OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

@georgeob1,

Well, they've ignored everything else so far, to pursue their own commercial interests, so maybe they wouldn't, George?

Maybe, even if the Australian government actually won such a case, the Japanese would just carry on whaling anyway? Wink

1 Reply

@msolga,

Then if you think so it might be worth a try. I'm a bit skeptical - the court doesn't have compulsory jurisdiction. Moreover there is no way for it to enforce its findings..

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Well, I believe that it is certainly worth a try. Whether the Australian government would win such a challenge or not, an international legal challenge would certainly attract a lot more attention to this issue.
Many here (you included) have commented disparagingly about the annual "whale wars" in the Southern Ocean, between the likes of Sea Shepherd & the factory whaling ships. Arguing that such publicity damages the anti-whaling "case". The thing is, Sea Shepherd has been the only active defender of whales each summer & has also kept the issue alive (say nothing of limiting the extent of the slaughter) via media reports.
An international legal challenge would add "respectability" to the anti-whaling case, for those folks who require such respectability before supporting a cause.
Me, I would really like the full details of the Japanese commercial whaling activities to be fully exposed in an international court of law. I believe, win or lose such a case, full disclosure of the details of the industry would persuade many people, currently "sitting on the fence" of the rightness of the anti-whaling position.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

However, Japanese science, particularly that involving oceanography and marine biology are themselves, quite advanced: perhaps they have something to say in the matter as well.

They have yet to come forth and present any compelling evidence or data to support their case. They assiduously stick to their "scientific case" and theres nothing there.
Its a return to the gilded age when anyone could roll over anyone else and noone had any recourse other than violence.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Well it may be that the Japanese scientists have been cowed into silence by others. Perhaps an appeal to them could be useful.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

The scientists' role has simply been to add justification to the Japanese commercial whaling position. A pretext of "scientific research". It's a joke, George. Everyone knows it. There have been no amazing breakthrough publications of "scientific findings" as a result of the annual cull.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

The International Treaty on the Antarctic has several nations "divvying " up the territory as an international research center. The Australian Claim actually predates the ANtarctic treaty by several decades (WWII strategic needs).
Heres the Wiki substantive interpretation of the Treaty

Quote:

[edit] The Main Antarctic Treaty
The main treaty was opened for signature on December 1, 1959, and officially entered into force on June 23, 1961.[1] The original signatories were the 12 countries active in Antarctica during the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957-58 and willing to accept a US invitation to the conference at which the treaty was negotiated. The twelve countries had significant interests in Antarctica at the time: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. These countries had established over 50 Antarctic stations for the IGY. The treaty was a diplomatic expression of the operational and scientific cooperation that had been achieved "on the ice".

[edit] Articles of the Antarctic Treaty
Article 1 - area to be used for peaceful purposes only; military activity, such as weapons testing, is prohibited, but military personnel and equipment may be used for scientific research or any other peaceful purpose;
Article 2 - freedom of scientific investigation and cooperation shall continue;
Article 3 - free exchange of information and personnel in cooperation with the United Nations and other international agencies;
Article 4 - the treaty does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims; no new claims shall be asserted while the treaty is in force;
Article 5 - prohibits nuclear explosions or disposal of radioactive wastes;
Article 6 - includes under the treaty all land and ice shelves south of 60 degrees 00 minutes south;
Article 7 - treaty-state observers have free access, including aerial observation, to any area and may inspect all stations, installations, and equipment; advance notice of all activities and of the introduction of military personnel must be given;
Article 8 - allows for jurisdiction over observers and scientists by their own states;
Article 9 - frequent consultative meetings take place among member nations;
Article 10 - treaty states will discourage activities by any country in Antarctica that are contrary to the treaty;
Article 11 - disputes to be settled peacefully by the parties concerned or, ultimately, by the International Court of Justice;
Articles 12, 13, 14 - deal with upholding, interpreting, and amending the treaty among involved nations.
The main objective of the ATS is to ensure in the interests of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord. The treaty forbids any measures of a military nature, but not the presence of military personnel.

1 Reply

@msolga,

Quote:

There have been no amazing breakthrough publications of "scientific findings" as a result of the annual cull.

There probably has been an episode of IRON CHEF wherein the secret ingredient was whale meat.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Yes, there probably has & I missed it! Smile

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Treaties of this sort can justifiably be regarded by outsiders as an unjust ursurpation of power by a selective group of nations.

Intolerance and dogmatism are as old as human civilization. They have caused a rather large fraction of the war, oppression and suffering that so regularly punctuate human history. Every manifestation of these awful twins has been contemporaneously regarded as great enlightenment during its moment in the sun, but each faded into irrelevance and the contempt of succeeding ages, and at best looking rather self-serving and foolish. After the storm of enthusiasm passes only the intolerance and dogmatism remain.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

George, why are you going on & on about whether nations belonging to particular organizations should adhere to those organizations' rules or not?

I kinda thought we'd covered that.

In regard to the whaling discussion we're having here, do you have something new to add?

Sorry if I sound rather rude, but you've had a pretty fair run on that one...

1 Reply

@msolga,

Do you regard it as "off topic" or an unwelcome intrusion in what I believe is still a public forum?

"Intolerance and dogmatism"appears to have been quite on the mark.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

I think you're overreacting.

I (& I think, farmer) have responded patiently & at length to a number of your posts on this one (apparently) area of interest of yours.

Frankly, I don't know that there's much more to be said on that particular interest (as it relates to this thread topic), really. Unless you have something new to say, that is.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
However, Japanese science, particularly that involving oceanography and marine biology are themselves, quite advanced: perhaps they have something to say in the matter as well.
They have yet to come forth and present any compelling evidence or data to support their case. They assiduously stick to their "scientific case" and theres nothing there.

This is just not, you know, true. The founding instruments of the IWC require that sanctuary creation be based on scientific evidence that the sanctuary is needed for sustainability (not for the blanket no-whaling position) and no such evidence was provided.

Japan has disputed the sanctuary on those grounds but the IWC has thus far not opened up any arbitration on this matter and it's precisely because they would lose on scientific grounds. This is an anti-whaling sanctuary, not a species-preservation sanctuary and the countries currently controlling the IWC can't and won't try to justify their sanctuary on scientific grounds as is mandated by the founding instruments of the IWC.

If there's nothing to their scientific case why the steadfast refusal to arbitrate this? The IWC lost their lead scientists because of issues like the non-scientific, political nature of the sanctuary. When the IWC's own scientists denounce it for its political nature and shoddy science it should be pretty clear that the dispute is simply not scientific in nature anymore. And in my personal experience, appealing for ratiocination that clearly isn't coming, I agree with George, this is dogmatic in nature.

2 Replies

@msolga,

George, if you do have something new to add to the discussion of the thread topic, then of course I'm happy to listen & respond, if I can.

But if all you're going to do is go over & over the same issue (which we've spent a considerable amount of time discussing already), then I really don't know how I could respond, except by repeating the same responses over & over again.

You can call this censorship if you like, but I dunno, it feels rather like flogging a dead horse to me.

1 Reply

@msolga,

While it may not be the intent, there's certainly a lot less acceptance of the opposing viewpoint here than on most threads. When the anti-whalers flog the horse they are lauded for their valiance while their opponents are made to feel bad for their participation and clearly made unwelcome.

I get the value of having a one-sided area to discuss so I'm gonna start a whaling thread some day where both sides are welcome to argue the issue. If any one person feels like it's horse flogging they'd be free to just stop participating instead of making one side of the debate unwelcome to the thread.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

I was responding to George's posts & comments, Robert. He has had a very good run on that one issue of interest for him. I honestly don't know how much further than one single issue can be dissected or discussed without constant repetition of the same arguments. Which I would find counter-productive on any thread.

I don't believe either farmer or I have made George feel "unwelcome". (Check our interactions with him on this thread, if you like. I believe we have both been very civil.)

Regarding the "one-sided thread". This is clearly a partisan whale conservation thread. Look at the thread title. I have never pretended it is anything else but that. I make absolutely no apology for arguing anything I have argued here. I believe on the whole I have attempted to argue my point of view politely & respectfully of other peoples' opinions, sometimes under quite provocative circumstances. I can't do better than that. If that's a problem, well I don't know what can be done about that, Robert.

1 Reply

@msolga,

msolga wrote:

(Check our interactions with him on this thread, if you like. I believe we have both been very civil.)

Oh, if you are anything msolga, it is civil. I certainly didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Quote:

Regarding the "one-sided thread". This is clearly a partisan whale conservation thread.

I know, and I see value in that. The premise of the thread is something I can respect even though I think it's dogmatic. It just, as I'm sure you know, becomes a bit difficult to toe that line about a polemic issue and there aren't a lot of other places here to discuss it. I hope that one day there will be such a place on a2k because I'd like to discuss it but right now I think there aren't enough anti-whaling folk who are interested in a "two-sided" thread.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Intolerance and dogmatism are as old as human civilization. They have caused a rather large fraction of the war, oppression and suffering that so regularly punctuate human history. Every manifestation of these awful twins has been contemporaneously regarded as great enlightenment during its moment in the sun, but each faded into irrelevance and the contempt of succeeding ages, and at best looking rather self-serving and foolish

PUUUHHHLLEEEZE, Youve been watching too much Oprah. Youre now criticizing the the treqaty which established the international participation re: the ANTARCTIC fa CHRISSAKE. It was all done during the International Geophysical year when we believed in **** like "Atoms for Peace", and how my schooldesk would protect me from an ATomic Bomb blast.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Well, to put it bluntly, Robert. It really gets up my nose sometimes, to be (indirectly or directly) accused of "censorship", or whatever, because of the nature of this thread.

If A2Kers come here to discuss or argue (& they are most welcome to, of course), well, surely it would be pretty obvious that we will argue back from our perspective? They have never been told to get fucked, or anything like that, for having the opposite view, which has sometimes been presented in a very provocative (& sometimes quite uninformed) way. It aggravates me enormously if they then cry foul, or claim they are being "censored" or something, when we argue back from our perspective. What do they expect?

1 Reply

OUTRAGE OVER WHALING ... #2 <cont>

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know