catallaxy files

catallaxy in technical exile

More on Whaling

with 313 comments

Australia has got itself into a very uncomfortable position over the Japanese whaling in Antarctic waters.

Pretty clearly, despite the ALP promising before the election to take international legal action against Japan, it has been advised that there would be no hope of succeeding. I guess the legal advice would be privileged and not available on FOI. Does anyone know?

The case of HSI v Kyodo Senpaku Kasha in which the Federal Court upheld the legislation establishing the Australian Whale Sanctuary means nothing outside Australia. The court said that the question of Australia’s sovereignty over the area could not be questioned in an Australian court. As we know, only four other countries (Japan is not one of them) recognise our claim and they do so because they have similar claims over other bits of the Antarctic.

Taking it to an absurd (but still I believe correct) stage, if Australia declared sovereignty over Tokyo and ordered all Japanese to leave, an Australian court should make an appropriate order. It could not question the clam of sovereignty. On this, I am open to correction from those whose law is more up to date than mine.

But because the country has made the claim of sovereignty over the Antarctic, it does imply a duty to take some responsibility for what happens there. I choose these words carefully – I suspect it is a fairly low level of responsibility. Again, I am open to correction on this from a superior mind.

That responsibility would probably cover prevention of piracy. Committing an act of piracy is as bad as you can get on the seas.It does seem to me that the activities of the Sea Shepherd and friends do amount to piracy, under almost any definition of the term, Arguably Australia also has a duty to enforce the rules of the IWC though Japan’s breach of those is much less clear than the evidence of piracy by SS.

My broad argument is that sovereignty carries responsibilities. Australia must do more than huff and puff. Of course if Australia sends a gunboat, as it probably should, the captain would want clear terms of engagement. Who does he fire at first?

If I am right, the government is now wondering how the heck they can get out of this mess.

Advertisements

Written by Ken Nielsen

January 9, 2010 at 6:29 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , ,

313 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. They same dilemma exists with Somali pirates

    rog

    January 9, 2010 at 6:36 pm

  2. Yes, rog, but they aren’t in waters we have any responsibility for.

    Ken Nielsen

    January 9, 2010 at 6:40 pm

  3. There is a dilemma with foreign military using force against civilians from a country that they are not at war with.

    But I take your point that once Australia declared sovereignty they may need to enforce it.

    rog

    January 9, 2010 at 6:54 pm

  4. I thought the law of the sea allows governments to simply sink pirates. The issue with the somali pirates is more likely effectiveness rather than justification, and perhaps silly media shyness.

    “There is a dilemma with foreign military using force against civilians from a country that they are not at war with.”

    No there isn’t. Military force is often used outside of hot war.

    pedro

    January 9, 2010 at 9:11 pm

  5. These days pirates are the good guys.

    whyisitso

    January 9, 2010 at 9:30 pm

  6. yeah, they should just sink the pirates. There’s several centuries of precedent for that. Pirates are as bad for our civilisation as terrorists, except in different ways.

    daddy dave

    January 9, 2010 at 9:49 pm

  7. However while pirates are fair game, we certainly shouldn’t sink the Japanese whaling ships. There are plenty of other avenues open there. The problem is that we’ve created an unenforceable law.
    Unenforceable in practice, at any rate.

    daddy dave

    January 9, 2010 at 9:51 pm

  8. Military force against a foreign national could be an act of war

    rog

    January 9, 2010 at 10:35 pm

  9. Sending in the military against civilians looks thuggish, particularly if someone gets killed. It will probably be bad PR particularly in Asia.

    Chumpai

    January 9, 2010 at 10:53 pm

  10. The problem is that we’ve created an unenforceable law.

    Indeed. It seems that either the government once and for all relinquishes its claim on that zone and risks massive political backlash, or it enforces it properly and risks a diplomatic and/or military stoush with the Japanese. Or it does nothing, as it is now, is seen as weak and risks someone getting killed trying to enforce their laws for them. What a mess.

    Greego

    January 9, 2010 at 11:46 pm

  11. Paul Watson most effectively shows up the weakness in ALP policy, far better than the Libs and JC wants to sink him?

    rog

    January 10, 2010 at 8:11 am

  12. Greego sums it all up pretty well.
    rog, what do you think Watson is accomplishing? How is the world going to be different as a result of his actions?
    Do you think he is making it more likely that Japan will give up whaling? If someone is killed will it be a worthwhile sacrifice?

    Ken Nielsen

    January 10, 2010 at 8:59 am

  13. Paul Watson shows how an individual, using private money, can put pressure onto the state, in this case both Japan and Australia.

    I would hazard a guess that public opinion is for not against the cessation of whaling and Paul Watsons activities have kept the media focus on Japan and whaling.

    Hard to tell what has been accomplished, the failure of the Australian govt to initiate the promised legal proceedings shows a lack of will.

    rog

    January 10, 2010 at 9:20 am

  14. Hard to tell what has been accomplished
    .
    the main objective of this exercise – and others like it – is to maintain domestic sympathy towards the causes of the far Left. Occasionally they do upset the apple-cart and get a result; more typically it merely raises the profile of the issue and the Left’s take on it, signaling to mainstream Australia what their moral position should be.

    daddy dave

    January 10, 2010 at 9:46 am

  15. You moron, Rog. The Australian government can’t initiate proceedings against the japanese as the area we claim is not an internationally recognized . Only a few other countries recognize our claim and they make similar claims over the Antarctic.

    The Australian government could of course go to a Federal court. Big deal.

    The japanese should sink Watson’s boat and any survivors taken to Tokyo and charged with piracy and terrorism.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 10:00 am

  16. “Hard to tell what has been accomplished”
    So far nothing, beyond a bit of silly season media copy.
    “failure of the Australian govt to initiate the promised legal proceedings shows a lack of will.”
    Yes, but it’s lack of willingness to take an action that would fail and leave us looking foolish.

    My guess is that the government will continue with its meaningless mumbling (Garrett is good at that) until the whaling season is over.

    Ken Nielsen

    January 10, 2010 at 10:27 am

  17. Unless the whales are genuinely endangered, this is a non issue. Seeking a trade based solution with Japan would seem the best card to play – stop subsidising whaling and we’ll cut tariffs that hurt Japanese industry. Australia gets a lot out of that deal, given whaling is very unpopular, won’t survive without subsidies and tariffs hurt your own consumers more than they hurt foreign producers or benefit your producers.

    If Watson want to be a cavalier in international waters, he is asking for trouble. How are the Dutch going to enforce legal sanctions in Int’l waters Australia nominally claims against the Japanese?

    It’s just a PR exercise really.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 10, 2010 at 10:33 am

  18. I’m not sure what I think of Sea Shepard ’cause I don’t know enough but this kind of labeling seems inaccurate to me. I’ve never heard of them before but could you please explain why it is they that are pirates? Didn’t the Japanese sink their ship? And what does this have to with piracy exactly? A pirate is a sea-bound version of a highwayman. This is not about theft.
    .
    Sea Shepard seems to be an activist group that intends to stop Japanese whalers directly. A sea-bound version of someone who chains themselves to rainforest trees. Or do they go further like the aforementioned tree huggers and sabotage equipment? Whatever the case, this is not about theft unless I’m missing something here.
    .
    On the sovereignty issue the Japanese have no right to fish in our waters. If it is our waters they’re fishing in they need to be driven off. You draw a line for a reason. The rules of engagement would be the same as that for Indoensian boats that stray into our territory.
    .
    If there’s a dispute viz what is and is not our territory than we have a choice: give up the claim or enforce it.

    Adrien

    January 10, 2010 at 11:14 am

  19. “I’ve never heard of them before but could you please explain why it is they that are pirates? ”
    .
    I wouldn’t call them pirates (I guess it depends on your definition), but they are deliberately disrupting what appears to be an entirely legal fishing fleet. If I did what they do with my car to protest against some business I didn’t like, no doubt I’d get arrested for it. I’m not sure that I’d be a pirate, but I’d be in the wrong.
    .
    “Unless the whales are genuinely endangered, this is a non issue.”
    .
    I’m not even sure that it is a big issue if they are — certainly not want you want to argue over. The reason for this is that I can buy any number of endangered species caught by Australian fisherman any day of the week, and indeed species which we have so little information about, we don’t even know whether they are endangered (many deep water fish).

    conrad

    January 10, 2010 at 11:33 am

  20. Didn’t the Japanese sink their ship?
    .
    It seems they deliberately put their ship in the path of the Japanese vessel. So, in intentional terms, they sank their own ship by putting it in front of an oncoming vessel.
    .
    On the sovereignty issue the Japanese have no right to fish in our waters. If it is our waters they’re fishing in they need to be driven off.
    .
    Sure, but not by green-activist vigilantes surely.
    .
    If there’s a dispute viz what is and is not our territory than we have a choice: give up the claim or enforce it.
    .
    Adrien, on this crucial point you’re in agreement with me and others here. The problem is that as Greego pointed out, there is no obviously good course of action. Both the choices you lay out are political landmines.

    daddy dave

    January 10, 2010 at 12:22 pm

  21. If I did what they do with my car to protest against some business I didn’t like, no doubt I’d get arrested for it. I’m not sure that I’d be a pirate, but I’d be in the wrong.
    .
    Wouldn’t that depend on what the business was doing? If it were doing something you sincerely believed should be illegal than you’d have justification. That doesn’t men you’re right of course.
    .

    I’m not even sure that it is a big issue if they are — certainly not want you want to argue over.

    .
    Oh sure it is. Conservationism may have a bad name due to batshit members but that doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons to conserve the natural habitat. One reason is that many of us feel strongly that we’d go nuts without it. There are others. The best I can think of is that power should be balanced by duty and if we have the power to totally alter the planet we have the duty to consider the consequences.
    .
    Whales may be sentient. Should we really wipe them out. Do we need to? No actually it is not a necessity. It’s a luxury.

    Adrien

    January 10, 2010 at 1:15 pm

  22. It seems they deliberately put their ship in the path of the Japanese vessel. So, in intentional terms, they sank their own ship by putting it in front of an oncoming vessel.
    .
    Well that’s different from ramming it out of the blue but it doesn’t justify ramming it. If someone blocks the road in front of you you aren’t allowed to ram it.
    .
    Sure, but not by green-activist vigilantes surely.
    .
    No. If it’s a matter of territorial sovereignty the good folks at the RAN should do the job. Try ramming them.
    .
    Both the choices you lay out are political landmines.
    .
    This country needs a few landmines I reckon. Luck runs out. Time to grow up.
    .
    But we really don’t want to alienate Japan. We want Japan arming themselves and in alliance with us. I wonder how much effort is being made to persuade eaters of whale meat in Japan? On the whole influence’d be better than state intervention. Funny that.

    Adrien

    January 10, 2010 at 1:21 pm

  23. “If it were doing something you sincerely believed should be illegal than you’d have justification. ”
    .
    I love chickens and most farm animals, and I’d love to free them once and for all. I also love native animals, and I’m sick of habitat destruction. Do I have justification to start burning farms down until farmers go broke, or more legally, deliberately block up the roads and make it dangerous for them to drive?
    .
    “Oh sure it is. Conservationism may have a bad name due to batshit members but that doesn’t mean there aren’t good reasons to conserve the natural habitat.”
    .
    I agree with you, and I think we should pay far more attention to it (especially with fish, where we know next to nothing on some species). But I don’t think it’s a good argument in this case, because we’re basically accusing someone of doing exactly what we do. If you don’t believe that, try and identify the fish at, say, Victoria Market or you local sushi bar, and their current status. For many of the deep water fish, I think the status is unknown.

    conrad

    January 10, 2010 at 2:00 pm

  24. http://media.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/national-news/can-whaling-be-stopped-1024634.html?&exc_from=pplay

    Japan’s continued and expanded program of scientific whaling is inconsistent with its obligations under the Law of the Sea Convention, the International
    Convention for the Regulation of Whaling Convention, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), and the
    Convention on Biological Diversity to protect and preserve the marine environment, to protect rare and fragile ecosystems and endangered species,
    to prepare environmental impact assessments when changes to the marine environment are likely to be caused by its activities, and to refrain from
    claiming resources under the guise of marine scientific research. This program is not legitimately “scientific” because it has not been
    peer-reviewed and does not have precise quantifiable goals. It is inconsistent with Japan’s obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity because reduces the sustainability of whale species and has
    “adverse impacts on biological diversity.” It is unquestionably an abuse of right because it invokes Article VIII of the Whaling Convention in a manner
    that certainly was unanticipated by the framers of the Convention and has been repeatedly condemned by the majority of the other contracting parties
    to the Convention.
    Japan’s actions can be challenged by concerned states in the International Court of Justice or through the dispute resolution procedures of the Law of the Sea Convention and the conciliation procedures of the Convention on Biological
    Diversity.
    Plus a few other breaches of IWC regulations.
    The missing factor is a lack of balls by various anti-whaling Governments

    Dave Head

    January 10, 2010 at 2:09 pm

  25. Hang on, conservation isn’t the issue here. There are plenty of minke whales to allow controlled harvesting. I don’t think anyone disputes that.
    The IWC was supposed to review stocks and reconsider the moratorium soon after 1990. It did not.
    The issue is whether whales should be killed at all. Depending on where you stand you can say they should not because they are sentient animals or that this is just the bambi effect.

    Ken Nielsen

    January 10, 2010 at 2:12 pm

  26. The difference Conrad, is that for all fish, the legal status is known. Either on or not on the endangered list, with regional variations, bag/size limits, types of fishing permitted/not permitted, etc etc.

    There are many species whose ecological status is more or less completely unknown, and most not well-known enough, sure. One of the local (s/e OZ) examples needing more study is the mainstay – Bass Strait and southern ocean sharks, sold opaquely as ‘flake’ regardless of species, and catches declining steadily over the last few decades.

    FDB

    January 10, 2010 at 2:17 pm

  27. I’ve been disappointed to find that nobody on this thread has said something shrill and boneheaded yet – there’s a homophone gag on the post title going begging.

    FDB

    January 10, 2010 at 2:23 pm

  28. I didn’t want to say anything FDB I thought it might cause a fight 🙂

    tal

    January 10, 2010 at 2:26 pm

  29. If someone blocks the road in front of you you aren’t allowed to ram it.
    .
    At this stage, we don’t know whether the captain was able to avoid the collision. For instance, it may be that he chose not to swerve, or it may be that he was unable to turn his craft in time. It’s not exactly comparable to a road event, as large boats are hard to manoeuvre quickly. We just don’t know for sure at this point, although of course plenty have suspicions.

    daddy dave

    January 10, 2010 at 2:32 pm

  30. Conrad – Do I have justification to start burning farms down until farmers go broke, or more legally, deliberately block up the roads and make it dangerous for them to drive?
    .
    No. And I knew greenie activists at Uni who’d a said differently. I think they’re batshit. I did then and I told ’em so.
    .
    we’re basically accusing someone of doing exactly what we do
    .
    We don’t hunt whales.

    Adrien

    January 10, 2010 at 2:35 pm

  31. Ken – Hang on, conservation isn’t the issue here….
    The issue is whether whales should be killed at all.

    .
    Que!

    Adrien

    January 10, 2010 at 2:35 pm

  32. there’s a homophone gag on the post title going begging.
    .
    A ribald Bird-Macquarie clan gay joke no less. :0
    .
    DD – Good point. I thought’ve that. If they couldn;t swerve it’s the greenie’s fault.

    Adrien

    January 10, 2010 at 2:36 pm

  33. Sea Shepherd deliberately rammed a Japanese Ship last year. http://www.greendaily.com/2009/02/10/was-the-sea-shepherd-ramming-an-accident-see-for-yourself/

    This year they deliberately put their speedboat in front of a ship to make it look like they were rammed.

    If they aren’t pirates the word has no meaning.

    Yobbo

    January 10, 2010 at 3:20 pm

  34. I like the idea of sending a gunboat:) There needs to be some hard rules in place, and someone to back them up.

    Sarah

    January 10, 2010 at 3:22 pm

  35. Yobbo. Do you wear glasses -If you did look at all 3 videos of the ramming did you have them on? Cos if you have & did you would see the Ady Gil was stopped for a while before the Japn ship was even near. You will also see the Jap ship change course towards the stationery Ady Gil. The Australian Police investigated the ramming last year and took no action-gee I wonder why?
    Why don’t you remove your head from your Rsend and be somewhat more objective?

    Dave Head

    January 10, 2010 at 3:34 pm

  36. If they aren’t pirates the word has no meaning.
    .
    The word has a meaning that it isn’t it. I really wish people wouldn’t apply words wily nilly to whatever they disapprove of. There are good reasons not to do this. ‘Vandal’ and ‘vigilante’ applies. Piracy doesn’t:
    .
    pi·ra·cy

    1.
    a. Robbery committed at sea.
    b. A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane.
    2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.
    3. The operation of an unlicensed, illegal radio or television station.

