Japanese whale whores

[Sapo]

@coremelt

Not sure where the idea that the SSCS is incompetent comes from.

Have you watched the show?! I am surprised they manage to eat three times a day without a major fire in the kitchen and 3 or 4 of them choking on their meals or falling down the stairs. They are the Keystone Cops of the Seas. And this is as seen on a show meant to support them. I can only imagine a show made by the whalers.

[muldoonthief]

@coremelt

Direct action - Wikipedia

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.

Your cite mentions there’s a debate as to whether destructions of property can be called non-violent, that destruction of property is considered violence under US and international law, and lists Sea Shepherd under “Violent Direct Action”. And so they warn the whaling ships - so what? Are you saying that if some eco-warrior who is unhappy with my gas guzzling minivan tells me “You have 30 seconds to get yourself and your kids out of the van, and then I’m going to throw this molotov cocktail through the windshield”, that he ISN’T being violent? What if I refuse to get out - can he still throw the molotov and be non-violent? What if, given this threat to my property, I respond by tackling him - are you saying that I’m not justified in doing so because he’s being non-violent?

[muldoonthief]

@Sapo

Have you watched the show?! I am surprised they manage to eat three times a day without a major fire in the kitchen and 3 or 4 of them choking on their meals or falling down the stairs. They are the Keystone Cops of the Seas. And this is as seen on a show meant to support them. I can only imagine a show made by the whalers.

I liked the one where half the crew was leaving because they had no confidence in Watson or the first mate, and were completely disillusioned with what they were trying to do. The first mate said he didn’t care, because there were plenty of other starry-eyed idealists who’d jump at a chance to be on the crew.

[coremelt]

@muldoonthief

Your cite mentions there’s a debate as to whether destructions of property can be called non-violent, that destruction of property is considered violence under US and international law, and lists Sea Shepherd under “Violent Direct Action”.

This issue is irrelevant to me. I believe in this specific case application of force against property is appropriate against poachers who are slaughtering protected species in an area my country considers a marine sanctuary. There’s a legal framework for their actions as quoted above and so far courts have upheld that.

[drachillix]

@Sapo

Have you watched the show?! I am surprised they manage to eat three times a day without a major fire in the kitchen and 3 or 4 of them choking on their meals or falling down the stairs. They are the Keystone Cops of the Seas. And this is as seen on a show meant to support them. I can only imagine a show made by the whalers.

I watch it just to laugh, I refer to it as “Fail Wars”

[drachillix]

@muldoonthief

I liked the one where half the crew was leaving because they had no confidence in Watson or the first mate, and were completely disillusioned with what they were trying to do. The first mate said he didn’t care, because there were plenty of other starry-eyed idealists who’d jump at a chance to be on the crew.

and it was probably the best possible spin they could put on something really idiotic on the part of senior staff.

[XT]

Found this debate concerning the legal aspects of Whale Wars:

DR. TIMOTHY STEPHENS: “Sea Shepherd argues that they are enforcing international law on the high seas when no one else is prepared to step up to the plate. That’s a very strong moral argument. It’s not a very strong legal argument because we just don’t accept that the law can be enforced in a kind of self-help or private way on the high seas. I mean, we don’t really accept vigilantes in our society enforcing the law. We don’t accept vigilantes on the high seas enforcing the law. As difficult as [whaling] is to swallow, this is a problem that can’t be combated by a few guys in some well-equipped vessels.”

DR. CHARLOTTE EPSTEIN: "The World Charter for Nature is a very beautiful and interesting document that was adopted by all the countries of the world at the United Nations General Assembly in 1982 … It’s a very beautiful document that recognizes […] our dependence on the planet [where we] live, the importance of protecting the resources that we depend upon, and it’s a very advanced document. […] So it’s a valuable piece of international law. Now, the Sea Shepherds claim that as their mandate.

“… The World Charter for Nature does stipulate that individuals have a duty to act. My only concern, I guess, would be, why act here and not elsewhere? […] The problem is more the double standards by which the document is used. In other words, it’s all very fine to claim it for the whales, but then why can’t we use it for some of the other overly exploited resources, including the oceans themselves…?”

