Japanese Whalers.....

POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Friday, June 12, 2026 18:00
VIEWED: 19782
PAGE 17 of 24

Hero & friend:

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

"I agree completely ..."

How very ... logical. Though the two are not completely equivalent. In both cases an action has been reviewed by a body which represents the authority of societies to regulate themselves. In both cases an action is deemed acceptable as long as certain conditions are met. In the case of abortions those conditions ARE being met. In the case of whale hunting they are not. If the whalers were generating genuine, unique scientific data, I suspect there would be no support (or very little) for the Sea Shepherd Society.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
" there is no other method available to try and stop them "

I think is the key,

Hard to make arguments about legality, when nobody is willing to step in and enforce said laws.

Until the Sea Shepard's put a black market TOW missile into one of the whalers no body ( government body ) will take them seriously

and then Japan would likely send a frigate out with the whalers

Mind you, sending the warship might make whaling too expensive and solve the problem too



Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

---

Yes, the fact that nobody seems much interested in enforcing the existing laws IS the key. And while there's strong support for even stronger laws and agreements, once again (as you've pointed out), without enforcement, what's the point? What good will they do?

And Niki,

Quote:

---

I think arguing legalities is fruitless...the whalers are hunting "legally" only because there's a convenient loophole for them to claim they're taking whales for "research", which they're not, and because the IWC has no teeth. The Sea Shepherd Society is behaving recklessly in harrassing the whalers, but there have always been protesters agains wrongs, and I'm on their side. NOT for the violence they may have perpetrated in the past or in the future, but because simply what the whalers are doing is WRONG, and there is no other method available to try and stop them.

---

I agree completely, but that's not to say I *agree* with the Sea Shepherds or their methods. I *understand* where they're coming from, but I disagree with how they're trying to get there. And I feel your frustration, and share it.

But the thing is, I'm pro-choice, and I know you're pro-choice, but the exact same argument you just made in support of the Sea Shepherds can be used by the anti-choice crowd: while they don't exactly *support* Scott Roeder's murdering of George Tiller, they feel that what he and other abortion providers are doing is WRONG, even though it remains LEGAL (through a mere loophole, in their view), and they feel that murder is the only form of protest left to them, and the only means by which to stop what they feel is behavior that is utterly wrong.

In other words, we all have to ask ourselves if the ends justify the means.


Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

---

I would disagree Mike, abortion is the law in the US... and what laws and regulations exist are enforced and debated through the system that created them. Further, a mechanism exists to change that law if enough support is mustered. While in the Southern Oceans, nobody cares what the laws are because no enforcement...

Apples and Grapefruits



Either you Are with the terrorists, or ... you Are with the terrorists

Life is like a jar of Jalapeño peppers.
What you do today, might Burn Your Ass Tomorrow"

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

In Captain-Dummy talk, a bunch of rowdy do-gooders got sloppy & were nailed while harassing peeps conducting arguably legal whale non-murder.

Does that sum it up, Hero?


The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"I agree completely ..."

How very ... logical. Though the two are not completely equivalent. In both cases an action has been reviewed by a body which represents the authority of societies to regulate themselves. In both cases an action is deemed acceptable as long as certain conditions are met. In the case of abortions those conditions ARE being met. In the case of whale hunting they are not. If the whalers were generating genuine, unique scientific data, I suspect there would be no support (or very little) for the Sea Shepherd Society.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

---

A valid point. The two AREN'T completely equivalent, but the broad strokes are remarkably similar, if looked at in the right way.

Anti-choice activists will claim that the conditions are NOT being met, because in their minds there ARE no "valid" conditions that would allow abortion, ever, in any case.

And the whaling companies will argue that what they are doing IS legal, under the specific letter of the law, while deep down, where they live and when they go to bed at night, they know that while it might slip under the letter of the law, it's nowhere even NEAR the SPIRIT of the law.

Quote:

---

Posted by GinoBiffaroni:

I would disagree Mike, abortion is the law in the US... and what laws and regulations exist are enforced and debated through the system that created them. Further, a mechanism exists to change that law if enough support is mustered. While in the Southern Oceans, nobody cares what the laws are because no enforcement...

---

Gino, I think you are missing the point of what I'm trying to illustrate: While abortion may indeed BE legal, there are groups who feel that it violates a "higher law" - what they call "God's Law". They can't be reasoned with on this, because it doesn't matter to them if you don't believe in their god or not. They insist that THEIR actions not be dictated by YOUR beliefs, but they howl like a cat on a lathe if you should ever have the temerity to imagine that YOUR actions likewise shouldn't be dictated by THEIR beliefs.

The whalers have found a tiny legal loophole, apparently, and they're going to exploit it as much as they can. And no matter what, there are going to be those who say that it's unconscionable and unacceptable under ANY circumstances, and there can be no reasoning or negotiating with them.

And in both cases, "the law" is only as good as the enforcement of it. I can't remember the exact figures, but I read a report that prosecutions for abortion protesters decreased by something like 75% while Bush was in office, leaving the distinct impression among reproductive rights providers that Bush had no interest in protecting their safety, and every interest in protecting protesters, even when they committed criminal acts in the course of their protests.

Step ONE is to make sure we actually HAVE adequate laws in place. Step TWO is to see to it that those laws are adequately enforced. Without the one, the other is rather useless.

For anyone who's been following this thread from the beginning, you'll see that my sympathies seem to have changed sides a bit. That's not the case, though. I've admired the GOALS of the protesters from the outset; where we digress, and somewhat sharply, is in the methods used in pursuit of those goals.

Having said that, and being quite firmly against terrorism on the high seas (and in quite clear agreement with Frem in that once you strap on the terrorist or pirate garb, you are indeed fair game for pretty much whatever comes your way), I'm not against protesting these ships, their crews, and their contractors who hire them, WHILE THEY ARE IN PORT, AT ANCHOR.

In fact, if one was to use the methods of certain governments (I'm looking at YOU, France, Francois Mitterrand, and the DGSE arm of your secret service), one may even be able to argue for the sinking of whaling ships while at anchor and unmanned (or SUPPOSEDLY unmanned, as in the case

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
In Captain-Dummy talk, a bunch of rowdy do-gooders got sloppy & were nailed while harassing peeps conducting arguably legal whale non-murder.

Does that sum it up, Hero?


The laughing Chrisisall

---

I'm no Hero, but that sounds like the shape of it.



Is there a way to go before the U.N. and propose that anyone knowingly hunting and killing endangered species be charged with some form of genocide? After all, if extincting an entire species isn't genocide, what is it? And if the animals in question are already known to be endangered, and are already on the protected list, to go on hunting them must be seen as attempted extinction, right?

We look into this, then go after the crews of the ships, and pressure them to give up whoever gave them the orders. As always, follow the money.

This - whaling - is a crisis. But in every crisis, is opportunity.

Mike

Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME