OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

@hingehead,

Thank you very much, hinge!

0 Replies

WTF!!!

What the hell is the Australian government up to here?
We elected a Rudd government on the understanding that they would pursue legal options to stop illegal Japanese whaling & we get this!

Shame!:

Sea Shepherd evidence 'could be sent to Japan'
Andrew Darby
February 22, 2009/Sydney Morning Herald

Australian Federal Police have raided anti-whaling flagship the Steve Irwin, seizing records and videos that could help Japan to prosecute the activist Sea Shepherd group.

Quote:

An armed squad seized 157 of Discovery Channel's raw videos, and navigational records from the ship in Hobart. The videos show the Sea Shepherd's clashes with Japanese whalers and may be given to the Japanese Government. A federal agent said yesterday's raid resulted from a formal referral from Japanese authorities and that police were undertaking preliminary inquiries into this summer's Southern Ocean confrontation.

Australian National University law professor Don Rothwell said international legal obligations meant evidence of alleged maritime offences could be forwarded to Japan... <cont>

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/sea-shepherd-evidence-could-be-sent-to-japan-20090221-8e61.html

1 Reply

@msolga,

A Bush appointee...............WTF explained

U.S. Plan to Expand Whaling Released 2 February 2009

(Yarmouth Port, MA - USA) - Documents released today by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) confirm the United State’s leadership in negotiations to undo the global moratorium on commercial whaling and extend unprecedented authorization to the Government of Japan to kill whales off its coastline and in international waters.

"The plan released today is a bad deal for whales and international efforts to protect them" said Patrick Ramage, IFAW Global Whale Program Director. "It would lift the commercial whaling moratorium; give new rights to the Government of Japan to kill protected whales, and permit illegal, high-seas whaling to continue. Rather than compromising hard-won conservation measures and finding ways for whaling to expand, the IWC and its member governments should be negotiating the terms under which Japan, Norway and Iceland will end their commercial whaling activities."

Longtime Bush Administration appointee Dr. William Hogarth currently serves as U.S. Commissioner and Chairman of the 84-nation International Whaling Commission. In early 2008, Dr. Hogarth and the Japanese Vice-Chair initiated a series of closed-door meetings designed to forge a compromise with Japan, one of only three IWC member nations still whaling. A “small working group” of IWC member countries met behind closed doors in St. Pete Beach, Florida in September and again in Cambridge, England in early December 2008. Dr. Hogarth reconvened a drafting group of countries this past weekend in Hawaii to fine-tune the compromise deal released by the IWC today.

Text drafted by U.S., Japanese and other commissioners engaged in the IWC “Small Working Group” process contemplates legitimizing Japan's ongoing scientific whaling in international waters -- including an internationally recognized whale sanctuary -- as well as extending long-sought authorization to Japan to kill protected whales in its coastal waters. “This is not the first issue on the new Obama administration's agenda, but it is perhaps one of the most fundamental and fastest to fix,” Ramage said. “The time has come to end the drift in U.S. policy on whaling and renew America’s conservation leadership.”

Since the global ban on commercial whaling in 1986, Japan has claimed its whaling operations are conducted for scientific research purposes. Japan has killed more than 15,000 whales since the whaling ban and has threatened to begin killing humpback whales if the IWC does not bow to its wishes and approve commercial whaling.

Additional information is available at www.stopwhaling.org

1 Reply

@Stradee,

Yes, I'd already picked up a bit about the "new IWC agenda" & the "small working group" activities, Stardee, but hadn't realized the situation was quite so dire.

So if Dr. William Hogarth (a Bush appointee) is behind much of what's happening, what does Obama's administration have to say about what goes? Any signs of hope at all?

Regardless, a pox on my supposedly "progessive" government for allowing the raid on Sea Shepherd occur on its watch! I am disgusted! Must we always follow the conservative US lead, where ever it goes? The previous Liberal (meaning conservative - confusing, I know) environment minister, Ian Campbell, cared so much about whale preservation that he joined forces with the anti-whalers after leaving his position. Meanwhile, the Labor government, which gained office pledging to take Japanese whalers to international courts on the issue, has over-seen these raids. Go figure. I am so disappointed in Labor.

