeace's Japanese language website had leapt in popularity. The number of page views jumped last week from 10,000 a day to 10,000 in one hour.

"Visitors to the website are also signing up to a online petition asking Japanese ministers to stop squandering taxpayers' money on whaling," said Dave Walsh, a Greenpeace spokesman.

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

02-01-2008, 03:55 PM

http://www.wordpress.tokyotimes.org/?p=2008

"Whale is Japanese food culture (http://www.wordpress.tokyotimes.org/?p=872)."

http://www.wordpress.tokyotimes.org/archives/whale_sign.jpg (http://www.wordpress.tokyotimes.org/archives/whale_sign02.jpg)
Which, whether right or wrong, really begs the question as to how much is about science,
http://www.wordpress.tokyotimes.org/archives/japanese_whaling.jpg
compared to that of sustenance (http://www.wordpress.tokyotimes.org/?p=1994),
http://www.wordpress.tokyotimes.org/archives/whale_meal_close.jpg (http://www.wordpress.tokyotimes.org/archives/whale_meal_close02.jpg)
and sheer single-mindedness?

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

02-07-2008, 10:23 AM

http://www.pbfcomics.com/archive_b/PBF195-The_Pacific_Council.jpg

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

02-13-2008, 11:02 AM

JAPAN's whale killers are going broke and have been forced to slash prices because no one wants to eat their growing mountain of whale meat.

The farcical truth of Japan's whaling industry was exposed yesterday by Japanese media reports that the Institute for Cetacean Research is struggling to repay $37 million in government subsidies.

The report came as Japanese embassy officials made a stern protest in Canberra over the Australian Government's release of shocking whaling photographs.

The ICR, responsible for Japan's lethal "research operation", is flooding Japan with cheap whale meat that it cannot sell, according to the reports in respected newspaper Asahi Shimbun.

Meat and other parts of whales killed during ICR "scientific research" in the southern ocean is sold to a private fisheries company Kyodo Senpaku, which manages the sale of whale meat in the Japanese market.

But while ICR has consistently increased the number of whales it kills - by 30 per cent between 2005-2006 - there has been no increase in demand for whale meat or products domestically...

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23203576-5007132,00.html

Asshat

02-13-2008, 11:11 AM

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23203576-5007132,00.html

This is good news! The best way to end any wrongful practice is peacefully through the wallet! Thanks for that update eel...I hope the debt is attributed to reduced consumption and not just a press piece.

TheNoNamedOne

02-14-2008, 12:19 PM

Yahar, Maties! Raise anchors and prepare to cast off! We be off to hunt the hunters! Sea Shepherd to the rescue!

Refuelled activist ship to resume hunt for whalers (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/refuelled-activist-ship-to-resume-hunt-for-whalers/2008/02/13/1202760398965.html)

Andrew Darby in Hobart
February 14, 2008

THE environment group Sea Shepherd's ship, the Steve Irwin, is to resume its anti-whaling campaign in the Southern Ocean free of legal action by Australia.

Despite Japanese Government calls to act against the hardline environmentalists, the Australian Federal Police is yet to formally interview any Sea Shepherd crew who spent two weeks in port.

Its captain, Paul Watson, said the ship would leave Melbourne today, refuelled and with fresh crew.

http://www.shippingtimes.co.uk/images/Steve%20Irwin%205-12-20071.jpg

Hold on, Mr. Splashy. They're on their way.

http://www.scu.edu.au/news/images/whale%20breach%20web.jpg
Mr. Splashy elated and showing his excitement at hearing the news.

Ok, that is enough celebratory breaching, Mr. Splashy. Don't give your location away to those scalliwags who would harpoon you with a grenade and serve ye up fresh.

Dive Dive Dive! Dive deeeeeeeep!

That Davie Jones be a spying out for ye.

Asshat

02-14-2008, 12:25 PM

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

02-14-2008, 12:29 PM

Yeah, with a vessel named Steve Irwin, a.k.a. The Crocodile Hunter, like the crew are gonna have *any* trouble in Oz...

TheNoNamedOne

02-14-2008, 07:30 PM

Is that a photo from the constantly harrassed whales off the coast of Zamami here?

Ever seen that? As a self-proclaimed ARist, I recommend you do. Starts in April. A spotter boat (ex-fishing boat) darts around the pod, and radios the tour boats where the whales are. The tour boats then haul ass to get to them, thus ensuring the customers get a good show for their money.

It is easy to see the degree in which this activity disturbs the pods. After a few minutes of this, the pods of course disappear. The spotter boats remain.

Sounds like a good thread discussion topic. Thread title should possibly be:

Whale watching industry in Okinawa harasses whales

This thread is about actually targeting and purposefully killing them and trying to stop that i.e. Japanese whaling.

You have to keep in mind, AR activists as individuals can't fight every fight. They all have to choose which ones they will be active in. Sure, they can condemn all animal exploitation, but when putting boots on the ground they have to have some semblance of focus with their actions.

But to answer your question, Umi, no. I have not seen that. But I also do not doubt your first hand testimony of it, and, therefore do not need to go there to be convinced of what you say, because what you say sounds quite reasonable, and likewise, I do not need to be on any ship in the Southern Sanctuary to still support the actions of the Sea Shepherd.

TheNoNamedOne

02-24-2008, 02:04 AM

Superb! Just Superb!!

Protesters track whaling ship with a bug (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/protesters-track-whaling-ship-with-a-bug/2008/02/23/1203467459983.html)
February 24, 2008

Sea Shepherd activists have renewed their attack on Japanese whalers in the Antarctic after claiming to have tracked the fleet down by covertly tagging a whaling ship.

Ever since the international stand-off in which two activists boarded the Yushin Maru No. 2, a transmitter had been sending the ship's position, said Paul Watson, captain of the Steve Irwin protest ship. ...

"Pottsy and Giles weren't just sitting on their behinds on the Yushin Maru No. 2," Captain Watson told The Sunday Age. "We have a transmitter aboard the ship, and they're not going to find it. They're going to have to rip the place apart to do that, which I would like to see."

The boarding incident sparked a three-day stand-off — eventually resolved by the Australian Government, which arranged for a transfer onto the patrol ship Oceanic Viking — after the two men were restrained by the whalers, tied up outside, then taken below deck.

Captain Watson said he had tracked the harpoon ship for more than five weeks across the Southern Ocean and, recently, had steered the Steve Irwin straight to them.

A Japanese whaling ship stuck in the sea ice with a transmitter reporting their position, the Steve Irwin has come bearing down on them!

Maggie

02-24-2008, 05:15 AM

I am against whaling in general. These creatures are highly intelligent, reproduce slowly, and there is just no way to kill an animal this large instantly to prevent suffering.

Japan has is a signatory the International whaling Commission and has accepted a moratorium on its commercial whaling activities, but they continue to hunt under the guise of 'scientific' study, and the meat from all those kills make it to the Japanese market for sale to restaurants and supermarkets. Basically it is a clear violation of the spirit of the moratorium and shows insincerity as a signatory to the moratorium and as a member of the IWC.

Time for Japan to get with the times and let go of this part of their culture.

I think they will soon. They just don't want to be seen caving to international pressure and activists. But, they will.

Do you support Japanese whaling? If so, why?

I most certainly do NOT support whaling, whether it be by the Japanese or any other nation. It's barbaric, outdated, and there is nothing that can be made from a whales corpse that can't easily and cheaply be made by artificial means.
Surely there can never be any reasonable excuse for such cruelty and needless carnage.

Maggie

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

03-03-2008, 10:31 PM

Email a Friend (http://www.stuff.co.nz/emailafriend/4424053a10.html) | Printable View (http://www.stuff.co.nz/print/4424053a10.html) | Have Your Say (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4085876a4621.html)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/images/706325.jpg

Saw a couple versions of this report...one said Japan Coast Guard filmed the "attack". If so, they're sure a long way from Japanese coastal waters.

Anti-whaling activists toss rotten butter, chemicals at Japanese whalers
Monday, March 3, 2008 at 17:03 EST

SYDNEY — Anti-whaling activists from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society on Monday harassed the factory ship of Japan's whaling fleet in the Southern Ocean, the group said. The crew of the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin tossed several bottles of rotten butter at the Nisshin Maru, sending a stench throughout the vessel that will remain for days, Sea Shepherd leader Paul Watson said.

The crew also threw over 100 packets of a slippery chemical onto the decks of the ship, he said. Japan's Fisheries Agency said two Japan Coast Guard officials and a crew member on board the Nisshin Maru complained of eye irritation due to the rotten butter, commonly known as butyric acid, but recovered after washing their eyes with water. The agency said it plans to lodge a protest with the governments of Australia, which has offered Sea Shepherd a home port, and the Netherlands, because the Steve Irwin flies a Dutch flag.

http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/429891

SS was claiming all their "weapons" were natural, and biodegradable.

They said they also threw packets of an undisclosed "slippery chemical" on to the deck of the Nisshin Maru. This will make it very difficult to cut up whales.

The substance becomes even more slippery with water so it will be difficult to wash it off the decks.

"I guess we can call this non-violent chemical warfare," said Captain Paul Watson in the statement.

"We only use organic, non-toxic materials designed to harass and obstruct illegal whaling operations."

They claimed four armed Japanese Coast Guard officers videotaped the confrontation.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4424053a10.html

A couple of reports with more details & updates:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=ae22sMBhdoVA
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080303/wl_asia_afp/japanaustraliawhaling

proudtobnotpc

03-03-2008, 10:57 PM

voices4animals

03-04-2008, 01:52 AM

TP- I edited my post here, since I was a bit miffed when I wrote it.

My last post in this thread. You may have the last word, but be sure it includes an apology for the comment about my religion, and the sound byte. My religion and how it affects my views on humanity are really quite personal.

Anon.

I missed whatever and whoever commented about your religion...

And I've pretty much bowed out of the forums a bit, as I don't have time to interact with people who aren't willing to have intelligent discussions (which includes dissension)..

But it might interest you that I have been put under the spotlight by fellow animal welfare/animal rights peers for being a devout Christian. No biggie, as I owe no one an explanation for my beliefs... I only expect mutual respect.

For decades, the animal welfare/rights movement has been defined as left wing, liberal, etc.... yet I'm a tiny-bit-right-of-center conservative.. and GASP, I spend my free time fighting for the protection of animals that suffer.

I don't feel a need to defend my religious beliefs, as I don't find them in conflict - AT ALL - with my belief that animals weren't put on this earth to torture, abuse, neglect, etc for human benefit.

I'm sometimes in conflict (internally) with the consumption of meat products - because - as we all know - animals eat other animals for food -- and it's usually not a pretty sight (they're not concerned with making their prey's death painless and clean). I remember watching Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom as a kid - and crying when the lions would kill the water buffalo.. and my mom explaining that "to everything there is a purpose" -- and lions need to eat, too..

Unfortunately, lions are not vegan.

So, let orcas kill dolphins... let sharks take down a whale -- because it's THEIR food source, not ours. When we stay out of the picture, nature stays balanced. We're continuously screwing with the balance of things until we ruin it entirely... then move on to the NEXT thing to kill and mutilate, and drive to extinction.

Look at the situation with the Kaibab deer (mule deer) in and around the Grand Canyon. Over hunting of their natural predators (mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, etc) has caused a CONTINUAL yearly increase of the numbers of deer since roughly 1906 (1913 being the year that Roosevelt took note of the overpopulation of deer), even with hunting programs in place. The deer starve.. vegetation is depleted by the deer desperate for food.. etc etc. Man destroyed the balance - and it just can't be made right again... no matter how we try.

My point - Dolphins and whales have PLENTY of natural predators.. why do we need to be one of them? Especially if their meat is contaminated with mercury? It's not safe to eat & the Japanese KNOW THIS -- yet the Japanese will feed it to their CHILDREN?

To me...... that's pure and simple CHILD ABUSE.

Lastly, over-fishing of whales and dolphins then lead to an abundance of predators... which then kill off secondary food sources.. which COULD be human food sources.. and thus the balance is screwed with again, and most likely permanently damaged.

It's a never ending cycle... yet people don't see the bottom line - which is how overfishing, overhunting, and doing NOTHING to protect our wildlife and our environment harms all of us in the end.

And when WE are PERSONALLY effected by our horrible, ignorant decisions... we're going to go running - whining & screaming to our government demanding they do better.. do more... etc..

Unfortunately, all the whiners will no longer have President Bush to blame for all their worldly ills....... :-|

voices4animals

03-04-2008, 01:57 AM

cool but not cool

Just read the articles..

Come on.. you have to agree... that was pretty ingenious using rotten butter as a weapon........

Organic chemical warfare...... :first:

Maybe we should employ this weapon system against Al Qaida?

~k :)

TheNoNamedOne

03-04-2008, 12:58 PM

Here is the most recent video of the Sea Shepherd pirates harrassing and attacking the whaling vessel Nishin Maru in the South Antarctic seas. The video is taken from the deck of the Japanese vessel as the black ship Steve Irwin follows along her side. The speaker is spouting, "Warning, warning, ..." oh well... you can listen to their distressed Japanese pleas to not bother them yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N4cFQsM4x4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYMiERn6otY

Boost

03-04-2008, 01:34 PM

But it might interest you that I have been put under the spotlight by fellow animal welfare/animal rights peers for being a devout Christian.

That is a shame. I understand that in general, A/W & A/Rist are assumed to be liberals, but I didn't know that, that was actually a rule? If anything, I would think they would be happy to have someone who IS Christian and who IS more right wing leaning on their side on this subject. Being discriminatory because of your political views seems like a bad idea.

TheNoNamedOne

03-04-2008, 01:55 PM

That is a shame. I understand that in general, A/W & A/Rist are assumed to be liberals, but I didn't know that, that was actually a rule? If anything, I would think they would be happy to have someone who IS Christian and who IS more right wing leaning on their side on this subject. Being discriminatory because of your political views seems like a bad idea.

Tis not a rule, and The Movement is happy to get people from all religions and political beliefs backing the protection for animals and winning rights for them.

The Movement is not at all discriminatory in rejecting those who offer help who may come from a conservative or religious background.

Matthew Sculley (a vegan), President Bush's former speechwriter, is a Christian and Republican who has written Dominion (http://www.japanupdate.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21011&postcount=20) which takes a look at animal issues from a Christian view. It has been well received and many have commented that it has caused them to rethink their position on animal treatment. I would say it is one of the books that has caused me to become an animal rights activist even though I am not a Christian and am not conservative.

I recommend you read it, Boost. He approaches the whole animal issue from a Christian perspective of kindness and a duty to be merciful which the Bible promises us God is to the weaker and vulnerable under him (i.e. man) and that He expects Man to be so, too, merciful to the weaker and vulnerable under him (i.e. animals).

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

03-08-2008, 01:28 PM

Drama on the high seas...

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/images/media_080307_1_2_Japanese_coast_guard_tossing_gren ades.jpg
Japanese Coast Guard throwing
flash grenades

The poachers fire first!

Japanese Open Fire on Sea Shepherd Crew: Three Injured

Captain Paul Watson Shot in Chest; Cameraman and Crewmember Injured by Flash Grenades

At 1545 hours (0445 GMT), a clash between the crew of the Sea Shepherd vessel Steve Irwin and the Japanese whaling ship Nisshin Maru turned violent when the Japanese Coast Guard began to throw flash grenades at the crew of the Steve Irwin.

Captain Paul Watson was struck by a bullet in the chest. Fortunately, the bullet was stopped by his Kevlar vest. The bullet struck just above the heart and mangled Captain Watson’s anti-poaching badge, which was worn on his sweater underneath the Kevlar vest.

Dr. David Page was videotaped prying the bullet from Captain Watson’s Kevlar vest. “You have been hit by a bullet,” he said.

The Kevlar vest and anti-poaching badge effectively saved Captain Watson’s life.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_080307_1.html

OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand

03-08-2008, 11:29 PM

Wow!

Shots fired, and nary a comment. Guess we got a bunch of Japan foreign policy supporters on board here. :thumbup1:

Japanese Scramble to Spin Shooting Story

In the aftermath of a confrontation between the crew of the whaling ship Nisshin Maru and the crew of the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin, the Japanese public relations flacks are working overtime to get the spin right.
First, they admitted that warning shots were fired, then they corrected themselves and said that only flash grenades were fired at the crew of the Steve Irwin. Then they changed the story again and described the flash grenades as “warning balls.” By tomorrow morning, they may have it spun it again and may be describing them as “marshmallows.”

The Japanese Coast Guard and the Japanese Fisheries Agency have stated to the media that the devices were flash grenades and that warning shots were fired. Only the Institute for Cetacean Research is denying that warning shots were fired and describing the flash grenades as “warning balls.”

“I think the video tells the story,” said Sea Shepherd volunteer Laurens De Groot, a former police officer from Rotterdam. “I’m familiar with the devices thrown. They are the type of flash grenade that specially trained SWAT teams used to combat armed and dangerous criminals.”

The Japanese claim that Captain Paul Watson is lying about being shot was expected. When Giles Lane and Benjamin Potts were tied to the mast of the Yusshin Maru No. 2, the Institute for Cetacean Research claimed it was a lie until the video images were released.
http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_080307_3.html

retributionnk

03-09-2008, 11:13 PM

"I felt an impact on my chest at one point," he told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. "I didn't think too much of it at the time. When I opened up my Mustang survival suit, and I have a Kevlar bulletproof vest, there was a bullet lodged in."

LOL! Anyone on the forums ever been shot while wearing kevlar? If only it were as awesome as 'I felt an impact, but didn't think much of it.' Being hit in the kevlar might keep you alive, but it'll hurt like being hit by a Mack truck, and trust me, you'll think a lot of it. This is an all-call to the sensationalist media by Mr. Watson.. Sucks that it will probably work.

TheNoNamedOne

03-10-2008, 12:55 AM

This is an all-call to the sensationalist media by Mr. Watson.. Sucks that it will probably work.

You mean kinda like the Japanese claiming their whalers were injured by thrown rotten butter and how the Japanese media sensationally reported that as scary acid?

DOCROB

03-11-2008, 12:08 PM

WOW the Japanese drive Ships like they drive Cars. They cut you off and say it's your fault if you hit'em. WTFYDA!!!! where's a submarine when ya need one. Japan will spin anything to male it look like they did nothing wrong. As for being shoot in a bullet proof vest and not thinking to much about it that's BS it wound knock you on your a$$ and have you thinking what was that???

Asshat

03-11-2008, 12:20 PM

You mean kinda like the Japanese claiming their whalers were injured by thrown rotten butter and how the Japanese media sensationally reported that as scary acid?

Soon, everyone can jump in boats and heard them up and chase them around the northern end of Zamami, furiously snapping pictures to send to their environmentalist friends.

proudtobnotpc

03-11-2008, 12:24 PM

LOL! Anyone on the forums ever been shot while wearing kevlar? If only it were as awesome as 'I felt an impact, but didn't think much of it.' Being hit in the kevlar might keep you alive, but it'll hurt like being hit by a Mack truck, and trust me, you'll think a lot of it. This is an all-call to the sensationalist media by Mr. Watson.. Sucks that it will probably work.
my thoughts exactly :army:

TheNoNamedOne

03-11-2008, 12:26 PM

Soon, everyone can jump in boats and heard them up and chase them around the northern end of Zamami, furiously snapping pictures to send to their environmentalist friends.

What did I tell ya about grenade tipped harpoons, Umi?

Asshat

03-11-2008, 12:33 PM

What did I tell ya about grenade tipped harpoons, Umi?

lol...yep. And killing a few whales will help the Arctic penguin survive. The whales are currently eating their supply of krill. Go figure.

TheNoNamedOne

03-11-2008, 12:35 PM

lol...yep. And killing a few whales will help the Arctic penguin survive. The whales are currently eating their supply of krill. Go figure.

So, we've gone from whaling to whale watching to penguins and now possibly on our way to krill. Whew! Glad someone coined the term "reductionism".

proudtobnotpc

03-11-2008, 12:37 PM

lol...yep. And killing a few whales will help the Arctic penguin survive. The whales are currently eating their supply of krill. Go figure.
interesting concept???????????

Asshat

03-11-2008, 12:39 PM

So, we've gone from whaling to whale watching to penguins and now possibly on our way to krill. Whew! Glad someone coined the term "reductionism".

It was in Discovery. As I watched, I just shook my head. The whales are getting in closer and going beneath the ice shelf and eating the krill..I forget the numbers, but this is causing significant dessimation of those penguins.

Note: Global warming is causing this to occur.

proudtobnotpc

03-11-2008, 12:41 PM

Note: Global warming is causing this to occur.

yet another myth perpetrated by big business:thumbdown: Through out its history the Earth has gone through periods of rising heat and lowering temps.

TheNoNamedOne

03-11-2008, 12:45 PM

It was in Discovery. As I watched, I just shook my head. The whales are getting in closer and going beneath the ice shelf and eating the krill..I forget the numbers, but this is causing significant dessimation of those penguins.

Note: Global warming is causing this to occur.

Just about every commercialization of wildlife that we try to harvest for the good of the ecosystem (and our profits) has never been successful for those we wanted to protect.

Take commercialization out of the mix and leave them to their own, and I bet the forces of nature would strike the ideal balance after a period of adjustment with their environment.

But hey...what does nature know? Minus man it's only been here for several billions of years compared to our appearance the last minute before midnight and screwing things up royally in such a short amount of time.

Asshat

03-11-2008, 12:51 PM

Just about every commercialization of wildlife that we try to harvest for the good of the ecosystem (and our profits) has never been successful for those we wanted to protect.

Take commercialization out of the mix and leave them to their own, and I bet the forces of nature would strike the ideal balance after a period of adjustment with their environment.

But hey...what does nature know? Minus man it's only been here for several billions of years compared to our appearance the last minute before midnight and screwing things up royally in such a short amount of time.

Yep, and global warming, the ice age, whatever, will be and things will balance as they are intended to balance.

TheNoNamedOne

03-11-2008, 01:02 PM

And for the quicker and better the more we can stop intruding on animals and their environments.

Asshat

03-11-2008, 01:06 PM

yet another myth perpetrated by big business:thumbdown: Through out its history the Earth has gone through periods of rising heat and lowering temps.

ah, missed this one. Please do not confuse me with a fellow American who makes decisions based on some political adgenda.
1. Global warming is real.
2. There is an increase of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere.
3. Glaciers are disappearing.

proudtobnotpc

03-11-2008, 02:24 PM

ah, missed this one. Please do not confuse me with a fellow American who makes decisions based on some political adgenda.
1. Global warming is real.
2. There is an increase of hydrocarbons in the atmosphere.
3. Glaciers are disappearing.

For your information: Global warming a different perspective (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html):old:
sorry about going off topic TP

Asshat

03-11-2008, 03:06 PM

For your information: Global warming a different perspective (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html):old:
sorry about going off topic TP

lol..yeah, I have seen that one. And there are many more, as many in fact as their are political idioms.

I have seen interviews from scientists, too. The one thing that is inescapable is that the earth is warming, and polar ice caps are shrinking. Glaciers in N. America are also shrinking, and I have seen that in my own lifetime.

No matter how many pundits go on and on, the fact is that greenhouse gasses are increasing, and please, your website said over the past 18,000 years. What they don't mention is the exponential rise over the last 100.

Disinformation....I don't need a website to tell me what my eyes see. We are warming up and our climate is changing. I don't care what any politician has to say about it. I can see it with my own eyes. Who is causing it? Many things, of which hydrocarbons are only a small part.

As an aside, let's not forget about the mini ice ages we've seen in the last 200 years. ;)

Edit: Your views are obvious now that I re-read what you posted. I said:

Global warming is causing this to occur.

You said:
yet another myth perpetrated by big business. Through out its history the Earth has gone through periods of rising heat and lowering temps.

You jumped on my post without realizing I wasn't blaming anything specific for global warming, only that it was occuring...which you also state.