Its a case by case basis. I support people using “locking on” and planting tripods with voluntarily tree-sitters high up to block logging roads in order to protest logging of old growth forest and coal seam gas. (both big issues at the moment in Australia).
I do think that the Sea Shepherds planting the limpet mine was a stupid thing to do for their cause and it would have been better for them to deal with that another way. I am fine with them fouling propellors, putting rancid butter on whale meat to destroy its value and placing their ships in the way to stop harpoon ships unloading their catch to the factory ship. You have to remember this is international waters, other legal methods of stopping japanese whaling have failed, and that these people believe that killing whales is akin to murder. Sometimes there needs to be a champion for those that have no voice.
See, ramming an occupied vessel and nobody getting hurt is pure luck. Well, the ramming part’s not. That little stunt is, in fact, violence against people since the vessel is, as mentioned already, occupied by actual people. The lucky part is that nobody got injured ore killed. The term “callous disregard” comes to mind to describe the methodology coremelt is touting.
Which incident are you talking about? I’ve already given evidence that the 2007 ramming was not deliberate. One of The Sea Shepherds methods is to position their boats to block the spill way of the Japanese factory ship so the catch cannot be unloaded. Then the japanese whaling ships try to lose the sea shepherds ships and even play “chicken” running at the sea shepherds boats then turning away to try and chase them away. Its in high seas in the antarctic ocean and mistakes happen and sometimes the boats collide. Both parties accept that risk. In recent antarctic campaigns the sea shepherds do not deliberately try and ram because that is just as likely to end up damaging their own boat, it makes no sense.
In my opinion the Sea Shepherds undeniably have a right to try and position their boats to hamper operations of the whaling fleet, eg by sitting blocking their spillway.
And by that logic the Japanese have a right to clear obstructions to their operations, right? You see how this works, surely?
Look, I get you feel this is a deeply burning issue that warrants some sort of social progressive-approved “letter of marque” allowing Sea Shepherd to do whatever the hell they like as long as it stops the Japanese from whaling. It doesn’t. Because once you decide Some Causes Are More Worthy Than Others it really does pave the way to some very undesirable outcomes.
You can argue the Japanese shouldn’t be whaling in the Southern Ocean. I’m not going to disagree strongly there. But I would suggest it’s not Sea Shepherd’s place to actively engage the Japanese whaling fleet to try and stop them.
Ask your MP why the Government won’t sent the Navy out there to put some rounds across the whaling fleet’s bows and tell them to clear off, if you feel strongly about the matter (as you are entitled to). Write strongly worded Letters To The Editor of sympathetic newspapers. Call into talk radio shows. Protest peacefully on the docks in Japan where the fleets are based. All those courses of action are fine.
Engaging in dangerous behaviour on the high seas is eventually going to get someone injured or even killed, and there is no universe in which that will have any result except to make the impasse much, much worse - and more difficult to resolve.
The other thing is, I don’t believe you’ve addressed the issue of Sea Shepherd doing more harm than good by giving the Japanese a chance to play the “Meddling Westerners!” card. I think it’s pretty well established that commercial whaling isn’t economically viable and if left alone, the Japanese would likely stop doing it fairly soon because it costs a lot of money and the economic returns from a “nom nom whale” perspective aren’t worth it.
That is a very fine line to walk, and a dangerous one too. On the one hand I agree: There are situations, where it can be permissible for one nation to interfere with the actions of another. On my book that would usually be the case when grave violations of basic human rights are involved, because these are very widely accepted concept. Even then the use of force can only ever be a very last resort, should be based in a broad multi-national consensus and should never ever be applied by a self-appointed individual.
When it comes to whaling, we should remember that whales, as much as we may like them, are not humans. (If they were, Orcas that hunt and kill grey whales would be committing murder.) So human rights do not apply to them. You may say now that animals have rights too, but that notion is far less internationally accepted than that of human rights and even in our own culture the extent of animal rights is a matter of much debate. Using force to coerce members of a different culture to act according to that notion would mean to impose our cultural norms upon others.
I have called the fine line you are walking a dangerous one, because you sanctify lawless actions (thats what you get when you are “bending” the law) for a cause that *you *deem worthy. If you reserve that right for yourself, there is no good reason why others should not also have it - only that the causes they deem worthy may not be as much to our liking. I do not want to live in a world, where one group can strongarm another to live according to their creed, simply because they have the means to do so.
I am not asking for approval from anyone on this board. I support the Sea Shepherds both morally and financially and will continue to do so. I have attempted to dispel some bias and misconceptions about them. The OP asked what can be done to stop japanese whaling, I continue to believe that supporting the sea shepherds financially is the most effective way of doing that. Lets be clear also, there is no clear cut answer to if their actions are illegal or not, its a complex area of international law and has not been conclusively decided one way or another.
The argument that the sea shepherds actions are prolonging japanese whaling by opposing it doesn’t really make much sense to someone that spends some time reading about their campaigns in detail, or who follows japanese media closely.
Maybe I will, maybe I won’t, I don’t have any need to convert you and a few others here. The Straight Dope counts high on google searches so the information I’ve already posted here is enough to give a balanced view to other people. They can decide for themselves.
Whats your justification that the sea shepherds are pirates if they are just blocking the activities of whalers? Japanese people are intelligent, they can read world media and be aware that the rest of the world opposes whaling. If you chose to take a job on a whaling ship from japan part of the risk is that ships from sea shepherds are going to do their best to stop you doing your job. Anyone that doesn’t realise that is ignorant and ill educated. And lets be clear the Japanese whaling fleet employs maybe 60 people, this is not a huge industry that will be put out of work.
I do not know how high we are on googling here. What we are high on is backing up the claims we are making. And you have made the as yet unsupported claim to know something about the Japanese mindset that we don’t. I suppose that claim is going to remain unsupported …
So you are speaking for the rest of the world? That’s another thing that will be hard to back up. Besides: Even if a majority of the worl’s population actually *were *opposed to whaling, how would that give one small group of activists the right to enforce that preference?
Because they aren’t just blocking, they also are bombing ships in harbor and otherwise endangering the lives and safety of the whalers. Also the fact that the US Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit said that their actions were the “the very embodiment of piracy”. (Cite.)
If I become a bank teller I might get shot in a hold up, too. That does nothing to justify the actions of the robbers.
I assume you would not accept that being rammed, shot, or sunk, is simply an unavoidable risk of going to sea on a Sea Shepherd mission, and that the Sea Shepherds should simply stop what they are doing if they don’t want to be rammed.
It doesn’t matter for the animal. But it matters to humans who are trying to empathize with it. I’d squash a bug without a second thought and use to pull the wings off flies, but I wouldn’t do it to a turtle, a rabbit, a horse, or a whale. I just think its hard to say that these Japanese are so different that they can’t sympathize with whales when by their sheer size, you can’t help but see them as fellow beings that feel pain. Or maybe I’ve just seen too many Disney movies
It is not just size. We empathize with creatures that allow us to project positive human qualities on them. How often do you hear that dolphins are labeled “friendly” or whales are called “gentle”. They are nothing of the sort, but we see that in them. The similarly large great white shark is not quite so lucky.
There is nothing wrong with us liking one species better than another (as long as it does not get us to drive that other species towards extinction), but we should be aware that that attraction comes purely from the human side and is rooted in culture. People from a different culture may feel differently and have every right to do so.
Even Greenpeace calls the sea shepherds actions violent and compares them to piracy and states that their actions are counter productive towards ending Japanese whaling. But I guess Greenpeace is just in the pocket of the Japanese whaling industry right?
Hmmm, i hope you are less brutal with vertebrates than you are with insects. They have a much more complex nervous system and almost certainly have a greater capacity to feel fear and pain.
