Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Harold Tuttle on January 06, 2010, 09:10:01 AM
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpremium1.uploadit.org%2FdocZox%2F%2FWHALEfail.jpg&hash=9133166c5872f0ae915639f9497b821c0775dcee)
SYDNEY — A conservation group's boat had its bow sheared off and was taking on water Wednesday after it collided with a Japanese whaling ship in the frigid waters of Antarctica, the group said. The boat's six crew members were safely rescued.
The clash was the most serious in the past several years, during which the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has sent vessels into far-southern waters to try to harass the Japanese fleet into ceasing its annual whale hunt.
Clashes using hand-thrown stink bombs, ropes meant to tangle propellers and high-tech sound equipment have been common in recent years, and collisions between ships have sometimes occurred.
The society said its vessel Ady Gil — a high-tech speedboat that resembles a stealth bomber — was hit by the Japanese ship the Shonan Maru near Commonwealth Bay and had about 10 feet of its bow knocked off.
Locky Maclean, the first mate of the society's lead ship, said one crewman from New Zealand appeared to have suffered two cracked ribs but the others were uninjured. The crew members were safely transferred to the group's third vessel, though the Ady Gil's captain remained on board to see what could be salvaged, he said.
"The original prognostic was that it was sinking, but at this point it is flooded with water but it seems to still have a bit of buoyancy," Maclean told The Associated Press by satellite phone from the ship, the Steve Irwin.
The group accused the Japanese ship of deliberately ramming the Ady Gil.
"They were stopped dead in the water when the incident occurred," Maclean said of the Ady Gil. "When they realized that the Shonan Maru was aiming right for them, they tried to go into reverse to get the bow out of the way but it was too late. The Shonan Maru made a course correction and plowed directly into the front end of the boat."
Glenn Inwood, a New Zealand-based spokesman for the Institute of Cetacean Research, the Japanese government-linked body that carries out the hunt, disputed Sea Shepherd's account, saying video shot from the whaler showed the conservationists' boat moving toward the whaler just before the collision.
"The Shonan Maru steams to port to avoid a collision. I guess they, the Ady Gil, miscalculated," Inwood told The Associated Press. "Sea Shepherd claims that the Shonan Maru has rammed the Ady Gil and cut it in half — its claim is just not vindicated by the video."
Japan's Fisheries Agency said it was still checking details about the clash. Spokesman Toshinori Uoya said there were no injuries on the Japanese side.
Sea Shepherd sends boats to Antarctic waters each southern summer to try to stop the Japanese whaling fleet from killing whales under what it calls a scientific whaling program. Conservationists and many countries say the program is a front for commercial whaling.
Each side routinely accuses the other of dangerous activity during what has become a cat-and-mouse chase in one of the world's most remote regions.
Australia and New Zealand — which both have Antarctica territories and are among the closest nations to the waters where the hunt goes on — have urged both sides to show restraint, warning that they are far away from rescue if anything goes wrong.
"Our strongest condemnation applies to any violent or dangerous activity that takes place in these remote and inhospitable waters," Australian Environment Minister Peter Garrett said Wednesday. He said he could confirm the collision, but that details were still unclear.
The Ady Gil clashed earlier Wednesday with another Japanese ship, the whaling fleet's mothership, the Nisshin Maru.
The Institute of Cetacean Research said the Ady Gil came "within collision distance" of the Nisshin Maru's bow and repeatedly dangled a rope in the water that could have entangled the ship's rudder and propeller.
The Ady Gil's crew lobbed small projectiles designed to release a foul smell, and the whalers responded by firing high-powered hoses to keep the Sea Shepherd vessels away, the institute said in a statement.
"The obstructionist activities of the Sea Shepherd threaten the lives and property of those involved in our research, are very dangerous and cannot be forgiven," it said.
Maclean confirmed the earlier clash.
Japan's whaling fleet left in November for its annual hunt in Antarctic waters. Uoya said that for security reasons, details of the fleet's composition, the number of whales it hopes to take and the number of crew members are not being released to the public.
The Ady Gil is a 78-foot black-painted trimaran made of carbon fiber and Kevlar in a design meant to pierce waves. It was built to challenge the record for the quickest circumnavigation of the globe and can travel faster than 46 mph.
Sea Shepherd unveiled the Ady Gil last October saying a California millionaire with the same name had donated most of the money for it. At the time, the group said the boat would be used to intercept and physically block Japanese harpoon vessels.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582115,00.html
-
Shocking, to say the least, if it's true that the enviro-sailors' ship was deliberately rammed.
Attempted murder is not justifiable to support the illegal whaling racket. That vessel ought to be arrested and its crew charged on the facts available.
-
People who hunt intelligent and endangered higher mammals under the guise of 'research'.
Vs.
Self aggrandizing eco-terrorists.
I see no winner here.
-
Shocking, to say the least, if it's true that the enviro-sailors' ship was deliberately rammed.
Attempted murder is not justifiable to support the illegal whaling racket. That vessel ought to be arrested and its crew charged on the facts available.
you've never watched whale wars have you...
-
People who hunt intelligent and endangered higher mammals under the guise of 'research'.
Vs.
Self aggrandizing eco-terrorists.
I see no winner here.
The eco-nuts in this case are at least trying to stop a crime.
-
Even if the Japanese gov is violating intl law, vigilantilism is not justified. If what they are doing is so clearly illegal, where is the UN/Australian/etc government body? Why are they not responding, at least in an effective manner?
Furthermore, if you are going to play chicken with someone, you should make sure your vessel is of comprable mass to your opponent. I know playing chicken isn't a perfect analogy, since the small boat was stationary. This almost like parking your car on a rail road track because you feel the rail road is operating illegally. You shouldn't be too surprised when your car is totaled.
The assumed totaled boat cost milions that would have been better spent petitioning a legislative body to stop whaling.
I don't think either side is in the right here, they will get what they deserve.
-
Whaling war set to worsen after crash
ANDREW DARBY AND JONATHAN PEARLMAN
January 7, 2010
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/whale-watch/whaling-war-set-to-worsen-after-crash-20100106-luej.html
Torn apart ... wreckage of the Ady Gil.
CONFLICT in the Antarctic over whaling is set to escalate, despite calls for calm after a Japanese ship tore the bow off a protest vessel yesterday.
The hardline Sea Shepherd group said it had no intention of withdrawing from the southern waters after the loss of its $2 million ''stealth boat'', Ady Gil, which was was hit by the Japanese Shonan Maru 2.
Speaking before the crash, the acting Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, rebuked Japan over the revelation by the Herald that its whalers had organised spy flights from Australian airports to watch the Sea Shepherd ships.
''I make it very clear on behalf of the Australian Government we do not condone this action by the Japanese Government,'' Ms Gillard said. "We are urgently seeking legal advice about the matter to see what our options are.''
The Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, cautioned that the Government needed to get more information about the crash before commenting on its cause.
But Sea Shepherd's leader, Paul Watson, was defiant.
"If they think that our remaining two ships will retreat from the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in the face of their extremism, they will be mistaken,'' he said. ''We now have a real whale war on our hands.''
The crash came after a day of harassment of the whaling fleet in Australian Antarctic waters by Ady Gil and another Sea Shepherd ship, Bob Barker.
In the skirmishes, the Ady Gil's crew tried to entangle the propeller of the factory ship Nisshin Maru but were pursued by Shonan Maru 2, which was there to protect the whaling fleet from the activists.
The Ady Gil, low on fuel, was at a standstill and farewelling fellow activists on board the Bob Barker when the incident happened, said its skipper, Pete Bethune, a New Zealander.
Mr Bethune told the Herald the 1000-tonne Japanese ship turned towards the 18-tonne Ady Gil from about 75 metres away when most of its crew were on deck.
''We thought they were going to turn a water cannon on us and I told my crew to brace for that,'' he said. ''Then they T-boned my boat. It was just massive. It's finished. It's been my life for four years, and now it's gone. It's a miracle we all survived.''
An Ady Gil crew member, Laurens de Groot, said the crash was no accident.
''They have no mercy those guys. They were trying to kill us, ramming us like that in one of the most hostile environments in the world. The only way to describe it is attempted murder.''
However, video footage released by Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research last night showed the Ady Gil gradually increasing speed into the path of the Shonan Maru 2, countering the Sea Shepherd account that the ship was not moving.
The six aboard were uninjured and left the floating rear section for the Bob Barker without trouble in the icy conditions.
''Today is a clear example of how the Japanese don't give a *expletive deleted*it,'' Mr Bethune said. ''But this is the end of whaling. You can't go around saying you're trying to conduct scientific research when you're prepared to drive into other people's boats.''
Last night the two pieces of the trimaran were still afloat and the activists were salvaging what they could, including 400 litres of fuel.
The Shonan Maru 2 and two whale chaser boats stood by for some hours after the incident, but did not communicate with Sea Shepherd. The Nisshin Maru steamed away.
An investigation is to be mounted by the Government of New Zealand, which is the flag state for the Ady Gil.
The Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman, Julie Bishop, said the Government had bungled its attempt to end whaling and damaged relations with Japan.
''This has now become an embarrassment for the Government,'' she told the Herald.
The conflict is likely to renew within days when Captain Watson's vessel, the Steve Irwin, arrives on the scene.
Malcolm Cook, of the Lowy Institute, said the repercussions of the latest incident were likely to be ''ugly'' as both governments responded to conflicting domestic pressures.
''Clearly it is now a large and continuing irritant in the bilateral relationship … The irritant seems to grow each year - I am sure this incident will make it grow even more.''
-
The eco-nuts in this case are at least trying to stop a crime.
By committing other crimes.
As noted above, I see no winner here.
-
Furthermore, if you are going to play chicken with someone, you should make sure your vessel is of comprable mass to your opponent. I know playing chicken isn't a perfect analogy, since the small boat was stationary. This almost like parking your car on a rail road track because you feel the rail road is operating illegally. You shouldn't be too surprised when your car is totaled.
It is in dispute that the eco-boat was stationery. I'd like to see the video.
-
the Ady Gil's crew tried to entangle the propeller of the factory ship Nisshin Maru ,
So the environuts had been engaging in piracy . . . too bad for them, but they still they got off easy.
And if they DID deliberately stop their boat in front of the large ship . . . so what? The ship should stop for pirates?
However, video footage released by Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research last night showed the Ady Gil gradually increasing speed into the path of the Shonan Maru 2, countering the Sea Shepherd account that the ship was not moving.
Not surprising that pirates would lie about what they were doing.
This was as dumb a stunt as those pulled by other Darwin-award seekers Rachel Corrie and that guy who laid down on the tracks in front of a military supply train some years back.
-
World War III: Japan Strikes Back.
"International Law" is just a function of who is stronger and who cares the most.
I think the Japanese are so strident about hunting whales purely because of the greenie-pirates' behavior. Curb in the eco-weenies, and the Japanese will probably do a bit less hunting.
-
I have a hard time believing that the very large and cumbersome whaling ship intentionally maneuvered into the much smaller, quicker, and more agile Bat Boat.
I'm guessing that the Bat Boat was playing "chicken" and lost.
-
These geniuses basically tried to stop a semi with a 40,000lb load with a scooter in one of the most inhospitable places in the world. I don't care if they were trying to ram them or just foul their propeller, they took that chance and got their plow cleaned. Morons. If they are accusing the whale ship of attemped murder, what in the world do they think they are going to be accused of.
Any disabled ship in a body of water runs a very high risk of sinking. I don't care if it is 800 tons or 2. While I don't agree with what the Japanese whaling ships are doing under the guise of research, they are using a loophole and operating "legally". The activists are going to get hung on this. And they should.
-
Bad language - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbuq0YEIPNU - Ady Gil is clearly stationary, and the Shonan Maru clearly changes course to ram.
-
I have a hard time believing that the very large and cumbersome whaling ship intentionally maneuvered into the much smaller, quicker, and more agile Bat Boat.
I'm guessing that the Bat Boat was playing "chicken" and lost.
Exactly. They are clearly lying about the encounter, possibly figuring the general public would not know such. There's no way they couldn't have out-maneuvered the whaler if they hadn't been playing tough guys. With a composite boat no less. Even if they were stationary, a SWATH-like boat could spin and high-tail it out of the way even at the last second, if they wanted to keep clear.
Ships do not make course corrections and spin on a dime.
-
Bad language - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbuq0YEIPNU - Ady Gil is clearly stationary, and the Shonan Maru clearly changes course to ram.
Watched.
Ady Gil doesn't seem so stationary to me.
I do see the Shonan Maru turn into it aggressively, but Ady Gil moves forward into the path as well. IMO.
-
Exactly. They are clearly lying about the encounter, possibly figuring the general public would not know such. There's no way they couldn't have out-maneuvered the whaler if they hadn't been playing tough guys. With a composite boat no less. Even if they were stationary, a SWATH-like boat could spin and high-tail it out of the way even at the last second, if they wanted to keep clear.
Ships do not make course corrections and spin on a dime.
Quoted for truth.
Standard maritime law is that the more agile/nimble boat MUST give way to the other. Powerboats give way to sailboats. Sailboats give way to freighters. Etc. It isn't rocket science.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DK2jv8-J6s#t=1m19s
You point $#!+ like that at me out on the ocean and I'm going to light up my biggest gun I got. If that's my ship's bow, so be it.
I can't tell if that's a bazooka or a potato cannon, but you ain't my friend after that.
-
Whatever you may think about Japanese whaling, seeing those filthy hippies get rammed is full of win.
-
Bad language - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbuq0YEIPNU - Ady Gil is clearly stationary, and the Shonan Maru clearly changes course to ram.
Watched.
Ady Gil doesn't seem so stationary to me.
I do see the Shonan Maru turn into it aggressively, but Ady Gil moves forward into the path as well. IMO.
This, although I am not convinced the Shonan Maru turned starboard toward the Ady Gil. With no frame of reference, it could easily be that the camera was circling both boats, causing the appearance of rotation.
-
Whatever you may think about Japanese whaling, seeing those filthy hippies get rammed is full of win.
I dislike Japanese whaling. I dislike wanna-be tough guys more.
-
In a situation like this, it would have been nice to have (hovering heli in place) some aerial footage.
-
Bad language - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bbuq0YEIPNU - Ady Gil is clearly stationary, and the Shonan Maru clearly changes course to ram.
Uh, you might want to look at the other video posted by the guy who posted the Sea Shepherd video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dXCR9LX-Kc&feature=channel
It is much closer and more detailed.
The Bat Boat only appears to be stationary in the video you linked due to perspective. The second video shows they accelerated into the Jap Boat. The wake tells all. They were moving the entire time and then turned on the steam as the Jap Boat approached.
Was it intentional on the part of the eco-pirates? Not sure, as I certainly wouldn't rule out stupidity.
Frankly, I have little sympathy for the eco-pirates, as they admit trying to cripple the Jap boats by tangling their props and leave them unable to move in the sea. As mentioned, that is a good way to end up sunk, when at sea.
Scientific, commercial, flippers, hooves...who cares? Meat is meat.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DK2jv8-J6s#t=1m19s
You point $#!+ like that at me out on the ocean and I'm going to light up my biggest gun I got. If that's my ship's bow, so be it.
I can't tell if that's a bazooka or a potato cannon, but you ain't my friend after that.
Holy shinola! Trying to effing blind the Jap crew!? Screw the eco-pirates, I can say that I would view that as a clear threat and done my level best to meet deadly force with deadly force. Lose the water cannons & bring on the quad-mount Ma Deuces.
IMO, the eco-pirates deserve everything that can be brought to bear on them, form hot lead to cold steel.
-
Was it intentional on the part of the eco-pirates? Not sure, as I certainly wouldn't rule out stupidity.
Thay have proven in the past that they lack common sense and seamanship. They are nothing but eco-terrorist hack jobs and need to be in jail or dead.
In the past they have boarded flagged vessels without permission, placed nets and ropes in the path of ships attempting to disable them at sea while underway, thrown projectiles onto the decks of ships (directly endangering crew), and have caused collisions with other vessels in the past. Acts of terrorisim that also border on piracy.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.metro.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2009%2F11%2FEarthraceG_450x300.jpg&hash=81889b29a958be97fff8a504ad5d09ead6064ad8)
Interesting that they picked the skull & cross bones to put on their boat. And they seem pretty proud of the fact that they were shooting a powerful laser at the whaling ship.
In the article they spoke of a game of cat and mouse. Looks to me like the mouse tried to stop the cat instead of getting away.
-
so what does the insurance policy say about parking the escalade on the train tracks of fate?
-
The second video posted makes it seem like the big boat was getting very close, but going to miss them - possibly to scare them - but then the little boat moves forward at the last minute.
-
The second video posted makes it seem like the big boat was getting very close, but going to miss them - possibly to scare them - but then the little boat moves forward at the last minute.
Hard to say anything about true intentions, I suppose. All I know is if I have the right of way in a semi and a smart car pulls out in front of me, I wouldn't too terribly concerned for my safety.
-
Uh, you might want to look at the other video posted by the guy who posted the Sea Shepherd video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dXCR9LX-Kc&feature=channel
It is much closer and more detailed.
The Bat Boat only appears to be stationary in the video you linked due to perspective. The second video shows they accelerated into the Jap Boat. The wake tells all. They were moving the entire time and then turned on the steam as the Jap Boat approached.
Was it intentional on the part of the eco-pirates? Not sure, as I certainly wouldn't rule out stupidity.
Frankly, I have little sympathy for the eco-pirates, as they admit trying to cripple the Jap boats by tangling their props and leave them unable to move in the sea. As mentioned, that is a good way to end up sunk, when at sea.
Scientific, commercial, flippers, hooves...who cares? Meat is meat.
Holy shinola! Trying to effing blind the Jap crew!? Screw the eco-pirates, I can say that I would view that as a clear threat and done my level best to meet deadly force with deadly force. Lose the water cannons & bring on the quad-mount Ma Deuces.
IMO, the eco-pirates deserve everything that can be brought to bear on them, form hot lead to cold steel.
That is exactly what I saw in the CNN Video (http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/01/06/japan.whale.feud/).
It is clear (at least to me), the whaler turned to port (away from) the Ady Gill, and the high performance, carbon fiber, built to challenge the record for the quickest circumnavigation of the globe and can travel faster than 46 mph (75 kph), accelerated (look at the wake) in front of the whaler.
I've watched "Whale Wars" a few times, and those people are just morons with money.
-
On a slightly related note, I want this:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg9.imageshack.us%2Fimg9%2F1865%2Fnsfpictureofyamal.th.gif&hash=cef1355fcc610d124e24799b6bc35b5ce00807d3) (http://img9.imageshack.us/i/nsfpictureofyamal.gif/)
-
From the videos it looked like they rammed EACHOTHER. Like the hippies were trying to block their path and the japanese turned into them. I call idiocy on both sides.
If groups of people were going through national forests out of season and harvesting loads of deer, screwing up the populations, I doubt people here would have the same reaction. Obviously the UN isn't going to do anything about this. The whalers are doing something illegal that the whole world frowns upon... the econuts are just trying to get attention to their cause and it seems to be working... can't say I feel bad for the Japanese poachers who get gassed/lasered/etc.
-
They missed the cabin. That makes me sad.
The fact is that the sea shepard people have put lives in danger in the past with thier antics and are nothing but eco terrorists. Tangling the propellers of a ship at sea could leave it at the mercy of the sea and thusly puts the lives of the crew in danger. Throwing objects onto the deck of a ship? Yep, dangerous and could injure and kill crewmembers.
They deserve to be treated as pirates and run down by the larger ship.
-
From the videos it looked like they rammed EACHOTHER. Like the hippies were trying to block their path and the japanese turned into them. I call idiocy on both sides.
If groups of people were going through national forests out of season and harvesting loads of deer, screwing up the populations, I doubt people here would have the same reaction. Obviously the UN isn't going to do anything about this. The whalers are doing something illegal that the whole world frowns upon... the econuts are just trying to get attention to their cause and it seems to be working... can't say I feel bad for the Japanese poachers who get gassed/lasered/etc.
Actually, I would have the EXACT SAME reaction. The whalers are exploiting a well-known and publicized LOOPHOLE IN THE LAW. Do I think they are operating within the spirit of the whaling agreement they signed. No. Does that bother me. Yes. Does that give anyone the right to potentially kill someone/endanger the lives of all involved with the collision? No.
I don't like what the Japanese whaling companies are doing. But they are getting away with it because there weren't any limits imposed on "research" harvesting. I'm in too much of a hurry to find the agreement. But you can look it up somewhere. I've read it. They are exploiting the law. And that loophole needs to be closed. Simple as that. Putting people's lives in danger, isn't the answer. These guys are blow-hard hippies, who got a little too excited about getting the keys to daddy's boat. The "Whale Wars" show their actions are quite ridiculous.
I hope they get punished to the full extent of maritime law.
-
Oh, and the Ady Gil crew is at fault. Its smaller and much more maneuverable. You can't just put your boat in the way of a much larger boat and expect it to change course. Gross tonnage 101.
-
My dad always taught us that if it's bigger than you, it has the right if way.
That said. The folks in the bat boat are Tards. And should be treated as pirates, who are Tards.
-
Oh, and the Ady Gil crew is at fault. Its smaller and much more maneuverable. You can't just put your boat in the way of a much larger boat and expect it to change course. Gross tonnage 101.
Rules of the road too. Least maneuverable craft has the right of way.
JDF should be out there with a frigate and the 37mm cannon. I don't think much of whaling, but a lot less of pirates.
-
...this is just like when that mean old P3 oriion chased doiwn & rammed that heroic chinese fighter plane....
-
If groups of people HSUS/PETA/et.al. were going through national forests out of during open season and harvesting loads stopping the hunting of deer, screwing up the populations, I doubt people here would have the same reaction.
FTFY.
These idiots are no different than the HSUS types that go into the woods banging pots, swooping on hunters with ultralights, and otherwise doing everything, regardless of legality, they can to interrupt hunting just becuase they don't like it.
Obviously the UN isn't going to do anything about this. The whalers are doing something illegal that the whole world frowns upon... the econuts are just trying to get attention to their cause and it seems to be working...
They are not doing anything illegal. They are, as previously pointed out, exploiting a loophole in a treaty. They could "unsign" and then do all the whaling they wanted without the pretense of research so long as they stayed in international waters. So what if the rest of the world frowns on it. If they don't like it they can levy sanctions or prevent Japanese ships from entering their terrortial waters.
can't say I feel bad for the Japanese poachers who get gassed/lasered/etc.
So you support the use of tacticts that could legitmately be charged as aggrivated assault at a minimum in most US courts? Just to stop an activity that is lawful because you find it somewhat distasteful?
-
Shocking, to say the least, if it's true that the enviro-sailors' ship was deliberately rammed.
Attempted murder is not justifiable to support the illegal whaling racket. That vessel ought to be arrested and its crew charged on the facts available.
So defending against pirates is attempted murder? These enviroweeinies come out there, throw hazardous materials onto the deck of other boats, get in their way, and do their best to disable them in one of the most inhospitable areas of the ocean. I seem to remember last year where the Sea Sheppard rammed a whaling ship also.
Were they to succeed in this and other ships were not available to rescue the crew they would be in SERIOUS trouble. Whether you agree with whaling or not, or if these whalers were doing so illegally, it hardly warrants a potential death sentence, vandalism, and aggravated assault. It's only a matter of time before one of these idiots gets killed or kills someone on one of the Japanese ships.
-
In addition to their piracy at the high seas, Sea Shepherd have been under suspicion of placing limpet mines on ships in ports around the world as well, as well as performing other acts of sabotage.
IMO, both the whalers (eco-marauders) and Sea Shepherd (eco-terrorists) can sink to the bottom of the ocean for all I care.
-
In addition to their piracy at the high seas, Sea Shepherd have been under suspicion of placing limpet mines on ships in ports around the world as well, as well as performing other acts of sabotage.
LIMPET MINES?! ??? ???
-
LIMPET MINES?! ??? ???
A couple of Spanish whalers that sank after mysterious explosions according to the Wiki article about Sea Shepherd.
-
A couple of Spanish whalers that sank after mysterious explosions according to the Wiki article about Sea Shepherd.
The end always justifies the means to lefties- whether it means sinking a few ships or starving a few hundred million people to death. :mad:
-
LIMPET MINES?! ??? ???
I guess they're thinking back to the French Frogmen (no pun intended) and Rainbow Warrior.
-
IMO, both the whalers (eco-marauders) and Sea Shepherd (eco-terrorists) can sink to the bottom of the ocean for all I care.
agreed.
These idiots are no different than the HSUS types that go into the woods banging pots, swooping on hunters with ultralights, and otherwise doing everything, regardless of legality, they can to interrupt hunting just becuase they don't like it.
Yes, because hunting endangered/threatened species is the exact same thing as hunting deer. I'm just saying the Japanese aren't "good guys" here. Neither are the econuts.
-
Dude. Limpit mines!? WTF?! Wow. That is interesting. Haven't heard that one. I wonder if they'll ever be able to pin that on the responsible party. (Trying not to assume responsibility.)
-
Found another video on another forum.
You can CLEARLY see that the bat boat powers up and got right into the whaling ship as it is angled away from the boat, about 55 seconds in. Later in the same video he claims the bat boat went in REVERSE to try and get out of the way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Brw6JN0lQXY
-
People who hunt intelligent and endangered higher mammals under the guise of 'research'.
Vs.
Self aggrandizing eco-terrorists.
I see no winner here.
You're saying whales are intelligent higher mammals? ???
-
I guess they're thinking back to the French Frogmen (no pun intended) and Rainbow Warrior.
Nope, the article on Wiki cites a few incidents in Spain in 1980. Rainbow Warrior was in 1985.
-
Yes, because hunting endangered/threatened species is the exact same thing as hunting deer. I'm just saying the Japanese aren't "good guys" here. Neither are the econuts.
Which species of whale were the Japs angling for? Not all species of whales are endangered, you know.
If I were the Japanese, I'd just void the damnfool treaty and whale away.
-
You're saying whales are intelligent higher mammals? ???
Many people consider dolphins and whales to be intelligent higher mammals. Hell, they're probably smarter than the captain of that little black "boat"...
-
Many people consider dolphins and whales to be intelligent higher mammals. Hell, they're probably smarter than the captain of that little black "boat"...
that maybe true, but the bar was set a little low for dolphins and whales.
-
the whales they hunt are not endangered.....
The recent confrontation in which a Japanese whaling ship, the Shonan Maru, collided with a boat attempting to block the ship's hunt, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's Ady Gil, brought back to the fore a controversy that turns on a whale-sized loophole in the International Whaling Commission protocol governing the hunting of whales worldwide.
Established when the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling was signed in 1946, the International Whaling Commission regulates the killing of whales worldwide in order to protect whale stocks, many of which had either been or were on the verge of being hunted to extinction. From 15 member states at its founding, the commission now includes representatives from 88 states that have signed the convention, including Japan.
IWC member states agree to abide by limits on the number of whales of various species that may be caught for commercial use, with a provision that allows for any member state to object to a restriction which it sees as harmful to its interests. States that so object need not abide by the restrictions. Japan invoked this provision of the IWC's whaling protocol to ignore a worldwide moratorium on commercial whaling the commission imposed in 1982, to begin in 1986.
Pressure from the United States, whose Congress approved legislation that forbade countries that did not abide by international fisheries protection agreements from fishing in American waters, led Japan to drop its objection in 1985 and agree to abide by the moratorium beginning in 1988. Yet Japanese whaling boats have caught more than 11,000 whales since that year.
Japan has been able to do this because of another provision in the IWC protocol that allows member states to issue permits to themselves to kill whales for scientific research purposes. Currently, Japanese boats take 1,300 whales a year under this provision of the protocol in two main regions: the North Pacific and the Antartic. Some of Japan's Antarctic whaling takes place in an area the IWC declared a whale sanctuary, which has raised the hackles of nearby Australia.
Most of the nations opposed to whaling, which now make up a slight majority of IWC members, argue that nonlethal methods exist for gathering the data about whale stocks the Japanese seek and that Japan's research whaling program is merely a cover for banned commercial whaling. The Japanese argue that the objections to their program are based partly in racism, an argument that gains some legitimacy when one considers that two other IWC member states, Iceland and Norway, conduct commercial hunts under objections to the moratorium, and some other states that observe the ban, including the United States, allow native peoples to continue subsistence hunting of whales.
The Japanese -- and the Icelanders and Norwegians -- argue that stocks of many whale species have recovered to the point where safe commercial catch quotas can be re-established; environmental groups like Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace, on the other hand, oppose all whaling on the grounds that it is unnecessarily cruel.
Written by Sandy Smith
For HULIQ.com
http://www.huliq.com/8738/90191/japanese-take-advantage-loophole-whaling-moratorium
-
Which species of whale were the Japs angling for? Not all species of whales are endangered, you know.
They are only "doing research" so they are hunting multiple types of whales.
According to some DNA tests done on the meat there are both endangered and "safe" whales being hunted... According to wiki.
-
the humpbacks have recovered to 40, 000 or more
-
never mind...
-
Noticed on the clip with the environut interview the guy accused the Japanese of getting increasingly violent.
Typical debate tactic of the leftist - accuse your opponent of engaging in YOUR actions.
Damn pirate environuts can - and should - be sunk. Like all pirates.
-
Many people consider dolphins and whales to be intelligent higher mammals.
I understand that, I just find the implication that "intelligent higher mammals" should not be hunted to be a very troubling thought process. But it's beyond the scope of the thread, so...
-
The Japanese hitting the batboat with the water cannon after running it over was full of win >:D
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/01/06/VI2010010601330.html
this one really shows em a liar
the hippie watson claims they tried to start their motors and reverse outa the way of the whaler but the video shows the motors were running and they hit the throttle and tried to cut across the bow. they have some of the most inept sailors i've ever seen and the fat fraud is gonna get someone killed
-
the hippie watson claims they tried to start their motors
That is so much BS I don't know where to start. No sane sailor would shut off their engines exposed to those seas, ESPECIALLY with other vessels maneuvering around them.
Liars liars their pantses are on fire.
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/01/06/VI2010010601330.html
this one really shows em a liar
the hippie watson claims they tried to start their motors and reverse outa the way of the whaler but the video shows the motors were running and they hit the throttle and tried to cut across the bow. they have some of the most inept sailors i've ever seen and the fat fraud is gonna get someone killed
Inept indeed. I suspect the guy piloting the bat boat was trying to dart back away from the fishing ship, but goosed the throttle the wrong direction.
Anyone who's done much with boats knows that the larger, heavier, "straighter-moving" vessel has the right of way. The bat boat crew was negligent for even being near the fishing vessel, let alone managing to get themselves hit by it.
It's actually kinda laughable that the environuts claim the Nips hit them and not vice versa. Either they're too dumb to realize how idiotic this concept is, or they think we're too dumb.
-
Can we stop calling them hippies? They give hippies a bad name. Watson and his ilk are ECO TERRORISTS.
-
These idiots are no different than the HSUS types that go into the woods banging pots, swooping on hunters with ultralights, and otherwise doing everything, regardless of legality, they can to interrupt hunting just becuase they don't like it.
Sure they're different: they have a lot more comms and position reporting, which makes it harder to 3S (well, 2S - don't really need a shovel in the ocean) them and pretend you never saw them.
-
Can we stop calling them hippies? They give hippies a bad name. Watson and his ilk are ECO TERRORISTS.
Well, "Take a bath, you damn Eco Terrorists" doesn't have quite the same ring to it, but I'm down with labeling them what they are...
-
Ooh, thread-lock type stuff, that is. (KD5)
-
What interesting reactions - International law is worthless, the Japanese should just whale away, but when you talk about greenies, that's piracy (also international law) and a crime which warrants their vessels being sent to the bottom.
If international law is only about strength and will, why all the moral condemnation about greenies interfering with whaling?
Most of the world has agreed that these animals should be protected. There is also little dispute that the Japanese whalers are not doing research.
Of the two crimes, I think robbing the world of natural resources that don't belong to Japan is the greater.
This is a scenario where the greenies do not put anyone at risk who isn't involved in criminal activity. The comparisons to wrecking hunts and spiking trees don't fit. Those activities endanger hunters and workmen who are doing nothing illegal.
If a vessel wants to run the seas breaking the law, it has no grounds for complaint (and no right to self defense) when someone else shows up to try and stop the crime.
-
WWHHAAAAaaaaa! They aren't allowed to hunt the cute widdle whales. We said so! So that means they can't! And it also means we can do whatever dumbfrick stupid stuff we want about it. Whaaaaa!!!!
;/
Your error lies in trying to elevate international law above Newton's laws. You can piss and moan all you want about international consensus, but back in the real world 500tons of steel trumps 13 tons of carbon fiber, no ifs ands or buts. Better hope you're wearing your PFD, ecoterrorists.
-
What interesting reactions - International law is worthless, the Japanese should just whale away, but when you talk about greenies, that's piracy (also international law) and a crime which warrants their vessels being sent to the bottom.
If international law is only about strength and will, why all the moral condemnation about greenies interfering with whaling?
Because most people adhere to moral standards which are superior to law, or to international "law." Because endangering humans to protect whales is obviously wrong.
Of the two crimes, I think robbing the world of natural resources that don't belong to Japan is the greater.
And you don't realize that that is a deeply depraved, almost lunatic comment? How disturbing.
This is a scenario where the greenies do not put anyone at risk who isn't involved in criminal activity. The comparisons to wrecking hunts and spiking trees don't fit. Those activities endanger hunters and workmen who are doing nothing illegal. If a vessel wants to run the seas breaking the law, it has no grounds for complaint (and no right to self defense) when someone else shows up to try and stop the crime.
You realize that you are endorsing vigilantism?
-
Watched.
Ady Gil doesn't seem so stationary to me.
I do see the Shonan Maru turn into it aggressively, but Ady Gil moves forward into the path as well. IMO.
I agree. The Shonan Maru appears to make a slight course change to starboard early in the video, but they have their fire hoses in play, suggesting that they are already reacting to something the eco-nuts were doing or had done. They then make a VERY aggressive turn to port, away from the Ady Gil, and if you look at both the Bob Barker version and the one shot from the Shonan Maru, it very much appears that the Ady Gil went from slow ahead to accelerating forward, rather than backing off.
The claim that the Shonan Maru was "to port" and thus did not have right of way is bogus. The vessel to starboard has right of way if/when both vessels are approximately equal in size or maneuverability. Where one is greatly less maneuverable, it always has the right of way. The Ady Gil's claim is akin to setting a rowboatd in front of an aircraft carrier and claiming you have the right of way.
I think the eco-nuts intentionally created the collision with the motive being to try to sue the Japanese out of being able to afford whaling.
And check this one out -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6MymqeXhl0&NR=1
The eco-terrorists are using lasers to try to blind the whalers. That could permanently blind some one and I consider it to be assault.
-
i notice ss is no longer parroting the party line "they mean old whalers rammed us!" reality is harsh that way
-
You realize that you are endorsing vigilantism?
He's endorsing a tyranny of the law, with the law defined as whatever he wants it to be at the moment.
-
WWHHAAAAaaaaa! They aren't allowed to hunt the cute widdle whales. We said so! So that means they can't! And it also means we can do whatever dumbfrick stupid stuff we want about it. Whaaaaa!!!!
;/
Your error lies in trying to elevate international law above Newton's laws. You can piss and moan all you want about international consensus, but back in the real world 1000 tons of steel trumps 13 tons of carbon fiber, no ifs ands or buts. Better hope you're wearing your PFD, ecoterrorists.
It looks like you have sailed past the point - my comment was on all the moral outrage at these greenies for their crimes, which exist solely in international law, versus the "eh, whatever, whaling laws are just international and that's meaningless" for the Japanese.
You could just as easily say "You may have a bigger ship, but you're going to get lasered/stink-bombed/obstructed if you want to illegally hunt whales."
fistful,
That would be a good argument for disarming Fish & Wildlife officers (game isn't worth human life) and making all poaching and other resource theft administrative offences like a traffic ticket.
This is a natural resource, it does not belong to Japan, and the rest of the world would like to see it protected. There's simply no way to compare greenies blocking whaling to the standard eco-terrorism of the tree-spikers.
What I see in this discussion is politics as club membership more than anything else: because these greenies tend to be leftists, they must be opposed at every turn, and conversely, anyone who tangles with them must be supported.
"Whatever my enemy supports I oppose, and whatever he opposes I support" appears to be the rule at play here.
-
A question: How is it possible for there to be vigilantism on international waters if there is no such thing as international law?
-
The whalers are doing something illegal that the whole world frowns upon... the econuts are just trying to get attention to their cause and it seems to be working... can't say I feel bad for the Japanese poachers who get gassed/lasered/etc.
The problem with your position is that the Japanese are NOT doing anything illegal. Most of the world frowns upon it, yes -- but the international treaties on whaling specifically allow a number to be taken each year for scientific purposes and the Japanese are operating legally (albeit immorally) under that loophole. I don't like it, either, but the eco-nuts are the ones in the wrong here.
-
It looks like you have sailed past the point - my comment was on all the moral outrage at these greenies for their crimes, which exist solely in international law, versus the "eh, whatever, whaling laws are just international and that's meaningless" for the Japanese.
You could just as easily say "You may have a bigger ship, but you're going to get lasered/stink-bombed/obstructed if you want to illegally hunt whales."
fistful,
That would be a good argument for disarming Fish & Wildlife officers (game isn't worth human life) and making all poaching and other resource theft administrative offences like a traffic ticket.
This is a natural resource, it does not belong to Japan, and the rest of the world would like to see it protected. There's simply no way to compare greenies blocking whaling to the standard eco-terrorism of the tree-spikers.
What I see in this discussion is politics as club membership more than anything else: because these greenies tend to be leftists, they must be opposed at every turn, and conversely, anyone who tangles with them must be supported.
"Whatever my enemy supports I oppose, and whatever he opposes I support" appears to be the rule at play here.
Alright then,
What law are the whalers breaking?
Secondly, if you think the whalers are breaking a law, why aren't the other countries who are party to that treaty objecting?
Third, on what basis are you claiming the whales they are hunting are endangered?
-
Dude. Limpit mines!? WTF?! Wow. That is interesting. Haven't heard that one. I wonder if they'll ever be able to pin that on the responsible party. (Trying not to assume responsibility.)
is William Charles "Bill" Ayers in prison? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_Organization) [tinfoil] same bunch of kooks [popcorn]
-
It looks like you have sailed past the point - my comment was on all the moral outrage at these greenies for their crimes, which exist solely in international law, versus the "eh, whatever, whaling laws are just international and that's meaningless" for the Japanese.
The moral outrage against the eco terrorists doesn't have anything to do with "international law". If you think it does, you completely misunderstand it.
Behaving the way these eco terrorists do is reprehensible in itself. International law is entirely coincidental to that fact.
I would suggest that your obsession with the law renders you unable to think clearly on issues like this one.
-
what other countries do whaling? and why is ss focused on the japanese? is it racism? there are round eye whalers too after all
-
I saw a guy jaywalking today, so of course I ran him over. Gotta obey the law, and if you don't you deserve whatever you get. Especially international "law." Which, you know, the Japanese aren't actually breaking.
Also, nice to see SS in his usual progress from "provably false claims" to "absurd justifications" right on through to "character assassination" with a healthy dose of accusing his opponents of his own prejudices thrown in for good measure.
You really are a good lawyer SS.
-
I saw a guy jaywalking today, so of course I ran him over. Gotta obey the law, and if you don't you deserve whatever you get. Especially international "law." Which, you know, the Japanese aren't actually breaking.
Also, nice to see SS in his usual progress from "provably false claims" to "absurd justifications" right on through to "character assassination" and "trying to bring in irrelevant arguments" with a healthy dose of accusing his opponents of his own prejudices thrown in for good measure.
You really are a good lawyer SS.
-
I saw a guy jaywalking today, so of course I ran him over. Gotta obey the law, and if you don't you deserve whatever you get. Especially international "law." Which, you know, the Japanese aren't actually breaking.
Also, nice to see SS in his usual progress from "provably false claims" to "absurd justifications" right on through to "character assassination" with a healthy dose of accusing his opponents of his own prejudices thrown in for good measure.
You really are a good lawyer SS.
When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither are on your side, pound the table.
Nice pounding the table SS.
-
what other countries do whaling? and why is ss focused on the japanese? is it racism? there are round eye whalers too after all
Plenty of other countries whale.
However, the Japanese are the only one's whose navy can not protect their nations fishing fleet from pirates. Hence, they make easy targets.
-
I would suggest that your obsession with the law renders you unable to think clearly on issues like this one.
Or possibly his obsession with being a knee-jerk liberal on virtually all issues?
-
Alright then,
What law are the whalers breaking?
http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm (http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm) this one, and
this one: http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.shtml (http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.shtml)
Secondly, if you think the whalers are breaking a law, why aren't the other countries who are party to that treaty objecting?
They are - particularly those with the greatest interest in these waters, Australia and New Zealand.
Third, on what basis are you claiming the whales they are hunting are endangered?
Where did I claim that? Certainly some whales killed are endangered, but the real issue is that the rest of the world has decided on protecting this animal at law.
-
Surely at least one other person sees the irony in saying, on the one hand, "pfft, international law, whatever, whale-on mates! There's no such thing!" and the turning around and having taken the deepest offence at "piracy" and a host of other international law crimes committed by environmentalists!?
-
Yes, because hunting endangered/threatened species is the exact same thing as hunting deer.
What species of whale do the Japanese hunt, and what is the basis for claiming that such are endangered?
I don't know specifically what the Japanese hunt, but the Norweigans hunt Minke whales. They are about as endangered as deer. And the Norweigans, according a Norweigan I knew, are heavilly penalized if they take anything else. Now, if the Japanese are taking endagered whales, that is not right. But it still doesn't justify the eco-terrorist hippie's actions.
-
http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm (http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm) this one, and
this one: http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.shtml (http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.shtml)
They are - particularly those with the greatest interest in these waters, Australia and New Zealand.
Where did I claim that? Certainly some whales killed are endangered, but the real issue is that the rest of the world has decided on protecting this animal at law.
were you hoping no one would read those documents? fail
there is a reason that there has been no court case for your fantasy "violation of law"
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1686486,00.html
It's a ritual that boils the blood of whale-watchers everywhere. On Nov. 18, a fleet of four Japanese vessels left Shimonoseki harbor in Western Japan to begin its five-month whale hunt in the Antarctic Ocean. This time, however, the whalers are planning what's expected to be its largest hunt in decades; along with about 850 minke and 50 finback whales, the fleet says it plans to harpoon as many as 50 humpback whales for the first time since hunting the endangered species was banned in 1963.
The escalation of the hunt, and the inclusion of humpbacks, has drawn condemnation from leading anti-whaling countries, including Australia, New Zealand, Britain and the U.S. JAPANESE WHALERS WON'T SAY IF THEY'LL SPARE MIGALOO, screamed one Australian headline, referring to an albino humpback occasionally spotted off the Australian coast who has become a popular tourist attraction. With an upcoming general election, the issue has become heavily politicized in Australia; the opposition Labor party's campaign platform includes a proposal to mobilize military aircraft to monitor Japanese whaling fleets. But Japan has said it needs to recommence hunting one of conservationists' most beloved species to further marine research. "Whales are just as important, and no more special, than any other fish," says Japan Fisheries Agency spokesperson Hideki Moronuki, maintaining Japan's long-held position that marine mammals should get no special treatment for being warm-blooded. Japan maintains that with a population of around 40,000 growing at 15% a year, the formerly endangered humpback has recovered to a sustainable level for lethal research. Anti-whalers, on the other hand, simply see this as raw defiance. "They're just doing this to show us that they can," says Paul Watson, founder of the anti-whaling Sea Shepherd Conservation Society.
Under a loophole in the 1986 International Whaling Commission (IWC) ban against commercial whaling, Japan has continued to kill hundreds of whales every year for scientific research. Once a whale is killed, scientists collect data from the animal's remains on its age, birthing rate and diet; the meat is then packaged and sold. Japan maintains that the research is essential for managing the whale population. "Minke or humpback, we see whales as a marine resource," says Moronuki. Still, most observers have long been skeptical of any benefits from the project. "I haven't met one person, pro-whalers or not, outside of the Fisheries Agency payroll who believe that these researches are useful," says Greenpeace Australia Pacific's CEO Steve Shallhorn. Tensions have been heating up in recent hunts. In February, a member of Japan's whaling fleet was killed in a ship fire following a series of confrontations with vessels from Sea Shepherd. Both Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd say that they are prepared to "chase, block, and harass" any attempts by the whaling fleet to harpoon humpbacks.
Japan has cited its long history as a whaling nation and its historic reliance on whale meat for protein as reasons why it should be continued to allow to hunt despite the IWC ban. But Japanese consumption has become so negligible that local governments are encouraging schools to incorporate whale in their lunch programs, while thousands of tons of whale meat remain stockpiled in freezers. The bigger issue, observers say, is whaling's impact on far more popular forms of seafood. Japan, which consumes half of the world's tuna catch, recently admitted to exceeding its quota for southern bluefin tuna set under an agreement with Australia and New Zealand, as overfishing threatens to decimate the animal's population. Plunging global fish stocks, along with a growing taste for sushi in China and the West, make Japan very uneasy about its future access to fresh seafood. So holding a firm line on the sustainable harvesting of whales, the argument goes, can help stave off a larger fight over more important fishing rights down the road. Says Moronuki: "Our whaling culture is near extinction because of the moratorium on commercial whaling. We need to make sure this doesn't happen to other marine resources."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1686486,00.html#ixzz0bsqPQ5M3
-
Surely at least one other person sees the irony in saying, on the one hand, "pfft, international law, whatever, whale-on mates! There's no such thing!" and the turning around and having taken the deepest offence at "piracy" and a host of other international law crimes committed by environmentalists!?
You still have the cart in front of the horse, with your obsession with the law. Piracy isn't immoral because it's a violation of international law. Piracy is a violation of international law because it's immoral. Wrap your head around that concept and you'll begin to understand.
-
so under law in oz when the fraud in the vest with the badge gets some of those fools with him killed does he get charges or a parade as a hero of the revolution? and does bob barker get charged as an accessory for financing the crime?
-
You still have the cart in front of the horse, with your obsession with the law. Piracy isn't immoral because it's a violation of international law. Piracy is a violation of international law because it's immoral. Wrap your head around that concept and you'll begin to understand.
Ah yes, I see now: those laws that HTG agrees capture moral imperatives will be supported, and those that do not will not be supported.
The problem with that is that none of us infallible on moral matters, particularly not when speaking ex-internet. Certainly there are many people in this world (a majority even) who think that killing endangered animals like some whales is seriously immoral. But their views don't count, because they might be leftists/greenies/whatever it is. Again, that returns us to politics as club membership, as opposed to politics based on a reasonable evaluation of the issues.
-
Ah yes, I see now: those laws that HTG agrees capture moral imperatives will be supported, and those that do not will not be supported.
The problem with that is that none of us infallible on moral matters, particularly not when speaking ex-internet. Certainly there are many people in this world (a majority even) who think that killing endangered animals like some whales is seriously immoral. But their views don't count, because they might be leftists/greenies/whatever it is. Again, that returns us to politics as club membership, as opposed to politics based on a reasonable evaluation of the issues.
Thank you for answering my question and your own:
Where did I claim that? Certainly some whales killed are endangered, but the real issue is that the rest of the world has decided on protecting this animal at law.
Soooooo... want to drop your "endangered whales" claim, now? You just implied these laws are moral because they stop killing of endangered animals. Now, can you show the whales the Japanese are hunting are endangered?
-
so under law in oz when the fraud in the vest with the badge gets some of those fools with him killed does he get charges or a parade as a hero of the revolution? and does bob barker get charged as an accessory for financing the crime?
Certainly charges would be possible in such a scenario - but it would be difficult, given the level of popular outrage at the illegal whaling. That's the reverse side of the club membership issue.
-
A question: How is it possible for there to be vigilantism on international waters if there is no such thing as international law?
You're mixing together the disparate arguments of two people.
I said there's no such thing as international law. I think it was Fistful that said you were endorsing vigilantism.
HTG has it right:
You still have the cart in front of the horse, with your obsession with the law. Piracy isn't immoral because it's a violation of international law. Piracy is a violation of international law because it's immoral. Wrap your head around that concept and you'll begin to understand.
-
A question: How is it possible for there to be vigilantism on international waters if there is no such thing as international law?
You're the one who said that breaking international "law" is a crime. And you endorsed vigilante action to stop it, even if it endangers peoples' lives for alleged poaching.
Sorry, you don't have a point there.
As others have pointed out about piracy, going about attacking people is generally regarded as a Very Bad Thing, regardless of what international law or governing body may or may not condemn it. To compare such a thing to whale poaching in international waters is absurd on its face.
-
Certainly charges would be possible in such a scenario - but it would be difficult, given the level of popular outrage at the illegal whaling. That's the reverse side of the club membership issue.
no its exactly the same just that its your club therefore its feces carry no aroma. you are indeed morally well equipped for the practice of law
-
Ah yes, I see now: those laws that HTG agrees capture moral imperatives will be supported, and those that do not will not be supported.
The problem with that is that none of us infallible on moral matters, particularly not when speaking ex-internet. Certainly there are many people in this world (a majority even) who think that killing endangered animals like some whales is seriously immoral. But their views don't count, because they might be leftists/greenies/whatever it is. Again, that returns us to politics as club membership, as opposed to politics based on a reasonable evaluation of the issues.
So my morals are fallible, but your laws are infallible? Gimme a break.
And it amuses me that in your mind morality is nothing more than political club membership.
You wanna evaluate the issues? Well, I do too. Actually, that's what we were doing that before you came along and spewed international law all over the place. But anyway, let's get back to the issues.
At its simplest, this issue comes down to a simple question of worth: are animal lives worth more than human lives? I say human lives are worth more.
You could also think of it in terms of practicality: does it make good sense to drive your flimsy beer-can speed boat (actually, I bet beer cans are stronger than that carbon fiber bat boat thing) into a solid iron juggernaut in the middle of Arctic waters? I say that's a dumb dumb dumb idea.
Or you could think about it in terms of common sense: trying to mess up a ship at see will probably be frowned upon by the crew of that ship, who may well treat you as the pirates you are, and act out in their own best interests by protecting their ship and their lives. I say piracy is wrong, bad, stupid, and likely to result on hostile actions on the part those who don't want to be pirated.
So, without mentioning the-law-as-you-see-it, what say you on the issues?
-
SS ignores the point that they are, in fact, abiding by the "law." Exploiting a loophole != violation. So all one cares about is the fiction of "international law" then the Japs are shiny clean.
Also SS, what does international law say about attacking a vessel at sea, trying to entangle their prop, blind the crew with a laser etc?
-
It says run their asses over! :laugh:
-
The problem with that is that none of us infallible on moral matters, particularly not when speaking ex-internet.
Speak for yourself, Sir. With regard to moral matters, I AM infallible.
Unfortunately for me and fortunately for the rest of the world, morals are exceedingly relativistic, and therefore I can be infallible with regard to what is moral or immoral for me, while someone else can live according to much different rules while still being infallible as to what is moral or immoral for him/her.
-
Speak for yourself, Sir. With regard to moral matters, I AM infallible.
Unfortunately for me and fortunately for the rest of the world, morals are exceedingly relativistic, and therefore I can be infallible with regard to what is moral or immoral for me, while someone else can live according to much different rules while still being infallible as to what is moral or immoral for him/her.
I would beg to differ on all those points. However, we do not need yet another divergence in this thread.
-
It looks like you have sailed past the point - my comment was on all the moral outrage at these greenies for their crimes, which exist solely in international law, versus the "eh, whatever, whaling laws are just international and that's meaningless" for the Japanese.
Ad hom ad hom ad hom.
The Sea Shepards are breaking the law by attacking other vessels on the open sea. Even if the Whalers are breaking the law, the Sea shepards are putting PEOPLE in danger over WHALES.
Nobody has given the Sea Shepard people any authority over whaling.
Secondly, if you think the whalers are breaking a law, why aren't the other countries who are party to that treaty objecting?
They are - particularly those with the greatest interest in these waters, Australia and New Zealand.
Then maybe they should send their Navies in to protect the whales, instead of some idiot hippies in a Kevlar bat boat.
SS, I still remain convinced that if the devil himself were caught eating a baby, you’d argue his right to do so, especially if it went against the consensus on this board….
-
So what, now the devil can't eat babies? What is this world coming to?
-
SS, I still remain convinced that if the devil himself were caught eating a baby, you’d argue his right to do so, especially if it went against the consensus on this board….
That's a subject for another thread - but on this point, I want to be clear that I absolutely would not support the Devil's right to harpoon baby wales, forum consensus notwithstanding. =D
I see the point about the greenies endangering human lives, but it's tough to be outraged when the whalers could easily avoid the risk to life and limb as well by simply not whaling. This is a situation that requires both parties to engage in crimes for the risk to life to arise.
I will say, to tip my bias, my opinion on animals in general is coloured by my being a lifelong hunter. Animals are more than just a packet of meat or an economic unit to most hunters, and it's very difficult for me personally to sympathise with poachers of any stripe.
-
What's the fair and appropriate response to poachers? Wantonly endangering the lives of the poachers?
My kindergarten teacher taught me that two wrongs don't make a right. Even if we agree that whale hunting is bad/illegal/immoral/whatever, wouldn't we also have to agree that eco-fanatic piracy/terrorism/whatever is also no good?
-
so by what vstretch of imagination does australia and new zealand lay claim to the waters where the whalers are? or is the term international waters one of those flexible concepts?
-
What's the fair and appropriate response to poachers? Wantonly endangering the lives of the poachers?
My kindergarten teacher taught me that two wrongs don't make a right. Even if we agree that whale hunting is bad/illegal/immoral/whatever, wouldn't we also have to agree that eco-fanatic piracy/terrorism/whatever is also no good?
Yes we would. Here's the issue as I see it: A japanese whaling fleet is out there about to start in on some wales. They notice the greenies racing in, and know that they will probably obstruct their vessels and create risks for the crew.
Who now has the greater responsibility to turn away? If the whalers turn and run, no risk to life ensues, and no crime gets committed. If the greenies turn and run, there's no risk to life, but crime goes on.
Which is the better result?
-
you keep throwing around lil buzz words like crime and endangered animal. you trying to pretend the loophole doesn't exist?
-
If I'm going about my (totally legal btw, care to answer that?) business and someone tries to stop me cause they dislike my business, I have a moral obligation to stop what I'm doing so they won't be tempted to commit a crime?
-
Who now has the greater responsibility to turn away? If the whalers turn and run, no risk to life ensues, and no crime gets committed. If the greenies turn and run, there's no risk to life, but crime goes on.
Which is the better result?
If I hear that a group of high school students are going to engage in the consumption of alcoholic beverages at a beach party and I go to the beach knowing that they will be engaged in illegal activity, and I have informed them that if I catch them in the act I will beat them senseless, who has the greater responsibility? If the kids see me and run away before they tap the keg, no risk of physical harm ensues and no crime gets committed. If I change my mind and go away, no risk of physical harm ensues but the crime goes on.
Which is the better result?
-
Yes we would. Here's the issue as I see it: A japanese whaling fleet is out there about to start in on some wales. They notice the greenies racing in, and know that they will probably obstruct their vessels and create risks for the crew.
Who now has the greater responsibility to turn away? If the whalers turn and run, no risk to life ensues, and no crime gets committed. If the greenies turn and run, there's no risk to life, but crime goes on.
Which is the better result?
What's this crime you speak of? Last I heard, the Japanese ships aren't breaking any laws.
-
If I'm going about my (totally legal btw, care to answer that?) business and someone tries to stop me cause they dislike my business, I have a moral obligation to stop what I'm doing so they won't be tempted to commit a crime?
Yes, if "going about your business" is a crime.
-
That's a subject for another thread - but on this point, I want to be clear that I absolutely would not support the Devil's right to harpoon baby wales, forum consensus notwithstanding. =D
I see the point about the greenies endangering human lives, but it's tough to be outraged when the whalers could easily avoid the risk to life and limb as well by simply not whaling. This is a situation that requires both parties to engage in crimes for the risk to life to arise.
I will say, to tip my bias, my opinion on animals in general is coloured by my being a lifelong hunter. Animals are more than just a packet of meat or an economic unit to most hunters, and it's very difficult for me personally to sympathise with poachers of any stripe.
SS:
The problem is, according to the international law you so treasure, the Japanese whalers are good-to-go. Therefore, according to your standard, they are not poaching and the eco-pirates are interfering with a legal activity. Or, are you going to make the moral argument now that it is pretty clear, from multiple sources, that the whaling is legal?
what other countries do whaling? and why is ss focused on the japanese? is it racism? there are round eye whalers too after all
Good question. I think it is likely because the euro-whalers are close to home waters and their navies can easily intercede. The Jap whaling fleet is a LONG way from home and Japanese policy since the end of WW2 has been against power projection. I wouldn't be surprised if they had not a single warship that could make the trip without refueling.
So, they are easier targets for the eco-pirates.
Surely at least one other person sees the irony in saying, on the one hand, "pfft, international law, whatever, whale-on mates! There's no such thing!" and the turning around and having taken the deepest offence at "piracy" and a host of other international law crimes committed by environmentalists!?
Others have addressed this, but repetition is the heart of learning:
Even if there was no law, it would be wrong to attack a ship engaged in peaceful pursuits.
Yes we would. Here's the issue as I see it: A japanese whaling fleet is out there about to start in on some wales. They notice the greenies racing in, and know that they will probably obstruct their vessels and create risks for the crew.
Who now has the greater responsibility to turn away? If the whalers turn and run, no risk to life ensues, and no crime gets committed. If the greenies turn and run, there's no risk to life, but crime goes on.
Which is the better result?
Sorry, but the force international law you so cherish is not with you. It may be a "loophole," but the Jap whaling fleet is engaging in legal activity.
The eco-pirates have the greater responsibility to turn away.
The better result is to repel and punish those who molest others without provocation. When an assailant threatens to beat on lawful citizens going about their business, the best result is for the citizens to go about their business and the assailant to be thwarted and punished.
We ought not cede any ground or waters to the thugs of the world, no matter if they wrap themselves in green.
-
What's this crime you speak of? Last I heard, the Japanese ships aren't breaking any laws.
Commercial whaling is illegal. The research "loophole" is only a loophole in the same way that Saddam's arguments were "loopholes" in support of his invasion of Kuwait.
Engaging in commercial whaling and then falsely claiming you are doing "research" is not legal under any of the applicable conventions.
-
Yes we would. Here's the issue as I see it: A japanese whaling fleet is out there about to start in on some wales. They notice the greenies racing in, and know that they will probably obstruct their vessels and create risks for the crew.
Who now has the greater responsibility to turn away? If the whalers turn and run, no risk to life ensues, and no crime gets committed. If the greenies turn and run, there's no risk to life, but crime goes on.
Which is the better result?
In this case the whalers couldn't have turned away. The whalers ship couldn't possibly have maneuvered fast enough to dodge the bat boat. As Jamis says, Tonnage 101.
And it's not just the harsh realities of ship navigation. There are rather disconcerting factoids about the eco-fanatics trying to damage and disable the whalers ships by snagging the props, about throwing acid at the whaler crews, and so forth.
The eco-whackos clearly have greater responsibility. The whalers are out minding their own business*, and the eco-fanatics search them out, chase them down, attack them, and cause a wreck.
True, none of this would have happened if the whalers had stayed home. A rapist could say the same thing about his victim. "If she hadn't been out last night this wouldn't have happened to her." Nobody would take that kinda of justification seriously.
* I don't consider doing something you disagree with politically or philosophically as grounds for initiating an assault. There are lots of people who do and say and think things I disagree with, but I know I'm not justified in doing much more than speak out against them. Even if they're committing a crime I have no business attacking them unless my life or another's life is in danger (and maybe not even then).
-
Yes, if "going about your business" is a crime.
Are you still pretending it's illegal? You're so cute.
-
I also find it cute that SS wraps himself in international law by claiming 88 signatories to the make up the majority of the world. Last I read, there are in the neighborhood of 195 countries. 88/195? Not a majority.
Also, it is likely a majority of the world still urinates in their source of drinking water. Not sure if I'd place my trust in "international majorities."
-
Since we're back onto the international law uber alis thing, perhaps someone can cite what part of international law makes it legal for private individuals attack (either criminal or lawful, take your pick) ships at sea.
-
Commercial whaling is illegal. The research "loophole" is only a loophole in the same way that Saddam's arguments were "loopholes" in support of his invasion of Kuwait.
Engaging in commercial whaling and then falsely claiming you are doing "research" is not legal under any of the applicable conventions.
have you read the iwc agreement? why then is no one taking the japanese to court? the aussies? the kiwis? bueller? anyone?
-
Since we're back onto the international law uber alis thing, perhaps someone can cite what part of international law makes it legal for private individuals attack (either criminal or lawful, take your pick) ships at sea.
WHO CARES MAN!!! THEY'RE KILLING WHALES!
WHALES MAN! WHALES!
I mean, that's like killing monkeys! They're non-human persons!!!!
-
As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. ...
-
As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. ...
Say what?
:laugh:
-
Since we're back onto the international law uber alis thing, perhaps someone can cite what part of international law makes it legal for private individuals attack (either criminal or lawful, take your pick) ships at sea.
As a anarchy fetishist, I'd point out that folks on a US Navy Destroyer are just individuals. They're not endorsed by a majority of nations when out blowing pirates out of the water.
In non-territorial waters, I see no difference between a "Government Naval" ship and a private ship, other than the size of the guns they probably have. It's a free-for-all zone that, whenever something bad happens, is settled by who has the biggest guns to dictate the end result. Then, the outrage of the aftereffects is settled by what country has the bigger guns or the most political clout.
That's why we're even dogging the Japanese in this at all. If the Sea Shepherd folks weren't Westerners they'd immediately be blown out of the water. Because the Japanese have no force projection capabilities at all, there is no Japanese Navy to protect these ships as they engage in whaling operations.
If US Ships wanted to whale, and the US Navy ran protection for them, we wouldn't hear boo about it because Sea Shepherd and her ilk simply couldn't get close enough to cause a stink.
Or, if the Japanese simply hired Blackwater or another security agency to protect them in international waters, we wouldn't hear about this. The eco-weenies would never get close enough.
We hear about this because, despite being morally wrong, the eco-weenies are Westerners, and the Japanese aren't. The Japanese are calling it racism... I call it a judgement against force projection.
I bet ya that the Sea Shepherd would leave a Chinese whaling boat alone.
-
i bet they couldn't bother a chinese ship twice... >:D at least not without going through a lot more boats and hippies
i can see the chinese ship capts official statement as released through the government now....."What boat?
-
Don't worry so much about the whales. Spock and Kirk take care of that problem. I know, saw the movie.
-
i bet they couldn't bother a chinese ship twice... >:D at least not without going through a lot more boats and hippies
They'd get plenty of free baths, that's for sure. Dirty, stinking hippies! =D
-
Regarding the legality, it is legal for them to harvest whales for scientific purposes... how many of you actually believe they are harvesting these whales for scientific purposes, not consumption? Of course they could back out of their agreement and everything wouldn't even be questioned from a legal standpoint.
As I've said, they are all idjits. The idiocy of the eco-nuts is obvious. (I hate using the term terrorist in relation to a bunch of liberal pansies playing siren noises; while there is a chance their antics could get someone hurt, calling them "terrorists" gives them too much credit.... IMHO a terrorist should be trying to kill folks.. I don't know how "terrorized" the japanese are by the eco-pansies, they probably are laughing at them)
The Japanese are... well they are Japanese. Feel free to google "Japanese gross". I will not be held responsible for what you may see.
Also this.... very related ...... http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/254171/?tab=featured (http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/254171/?tab=featured)
-
The Japanese are... well they are Japanese.
So... you don't like Japanese people? Good to know.
-
I just love south park!
-
Feel free to google "Japanese gross". I will not be held responsible for what you may see.
Figures about Japanese Gross National Debt?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Japanese+Gross
-
I just saw a mainstream media article on the incident, I think from CNN. This struck me as interesting:
The clash represented a departure from the usual confrontations, said Jules Boykoff, assistant professor of politics and environmental studies at Pacific University in Oregon.
"Certainly when an actual Sea Shepherd ship gets rammed, that is an escalation," Boykoff said. "I think getting rammed, regardless of whose fault it was, shows there is violence involved."
About half an hour ago, I watched a video shot from a Japanese whaler in, I think, 2007 in which a much larger Sea Shepherd ship (steel hull, bow higher than the rail of the Japanese ship) deliberately rams the whaler at 90 degrees amidship. Another video showed the eco-nuts lobbing flash-bang grenades onto a Japanese ship, and an article noted that in 2007 the eco-nuts' attacks caused a fire on one of the Japanese ships that killed a crew member.
Yet Sea Shepherd now claims that when THEY get rammed, it's an escalation.
I think we need to commission the good ship SS APS and hire ourselves out the the Japanese whaling fleet. Shooting Student, were you aware that these "enviromentalists" you are so admiring of have actually committed murder (okay, maybe only manslaughter) in their pursuit of planetary harmony?
-
its different when its for "le cause" i think some japanese family should sue bob barker for financing terrorists maybe invoke the patriot act seize his assets
-
As a anarchy fetishist, I'd point out that folks on a US Navy Destroyer are just individuals. They're not endorsed by a majority of nations when out blowing pirates out of the water.
In non-territorial waters, I see no difference between a "Government Naval" ship and a private ship, other than the size of the guns they probably have. It's a free-for-all zone that, whenever something bad happens, is settled by who has the biggest guns to dictate the end result. Then, the outrage of the aftereffects is settled by what country has the bigger guns or the most political clout.
That's why we're even dogging the Japanese in this at all. If the Sea Shepherd folks weren't Westerners they'd immediately be blown out of the water. Because the Japanese have no force projection capabilities at all, there is no Japanese Navy to protect these ships as they engage in whaling operations.
If US Ships wanted to whale, and the US Navy ran protection for them, we wouldn't hear boo about it because Sea Shepherd and her ilk simply couldn't get close enough to cause a stink.
Or, if the Japanese simply hired Blackwater or another security agency to protect them in international waters, we wouldn't hear about this. The eco-weenies would never get close enough.
We hear about this because, despite being morally wrong, the eco-weenies are Westerners, and the Japanese aren't. The Japanese are calling it racism... I call it a judgement against force projection.
I bet ya that the Sea Shepherd would leave a Chinese whaling boat alone.
On that note, I wonder what would happen if 1)the sea shepherd retards sank a Japanese whaling ship, or 2) anybody intentionally sank a sea shepherd ship. Do they even fly an American flag?
Also, it's pretty obvious that the morons were NOT stationary, but accelerating towards the whale ship. Not that I agree with killing endangered whales, even for science. Hard to study something if you make it go extinct. However, this belief does not justify the idiot shepherd eco-terrorist actions.
Both parties are in the wrong here but the eco-extremists got what they deserved for trying to be pirates without balls. I mean really, if you are going to call yourself a pirate and adopt a form of the Jolly Roger, then don't be a pansy. Of course, by being a real pirate, you open yourself up to being a non-pansy hanging from the mast of some random navy ship, which again is what they deserve for endangering the lives of others. Idiots call themselves pirates and then run and tell mommy because little Joey beat them up in a fight they started.
I agree that South Park pretty much summed up the sea shepherd eco-extremists; it's all about publicity and trying to act tough.
-
On that note, I wonder what would happen if 1)the sea shepherd retards sank a Japanese whaling ship, or 2) anybody intentionally sank a sea shepherd ship. Do they even fly an American flag?
They are registered out of New Zealand or Australia, I believe. The US wouldn't care at all, and it would be up to the Aussies or the New Zealanders to research and resolve the issue. As is happening here with the Ady Gil getting smashed.
The US Navy won't be involved at all. Japan will investigate, New Zealand will investigate, and neither has a truly higher power to appeal to for a decision. They will haggle and argue, but neither will be "right" but will merely be representing their own interests.
Since neither country has force projection capability to speak of, they'll just grumble at each other at political functions hosted by other larger countries, and not do much of anything about it themselves. What are they going to do? NZ can't exactly arrest the Shonan Maru crew, and Japan can't arrest the Sea Shepherds. What else is left?
If the US was wronged, however, we have economic sanctions we can levy that dwarf the effect of either of those two countries. And big-*expletive deleted*ss guns, if we need 'em.
-
I was unaware of the limpet mines and death of a whaler. I'd like to revise my position to "kill on sight." Remind me of the idiots burning houses in Washington a while back.
-
As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. ...
You beat me to it, C&SD. I was going to say that, with his silly arguments based on moral equivalency, SS is sailing full speed in the "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" Sea.
I wonder if he loses many cases in court with his arguement style?
-
http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-090618-1.html
they have dutch registry wonder how we could encourage the dutch to drop em
Sea Shepherd Victory in the Canadian Courts
Canada Fails to Keep Captain Paul Watson from Going to Sea, All Transportation Charges Dropped in Canada
The government of Canada has once again failed in their attempts to maroon Captain Paul Watson on the shore.
Captain Watson was scheduled to appear in court on July 13th, 2009 on charges of operating a Canadian registered ship without a commercial license.
On June 17th, the case was dropped and all charges revoked. Captain Watson will not have to appear in a Canadian Court in July.
In 2006, while the Canadian registered Farley Mowat was in Antarctic waters, the Canadian Registry of Shipping through the Canadian Department of Transport changed the status of the Farley Mowat from yacht to commercial vessel. When the ship reached the next port of call in Cape Town, South Africa in early March, Captain Watson was informed by the South African Marine Safety Authority (SAMSA) that he was in violation of Canadian Department of Transportation regulations for operating a commercial vessel without the proper papers.
Captain Watson argued that the Farley Mowat was a yacht and that he had been Master of the Farley Mowat for three years with the full knowledge and recognition of the Canadian government. Captain Watson produced the ship’s registry. Saleem Modak, the safety inspector for SAMSA said he did not care what the registry said and in his opinion the Farley Mowat was not a yacht.
“A yacht is a white vessel that you sit on and have drinks with your friends,” he said with a straight face.
Captain Watson could not resist and replied, “You would think that in post apartheid South Africa there would be room for a black yacht.”
Modak was not amused and ordered the ship to be placed under arrest at the request of the government of Canada. Canadian, Japanese, and South African authorities then blocked every attempt to free the vessel in an attempt to prevent it from returning to the Southern Ocean to defend the whales.
After three months of bureaucratic red tape and with the situation looking irresolvable, the Farley Mowat quietly slipped out of the Cape Town harbor, flagless and without lights, to the freedom of the Ocean.
Three weeks later, the Farley Mowat arrived in Fremantle, Western Australia to a heroes welcome. A few months later, the ship acquired a Belize flag and left for Antarctica to hunt the whalers. Under Japanese pressure, Belize pulled the flag but not before the Farley Mowat and her crew were well on their way to the Ross Sea where for the next two months they opposed the Japanese fleet without a flag becoming in effect, a genuine pirate vessel.
The Canadian government informed Captain Watson that he would be charged with the unauthorized operation of a Canadian registered commercial ship. He was told that if he pleaded guilty to the charge he would be let off with a $27,000 fine.
Captain Watson refused to pay the fine and refused to plead guilty. The Canadian Department of Transport then advised Captain Watson that if he pleaded guilty he would only have to pay $10,000 in fines.
After consultation with the lawyers, Captain Watson agreed to pay the fine because the defense would cost considerably more.
The Canadian government then further demanded that not only must the fine be paid, but Captain Watson would have to sign an affidavit saying that he knowingly and willfully violated the law as well.
This Captain Watson absolutely refused to do so, and the case was set for trial beginning the 13th through to the 21st of July, 2009.
Captain Paul Watson’s defense was that he is fully qualified to command a vessel of any size that is registered as a yacht or non-commercial vessel. Captain Watson was given the Canadian registry for the Farley Mowat in 2002 with the full knowledge by Transport Canada that he would be Master. Previously, Captain Watson had been master of the Canadian registered Sea Shepherd vessel Sirenian. Captain Watson is also a former officer in the Canadian Coast Guard and had worked on Canadian Pacific Steamships. In addition he has served as Master on all Sea Shepherd vessels from 1978 to the present during which time he commanded five voyages to Antarctica, five voyages in the ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and had acquired extensive navigational experience in the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans, and in the Mediterranean, Tasman, South China, Norwegian, Arabian, Caribbean, and North Seas. He has also transited the Panama Canal a dozen times and has weathered numerous storms, hurricanes, and typhoons.
Captain Watson as Master from 1978 until the present has never lost a crewmember, had a crewmember seriously injured, lost a ship, suffered a grounding, or an oil spill, and has never been convicted of any marine violation. More than 4,000 crew have sailed under Captain Watson’s command.
Faced with this information and with a heavyweight lawyer, Terry La Liberte, the government of Canada has backed down and has officially dropped the charges against Captain Watson citing lack of evidence to support their case.
They had been hoping that Captain Watson would plead guilty without a fight. They were wrong.
Captain Paul Watson retains his good record of never having a single criminal felony conviction or a conviction for a maritime related offense.
“It’s tough taking on governments,” Captain Watson said in response to the decision to drop the case against him. “But one thing I have always had faith in is that in fighting politicians and bureaucrats, the best defense is the law. Once again the law has prevailed, and once again we have proven our case that what we do on the high seas is morally and legally justified. We don’t break the law, we uphold it.”
Says defense Terry La Liberte, “I am pleased to put the Crown to strict proof of their allegations which they were unable to do. My client instructed there could be no compromise of his principled position, and we have done so successfully.”
-
Sea Shepherd may lose ship registry under envisaged Dutch law
Koya Ozeki / Yomiuri Shimbun Correspondent
BRUSSELS--The Dutch government plans to submit a bill to the parliament next week to revise a law on ship registration to revoke the registry of protest ships engaged in "inappropriate activity," in response to a Japanese government request to help prevent violent antiwhaling demonstrations.
The move was prompted by the harassment and obstruction of the Japanese whaling fleet by members of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a U.S.-based antiwhaling group using a Dutch-registered ship, the Steve Irwin.
According to the Dutch Transport, Public Works and Water Management Ministry, the ministry aims to submit the bill before the parliament's year-end recess.
Final adjustments are being made and the bill is expected to be passed into law in spring after deliberations by both legislative houses.
The Steve Irwin was registered by a Dutch senior member of Sea Shepherd in the Netherlands. In February, the protest ship collided with a Japanese whaling vessel and was used by the antiwhaling group to hurl bottles filled with noxious chemicals at a Japanese whaling vessel.
The law currently prohibits acts of piracy and similar criminal activities, but would be expanded under the bill to include activities to interrupt whaling such as those committed by the crew of the Steve Irwin.
(Dec. 11, 2009)
-
Sea Shepherd may lose ship registry under envisaged Dutch law
Koya Ozeki / Yomiuri Shimbun Correspondent
BRUSSELS--The Dutch government plans to submit a bill to the parliament next week to revise a law on ship registration to revoke the registry of protest ships engaged in "inappropriate activity," in response to a Japanese government request to help prevent violent antiwhaling demonstrations.
The move was prompted by the harassment and obstruction of the Japanese whaling fleet by members of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, a U.S.-based antiwhaling group using a Dutch-registered ship, the Steve Irwin.
According to the Dutch Transport, Public Works and Water Management Ministry, the ministry aims to submit the bill before the parliament's year-end recess.
Final adjustments are being made and the bill is expected to be passed into law in spring after deliberations by both legislative houses.
The Steve Irwin was registered by a Dutch senior member of Sea Shepherd in the Netherlands. In February, the protest ship collided with a Japanese whaling vessel and was used by the antiwhaling group to hurl bottles filled with noxious chemicals at a Japanese whaling vessel.
The law currently prohibits acts of piracy and similar criminal activities, but would be expanded under the bill to include activities to interrupt whaling such as those committed by the crew of the Steve Irwin.
(Dec. 11, 2009)
This is bad.
If you can't register a ship, then you can't enter ports. If you can't enter ports, then you can't resupply. If you can't resupply, then you end up engaging in more violent forms of piracy to get food, water, fuel and wenches.
If they can't dock at reputable ports, then they will dock at disreputable ones and will need weapons to protect their ships when docking in Armpitabad, Somalia. And they'll use those same weapons once they get frustrated out at sea.
And... since commercial ships don't carry real weapons, it'll be a one sided fight.
I'm A-OK with the ships being registered somewhere. Punish the actions... not the registrability of the ship.
It's just like gun control.
"Inappropriate Activity" is a load of hogwash that ultimately always translates to "if we don't like you."
-
What are they going to do? NZ can't exactly arrest the Shonan Maru crew, and Japan can't arrest the Sea Shepherds. What else is left?
Well, I hear ramming them works well... :laugh:
-
If they can't dock at reputable ports, then they will dock at disreputable ones and will need weapons to protect their ships when docking in Armpitabad, Somalia. And they'll use those same weapons once they get frustrated out at sea.
They should have a registered companion on board.
Actually, we should look into that for the SS APS
-
They should have a registered companion on board.
Actually, we should look into that for the SS APS
So...first port of call is Amsterdam?
-
This is bad.
If you can't register a ship, then you can't enter ports. If you can't enter ports, then you can't resupply. If you can't resupply, then you end up engaging in more violent forms of piracy to get food, water, fuel and wenches.
If they can't dock at reputable ports, then they will dock at disreputable ones and will need weapons to protect their ships when docking in Armpitabad, Somalia. And they'll use those same weapons once they get frustrated out at sea.
And... since commercial ships don't carry real weapons, it'll be a one sided fight.
Not likely. Those people would probably *expletive deleted*it themselves if they thought they were going to have to dock in Somalia, Yemen, or some other unnamed cesspool. It's easy to be tough when you know the other guy won't really fight back.
-
That's a subject for another thread - but on this point, I want to be clear that I absolutely would not support the Devil's right to harpoon baby wales, forum consensus notwithstanding. =D
I see the point about the greenies endangering human lives, but it's tough to be outraged when the whalers could easily avoid the risk to life and limb as well by simply not whaling. This is a situation that requires both parties to engage in crimes for the risk to life to arise.
As someone said earlier, you see someone jaywalking, and you accelerate to hit them. They're wrong, but so are you. Oh, but in this case, the Japs aren't even wrong, they are taken advantage of a poorly written agreement.
-
but it's tough to be outraged when the whalers could easily avoid the risk
kinda like the girl in the miniskirt asking to be raped?
-
Reminds me of the woman protesting a few years back. She wanted a train to stop, so she laid down on the tracks. Both cases have predictable results.
-
The group accused the Japanese ship of deliberately ramming the Ady Gil.
Looks like eco-trash played chicken with a vessel several tons bigger than themselves and lost.
They're lucky they didn't become Darwin Awardees.
-
SS,
Are you claiming a necessity defense for the Sea Sheperds to violate international maritime law by attacking peaceful and (if only technically) legal shipping for purely moral reasons?
Your argument being that it is morally and legally acceptable to use lethal or potentially (and reasonably foreseeable) lethal force (ramming, engine distruction, blinding lasers, etc), in defiance of laws against piracy and other unprovoked violence, against the Japanese, who are acting within the law although committing a lethal act condemned morally by many individuals, in order to protect the lives of whales?
Whales being non-human mammals, although almost certainly sentient on some level.
Great, I expect you'll be contributing to the defense funds of James Kopp and Eric Rudolph shortly.
Reducio ad absurdum.
-
Looks like eco-trash played chicken with a vessel several tons bigger than themselves and lost.
They're lucky We're unlucky they didn't become Darwin Awardees.
That's more how I see it.
-
i bet they couldn't bother a chinese ship twice... >:D at least not without going through a lot more boats and hippies
i can see the chinese ship capts official statement as released through the government now....."What boat?
Heh.
Yep, the eco-pirates don't harass folks, no matter how environmentally destructive, who aren't willing to engage in eco-kabuki and instead slip them a strong dose of reality.
-
So... you don't like Japanese people? Good to know.
No, I love Japanese people, they make my oddities seem tame by comparison.
Who couldn't love a nation that celebrates cannibals?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issei_Sagawa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issei_Sagawa)
(all in good humor, btw... I don't have anything against most Japanese people/culture/etc.... they are generally a great people, don't quite agree with their whaling stance, cultural differences, I guess)
-
I agree that South Park pretty much summed up the sea shepherd eco-extremists; it's all about publicity and trying to act tough.
Comedy Central played that episode (coinkeedink? I think not) last night. I'm surprised I didn't wake my wife, as I was ROFLMAO!
-
No, I love Japanese people, they make my oddities seem tame by comparison.
Who couldn't love a nation that celebrates cannibals?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issei_Sagawa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issei_Sagawa)
(all in good humor, btw... I don't have anything against most Japanese people/culture/etc.... they are generally a great people, don't quite agree with their whaling stance, cultural differences, I guess)
This has been going on for quite some time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyboys:_A_True_Story_of_Courage
-
[Subtle Hint Mode On]
Let's stick to the thread topic, and back off of harpooning fellow forum members, ok?
[Subtle Hint Mode Off]
I applaud the Sea Shepard's convictions, in light of them fighting the "research" harvesting of whales by the Japs in Aussie territorial waters. Why the Aussies and Kiwis don't take care of the problem themselves is indeed a good question. However, I don't particularly think the Sea Shepard gang is doing so hot in the execution phase of their plan... This is a battle that should be fought in the UN or other world forums. =|
-
Ummmm.... (cough)... Yes, though, I don't support whaling, I hold in even less regard eco-terrorist. Whaler's 1, eco-terrorist 0. =D
-
[Subtle Hint Mode On]
Let's stick to the thread topic, and back off of harpooning fellow forum members, ok?
[Subtle Hint Mode Off]
I applaud the Sea Shepard's convictions, in light of them fighting the "research" harvesting of whales by the Japs in Aussie territorial waters. Why the Aussies and Kiwis don't take care of the problem themselves is indeed a good question. However, I don't particularly think the Sea Shepard gang is doing so hot in the execution phase of their plan... This is a battle that should be fought in the UN or other world forums. =|
Even Greenpeace has begun to go that route. I read they were stopping the confrontations at sea, and are now focusing on winning votes/influencing gov't policy.
-
G98 has my view in a nutshell, really.
Carebear, I don't any such defense would be available the activists. I've been pretty consistent on that point in my posts - ramming/interefering with other ships in this manner is not legal, even for a good reason. However, I reserve my scorn for the whalers who are creating the situation in the first place.
The idea that the whalers would have the right to attack and sink an activist's vessel because the hippies are getting out of line is outrageous, imo, but I've seen very nearly that view repeated many times on this thread.
People engaged in illicit activities don't have any right to defend their pursuits. And I don't believe this activity is legal; the convention (to which Japan is a party) allows for research, and this clearly isn't research. Just because the whalers call it that doesn't make it so.
-
The idea that the whalers would have the right to attack and sink an activist's vessel because the hippies are
getting out of line attempting to disable the props or rudder of a ship in choppy antarctic waters or blind the crew with high powered green lasers is outrageous perfectly rational.
911 doesn't work on the ocean. There's no ocean police.
There's just arguing, afterwards, by interested parties.
-
Not likely. Those people would probably *expletive deleted*it themselves if they thought they were going to have to dock in Somalia, Yemen, or some other unnamed cesspool. It's easy to be tough when you know the other guy won't really fight back.
Hence the lack of PETA protests at Hells Angels rallies, eh?
-
The idea that the whalers would have the right to attack and sink an activist's vessel because the hippies are getting out of line attempting to disable the props or rudder of a ship in choppy antarctic waters or blind the crew with high powered green lasers is outrageous perfectly rational.
911 doesn't work on the ocean. There's no ocean police.
There's just arguing, afterwards, by interested parties.
Would you be equally just as fine if the activists acquired naval weapons and sank a whaler? "Eh, whatever, there's no law here, just arguing...."
If there're no rules to be followed and the ocean is just an anarchy zone, what're your grounds for being upset at the sea shepard types?
I think it's fair to call the prop-roping and other techniques wrong, even criminal. But then again I see a basis for that in law. If it's all about strength and no rules apply, I see no rational basis for complaining about it.
Edit: Let me make an important distinction here - there's a difference between trying to cut the ropes and blasting a vessel with the hoses when that vessel is actively attacking the whaler, and heading out to sink the activist's vessel on sight to forestall those activities. I think it's more accurate to say you have no right to preventative or retaliatory self-defense on the water if you're whaling.
Having seen the video, using the firehose on the crew after the Ady Gil was rammed is tantamount to attempted murder. That was the most criminal act on tape if you ask me.
-
Having seen the video, using the firehose on the crew after the Ady Gil was rammed is tantamount to attempted murder. That was the most criminal act on tape if you ask me.
How do you feel about the actions of the "Sea Shepherds" that actually, you know, killed someone?
-
Would you be equally just as fine if the activists acquired naval weapons and sank a whaler? "Eh, whatever, there's no law here, just arguing...."
If there're no rules to be followed and the ocean is just an anarchy zone, what're your grounds for being upset at the sea shepard types?
This almost boggles the mind.
No one here is saying there's no rules in the ocean. You made that up whole cloth. In fact everyone's mad at the Sea Sheppards for breaking the rules.
Let me spell out the distinction here for you.
The Sea Shepherds are endangering people.
The whalers are endangering big, tasty fish
Thats why force is justified in stopping the pirates, and not the whalers. If the world passes an international treaty that says anyone harvesting whales are very bad people and should be sunk immidiatelly, then the Sea Shepherds would have a case. 'Till then there's international courts for this kind of thing, and they should be there. This is akin to trying to run folks off the road because they drive Hummers.
-
How do you feel about the actions of the "Sea Shepherds" that actually, you know, killed someone?
It's criminal - they ought to be restrained from doing it and punished where they do. But it would be best if the illegal whalers didn't create the situation in the first place.
dogmush, I was responding to AZRedhawk's post where he specifically said he recognises no such laws, rules, or otherwise, and that only force matters.
This is starting to make me think of that line in the Big Lebowski, at the end:
"Who's crying about fair? You guys are the nihilists"
-
I think it's fair to call the prop-roping and other techniques wrong, even criminal. But then again I see a basis for that in law. If it's all about strength and no rules apply, I see no rational basis for complaining about it.
SS, I think you don't understand how the ocean works. A disabled vessel in the open ocean is deadly. As soon as the vessel has no power to turn into large waves, it will be rolled broadside and capsize. This causes the death of PEOPLE.
Also, the Sea Shepard people were using FREAKING LASERS in an attempt to blind the crew of the whalers.
You again ignore comparative arguments. You are not justified in breaking the law to stop someone else from doing it. You are not justified in escalating a situation by attacking another vessel.
You're the one that just doesn't get it.
-
SS, I think you don't understand how the ocean works. A disabled vessel in the open ocean is deadly. As soon as the vessel has no power to turn into large waves, it will be rolled broadside and capsize. This causes the death of PEOPLE.
Also, the Sea Shepard people were using FREAKING LASERS in an attempt to blind the crew of the whalers.
You again ignore comparative arguments. You are not justified in breaking the law to stop someone else from doing it. You are not justified in escalating a situation by attacking another vessel.
You're the one that just doesn't get it.
I'm not sure where the disagreement is - I just said all those things were criminal and that a vessel, even a whaler, has a right to stop them. The piece you quoted said "wrong, even criminal", ie, as a response to AZRedhawk's claim that there is no such thing as a crime on the seas.
-
there's a difference between trying to cut the ropes and blasting a vessel with the hoses when that vessel is actively attacking the whaler, and heading out to sink the activist's vessel on sight to forestall those activities.
Does this compare to individual self defence? If somebody takes a shot at me then his gun jams, must I wait to he gets it operational again to shoot back?
-
I'm not sure where the disagreement is - I just said all those things were criminal and that a vessel, even a whaler, has a right to stop them.
Then what's the problem with running over offending vessel, if even in some people's bizarro world view that the Japanese vessel deliberately turned to hit the smaller vessel? (Which once again for those who have no knowledge of ocean going vessels such an act could easily tear a hole in the hull of the bigger ship sinking it, and no Captain worth his salt would allow for, especially in the waters that they were in).
[popcorn]
-
Does this compare to individual self defence? If somebody takes a shot at me then his gun jams, must I wait to he gets it operational again to shoot back?
Obviously the answer differs depending on whether you're committing a crime too, and how you both came to be involved in that situation.
If he's blocking the freeway to prevent you from stealing a car, yeah, that's illegal and dumb. But you don't get a free pass on running him over, even if he starts to get violent and breaks the law himself.
As I've said, I think both parties involved are doing wrong. But I think the greater focus ought to be on the whalers stopping their illegal trade. I'm mainly responding to all the comments about how the whalers should just sink greenies on sight, and how awful the greenies are in comparison.
-
This is a battle that should be fought in the UN or other world forums.
Ha! You are right. It should be fought in the halls of the UN and other similar useless groups- no ecoterrorists or fishermen would get hurt. :laugh:
-
Then what's the problem with running over offending vessel, if even in some people's bizarro world view that the Japanese vessel deliberately turned to hit the smaller vessel? (Which once again for those who have no knowledge of ocean going vessels such an act could easily tear a hole in the hull of the bigger ship sinking it, and no Captain worth his salt would allow for, especially in the waters that they were in).
[popcorn]
It's the same crime - that's the problem. Two crooks who injure each other can't go to court and say "hey, he was trying to hurt me!" when charged.
Also, watching the video, responsibility for the collision isn't clear, but there is at least one obviously criminal act on that tape - the hose being turned on the crew of the Ady Gill after the collision.
Trying to blast crew off the deck of a disabled vehicle is no different from firing a rifle at them. I'm surprised there isn't more outrage at that portion of the incident involved.
-
Also, watching the video, responsibility for the collision isn't clear, but there is at least one obviously criminal act on that tape - the hose being turned on the crew of the Ady Gill after the collision.
Trying to blast crew off the deck of a disabled vehicle is no different from firing a rifle at them. I'm surprised there isn't more outrage at that portion of the incident involved.
Bwahaha! I thought that part of the video was hilarious.
Seriously, they had every right to train the water canon at the pirates as the offending vessel was moving toward the stern of the Japanese vessel- the eco-idiots had a reputation for throwing things in the water to damage props. These morons should try their stunts on a Destroyer once, I bet they get shot at with something bigger than rifles. =D
-
lets cut the crap. the aussies have issues with the japanese started about 1940 or so and hasn't gotten a whole lot better
When the commercial whaling moratorium was introduced by the IWC in 1982, Japan lodged an official objection. However, in response to US threats to cut Japan's fishing quota in US territorial waters under the terms of the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment, Japan withdrew its objection in 1987. However, according to the BBC, America went back on this promise, effectively destroying the deal.[14] Since Japan could not resume commercial whaling, it began whaling on a scientific-research basis. Australia, Greenpeace, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and other groups dispute the Japanese claim of research "as a disguise for commercial whaling, which is banned."
Norway registered an objection to the International Whaling Commission moratorium and is thus not bound by it. Commercial whaling did cease for a five year period during which a small scientific catch was made to gauge the sustainability of the stock, and resumed 1993. Only minke whales are permitted to be caught.
Norwegian minke whale catches have fluctuated between 487 animals in 2000 to 592 in 2007. The catch is made solely from the Northeast Atlantic minke whale population, which is estimated to consist of 103,000 animals (2008 IWC).
Iceland
Main article: Whaling in Iceland
Icelandic whaling vessels
Minke whale meat kebabs, Reykjavik
Iceland did not lodge an objection against the 1982 IWC moratorium, which came into force in 1986. Between 1986 and 1989 around 60 animals per year were taken under a scientific permit. However, under strong pressure from anti-whaling countries, who viewed scientific whaling as a circumvention of the moratorium,[citation needed] Iceland ceased whaling altogether in 1989. Following the 1991 refusal of the IWC to accept its Scientific Committee's recommendation to allow sustainable commercial whaling, Iceland left the IWC in 1992.
Iceland rejoined the IWC in 2002 with a reservation to the moratorium. Iceland presented a feasibility study to the 2003 IWC meeting for catches in 2003 and 2004. The primary aim of the study was to deepen the understanding of fish-whale interactions. Amid disagreement within the IWC Scientific Committee about the value of the research and its relevance to IWC objectives,[10] no decision on the proposal was reached. However, under the terms of the convention the Icelandic government issued permits for a scientific catch. In 2003 Iceland resumed scientific whaling which continued in 2004 and 2005.
Iceland resumed commercial whaling in 2006. The annual quota is set to 30 minke whales (out of an estimated 174,000 animals in the central and north-eastern North Atlantic[11]) and nine fin whales (out of an estimated 30,000 animals in the central and north-eastern North Atlantic[11][12]).
-
^So is what Japan is doing legal or illegal?^
If its 'illegal' what legal/government entity is allowed to do what enforcement?
It sounds like the Japanese were part of a civil contract which was breached by another party.
-
but but but that would make paul watson .... what?
this according to his former brothers at greenpeace
Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace: some facts
* Print
* Tell a friend
Paul Watson is the founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and an early member of Greenpeace. Over the last few years, Paul has become extremely critical of Greenpeace in the press and at his website. The information below is provided as a service to our supporters to get a few facts out on the table about Paul's history with Greenpeace and the nature of our disagreements.
Paul Watson became active with Greenpeace in 1971 as a member of our second expedition against nuclear weapons testing in Amchitka, and went on to participate in actions against whaling and the killing of harp seals. He was an influential early member but not, as he sometimes claims, a founder.
He was expelled from the leadership of Greenpeace in 1977 by a vote of 11 to one (only Watson himself voted against it).
Bob Hunter (one of Greenpeace's early leaders, after whom a Sea Shepherd vessel was named) described the event in his book, the Greenpeace Chronicles:
'No one doubted his [Watson's] courage for a moment. He was a great warrior brother. Yet in terms of the Greenpeace gestalt, he seemed possessed by too powerful a drive, too unrelenting a desire to push himself front and center, shouldering everyone else aside… He had consistently gone around to other offices, acting out the role of mutineer. Everywhere he went, he created divisiveness… We all felt we'd got trapped in a web no one wanted to see develop, yet now that it had, there was nothing to do but bring down the axe, even if it meant bringing it down on the neck of our brother."
