Japanese Whalers.....
POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Friday, June 12, 2026 18:00
VIEWED: 19782
PAGE 19 of 24
What happened to Hero, and his argument on the "legal" side? I've just quoted the proof that what the whalers are doing IS illegal, not only by Australian law, but by UN charter:Quote:
So they have been found to be acting illegally IN COURT...wasn't that one of the arguments? Not only are their actions illegal, they're breaking a treaty:
The Japanese fleet is in clear violation of an Australian Federal Court order....[which] 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.Quote:
AND acting against
Commercial activities exploiting wildlife are prohibited by the Antarctic Treaty.Quote:
So they're essentially breaking three "laws", one by the UN.
United Nations World Charter for Nature that was ratified by the U.N. General Assembly in 1982.
Not only that, but by Australian LAW, the Sea Shepherd is acting WITH THEIR APPROVAL:Quote:
and is pursuing
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is legally authorized to interveneQuote:
So where does everyone stand now? It appears that what's ACTUALLY happening is that the Sea Shepherd is LEGALLY pursuing CRIMINAL Japaneses whalers...so if they're attacked by the whalers, doesn't that make the WHALERS the pirates?
criminals in the territorial waters of Australia
Where's Hero...doesn't he have anything to say about this? Not only have I proven that they are acting legally and the whalers acting illegally, but also that the SSCS is doing so under the auspices of the Australian government and the U.N.
Doesn't this turn the whole thing upside down? I still abhor violence, don't get me wrong, but it appears that the TRUE violence has been on the part of the "criminal" whalers, who, in abiding by the law, should have stopped their activities and/or allowed the Adi to board and cite them?
It all becomes a moot point, given the above, because even if you take the IWC out of it, within Australian waters whaling is prohibited BY LAW.
As the title of the article I posted (at http://www.sea-shepherd.com/news-and-media/news-080221-1.html ) says, "A Warrant to Intervene: Sea Shepherd Intends to Enforce the Australian Federal Court Order", the Sea Shepherd is ENFORCING A LEGAL WARRANT.
Beyond that, quoting from the article:Quote:
Doesn't that just about cover it all, and answer any questions?
Therefore the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society regards the boarding of, damage to and interference of the operations of such ships as being appropriate tactics for opposing said criminal operations.....Therefore the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society regards the boarding of, damage to and interference of the operations of such ships as being appropriate tactics for opposing said criminal operations....This warrant hereby authorizes the crew of the Steve Irwin to board if required, to disable equipment if necessary, to destroy harpoons if possible and to intercept, blockade and harass all illegal whaling and poaching activities in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think it makes one of them privateers and one of them pirates, and neither one rational.
Or possibly ninjas versus pirates, and in this case the Japanese aren't the ninjas.
EDIT:
Eco-ninja. I think I just broke the analogy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If the Sea Shepherd wishes to take upon itself enforcing a law the rest of the world is ignoring, and they're willing to put their lives on the line to do so because of their beliefs, I don't find anything irrational about it. Essentially, by acting in accordance with an Australian law within Australian waters, the SSCS is attempting to enforce Australian law, and the whalers to avoid same.
There's about as much "cute" going on by the Sea Shepherd as by the whalers, in reality. They stateQuote:
which is just about as meaningful as the Japanese saying their whaling efforts are for research.
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is not pursuing the Japanese whaling fleet to protest whaling nor to document and witness whaling operations. Sea Shepherd crewmembers are pursuing the Japanese whaling fleet for the purpose of intervention against crimes against Australian law and against international law.
I think from here on, I'm on the side of the SSCS. Given they are acting legally in enforcing several laws the whalers are blatantly breaking, and are the only ones willing to do so (I don't doubt the Australian government would LIKE to, but taking the Japanese on wouldn't be prudent), I'm with them, as long as they don't do anything to injure any person. Damaging ships and harrassing them is, in my view from what I found, perfectly acceptable. That's just where I stand. If nobody's willing to stand up to wrongs, despite them being proven illegal, I think it takes guts and dedication to be the ones who DO.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They're not being rational because they're not hitting the source of the problem, which is trying to talk to the Japanese and change minds about eating whale meat.
They're attacking the errand boys instead of the policy makers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I'm no Hero, but that sounds like the shape of it.
Mostly. Its legal whale murder...you forgot, I'm against whaling. I think it should be outlawed even if some scientist thinks boiled whale tails will cure cancer.
I also prefer my tuna dolphin-free.
Quote:
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?
No. There is no governing international authority and if there was, you'd all be against it because international courts are a dangerous road to go down. Today they are saving whales on the high seas, tomorrow they're saying you can't run your farm, eat meat, or use local freshwater supplies.
The remedy is in Japan, unless they take whales in somebody's territorial waters.
Also, just because most folks agree to a treaty, does not mean Japan has to agree to it.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
They're not being rational because they're not hitting the source of the problem, which is trying to talk to the Japanese and change minds about eating whale meat.
They're attacking the errand boys instead of the policy makers.
Japan needs beef.
H
"Hero. I have come to respect you." "I am forced to agree with Hero here."- Chrisisall, 2009.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Woa there, Hero. You're talking as if everything I put up didn't exist.Quote:
No, it's not. It's ILLEGAL--even if you dismiss the IWC, U.N. and Arctic Treaty, it's illegal WITHIN AUSTRALIAN WATERS.
Its legal whale murderQuote:
Not international, but Australian, it's in their waters, they have prosecuted the whalers IN COURT.
There is no governing international authority Quote:
That is precisely what they HAVE DONE, in Australia's territorial waters.
they take whales in somebody's territorial waters
Obviously going to the U.N. with "genocide" won't work; they've already made it illegal, they won't act further. And talking to the Japanese would be a waste--they're firmly set on their path. They've already been pushed by numerous organizations to stop, they have no intention of doing so. The U.N. HAS addressed the issue, they just go on doing what they want. The only way to affect it now is to make whaling commercially unprofitable, which is what the SSCS is trying to DO.
I don't get why all along your posts have been about the laws, but now you're ignoring the legal aspects completely. According to every argument you've made, the whalers are acting illegally...I invited you to address the question under the new information I posted, yet you ignore it like it didn't exist. Where does that put you???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The Emperor has not driven it from you fully!!!
Originally posted by Hero:
Mostly. Its legal whale murder...you forgot, I'm against whaling. I think it should be outlawed even if some scientist thinks boiled whale tails will cure cancer.
I also prefer my tuna dolphin-free.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Japanese actually have some cultural interests in being eco-friendly (See: Kyoto Treaty, Shintoism, lots of anime).
If you could convince them that it damages the environment and is cruel, it would probably go a long way. The whalers would probably just become commercial fishers, which is potentially another problem, but at least you'd solve this one.
My suggestion is hire Studio Ghibli to make a movie that pretty much combines Princess Mononoke and their short The Whale Hunt, with a protagonist who actually rides around in the ocean confronting the activity of whaling ships on a dolphin or a whale. I have a feeling it would be pretty influential.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Byte, your movie idea, or something like it, might well help. It would educate those who know nothing about the issue, or who feel the Sea Shepherd is acting illegally, and international pressure might be increased.
Thing is, there's already enormous international pressure on the Japanese to stop, and they refuse to. Okay, so they snuk through the IWC, they can claim they're not doing anything wrong there. But the UN, Arctic Treaty, and especially taking whales in Australian waters where it has been determined by a COURT that it's illegal have all done nothing. Believe me, the international pressure has been there for a long, long time...it's just that most people around the world don't know the facts. If they did, put in a swallowable context, it might make a big difference.
Japanese are responsible for many, many species being endangered because of their eating habits, and more. Quote:
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/food/2009/11/20/2009-11-20_are_yo
Are you eating an endangered species? Bluefin tuna found in sushi at New York restaurants. All three species of bluefin (northern, southern and Pacific) are a lucrative catch - fishermen can sell a single fish for tens of thousands of dollars. As a result, over-fishing has reduced the world's bluefin population to 10% of what it was, according to Livescience.com.
u_eating_an_endangered_species_bluefin_tuna_found_in_sushi_at_many_new_yor.html?r=lifestyle/food Quote:
This was a case where SSCS protesters were arrested for filming the slaughter, even tho' doing so isn't illegal. http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-10-2003-46351.asp
Japanese fisherman, faced with depleted fisheries due to over-exploitation, frequently cite wild dolphins as the cause of low fish catches, and herd the dolphins with prods and nets into shallow bays for a painful and slow execution. The slaughters are also seen as a way to eliminate non-human competition for the plummeting fish stocks.Quote:
http://www.sciencesays.net/2008/09/nobu-and-de-niro-label-their-own-su
Nobu and De Niro label their own sushi “endangered”....Seriously - they announced they’re serving an endangered species of fish.
You may remember the scandal last week when it was discovered that Robert De Niro and Nobu Matsuhisa were serving bluefin tuna at their London sushi restaurants, supposedly without their customers knowing that it is considered by many to be an endangered species. "We are going to describe what’s on our menu but I’m also going to put an asterisk next to [bluefin] and next to that we are going to say that it is environmentally endangered.”
shi-endangered/
The Chinese, of course, are responsible for far more, but when you have something that's endangered, it becomes much more of a "desired" thing, so more expensive, so more profit.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME