The two existing whale sanctuaries prohibit commercial whaling. The Japanese are operating under a scientific permit issued to them by their own government. Whaling for research purposes is not banned in either of the sanctuaries. This may be controversial but it is legal.

It’s a bit like writing Beef instead of Horse on the packaging really. You know it’s wrong but hey why not.

The issue where you can catch them for Scientific reasons (Blind taste test, effects of eating whale meat, how many whales can 1 boat catch study etc.) is a load of crap. It’s commercial whaling for the sake of it, backed up with too much pride.

Watch the Cove to see how they fed school kids heavy metal laden dolphin meat at schools without telling people.

It’s a bit like writing Beef instead of Horse on the packaging really. You know it’s wrong but heay why not.

FTFY 😉

New video not looking too good for the ‘evil Japs rammed us’ narrative..

Yes, and here’s the rest of it. Pretty clear to me.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj7yPRhk584&feature=player_detailpage[/video]

On the issue of who hit who, it’s pretty clear that the whalers are responding aggressively to the presence of the sea sheppard vessels who are deliberately blocking their path. As stated above its unlikely that the Japanese would take that course of action if they were under the guns of the Australian navy. Pretty unpleasant behaviour from the whalers who shouldn’t be there regardless of whether or not their government has issued a dubious license.

As far as the rights and wrongs of commercial whaling, it’s an emotive subject and people will never agree as to whether a healthy population should be fished. Personally I cannot see any moral justification for hunting whales for food. Not only is the method of capture inherently cruel and unnecessarily painful, there should be a valued judgement and decision made to step away from the traditions of the past and to seek better and more humane methods of feeding people that don’t require issues of sovereignty and independence to create the agenda.

Time for the Aussies to exert strong diplomatic pressure backed up by the world community.

Oh and someone questioned what Greenpeace were up to these days. My friend is a campaign manager for them. Believe me they are active, directly active in many operations. The press just don’t report it any more.

The press just don’t report it any more.

There has been startlingly little coverage in the mainstream media of this here in Oz. And that’s despite it involving an Australian ship, Australian crew, Australian territory, and an organisation whose leader is not only Australian, but was also a hugely influential politician prior to his retirement last year.

Time for the Aussies to exert strong diplomatic pressure backed up by the world community.

Well, the “Environment” Minister has directed remarks at Japan including the words ‘cruel’, ‘barbaric’, and illegal. There is a court case due in the international courts. It seems diplomacy isn’t working. I’m pretty sure an Australian Navy Anzac-class frigate would though.

But I think they’re all engaged in sinking fishing boats with refugees on them up north 🙄

Well, the “Environment” Minister has directed remarks at Japan including the words ‘cruel’, ‘barbaric’, and illegal. There is a court case due in the international courts. It seems diplomacy isn’t working. I’m pretty sure an Australian Navy Anzac-class frigate would though.

I’m sure a trade embargo would probably be fairly effective. Not necessarily a vote winner with big business though, who lets face it set the agenda.

I’m sure a trade embargo would probably be fairly effective. Not necessarily a vote winner with big business though

Despite some remnant ‘Jap-hate’ here because of the bombing of Darwin during the war, I suspect a trade embargo would upset most voters here too. Everyone seems to like their Land Cruisers, Patrols, and Sony electronics too much.

Provided the mere presence of the RAN was enough to call the whalers’ bluff, that would probably the the neatest solution. Obviously if ‘presence’ wasn’t enough, then a shooting war would be quite a different thing. One would hope calmer heads prevail. Tricky thing though, gunboat diplomacy.

Paul Watson doesn’t give a damn what people think, he’s acting in the interest of the whales. That’s why I’ll keep donating to Sea Shepard.

Scientific research my arse…..

zokes – Member

So just run that by me again – who’s doing the piracy?

According to the US Appeal Court, Sea Shepherd are. From the ruling…

“You don’t need a peg leg or an eye patch. When you ram ships; hurl containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate, no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be.”

Sea Shepherd crew need to make a couple of papier mache panzerfausts and stand on deck with them….(Sorry HMIE just spent the week visiting and I am hysterical)

The “containers of acid” thing is overstating a bit, they used to use butyric acid as a contaminant, which is a relatively mild substance, but you’d think they were flinging hydrochloric or something. It’s an irritant and can burn in high concentrations if left on skin but you’ve got more dangerous stuff in your bathroom. (this didn’t stop japanese authorities from reporting that a crewmember had been badly burned, but they could never actually produce any evidence of it)

Sea Shepherd say they’ve stopped using it as they were fed up of the lazy reporting. Mind you, they always insisted it was harmless and just “rotten butter” which also isn’t really true.

According to the US Appeal Court, Sea Shepherd are.

There has to be financial reward for it to fall within the definition of piracy. The US Appeal Court might well have used emotive language and made facetious comments about peg legs and eye patches, but they failed to provide evidence of a financial reward motive by the Sea Shepherd.

I wouldn’t get too hung up by what a handful of American judges appointed by the likes of George Bush have to say.

Piracy does not require financial reward according to the US Dept of Defence…

An illegal act of violence, depredation (e.g., plundering, robbing, or pillaging), or detention in or over international waters committed for private ends by the crew or passengers of a private ship or aircraft against another ship or aircraft or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft.
Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms. US Department of Defense 2005.

I guess all they had to prove was that there was violence, that it was in international waters, that it was done for private ends (protest) and that it was private ship against ship.

Having said that, it will have zero effect, as Sea Shepherd US have immediately severed links from Sea Shepherd Aus so the US ruling has no effect on the Aus operation. (unless there is a funding issue caused by the split)

Well it’s interesting to see that the US military have redefined piracy, although I’m not really anymore impressed than their redefinition of illegal kidnappings as ‘extraordinary rendition’. I reckon it’s probably more practical to rely on definitions provided by English dictionaries, rather than the US Department of Defense, otherwise terms such as ‘video piracy’ would become meaningless.

EDIT : On rereading the US military definition, I’m not entirely convinced that it’s much different to what I offered ie, could the qualifying “for private ends” not be construed as suggesting economic gain ?

I suppose they’d argue it’s not done for private ends (well, tbh they’ll argue whatever they think might work, then change their story tomorrow 😉 )

When you ram ships; hurl containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate, no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be.

Well, with the exception of rotten butter, which contains butyric acid in the same way as orange juice contains citric acid, apples contain ascorbic acid, and vinegar contains acetic acid, he’s just described the actions of the Japanese whaling fleet.

It also matters not one jot, as the southern ocean is well out of the jurisdiction of any American court.

I suggest people read the decision (which is a bit ropey in parts – reliance on a dodgy oneoff Belgian decision and a seriously questionable example of an adverb), which answers half of the points raised above: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/02/25/1235266.pdf

It appears that they would rather I didn’t:

This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.
<Error>
AccessDenied
<Message>Access Denied</Message>
<RequestId>70664F8326F6819B</RequestId>
<HostId>
Xf4w+JETVjMLkApMR/RYPagb6ncVnwxGWzN46l/kzF40E0aSG830fpCSsciwtA05
</HostId>
</Error>

It also matters not one jot, as the southern ocean is well out of the jurisdiction of any American court.

Not sure that this will bother our colonial cousins should they have the mind to interfere, they do seem to be high sheriff of everywhere.