Thanks a lot, Sky News. Idiots.
I’m talking about the latest one in the video I linked to.
There’s a difference between vigilantism and non-violent direct action. So far what I’ve seen of the SS actions stays pretty carefully on the line of NVDA.
You are confusing “not give a damn” with “approve of”. I simply cannot imagine any government, no matter how incompetent or corrupt, seeing a need, not wanting to do anything about it and allowing proved incompetents to handle it in a way that makes them the laughingstock of the whole world.
I am more inclined to believe that the Australian government, seeing how feeble their claim to those waters is, prefer not to make an issue of it by using military force and confronting another nation who is, by law, even if through a ridiculous loophole, doing something legal.
So their inaction is not an endorsement of the SS. And it does in no way make the SS “rangers” in right to fight off the “poachers”.
It is the SS that are the rogue part and the government officials are just smart enough to let that slide rather than alienating a voting block.
Not sure where the idea that the SSCS is incompetent comes from. They’re not a trained military force, they are idealistic volunteers doing the best they can.
The Sea Shepherds have researched their position pretty throughly, see this page:
http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/laws-and-charters.html
IMO the SS would love the entire issue to go to an international court, however the Japanese definitely do not want that because a precedent may well be set that that defines their activities as commercial whaling. So yes the SSCS are trying to provoke the Japanese into an incident that ends up in courts… thats the long term plan.
You do realize how laughable that comparison is, don’t you? Ramming a ship the same size as you and ridiculously unlikely to take serious damage is the same thing as completely, willfully, on-purposely demolishing a small manned craft in antarctic waters? Seriously? :D:D:D
Explain the difference to me because I honestly don’t get it. The Sea Shepherd folks have admitted to sinking ships, ramming ships, throwing stuff at ships, etc. which does not strike me as non-violent direct action. Again, if it’s really Australian waters then it should be the government who takes actions to enforce the rule of law in their territorial waters. They shouldn’t leave it to a bunch of vigilantes.
Vigilantes is a cute term to use but I don’t see where any punishment or justice is being meted out. Seriously, how many whalers have met their well-deserved doom at the hands of Sea Sheperds? Let’s not be silly. Their goal is to end commercial whaling, not keelhaul anyone, as some of you apparently want casual observers to believe.
Well, if vigilantes doesn’t suit, how about ‘incompetent boobs searching the high seas for a clue’? I think that’s a more accurate description, in any case…and I do follow the show. Just for laughs, true, but I don’t think I’ve missed many episodes, and I’m looking forward to another season, where I can wonder if THIS year they will manage to get one of the crystal brained fluff heads of the crew killed or seriously hurt. Sort of like watching a car race…you know that, eventually, it’s bound to happen. Especially if they had car races for people who don’t know how to drive, don’t know anything about cars, and essentially have the brains of Winny the Pooh (stuff and fluff).
-XT
It seems to me that SSCS not deliberately try to injure people, but that they are willing to damage property. I believe on the occasions they have rammed whaling ships they have warned them first so crew can get to safe locations. They also communicate clearly the charter they believe they are operating under explaining the specific UN treaties they believe give them authority to act.
If the Whalers want to avoid damage to their ships all they have to do is not illegally poach in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.
This idea that the SSCS is incompetent as an organisation has no bearing in reality when you look at their history and successes:
http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/our-history.html
You might have seen individual examples of what you consider incompetence on the TV show… yeah they’re volunteers who aren’t sufficiently trained because the SSCS is not a government with a military style training budget. The volunteers in question chose to enter in a risky activity because they’re sick of seeing governments waffle and make excuses on something they care about… that’s admirable and mocking their dedication or lack of extensive training is pretty sad really.
Well-deserved doom? Why? Not to put to fine a point on it, but whales aren’t humans. Most of the whales that Japan hunts are not endangered. So, why should whalers deserve to die if they are only breaking a law that would most probably result in some sort of fine?
They don’t and I don’t think anyone seriously believes that. SSCS has never been guilty of violence against people.
Punishment comes in the form of property destruction, and, let’s not forget, the risk of physical harm because of ramming, limpet mines, the hurling of chemicals, and other tactics used by the Sea Shepherds. The Sea Shepherds have no legal authority to enforce their particular interpretation of the Australian law or IWC treaties. They are vigilantes.
We’re going to get into a semantic argument over what is or isn’t violent. Suffice it to say that I don’t consider warning a vessel to change the fact that ramming it is still an act of violence. What is the whalers don’t exit the ship?
That just makes them the same as any other group of vigilantes. If it isn’t the law they’re protecting it’s civil order or social norms. Still vigilantes.
Bollocks. I’ve posted their legal frame work already, here it is again, read the paper thats on this page:
http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/laws-and-charters.html
The only way to know if their actions are legal is for a court to decide, the Japanese are not very keen on that idea as it’s not at all obvious who would win. Until the point that a court makes a decision they claim they are acting as permitted by international conservation treatys and they might be correct.
The SSCS has been taken to court over many previous actions, and largely they’ve won. See the history page here:
http://www.seashepherd.org/who-we-are/our-history.html
Immaterial. Who appointed them to enforce those laws?
Doesn’t this logic apply to the Japanese whaling fleet? Has anyone taken them to court and convicted them of illegally harvesting whales?
You obviously haven’t bothered to take the slightest look at the cites that I have supplied. From the page I linked:
“Sea Shepherd campaigns are guided by the United Nations World Charter for Nature. Sections 21-24 of the Charter provides authority to individuals to act on behalf of and enforce international conservation laws.”
They used this argument in a Canadian Court and won the case. It’s all the on page I supplied.
And yes SSCS would very much like Japan to be taken to court but they don’t have the power to force that to happen, they do turn over all evidence, and the Australian Coast Guard also collected evidence of illegal activity. So far nothing has happened due to polical reasons (fear of economic reprisals from japan if Australia took them to court).
Well, from your link.
I suppose a big problem is trying to figure out whether they are operating in neutral waters or Australian waters. Australia says the waters belong to them in which case there would not appear to be any right for private groups to enforce laws to protect whales there. Of course if Australia really owns the waters then they need to do something about the Japanese instead of allowing vigilantes to enforce the law.
Gee isn’t it ironic that the whalers use a loophole of “scientific whaling” to hunt whales which end up as school dinners and the SSCS are using a loophole of undefined international waters and ambiguous treaties to justify stopping them? Eg the SSCS are using the “Cetacean Research Institutes” own tactics against them.
You calling them vigilantes doesn’t make them so, I’ve provided a cite where the SSCS argument was accepted in a sovereign court, thats precedent. Got any court case or ruling justifying calling them vigilantes?
Didn’t think so…
That reasoning works both ways
So they can afford carbon fiber superboats but could not afford to run better training programs? Considering the inherent dangers of the environment they operate in and the tactics they employ, this is a pretty flimsy argument. Taking care of your people and making sure they don’t end up fish food is rule #1. Operating in any environment with big heavy powerful equipment means you respect the power and potential damage that they represent.
Things like this incident don’t make me think vigilante, more like kids who run out into traffic, act shocked when they get hit, then demand justice against the evil motorist only because they were driving 28mph in a 25 mph zone, because thats against the law.
Oh for heaven’s sake. The US navy and frankly most navies in the world occasionally run into stuff. Happens. Ooh, ooh! They’re not professionals! Poo poo on them!