EPTOn February 15 2010 14:36 Bill Murray wrote:
CHICKEN AND COW!!!
CHICKEN AND COW!!!
Whale Wars - Page 11
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
| ||
|
furymonkey
New Zealand1587 Posts
They also asked their Japanese friends, apparently their grandparents used to get them at school for lunch while they were little, and they hated them. It seems that no one knows anyone that consume whale meat in regular basis or at all. Maybe they are whaling because is on tourism's menu? :p | ||
|
Slakter
Sweden1947 Posts
| ||
|
Blackhawk13
United States442 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
On May 28 2010 20:52 furymonkey wrote: It's all locked up in tradition I have friends who ate whale before while visiting Japan, not because it's tasty, but they just want to see what the fuss is all about. Later they described how awful it tasted, basically it's just like eating a blob of fat. They also asked their Japanese friends, apparently their grandparents used to get them at school for lunch while they were little, and they hated them. It seems that no one knows anyone that consume whale meat in regular basis or at all. Maybe they are whaling because is on tourism's menu? :p  seeing as you're from NZ just turn on the news and there's a ton of crap about how eating whale is a part of japanese tradition and this is the west trying to erode japanese values. I even heard one guy draw the parallel that it's just the same as Westerners eating beef and chicken - it's a part of the western tradition (completely ignoring the fact they are hunting an animal to extinction). | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
Say what you want about the Japanese whalers, but they're people too. They have families to feed with their catches and I doubt any of them have some sort of malicious desire to wipe the species from the face of the earth. Do they deserve to be harassed and endangered just because you don't happen to like their occupation? Maybe we should start disrupting operations at coal mines while we're at it to save the earth from global warming (a much bigger actual threat). While we're out being vigilante planeteers and making dangerous jobs more dangerous for the sake of our quest, why don't we start hijacking oil tankers while we're at it? Seriously, grow up... | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
Say what you want about the Japanese whalers, but they're people too. They have families to feed with their catches and I doubt any of them have some sort of malicious desire to wipe the species from the face of the earth. Do they deserve to be harassed and endangered just because you don't happen to like their occupation? How does this argument even make any sense? Any criminal will have a family. That's no reason to approve of whatever they do to support it. Maybe we should start disrupting operations at coal mines while we're at it to save the earth from global warming (a much bigger actual threat). While we're out being vigilante planeteers and making dangerous jobs more dangerous for the sake of our quest, why don't we start hijacking oil tankers while we're at it? If we make oil illegal and governments fail to enforce this I'm sure people do start hijacking illegal oil tankers. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
| ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On May 31 2010 19:07 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: How does this argument even make any sense? Any criminal will have a family. That's no reason to approve of whatever they do to support it. If we make oil illegal and governments fail to enforce this I'm sure people do start hijacking illegal oil tankers. So the whalers are the crminals here? It's funny since the only criminals I see are these terrorists harassing them and illegally boarding their ships. | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
You live by rules of society where police protects you but in other countries where this fails people need to protect themselves. I think this is more comparable to a society where all juridical control is gone than it is to your own. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On May 31 2010 19:15 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: You sure? I dunno much about it to be honest. I always thought they said they caught them for medical research which isn't a loophole but just a lie. The problem stems pretty much from this and yes, it essentially amounts to a loophole in the laws. It's not the issue that they're doing something illegally. It's that they've found a legal way to do it. The solution then is not to terrorize a legal operation, but to close the loophole. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On May 31 2010 19:19 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: Action reaction you can't expect to do illegal stuff (if so) and not expect people to take matters into their own hands after police and governments fail to do something about it. You live by rules of society where police protects you but in other countries where this fails people need to protect themselves. I think this is more comparable to a society where all juridical control is gone than it is to your own. So if these whalers got fed up and decided to arm themselves and use deadly force against these people nobody is doing anything about, you would consider this reasonable or permissable despite a lack of imminent bodily harm? It seems like a pretty slippery slope to go down once you tolerate any instance of people taking the law into their own hands, especially when the cause has little to do with them. Civility needs to come from all sides... | ||
|
Liquid`Nazgul
22427 Posts
So if these whalers got fed up and decided to arm themselves and use deadly force against these people nobody is doing anything about, you would consider this reasonable or permissable despite a lack of imminent bodily harm? I think if you solely look at what whalers are doing, and ignore the repercussions, that they are in the wrong. They lie about what they are doing in order to do something that is prohibited by law. I also think calling this a loophole is a wrong choice of words. You make it sound as if lying about what you're doing is some sort of legal way to get things done. If you lie about stealing something and therefor not get caught that doesn't mean the law needs to be changed. That's just too easy. They are doing something against the law and are lying about it. It seems like a pretty slippery slope to go down once you tolerate any instance of people taking the law into their own hands, especially when the cause has little to do with them. It is a slippery slope but have you ever been to a third world country? Should people there not stand up for their rights and just wait till the police shows up? Your posts are so extremely black-white. The world isn't like law=everything. It might be pretty close to this in your society and mine but we gotta be able to think outside of the boxes we live in. There's people who care a lot about animals which is their right completely. We can't tell people to like or dislike animals. If you care about something a lot and people are harming it and nothing gets done about it by the law then a natural reaction would be to step up to protect it yourself. Compare it to your children being threatened in a country where police has no power. Would you just sit and wait till the police shows up with a good chance of your children being dead a while later? I'm sure you would step beyond this "can't take things into your own hands" attitude. You would do it for your children, others would do it for protected animal species. | ||
