Real World Event Discussions

Japanese Whalers.....

POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Friday, June 12, 2026 18:00
VIEWED: 19782
PAGE 21 of 24

KWICKO

Friday, January 15, 2010 1:06 PM

Nothing more to add at the moment. Just wanted to push us to the magic "200 Replies" mark. :)

NIKI2

Friday, January 15, 2010 5:47 PM

Stinker. However, yes, I see only four countries recognize the Australian Antartic Territory, and Japan neither recognizes it nor it's "territorial waters". That throws it right back to "what's legal". I still stand with SSCS, tho', given the whalers are breaking United Nations World Charter for Nature that was ratified by the U.N. General Assembly in 1982, the IWC moratorium, the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, the Antartic Treaty, and the Australian Antartic Territory.

The Antartic Treaty consists of (in short):

Quote:
The Antarctic Treaty was signed in Washington on 1 December 1959 by the twelve countries whose scientists had been active in and around Antarctica during the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957-58. It entered into force in 1961 and has since been acceded to by many other nations. The total number of Parties to the Treaty is now 47.

Some important provisions of the Treaty :

Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only (Art. I)

Freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica and cooperation toward that end … shall continue (Art. II)

Scientific observations and results from Antarctica shall be exchanged and made freely available (Art. III)

Among the signatories of the Treaty were seven countries - Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom - with territorial claims , sometimes overlapping. Other countries do not recognize any claims. The US and Russia maintain a “basis of claim ”. All positions are explicitly protected in Article IV, which preserves the status quo.

Japan is not one of the original signatories, but given the number of Parties to the treaty are 42, all these things combined constitute enough laws, treaties and moratoriums that I think it's obvious they're in the wrong internationally.

It's sufficent for me to recognize them as "acting illegally". It all comes down to interpretation and which body/bodies you choose to recognize as having authority over the area.

It would be helpful to know where exactly they are whaling, but I'm guessing it's outside Australia's 12-mile zone, or there wouldn't be controversy.

Fascinating discussion, and to me yet another example of how you guys can take things apart and agree/disagree over them, in this case with little delving into personalities or threadjacking. Kudos to all (if I may be so bold).

HERO

Sunday, January 17, 2010 1:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Japan is not one of the original signatories, but given the number of Parties to the treaty are 42, all these things combined constitute enough laws, treaties and moratoriums that I think it's obvious they're in the wrong internationally.

That leaves around 120 countries out. So 42 is your magic number out of how many countries...does not make much sense.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

KWICKO

Sunday, January 17, 2010 2:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Japan is not one of the original signatories, but given the number of Parties to the treaty are 42, all these things combined constitute enough laws, treaties and moratoriums that I think it's obvious they're in the wrong internationally.

That leaves around 120 countries out. So 42 is your magic number out of how many countries...does not make much sense.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.

Just by way of comparison, though... How many nations were in the "coalition of the willing", again? 48, was it? So apparently your magic number is somewhere between 42 and 48, leaving around 115 countries out. Doesn't make much sense, either, does it?

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 17, 2010 3:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So apparently your magic number is somewhere between 42 and 48, leaving around 115 countries out. Doesn't make much sense, either, does it?

The laughing Chrisisall

PERFESSERGEE

Sunday, January 17, 2010 10:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"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."

But they are not even meeting the letter of the agreement. They MUST publish their results, once a year, in a publication of the IWC's choosing.

If the IWC chooses a genuine scientific publication the whaler's 'research' results would be rejected out of hand. And the whalers know that - which is why they publish in dummy publications - or not at all.

That's the point I'm making.

IF their catch generated genuine unique research results there would be FAR fewer objections to the practice. But they've forgone even the pretense of the fig leaf to cover their - at this point - blatant commercial hunt.

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

Silence is consent.

Thanks, Rue. This is a point that I tried to make earlier. Aside fronm the fact that they are killing every species they encounter (a direct violation of their treaty agreements), they publish very little, and that only in a journal published by the Japanese national fisheries agency - IN JAPANESE. English is the international language of science, and all legitimate Japanese scientists who want to have their work recognized publish in English (and most Japanese scientific journals are published in English). Japanese "scientific" whaling is the epitome of arrogant fraud and hypocrisy.

And that's aside from the fact that they are engaging in piratical assault on ships who are not actually attacking them. "Getting in in my way" is not piracy, Hero's idiotic logic notwithistanding. The whalers are the pirates in this scenario, and they should be arrested and prosecuted under the international law of the sea.

And yes, I realize that using "Hero" and "logic" is the very definition of an oxymoron (with emphasis on the "moron").

perfessergee

PIZMOBEACH

Sunday, January 17, 2010 1:26 PM

Wow, Hero Haters reunion tour... he seems to be one of the only rational ones in this discussion imho. Especially when people like Hero can be your friend:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/01/08/18634765.php

"Sea Shepherd sues Japanese whalers for Piracy in Dutch Court"

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NIKI2

Sunday, January 17, 2010 5:28 PM

Has nothing to do with hating Hero, in my book; we've been debating...for the most part without snarks; to call that hating is to call every "energetic" debate we have here the same.

Thank you Mike for perspective. That aside, if the only argument you can come up with Hero, is that only 42 countries signed a treaty, then that's pretty sad. The fact remains that the majority of countries who CARE about the situation have tried several methods of stopping the Japanese slaughter, to no avail. None are apparently willing to challenge them for breaking treaties, finding obvious and stupid loopholes, etc. One group is; I admire them for that. I don't condone violence, but violence has been done on both sides, so somewhere down the line I have to choose which to align myself with. I choose the SSCS. I'm entitled to decide; and I'm entitled to put up whatever facts I can find to support my post, as civilly as I can manage.

Add to that; if sticking to one point and refusing to see morality (Hero) even tho' facts have been presented on the other side, if breaking your word, finding loopholes to do whatever you want is "rational", then I guess the you consider the whalers rational, too. If doing what's right or standing by your word, being convinced by trying to find out what's right, offering facts to back up your point in a debate isn't "rational", then I guess the majority of the world, the Australians, the IWC, the U.N. and the signers of that treaty AREN'T rational in your book. Good luck with that.

For one thing; if you're going to call this the Hero hater's reunion, then what do you call PN's continued hatred of mostly all of us here and the majority of the world, and his willingness to go straight to the bottom of the well to say so? THAT's hatred, not a debate on who is more in the right.

FREMDFIRMA

Sunday, January 17, 2010 8:11 PM

Most folk are just plain disagreein with the guy, only one really "hating" on him was me, and I got my reasons, which I did explain in detail and should be taken into account...

I think it's been a really productive discussion, honestly, and despite that I completely disagree with how they went about it, the folk in the pretty boat got us talkin and discussin it, did they not ?

Got a lotta people doin that, so I guess you'd call it a win for them - I still don't agree with how they accomplished it, though.

-F

NIKI2

Sunday, January 17, 2010 8:35 PM

I agree, I think it's been a provocative and thoughtful discussion; it's changed my mind twice and allowed me to see more sides to the issue than originally.

However, the footage provided in that last link would be very difficult to fake, I should think, and to me pretty clearly shows the whaling ship turning and deliberately closing on the Ady Gil:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/01/08/18634756.php