Japanese Whalers.....
POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Friday, June 12, 2026 18:00
VIEWED: 19782
PAGE 18 of 24
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
or go to war with the Japanese whaling fleets
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:I totally agree, Mike. In this particular instance though, the Japanese ship was in no danger of that.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
there's something inhuman in attacking and harassing another ship in mid-ocean, and it has nothing to do with the possible damage you might do to the actual ship, and everything to do with what might happen to a crew dumped into Deep Water and left behind...
And the captain of the wreck was a douche, give ME a boat like that, & NOTHING would ever hit me!!!
The sea-faring Speed Racer Chrisisall
Two good points, but I still don't like the precedent of attacking ships at sea. As with the Somali pirates, I can understand WHY they're doing it, but I don't feel much sympathy for 'em when a team of SEALs pops holes through their heads. Go out with piracy in mind, and you may sleep with the fishes.
On the other hand, give me a boat like the Ady Gil (aka EarthRacer), and those whalers would never even get CLOSE to me as a spun circles around them!
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
But the Somalis did try it your way to start with Mike...
They presented evidence at the UN, asked the world to do something to stop the dumping of toxic and nuclear waste off their coast... To stop foreign fishing fleets from running down their boats sinking them.
The UNEP did go to the European courts and forced some over the table contracts to be canceled, but this likely only drove the criminals underground
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/10/2008109174223218644.h
tml
But... until they began the piracy, and ramped up the issue
Nothing was done to intercept or arrest the dumpers despite the UN having physical evidence... barrels complete with labels to go on.
If the law fails, what do you do...
roll over and die?
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
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:I totally agree, Mike. In this particular instance though, the Japanese ship was in no danger of that.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
there's something inhuman in attacking and harassing another ship in mid-ocean, and it has nothing to do with the possible damage you might do to the actual ship, and everything to do with what might happen to a crew dumped into Deep Water and left behind...
And the captain of the wreck was a douche, give ME a boat like that, & NOTHING would ever hit me!!!
The sea-faring Speed Racer Chrisisall
Two good points, but I still don't like the precedent of attacking ships at sea. As with the Somali pirates, I can understand WHY they're doing it, but I don't feel much sympathy for 'em when a team of SEALs pops holes through their heads. Go out with piracy in mind, and you may sleep with the fishes.
On the other hand, give me a boat like the Ady Gil (aka EarthRacer), and those whalers would never even get CLOSE to me as a spun circles around them!
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
But the Somalis did try it your way to start with Mike...
They presented evidence at the UN, asked the world to do something to stop the dumping of toxic and nuclear waste off their coast... To stop foreign fishing fleets from running down their boats sinking them.
The UNEP did go to the European courts and forced some over the table contracts to be canceled, but this likely only drove the criminals underground
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/10/2008109174223218644.h
tml
But... until they began the piracy, and ramped up the issue
Nothing was done to intercept or arrest the dumpers despite the UN having physical evidence... barrels complete with labels to go on.
If the law fails, what do you do...
roll over and die?
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"
Gino, I don't have an easy answer. But life has taught me that when you don't have an answer, murder probably isn't the right one either.
Education, publicity, and dare I say SHAME are our allies in this, not violence and murder. Use the opportunity to TEACH people about the plight of the whales and the disinterest in protecting them from the people who should be acting as their stewards and shepherds. Use the publicity to further elucidate and illuminate the matter. Spread the word far and wide, "by whatever means necessary". The internet can be our greatest ally, with near-instantaneous message dispersal and content focus.
And lastly, SHAME those who are partaking of this behavior, and further shame those who are profiting from it, and FURTHER shame those who turn a blind eye to it. Make them societal pariahs. Hit them in their pocketbooks and in their consciouses, and they'll likely change their tune. (This is where your idea about a cartoon about whales comes in handy - get the kids and families against these people, and watch how quickly they crumble.)
I don't want to murder these whalers and their families; I want to educate them, to convince them of the error of their ways. After all, there's no zealot like a reformed zealot, and if you could have a whaling captain join your side, imagine the image THAT would convey, compared to having him "martyred" by your side.
Just something to ponder...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
From what I understand via one of two-stars conversations with these well-meaning nitwits, their intent is to take the money out of it by driving up the insurance premiums for those who participate in this activity to where it's no longer profitable.
Again, good idea, terrible execution.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ends and means... Let's get real. The anti-whalers are not Somali pirates.
I don't see anything wrong with the "means" of the anti-whaling ships. They drive the whales away from the "research" vessels if possible. They put themselves at risk by physically interpsoing themselves between the "research" vessels and the whales, kinda like lying down in front of a tank. Their stink bombs (butyric acid) simply make the whale meat unpalatable for consumption, not unsuitable for research. They make a POINT of not physically endagering the other boats or crew. Murder???? Not on their agenda!
