Australian Green Senator Bob Brown slams 'outrageous' raid on Sea Shepherd ship

[Annces]

Federal police board anti-whaling ship Greens Leader Bob Brown says a raid on the Sea Shepherd's anti-whaling ship by the Australian Federal Police was outrageous behaviour. The Steve Irwin remains in Hobart after it was boarded by AFP officers late on Friday at the request of Japanese authorities. The ship's captain Paul Watson says officers took hundreds of hours of video footage and a log book. Senator Brown says he has written to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd asking for an explanation. "It'll be one of the most unpopular decisions the Rudd Government has made so far," he said. "Australians will be outraged by the appearance that the Australian police are doing the bidding of the Japanese whaling authorities." He said he had been told by Mr Watson that the ship was delayed coming into the port in Hobart so that the AFP had time to make their raid. "I'm also told that the Japanese used absolutely outrageous tactics, like sound wave attacks on people in helicopters, which could have brought down those helicopters from the Sea Shepherd."

But the Federal Government has distanced itself from the raid. A spokeswoman for Home Affairs Minister Bob Debus said the matter was in the hands of the AFP. "All we can say is that it's an operational matter and it would be inappropriate to comment," she said. "It's like any police investigation." The police, who had search warrants, kept the crew on board as they searched cabins.

An AFP spokeswoman confirmed an investigation was launched at the request of the Japanese authorities, who this year complained after activists threw bottles of rancid butter at the whalers and tried to board a ship. The footage, taken by wildlife documentary group Animal Planet, depicted some of the most dramatic whale-killing scenes ever seen, crew on the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society ship said. Mr Watson said the Steve Irwin had never been searched before but he would welcome any charges that led to the crew facing a court.

"My position is that if they want to put me on trial for anything connected with this, then I am happy to do it," he told the Hobart Mercury. "We are not there protesting, we are down there to stop a blatantly criminal activity, to stop whaling in a whale sanctuary. "These actions have to go to court somewhere, so let's start it here."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/21/2497804.htm?section=justin

Australian Green Senator, Bob Brown

[MercutioATC]

1. Like him or not, Watson is a vigilante.

He has no legal authority to do what he does and he endangers the lives and property of others.

Sooner or later, he's going to bear the repercussions of his actions...either now, in Australia, or at some future date.

[Annces]

2. That is not true

He does have legal authority. A court case will prove him right, but the Japanese will not go to court, because they know they are wrong. This video footage will have to be returned. The only way the Japanese can keep it is with corrupt and strong-arm bullying.

Money talks.

[MercutioATC]

3. Under what authority does he operate?

Even if the Japanese whalers are in violation of international law (and that's up for debate) Watson has absolutely no authority to take physical action to stop them.

He's free to videotape all he likes, but he has no more authority to attack other ships than I have to run a car off of the road if I think it's going too fast.

[Annces]

4. If something is doing something illegal

and the police are corrupt or just don't care, then a person who enforces the law is definitely right. And he does have international law to back him up. And if he were such a "vigilante", then the Australians would not let him into port.

YOu are the one with the flimsy argument morally and legally. You must like gorilla governments with their immoral behavior.

[MercutioATC]

5. Wow! ...just wow.

By your standards, I do have not only right, but the moral obligation, to run somebody off of the road if I think they're driving recklessly!

That's what Watson does. He destroys property and endangers lives to enforce a law without any legal authority to do so.

I may disagree with illegal whaling, but Watson is a vigilante...and a menace.

[GliderGuider]

8. Quite probably

To use your example, if the reckless driver had already killed a pedestrian, was leaving the scene of the accident and was heading toward a populated area where the possibility of more loss of life was high, and you had already called the police and been told they could/would not respond in time...

Then yes, you would have a moral right to run the SOB off the road to protect the lives of others.

In this situation, the Japanese have already killed, they have said they will not stop killing, and the ships are heading into areas where more killing will be done. The area where the Japanese are killing has been declared a sanctuary, and the police have been notified and declined to respond.

As a result SSCS has a moral right to take action.

[MercutioATC]

11. You mean "killed a dog", not "killed a pedestrian", right?

Last I checked, whales were still animals.

...and no, I don't believe I would have either the legal or moral right or responsibility to destroy property and endanger human life if I saw a driver run over a dog.

[GliderGuider]

14. All analogies are inaccurate - the map is not the territory.

I believe that a whale's life is at least as valuable as a human's. The whales in question are being hunted in a sanctuary, and that combination of circumstances makes Watson's actions fully acceptable to me. Human laws are made in a very compromised arena, and tend to favour not just human interests but the interests of humans with money and power. There are laws that deserve to be opposed, and I'm in favour of a graduated scale of response in opposition. I think the SSCS response is fully justified and appropriate in scale.

[MercutioATC]

18. " I believe that a whale's life is at least as valuable as a human's." ???????

Just whales or all animals?

Just animals or all living things?

As a society, we have a societal contract. We've agreed to place the value of human life above others.

I can understand having a personal, emotional affinity to his actions (which I don't share)...but he's clearly violating the contract. He's endangering human life to save whales...and without any sort of legal mandate to do so.

We all have our own personal ideas of what is "right". However, we're not always free to legally or morally act on them when they run counter to the greater good or society.

I'm not taking issue with his protest, just his reckless disregard for human life in the defense of an animal...especially when he has no authority to do so.

[GliderGuider]

22. I'm a Deep Ecologist. We disagree at a very fundamental level.

THE EIGHT PRINCIPLES OF DEEP ECOLOGY

1. The well-being and flourishing of human and non-human life on Earth have value in themselves. These values are independent of the usefulness of the non-human world for human purposes.

2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.

3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.

4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires such a decrease.

5. Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.

6. Policies must therefore be changed. The changes in policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.

7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating quality (dwelling in situations of inherent worth) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.

8. Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to participate in the attempt to implement the necessary changes.

The degree of risk Watson poses to other human life is minuscule compared to the risk that the Japanese whaling fleet poses to the whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. It's also minuscule compared to some of the risks humans pose to to other humans that we routinely accept under our various other "social contracts". Unless and until Watson is arrested, tried and convicted of the crimes you accuse him of, this amounts to a philosophical dispute -- one in which I'm firmly in Watson's camp.

[navarth]

40. Thank you for putting it into focus. eom

I'm pretty sick of the human arrogance that puts our lives above all other life forms to the point of abomination.

[MercutioATC]

64. If I run the hypothetical reckless driver off of the road, I may be philosophically "right",

but my actions, in a societal context, are unacceptable.

Your philosophical beliefs may be moral, but many others don't hold those beliefs. It's unacceptable to endanger human life because you think an animal's life is no less valuable.

...and again, where do you draw the line? Is firebombing slaughterhouses acceptable? What about vandalizing stores that sell leather belts? If all life has equal value and it's acceptable to endanger the lives of humans who don't hold the same belief, can we shoot loggers? Farmers?


If Watson wants to videotape what he considers to be illegal activities, if he wants to try to scare the whales away, if he wants to sue the owner of the ships...that's all fine. When he endangers human life and destroys property solely because of a belief system that runs contrary to 90% of the world's population, it isn't.

[GliderGuider]

66. I find what we're doing to the global ecology a lot less acceptable

In comparison to the wanton devastation of non-human life on this planet, and given the actual harm we do to other human beings for no good reason every day, getting all bent out of shape over the minor risks that Watson's actions might pose seems misdirected. If respect for human rules is really that important as an abstract principle, there are a lot of places your umbrage would be better spent. Yes, there's the possibility that Watson might accidentally injure a whaler or two, though he has repeatedly said he makes every effort to avoid that outcome.

For me it's not the defense of an individual animal or plant that makes such actions acceptable. I see these actions as part of a broad effort to protect what remains of a vulnerable ecosystem from the hubristic predation of a rapacious species and their profoundly alienated culture. These actions are being conducted across a broad spectrum of intensity, from gentle Sunday protest marches along the banks of endangered streams, through legal challenges and the tree-sitting and chain-ins that we saw at Clayquot Sound, to the spiking of old-growth forests and SSCS interdiction efforts in the Southern Ocean.