Confusion: Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd
Watson founded his own group, Sea Shepherd, in 1977.
* in 1986, Sea Shepherd carried out an action against the Icelandic whaling station in Hvalfjoerdur and sank two Icelandic whaling vessels in Reykjavik harbor by opening their sea valves;[1]
* in December 1992, Sea Shepherd sank the vessel Nybroena in port;[2]
* Sea Shepherd claimed to have sank the Taiwanese drift net ship Jiang Hai in port in Taiwan and to have rammed and disabled four other Asian drift net ships;[3]
* a Canadian court ordered Watson and his former ship, the Cleveland Armory, to pay a total of $35,000 for ramming a Cuban fishing vessel off the coast of Newfoundland in June 1993;[4]
* in January 1994 the group severely damaged the whaling ship Senet in the Norwegian port of Gressvik.[5]
Each of the whaling ships noted above was refloated and refitted for continued whaling.
In a 2008 article in the New Yorker, Watson claims that Sea Shepherd has sunk ten ships since its founding, but the author of the article notes, with some skepticism, that she was unable to verify that number.
Paul Watson's and Sea Shepherd's actions have sometimes been wrongly attributed to Greenpeace, often in an attempt by others to damage Greenpeace's reputation for non-violence.
Greenpeace has never sunk a whaling ship.
Some anti-environmentalists try to use the fact that an extreme minority in the environmental movement resorts to force and sabotage to brand the movement as a whole as "terrorist." One such attempt has been specifically condemned by a Norwegian court. [7]
In 1991, we had an agreement with Sea Shepherd that we would refrain from public criticism of one another. Today, many of Sea Shepherd's fundraising communications and Paul Watson's public communications are filled with attacks on Greenpeace, our methods, our activists, and our supporters. They are often peppered with inaccuracies and outright untruths. Paul Watson is still fighting a one-sided battle that was over for Greenpeace in 1977.
In most cases, we simply don't respond to Paul Watson's criticism. While we don't agree with Sea Shepherd's methods, we also know that stories of divisiveness within the ranks of environmental groups distract from the real issues which unite us, and we prefer that when the media writes about whaling, they write about the real issues. Although Paul Watson is a vehement anti-whaling activist, he regularly lends his support to attacks on Greenpeace -- some of them organized by the whalers themselves. [8]
Our committment to non-violence: why we don't cooperate
Paul Watson has made many public requests for Greenpeace to reveal the location of the whaling fleet or otherwise cooperate with Sea Shepherd in the Southern Ocean when the ships of both organizations have been there simultaneously.
We passionately want to stop whaling, and will do so peacefully. That's why we won't help Sea Shepherd. Greenpeace is committed to non-violence and we'll never, ever, change that; not for anything. If we helped Sea Shepherd to find the whaling fleet we'd be responsible for anything they did having got that information, and history shows that they've used violence in the past, in the most dangerous seas on Earth. For us, non-violence is a non-negotiable, precious principle. Greenpeace will continue to act to defend the whales, but will never attack or endanger the whalers.
We differ with Paul Watson on what constitutes violence. He states that nobody has ever been harmed by a Sea Shepherd action. But the test of non-violence is the nature of your action, not whether harm results or not. There are many acts of violence -- for example, holding a gun to someone's head -- which result in no harm. That doesn't change their nature. We believe that throwing butryic acid at the whalers, dropping cables to foul their props, and threatening to ram them in the freezing waters of the Antarctic constitutes violence because of the potential consequences. The fact that the consequences have not been realized is irrelevant.
In addition to being morally wrong, we believe the use of violence in protection of whales to be a tactical error. If there's one way to harden Japanese public opinion and ensure whaling continues, it's to use violent tactics against their fleet. It's wrong because it puts human lives at risk, and it's wrong because it makes the whalers stronger in Japan.
We work with many other groups whose methods differ from ours, and we know the power of cooperation among groups with a common objective but diverse ways of working. For decades, we have had productive working relationships with the Worldwide Fund for Nature, Friends of the Earth, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Sierra Club, Environmental Investigative Agency, and a host of other groups dedicated to whale conservation. We would only be willing to cooperate with Sea Shepherd under the condition that it would not facilitate endangering human life.
To give one example, in 2005/2006, Sea Shepherd attempted to snarl the propeller of the Nisshin Maru with a rope and cable, as reported on their own website:
Two of our three zodiacs were equipped with devices we had made to foul their propeller; basically two buoys connected with steel cable and rope that we would place in front of their ship in hopes that the Maru would run it over, it would pass underneath their hull and into their propeller at the stern of their ship causing their ship to slow down dramatically or be stopped completely. The Maru was running at full speed away from the Farley. Both zodiacs deployed their devices repeatedly. None seemed to work against the goliath Nisshin Maru ship...
Running out of options and having lost both of our propeller fouling devices, all hope seemed lost of slowing the Maru...
Disabling a ship at sea in the Antarctic, regardless of how much one may object to its activities, is not only a callous act of disregard for human life -- it's courting an environmental disaster in one of the most fragile environments in the world.
Such tactics are not only dangerous to the whalers, they are dangerous to the cause of stopping Japanese whaling. Our political analysis is unequivocal: if Japanese whaling is to be stopped, it will be stopped by a domestic decision within the Japanese government to do so. That's why we have invested heavily in a Greenpeace office in Japan and efforts to speak directly to the Japanese public -- 70 percent of whom are unaware that whaling takes place in the Southern Ocean at all. A majority of those who are aware of the whaling program, oppose it. Support for whaling in Japan has been steadily falling for the last decade. Consumption of whale meat is in decline, the cost of the program to taxpayers is being questioned by the business community, and the political costs of the program have created opposition in the Foreign Affairs department in Japan. All of this progress could be undone by a nationalist backlash. By making it easy to paint anti-whaling forces as dangerous, piratical terrorists, Sea Shepherd could undermine the forces within Japan which could actually bring whaling to an end.
A few facts
We've got fairly thick skins here at Greenpeace. When you challenge powerful forces, you need to be ready to put up with accusations of ulterior motives and hidden agendas. What's unfortunate is when we have to spend time countering friendly fire -- attacks by an organization that shares the same goals as we do. We don't mind robust disagreements, but we do object to falsehoods.
As the New Yorker article on Paul Watson noted, in his book "Earthforce!":
Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently, "as Ronald Reagan did."
Paul Watson has claimed that Greenpeace goes to the Antarctic merely to film whales being killed, to wave banners and to bear witness to their deaths -- but does nothing to save them.
This is untrue.
Greenpeace saves whales
Greenpeace has directly saved the lives of countless whales over more than three decades by maneuvering our boats between the harpoon and the whale. Many of us have risked our lives in those actions from Iceland to the Antarctic. But, while we consider it acceptable to risk our own lives for the whales, we don't believe in risking anyone else's.
In 2006, a harpoon was fired over one of our inflatables and the line fell on the boat, pulling one crew member into the freezing waters of the Antarctic. According to records kept by the whalers (we were too busy to keep records), we interfered with them 26 times in 2006. Shortly after sighting us, the whalers departed at high speed -- their own records show they lost nine days of hunting due to interference with their operations. The whalers rammed our ships twice, hit one of our crew members with a metal pole, and used a high-powered water cannon against us. Despite this, they came in 82 whales short of their quota. In 2008, the whalers ran from us for 14 consecutive days, days that were lost to them for hunting. Since they need to catch an average of around 9-10 whales a day to make their self-appointed quota, this action alone saved the lives of over 100 whales.
Greenpeace works to save whales around the world, all year round, and with a variety of tactics.
Along with the Worldwide Fund for Nature, we were the primary advocates that created public pressure for the moratorium on commercial whaling which was agreed in 1982. That single piece of work has saved the lives of tens of thousands of whales and ended the whaling programs of the Soviet Union, Brazil, Peru, Chile, and Spain.
We have undertaken political work to maintain support for the moratorium on commercial whaling and counter Japanese vote-buying schemes. There have been years in which the conservation majority in the International Whaling Commission has hung by a thread, in one case by a single vote. By lobbying conservation-minded countries to join the International Whaling Commission and successfully pressuring countries like Denmark to change their policies toward conservation, our millions of supporters and activists have worked quietly behind the scenes to save whales.
Working in Japan to stop whaling
Greenpeace has had an office in Japan since 1989. As a result of hard, steady work over the years we have succeeded in making whaling a subject of domestic debate in Japan where none has existed before. We've brought Japanese celebrities, musicians, and artists to speak out against whaling, exposed taxpayer-sponsored promotional efforts by the Japanese government -- by exposing waste and corruption in the bureaucracy that supports whaling, we've generated criticism of whaling in some of Japan's largest newspapers, and articles in the business press asking whether Japan should end its whaling program.
On May 15, 2008, Greenpeace Japan used undercover investigators and the testimony of informers to expose that large amounts of prime cut whale meat were being smuggled from the whaling ship Nisshin Maru disguised as personal baggage, labeled "cardboard" or "salted stuff" and addressed to the private homes of crewmembers. Greenpeace activists Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki intercepted one box out of four sent to one address, discovered it contained whale meat valued at up to US$3,000, and took it to the Tokyo public prosecutor.
Their public press conference drew national attention in Japan, and a promise by the public prosecutor to "fully investigate" the charges.
Instead, Junichi and Toru were arrested for stealing the box of whale meat, and the scandal investigation was dropped by the Tokyo public prosecutor's office the same day; it was clear that the two events were connected, just as it is clear that both were politically motivated. Although Junichi and Toru had provided full cooperation to the police, it took some five weeks to make the arrests, and when they did, more than 40 officers raided the Greenpeace Japan office, with the media tipped off by police beforehand. The Greenpeace activists learned of their imminent arrest from the TV news the same day the embezzlement case was dropped.
The two activists now face up to ten years imprisonment. We consider them political prisoners, and believe that powerful forces have instrumented a crackdown aimed at discrediting Greenpeace in Japanese society. This means we've hit a nerve. We intend to put all our efforts into turning the tables, and putting the whaling interests on trial in the court of public opinion in Japan. We see the reaction of whaling interests as conforming perfectly to the way the most successful Greenpeace campaigns play out: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you. Then you win."
Greenpeace has too much money?
Watson likes to paint a picture of Greenpeace as enjoying vast riches, but in fact Greenpeace accepts no money from governments or corporations, and our resources are minuscule compared to the task before us. We rely almost entirely on the donations of nearly 3 million people worldwide, and we spend those hard-earned donations in ways that win campaigns for the environment.
To put our budget in perspective, in 2007 Exxon-Mobil generated more revenue in less than six hours than Greenpeace raised worldwide from its supporters for the entire year. Our annual donations are less than the value of seven days of the global value of the illegal forest industry, or three days of the subsidies to the global fisheries industry. The nuclear industry spends more money in advertising than Greenpeace International's entire operating budget.
The full breakdown of what we raise, what we spend, and what we spend it on is released every year in our Annual Report.
Most importantly, Greenpeace gets results. In the three decades since our founding, we have combined our unique brand of non-violent direct action with political lobbying, scientific research, and public mobilization to bring an end to nuclear weapons testing, stop the dumping of hazardous waste at sea, secure the moratorium on commercial whaling, and win dozens of other significant steps toward our ultimate goal of a green and peaceful future for our planet.
In conclusion
Paul Watson is welcome to express his opinions about Greenpeace -- as a more progressive environmental organization, we have a wide spectrum of detractors, and we welcome fair criticism. But, we expect fair debate to be based in fact, not falsehoods.
[1] New York Times, November 10, 1986: Militants sink two of Iceland's Whaling Vessels
[2] Reuters, 3 June 1994: Norway Sentences Anti-Whaling Activists
[3] Sea Shepherd Conservation Society fact sheet, Econet, spring 1994
[4] Sea Shepherd Media Release, April 12, 1994
[5] Sea Shepherd Media Release, January 24, 1994
[6] Examples: Sea Shepherd Media Release, April 25, 1994; Sea Shepherd Log, Second Quarter 1993
[7] Greenpeace Norge v. Magnus Gudmundsson and Anor, Oslo, March 17-March 21, 1992
[8] In "The Man in the Rainbow" Watson appeared alongside representatives of the pro-whaling High North Alliance and the anti-environmental Wise Use movement to condemn Greenpeace and cast aspersions on the entire environmental community. The film was deemed libellous by a German court.
-
Watson feels that "no human community should be larger than 20,000 people," human populations need to be reduced radically to "fewer than one billion," and only those who are "completely dedicated to the responsibility" of caring for the biosphere should have children, which is a "very small percentage of humans." He likens humankind to a virus, the biosphere needs to get cured from with a "radical and invasive approach," as from cancer.[18]
-
He likens humankind to a virus, the biosphere needs to get cured from with a "radical and invasive approach," as from cancer.[18]
oh, he's agent smith. that explains a lot [popcorn]
:lol: =D
-
earth firster
-
earth firster
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi528.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd328%2Fsumpnz%2Fearthfirstlogging.gif&hash=cac6f9ad4d87964b32cbcc6e97470e49757a1b98)
-
CASD, i misread that post and though you had logged in drunk :lol: =D i though you were making a Kevin Jennings joke [popcorn]
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXQq78lvKrU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89KetsE9lJQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aL3-LxXVg8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDsZcLVXyn8&feature=related
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXQq78lvKrU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89KetsE9lJQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aL3-LxXVg8&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDsZcLVXyn8&feature=related
Hawmoon - interesting videos, but the first three are all of the same ramming event. A little redundant.
-
8 pages is enough.