So, WTF? I got no problems with what they're doing.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ooops, hey ho, the whalers ARE acting illegally:Quote:
So oops, turns out the whalers ARE breaking the law according to Australia and the UN. So I guess that changes the argument, eh?
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society ship Steve Irwin is presently pursuing criminals in the territorial waters of Australia along the coast of the Australian Antarctic Territory.
The Japanese fleet is in clear violation of an Australian Federal Court order prohibiting whaling operations inside the Australian Economic Exclusion Zone.
The Court order was issued on January 15, 2008 by the Federal Court of Australia. The Court found that the Japanese whaling fleet killing whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary contravenes the Environment Protection and Bio-Diversity Conservation Act of 1999 of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Commercial activities exploiting wildlife are prohibited by the Antarctic Treaty. Refueling of ships at sea is a violation of the Antarctic Treaty.
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is legally authorized to intervene in accordance with the United Nations World Charter for Nature that was ratified by the U.N. General Assembly in 1982.
Section 21 of the World Charter for Nature states:
States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:
(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature, and the protection of the environment.
(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdiction, or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
(e) safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
Additionally, Section 24 states:
Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present charter are met.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wrote this first, actually, before I knew there was a "law" which the whalers were breaking. So I'll post it anyway, in response to posts here:
Mike, I've already said a couple of times that I have NO tolerance for some of the things the Sea Shepherd has done. On the other hand, your argument doesn't hold water, in that the anti-choice crowd have HARMED those they don't agree with, to the point of KILLING them. None of the things the Sea Shepherd has done equates. Unless and until they actually harm some person, they can't be looked at as martyrs whose violence is condoned in the name of the end. Thus far, all they have done is comparable to anti-choice protesters holding up signs, making entrance to clinics difficult, haranguing people trying to get in, and damaging some clinics. But they've gone beyond that, far beyond it, so the corollary doesn't hold, in my opinion.
It doesn't hold water from another angle, either, which Gino elucidated:Quote:
While MOST of the things the SSCS does against the whalers isn't against any law, I believe (tho' some is), anti-abortionists are quite literally breaking the law. Ego, neither SSCS (for the most part) nor whalers are doing anything against any "laws", the whalers are breaking an agreement, a pact, as close to breaking the "law" as the situation allows.
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...
For me, you'd have to turn on your head to see the two as equivalent, or even similar. Given the number of whales being slaughtered, I'd call it mass murder, myself.
Rue, I doubt the SSCS would stop even if the whalers WERE doing real research; just like the abortionists, they'd continue "protesting". On the other hand, if Japan and Iceland and Norway took only a proper number of whales for research, I think the SSCS' actions would be FAR less aggressive. True, what research is done can be done without killing the whales, but they'd still feel it was wrong...how far they'd go in that case we can never know, unless those three countries change their actions.
Chris, you summed it up nicely for me, except I WOULD call it "murder", and so do they.
Mike, I disagree. I think the only way the Japanese could abide by their word would be for them not to kill whales at all...there are perfectly adequate methods of doing research without killing them. Second, because even if they took a "legitimate" number of whales, because of the above, I think the SSCS would still hassle them...albeit maybe less agressively.
Note that the SSCS has no argument with the subsistance whaling done by indigenous people; if there is good reason to kill whales and it doesn't upset the balance, I'm guessing they'd have no complaint...problem is, even whaling for research isn't necesary, so if the Japanese took ANY, the SSCS would protest.
As to the Ady Gil swinging around, there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that not only would they have swung around to pick up survivors, but the Bob Barker would have rushed in as well. There is no desire on the part of CCSC to kill anyone or anything, only make whaling for commercial use unprofitable. I would say "note the whalers didn't turn around to pick up the survivors of the Ady Gil", but given the Bob Barker was right there to do so, we can't know if they would have. Personally, I have very strong doubts they would swing around to pick up survivors.
You brought up another point tho; back when Greenpeace was still involved, pro-whalers DID sink the Rainbow Warrior, and caused someone to be killed. So nobody is in the "right" with respect to violent actions.
My wording was wrong, I see; according to Miriam Webster, "genocide" is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"--it doesn't say
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I don't have an answer, given they're already acting beyond the law and not being stopped.
Agreement at last. That may very well apply to BOTH sides in this instance.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"That's not possible. All research so far deemed to be of value can be obtained without killing the object of the research: whales."
Exactly my point. REAL research doesn't involve killing whales. That's why they could never publish in a genuine scientific journal. That's why they can't meet the requirements. That's makes what they are doing of necessity a commercial activity.
If they were forced to try and publish as a requirement of their hunt, it would cease to be.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME