Sea Shepherd Clashes With Whaling Fleet in Australian Waters

[Barrett808]

Source: Sea Shepherd conservation Society

Sea Shepherd Clashes With Whaling Fleet in Australian Waters
0730 GMT December 26th, 2008
Australian Antarctic Territorial Waters

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society ship Steve Irwin closed in on one of the vessels of the Japanese whaling fleet at 0730 Hours GMT (1930 Hours Sydney Time) on December 26th off the coast of the Australian Antarctic Territory north of the Mawson Peninsula.

The Kaiko Maru emerged from dense fog in front of the Steve Irwin. The Sea Shepherd crew pursued and delivered 10 bottles of rotten butter and 15 bottles of a methyl cellulose and indelible dye mixture.

"That is one stinky slippery ship," said Sea Shepherd 2nd Officer Peter Hammarstedt of Sweden.

The Japanese ship was ordered out of the territorial waters of Australia by Australian citizen Jeff Hansen from Perth, Western Australia. The message was delivered in Japanese.

As the Steve Irwin came alongside the starboard side of the Kaiko Maru, the whaler steered hard to starboard and struck the Steve Irwin lightly crushing part of the aft port helicopter deck guard rails on the Sea Shepherd ship. There was no serious damage to either ship.

The Sea Shepherd crew's objective was to intimidate the Japanese fleet and to keep them moving Eastward out of Australian Territorial waters. The Sea Shepherd crew have been pursuing the fleet eastward for a week. There is only 90 miles left before the fleet enters the New Zealand Zone.

"Our objective now is to chase them out of Australia's Economic Exclusion Zone," said Captain Paul Watson. "I have a chart here and it clearly states that these waters are Australian EEZ. There is an Australian Federal Court Order specifically prohibiting these ships from whaling in these waters. We have informed the whalers they are in contempt of this Court ruling."

There is no doubt that Japanese whaling in Australian waters has been severely disrupted. Since Saturday, the Sea Shepherd crew have chased the Japanese fleet for 400 miles through heavy fog, dense ice and nasty weather. During that time they have not been able to kill any whales.

"We still have them on the run and we intend to keep them on the run for as long as our fuel resources allow," said Captain Watson.

Read more: http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-081226-1.html

[BrklynLiberal]

1. I hope that one day Capt Watson will get the Nobel Prize he deserves..

[Diclotican]

13. BrklynLiberal

BrklynLiberal

What type of Nobel Prize want you him to have?... The peace prize? Not that the peace prize have been given to many who maybe have not deserved the prize but....

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[villager]

26. Indeed.

n/t

[grantdevine]

69. Sadly he probably blew his chance for that honor.

His lies about Canadian minister John Efford left him with little credibility.

It's reported today that the Japanese accuse Sea Shepherd of ramming them, and Sea Shepherd denies it. I believe the Japanese before I believe captain Watson.

[flvegan]

2. Shame that whaler didn't come across the can opener or the Steve Irwin.

How do you say "mayday" in Japanese?

[DeadManInc]

48. mesofucked

[AsahinaKimi]

66. I have always been appalled at whaling...

However is this comment necessary? Are you trying to sound Japanese? If so, this is offensive to me
and any other Japanese-American who happens to be on this thread.

[grantdevine]

70. Far too many posters have taken their objections to Japanese whaling to a level

that's innappropriate, unfortunately.

[bahrbearian]

106. Hey its not "Whaling" its "Research" .

[bahrbearian]

104. P.C. Police? or no sense of humor?

[AsahinaKimi]

123. since when ..

Is a remark that's bordering on racism humorous?

[MercutioATC]

3. I wish there was a way to publicize the illegal fishing without endangering human life.

I'm not saying that something doesn't need to be done, but having a civilian ramming whaling ships and attempting to enforce laws without any legal standing is just too dangerous for me to support.

[InvisibleTouch]

4. The whaler rammed THEM, actually.

I have nothing but vast admiration for the Sea Shepherd crew's courage. While the rest of us sit at our computers and sign online petitions, they're out there putting their lives on the line.

[flvegan]

7. Sea Shepherd brings them out of the woodwork.

Best to ignore them. Couple of them in this thread already.

[kristopher]

8. Right.

Rather a "freeperesque" approach, don't you think?

You certainly can't point to ANY success from the tactics of the antiwhaling activists. None. Iceland, Norway, Japan haven't moved one inch in the direction of giving up whaling. In fact, the situation has deteriorated.

I argue it is time for an alternative approach, that's all.

[flvegan]

10. Really?

You mean that sinking multiple whalers didn't ruin whaling for a number of years? Or how about the uninsured whaling vessels sunk. Out of business. Making rogue nations of CITES?

Not moved one inch? No success? Costing Japan escalating millions of dollars each year and GETTING THEIR OWN FUCKING TV SHOW? Yeah, whatever. The Japanese look like a bunch of stupid hacks on the world stage. Public opinion matters a great deal to such a "proud nation". Fuck them. 5 years, give or take, and it's over. I hope you're still here for me to laugh in your face over it.

Freeperesque...takes one to know one. Sorry I hit such a sore spot with you.

[InvisibleTouch]

15. I think the whales who were NOT killed would disagree with you.

Kill-quotas have been way down. I'd call that a success.

[Diclotican]

16. kristopher

kristopher

As long as you doesn't want, or doesn't wish to sit down and talk to the "other part" this situation would not be something we can solve... If it right to whaling?.. I am not sure, but I do believe that some whale types can be hunted, for a very limited time in the year.. No I don't believe that we should give a free pass to all type of whaling, and I do not believe that it is enough whales around for everyone who want to do it either..

But some is claiming that some native folks, who have whaling as a nature way of living should be allowed to do it, and they are the same who is claiming that Norway, Iceland and Japan is barbaric because of their hunting of whales.. But have any of you seeing how the natives are hunting whales.. Have some of you really been seeing what happened with the whales they have couth, and dragged to the Beach to be hacked up in pieces when they are still alive??.. Have you se the sea of blood in the harbor, where the whales is beached?.. No I really doubt it.. Because if you do, many other than Norway, Iceland and Japan should be treated as "criminals":. Many cultures in Alaska, and in Canada, plus Greenland should be outed as barbaric, violent and over the top.. Maybe Sea Shepard should going there to, to fight them on the beatces, and to document the horror where animals is being killed, far More slowly than an harpoon from a ship in Norway Iceland and Japan ever do....

Some of the anti-whaling community have a lot of hypocrisy in their view.. How many of them who doesn't eat meat or who are not using leather cloth in some sort of other.. Or who are not using leather in any parts of their clothing, include their shoes is just staggering.. I know some, who are very anti-whaling, but who are eating far more MEAT from mammals than I am doing...

And how many of YOU have been eating whale meat?.. I have, it is great.... But rather expensive I might say...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[kristopher]

29. I hate whaling, of any sort.

It is not necessary for any group in today's world to kill these creatures. My opposition is really rooted in an extension of the cannibalism/homicide taboo. I don't expect everyone in the world to share my abhorrence, but I have been extremely successful in one on one encounters at gaining the understanding of Japanese about the depth and validity of my feelings. I emphasize that I respond emotionally to the killing of a whale almost as I would if it were the slaughter of a human. I emphasize that it isn't a choice, it is visceral. I don't condemn, I ask for their understanding of the emotional position the act of whaling places me in and stressthat I can alter my feelings no more than they could alter their feelings about a gruesome murder of a Japanese.

It works.

[Duppers]

44. deleted

.

[LeftyMom]

20. Commercial whaling was banned more than 20 years ago.

The Japanese gov't had to buy the fleet because it wasn't profitable for private enterprise.

Most of the free world gave up whaling. Most countries have banned import/sale of whale meat. International commerce in whale meat/oil is banned under both CITES (most species) and international whaling commission (ditto, but no protection for most dolphins and porpoises, unfortunately) rules.

As a result of video exposure, some parts of Japan have shut down their drive fisheries, and wild capture for aquarium/dolphin show display is no longer occurring in the US and Europe. Some of these communities have switched over to doing dolphin watching tours instead.

Some species are finally showing population growth after centuries of population decline.

Cases have been brought to limit activities by oceangoing vessels (sonar, high speeds in known migratory routes) that endanger marine mammals. Some have resulted in changes to the rules to limit propeller strikes, notably in heavily traveled corridors on the east coast of the US.

Yep, those crazy whale activists haven't got anything done. :eyes:

[nashville_brook]

67. it's not like "alternative approaches" aren't also being employed -- Greenpeace, for example

44 activists from the Greenpeace ships Esperanza and Arctic Sunrise appeal for help in their campaign to end whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, by spelling out the words `Help End Whaling!’ using their bodies.

anyone know if this worked?

[LeftyMom]

118. Greenpeace didn't even send a ship this year. They must have enough pics for fundraising.

:eyes:

[rucognizant]

42. Bingo!

You have that right!

[grantdevine]

74. How do you know what the truth is?

Sea Shepherd has shown itself to be willing to lie when it suits it's purposes.

