Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This thread really needed to be called Japanese Run Over Bob Barker.

Oldgrue wrote:Perhaps I don't hold poaching to the same level of urgency as the enlightened self interest of caring for humans in need. Perhaps I'm wrong and a $5million boat is just what our own suffering species needs. However its just as likely that the investment of millions of dollars can actually help develop many humans as contributing members of society. That $5 million is sorely needed in minor social projects like education.

False argument. If people wanted to properly fund education or any other social project, the money could be found by cutting back on the billions we spend on plasma screen tvs and gossip magazines. Animal welfare and social programs are not mutually exclusive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:The Japanese "whaling industry" is a pork barrel project.

The hobbies of the rich and upper middle class have a strange way of being subsidised by government... where the halls of power just happen to be dominated by the rich and upper class.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:There not really poaching.
The whale laws re pretty much agrred upon except by japan. and since it is international waters there really not breking a law.

The Japanese are signatories to treaties that stop whale harvesting. They continue to whale under the claim that it's for scientific purposes, with the sale of whale meat as a by product - they pretend they're collecting specimen samples.

This is obviously a lie, and while governments continue to attempt resolve this diplomatically, ultimately this could be taken to international court.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

r3n3g8b0y wrote:Hmmm let's see..

1.) A Japanese ship killing whales- ILLEGAL

BZZZZZZZZZZ WRONG.

It's completely legal. It's done via a loophole, but it's still legal. It's these idiot Whale Wars terrorists who are performing acts of Piracy and other Illegal acts.

First up, no, the Japanese whaling is illegal. An illegal act performed under the guise of transparent lie is, in fact, still illegal. There are reasons multiple countries have deployed government vessels to the region to film the Japanese scientific expeditions.

Meanwhile, its very odd that you'd call the surveillance and acts of nuisance performed by the anti-whalers as piracy, but not complain about the whalers ramming a stationary vessel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:whales are nearly extinct, they're protected by law mate!

Yeah, because decades of having a grand total of TWO nations hunting them has ensured they are "nearly" extinct.

I notice that the Whale that forms the Bulk of the Research Hunt, the Mink Whale, is not on that list, and the Fin Whale was limited to a Tiny Tiny Quota of just 50.

Gwar! wrote:I notice that the Whale that forms the Bulk of the Research Hunt, the Mink Whale, is not on that list, and the Fin Whale was limited to a Tiny Tiny Quota of just 50.

No, and the Fin whale isn't universally regarded as endangered, it is 'at risk' in some categories. My point was more about the idea of 'whales' being endangered or not. It depends on the species. That said, 50 out of a total population of 100,00, when a creature has a slow birth rate, is a fair whack.

My complaint about the Japanese action is that they signed on to stop commercial whaling and are acting illegally under a transparent ruse, it's a simple matter of international law. From a personal standpoint I do not believe that whaling cannot be done humanly. A grenade tipped harpoon fired on a creature in the wild is not certain to give a quick kill, in fact most kills are drawn out, during which time the whale suffers immensely. This is simply not the same thing as commercial farming of cows and chickens.

sebster wrote:This thread really needed to be called Japanese Run Over Bob Barker.

Oldgrue wrote:Perhaps I don't hold poaching to the same level of urgency as the enlightened self interest of caring for humans in need. Perhaps I'm wrong and a $5million boat is just what our own suffering species needs. However its just as likely that the investment of millions of dollars can actually help develop many humans as contributing members of society. That $5 million is sorely needed in minor social projects like education.

False argument. If people wanted to properly fund education or any other social project, the money could be found by cutting back on the billions we spend on plasma screen tvs and gossip magazines. Animal welfare and social programs are not mutually exclusive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:The Japanese "whaling industry" is a pork barrel project.

The hobbies of the rich and upper middle class have a strange way of being subsidised by government... where the halls of power just happen to be dominated by the rich and upper class.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:There not really poaching.
The whale laws re pretty much agrred upon except by japan. and since it is international waters there really not breking a law.

The Japanese are signatories to treaties that stop whale harvesting. They continue to whale under the claim that it's for scientific purposes, with the sale of whale meat as a by product - they pretend they're collecting specimen samples.

This is obviously a lie, and while governments continue to attempt resolve this diplomatically, ultimately this could be taken to international court.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

r3n3g8b0y wrote:Hmmm let's see..

1.) A Japanese ship killing whales- ILLEGAL

BZZZZZZZZZZ WRONG.

It's completely legal. It's done via a loophole, but it's still legal. It's these idiot Whale Wars terrorists who are performing acts of Piracy and other Illegal acts.

First up, no, the Japanese whaling is illegal. An illegal act performed under the guise of transparent lie is, in fact, still illegal. There are reasons multiple countries have deployed government vessels to the region to film the Japanese scientific expeditions.

Meanwhile, its very odd that you'd call the surveillance and acts of nuisance performed by the anti-whalers as piracy, but not complain about the whalers ramming a stationary vessel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:whales are nearly extinct, they're protected by law mate!

Yeah, because decades of having a grand total of TWO nations hunting them has ensured they are "nearly" extinct.

The following breeds of whale are presently classified as endangered by the IUCN;

Northern Right Whale
Bowhead Whale
Blue Whale
Fin Whale
Sei Whale
Humpback Whale
Sperm Whale
Vaquita
Baiji
Indus Susu

Gwar! wrote:
It's completely legal. It's done via a loophole, but it's still legal. It's these idiot Whale Wars terrorists who are performing acts of Piracy and other Illegal acts.

Neither of these statements is true.

The Japanese whale hunt is very clearly lacking a scientific basis (see the methodology of marine biologists). It doesn't matter if you call something scientific if it isn't actually scientific.

The actions of the protesters do not constitute piracy.

UNCLOS Article 101 wrote:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

It isn't detention, as the activists are not preventing the whalers from leaving. It isn't depredation, as Japan does not own the whales being hunted. And it certainly isn't violence.

What would you call trying to deliberately sabotage a ship (lines in the props), launching stink-bombs at people, and blocking/cutting off the whaling vessels? I'd call that violence.

Gornall wrote:What would you call trying to deliberately sabotage a ship (lines in the props),

Sabotage isn't violent. One cannot injure, or abuse a machine.

Gornall wrote:
launching stink-bombs at people, and blocking/cutting off the whaling vessels? I'd call that violence.

The latter is certainly not violence. Not unless cutting people off in traffic is violence.

The former is not violent by any reasonable definition, as it certainly is not injurious, and it isn't particularly abusive in the sense that abuse must be communicated by physical force (where physical is a legal term, and not a scientific one).

I'm against the Japanese whaling.... but the sea sheppard guys make PETA look like a nursing home knitting group.

They are at the far end of the lefty nutbag environmentalist spectrum. I.e if the option for life was between you and an animal, the animal would live.

When did Dakka become full of hippies? I really don't care if the Japanese do this or not, its their damn money and resources! You people need to stop watching Star Trek V, and just chill out.

@Dogma: Sabotage is still illegal, and whats more, they are still committing acts of violence. Throwing stink bombs would still be considered assault. It isn't deadly violence, but it is violence nonetheless.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
@Dogma: Sabotage is still illegal,

Not in international waters when not in a state of war. You can do just about anything in international waters insofar as the court of authority has not interest in prosecuting the offense, which is generally the case for incidents which do not affect trade, or citizens of the same state.

JEB_Stuart wrote:
and whats more, they are still committing acts of violence. Throwing stink bombs would still be considered assault. It isn't deadly violence, but it is violence nonetheless.

It simply isn't. It isn't an action which causes injury, or abuse through physical force. Unless we're talking about actually hitting someone with the physical bomb, it doesn't qualify.

It also isn't assault. In its most general form assault refers to an action which causes a person to believe he is in imminent danger of violent harm. Since throwing stink bombs is not violent, and doesn't seem to indicate a desire to escalate an altercation, there is no assault charge. Harassment is another matter, but that's getting into an area which will never draw attention from any legal authority.

Either way, international law doesn't speak to a notion of assault, and the court of authority (the Netherlands) has made no attempt to file charges.

Gwar! wrote:

r3n3g8b0y wrote:Hmmm let's see..

1.) A Japanese ship killing whales- ILLEGAL

BZZZZZZZZZZ WRONG.

It's completely legal. It's done via a loophole, but it's still legal. It's these idiot Whale Wars terrorists who are performing acts of Piracy and other Illegal acts.

No it violates the loophole. One 5in deck gun shell across the bow will prove the legality of the law. I'll send $10 to help buy the deck gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:Sabotage isn't violent. One cannot injure, or abuse a machine.

Get real. Fouling a propeller or turning gear in in the Antarctic, with no hope of rescue, is attempted murder. Hence ramming the whalehuggers is viable self defense.

See why this is great? Both sides absolutely suck. Snipers where are you?!?

I tried to get my wife to buy me some whale bacon today but she wouldn't.

I figured the whale is already dead, and the bacon is there in the supermarket so I may as well find out for myself if whale meat is as fantastic as the Japanese government says it is.

bad KillKrazy, no soup for you.....

If Japanese invest billions into cloning research that will bear fruits in reasonable time frame the whales are saved.*facepalm*

garret wrote:Sea sheaprd has noble goals. but there going about it all wrong.
The only true way to change something in peacefully.
violence never trully changed anything. Remember ghandi,ceser chavez or mlk.

...wow. That's just wilful ignorance. Violence never changes anything? Remember Khan, Alexander, Caesar, Hitler, Eisenhower? Historically peaceful means have change little compared to what violence has.

r3n3g8b0y wrote:Hmmm let's see..

1.) A Japanese ship killing whales- ILLEGAL

I've been looking into this and from what I can tell it's not. First off there's the obvious thing to point out that the IWC (International Whaling Commission) has issued Japan a permit to harvest a certain quantity of whales each year and the Japanese are harvesting less than that. Now you might want to contest that it's a front for commerical whaling but even the IWC admits that the Japanese turn in their research data and it's actually quite useful. Now even if the IWC revoked the permit there's the issue that the IWC is not a law making body. It's really more of an alliance type organization. Their 1986 moritorium carries no real legal weight unless the signatories choose to enact their own laws in their own countries and then prosecute their own citizens.

2.) Fishing in Australian waters without a permission- ILLEGAL

Austrailia has claimed the Antarctic Ocean?

3.) Ramming a boat, and wrecking it- ILLEGAL

Intentionally, maybe. However from watching the footage the Ady Gil appears to still be under power or at least coasting forward still when she's hit. From the footage shown there's just about no way you'd ever get a conviction on the Japanese crew for ramming. Frankly it looks more like incompetent seamenship on the part of the Ady Gil's crew. They're... well they're idiots and don't realize that a 500 ton ship can't stop or turn on a dime. They paid for it by getting their nice boat all broke.

4.) Injuring people on the boat- ILLEGAL

One person cracked two ribs as a result of the aforementioned idiocy on their own part.

r3n3g8b0y wrote:whales are nearly extinct, they're protected by law mate!

Some are, but not the species the Japanese currently actively hunt. Even those that are endangered that the Japanese hunted at one point in the last 20 years were harvested in such low numbers as to be rather inconsequential.

r3n3g8b0y wrote:this isn't the point though, the point is that Japan keeps on killing a nearly extinct species and noone seems to give a feth!

See the above, you're just wrong.

sebster wrote:This thread really needed to be called Japanese Run Over Bob Barker.

I heartily endorse this idea.

sebster wrote:The Japanese are signatories to treaties that stop whale harvesting. They continue to whale under the claim that it's for scientific purposes, with the sale of whale meat as a by product - they pretend they're collecting specimen samples.

This is obviously a lie, and while governments continue to attempt resolve this diplomatically, ultimately this could be taken to international court.

Which given that the Japanese not only have a permit for harvesting these whales from the governing body of that treaty, the IWC has admitted the research they collect is top notch and useful, and that the japanese whaling industry requires subsidies to just break even... well I wish you the best of luck in that case. You'll need it in any court that looks at facts and the letter of the law rather than "DAAAWWWW look at da purdy whales!" emotions.

sebster wrote:Meanwhile, its very odd that you'd call the surveillance and acts of nuisance performed by the anti-whalers as piracy, but not complain about the whalers ramming a stationary vessel.

If you look at the video the Ady Gil was either under power when hit or recently under power. See my above reply on this subject. Proving they were rammed and not just incompetent seamen will be one hell of a case to have to make. Additionally, having your props fouled in the storm wracked and iceberg filled Antarctic Ocean thousands of miles from land and any chance of timely rescue is more than a nuisance. It borders on attempted murder.

The following breeds of whale are presently classified as endangered by the IUCN;

Fin Whale

Of which Japan has harvested 13 in the last 20 years.

Sei Whale

Of which Japan has harvested 492 in the last 20 years.

Sperm Whale

Of which Japan has harvested 45 in the last 20 years and is only classified as vulnerable not endangered.

The bulk of the breeds harvested consist of Byrde's whales and minke whales, 396 and 10,443 respectively over the course of 20 years. Byrde's whales are not even of concern in terms of population and but minke's do rate at least a minor concern though their total population is estimated to be around 770,000 animals world wide currently.

The bulk of the breeds harvested consist of Byrde's whales and minke whales, 396 and 10,443 respectively over the course of 20 years. Byrde's whales are not even of concern in terms of population and but minke's do rate at least a minor concern though their total population is estimated to be around 770,000 animals world wide currently.

Now how many are they harvesting unreported while operating under the guise of research? As is the crux of the issue. Japan is not the only nation in the world performing this research, why exactly do you think they are the only ones under such scrutiny?

Frazzled wrote:
Get real. Fouling a propeller or turning gear in in the Antarctic, with no hope of rescue, is attempted murder. Hence ramming the whalehuggers is viable self defense.

That depends entirely on sea conditions. Calling it attempted murder is just sensationalist nonsense. At the very worst its destruction of property, and manslaughter in the event of death or sinking. Neither of which are covered in international law.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Get real. Fouling a propeller or turning gear in in the Antarctic, with no hope of rescue, is attempted murder. Hence ramming the whalehuggers is viable self defense.

That depends entirely on sea conditions. Calling it attempted murder is just sensationalist nonsense. At the very worst its destruction of property, and manslaughter in the event of death or sinking. Neither of which are covered in international law.

Not at all. Sea conditions are irrelevant. If they can't steer in the Antarctic then they are stranded. In the Antartic that means you could be dead. The ship can use lethal response to defend itself.

Frazzled wrote:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Get real. Fouling a propeller or turning gear in in the Antarctic, with no hope of rescue, is attempted murder. Hence ramming the whalehuggers is viable self defense.

That depends entirely on sea conditions. Calling it attempted murder is just sensationalist nonsense. At the very worst its destruction of property, and manslaughter in the event of death or sinking. Neither of which are covered in international law.

Not at all. Sea conditions are irrelevant. If they can't steer in the Antarctic then they are stranded. In the Antartic that means you could be dead. The ship can use lethal response to defend itself.

These ideas are not mutually exclusive. Nor does one refute the other.

Frazzled wrote:
Not at all. Sea conditions are irrelevant. If they can't steer in the Antarctic then they are stranded.In the Antartic that means you could be dead.

Sea conditions cannot be irrelevant if you're going to state that their presence in the Antarctic (a reference to water temperature no doubt) is relevant.

Frazzled wrote:
The ship can use lethal response to defend itself.