The underlying intent is noble -- the protection of an ecosphere that lies helpless on the tracks as the train of human civilization approaches at 100 mph. The self-appointed warriors in this endeavour are exercising their moral agency, with the underlying acceptance of the social contract that if the forces of evil organize against them sufficiently, they will pay the price. Watson is not different in kind, only in degree.

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. The definition of vigilate

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

Vigilante

---

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A vigilante is a person who violates the law in order to exact what they believe to be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice">justice from criminals, because they think that the criminal will not be caught or will not be sufficiently punished by the legal system.

…

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/11/05/071105fa_fact_khatchadourian

Neptune’s Navy

Paul Watson’s wild crusade to save the oceans.

by Raffi Khatchadourian November 5, 2007

…

When Watson is separated from land, he tends to behave like Captain Nemo, which is to say that he does what he thinks is right, even if it involves a violation of custom or the destruction of property. There are a number of rules belonging to civilization that outrage his sense of morality, among them the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which asserts that sovereign states alone are the ocean’s enforcers. If such rules interfere with his agenda, then, as far as he is concerned, rules be damned. This is particularly true when whales are at issue. Watson believes that whales are more intelligent than people, and that their slaughter is tantamount to murder. (He once compared their extermination to the Holocaust.) The Japanese take a different view. They have been hunting whales with a modern industrial fleet since the nineteen-thirties, and the more resolutely the rest of the world condemns their hunt the more adamantly their government seems to support it. Watson maintains that if his opponents are forced to defend their actions in public they will demonstrate the untenable nature of their position. A key part of his strategy is to force the issue.

…

Watson has a tendency to see things in their essence rather than in their particulars. A diplomat might say that the Japanese whaling fleet is technically complying with the rules of the I.W.C., and that to stop it one must first upset the status quo that permits the fleet to hunt whales. Watson, who cannot be bothered with the legal nuances of international regulations, insists that the Japanese fleet is breaking the law, and that, because the I.W.C. refuses to act, he and his crew must. He calls his fleet Neptune’s Navy, and he regards it as a law-enforcement agency. Moments before ramming a vessel, Watson will radio its captain and say something that sounds very official, such as “Please remove yourselves from these waters. You are in violation of international conservation regulations.” At times, he loses his cool. “We’re no protest ship,” he once told an intransigent captain. “Now, get out of here.” His sense of urgency, his impressive ego, his argumentativeness, his love of theatrics, his tendency to bend the truth, his willingness to risk lives or injury for his beliefs (or for publicity), and his courage (or recklessness) have earned him both loathing and veneration from those who are familiar with his activism.

Watson’s celebrity supporters, some of whom he has come to know personally, include Mick Jagger, Pierce Brosnan, Sean Penn, Aidan Quinn, William Shatner, Edward Norton, Orlando Bloom, and Uma Thurman. In 1995, Martin Sheen travelled with Watson and other activists to the Magdalen Islands, in Quebec, to protest the clubbing of baby seals. The group was threatened by a mob of angry sealers, and Watson was badly beaten. “He’s one of the gutsiest guys on the planet,” Sheen told me. “I am just so grateful to him for his commitment and his courage and his daring and his humanity.” Steve Wynn, the Las Vegas casino magnate, once helped Watson buy a submarine (though it was missing essential parts and so couldn’t be used). John Paul DeJoria, the C.E.O. of John Paul Mitchell Systems, the hair-care-products company, has raised tens of thousands of dollars for Watson’s campaigns. Sea Shepherd’s board of advisers includes Elizabeth May, the leader of Canada’s Green Party, and Roger Payne, one of the world’s foremost experts on whales. Watson is portrayed as a savior in the fiction of Edward Abbey, the author of “The Monkey Wrench Gang” (1975), a seminal book for eco-saboteurs. The Dalai Lama has given him a written endorsement and a statue of Hayagriva, a wrathful deity who, according to early Buddhist texts, yells with a “dreadful voice” and “subdues all demons and all evils.” Within the animal-rights community, Watson is treated like a demigod. “I think he’s a hero,” Peter Singer, the Princeton ethicist and the author of “Animal Liberation,” told me. “He’s been prepared to put himself on the line to stop the abuse of animals in places where no one else was prepared to go.”

Watson’s detractors are no less adamant. Officials in Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Costa Rica have denounced him; some have even called him a terrorist. In the mid-nineties, Norway convicted him of attempting to scuttle a whaler named Nybræna, and he spent eighty days in prison. “He is persona non grata in Iceland,” Kristján Loftsson, the managing director of Hvalur, Iceland’s largest whaling company, told me. Watson has made enemies of other conservationists, too. For decades, Greenpeace has wanted nothing to do with him—a rebuke that is particularly stinging because he was a founder of the organization. Last year, Watson resigned from the Sierra Club’s national board, after feuding with other members about the group’s policies. He has been barred from I.W.C. meetings since 1986, when Sea Shepherd scuttled two of Hvalur’s ships in Reykjavik’s harbor—an act of sabotage that many conservationists believe helped turn Icelandic public opinion against the cause of saving whales. Sidney Holt, one of the principal architects of the whaling moratorium, told me, “I think his involvement in all this is an absolute disaster. Almost everything he has been doing has had blowback for those who want to see an end to whaling. In too many cases, playing piracy on the ocean, and creating danger for other ships, is simply not liked.”

…

[MercutioATC]

7. I'd say that Watson fits the definition, wouldn't you?

[GliderGuider]

9. Only if his actions in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary have been determined to be illegal

As far as I know, they have not. That means he doesn't fit that definition of "vigilante".

[MercutioATC]

12. Ramming another ship is at least a violation of maritime shipping laws.

He failed (intentionally) to provide adequate distance between the ships, resulting in a collision.

And, depending on how you define his intent, he's actually in technical violation of maritime piracy laws.

(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

[GliderGuider]

16. So put him on trial, and let's find out.

Unless and until he's convicted I'll keep cheering him on.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. Did he ever turn in that "miracle bullet" for examination?

Clearly, if the Japanese had attempted to kill him, he has legal rights. If he is to be believed, he had clear evidence in his possession. He could have taken them to court.

Since he did not, he's a fraud.

[GliderGuider]

19. That wasn't a magic bullet, it was a red herring.

Has he been tried for any of his actions? No. Until he is, all else is spin.

[OKIsItJustMe]

23. It's a nicely crafted sentence, "That wasn't a magic bullet, it was a red herring."

What does it mean?

Do you mean it was a "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(logical_fallacy)#Red_herring">red herring" constructed by him to distract from the illegality of his actions, and to justify them by an "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion">appeal to emotion?"

Or, do you mean it is a "red herring" used by myself and others to distract from the nobility of his actions?

Or, do you mean something else entirely?

[GliderGuider]

25. I mean

Ignoratio elenchi

The informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question.

That's what those who bring up the magic bullet in discussions about the legality of Watson's actions as a ship master are doing.

[OKIsItJustMe]

37. It's relevant

Since it's clear he plays fast-and-loose with the facts; I assume he also plays fast-and-loose with the law—for example—presenting himself as some sort of law enforcement.

It's also relevant that Greenpeace wants nothing to do with the man or his actions.
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/paul-watson-sea-shepherd-and

[MercutioATC]

20. I'd love to see that happen.

Unfortunately, I'm not a Japanese whaler, so I have no legal standing.

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. FWIW: Watson has been tried and convicted elsewhere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watson#Controversy

So, would you agree that at times his actions have been illegal? (Whether or not his most recent actions have been?)

[GliderGuider]

27. What does that have to do with this? It's another red herring.

Watson thinks laws are human constructs that deserve to be upheld if right and challenged if wrong. He believes that we as free men have the right to make our own moral decisions. If he was not prepared to accept the consequences of judgment I'd call him a hypocrite. Since he is manifestly willing to accept the consequences of his actions, I call him a hero.

