Sea Shepherd condemned by International Whaling Commission.

[Geoff_H]

So your backing of the stop and changing to strongly discourages, I agree with you that they strongly discourage the activities. I don't see anything in the letter that states the activities are illegal. Since they are in, per Australia, Australian waters why did Australia not prosecute if the SS was conducting illegal activities???

They were not in Australian waters.

Do you think hostile boarding of another ship without their permission is legal?

Do you think - just MAYBE - this might be forbidden under international maritime law? If you don't know, take a wild guess!

 

[Geoff_H]

As for no help, there are all the harpoon vessels nearby, and I'm sure SS would be more than willing to lend aid. They are humans after all.

How many "harpoon vessels" do you think there were? Go on, show us your detailed understanding of the facts of this situation!

What happens if the Sea Shepherd ship was critically damaged in any collusion? Both could sink and all the humans on board both ships would have perished.

 

[terrillja]

How many "harpoon vessels" do you think there were? Go on, show us your detailed understanding of the facts of this situation!

What happens if the Sea Shepherd ship was critically damaged in any collusion? Both could sink and all the humans on board both ships would have perished.

Well Kim referred to the 5 vessels of the whaling fleet, so going with his data, there would be 1 processing ship, so 4 harpoon vessels, plus the Fukuyoshi Maru No. 68, which constantly trailed the Steve Irwin, so by my count, at least 5 other vessels were in the area.

 

[terrillja]

What happens if the Sea Shepherd ship was critically damaged in any collusion? Both could sink and all the humans on board both ships would have perished.

Do you mean collision or collusion?

From Merriam-Webster:

Collusion
Pronunciation: \kə-ˈlü-zhən\ Function:noun Secret agreement or cooperation especially for an illegal or deceitful purpose

Sure, if SS and the whalers had a secret plan to scuttle their ships, there could be an interesting story....

Well the Explorer sank off Antarctica earlier this winter, everyone made it off fine...

 

[scubadale]

They were not in Australian waters.

Do you think hostile boarding of another ship without their permission is legal?

Do you think - just MAYBE - this might be forbidden under international maritime law? If you don't know, take a wild guess!

What is your understanding of where this occurred? My understanding is that it is in Australian claimed waters. I do understand that it is subject to debate whether other nations recognize this or not. That is why I specified that "per Australia" they were in Australian waters.

The Japanese could and should have prosecuted those that boarded there vessel. Maybe you can enlighten us in why the Japanese did not prosecute.

 

[Geoff_H]

This argument that these whales are being killed for research and the fact the meat is being sold for profit is absolutely ridiculous

You don't like eating whale, how would you feel if I said I didn't like you eating swordfish?

I note swordfish fishing is banned in your part of the world due to the problems with catching turtles, but you start buy and eat it (along with truely disgusting amounts of red meat). Just like whales, swordfish are at the top of the food chain and also can contain high levels of mercury.

I also see you like shrimp, surely you must be aware of the huge damage commercial shrimping can do to the ocean's floor? These sort of inconsistencies - not isolated to you - are a big part of why a lot of Japanese think "f£$% you" to preaching about whale hunting from North America.

 

[Geoff_H]

What is your understanding of where this occurred? My understanding is that it is in Australian claimed waters. I do understand that it is subject to debate whether other nations recognize this or not. That is why I specified that "per Australia" they were in Australian waters.

The Japanese could and should have prosecuted those that boarded there vessel. Maybe you can enlighten us in why the Japanese did not prosecute.

I won't stoop to pointing out the spelling errors in your post, as it is quite obvious what you mean.

My understanding is that they were in international waters, as other nations don't recognise Australia's claim. I could claim the bit of ocean I can see from my flat as my terrority but it doesn't mean much unless the rest of the world agrees.

The Japanese could and should have prosecuted those that boarded there vessel. Maybe you can enlighten us in why the Japanese did not prosecute.

I don't know. Maybe they didn't want the hassle, maybe they thought the publicity would not help their cause. Maybe they feared the Sea Shepherd boat would use their detention as an excuse for more hostile acts.

 

[terrillja]

I won't stoop to pointing our the spelling errors in your post, as it is quite obvious what you mean.

I'll stoop to point out yours. I believe you meant to say out, not our. Also the error that scubadale made was a single spelling error, where he meant their rather than there. Singular. So the proper way to phrase your response would have been to use the word "error" rather than errors.

Sorry, but grammar and spelling are two pet peeves of mine.

 

[scubadale]

The Japanese could and should have prosecuted those that boarded there vessel. Maybe you can enlighten us in why the Japanese did not prosecute.

I won't stoop to pointing our the spelling errors in your post, as it is quite obvious what you mean.

My understanding is that they were in international waters, as no other nation recognises Australia's claim. I could claim the bit of ocean I can see from my flat as my terrority but it doesn't mean much unless the rest of the world agrees.



I don't know. Maybe there didn't want the hassle, maybe they thought the publicity would not help their cause. Maybe they feared the Sea Shepherd boat would use their detention as an excuse for more hostile acts.[/QUOTE]

If your not going to stoop then you shouldn't even mention it. Maybe it is a way to go around things. Kind of like saying whaling is for research. I went ahead and marked your errors for you as I think better communication leads to better understanding and tolerance.

By the way some nations do recognize Australia's claim:

"Australia's claim to sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory is recognised by the United Kingdom, New Zealand, France and Norway [2]. As Australia is part of the Antarctic Treaty System, which accommodates differences of opinions over the status of Antarctic territorial claims which pre-dated the 1959 Antarctic Treaty - effectively placing claims in abeyance - Australia only exercises its sovereignty in ways that in its view are consistent with good relations under the Antarctic Treaty. Australia signed the treaty on 23 June 1961."

With that I am off to bed. You can take your time to determine some other way to attempt to insult me. I really don't think this thread has any more life nor will change anyone's opinion. At this point it is only putting a wider chasm between all of us.

 

[Kim]

I don't know. Maybe there didn't want the hassle, maybe they thought the publicity would not help their cause. Maybe they feared the Sea Shepherd boat would use their detention as an excuse for more hostile acts.

I think I read somewhere that Japan has now said that if they ever get boarded again they intend to detain the culprits and bring them back to Japan for prosecution.

Personally I think they should have done that to start with, but maybe they were worried about creating martyrs or something. They aren't happy though.