The possibility of death does not make an action murder. You require the intent to kill, and that is not provided by working to disable the ship on which the victims are located. The most you can indicate is deliberate negligence. Manslaughter at best.

Whats your point Shuma? If I'm Captain Bligh and you try to foul my gear in the middle of no where its ramming time.

Don't you see the beautiful symmetry here? Evil whaling captain vs. so suck they are evil eco terrorists. Its great. We should arm them both with armed clippers and watch them have at it for our mutual amusement. We win. The Whales win. Its total win win.

Frazzled wrote:Whats your point Shuma? If I'm Captain Bligh and you try to foul my gear in the middle of no where its ramming time.

Don't you see the beautiful symmetry here? Evil whaling captain vs. so suck they are evil eco terrorists. Its great. We should arm them both with armed clippers and watch them have at it for our mutual amusement. We win. The Whales win. Its total win win.

I agree 100%.

Except we should give the Whalers Man Portable MIRV Launchers from Fallout 3

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Whats your point Shuma? If I'm Captain Bligh and you try to foul my gear in the middle of no where its ramming time.

Don't you see the beautiful symmetry here? Evil whaling captain vs. so suck they are evil eco terrorists. Its great. We should arm them both with armed clippers and watch them have at it for our mutual amusement. We win. The Whales win. Its total win win.

I agree 100%.

Except we should give the Whalers Man Portable MIRV Launchers from Fallout 3

No dude no. Blackpowder brass cannon. Come on if we're going to do this thing lets do it right. Avast ye scurvy dogs!

Frazzled wrote:Whats your point Shuma? If I'm Captain Bligh and you try to foul my gear in the middle of no where its ramming time.

Yeah, wouldn't be illegal either. Not unless the court of jurisdiction (Japan) wanted to prosecute. It also wouldn't be murder, though possible manslaughter. Same as the activists.

Whats your point Shuma? If I'm Captain Bligh and you try to foul my gear in the middle of no where its ramming time.

You started your post with "not at all", and then you proceeded to not disagree with him. I didn't know you were a fox news caster.

Don't you see the beautiful symmetry here? Evil whaling captain vs. so suck they are evil eco terrorists. Its great. We should arm them both with armed clippers and watch them have at it for our mutual amusement. We win. The Whales win. Its total win win.

Why don't we actually enforce international accords, rather than relying on reality show tools to do it for us?

I agree 100%.

Except we should give the Whalers Man Portable MIRV Launchers from Fallout 3

Don't you have global warming somewhere that you could be not understanding?

dogma wrote:

The possibility of death does not make an action murder. You require the intent to kill, and that is not provided by working to disable the ship on which the victims are located. The most you can indicate is deliberate negligence. Manslaughter at best.

Under US law thats suffiicient risk for me to put a bullet in your head under the right of self defense. As you yourself pointed out, internationa law is minimal on the high seas, therefore its open to even more "interpretation." Or as we liked to say in the good old days:

Ramming speed!

Frazzled wrote:
Under US law thats suffiicient risk for me to put a bullet in your head under the right of self defense.

That's sufficient for you to make an argument under the doctrine of self defense, whether or not its a reasonable use of deadly force depends on the jury.

Either way, the whalers could open full fire on the protesters and the extent to which they were prosecuted would depend on the extent to which Japan would be forced by international pressure (unless someone else wanted to prosecute them under piracy laws).

Frazzled wrote:
As you yourself pointed out, internationa law is minimal on the high seas, therefore its open to even more "interpretation." Or as we liked to say in the good old days:

I was never attempting to say that the whalers were wrong. I was simply refuting the notion that tangling their propellers equates to murder.

You're right, not murder. Attempted murder. Much better.

dogma wrote:That's sufficient for you to make an argument under the doctrine of self defense, whether or not its a reasonable use of deadly force depends on the jury.

In Frazzes Juristiction, the Jury are more likely to go "Good on you for waiting so long before doing it"

Frazzled wrote:You're right, not murder. Attempted murder. Much better.

No provable intent to kill, no murder.