Whaling, Pirates & the Japanese
Blog Post
Wednesday 16th January 2008, 10:04pm
by TimNorton in
A complex situation has arisen in the Southern Ocean where the Japanese Whaling fleet run by The Institute of Cetacean Research is attempting to slaughter nearly a thousand whales for the purpose of 'scientific research.'
Greenpeace located the fleet and claims to have chased the whalers out of hunting grounds. With the Australian Federal Courts' recent decision, there is now legal precedence that Japanese are targeting humpback whales in the Australian whale sanctuary in contravention of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The Japanese do not recognise Australia's claim, and responded by ignoring the judgement.
Now the Sea Shepard have put two of their members aboard a Japanese Ship from their ship Steve Irwin and claims they were tied to the mast, thrown overboard and are being mistreated. Despite the Japanese Government saying the activists would be released, the ships captain refuses to do so, unless certain demands are met.
The Japanese are calling for Sea Shepard to vacate the area, and cease all interference, including monitoring, filming and recording of Japanese fleet movements. Sea Shepard Captain Paul Watson has refused to respond to the demands, describing the actions of the Japanese as 'an act of terrorism'.
This all comes within a week of the posting of an inflammatory YouTube clip, with English and Japanese subtitles, accusing Australia of white supremacy, exclusionist nationalism, a racist ideology and of prejudice towards the Japanese. The clip includes images of slain dingoes, wallabies and kangaroos, whilst also using footage from the Cronulla riots.
Meanwhile, the Australian Customs ship Oceanic Viking has still not been sighted in whaling waters, despite being launched recently to ensure Japanese whalers do not operate in protected waters.
Bookmark and share
I don't think it helps the
I don't think it helps the anti-whaling movement that australians appear confused about their reasons for opposing whaling, with all media reports framing anti-whaling sentiments as "conservation". I think that the real reason most australians oppose whaling is because they think that whales have a right to live in peace. Opposition to whaling has nothing to do with how many whales there are or whether whaling is sustainable or not. There is also an important difference between "animal rights" and "animal welfare" which journalists have never grasped on any related issue. Animal rights issues are often presented as animal welfare issues, as if the only issue that should concern us is whether an animal is treated well before it is "humanely" slaughtered. Animal rights proponents however question our right to slaughter animals, and the right of animals not to be slaughtered. Both conservationists and animal welfare proponents in the case of whaling are open to the prospect of commercial whaling given the right circumstances. Only an animal rights position offers consistent opposition to whaling along with the kangaroo cull and all other forms of unnecessary violence and killing. Pretending that an anti-whaling position is a form of conservation will not help the whales in the long run, nor will raising concerns about the method of slaughter or any other concern which can be addressed and absorbed into future commercial whaling practices.
Shaun, errr no. I think
Shaun, errr no. I think you'll find the majority of mainstream Australia views it pretty clearly as a conservation issue. If mainstream Australia was concerned with animal rights or animal welfare, they'd be boycotting intensive broiler chicken, battery eggs, nearly all veal and most pig farming.
There is an argument that whales are "cute" or more intelligent than farm animals (though if compared to pigs, that's hard to sustain). Perhaps it's the same reason people oppose a short, sharp death to seals by clubbing yet buy battery eggs which involve a lifetime of misery for the hen.
I, for example, have no problem with sustainable whaling. In fact, I would advocate that any community who traditionally hunted whales should be entitled to continue hunting them in the traditional manner. That means bark canoes and hand-held lances, not factory ships and explosive harpoons.
I think the showdown, and
I think the showdown, and related slowdown in whaling operations is great and praise needs to be given to both Greenpeace and Sea Shepard and to the Australian government for sending the Navy, even if its arrival is belated.
Whaling needs to become far more trouble than it is worth to Japan pride for them to finally stop.
However, I hope that Greenpeace and Sea Shepard and the Australian government will start to look at over-fishing and destructive fishing practices.
Fish aren't as cute or intelligent or iconic as whales, (or have the fund raising potential) but the state of the world's fish stocks and the marine environment is terrible. Fishing has depressed fish stocks for centuries now. We need international marine reserves to allow fish to breed, for larger fish to survive and for habitat to recover or we will lose species and the fishing industry will collapse.
Whaling, sealing and fishing all represent the 'tragedy of the commons'. This latest whaling confrontation is highlighting the lack of authority and regulation of our oceans.
Australia should work to establish better international regulation of our oceans and for international enforcement mechanisms to stop the inevitable economic force that push us toward the tragedy of the commons. The world shouldn't have to rely on Greenpeace and Sea Shepard to try and enforce international laws.
Like all meat eaters Simon,
Like all meat eaters Simon, you offer no justification for killing, and feel you do not need to offer any. You don't need to eat meat to survive and be healthy, therefore the animals you kill are being killed unnecessarily. You yourself are an animal and therefore there is an undeniable link between animal rights and human rights, but why does this not compel you to become vegan? Animals don't want to suffer or be killed anymore than humans do, would you agree? Therefore what gives you the right to kill them? Perhaps you don't care simply because you're not being targeted? And what has "tradition" got to do with ethics? If it is traditional to kill humans in your culture is that okay? Of course not, that would be a human rights violation. Ditto for the animals. Meat eaters simply don't have the guts to risk their selfish lifestyle for a consistent principle. Since Darwin pointed out that humans are animals, the ethical implications are perfectly obvious.
I can see as clear as day that meat eaters and murderers have a whole lot in common, so easily dismissing notions of rights, and the effect of this lack of respect for the sanctity of life is a very real and disgusting untold horror story of immense proportion. Moral consistency=animal liberation. It's a no-brainer.
Going veg - Getting angry
It seems to be the size and attractiveness of the animal that drives some people to 'go veg' or making a protest about saving whales. I pulled a carrot out of my veggie garden last night and thought to myself - "I wonder how many soil organisms (including soil animals) I killed when I pulled that carrot out". Are you aware Shaun how many soil animals live and die in your average, well composted veggie garden. Who cares about microscopic organisms? Do they have feelings like other animals? Do vegetarians care about those animals or are they too small and not cute enough to worry about?
My opinion on harvesting whales has changed in light of certain information. I believe in sustainable harvesting of natural products. So if it's done sustainably and the species is not considered rare or threatened (i.e. Minke whales) - why not harvest - just make sure the practice is done sustainably (and regularly audited by a third party). I will say though, that the way whales are killed is an outrage. Nothing deserves to die like that. Not even a soil organism impaled by a tomato stake.
I'm not sure that the
I'm not sure that the majority of Australians do see it just as a conservation issue, although short of doing surveys there's no way of knowing for sure. I would assume as with many issues where the view is driven as much by emotion and feeling, most people probably don't think about it enough to distinguish in their own minds whether they're against it because they believe all whales are endangered or just because they feel its cruel, barbaric and unnecessary - it's probably a fuzzy mixture of both.
I think a similar number of Australians would be against the killing of dolphins for food, regardless of whether they are endangered.
But the bottom line is if people rely solely on a conservation argument against whaling, there will almost certainly be a number of at least some specieis than can be safely killed each year without threatening the survival of the species. And if we do then also add argument that it is unavoidably and undoubtedly very cruel, then it becomes necessary to accept that the same argument can be applied at the very least to a number of other mammals which we not only slaughter in their millions but in many case subject to a lifetime of misery, not just an unpleasant death.
It is no surprise some in Japan are highlighting the way we kill kangaroos, etc (although the Cronulla riots does seem a bit of a stretch). I see that Greenpeace are copping a bit of stick for campaigning harder against Japanese whaling than they do against Norwegian whaling - i don't know if that's true or not, but obviously that view is being peddled, which also would understandably give some Japanese cause to think there are a number of double standards going on.
None of which is to argue against campaign to stop whaling - I think it is a barbaric abomination which should be totally outlawed in whatever way possible - but we should be honest about any logical or ethical inconsistencies in our arguments, and ideally try to become more consistent.
As an aside, i suspect that however painful an explosive harpoon might be for a whale, i wouldn't be surprised if the 'traditional' method of killing them with hand held lances caused an even more drawn out death and in that respect at least more prolonged suffering.
I'd also note in passing that the succcessful court action on this issue would not have been able to occur without the passage of the EPBC Act. (I know there are some views about whether or not it was strategically wise to launch the court action, but that's a different matter again)
I think Australians have put
I think Australians have put up with enough of this garbage for over 20 years with no action from any side of Australian government. I think the time for talking is over. We need action thats what these boats including Greenpeace have done.
Its about time Australia flexed some muscle on the issue. Australians have had enough.
Most Australians oppose
Most Australians oppose whaling because they find the idea of eating whale meat repugnant. I do not doubt that if there was a potential market for whale meat in Australia, the situation would be very different.
Our campaign against whaling is over-emotional and ineffective, but the Australian media is lapping it up anyway.
I am more against the
I am more against the Japanese whaling being dressed up as scientific research than I am against the practice of sustainable whaling. You have to wonder why the Japanese whaling fleet travels to the ends of the earth to catch whales, rather than in its own territorial waters. Presumably whales have been unsustainably harvested close to home, or the species they now target taste better.
If you accept that man is going to eat meat, poultry, and fish, then it is absurd to object to the hunting and harvesting of species that aren't threatened, purely because your culture regards them as cute and fuzzy.
We should let the whale hunt continue, and during their return trip back to Japan, the fleet should be boarded by the Australian Navy (with fisheries, marine biologists, translators, etc. support). All the whale kill that hasn't been clearly identified and preserved as scientific specimens should be jettisoned overboard. The Japanese will get mighty peeved at this, and our ambassador might get sent home, but I seriously doubt that more will come of this than that, it's just not worth it. We are not going to precipitate war over the emptying of a freezer. If Japan loses the bounty of its whale hunt a couple of times they won't bother coming back.
Zoltar, We already know
Zoltar,
We already know that the vast majority of the information produced by the Japanese whaling program is "junk data". Unfortunately, the rules of the IWC do not stipulate quality.
It's ok people - the
It's ok people - the Japanese are obviously trying to do the right thing - they're clearly treating the protesters with the utmost respect. Take this quote from Hideki Moronuki, the Japanese Fisheries Agency's chief of whaling:
Mmm - I bet that's really what Benjamin Potts and Giles Lane were really after when they boarded - a tasty treat. Nasty Japanese - holding out on us!
The Japanese whalers are
The Japanese whalers are ignoring international law and have been hunting in a whale sanctuary. Their claims to be carrying out research are laughable.
Australian naval vessels seize the boats of Indonesian poachers in the waters of northern Australia, and pursue and seize the vessels of Patagonian toothfish poachers in the Southern Ocean.
There's no reason to treat the Japanese whalers any different, arrest them and impound their boats. Since the Australian government won't act, I think Sea Shepherd should be congratulated on a tackling a difficult task very well.
We should let the whale hunt
And all that would achieve is that the following year the whaling vessels would arrive with a few Japanese navy ships to escort them (remember the Japanese government doesn't recognise Australia has control over the area). Do you really want to escalate the issue to that level? Willing to go to war with Japan over it?
redbox, The Southern Whale
redbox,
The Southern Whale Sanctuary is not recognised internationally.
Japan's attitude and brutal
Japan's attitude and brutal butchering of whales needs to be challenged and apprehended, despite our own hypocrisy. These animals are higher beings, innocent and pure, with songs and language, perfectly adapted to their environment, and have evolved without violence or pollution, more than can be said for humans!
When the whales are safe, and whaling must stop, then we can objectively look at our domestic animals and wildlife and recognise the pain we cause to these creatures, so easily overlooked! Hypocrisy can be unveiled by outsiders, considered "normal" until challenged and unmasked. We once hunted whales, torturing them for hours before they finally died, with more primitive weapons than Japan's war-head harpoons!
As challenged by ethicist Peter Singer, we need to abandon clinical and cold-blooded "science" to justify the needless suffering, torture and exploitation of animals in our own back-yards.
[...] Whaling, Pirates & the
[...] Whaling, Pirates & the Japanese « GreensBlog - the official blog of the Australian Greens Sena... (tags: greens whaling environment australia politics) [...]
Japan’s attitude and
Well if that was true, they'd be immune to explosive harpoons :-) (I don't like whaling, but like it or not, humans are also part of the natural environment).
Tim Norton, why do you
Tim Norton, why do you parrot Sea Shepherd propaganda?
Were the boarders tied to a mast? And if they were, so what?
Were the boarders thrown overboard or did Sea Shepherd claim the boarders were threatened with being thrown overboard? The boarders did not appear to be wearing survival suits and almost certainly would have died before they could have been rescued.
Are the Japanese targeting humpbacks? Newspaper reports indicate the whalers bowed to diplomatic pressure from the US, agreeing back in December not to take any humpbacks. Has the situation changed?
Why should the whalers recognize Australia’s Antarctic exclusion zone when only New Zealand, France, Norway and the UK recognize Australia’s claim to sovereignty?
Why did Sea Shepherd crew need to board a foreign vessel to deliver a written message when they are able to communicate with the whalers by both radio and email? It wasn’t simply an attention-seeking ploy, now was it?
Is it not legal for the captain of a vessel to detain any uninvited high seas boarder?
Do the whalers not have good cause to fear for their safety given that Sea Shepherd vessels have collided with whaling vessels in the past and Captain Watson has boasted of his intention to “disable any pirate whaling vessel we find”?
Do you agree that detaining Sea Shepherd staff is “an act of terrorism”?
Can you state for the record the specific demands made by the whalers?
What exactly is wrong with someone exercising his free speech rights by posting a You Tube video critical of Australia?
Is the crew of Oceanic Viking tasked with ensuring “Japanese whalers do not fish in protected waters” or are they meant to do nothing more than observe whaling operations? What can Oceanic Viking crew do to stop whaling?
Do the Greens Senators concur with everything in this post?
Do you get paid to write this stuff?
Hunting whales is called whaling, not fishing, by the way.
I'm not quite sure why so
I'm not quite sure why so many people regard whales, dolphins, and seals as being sacrosanct. Yes they are mammals, and yes they are intelligent, but so too are many of the animals we continue to slaughter for food.
Perhaps we secretly envy them. For ours is an ocean planet, and they have several times more ocean to colonise and explore, than we have land. Their climate is considerably more stable too.
-----
Chris, I've said I'm not against sustainable whaling, its the whaling being dressed up as scientific research that I'm against. If the Japanese were to send a warship escort the following year, after we'd left their scientific specimens untouched, then that would be tantamount to them admitting that the whale hunt was not for scientific purposes. This is a victory in its own right.
There is little point in a country claiming an area of ocean as its territory, or under its jurisdiction, protection, etc, unless it is also prepared to defend that territory. We've got the choice of enforcing the whale sanctuary, or abandoning the idea. The choice is ours.
-----
In the future many countries may once again embrace whaling, not for the meat, but for the oil.
JF Beck, Why do you
JF Beck,
Why do you apologise for Japanese duplicity in hunting whales for meat, which is not an essential part of Japan's diet, under the guise of scientific research?
What valuable information has this "research" added to the store of human knowledge?
Why is it necessary to kill 1000 or so whales each year for this "research"?
Don't you know that the Japanese whalers only added humpbacks to their quota as a negotiating ploy, and then withdrew that part of the quota later as a "concession"?
Don't you know that this has little to do with Australian territorial rights and much more to do with a worldwide ban on whaling, which is ignored by a handful of states, led by Japan?
Don't you know that the worldwide ban on whaling was imposed because many species of whale had been hunted to the brink of extinction, and even now their numbers are still in the early stages of recovery?
Why is the Japanese whaling ship holding these two men hostage and trying to negotiate over releasing them? Isn't taking hostages and negotiating for their release often called terrorism in the media and by governments?
Do YOU get paid to write this stuff?
In the future many countries
Highly unlikely Zoltar, given that the amount of oil that could be obtained would not even make a dent in demand at a national or global scale.
Fairly logical arguments for sustainable whaling on the basis that they are mammals like many other animals we are quite comfortable eating can be made; and good mileage can also be made from the fact that many oppose whaling on emtional grounds.
I would argue that while emotion definitely comes into the equate, there is nevertheless something about the perceived level of intelligence of whales and dolphins that makes most humans draw the line where they stop thinking it's legitimate to hunt and eat an animal at whales. I think it also has to do with it being utterly unnecessary and undoubtedly inhumane.
Truly traditional whaling (unlike the Japanese claim to it) has I think some right to continue where it supports specific ethnic groups with a long history - although personally I'd prefer to see a sustainable quota set and modern weapons used to ensure that the killing is as humane as possible. What the Australian Government is trying to institute with regard to a sustainable take of Dugongs by northern Aboriginal groups is a good example. Modern equipment, agreed quota limits to protect the species and also allow a traditional practice integral to a culture to continue.
As a vegetarian who made the decision based on both unsustainability issues and inhumane killing practices sanctioned within our industrialised farming systems, I think there is a great deal of validity to saying 'well if you don't support whaling, you can't support killing pigs (also highly intelligent etc.) either'. However it does become a false argument if one starts throwing in factors such as diet, ease of access, domestic animals bred for our purpose vs wild animals etc.
Certainly for myself I grew up on a small farm where we killed our own sheep for meat. one minute they were alive in the paddock, the next they were shot dead without ever knowing a thing about it. It doesn't get much better than that, and I had no problem eating that lamb.
So what I'd like to see personally is people who feel passionately about ending whaling to use their consumer power to buy ethical meat (animals given a humane life, preferably organic, and clean swift kill) as well.
But I can't find fault with meat eaters protesting the Japanese whaling, not only as you point out because it's scientific purpose is a lie and they now have so much whale meat stock-piled back in Japan because it's actually not that popular; but because the hunting of long-lived, wild highly intelligent creatures still in serious danger of extinction is a barbaric abberation that needs to stop, regardless of whether everyone rethinks our industrial meat practices or not.
JF Beck - that's a long list
JF Beck - that's a long list of questions, but I'll try to answer them for you:
Why do you parrot Sea Shepherd propaganda?
I'm not attempting to parrot any propaganda - I used the word 'claim' when referring to the information provided by the Sea Shepard. That said, I personally support the Sea Shepard's efforts to halt whaling.
Were the boarders tied to a mast? And if they were, so what?
This is one such claim. If true, it could be considered mistreatment, particularly given the freezing conditions onboard the boat.
Were the boarders thrown overboard or did Sea Shepherd claim the boarders were threatened with being thrown overboard? The boarders did not appear to be wearing survival suits and almost certainly would have died before they could have been rescued.
Another claim, but it appears one that may have been misreported - it now seems there was a scuffle when the protesters were boarding the ship.
Are the Japanese targeting humpbacks? Newspaper reports indicate the whalers bowed to diplomatic pressure from the US, agreeing back in December not to take any humpbacks. Has the situation changed?
Whilst the Japanese have agreed to not hunt humpback whales this season, the ruling from the Federal Court was that it had "unlawfully slaughtered and harmed "a significant number'' of minke, fin and humpback whales." It has also been widely suggested that the Japanese had never intended to hunt humpbacks, and only included this so they could later 'compromise'.
Why should the whalers recognize Australia’s Antarctic exclusion zone when only New Zealand, France, Norway and the UK recognize Australia’s claim to sovereignty?
Well, I guess we should just give up then. As long as the Japanese whaling fleets continue to operate in those waters, we need to stay commited to protected the area. It's a dicey diplomatic situation, made all the worse by the emotional attachment many feel for the whales.
Why did Sea Shepherd crew need to board a foreign vessel to deliver a written message when they are able to communicate with the whalers by both radio and email? It wasn’t simply an attention-seeking ploy, now was it?
Of course, I can't speak for the media tactics of the Sea Shepard, but this is a campaign that has dragged on for many years. Perhaps (speculation only) the protesters thought the whalers would not respond to radio or email?
Is it not legal for the captain of a vessel to detain any uninvited high seas boarder?
This brings up the question of whether the area is classified as high seas or Australian Antarctic Waters.
Do the whalers not have good cause to fear for their safety given that Sea Shepherd vessels have collided with whaling vessels in the past and Captain Watson has boasted of his intention to “disable any pirate whaling vessel we find”?
Personally, I would be more fearful of a Government-backed, well-funded fleet of ships carrying explosive harpoons than the Steve Irwin...
Do you agree that detaining Sea Shepherd staff is “an act of terrorism”?
I don't agree with Captain Watson's description of the situation as terrorism, however I do think it's improper for the Japanese to hold the protesters until their demands are met. It's a form of blackmail.
Can you state for the record the specific demands made by the whalers?
According to Reuters UK: "The whalers said they would only release the two men if the militant Sea Shepherd Conservation Group promised not to take any "violent action" against their ship and keep the protest ship Steve Irwin 10 nautical miles from the whaler Yushin Maru No.2."
What exactly is wrong with someone exercising his free speech rights by posting a You Tube video critical of Australia?
I never said there was anything wrong with the YouTube clip, merely that it was another part of the bigger story.
Is the crew of Oceanic Viking tasked with ensuring “Japanese whalers do not fish in protected waters” or are they meant to do nothing more than observe whaling operations? What can Oceanic Viking crew do to stop whaling?
Foreign Minister Stephen Smith has said that the aim of the Oceanic Viking was "to collect evidence that might be used in any future legal challenge by Australia against the whale hunt." I would think that part of that aim would be to scare the whalers out of our waters, under the threat of international legal action.
Do the Greens Senators concur with everything in this post?
No. The Senators' opinion may differ to my own, which is why my name is on this post.
Senator Siewert has said "The Government must take stronger action in other areas - such as refusing to further discuss a free trade agreement with Japan until the killing stops."
Do you get paid to write this stuff?
Part of my job, as a media advisor, is to write this stuff, yes.
Hunting whales is called whaling, not fishing, by the way.
I don't think I ever referred to the practice as 'fishing', but thanks for the clarification.
UPDATE - The protesters have been returned to the Steve Irwin, via the Oceanic Viking.
J F Beck, you should learn
J F Beck, you should learn to read! I suggest you look under ' Pages' and then refer to 'About Greensblog'. Tim Norton has every right to blog on this site. As they say , if you dont like it, there are plenty of other sites you can flaunt your whale killing ideas on!!!!!
Tim Morton, At the end of
Tim Morton,
At the end of #18 I say:
"Hunting whales is called whaling, not fishing, by the way."
You respond at #21:
"I don’t think I ever referred to the practice as ‘fishing’, but thanks for the clarification."
Well, I've checked both Google cache and my copy of your post and find both show the original wording as:
"Meanwhile, the Australian Customs ship Oceanic Viking has still not been sighted in whaling waters, despite being launched recently to ensure Japanese whalers do not fish in protected waters."
"Fish" has now been replaced with "operate". It's no big deal except that content edits need to be noted. It also makes you look pretty silly that you claim to not remember something you wrote that you changed.
I would suggest that most
I would suggest that most Australians are against the killing of whales, but with world food shortages growing daily, I can see many animals, currently looked at as not food material, being classified over the next 20 years as food. I am sorry, we, the planet, are going to have a hell of a job feeding ourselves, according to scientists. Personally I could never consider dogs as food, but I believe that in some parts of Asia, you can select the dog you want for dinner while they are beside your table.
I heard scientists recently state that there is going to be a grain shortage as grains, and cereals, are being turned into ethanol.
As for the 2 men that were on the Japanese ship, I believe that Australian Government officials probably apologised to the Japanese, with the result they were freed. They committed an illegal act by ese ship without permission, and the Japanese were quite within their rights to take them back to Tokyo for trial.
These seems to be hot dispute whether the Japanese ships were in Australian waters, but I have read in a number of articles that waters around the Antartic (to a certain point) are in disputed international waters, and this is why the Ocean Viking can only take photographs. Of course they have to be careful not to take photos of anybody interfering with the Japanese ships, or the Australian Government could be forced to testify on behalf of the Japanese in an international court.
In summary, I don't agree with whaling, but I believe that we will see more and more hunting of what were protect species as the earths food reduces.
JF Beck - apologies. You
JF Beck - apologies. You might have been looking at an earlier draft of this post.
Hey, I can't even spell your
Hey, I can't even spell your name correctly.
"... accusing Australia of
"... accusing Australia of white supremacy, exclusionist nationalism, a racist ideology and of prejudice towards the Japanese."
Isn't all of the above official Greens policy towards Australia?
Myriad, I agree with you
Myriad, I agree with you that whaling is inhumane. The whales can take a long time to die and a lot of suffering is involved. Australian practices inflict much suffering on animals too, its just that somehow its less visible or apparent, or perhaps we choose to remain blind.
"We" complain loudly about whaling, but "we" are virtually silent about back burning, a practice which condemns countless thousands of mammals and other creatures annually: to death by incineration; death by smoke inhalation; death by starvation; and a slow death through injury or a lifetime of maiming.
[...] 23, 2008 by Tim Norton
[...] 23, 2008 by Tim Norton Bringing together previous discussions here about whaling and computer gaming, have a look at Harpooned New video game allows you to hunt endangered whale [...]
Post new comment