DR. TIMOTHY STEPHENS: "So the World Charter for Nature is a declaration that was made by the international community through the United Nations General Assembly, back in the 1980s. It’s quite a general text. It basically tells us that we ought to protect nature for future generations, but it’s not really a legally binding text. You can’t really say that it’s a law. It’s more of a kind of policy document. A very important policy document, don’t get me wrong, but it’s not really a kind of charter in the sense we might understand it in terms of some kind of constitution or binding legal system. It’s just a very general aspirational document that tells us what we ought to be aiming for in terms of protecting nature.

"I understand that Sea Shepherd relies very heavily on the World Charter for Nature, you know. Ever since Sea Shepherd was established, I think back in 1977, you then get the World Charter for Nature coming along in 1982, or thereabouts, and then you’ve got Sea Shepherd relying very heavily on the World Charter for Nature to justify its actions.

"Now, Sea Shepherd is absolutely right in terms of emphasizing the importance of the World Charter for Nature, but it only gets them so far. It tells us that we should protect nature. It doesn’t tell us how we protect nature, and it certainly doesn’t tell us that we can do certain vigilante type actions on the high seas, or in any other waters, for that matter, to protect nature. So it’s quite a nonspecific document that doesn’t really get Sea Shepherd where it wants to be.

Here is another link on the above cite discussing the legality of Japanese Whaling:

DR. TIMOTHY STEPHENS: "… the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary [was] established, I think, in 1994, which applies in the Southern Ocean waters around Antarctica. And that basically says that you should not have commercial whaling within the sanctuary.

"Now, the thing you’ve got to remember is that we have a moratorium on commercial whaling in any event, which came into force back in 1986, so you can’t whale commercially anywhere in the world’s waters.

"Now, Japan is a major whaler in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Japan says that’s perfectly legal. Why? Because Japan says that it’s conducting legitimate lethal scientific research, which is permitted — even in whale sanctuaries — by the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

"Now, [the Madrid Environmental] protocol did a couple of important things. One thing it did is that it bans mining in Antarctica. That was the great achievement of the protocol. But the other thing it does is it sets up very specific, detailed, demanding rules in terms of all governments having to comply with when they have any kind of expedition or activity in Antarctica. And at the moment, Japan is not complying with those rules, particularly because Japan is not telling the international community what steps it is taking to insure that its whaling operations do not cause damage to the Antarctic environment.

"So the federal court of Australia recently made an order finding that Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean near Australia’s Antarctic Territory was unlawful as a matter of Australian law. No question about that. I think even the Japanese would acknowledge that it’s unlawful as a matter of Australian law.

"What the Japanese say is that they don’t recognize Australian law in the Southern Ocean. The Japanese say Australian law does not apply there because Japan does not recognize Australia’s claim in Antarctica. […] I cannot ever see any Australian government enforcing Australian law against non-nationals, including the Japanese, in Antarctica because of the political stink that that would cause on the Antarctic continent.

"The question about what you can do in Antarctic waters is a critical one. Now, Japan sends a very large whaling fleet to Antarctica each year. We’re talking upwards of six, seven, eight vessels, including whale sighter vessels, whale harpoon vessels, factory ships, resupply vessels, refueling vessels. So it’s a big operation that’s going on down there. And arguably — in fact, I think very strongly arguably — Japan is not complying with its environmental obligations in Antarctica in relation to refueling or any of the other ancillary matters connected with the whaling. So even if you put whaling to one side, right — even if you disregard what Japan’s doing with the whaling — all the other stuff that you have to do to maintain a whaling fleet in Antarctica is arguably not compliant with the law.

"Japan’s not telling us what the environmental impact of its activities is, not preparing contingency plans, just not communicating with the international community generally, and it’s a big concern.

"Japan says that it can do whatever it wants in Antarctic waters in relation to whaling. Why? Because Japan says that […] it’s the whaling convention that applies in Antarctica, not the Antarctic Treaty.

“So this is kind of a big contest, which convention applies: the whaling convention or the Antarctic Treaty? States — as unpalatable as it sounds — states have the right to catch whales on the high seas if consistent with the whaling convention, if it’s for scientific research. And if they have that right, then they have a right not to be harassed in so doing.”

-XT

[XT]

To continue (and keep in mind that these links come from Animal Planets web site…the cable channel that shows WW’s).

This link has to do with the Antarctic Treaty:

DR. CHARLOTTE EPSTEIN: “There’s actually quite a lot of countries who claim a bit of Antarctica, alright, or who used to claim a bit of Antarctica. […] But what’s happened is that those claims have all been suspended under the Antarctic Treaty that was signed in 1959, where countries actually agreed that they were going to relinquish their claims of sovereignty, or at least suspend them. […] The Antarctic Treaty System is about the common management of species, right, so it doesn’t give any one country authority over Antarctica. That’s important to recognize. It’s about countries coming together and saying, this is in our common interest, and so we’re gonna manage it together.”

DR. DAVID CARON: "The Antarctic Treaty is a marvelous diplomatic invention. […] The treaty is premised on the idea that all claims to the Antarctic are frozen. There are a number of claimant states to Antarctica. They have wedges of Antarctica. There are two countries that claim all of Antarctica: Russia and the United States. The rest are in sectors. The Antarctic Treaty operates by saying, from now on, no one will further their claim. So none of these countries have, in fact, given up their claims to Antarctica.

“A triumph of the Antarctic Treaty was that it early on stopped militarization of the Antarctic region. … For example, any Coast Guard vessel going to Antarctica is to make ineffective its major weapons. It is also to be open to inspection by any parties from other members of the Antarctic Treaty. So it is a demilitarized area. Now, that does not mean, however, that there are not law enforcement weapons. You can have guns. It’s the purpose for which you’re doing things. It’s the difference between a police and an army.”

DR. TIMOTHY STEPHENS: "Now, it is, without any question, a very complicated legal situation in Antarctica. And what happened in 1959 was that the states of the world agreed to a treaty called the Antarctic Treaty, which literally puts sovereignty questions on Antarctica on ice. That’s the cliché that’s often used, and it’s completely accurate. It basically means sovereignty claims in relation to Antarctica have been put on hold until the Antarctic Treaty comes to an end.

"Now, in that time, there’s meant to be international cooperation in terms of looking after Antarctica, particularly in environmental matters. And one interesting issue is whether Japan, which is a party to the Antarctic Treaty System, is actually complying with its environmental obligations in terms of running a very large whaling program in the waters offshore Antarctica.

"[The] Antarctic ecosystem is extraordinarily vulnerable and sensitive, and very small changes in some parts of the ecosystem can have massive impacts upon other parts. So if you were to allow very wide scale whaling in Antarctica, we just don’t know what impact that would have on other parts of the food chain, other parts of the ecosystem. Just as we have to be worried about impacts on lower order parts of the ecosystem, things like krill, for instance.

“There’s a growing body of evidence now that krill are being affected by climate change, by a thing called ocean acidification as carbon dioxide is soaked up by the cold water in the Southern Ocean. Now, we don’t know where that’s gonna lead, so what we have to do as an international community is to say we need to protect the Antarctic, all its values, from the big symbolic mega-fauna — the whale — right through to the tiny little krill, and insure that everything receives appropriate protection.”

-XT

[levdrakon]

@Sapo

Have you watched the show?! I am surprised they manage to eat three times a day without a major fire in the kitchen and 3 or 4 of them choking on their meals or falling down the stairs. They are the Keystone Cops of the Seas. And this is as seen on a show meant to support them. I can only imagine a show made by the whalers.

Who cares about reality show editing for our entertainment? The skipper of the Ady Gil also built it and set a world record with it. I’ll take his sea experience over arm-chair reality show seamanship.

@muldoonthief

Your cite mentions there’s a debate as to whether destructions of property can be called non-violent, that destruction of property is considered violence under US and international law, and lists Sea Shepherd under “Violent Direct Action”. And so they warn the whaling ships - so what? Are you saying that if some eco-warrior who is unhappy with my gas guzzling minivan tells me “You have 30 seconds to get yourself and your kids out of the van, and then I’m going to throw this molotov cocktail through the windshield”, that he ISN’T being violent? What if I refuse to get out - can he still throw the molotov and be non-violent? What if, given this threat to my property, I respond by tackling him - are you saying that I’m not justified in doing so because he’s being non-violent?

OMG, they’re like Hitler!!!

[drachillix]

@muldoonthief

Your cite mentions there’s a debate as to whether destructions of property can be called non-violent, that destruction of property is considered violence under US and international law, and lists Sea Shepherd under “Violent Direct Action”.

to add a bit…
… considering that the environment without a boat is lethal in a matter of minutes, claiming to attack the boat while not intending harm to those on board, when serious damage to said boat could easily result in the death of dozens of its crew, you have a petty rationalization of the worst kind.

[drachillix]

@levdrakon

The skipper of the Ady Gil also built it and set a world record with it. I’ll take his sea experience over arm-chair reality show seamanship.

aaaand his vast experience led him to think that poking his little plastic toy anywhere near the path of a ship 10 times his size was a good idea?

Good skippers put the lives of their crew before their egos and personal agendas.

[Whack-a-Mole]

@drachillix

to add a bit…
… considering that the environment without a boat is lethal in a matter of minutes, claiming to attack the boat while not intending harm to those on board, when serious damage to said boat could easily result in the death of dozens of its crew, you have a petty rationalization of the worst kind.

Ady Gil (ship): 13 tons
MV Shonan Maru: 491 tons
As for the bigger ships playing footsie everything I have seen have been glancing blows and not full-on, Bun Hur style “Ramming Speed!” with a prow to poke holes in the other ship. Chances of one sinking the other are practically nil.

Chances of Shonan Maru sinking the Ady Gil from almost any hit? Practically guaranteed.

[XT]

Good skippers don’t like it when they have to approach another ship within a a few MILES of another ship, let alone deliberately putting their ship into a proximity that could cause a collision.

These people are clowns, not masked avengers. If Australia has an issue with Japan over this then they should handle it themselves, as a nation state. There are diplomatic and legal ways of handling this kind of thing, and the fact that they haven’t resorted to them is a fair indication of what THEY think their chances are in an up front and open forum.

Legally, SS has no standing. Morally they have no standing. Intellectually they are idiots. Their only saving grace is from an entertainment perspective, where it really is a fun show to watch, since it gives a chance to point and laugh at the stupid, silly, misguided eco-terrorists as they bumble their way through another thrilling episode. And there is always the chance that they will get themselves killed in some spectacular way that keeps me coming back for more! When they brought those small craft on board as the Japanese were chasing them I thought for SURE they were going to get someone killed, but they dodged a bullet that time…but eventually their luck will run out. The gods may look after fools and small children, but there are limits.

(besides, the South Park episode on them had me literally in tears)

-XT

[Whack-a-Mole]

@drachillix

aaaand his vast experience led him to think that poking his little plastic toy anywhere near the path of a ship 10 times his size was a good idea?

Good skippers put the lives of their crew before their egos and personal agendas.

He was not in the path of the Japanese ship…at all. They were idling and sitting there with no worries of a collision. The Japanese ship abruptly changed course and ran them down before they could react (whole thing goes down in seconds…not minutes).

[coremelt]

@xtisme

Good skippers don’t like it when they have to approach another ship within a a few MILES of another ship, let alone deliberately putting their ship into a proximity that could cause a collision.

Legally, SS has no standing.
-XT

Except that every single person on the SSCS ships has volunteered to put themselves in harms way. It’s a deliberate action. I know people involved in direct action protests in old growth forest areas in Tasmana and the East Gippsland forests. They chain themselves to bulldozers and logging equipment and sit on tripods 5 meters up in front of logging trucks so they can’t be removed without seriously injuring the protestors.

They all know the risks involved and take them willingly. These actions work, they stop operations and get media attention and several protest areas that loggings were halted in actually got declared protected later on.

Similarly SSCS actions in the past have lead to illegal fishing operations being shut down, read their history.

as to the SSCS legal standing, courts disagree with you, your opinion on the matter is relevant to no-one.

[XT]

@coremelt

Except that every single person on the SSCS ships has volunteered to put themselves in harms way. It’s a deliberate action. I know people involved in direct action protests in old growth forest areas in Tasmana and the East Gippsland forests. They chain themselves to bulldozers and logging equipment and sit on tripods 5 meters up in front of logging trucks so they can’t be removed without seriously injuring the protestors.

Did the whalers also volunteer for the additional risk of a bunch of loony eco-terrorist attempting to play chicken with large ships at sea as well? It’s not exactly comparable to people chaining themselves to trees, since if the logger decides to drive the bulldozer or cut down the tree any way, the only one harmed is the idiot tree hugger getting squished. If one of these SS idiots fucks up (as they’ve come close too numerous times) then it could cost other lives than the fluff heads, especially considering the water condition and temperatures involved.

Similarly SSCS actions in the past have lead to illegal fishing operations being shut down, read their history.

You are tossing around ‘illegal’ as if it’s meaningful…or correct. I’m guessing you didn’t read through my own cite, correct? And this from Animal Planet. The Readers Digest version is that it’s DEBATABLE whether Australia even has the right to declare a sanctuary outside of it’s home waters, and has no real right to enforce their dictates in the area in question.

What the Japanese are doing might be distasteful, but it’s not ILLEGAL…they are abiding by international treaties that both Japan and Australia signed.

as to the SSCS legal standing, courts disagree with you, your opinion on the matter is relevant to no-one.

And your uninformed ranting is even less so.

-XT

[coremelt]

@xtisme

The Readers Digest version is that it’s DEBATABLE whether Australia even has the right to declare a sanctuary outside of it’s home waters, and has no real right to enforce their dictates in the area in question.

-XT

the southern ocean sanctuary was declared by IWC, and it explicitly states that using a factory ship in that area is illegal (cannot be considered research). All linked above. Australia recognizes the sanctuary and so do other IWC signatories.

[levdrakon]

@drachillix

aaaand his vast experience led him to think that poking his little plastic toy anywhere near the path of a ship 10 times his size was a good idea?

Yes as a matter of fact. He and his crew volunteered to do just that. I don’t know what your point is supposed to be. You’re wrong about putting his boat in the whalers’ path. It was the end of the day and they were idling. The whalers would never have gotten close to the Ady Gil otherwise. It’s designed for speed.

The whalers came after them in a clear attack. If your argument is that they’re stupid for even going out onto the big evil ocean then I’m just going to leave you with that.

[XT]

Thought this might shed some light on the shinning heroes (apologies if it’s already been posted…haven’t done more than skim this thread):

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is a non-profit marine conservation organization based in Friday Harbor, Washington in the United States that uses direct action sabotage tactics. Sea Shepherd currently operates the vessels MV Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker.

The society was founded in 1977 under the name Earth Force Society, by Paul Watson, an early member of Greenpeace, after a dispute with that organization over its lack of more aggressive intervention.[1] It has received support for its tactics against fishing, whaling, and seal hunting from quarters such as media personalities and the Dalai Lama, while critics have condemned the violent nature of the actions.[2][3] Various governments and organisations (and even members of the society) have referred to the group as pirates. Some governments and organizations have referred to them as terrorists.[4][5][6][7]

Operations have included scuttling and disabling whaling vessels at harbor, intervening in Canadian seal hunts, ramming other vessels, trying to temporarily blind or disorient whalers with a laser device,[8][4] throwing bottles of foul-smelling butyric acid onto vessels at sea,[4] boarding of a whaling vessel while at sea, and seizure and destruction of drift nets at sea. Sea Shepherd claims that their aggressive actions are necessary as the international community has shown itself unwilling or unable to stop species-endangering whaling and fishing practices, even when these are undertaken against international treaties.[9]

Controversy

According to its mission statement, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society “uses innovative direct-action tactics to investigate, document, and take action when necessary to expose and confront illegal activities on the high seas”.[38] Direct actions have included scuttling and disabling commercial whaling vessels at harbor, ramming other vessels, throwing glass bottles of butyric acid on the decks of vessels at sea, boarding of whaling vessels while at sea, and seizure and destruction of drift nets at sea. As of 2009, Paul Watson has said that the organization has sunk ten whaling ships while also destroying millions of dollars worth of equipment. He considers the actions to be against “criminal operations” and has called the group an “anti-poaching organization”.[10]

Critics claim that Sea Shepherd’s actions constitute violations of international law.[39] Sea Shepherd has responded by stating that its actions constitute enforcement of international maritime law under the United Nations World Charter for Nature.[40] A 2008 academic paper by researchers at Monash University concluded that the group “may be best categorized as a vigilante group, because they say they are seeking to enforce a legal status quo because of states’ and the international community’s inabilities or unwillingness to do so.”[41]

Attacking and sinking other ships has led to reports of injuries to their sailors and the Sea Shepherd crew; including concussions and complications from chemical attacks.[42][43]

In testimony on “The Threat of Eco-Terrorism” given to the US Congress in 2002, Sea Shepherd is the first group mentioned for having “attacked commercial fishing operations”.[44] An earlier Canadian intelligence report on “Single Issue Terrorism” stated that “Watson and his supporters have been involved in a number of militant actions against whale hunting, driftnet fishing, seal hunting and other related issues” and mentions “activities against logging operations in Canada”.[45] The group has been accused of eco-terrorism by the Japanese government.[21] Due to the 2008 operations against Canadian seal hunters, Danny Williams, Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, called Watson a terrorist and said that Sea Shepherd was not welcome in the province.[46] Before founding Sea Shepherd, Watson was an early member of Greenpeace. He left in 1977 after being expelled from the board of directors due to his confrontational methods.[47] Greenpeace has criticized Sea Shepherd for the group’s tactics,[48] particularly regarding its interaction with whaling ships while at sea. The rival environmental group maintains Sea Shepherd is a violent organization whose tactics may endanger the lives of fishermen and whalers.[49][50] Greenpeace has called Watson a violent extremist and will no longer comment on his activities.[21] Greenpeace is also critical of the group on its website and state: “By making it easy to paint anti-whaling forces as dangerous, piratical terrorists, Sea Shepherd could undermine the forces within Japan which could actually bring whaling to an end”.[51] Both groups protest the Japanese whale hunts in the Southern Ocean but Greenpeace has a policy to not assist Sea Shepherd in finding the whalers.

@levdrakon

The whalers came after them in a clear attack. If your argument is that they’re stupid for even going out onto the big evil ocean then I’m just going to leave you with that.

And they were just out there minding their own business, right? :dubious: ‘Well, we were done attacking the whalers for the day and kicking back to drink a nice cold sea weed and grass smoothie (free range, harvested humanely) when the big bad whalers came at us out of the blue (we haven’t figured out how this ‘radar’ thingy works yet, so they managed to sneak up on us when we weren’t looking, the dirty dogs!)’.

[Odesio]

@levdrakon

Yes as a matter of fact. He and his crew volunteered to do just that. I don’t know what your point is supposed to be. You’re wrong about putting his boat in the whalers’ path. It was the end of the day and they were idling. The whalers would never have gotten close to the Ady Gil otherwise. It’s designed for speed.

While I’m not a fan of the SS folks I don’t think it was right of the Japanese whalers to endanger their lives in that manner.

The whalers came after them in a clear attack. If your argument is that they’re stupid for even going out onto the big evil ocean then I’m just going to leave you with that.

I can’t really view this as an isolated event. It’s not like the whalers just came out of the blue and charged at the SS for no reason. Not that it really excuses their behavior but if they’re to be prosecuted for anything it’d be nice if the SS could be treated the same way when they ram a ship.