Whaler, protest ships collide in Antarctic - Political Forum

Blade · 02-12-2007, 09:33 PM

Some radical animal rights groups are about crazy. They don't have the right to stop or attack legal fishing vessals. What do they expect the other ship not to respond or something. They aren't the victims here I'm betting.

Whaler, protest ships collide in Antarctic - Yahoo! News

WELLINGTON, New Zealand - An anti-whaling group's boat and a Japanese whale-spotting vessel collided in Antarctic waters Monday during violent clashes over a pod of whales, conservationists and Japanese officials said.

The anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd said a 3-foot gash was torn into the hull of its ship, the Robert Hunter, by the Japanese ship Kaiko Maru during the clashes in iceberg-strewn waters far south of New Zealand.

Japanese officials accused the group of attacking the whaling ship Kaiko Maru "like pirates."

It was the latest high-stakes clash between Japanese whaling ships and Sea Shepherd activists, whose self-stated aim is to "harass, block, obstruct, and intervene against" Japanese ships hunting whales in Antarctic waters.

Hideki Moronuki, a senior official at the far seas fisheries division of Japan's Fisheries Agency, said Sea Shepherd's two vessels attacked the Kaiko Maru on Monday morning.

The Kaiko Maru issued a distress signal to try to get help from another Japanese whaling ship in the area, Moronuki said. No one aboard the Kaiko Maru was injured and there was no serious damage to the ship.

"The attack was like that of a pirate, with people on one boat throwing warning flares and a rope in an attempt to entangle our ship's propeller," Moronuki said. The Kaiko Maru was forced to stop, he said.

Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson said the Robert Hunter was hit twice by the Kaiko Maru on Monday after the conservationists tried to stop the Japanese ship from reaching a pod of whales.

"Robert Hunter was struck in the stern. We have a 3-foot gash in the hull above the waterline," he said by telephone from the Farley Mowat, a second Sea Shepherd ship in the area. No injuries were reported aboard the Robert Hunter.

Watson said the Sea Shepherd ships had offered to respond to the Japanese ship's distress call, but it had not responded to the offer.

New Zealand's Rescue Coordination Center said it was aware of a distress call from a Japanese vessel, and that authorities were investigating.

Japanese ships left port in November for a six-month whaling expedition in the Antarctic as part of a scientific whaling program, conducted within the rules of the International Whaling Commission.

Tokyo is pushing for a limited resumption of hunts, arguing that whale stocks have sufficiently recovered since 1986 when a global moratorium on commercial whaling was introduced.

Many other countries and conservation groups say Japan's scientific program is a veil for commercial whaling.

Otter · 02-12-2007, 09:58 PM

Japan's whaling industry isn't really a legitimate 'fishing' enterprise- it's an exploitation of international law that allows for take of endangered animals for scientific research (their 'scientific' take of minke is about equal to the commercial take before ICRW, and whales taken are sold comercially).

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Japanese whaling 'science' rapped

Blade · 02-12-2007, 10:13 PM

Doesn't much matter.

Let whatever law has authority over that area deal with it. Don't attack the ships. That is a far worse violation of "law".

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary · 02-12-2007, 11:09 PM

I'm on the side of the greens here. The Japanese are illegally hunting whales and calling it "scientific research", so they are either lying or breaking the law. They are not the victims here.

The only quasi-law in international relations is the UN, and I believe that Japan has already lied to them by calling their hunting "scientific research." I guess the anti-whaling groups could try talking with the UN to get them to do something about Japan, but what can the UN do about it, even if they had the will to do it?

Otter · 02-13-2007, 09:51 AM

I don't think the UN is directly involved. The IWC was set up by treaty directly between member nations. The difficulty is, that enforcement of violatins would have to be done by the nations involved, and I just don't anticipate anyone enacting, say, real economic sanctions against Japan over illegal whaling. It just isn't a priority for our government. And in fact, events that publicly give Japan poor press over the issue may do more to influence the opinion of the Japaneese people, and thus the actions of the government. Whaling is big buisness in Japan, though.

To be clear, these are CITES Appendix I listed species (minke, humpback, etc), in which international trade is banned. Therefore, while the meat is sold comercially, it can't be traded internationally to CITES member countries. Japan has repeatedly tried to get the minke downlisted to Appendix II, in order to be able to sell limited amounts internationally, but has been so far unsucessful.
Nations Vote to Protect Minke, Bryde's Whales

Otter · 02-13-2007, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade

Doesn't much matter.

Let whatever law has authority over that area deal with it. Don't attack the ships. That is a far worse violation of "law".

What law would that be? What do you propose when a law is being violated that has no actual means of enforcement?

Blade · 02-13-2007, 12:00 PM

Quote:

What do you propose when a law is being violated that has no actual means of enforcement?

Yes that does seem to be the problem with these international laws. Whose gona enforce them. No one of course, makes me wonder why these rules/laws even exist to begin with.

If the Japs wana hunt whales who cares. If the protesters try and stop them by force acting under no authority but their own they are indeed equally at fault when it comes to breaking laws.

Otter · 02-14-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade

Yes that does seem to be the problem with these international laws. Whose gona enforce them. No one of course, makes me wonder why these rules/laws even exist to begin with.

If the Japs wana hunt whales who cares. If the protesters try and stop them by force acting under no authority but their own they are indeed equally at fault when it comes to breaking laws.

Clearly some people do care.

Which laws are being broken here, and by whom?
Are there situations where a law should be broken?

Blade · 02-14-2007, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otter

Which laws are being broken here, and by whom?

I assume attacking ships is illegal. That is a law being broken by the protesters. This is not peacefully protest they are harming private property and potentially people by their actions. It is not simple civil disobedience when you go at it the way these protesters did.

No I don't think laws broken in any other manner but with civil disobedience should be applauded no matter how strongly the people doing it feel about their cause or even if you agree with their cause. If that was allowed and viewed as acceptable it would lead to anarchy.

Otter · 02-14-2007, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade

I assume attacking ships is illegal. That is a law being broken by the protesters. This is not peacefully protest they are harming private property and potentially people by their actions. It is not simple civil disobedience when you go at it the way these protesters did.

No I don't think laws broken in any other manner but with civil disobedience should be applauded no matter how strongly the people doing it feel about their cause or even if you agree with their cause. If that was allowed and viewed as acceptable it would lead to anarchy.

It appears from the article that the only property harmed was the protesters boat- unless you count the lost opportunity to kill whales as material harm.
The whalers are also breaking international law, only there is no real recourse for adressing that.

I'm trying to pin down the nature of the conflict here- on the one hand, we have protesters who have obstructed the whalers hunting, admittedly in a fairly agressive manner (getting between the whaler and the pod, trying to entangle the propeller, throwing flares). This is a direct, not exactly violent, but surely not peaceful, obstruction of the whalers right to... kill whales?
Do they have that right? If not, is it wrong to obstruct it?
Does it matter that these are endangered animals, in international waters, protected by CITES and the IWC?
I'm not arguing that they are entitled to anything from the whalers for the damage to their ship- they are acting outside the law, here. I'm not certian that what they did was in fact wrong, however, (remember that the whaler ship was not damaged.)