[XemaSab]

28. You don't think that makes him at best a vigilante, and at worst a terrorist?

Let's look at your statement:

"Osama bin Ladin thinks laws are human constructs that deserve to be upheld if right and challenged if wrong. He believes that we as free men have the right to make our own moral decisions. If he was not prepared to accept the consequences of judgment I'd call him a hypocrite. Since he is manifestly willing to accept the consequences of his actions, I call him a hero."

The sentence still works.

"The UNAbomber thinks laws are human constructs that deserve to be upheld if right and challenged if wrong. He believes that we as free men have the right to make our own moral decisions. If he was not prepared to accept the consequences of judgment I'd call him a hypocrite. Since he is manifestly willing to accept the consequences of his actions, I call him a hero."

Still works.

"Tim McVeigh thinks laws are human constructs that deserve to be upheld if right and challenged if wrong. He believes that we as free men have the right to make our own moral decisions. If he was not prepared to accept the consequences of judgment I'd call him a hypocrite. Since he is manifestly willing to accept the consequences of his actions, I call him a hero."

Wow! It still works!

We live in a world with professional police and military because it can't be left to the individual to decide right and wrong. (No, I'm not an apologist for fascism, and there are times when revolution is the order of the day.)

[GliderGuider]

30. "Vigilante" and "terrorist" are both political terms, not legal ones.

Gandhi was called a terrorist by the Brits, as was Mandela by the South Africans. How you are are defined -- as a terrorist or a freedom fighter, as a vigilante or a citizen hero -- depends on whether you are on the side of the power structure or not.

McVeigh and Kaczynski were both tried and convicted, so there is at least justification for calling them murderers, though the sobriquet "terrorist" remains a political judgment, even when applied to these men.

As an Anarcho-Primitivist I understand Kaczynski's motivation, though I think his response was out of proportion. As a DE I think Watson's response is totally proportionate and even restrained.

The professional police and military of which you are so proud exist primarily to protect the interests of the power structure. Their response (or lack of it) can not be used as a guide to the legitimacy of the situation they are said to be protecting.

[XemaSab]

34. The honest fact of the matter is that I don't trust Watson

I think his cause is just, but his execution is sloppy.

All I know about him is what I saw on "Whale Wars." I started watching the show assuming I would be 100% on the side of the Sea Shepherds, but I wound up having little respect for Watson.

I saw a man who doesn't really care about the safety of the crew, I saw a man who is exploitative of his crew, and I saw a man who is willing to lie to serve his cause.

If I recall correctly, there was a broken thumb caused by improper boat-launching procedure, there was a broken pelvis caused by too many people sitting in a small boat, there was a group of people dumped in the water (!!!!) due to improper boat-launching procedure, and there were a few instances of boat teams not radioing in on schedule. They also dinged the blade of the helicopter during a moment of chaos. It seems like Watson just takes people on the ship and expects them to learn as they go, but these are all things that a few days of training back in harbor would prevent. In summary, it seems like Watson is not particularly concerned about crew safety, which should be NUMBER ONE.

Secondly, there was a point halfway through the season where they had to go back to harbor to fix the boat. When they got back to harbor, half the crew left, and a whole bunch of new, eager volunteers got on board. I'm not sure why half the first crew quit, but I got the sense that they felt like they were not respected by Watson. Also, if Watson ran a happy ship, he would get more repeat volunteers instead of rank amateurs.

Finally, there were several instances where what Watson was saying to the press and what was shown on film just didn't match up. A few examples are when he put two crew members on the Japanese ship, then told the press that they were being held hostage; when he said they were only employing nonviolent techniques but they were throwing rancid shit and slick stuff on board the Japanese ship; and so forth.

All this makes me think the man is running some sort of hustle.

[OKIsItJustMe]

36. I disagree. Terrorism has several legal definitions (but not a universally agreed upon one.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism#Definitions

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. The question was whether or not he was a vigilante

An old man walks up to a beautiful woman on the beach, and asks, "If I gave you a million dollars, would you sleep with me?"

The young woman replies, "Well… yes… I suppose I would…"

The old man then asks, "What if I gave you ten dollars?"

The young woman slaps his face, and says, "What kind of a girl do you think I am!?"

The old man, says, "We've already established that; now we’re haggling over your price."

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Absolutely, I've called him one before

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=185074&mesg_id=185230

Of course, our society has come to admire the vigilante. We believe "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_redemptive_violence">the myth of redemptive violence." (I was privileged to see a series of presentations by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Wink">Walter Wink a few years back.) The vigilante theme is extremely popular in the movies. We adore vigilantes who stand up for what we believe, and abhor those whose beliefs don't correspond with our own.

[MercutioATC]

15. Absolutely. Watson plays public sentiment and the media very well.

I may agree with his goal, but his method is dangerous...and indefensible.

[One_Life_To_Give]

58. Familiar with Admiralty Law and the conventions on Laws of the Sea?

Anybody attempting to take actions against a Japanese Flagged Vessel operating anywhere other than where Japan Officially recognizes foreign waters is guilty of An Act fo War. The rights of vessels of nations to proceed without harrassment from the various naval powers is a fundamanetal international right. Those ships are only beholding to the Japanease governement while operating in what Japan calls International Waters.

Watson is not a Law Enforcement Officer of any signatory to the International Laws of the Sea Conventions at the UN/IMO. He is a vigilante operating outside of the law. If Any country attempts to interfere byb force they need to be willing to commit an act of war against Japan and deal with the consequences. I don't know that Australia is in a position to absorb the affects of Economic sanctions which Japan might place upon them.

[GliderGuider]

60. Then arrest him and try him.

Right now he's only being tried in the 1st Circuit Court of Public Relations. He's said he'd welcome a trial.

[One_Life_To_Give]

63. On what Charge?

Underway Accidents are difficult to establish complete fault as there are no unbiased witnesses. And he is doing the at sea equivalent of driving 35 down the highway and changing lanes to make it difficult for anyone to get by. Get you in trouble if Law Enforcement witnesses it. Otherwise not much going to happen.

And of course only the country who has flagged the Steve Irwin or someone(Country) authorized by them, may take law enforcement action against her while traveling in International Waters per the IMO treaty it signed or exercising the right of innocent passage as defined in the treaty.

[Annces]

10. update - Greens will question the federal police in detail

Tasmanian Greens Senator Bob Brown yesterday demanded the Rudd Government explain the raid on the ship.

"If this action was taken at the behest of the Japanese authorities it will outrage many Australians," he said.


The Greens will question the federal police in detail at the Senate Estimates in the coming week, Mr Brown said.

http://www.examiner.com.au/news/local/news/environmental-issues/federal-police-seize-whaling-kill-footage-japanese-whalers-acuse-protesters-of-criminal-activities/1440228.aspx

[Kolesar]

26. Thank you for keeping us apprised of the Sea Shepherds' progress

I wonder what Discovery networks are going to do about losing the film. I should email them for some support.

[navarth]

21. Based on what I've read in this thread,

I'll support Captain Watson over those other greedy evil bastards. Fuck them.

[XemaSab]

29. Based on what I saw on "Whale Wars" last season

I'm not a fan of Watson.

[OKIsItJustMe]

31. Simply put, by his actions, he gives "environmentalism" a bad name

And (as a self-proclaimed "environmentalist") I resent that.

I hate the unnecessary butchering of whales. I'm opposed to "trophy hunting." I teach young people to respect and care for the natural world.

I don't care for this bozo.

[GliderGuider]

32. Watson's not an environmentalist.

He's a Deep Ecologist -- there's a significant difference. I gather that Watson doesn't care for "environmentalists".

[XemaSab]

35. Explain to me what the difference is

and explain to me why a "Deep Ecologist" would be willing to take risks that an ordinary tree-spiker wouldn't.

[GliderGuider]

38. The difference

I agree with this description from Wikipedia:

Deep ecology is a recent branch of ecological philosophy (ecosophy) that considers humankind an integral part of its environment. It is a body of thought that places greater value on non-human species, ecosystems and processes in nature than established environmental and green movements. Deep ecology has led to a new system of environmental ethics. The core principle of deep ecology as originally developed is Arne Næss's doctrine of biospheric egalitarianism — the claim that, like humanity, the living environment as a whole has the same right to live and flourish. Deep ecology describes itself as "deep" because it persists in asking deeper questions concerning "why" and "how" and thus is concerned with the fundamental philosophical questions about the impacts of human life as one part of the ecosphere, rather than with a narrow view of ecology as a branch of biological science, and aims to avoid merely utilitarian environmentalism, which it argues is concerned with resource management of the environment for human purposes.

In short, environmentalism tends to see the value of the ecosphere in relation to its contribution to human life, while deep ecology views the ecosphere as having intrinsic value, independent of human wants or needs.

Regarding tree-spikers, eco-defense is simply a technique that can be deployed by either side. Both camps see humans as the main environmental predators, and the purpose of eco-defense is simply to stop human encroachment. Eco-defense techniques may be used more often by those with deep ecology views because environmentalists tend to see the world in relation to human values, and so are more inclined to trust human legal systems for redress. DE's on the other hand, see the situation as one of the victimization of a defenseless ecosystem by a rapacious human species. They also tend to see human laws as being designed by humans to protect human interests, and therefore ineffective in defense of non-human species. As a result, they may see direct action as the only effective recourse.

[XemaSab]

41. I learned that deep ecology is just a facet of environmental thought

:shrug:

[GliderGuider]

45. Insofar as both are concerned with "the enviroment" that may be true.

Once you drop down a level to the question of how they see the environment, the difference becomes more qualitative.

I suspect that you learned what you did from environmentalists -- I don't know any DEs who would think that. The last thing I want is to be tossed onto the same Gucci bag as Greenpeace.

[XemaSab]

48. I learned it from my environmental ethics teachers

:P

[GliderGuider]

52. When I was still an atheist, I had a lot of people tell me that atheism was a religion.

I noticed that it was only the religious who said such things. No atheist ever made that argument.

It's the same here.

[OKIsItJustMe]

53. That's because they confuse "religion" with "faith"

"Theists" look at the world around them and declare, in faith, "There is a God!" (or "There are Gods!")

Atheists look at the world around them, and declare, "There is no god." Atheists believe that there is no god, not from absolute proof, but (at least in part) by faith.

However, faith does not make atheism a religion.

[GliderGuider]

55. Sorry, but bullshit.

It's not a question of faith. The two positions operate from orthogonal rule sets. One is simply not definable in terms of the other, no matter what semantic contortions we engage in.

IMO, the same is true of standard environmentalism and DE.

[OKIsItJustMe]

57. "the same is true of standard environmentalism and DE."

"http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=187627&mesg_id=187700">There's glory for you."

You define "environmentalism" is such a way as to justify your rejection of it.

[GliderGuider]

61. You're probably right.

Enough arguing for one night. It's time to turn back to what really matters. See you tomorrow.

[OKIsItJustMe]

62. Time to turn back to what really matters

Just so! :toast:

[OKIsItJustMe]

44. I don't see why "Deep Ecology" justifies vigilantism

In general, I would say (from your definition) that I support the aim of "Deep ecology" but I don't see how it is different from "Environmentalism." Your definition of "Environmentalism" seems slanted to me.

Here's the Wikipedia definition of Environmentalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmentalism

Environmentalism is a broad philosophy and social movement centered on a concern for the conservation and improvement of the environment. Environmentalism is associated with the colour green.

…

When I teach young people about "Environmentalism" I teach it as a form of "respect." They should respect themselves, and each other, and all of the rest of the natural world, not simply out of "enlightened self-interest" but because fundamentally, it's the right thing to do.

Does that make me a "Deep ecologist!?" (If that means linking myself by reputation to the actions of Paul Watson, let me out!)

[GliderGuider]

46. It may justify direct action

Calling direct action "vigilantism" betrays a political viewpoint.

[OKIsItJustMe]

47. Calling "vigilantism" "direct action" betrays a political viewpoint

The meaning of vigilantism is pretty clear, it's taking the law into your own hands (breaking the law to uphold the law.) I may agree or disagree with the actions of a vigilante. They remain a vigilante.

[GliderGuider]

50. If the international community was fulfilling its responsibility

Watson and those who support him would have no cause for independent action.

Historically, vigilantes came into being in areas where there was no effective law enforcement. As soon as "the law came to town" the wellsprings of vigilantism typically dried up. The same will happen here. SSCS activities in the Galapagos are clear evidence that SSCS is not purely an extra-judicial "vigilante" group. In the Galapagos they are working closely with the Galapagos National Park Service to enforce the law. If there was a comparable official body willing to assume responsibility for the Southern Ocean, SSCS would suddenly no longer be vigilantes as they started cooperative enforcement efforts. The difference between SSCS activities in the two locations seems purely due to the lack of an official enforcement body in the Southern Ocean.

[OKIsItJustMe]

51. The appropriate response (in my opinion) then is to pressure the "international community"

The way to accomplish that is to bring public opinion around to your way of seeing things. As should be evident from this discussion, Paul Watson alienates people who in general share his goals.

You http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=187627&mesg_id=187666">mentioned that Gandhi was called a terrorist. It was libel of course.

The way Gandhi eventually won was by demonstrating the fundamental injustice of the system through truth and non-violence. Eventually, public opinion was swayed.

Martin Luther King Jr. learned from Gandhi's writings. He too set about, through strict adherence to truth and non-violence, to demonstrate the fundamental injustice of the system.

Paul Watson is neither truthful, nor non-violent.


http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/news/paul-watson-sea-shepherd-and

…

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.

…

[GliderGuider]

54. I'm quite sure Watson is OK with alienating some people

His goal in this campaign is not to build a consensus or draw people to his point of view. His goal is to stop the killing. He feels this is the most effective way of doing that under the circumstances.

Not everything in the world can be reduced to Public Relations. Greenpeace believes it can, however, and that is their tragic flaw. They're great at promoting composting and CFLs, but when it comes to meaningful ecological issues they are ineffectual pantywaists whose main mission seems to be to give Volvo drivers a sense of vicarious significance. One the the purposes of Watson's repeated requests for cooperation is to make that "mission" visible to the world.

[OKIsItJustMe]

56. Watson may win battles

In the end, I'm afraid he is losing the war.

If his actions alienate so many of us, who largely share his beliefs, imagine what the response is among those who hold very different beliefs. He just gives them an excuse to more fervently hold to those beliefs.

I think (for example) that a single "whale watch" saves more whales than Paul Watson does. It teaches passengers a respect for whales. Watson doesn't teach people respect for whales, his showboating appears (to me) to be about drawing attention to himself.

(BTW: if anyone cares enough to read this thread, I highly recommend the http://www.whalewatch.com/research/">Dolphin Fleet.)

[MercutioATC]

65. He'll kill somebody one of these days...

He'll be a martyr to his "cause", but he'll cease to be an issue.

Unfortunately, somebody will probably have to die first.

[XemaSab]

67. He's probably going to kill a crew member from his own ship before he kills a Japanese whaler

n/t

[One_Life_To_Give]

59. Except Japan Adhears to the Letter of Int'l Law

We may not like the law od how Japan manipulated the UN and IWC. But International Law specifically allows exactly what Japan is doing.

[OKIsItJustMe]

49. "There's glory for you."

Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll

… Humpty Dumpty said … ' … There's glory for you!'

'I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master—that's all.'

…

[navarth]

39. tell me more

please.

[XemaSab]

42. Hope you don't mind a post that was a response to someone else

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=187627&mesg_id=187681

:shrug:

[navarth]

43. yeah I saw this after I posted. thanks anyway

I still give Watson props for doing something instead of just pointing fingers until I'm convinced otherwise. This thread has some convincing arguments either way, but nothing that changed my mind.

Human arrogance thinks it is superior to all other forms of life. I think the arrogance makes us just a little bit less entitled to participate in the web of life.

And the greed and evil involved in the illegal killing of the whales....no need for me to get started on that.