|
Toran7
United States160 Posts
| ||
|
Caos2
United States1728 Posts
| ||
|
SoMuchBetter
Australia10606 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
On the first day of the trial, Captain Bethune’s lawyers and the prosecutor read their opening statements, and one crewmember from the Shonan Maru 2 testified regarding what he had seen. On the second day of the trial, a crewmember from the Shonan Maru 2 testified regarding a minor three-day skin rash on about a one-inch patch of skin he attributes to rancid butter used by Captain Bethune. A doctor who never actually saw this crewmember (because his injury did not even warrant an in-person visit) testified that the injury could have been caused by rancid butter. Sea Shepherd has a strict policy against violence, and in its more than thirty years of operation, has never injured anyone. Captain Bethune testified all day on the third day of trial as to why he had done what he did. He talked about his anger at the Japanese whalers killing whales in international waters. As Captain Bethune put it, “They are coming into my backyard and killing what belongs to all of us.” Source | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10180 Posts
Cliff notes: + Show Spoiler + -They spot a Japanese whaling sheep and send a crew on the Zodiac to stink bomb it. The crew gets lost and they don't respond to radio, and everyone sits around and waits until they return. -The Steve Irwin encounters a research vessel but they have to give up pursuit because the Sea Shepherd is too slow to catch up. -They secretly buy another ship callled the Bob Barker which they intend to use for recon/other purposes but there cover is blown as the Japanese spot them before they even leave port. They also couldn't repair the engine so the ship wouldn't even start. -One of the Andy Gil crew members starts to get sea sick. The Radar on the Andy Gil malfunctions and they have to turn back to have it repaired. -They send the helicopter to recon but it has to turn back because of the LRAD. Now the Japanese ship is charging at the Steve Irwin with water cannons aimed at the exposed helicopter. So much fail as usual. | ||
|
Number41
United States130 Posts
On May 31 2010 19:15 Liquid`Nazgul wrote: You sure? I dunno much about it to be honest. I always thought they said they caught them for medical research which isn't a loophole but just a lie. I realized I was in the same boat as you, Nazgul. I didn't know enough about the applicable law to say anything for sure, but I am strongly opposed to whaling. So I decided to do a little international law research. What I found disturbed me a bit... - First, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. This Convention creates international law relating to a variety of issues including but not limited to, territorial water, piracy, and fishing rights. On the matter of Cetacians, however, it is fairly weak. Article 65 "Marine mammals" reads in part: "States shall cooperate with a view to the conservation of marine mammals and in the case of cetaceans shall in particular work through the appropriate international organizations for their conservation, management and study." There are several other relevant provisions, but none specify anything more stringent than the above. (I have to admit I didn't read each Annex, but prior research led me to believe there was nothing there. If anyone knows of something I missed, please let me know.) - The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling Among other things, this Convention from 1946 recognized that "the whale stocks are susceptible of natural increases if whaling is properly regulated, and that increases in the size of whale stocks will permit increases in the number of whales which may be captured without endangering these natural resources". This Convention originally involved whaling nations that wanted to prevent depletion of the whale stock. The Convention created the International Whaling Committee (IWC). Each Contracting Government, had an interest in preventing depletion of the different species. Each Contracting Government had one vote and it took a 3/4ths vote of the IWC to modify the Schedule (the disgusting feature which sets the limitations on harvesting). Over time, non-whaling Govs joined and eventually became the majority. In 1982, the IWC voted affirmatively to impose a moratorium on whaling. In 1994, the IWC voted to create the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary. Unfortunately, there are a few problems... First, this is a voluntary agreement. Contracting Governments can leave upon short written notice. Second, the agreement has "opt-out" options. Contracting Governments can opt-out of any proposed provision upon written notice (which Japan did as relates to the moratorium.) Third, the agreement does not create international law. It is merely a voluntary agreement to implement certain standards. The closest to a "law-creating" provision I could find was Article IX which states in part: "Each Contracting Government shall take appropriate measures to ensure the application of the provisions of this Convention and the punishment of infractions against the said provisions in operations carried out by persons or by vessels under its jurisdiction." Basically, there is no obligation to create law. If you witness an activity you believe is prohibited by the Convention, you are to report it to Gov. under which the offending ship is flagged. That Gov. is encouraged to take "appropriate measures." The "Loophole" Article VIII states in part: "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention." The phrase "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention," exempts a Contracting Government from all other provisions of the agreement including those related to the moratorium and sanctuary. There are no definitions on what qualifies as research either. Based on the above, it appears as though the Japanese whalers are operating legally unless the laws of Japan state otherwise. The UNCLOS http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/closindx.htm The ICRW http://iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm The Schedule http://iwcoffice.org/commission/schedule.htm | ||
| ||