2 Replies

@msolga,

Looking at the article, it seems Australia's having signed on to international legal agreements has more to do with the raid than the stripe of the government.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga, conservation/animal groups are petitioning Prez Obama, we've heard nothing difinitive yet. U.S. citizens are opposing the Japanese and Nordic nations still practicing arcaic sea mammal slaughter.

Your government is attempting to follow the letter of the law, and within those boundaries, may yet be able to stop the Japanese.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

Sorry, Deb. Could you elaborate, please? Not sure what you mean here.

(Mind you, it might just be me. Serious Computer Induced Dementia taking hold here. Terrible affliction. Brought about be reinstalling just about every program in the last day or so. Perhaps I've lost my mind? So, if the problem is with my diminished lack of comprehension at this point in time, then say no more, OK? Wink

)

1 Reply

@Stradee,

Hmmmmmm ......

We'll see, Stradee, we'll see .....
I can tell you that the (parliamentary) Greens & Oz conservationists are mighty angry with the Labor government for this raid on Sea Shepherd.

0 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Sorry, Deb. Could you elaborate, please? Not sure what you mean here.

From article:

Quote:

Australian National University law professor Don Rothwell said international legal obligations meant evidence of alleged maritime offences could be forwarded to Japan.

Ships collided and objects were thrown between the vessels as the anti-whaling group tried to disrupt the Japanese fleet's operations in the Ross Sea.

The Japanese Government-owned fleet's president, Kazuo Yamamura, said the clashes posed a test of whether Australia and the Netherlands, which registers the Steve Irwin, would allow the high seas to be a lawless zone, or impose international agreements.

"These maritime laws are not options," Mr Yamamura said. "If they are not applied, they are of little value."

Sounds as though we have signed onto international laws and that Japan has made the request under those laws.

Japan is clearly alleging (likely quite accurately I would say) that the sea shepherd people have breached maritime law...eg by colliding with their vessels, and they are calling on Australia to assist in their investigation. Unless the Federal Police have acted on an unlawful warrant, presumably their request was lawful in relation to agreements Australia has signed on to.

The tapes seem very likely to provide evidence one way or another.

I think it is likely quite unfair to blame the Rudd Government for weakness if it has followed its treaty obligations. Also, it really is normal for politicians not to get very involved in procedural matters of agencies (though they do from time to time) and I imagine the Federal Police would have acted on their own assessment of the legality of Japan's request.

Mind you, now we have taken on the Discovery Channel!

I think the Japanese suck for whaling, too...but I still think we need to obey the law.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

I could be wrong of course.

2 Replies

@dlowan,

You may well be correct in a strict letter-of-the-law interpretation, Deb. But this is a murky field when it comes legalities. The Japanese claim that they are engaging in "scientific whaling" under the IWC's guidelines. When clearly it is commercial whaling, with little (if any) scientific benefit. Technically the Japanese are adhering with the IWC's "laws" , however by exploiting a loophole in the guidelines. You could argue that Sea Shepherd & the Japanese are both breaching "laws" that apply to whaling. The problem is that that the guidelines have been open to interpretaion for too long, with both sides claiming that the other is in the wrong. Until this raid, The Australian government's interpretation has been to support the conservationist line & to openly (& strongly) oppose the Japanese whalers' actions. The raid on Sea Shepherd by Australian police seems to indicate a change of attitude. Which is why folk like Bob Brown & Oz conservation groups are so angry with the government over the raid.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

So why not call for a popular boycott of say, Toyotas or Sony?

The Japanese are in recession and worried about China becoming our major trading partner, why not let them make the decision about how valuable whaling is?

Does this 'scientific research' ever result in published papers?

2 Replies

@msolga,

Not sure.

My hunch would be that the Japanese request had nothing to do with whaling, and any laws, however murky, relating to that, but was based on old and long agreed on maritime laws...about stuff like who gives way to whom at sea, how close other vesseld may come etc. Maritime law has a long hisatory, as you might imagine.

OR it might be around alleged criminal acts re endangering Japanese lives.

Or both.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

hingehead wrote:

So why not call for a popular boycott of say, Toyotas or Sony?

The Japanese are in recession and worried about China becoming our major trading partner, why not let them make the decision about how valuable whaling is?

Does this 'scientific research' ever result in published papers?

Oh, I have no doubt the "science" is pure baloney. Except maybe culinary science.

I think a boycott of Japanese goods would likely do Oz a great deal more harm than Japan. They import a lot of stuff from us. I think a boycott would be shooting ourselves in the foot big time.

0 Replies

@hingehead,

I think such bans have been suggested in the past, hinge, though hardly executed in a serious & organized manner.

My hunch is that the Oz government's sudden pragmatism is due to trading concerns with Japan. Our economic interests.

I've checked many an "official" Japanese website for details of the "research" findings. Nothing of significance has been published. Just information about what whales eat, that sort of thing ... hardly a justification for killing so many whales (the flesh of which end up being sold in Japanese markets & for pet food). "Scientific whaling" is a farce & everyone know that.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

Quote:

My hunch would be that the Japanese request had nothing to do with whaling, and any laws, however murky, relating to that, but was based on old and long agreed on maritime laws...about stuff like who gives way to whom at sea, how close other vesseld may come etc. Maritime law has a long hisatory, as you might imagine.

Yes indeed, the Japanese government has long implored the australian government to uphold maritime laws - so the whaling fleets can pursue their activities without vexation from the likes of Sea Shepherd & ,until recently, GreenPeace. This has cause serious strains in the relationship between both governments. The problem with is, of course, that by supporting the Japanese on this, the Australian government would also be giving tacit support to Japan's whaling activities. Which is why it hasn't happened - till now.

2 Replies

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Quote:
My hunch would be that the Japanese request had nothing to do with whaling, and any laws, however murky, relating to that, but was based on old and long agreed on maritime laws...about stuff like who gives way to whom at sea, how close other vesseld may come etc. Maritime law has a long hisatory, as you might imagine.

Yes indeed, the Japanese government has long implored the australian government to uphold maritime laws - so the whaling fleets can pursue their activities without vexation from the likes of Sea Shepherd & ,until recently, GreenPeace. This has cause serious strains in the relationship between both governments. The problem with is, of course, that by supporting the Japanese on this, the Australian government would also be giving tacit support to Japan's whaling activities. Which is why it hasn't happened - till now.

Well, we'll agree to disagree.

I suspect that there has not been extensive footage that Japan hopes will contain evidence of illegal acts sitting on a boat in Australia before now.

What maritime laws do you speak of when you talk about Japan long imploring the Australian governemnt to uphold them?

I am not sure how Oz would have anything to do with upholding maritime laws re Sea Shephers activities, generally...aren't they US based? Or are they incorporated in Australia?

1 Reply

@dlowan,

I don't know which maritime "laws", specifically, Deb. But I do know that there have been a number of (quite tense) negotiations, over recent years, between the two governments over the whaling issue. Japan has urged Australia to intervene on its (Japan's) behalf to ensure the safety of Japanese whaling ships (in waters that Australia has responsibility for). Japan has viewed SeaShepherd's (& previously GreenPeace's) activities against the whaling ships as illegal.
Sea Shepherd & other conservation organisations continue to argue that the Japanese activities in Australian protected waters is illegal & that Australia should be upholding it's own laws prohibiting whaling activity.
Sea Shepherd (& GreenPeace) both argue that Japanese whaling, via the IWC's "scientific whaling" loophole, is in breach of the IWC's "rules".
So Australia is in a bind: does it protect the safety of the Japanese whaling ships, by policing Sea Shepherd's activities & taking action if Sea Shepherd is deemed to be acting dangerously or illegally? (Which allows whaling to continue.)
Or should it be taking (legal) action (given that "diplomacy" hasn't worked) to stop illegal "scientific" whaling in Australian protected waters? You see what I mean about murky & complicated?

SeaShepherd is a (mainly) US-based organisation with branches all over the world. It recently establish a branch in Melbourne.

1 Reply

@msolga,

That's interesting...so there is an expectation that nations provide policing in the waters they claim as their own?

It'd be interesting if someone who knew what laws are being discussed would come along!

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

Yes indeed, the Japanese government has long implored the australian government to uphold maritime laws - so the whaling fleets can pursue their activities without vexation from the likes of Sea Shepherd & ,until recently, GreenPeace.

What is so unreasonable about that? If you expect Japan to enforce maritime laws against their whalers and their sham scientists, why wouldn't you expect Australia to enforce maritime laws against their Green Peace chapter?

1 Reply

OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know