[arikara]

98. Sea Shepherd is on a mission

to end a sickening practice.

Liars? Japan... What kind of "research" involves the disgusting slaughter of thousands of sentient beings. Canada... a government that consistently sides with corporate interests over the interests of its citizens and allows the country to be ravaged by pillagers and polluters.

[grantdevine]

99. And Sea Shepherd doesn't lie, right?

Let's not be naive.

You are correct, they're on a mission. And they fund that mission with a concentrated drive for donations. Unfortunately, in their zeal they sometimes play free and loose with the truth.

Nobody's claiming Japan and Canada have never lied, but Sea Shepherd can't escape that distinction as well.

[arikara]

103. There are shades of grey

some are more black than others.

[kristopher]

6. It's not only dangerous, it is counterproductive

It's not only dangerous, it is counterproductive to the goal of convincing the Japanese to end whaling.


The Australian government has no basis for legal action, and the Sea Shepard is engaging in piracy.

1) "Territorial waters" is a legally defined term and covers the expanse of water 12 nautical miles from mean low tide line of a state's coast.

2) What is actually at issue is a claim laid by Australia to an *extended* Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) based on a very weak claim to ownership of territory on Antarctica.

3) Under *Australian law* this is Australian territory so within Australia the restraint order (based on the Environment Protection and Biological Conservation Act) is recognized as legitimate.

4) However, under *international law* this territorial claim is not recognized as legitimate - it isn't even close to comporting with international law.

4) Australia doesn't press enforcement of their restraining order in international court because they know their claim to this territory lacks legitimacy and would be met by Japan with a counter appeal to an international body of arbitration such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea asserting that by international law the jurisdiction of Australia and its legal maneuvering within Australia doesn't allow a violation of internationally accepted rules.

5) There is absolutely no question of the outcome of such an appeal.

6) Japan's actions are legal. The persistent talk within Australia of legal action against Japan is nothing more than pandering to an activist base.

7) I believe Japan's tolerance for the antics of the Sea Shepard are approaching an end, someone is going to get killed.

[BeFree]

9. Fuck all that

If the whales could go to court, the Japanese whalers would be fined into oblivion.

Since they can't go to court, there are brave people willing to protect and save them.

God Bless the Sea Shepard!!

[Diclotican]

18. BeFree

BeFree

I would not be that sure about it if I was you.. If the Sea Shepard are doing criminal behavior against the whales, they could, and should go to the corts... But witch type of court is unsure.. The court in Australia, the court in the US, or the court in Japan?.. Who have the legal power when it came to this type of behavior?.. Where is the Sea Shepard ship registered?.. and so on.. Many thing to recognize when it came down to legality I guess

The Sea Shepard is many things, but brave?.. No I doubt... I really doubt...

But they are very clever in making media for them self, that is absolutely true...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language

[XemaSab]

24. They're registered in the Netherlands

For a while, one of their ships flew the flag of the Iroquois. :P

[rucognizant]

43. ANd if the WOrld COurt can't stop OUR killing in the ME

how are they expected to end killing the whales?
I think we need a stronger more effective United Nations.

[BeFree]

45. Heh

You whiffed it. What I said was that if the whales, themselves, could be present in court and be recognized, then they could sue to whalers into the poor house and end whaling.

Fuck all that legality stuff. The whales are being slaughtered and that needs to stop, and the Sea Shepard is doing what it can to stop it. God bless 'em.

[RedCappedBandit]

65. They're pretty damn brave whether you doubt it or not imo.

[axollot]

52. The Japanese only get to 'whale' under the guise of 'research' -

- yet we all know it's not for research at all. The only place they can whale all they want is in their own waters. Whaling *is* illegal under international law, in international waters. The loop hole is 'research' - a certain amount is allowed for that purpose alone in international waters. That is what the Japanese Government & Whaling Ships claim they are doing. And they are close to getting spanked for it too as whale meat turns up in local markets and school cafeterias.

Believe me the Japanese fishing fleets (as well as other S.E.A. fishing fleets) are found WITHIN Australian waters all the time - since the migratory lanes that the whales use, as they head southward for the cold waters in Antarctica are within Aussie waters - off the EAST coast of Australia . One doesn't need to leave land to "whale watch" (although you do get a better view) as they make their way south. 12 nautical miles is bigger than standard miles too.

This is a LONG standing battle that the Aussies have had with the Japanese and I applaud the work these guys do, the Rainbow Warrior, paved the path for ships like the 'Steve Irwin' to continue the good fight.

There is as well, a sort of treaty between OZ and NZ regarding protecting whales that are in their waters, which increases the area/size of the territory that these anti-whaling ships patrol.(EEZ)

It does make one hopeful for the future though that the whale meat served in Japanese schools gets looked down upon more and more by the younger generations - despite the tradition of eating whale meat.(hey whale all you want in your own waters, if the law says you can, stay the fuck out of ours, and international waters - sorry if you have no whales left and over-fishing has you casting your net further afield. Which is what the Japanese have been doing for YEARS now - pushing their boundaries.)

But to say these anti-whaling/fishing ships have no legal standing to do what they are doing, is simply wrong.

Cheers
Sandy

[axollot]

61. ON EDIT: Didn't realize how long the Sea Shepard have been around - so, Rainbow warrior -

which too has been around forever, didn't pave the path.....
cheers
Sandy

[HEyHEY]

94. Hard to say, you make a lot of good points

I look at the Sea Shepard as a group physically stopping the actualy whaling. I don't know that taking this to court and such would yield results.... I sure think this shows their lack of understanding of the legal system.

"The Japanese ship was ordered out of the territorial waters of Australia by Australian citizen Jeff Hansen from Perth, Western Australia. The message was delivered in Japanese."

Sorry, but just cause you're a citizen of that country doesn't mean you get to demand people leave it. All in all it's tricky. While I hate whaling and like that he stops it at some level, I hate the veneration of Watson. He's a hypoctie, for one. Years ago in B.C., a survey of his ship revealed a number of environmental infractions, including oil leaking into the ocean.

[Kajsa]

97. It's amazing how anyone can claim the

actions of the "research vessels" are legal.

Research, my foot!

Here's what was found on the deck of one of the "research" vessels.
Yes, the SAME Nisshin Maru the Sea Shepard is shadowing.
Notice it was called a "factory ship" back then?- Very interesting---

http://tinyurl.com/a4en94

btw,

JAPAN AND NORWAY HAVE DEFIED AN INTERNATIONAL BAN ON WHALING!

Some have very conveniently circumvented that fact, while screaming
about the "legality" of the Sea Shepard's actions.

And before any of the pro whaling crowd start flaming me here,
PROVE THEY ARE NOT WHALING first.

Hypocrites!

[Diclotican]

12. MercutioATC

MercutioATC

We all know how hystercal Paul Watson and Co was when the Royal Norwegian Navy was trying to get him to listen to the request that he was not trying to sink ships who was legally out for some whaling in NORWEGIAN waters... And We all know how hysterical he was, when the Navy was trying to arrest him, when he was working to sink legal skips who was out there, with his "submarine".. He also was given fails alarm and claiming that the Royal Norwegian Navy was ramming him - even that the video from both sides was telling another story.. In fact Paul Watson and Co was trying to ram the Navy ship, who was twice his own size... In the end I guess he got a fine and a request from the government not to came back to Norway - ever.. And since then he have never bothered to visit our little country - and by the fact the whaling Norway was doing was limited, and to a type of whale it is enough to hunt some for... And by the way, it is verry seldom that every whales who have been "numbered" is beeing killed either... The last couple of year, less than 40 persent of the whales have been found and killed.. So in any cases the whales is pretty safe.. And it is MANY KM with water to cover for eatch ship...

Yes I know, i am barbaric who support a limited hunting of whales. But when it came from a country as USA who have been doing more harm to wildlife for so many year now, where so many is ignorant that the "norm" is to claim that a warmer planet is something that is fabricated by "rouge sentences" who want to scare the folks to do something that is not needed... Then I am dam proud to be barbaric.. USA have not even considered going into Kyoto protocol, or more to the point other protocols who they have been fighting nail and foot for the last decade...

And he is trying to ramming whaling ship, when he have no legal right to do it?.. It just ONE power in Australian water who have the right to ram or to arrest someone in this water. And that is the Authority of Australia. No "sea shepard" who have doing more harm than good when it "cowboy-tactic".. Some believe he to be hero, a man who are fighting for the Innocent whale... I am seeing his as a mer pirate.. A pirate who is playing on hysteric, and double standard.. If he are that glad in animals, and to the point mammals. why is he eating all that meat?.. I really doubt he got that 150kg big body just on vegsteables...

This is just plain stunt from a group who want publicy.. And he is getting that publicy too... No I am not in agreement with all type of whale hunting, and many of the specielses of whales is on or around the brink of destroying, and all this whales should be protected.. And for the most part, it is.. No Milky whales have been hunted for more than 40 year now, and this type of whales should not be hunted either...

Diclotican

Sorry my bad english, not my native language.

[flvegan]

21. Pity there's no market for whale meat in Norway.

So why support the hunt? I relish the thought of the Nybræna being scuttled. And the illegal Senet. Norway's precious little whalers. Good times. Cry me a river. Watson is a hero for it. And wasn't Norway's extradition request of Watson denied? Didn't Sea Shepherd DEMAND they prosecute or to shut the hell up? Justice is funny that way.

Oh, and didn't the Norwegian Coast Guard vessel Andenes ram Sea Shepherd's vessel Whales Forever? Of course they did, or they'd have filed charges in the collision, considering the hardon they have for Watson...

Because human harm won't happen, I look forward to future Norwegian whaling vessels meeting a briny demise.

[girl gone mad]

119. Good for him, good for him, good for him..

I only wish he could do more harm to the whalers.

[blackbart99]

75. Having tried every other method...

What the hell is left? The whales can't wait. We must save them from these terrorists.
The Japanese do not care about the rest of the world. If these whalers get hurt doing this they should get other jobs. I'm sorry for your japanese-american members here on DU but....
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!! Stop whaling now...if I could I would sink everyone of these ships with all hands going to Davey Jones Locker. :grr: :nuke:

[arikara]

93. Sea Shepherd has been going after whalers for years

and has never hurt anyone. Legal standing? The disgusting whalers and fishermen have been decimating the oceans and nothing is ever done. They and the governments that let them get away with it are the true criminals.

[Lionel Mandrake]

5. Meanwhile, the Australian Navy is still on vacation.

This is not their finest hour.

[Angleae]

35. The Australian Navy doesn't want any part of this.

If they got involved, the Japanese fleet would possibly get involved and that is a fight Australia can't win.

[depakid]

50. That's why the Australian navy was dispatched last year, eh?

and also why they routinely intercept illegal fishing vessels in their EEZ.

btw: where do you think Japan turns to for much of its raw materials, energy and agricultural imports?

When push comes to shove, it wouldn't be very wise for Japan to cross the Aussies.

[axollot]

54. CORRECT!! n/t

[Submariner]

11. Send the whalers to the bottom if they don't stop the carnage

Boycotts and the IWC aren't working.

[Withywindle]

14. Namaste and Godspeed, Sea Shepherd.

:patriot: I wish there was a "patriot" icon with an environmental or international flag.


To the naysayers: Yeah, you're probably unfortunately right. Eventually, someone might well get killed. I'll probably be an activist, not a whaler, since they go out on more limbs, because they're motivated by passion, not money. But there's no one on the Sea Shepherd ships who didn't sign on willingly to the risks.

[roody]

17. I'm with Captain Watson.

It's way past time for action!

[Doremus]

19. So what's this whale hunt all about, really?

They don't eat the stuff. They pawn it off at lunchtime to helpless school children and pay deep freeze storage for aging stockpiles of whale meat.

Is this, as one DU poster tried to claim last year, that the Japanese simply haven't been asked politely enough to stop? :eyes:

Do Japanese men consider the penises an aphrodesiac therefore creating a market? (And if so, can someone PLEASE clue in all the insecure diners that eating exotic penises does NOT enhance one's performance, or anything else for that matter, but does show how IDIOTIC and CRUEL one can be.)

Anybody know the real reason for this annual barbaric excursion?

[GrizzlyMan]

22. I guess you've never seen the Animal Planet show based on Sea Shepherd

The killing is done under the guise of "research". The ships have "research" painted on the sides of the vessels and the crews often hold up signs saying "measuring stomach" when groups like Sea Shepherd fly over them with helicopters or harass them with Delta boats.

This is their "out", a way to get around the laws that also prohibit waste of whale parts taken for "research". In reality it's a sophisticated commercial fishing operation. The whale meat is packaged for sale on board one of the ships. I've never been to Japan but according to the show, and Capt. Watson himself, there is a significant market for whale meat there. Maybe not quite a delicacy, but more like a nice cut of steak. Again, that's how they portray it on the show.

[kristopher]

23. 90% of it is the box the activists have put them in.

Thhis is what I wrote on another thread:

<In a sense it is> "Retribution. The antiwhaling groups engineered a permanent end to whaling through the use of deception and legal loopholes where non-whaling nations were recruited into the IWC specifically to do an end run around the stated goals of the organization. It was a series of unethical tactics employed by people believing that "the end justifies the means". They knew they what they were doing wasn't ethical; technically legal perhaps, but certainly not ethical.
Given that is the context, why should the Japanese not employ similar standards of behavior and exploit a legal, but unethical practice to thwart the goals of those who acted first in bad faith?"

The antiwhaling manner of dealing with this issue is routinely described in the Japanese press with words like "arrogant" or "high handed", and the reporting usually relays these actions as being examples of the worst sense of cultural imperialism. Far from ending in 5 years, this activism is driving the Japanese to abandon the IWC and with it, any real possibility of ending their whaling.

The amount of misinformation on this topic at DU is staggering. It is exactly the same type of echo-chamber hyperbolic drift from fact that characterizes such high emotion topics as antiabortion crusades. If you want to stop the Japanese from whaling, the time is getting shorter and shorter in which to take action that is tailored to reach across the wall of ill will that has developed on both sides. The best tool to reach the Japanese with is your sadness, not your anger.

[flvegan]

25. Jesus, what horseshit.

Good to hear the Japanese press is taking a middle, unbiased stance. :eyes: Ethical...like the Oriental Bluebird ethical, or some other kind of ethical? Here, I'll help. Google Oriental Bluebird and deflagged. I think you'll find the first hit to be mine. *bows*

Go ahead, Japan, abandon the IWC. Remember last year when you thought about hunting humpbacks? Remember the backlash? Abandoned that pretty quickly.

The misinformation here can be staggering, in that it's posted by pro-whaling apologists. Fuck the whalers. In five years, it'll be over one way or another. Makes Japan look pretty bad when the real opposition has it's own tv show.

[grantdevine]

73. If it quacks.

Sea Shepherd has shown itself to be an organization that plays with the truth when it's convenient.

Take the Canadian minister John Efford, for example. Sea Shepherd essentially took credit for his retirement, claiming that pressure from them caused it.

The guy left politics because he was sick from diabetes.

That kind of thing leaves Sea Shepherd with very little credibility in my view.

[blackbart99]

78. grantdevine....

Pretty lame argument you got there....because they took some credit when it wasn't due...we should keep
whaling? LAME..LAME..LAME.:spank:

[grantdevine]

79. That wasn't my argument at all. What a bizarre paraphrasing of my comments.

Quite dishonest, actually.

[RetroLounge]

84. But your view means fuck all, now doesn't it.

You've spammed this "truth" thing all over today, with nothing but your lame opinion to back it up.

Now go away.

RL

[grantdevine]

89. Insteed of getting all pissy and swearing at me, why don't you tell me

exactly what part of my "truth" you doubt?

Telling me to "go away" is very easy convenient, if what I'm saying is difficult or inconvenient for you.

[RetroLounge]

96. Based on your posts, anything you say.

:hi:

Now go away.

RL

[grantdevine]

105. Sorry the truth bothers you

Maybe you should go away.

:kick:

[RetroLounge]

112. Not bothered by truth...

you should try some...

now go away.

RL

[arikara]

102. Who can ever know for sure why the guy left

when politicians leave under a cloud its always "to spend more time with their family", or for health reasons. I know diabetics who work 14 hour days... probably not advisable for anyone, but they do it.

[flvegan]

107. John Efford is a liar. A seal hunt defending douchebag.

I don't believe shit he says. Fuck him and his ZERO credibility.

[Chulanowa]

27. Ah, we meet again

Still trying to insist that whaling is an integral part of Japanese culture? And that we barbarous stinking round-eye gaijin must suck many a superior nipponese manhood in order to even have our pleas considered, yes?

Your argument from the title of your posts suggest that you believe the Japanese would stop whaling if we would all just shut up about it. That works so well with so many things, doesn't it?

[Dead_Parrot]

34. "Reach the Japanese with... your sadness"

So, dust off the "Save the Whales" banners? Go on a long march and write some letters?

Yes, that worked so fucking well last time, didn't it?

[leftchick]

60. Japan is the deceptive one here

what a crock of shit you posted.


FYI.....

Japan kills hundreds of whales annually in the Southern Ocean despite an international moratorium banning large-scale whale slaughter. Japan states research as its primary objective. Few beyond Japan's whaling circles believe any worthwhile research is involved, and the Sea Shepherd annually tries too disrupt the hunts.


Those are the facts.

[grantcart]

77. The best tool to reach the Japanese with is your sadness, not your anger

Talk about liberal romantacism. I have had extensive interactions with Japanese businessman and if you think that they are capable of being moved by sadness then you should talk to their wives who are still treated like serfs. After watching a particularly disturbing incident in Thailand where the businessman grabbed his wife's breast in front of us, she (one of Japan's richest woman - from her own family's wealth) looked at us with the saddest eyes and said, "Even the servant elsewhere is happier than the wife in Japan".

This is about Japanese cultural hubris which still lives as they still consider non Japanese as barbaric. Until the world reverts to boycotting all Japanese products any discussion is futile and the Sea Shepard makes their whaling inconvenient and exposed. You have to wonder why the Japanese would continue in light of the tremendous outrage and obstacles that their whaling attracts. Putting aside the Sea Sheppard's antics aside why are the Japanese whalers so beligerent in pursuing this practice? Whatever your answer is it belies the idea that the people involved are going to be moved by sentiment like 'sadness'.

[Cetacea]

28. They have been asked politely many times

I was privileged to be a guest at one of the IWC Conferences back in the 80's. the theme of the conference was Cetacean intelligence and the ethics of Killing Them which resulted in the world-wide moratorium. The worlds top Cetacean experts spent three days POLITELY educating the Japanese reps.

[kristopher]

30. I suppose that makes you an expert on the Japanese, then.

You observed bureaucratic appendages being "politely educated" (lectured to?) for 3 days. Then what went wrong? Why didn't they stop? There is no real, rational reason that even they can offer to support their refusal, so why do they persist?

It isn't enough to condemn and be angry, the situation requires a solution. Bullying and "cheating" by stacking the membership of the IWC to establish a false temporary-cessation-of-whaling-for-study isn't it.

[Cetacea]

31. Did I say that I was an expert? I said I was among experts.

At the time the excuse was that the Japanese people ate whale meat. If I remember correctly the meat comprised three percent of their diet for the year. One of the scientists POLITELY pointed out that the people only needed to stop eating whale meat for three weeks.
And there was no "lecturing" to the Japanese participants. If anything it was a giant plea.

If anyone is being bullied here it's the whales.

[Cetacea]

37. "bureaucratic appendages being "politely educated"

Which part of the word "scientists" do you not understand? I should add that the Japanese ambassador that I shared a drink with was a lot more polite than you are.
Next time someone takes the time to inform you try holding back on the snark.

[plantwomyn]

91. Who is

"cheating"? I say the Japanese are. Their "research" is a LIE. Where are the Japanese science papers on the "research" they have conducted? If after all these years the Japanese don't know enough about whales to STOP KILLING THEM they never will. They do not kill whales for "sustainance". Much of the slaughter is in cold storage. This isn't about their heritage it's about their arrogance. I am not against all whaling. There are cultures that TRULY whale for sustainance as a way of life. Their cultural integrity and their very life depends on it. I would not begrudge an American Indiana if he harvested a buffalo for sustainance, or took salmon from a river on his reservation that a Euro-American could not fish from.
"Then what went wrong? Why didn't they stop? There is no real, rational reason that even they can offer to support their refusal, so why do they persist?"
Please give us the answer to your question. What pray tell IS their "rational reason"? Is it that we have not asked them nicely? Is it about "saving face"?

[grantcart]

83. The do eat it. The meat of one whale will reach over 1 million by the time it hits

retail.

[flvegan]

108. Hardly.

They've got a couple thousand tons in storage, rotting because nobody wants it.

[grantcart]

110. bullshit --- the higher quality cuts are flown from the harvesting ships

and are served fresh in an extensive retail market through out Japan.

80% of the men between the ages of 40 and 70 favor eating whale meat. http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/whale-watch/twothirds-of-japanese-back-whaling-poll/2008/02/08/1202234142701.html

Not only that the Japanese have imported certain types of whale meat from Norway and Iceland for the first time in 18 years
http://www.japaneconomynews.com/2008/06/04/japan-imports-whale-meat-from-norway-and-iceland-for-first-time-in-18-years/

For the first time since 1990, Japan has imported whale meat, according to today’s Japan Times and other sources. Apparently, 80 tons of fin whale caught in 2006 by Iceland arrived in Japan in May, and five tons of minke whale caught by Norway have been shipped to Japan so far this year.

The imports have hardly gone unnoticed, however, as the US State Department is urging Iceland and Norway to stop the export of whale meat. The International Whaling Commission will be holding its annual conference in China later this month, and we again expect to see a full-on soap opera of ego, activism and nationalism mixed in a broth of greed, PR and spin. Sort of like a pre-Olympic primer.

Japanese largest fish retailers sell it through out Japan http://www.eia-global.org/PDF/Article--Bloomberg--KyokuyoJoinsMaruha--Species--May07.pdf

True World Foods agreed last year to sell Kyokuyo's Polar Seas brand of frozen sushi to more than 6,000 U.S.
supermarkets and restaurants.
The Environmental Agency report documented Tokyo-based Kyokuyo's sales to Japanese consumers of whale
meat, which it buys from the government's annual research whaling expeditions.
Kyokuyo's Nyuya confirmed the source of the whale meat, which is called research byproduct, during a
telephone interview last month.

Numbers are declining and more and more retailers are quitting because of bad publicity but it only shows how agreegis the whalers intentions are that they are over producing for declining demand. They are now looking for ways to expand sales increasing exports.

Cans of sei whale meat, listed on the International Conservation Union's red list of threatened species, sold by
Maruha's wholly owned subsidiary Taiyo A&F Co. is available on the Internet priced at 7,800 yen ($60) for a box
of 18

Japan plans to kill 1,325 whales next year under its scientific research program. The meat is sold throughout
Japan.

[flvegan]

111. Bulltrue, unless you're justifying the whale slaughter for the "higher quality cuts"

Sort of like slaughtering cattle for just the filet. Again, 2,000 tons sits frozen because nobody wants it.

Norway is lucky Japan imported it, as there's no market for it there. Japan's just trying to salvage their barely breathing industry.

No idea why you included this:
"True World Foods agreed last year to sell Kyokuyo's Polar Seas brand of frozen sushi to more than 6,000 U.S.
supermarkets and restaurants"

Last I checked, sushi wasn't whale in the States. Last I checked, whale products were illegal here as well.

[grantcart]

113. your previous reply seemed to suggest that it is not commercially successful in

Japan. The fact that they have some less than desireable stock in freezer does nothing to dispel the facts that have been cited that the overall catch it is a successful commercial venture and that the Japanese are in fact importing certain species. Annual consumption is estimated at 6,000 tons, several times the 2,000 tons that you cite in freezers.

The fact that is kept in freezers also indicate that the owners of the inventory believe that it will have a future value or they would simply render it into pet food rather than continue to bear the expense of refridgeration.

It is unlikely however that the whale meat would be viable without the heavy subsidies from the Japanese government.

[flvegan]

114. It was commercially successful in the past, yes.

Some of that stock, in storage, has been there since 2006. Rendering it into pet food would be shooting themselves in the foot. Some folks that still are completely turned off by the hunt are so because "at least they eat it". Turning whales into cat food...yeah, that'd go over well.

Agreed with your last sentence, that's very true. And considering the millions of dollars Sea Shepherd costs them on top of it, makes Japan very unhappy.

[TheWraith]

32. At what point does this escalate to open warfare?

Just curious how long it is before we're talking about Molotov cocktails and .50 caliber BMG rifles.

[LeftyMom]

33. Well, the Japanese took a shot at Watson last year, and fired flashbangs at his crew.

Which is kind of an overreaction to stink bombs and bags of flour, I'd think. But all the shooting's gone one way, and that's going to continue to be the case.

[Codeine]

88. I don't think anybody actually took a shot at Watson.

That looked like a bit of inspired, if not particularly well-acted, guerrilla theater to me. Even with Kevlar he'd be knocked well out of breath and be badly bruised, maybe even a broken rib. *shrug* But if it helped bring the media around to his side a bit more power to him.

[LeftyMom]

115. Nobody's disputing the flashbangs though.

:shrug:

[Codeine]

120. I saw that.

They were fired so as to explode quite a ways from the crew. I don't like it, and I'm totally down with Sea Shepherd and their cause, but that "attack" is being blown well out of proportion. If the dipshit low-information types buy it, good -- but thinking folks should be aware that political theater is ultimately more game than anything else.

[blackbart99]

80. Not soon enough...

Its not just the whales....the Entire ocean ecosystem is at stake. The balance is precarious.
The tipping point is close...We don't know what the outcome will be if these species die off.
Lets not find out.:hippie: :mad:

[Wetzelbill]

36. I thought that said "Sam Shephard"

I need to get some new eyeballs.

[tomreedtoon]

38. When are these guys going to be sunk?

If they keep interrupting vessels like this, they are eventually going to get something besides small-arms fire. Like a TOW missile amidships, or in their crew quarters.

I feel sorry for the whales and all that, but these guys need to understand that when you protest, you had better be prepared to die. They learned that lesson at Kent State a few decades ago. Looks like it's time for the lesson to be learned again.

And when it happens...and I say when, not if...you shouldn't be surprised if none of the commercial interests or soverign governments express nothing more than conventional regrets. In most boards of inquiry, the eco-nuts can be considered pirates. And are probably travelling in the company of real, blackmailing, murdering pirates. And you know what fate befell pirates, except in Disney movies?

[Kolesar]

39. I know you are not the brightest DUer, but your account of Kent State - May 4 offends me

I feel sorry for the whales and all that, but these guys need to understand that when you protest, you had better be prepared to die. They learned that lesson at Kent State a few decades ago. Looks like it's time for the lesson to be learned again.

You should go find some other forum to comment in that suits your low intellect.

[Duppers]

46. it greatly offends me too

I just added this 'concerned' person to my ignore list.

[tomreedtoon]

47. And you might accept a little honesty.

Do you really believe that established power ever toppled without the people for change sacrificing...with blood? And I don't mean the paper cuts that guys like you get when you mail those blistering letters to the editor.

If you can't accept that people died at Kent State for their ideals, and somehow think that revolutions are bloodless, you're the simpleton, pal.

And if these people really want to stop whaling ships, THEY would go in armed and ready to sink whaling ships. Not sit there and wave their fingers. They are literally asking to be sunk.

[depakid]

51. "ready to sink whaling ships"

Since 1979, Sea Shepherd crew and agents have sent ten illegal whaling ships to the bottom:

1979 - The pirate whaler "Sierra" rammed and sunk in Portugal. 1980 - The outlaw whalers "Isba I" and "Isba II" sunk in Vigo, Spain.

1980 - The pirate whalers "Susan" and "Theresa" sunk in South Africa. 1981 - The illegal whaling ships "Hvalur 6" and "Hvalur 7" sunk in Iceland.

1992 - The outlaw whaler "Nybraena" sunk in Norway. 1994 - The pirate whaler "Senet" sunk in Norway.

1998 - The pirate whaler "Morild" sunk in Norway.

In nine of these cases, no charges were ever laid against Sea Shepherd activists, and thus, no accusations of criminal activity by Sea Shepherd can be claimed. In the case of the Nybraena, charges were laid but Norwegian officials did not allow Captain Watson and his crew a proper defense. Captain Watson was arrested in Germany in 1997 under a Norwegian warrant and released the same day when the Bremen prosecutor ruled that the Norwegians did not have a case. Captain Watson was then arrested in the Netherlands under the same Interpol warrant and held for 80 days to await an extradition trial. The Dutch courts ruled that Captain Watson could not be extradited to Norway. Norway then dropped the case, and Captain Watson was issued papers from the Norwegian Department of Justice withdrawing any further arrest warrants against him. Ten whaling ships sunk and not one conviction. The reason for this is that all ten whaling ships were outlaws.

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society acts in accordance with the U.N. World Charter for Nature. This charter provides for the enforcement of international conservation law by nation states, non-governmental organizations and individuals. Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is an anti-piracy organization and sinking pirate ships is sanctioned under international maritime law.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-030616-1.html

Note: No loss of human life....

[tomreedtoon]

90. No loss of life...but for how long?

You don't conduct war without at least the possibility of killing. And, as you may have seen in the movie Das Boot, you do not rescue the men whose ship you sunk. You don't have room for them and they will be hostile towards you. Someday they will have to kill...if they haven't already and are hiding the evidence.

As it is, your post makes me feel much better about these guys. They are willing to put their lives at risk for their cause. And they are apparently under no delusions that they can protest in such a fashion without risking their lives.

What I object to is people who protest who think they entail no risk in doing so. Summer soldiers, if you will. People for whom protest is just a matter of fashion or style, not heartfelt belief.

Thank you for bringing this evidence to light.

[lumpy]

81. People died at Kent State not for their ideals, they died because

war mongers abhor protesters against war. Suggest you research the Kent State killings.

[tomreedtoon]

86. Research what people SAY? Or try reality?

You stand in front of a bunch of armed soldiers, who you are protesting. You should not be surprised when you are killed. Unless you're dumb enough to think you're immortal, or you believe that an armed man would never, ever dare to shoot you.

That said, if the four students really believed in their cause, did they believe in it enough to die for it? I know one didn't (he just happened into the line of fire) but what of the others?

And if you say you believe strongly in a cause, shouldn't you be prepared to die for it?

[cboy4]

40. You're "wonderful" concern about the welfare of the whales is

noted.

"eco-nuts" :eyes:

[keepCAblue]

72. What are you smoking? Bejeezus...Methinks I smell a republican amongst. us....n/t

[RetroLounge]

85. eco-nuts?

I'm soory, did you get lost and come to the wrong website?

RL

[flvegan]

109. Dumb. n/t

[Citizen Number 9]

122. They're in more danger from their own ineptness.

The video makes them appear foolish. If it is an accurate depiction, I've never seen a more incompetent crew at sea.

[Kajsa]

125. Tomreedtoon, I have a question here,

"In most boards of inquiry, the eco-nuts can be considered pirates."

What boards are you talking about? FR,Drudge Report or Fox News?

[cboy4]

41. What a great group of people fighting for the defenseless

whales.

[bread_and_roses]

49. good goddess, there are people on this forum who defend whaling and whalers?

On cultural grounds, there were some cultures which considered human sacrifice, including of children, an integral part of their culture too...that make it OK? Would you defend it?

And the arguements against non-violent civil disobediance (if they are breaking some law of the sea) are the same as one always hears when the subject comes up in any context. And just as tired and weak here.

[ravencalling]

55. Hey I agree with you!

I can't defend it either. Sorry. I'm for the whales on this one.


As the reality sinks in and the ocean music is silenced because there are no more whales, the silence is broken by the whiny voices of those who claimed it was justified to have limited hunting or those who felt that because we eat other animals that all killing is justified. They speak in the past tense now. They had to be right, it was part of their culture, and hey, how could they have known that below a certain population, the species could not survive? Not with the environmental challenges.

There is only this undeniable sadness that exists where once there were whales and the sad story many parents tell their children as to how the last were killed because somehow we could not grow or see beyond our own arguments about how it could never happen. Similar to the passenger pigeon. And each child born innocent into this world looses a portion of their innocence by partaking of the sadness and the blood on mankinds collective hands.

[glitch]

57. Cowards criticizing the courageous.

They must serve some kind of function in human evolution. we've always had them.

[IndianaGreen]

58. They believe in the stupid biblical injunction that man is above all beasts

including dinosaurs, as Saddleback Church says.

[ExPatLeftist]

63. It is not so simple.

It is not just about tradition, and it is overly simplistic to claim so.

The selection of one's own "sacred cows" is highly personal and closely related to culture. In this case, there is an animal which is not endangered but which many want to give special global protections based purely on their own personal conviction about the importance and validity of that creature above other non-endangered creatures. THAT is also based on tradition, culture and personal preference, so culture colors this argument on both sides. As one poster pointed out above, quite eloquently, this is an emotional issue.

What is missing is non-arbitrary or emotional rationale for why this creature should receive additional protection, globally. To my eye, this is quite simply a group of people trying to push their cultures onto others. And the arguments, yes on this board as well, do not aim for any sort of understanding and simply attack in what feels like almost a religious fervor. That includes the one to which I am replying. The argument here is basically that whales are amazing creatures that deserve to be fully protected, based on arbitrary criteria, and if you do not see it the same then you are just an idiot. And the analogy is quite illogical. The comparison of arbitrary species preference to cannibalism does not hold water - of course killing of humans is unaccepted by humans themselves. To claim that all other creatures hold the same weight is IMO disingenuous, and this argument might make some sense if it was about humans vs. all other creatures rather than humans vs. one specific holy cow.

Yes, tradition often comes up in this argument, but the argument is not simply "we have been doing this for centuries and will therefore continue, no matter what". It is oversimplification to claim that. What is happening is that multiple cultures are clashing, and yours is also a big part of this. Imagine if another culture took offense at the consumption of turkey. After centuries of eating turkeys, for even quasi-religious celebrations, these people come to you and tell you to stop killing the turkeys. If asked why, they reply with some variation on "They are wonderful and beautiful creatures and if you cannot see that then you are just evil!" How do you think most Americans would react? Would they just go along, and stop eating or killing turkeys? Would they view it as a situation in which their forefathers had simply been wrong and these strangers must know best? Would they not ask for any rationale?

Personally I feel that whales are beautiful and intelligent creatures. But I understand that that is my personal feeling and therefore do not try to force it on the rest of the world. Communication to others about why I feel that way may help to convince some, but trying to force others to hold the same cows sacred as I would be arrogant and counter productive.

This is also not an all or nothing situation - we are not faced with two options here, a global ban on whaling or the utter destruction of all whales from Earth.

This is indeed a clash of cultures and traditions. But I would argue that that is not the fault of the cultures who are being forced to change. It is the imposition of cultural sacred cows on other cultures. What is lacking is anything concrete pointing to the need for additional protection for these creatures specifically over any and all others. It is purely emotional, and I cannot understand the need of some to force their emotional preferences on people of other cultures, especially lacking in any purely objective rationale or standard applied to other creatures as well.

[grantcart]

82. what your thoughtful response ignores is the fact that Japan also has a

choice - whether it wants to be considered one of the respected and powerful civilized nations or a nation that is accountable to itself.

The problem with your analysis is that there is a wide and deep worldwide consensus against whaling and in fact that no commercial whaling is allowed.

The Japanese, having lost that battle, now continue to whale commercially but do so under the guise of 'research'.

Eveyone knows its a lie.

The Japanese Government should assist the villages who remain economically tied to the whaling to convert to other professions and announce a plan to gradually end their practice of commercial whaling under the guise of research.

Your example of 'turkeys' or any other domesticated animal is silly because a) there is no world wide consensus and b) it is a domesticated animal bred for that purpose. Japanese consumption of whales is not their only odd use of animals. You can go to restaurants in Japan where you can eat fish, while the fish are kept alive while you consume the meat of that fish. The fish continue to wiggle and grasp its last breath while you finish off the meat.

[ExPatLeftist]

87. Yes, eating the living fish is a good example

of a practice that is unusual and abhorrent or completely normal depending on your cultural frame of reference. My point is simply that we cannot force other cultures to behave according to our cultural standards, much less force them to think the same as we do. The US also does many things which are viewed as abhorrent in other cultures - and my point was exactly that: Should the standards of one culture be forced onto another?

Neither was my point to equate turkeys and whales, rather to point out how people might feel differently if they were on the other side of this issue.

I would also argue that domestication is not necessarily morally preferable to hunting animals in the wild. And the width and breadth of the "consensus" depends entirely on who is asked. The roots of that understood consensus is what I am addressing, not ignoring that it exists.

[Chan790]

100. As a vegetarian and a wildlife activist and a student of political philosophy.

Imagine if another culture took offense at the consumption of turkey. After centuries of eating turkeys, for even quasi-religious celebrations, these people come to you and tell you to stop killing the turkeys. If asked why, they reply with some variation on "They are wonderful and beautiful creatures and if you cannot see that then you are just evil!"

I frequently do make that claim and equivalent ones about pigs, deer, bears, wolves, woodpeckers, eagles, chimpanzees, whales and other living things. I fundamentally disagree with your premise and its' basis in cultural absolute moral-relativism. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. (commonly mis-attributed to Edmund Burke) It is our duty as moral beings to stand up and protest against evil acts and wrongheaded thinking, whether borne of a single diseased mind or cultural tradition. Further, the knowledge of the illegitimacy and wrongness of an act does not have to widely-held to be objectively true. Cultures, faiths and even unaffiliated masses of humanity are potentially and frequently wrong to the undertaking of evil.

You might argue for a fundamental difference between humanity and animals. I see that we are animals and that a human-supremacist POV is a folly reserved for beings who think they are the top of the developmental chain; how different that opinion might be if we were to be chattel, just another resource to be exploited by a life-form that thinks they're superior to us and might exploit us for whatever purpose? The only end is the one that leads to the acceptance of objective moral truths independent of speciesism, a line in the dirt that we (if not all) hold cannot be crossed and violation to which will be met head-on. Certainly all killing is wrong; this is but one example of one effort working to end one ongoing violation of that one objective truth.

This is indeed a clash of cultures and traditions. But I would argue that that is not the fault of the cultures who are being forced to change.

That is exactly what is it on both counts. One does not negotiate with cultural evil even when based in tradition. We have a moral obligation to confront evil whatever the form or source. One might go so far as to argue that it is intrinsic to humanity, certainly it is central to the very basis of liberalism. While we draw our liberal tradition from a broad inclusive base of experiences and beliefs making it a diverse and accepting school of social thinking, it has always been a necessity of liberal thinkers to maintain a strong inflexible filter of moral truth based in reason. The 20th century phenomena of permissive-relativism is anathema to liberalism, discernment of good and evil through use of reason is our compass and the heart of liberalism. Make no mistake, liberal thought is not a pacifistic school of thinking. We're not going to slowly-drift in the direction of the betterment of humanity, we've got to fight for it and that fight sometimes does mean that we've got confront entrenched evil in the form of tradition and subjugate malformed cultures.

It is exactly that simple.

[ExPatLeftist]

124. So you personally get to determine what is "good" and what is "evil"?

You talk a lot about evil and absolutes and yet give no evidence for why something is evil other than that you believe it to be. What you call "objective moral truth" is in fact your opinion.

"Cultural evil" seems to be anything that is against your cultural values. Sorry, I cannot play that game, no matter how "simple" or simplistic it is. Sounds too much like George Bush and the conquistadores to me - "we've got confront entrenched evil in the form of tradition and subjugate malformed cultures." Sorry, but to me that sounds exactly like the "rationale" used by imperialists to wipe out entire cultures. And who decides what is "evil" was exactly the point in my previous post. Apparently you think it is you, and that you have the right to judge entire cultures as to whether their traditions are "evil" or not, of course from within the context of your own culture. That is not only simple and simplistic, it is also incredibly arrogant. And when you sit on your high horse, judging the "evilness" of other cultures, do you not think that people in other cultures judge your own? And if they call you evil, why does that hold any less weight than your own condemnation of them as evil? Would you feel that they were justified in subjugating YOUR culture? Contrary to your opinion, I would say that in fact the use of words like "good" and "evil" are simply the resort of those with no logical or rational argument. If we cannot convince through logic, we simply throw the "evil" tag onto an act or opinion and demonize all that would commit or subscribe to it. This is not a tool of communication, it is a tool used to stop communication and silence any disagreement. We have seen it used throughout history to exactly that end - most recently by our idiot resident that simply labeled nations as "evil" in order to carry out his agenda.

Your entire argument of "objective truth" is ridiculous. Your opinions are subjective, and they tell you that which is "true" in this sense. You take that subjective view and convert it to an objective truth with no rationale behind the step between. Oh sure, you talk about the role of liberalism, etc. (apparently to imply that I am now not liberal because of your righteous moral absolutist judgment) and always looking for the truth, but you skip the part about where your opinions miraculously transform into absolute moral truth. This seems to be your "logic":
1) I have an opinion on a subject
2) I think about it really hard (and determine that, yes....)
3) My opinion is an absolute objective truth!!!

Not only is that logic fatally flawed, it is also similar to the logic that has resulted in war and destruction since time began. Throw in there the bit about "cultural subjugation" of "evil cultures" and your post sounds like a rallying cry for the Crusades.

Aside from that, there is the small niggle that you are absolutely incapable of proving anything that you claim here as objective fact is actually true. Prove me wrong.

To correct an opinion in your post attributed to me, I do not see humans and animals as fundamentally different, I never said so, and you claiming that I did indicates to me that you did not read my post. I said that to humans OF COURSE human beings are a preferred species. To humans. Species naturally (for the most part) work toward the survival of their own species. I view humans as primates - animals, no more, no less. That is part of the reason why I cannot accept the opinions of one primate with a keyboard as cosmic absolute truths.

I am not about to hold the US as some bastion of moral enlightenment, nor am I arrogant enough to believe that my own personal beliefs are somehow absolute "good" and the acts of other cultures are "evil" because I disagree with them. People around the world have put up with the attitude that they must be shown how to live, and what is "right" and "wrong" by people in the US since its inception. There are constant cries out of the US that other countries or cultures should change or be "subjugated" - always with a self-appointed righteous superiority. As if the US is somehow the perfect nation that must be the role model for the world. The right wing and war mongers have enacted their subjugation with bombs and death, while the left has brought this attitude of moral and cultural right and wrong, particularly in the area of trying to force our own sacred cows on the world. As far as I can tell, the world is sick of listening to the US, sick of obeying and subjugating based on the strong moral convictions of people in a different nation - moral convictions that seem, at least, to apply more outside the US, as US government and industry kill more whales than whaling do. Is the difference there intent? Is the fact that whales killed by Americans are "accidental"? "Collateral damage", much like the over 100,000 innocent Iraqis killed? People around the world see this hypocrisy, and then hear yet another message from Americans telling them that the Americans are cultural superior and demanding that they take the words of Americans as "objective truth". And then so many Americans seem to be shocked that other nations do not just see this "absolute truth" and stop being so "evil"....

I understand that whaling is a very big issue to many people in the world. I hope they will continue to communicate their convictions. But I hope that we all will remember that our opinions are exactly that - opinions. I am all for reasoning with others and making opinions known. But any talk about "subjugating malformed cultures" belongs buried in the histories of imperialism and fascism, IMO. And magically turning your own personal opinions into "absolute moral truths" that the entire world must live by is just plain fucking scary.

[Cass]

53. I first found out about Sea Sheperd 20 some years ago and have been

been awed by their in-your-face dedication to saving whales ever since. Captain Watson and his crew are true heroes in conservationism. These people are the real deal.

I wish them a safe journey as they continue on with their mission.

[RCinBrooklyn]

56. Considering Somalian piracy, why not take them on directly and hold them hostage?

[HEyHEY]

92. yeah, then they can cut their heads off on the internet too.

:eyes:

[lonestarnot]

59. I hope they stunk them up nicely.

[formercia]

62. Those waters are surprisingly calm

The Navy ship I was stationed on spent the Antarctic warm season in those waters and it was very unusual to see calm water except in pack ice.

50 foot seas were routine and we spent 2 weeks being driven into the pacific by 80 ft waves with 120 Knot steady state winds with gusts over 150.

[I Have A Dream]

64. I'm sending another donation their way.

:)

[Barrett808]

68. Japanese translation available:

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-081226-1.html#japanese

[Annces]

71. Great

They found the fleet so early.

[Annces]

76. video of Sea Shepherd confronting ship Kaiko Maru

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cotg0ylT45I

[Judi Lynn]

95. Thanks for posting it. Appreciated the chance to hear their sounds again. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

101. I hope the Sea Shepherd sinks every Japanese whaling ship and comes home safe.

Good for them and shame on the Japanese gov't. whaling apologists on this thread.

[Barrett808]

116. UPDATE: Sea Shepherd Drives Japanese Whalers Out of Australia's Waters

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's ship Steve Irwin has driven the Japanese whaling fleet out of the Australian Economic Exclusion Zone.

"We have chased the whalers for over 800 miles since last Saturday through bad weather and heavy ice conditions," said Captain Paul Watson. "They have fled eastward and they are continuing eastward and we are on their tail and we will keep on their tail."

Since finding the Japanese whaling fleet on December 20th, the Steve Irwin has had close encounters with the harpoon vessel Yushin Maru #2 and the spotting vessel Kaiko Maru and has observed and tracked the Nisshin Maru from the air.

The Steve Irwin has not been able to close with the main body of the fleet because they keep moving eastward. They have not been whaling since Sea Shepherd located them and they are not whaling now. They continue to flee.

The good news is that they are no longer whaling in Australian waters and they only managed to hunt in the waters of the Australian Antarctic Territory for about a week before being forced to flee the Australian EEZ.

They are now in the waters of the Ross Dependency and the Steve Irwin is in pursuit.

"What is now good news for the whales in Australian waters is now bad news for the whales in the waters south of New Zealand," said Captain Watson. "They are still targeting endangered and protected whales in the waters of an established international whale sanctuary and thus they are still in violation of international conservation law and acting under the principles of the United Nations World Charter for Nature, we will continue to pursue, harass and intervene against their blatantly illegal lethal assaults on the whales."

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's ship Steve Irwin has fuel and provisions to chase the whalers well into the middle of January before having to return to New Zealand to refuel. If forced to return to refuel, the Steve Irwin will do so and then will immediately return to the whaling area to continue to pursue, harass and intervene against illegal Japanese whaling activities."

The Steve Irwin has a crew of 40 international volunteers plus an Animal Planet film crew onboard producing the 2nd year of the series Whale Wars.

Last year the Sea Shepherd crew pursued the Japanese whaling fleet from early December until mid-March. That intervention cost the whalers over $70 million in lost profits and saved almost 500 whales.

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-081227-1.html

[flvegan]

117. I want to know how the Japanese will be refuelling.

Their usual ship, the Oriental Bluebird has been deflagged and can't be reflagged for 3 years (I think). Will they use another ship or just thumb their noses at the law again and use her anyway.

[Barrett808]

121. UPDATE: Sea Shepherd Gives the Whalers a Gift that Keeps on Stinking

Sea Shepherd Gives the Whalers a Gift that Keeps on Stinking
By Captain Paul Watson on board the Steve Irwin

The day after Christmas started out very disappointedly. The Japanese whaling fleet had to be close by but the dense fog would not let up and the helicopter could not fly. There was thick ice to the South and growlers lying in wait all around us, threatening to ambush us in that ghostly whitish mist.

I decided to just shut down the engines and wait until we could launch the helicopter to monitor the fleet. All day that blasted fog hung around us like a Chinese funeral shroud as the ship rolled gently on the slight swells. Just after dinner, I received a call from the bridge to the mess asking for my presence topside.

There was a ship on the radar moving slowly only a few miles away. Peter Brown's watch had been tracking it. It was indeed a ship and its erratic movements and being where we were, we knew it was one of the ship's from the Japanese fleet. But which one?

We knew they had not seen us. To them, we were just an iceberg in the fog.

I ordered both engines to be started and the boat crews to prepare both the Gemini and the Delta. As we waited for the engines to be prepared for starting, the ship moved within two miles of us. The boats were being prepared when Bosun Dan Bebawi informed me that the radar in the Gemini was not working. I was a little annoyed that this had not been brought to my attention earlier. I had no choice but to abort the launching of the small boats. I could not send a crew out in a small boat in this fog without radar.

We would have to go after them with the ship. They were now three miles away.

With both engines started we got underway and I took the wheel to navigate the vessel around the hundreds of growlers between us and the target. Every one of those chunks of deadly hard ice could be our undoing. They may as well have been mines. It was tricky maneuvering through that maze of ice at top speed but we were gaining on them and we could tell by their erratic course and fluctuating speed that they were cautiously working their way through ice ahead of us. The gap slowly closed. With less than a mile to go, they had to see us on their radar by now. Mal Holland kept me updated with their range and speed. 1st Officer Peter Brown kept his hands on the controls to react quickly if we needed to stop or slow down. Jane Taylor tracked the pursuit on the nautical chart and monitored the 2nd radar.

Up on the bow, some of the crew were peering ahead through the milky soup to get a first glance at the mystery ship. By now I had determined it was not the Nisshin Maru. A ship the size of the factory vessel would not be steering such a zig zag course through this ice. It was either a harpoon boat or a spotter vessel. Slowly we inched out way closer coming dangerously near to bobbing bluish white growlers on the surface.

And then in front of us the white hull slowly materialized in the mist. Damn, it was one of the two spotters - the Kaiko Maru, the very same ship we had stopped and collided with back in 2006 in the Ross Sea.

There was not a soul on the decks. Just one man on the flying bridge staring straight ahead. We were alongside and half a length of the ship away when he turned and saw us. We were close enough to see his eyes widen as he stumbled out of his chair and scrambled below to the wheelhouse. We must have been a terrifying sight. A sleek black raider suddenly appearing out of nowhere, framed in fog and both ships running full out through a minefield of growlers.

(more)

http://my.seashepherd.org

[texaca]

126. I CAN'T believe someone said this...

“It's not only dangerous, it is counterproductive … “ WTF..! <<< quoted from here.

Yeah…so was walking into Selma, Alabama… I’m sure if someone had said something to that effect to Martin Luther King before they walked across the bridge; his constituents would have pounded that person to death. People died for Human rights, and people will die for Animal rights, and in their conservation efforts. This cause is Noble.

Of course it is DANGERSOUS, anything that is worth fighting for, standing up against that is immoral, unethical and down right corrupt, and unjust. Is always going to be Dangerous, it is the AGE-OLD story of David vs. Goliath, GOOD vs. Evil, it is George Lucas’s fight against the Evil Empire. Hell, I got arrested for trying to fight for my rights in Municipal Court, when the court had no jurisdiction. The Military didn’t mount a campaign, Little Old me was crushed like a corn chip…but at least I tried to fight for something that was unjust.

It is the age-old story, the story that man has been struggling with since the discovery of Greed, Corruption and Lust of Power. If we leave the world up to the STUPID, IGNORANT, LAZY ASS Neo-Fascist Republican’s, and Social Darwinists - nothing will ever get fixed, nothing will improve, and mankind will not progress.
Narrow-minded people will allow the World’s wealth and resources to be squandered, destroyed, used up, while the rest of us have to toil and eke-out a miserable existence in their wake of shit and waste.
And its already up to my neck, soon I won’t be able to breath.

This is the same frame of mind I see everyday, from people who walk around with the head up their “Corn-hole”, who think if you pray hard enough, “Gods” going to fix the worlds problems. Yeah right - how is that coming along so far?
I live in the “Soviet-State-of-Texas”, and it is this very same thought and excuse that keeps this State from improving, it is rot with corruption and waste.

It is the most Honorable cause that any living man/woman can pursue… As a Klingon would say, it is an Honorable Death. I wish I had half their courage, strong minds, and tuff bones/muscles, but I don’t…
I don’t even have money to contribute, thanks to this “Glorious Globalize Free-Market-Republican economy” of ours. The Grand Experiment, that FAILED.!

I can’t believe this person said this, what are you a man or a mouse?

[GliderGuider]

127. Ah, I see you've met kristopher

He's our local apologist for the Japanese whale murderers. He's one of the very, very few here who feels like that, so he's become a bit of a curiosity. He's really not worth getting outraged over. Every family has one.

[stuntcat]

128. ty

It's gonna take some seriously extreme shit to stand up for animals from now on. I'm glad some people are doing it, I don't care how.. the more attention they get the better.

[kristopher]

129. Can't believe it, eh?

That's because you're thinking like a religious fundamentalist instead of an objective rationalist seeking a solution. You'd rather be true to misguided beliefs that make the situation worse than reconsider those fundamentalist positions and achieve the stated goal of ending whaling completely.

Same type of thinking that underpins abstinence only sex, the criminalization of drugs, and making abortions illegal.

You deal in fundamentalist belief structures, not facts.

Be sure you send some more money to the Right Rev. Watson to support his ministry.

[depakid]

130. What does fundamentalism have to do with anything?

:shrug:

That's as bizarre and conflated as your misundertanding of international law....

[kristopher]

131. First things first.

Find a point of international law that I've misunderstood...

I haven't.

Fundamentalist have a belief structure that they defend with a dedication beyond reason. The bulk of posts supporting Watson fall into that category. Truth be damned, they want to kill some whalers. Of course it is only co-incidence that the only whalers they want to kill are the ones that are Asian. Of the dastardly deeds of the Anglo whalers from Norway and Iceland we hear nary a peep of protest...

Wonder why that is?

[depakid]

132. I wouldn't even know where to begin with respect to the relevant treaties and maritime law

The Rudd government would prefer diplomacy- but has the evidence and is prepared to file a case before International Court of Justice. When they do- and when the ruling comes down in their favor, that will settle the matter Japan's illegal activities in the Southern Ocean.

Including, but not limited to, violations of Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm#protsigs

[kristopher]

133. In other words YOU are the one that doesn't understand international law.

All you have are biblical quotes from your fundamentalist preacher Deacon Watson. Don't forget to tithe.

[depakid]

134. WTF?

That's the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling -which Japan is bound by (and has tried backhandedly to modify).

One of a number of potential grounds for jurisdiction un Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.

[kristopher]

135. You wrote

You wrote "that's as bizarre and conflated as your misundertanding of international law..".

I asked you to support that statement with an example. I've often argued points of international law, including on this thread, so it isn't that hard to find. However, you obviously aren't able to support your statement and refute my argument, instead resorting to a catechism from Father Watson.

That's WTF. Over.

Added on edit: You citing Art. 8 of the IWC Convention is a particularly perfect example of my point about fundamentalist belief structures getting in the way of objective understanding. I mean, did you even bother to read Article 8?

"Article VIII

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has granted.
2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.
3. Each Contracting Government shall transmit to such body as may be designated by the Commission, in so far as practicable, and at intervals of not more than one year, scientific information available to that Government with respect to whales and whaling, including the results of research conducted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article and to Article IV.
4. Recognizing that continuous collection and analysis of biological data in connection with the operations of factory ships and land stations are indispensable to sound and constructive management of the whale fisheries, the Contracting Governments will take all practicable measures to obtain such data.


The legal issue that the Australian government is considering bringing is based not on the IWC convention, but on a very thin territoriality claim to a large hunk of Antarctica and a consequent claim to the oceanic economic resources extending 200 miles from that invalid territorial claim. If the Australian government were to bring this to court it would end their pretense of owning 60% of Antarctica (Which no one but a couple of other Commonwealth members consider legitimate anyway).

[depakid]

136. Cited you one of the relevent conventions

which Japan is obviously in violation of- and also the basis for ICJ jurisdiction if and when the Rudd government files their suit.

That's just one potential grounds for action; I haven't even touched on matters directly related to the EEZ, and last year's Federal Court ruling in Humane Society International v. Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, Ltd.

http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/HumaneSocietyvs.Kyodo.pdf

And there are some interesting issues under maritime common law as well.

[kristopher]

137. Poser alert!!!!

You haven't got a clue about what you write. It is pureed BS and nothing else.

I'll tell you what, make the argument behind your assertion that Art 8 is "one of the relevent (sic) conventions which Japan is obviously in violation of" and I'll stop laughing at you for the rest of the night. I gave you the text, show how Japan is violating that article.

[depakid]

138. You're seriously making the argument that Japan's engaging in scientific research?

:rofl:

The Japanese government doesn't even believe that. They know they're violating the terms of the exception, and they know the moritorium applies.

And they know that if Rudd and Garrett call them on it before the ICJ- they will lose.

Speculation is the controversy's being kept alive to divert attention from other fishery abuses.

See, e.g. Japan admits exceeding bluefin tuna catch

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20588386-1702,00.html

[kristopher]

139. Fundamentalist Poser

That's your "argument" that Japan is violating the provisions of Art 8? "They know it"? What a DA.

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has granted

The article gives sole discretion to each "Contracting Government" (that would be Japan) to define "scientific whaling" in any damned manner they see fit with NO recourse to challenge that definition. Get it? They define it, no one else. Period.

The dip-shit extremists who started playing the "let's-exploit-a-legal-loophole-and-rig-a-temporary-moratorium-into-a-defacto-indefinite-ban-on-whaling-by-padding-the-membership-of-the-IWC-with-nonwhaling-nations" really thought they were pulling a slick one; but perhaps they should have consulted someone who could actually read the text of the Convention and think in more than slogans.

That wouldn't be you, btw.

[depakid]

140. LOL -

As I mentioned in my original post in this thread, your misunderstanding of international law (in this instance, basic principles statutory construction) is bizarre and conflated.

If your intepretaion were correct, the entire convention would be meaningless!

(and Japan wouldn't keep threatening and bribing poor island nations to vote to overturn the International Whaling Commission's moratorium).

It's been going on for years years, and the petty corruption would actually be laughable if the issue was less serious:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0513-01.htm

You might also want to have a look at Article IX

1. Each Contracting Government shall take appropriate measures to ensure the application of the provisions of this Convention and the punishment of infractions against the said provisions in operations carried out by persons or by vessels under its jurisdiction.

2. No bonus or other remuneration calculated with relation to the results of their work shall be paid to the gunners and crews of whale catchers in respect of any whales the taking of which is forbidden by this Convention.

And

Article 36 of the Statute of The International Court of Justice

1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.

2. The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning:

a. the interpretation of a treaty;

b. any question of international law;

c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;

d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.

http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0#CHAPTER_II

On another note- this whole fundamentlist business is sounding a lot like projection. Japan is obviously engaging in illegal commercial activity- yet for some strange reason, you choose to ignore both the facts and the law.

[kristopher]

141. So far all you've shown is your lack of knowledge; so specifically cite the illegallities involved.

Precisely what "basic principles of statutory construction" am I conflating? The language is clear and unambiguous so I will just repeat the previous post:

"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has granted/

The article gives sole discretion to each "Contracting Government" (that would be Japan) to define "scientific whaling" in any damned manner they see fit with NO recourse to challenge that definition. Get it? They define it, no one else. Period.

The dip-shit extremists who started playing the "let's-exploit-a-legal-loophole-and-rig-a-temporary-moratorium-into-a-defacto-indefinite-ban-on-whaling-by-padding-the-membership-of-the-IWC-with-nonwhaling-nations" really thought they were pulling a slick one; but perhaps they should have consulted someone who could actually read the text of the Convention and think in more than slogans.

That wouldn't be you, btw."

Your second sentence truly exposes total ignorance of how international law is crafted and what, by its nature, it is and isn't.
You wrote "If your intepretaion (sic) were correct, the entire convention would be meaningless!"

That IS the way it works and it IS NOT meaningless. International legal conventions are always filled with provisions that make them more of a working agreement framework than the familiar system of mandates with penalties you are used to seeing within nation states. In order to achieve consensus in a world where national sovereignty is "jealously guarded", the language and construction is inevitably "state centric" and "consent based".
http://www.who.int/trade/distance_learning/gpgh/gpgh7/en/index12.html
http://www.hanskoechler.com/Koechler-RTI-IntLaw-BalanceofPower-2005-V4.pdf.
http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199208180/dixon6e_ch01.pdf.
http://www.norway.org.uk/policy/environment/whaling/whaling.htm

Your citations are irrelevant and pointless, they contribute nothing to the discussion.

You also wrote: "...and Japan wouldn't keep threatening and bribing poor island nations to vote to overturn the International Whaling Commission's moratorium"
And in the writing you reveal a stunning ignorance of the sequence of events that created the situation we find ourselves in today. It was the extremists with their the-end-justifies-the-means approach that started the practice of recruiting disinterested nations as a means of corrupting the process that established the IWC. They did this with the specific intent of doing an end run around the whaling nations. And what, exactly, have the unethical tactics and strategies of extremists actually accomplished?
It has resulted in Japan employing the strategies of both "scientific whaling" and the recruitment of their own cadre of disinterested nations as vote support, while Iceland recommenced commercial whaling and resigned from the IWC in 1992 and Norway resumed full commercial whaling in 1993.
And on that note, you've yet to explain the preoccupation with Asians whaling while consistently giving the Nordic phenotype a free pass. If you can provide an explanation that doesn't involve racism I'd love to hear it.

You do the goal of ending the practice of whaling and your own integrity a disservice with your attempts to obfuscate the issues involved. If you saw a freeper trying to rewrite the facts to suite their desires you would be all over them: so why do you think it is OK when you do it?

[depakid]

142. It's apparent that you don't understand how to construe statutes

and lack the legal background to realize it, so the points aren't worth arguing about any longer.

You're simply incorrect- and any lawyer would tell you so.

[kristopher]

143. Several law professors specializing in marine and international law are my primary source.

Bluster is a poor substitute for knowledge. You obviously can't support your allegation of criminal activity on the part of the Japanese. That isn't surprising since there is none.

It is my sincere desire to see an end, with no exceptions, to the practice whaling. If I seem insistent in condemning the actions of what I've termed "extremists" it is a result of years of first hand observation (including hundreds of in depth interviews) of the Japanese reaction to these tactics and strategies. I KNOW the tactics and strategies have been and continue to be counter productive.

In fact, it is one of the primary episodes behind my sig line on unintended consequences.