    Adrien

    January 10, 2010 at 5:25 pm

  37. Why don’t you remove your head from your Rsend and be somewhat more objective?
    .
    Like you?
    Because I have to say, Dave Head, you sound like a paragon of objectivity.

    daddy dave

    January 10, 2010 at 5:46 pm

  38. Adrien
    The UNCLOS defines piracy:

    Piracy consists of any of the following acts:

    (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;

    (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;

    (c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

    It seems arguable that SS’s harassment of the whalers fits this.
    Take it away from the whaling debate – if this behaviour happened to a vessel in the Straits of Malacca I reckon it would be reasonably clear.

    Ken Nielsen

    January 10, 2010 at 6:29 pm

  39. Coming right back to the beginning, Watson’s behavior seems unlikely to accomplish anything worthwhile and could easily kill someone.

    Australia is no going to do anything beyond huffing.

    All very stupid it seems to me.

    Ken Nielsen

    January 10, 2010 at 6:32 pm

  40. So why don’t you look at what killing 1000’s of whales has produced in the form of scientific papers from the Japanese:

    daddy dave I have spent 6 years researching the whaling issue and so have a great deal of information and knowledge to back up my opinions. Ramdom commentators contributions [in this site as well] are normally ill-informed or un-informed.

    Dave Head

    January 10, 2010 at 6:44 pm

  41. Dave Head,

    You appear to be under the delusion that a whaling ship is akin to a mini minor and can be turned on a dime regardless of the sea state.

    Here’s an excellent thread from Tim Blair that shows pretty clearly how cavalier and negligent were the bunch of stupid pricks aboard the trimaran.

    Enjoy!

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/swift_boated/

    Abu Chowdah

    January 10, 2010 at 6:44 pm

  42. Abu Chowdah : the one thing I agree on is that the Ady Gill made the mistake of letting a Jap ship [travelling at speed] come anywhere near them while they were idling along. In fact if you watch the video footage from the Bob Barker you will see how the Jap ship changed course quickly to bring it onto a collision course with the Ady Gil. This ship is highly manourable because that’s what is has to be when chasing whales. Maybe you did not watch all 3 videos -perhaps you should.

    Dave Head

    January 10, 2010 at 6:57 pm

  43. SS have lodged papers against the Japanese, something that the australian govt promised to do but has so far failed to follow through.

    Amazing, one man vs the world.

    rog

    January 10, 2010 at 7:12 pm

  44. Is that what you saw in Dr Edelsten, Rog? One publicity-seeking lowlife against the world?

    C.L.

    January 10, 2010 at 7:23 pm

  45. With a 25 year old wife I doubt 66 years old Dr Edelsten gave a tinkers toss about the rest of the world!

    Dave Head

    January 10, 2010 at 7:58 pm

  46. Amazing, one man vs the world.
    .
    Reminds me of a song by the clash: I fought the law and the law won.

    daddy dave

    January 10, 2010 at 8:00 pm

  47. Head;

    What happened last February 9. Did the japanese ship slam into the pirate ship-The Sea Shepherd- that time too? Or perhaps payback is a bitch.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 8:00 pm

  48. “Ramdom commentators contributions [in this site as well] are normally ill-informed or un-informed.”

    Bullshit. Mine are not. Man up or bugger off.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 10, 2010 at 8:01 pm

  49. If it was not for Paul Watson this blog would not be here and millions of people would not know what the japanese were doing to whales. In 33 years of action he has not caused an injury to anyone. Don’t sound much like the pirates of old to me!

    Dave Head

    January 10, 2010 at 8:01 pm

  50. Rogette:

    Yes we know you’d lift your skirt for any low life publicity seeker. Now please go figure out how you’re going to repay the creditors.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 8:02 pm

  51. “If it was not for Paul Watson this blog would not be here and millions of people would not know what the japanese were doing to whales.”

    This post. This blog exists regardless of what Paul Watson does or doesn’t do.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 10, 2010 at 8:02 pm

  52. Semi Regular Libertarian if the caps fits wear it! The trade sanctions you mention are the only way to enforce the various MEA’s the japanese are breaking BUT trade sanctions are against WTO rules. Any other ideas?

    Dave Head

    January 10, 2010 at 8:04 pm

  53. Paul Watson, jagoff pirate:

    In an earlier campaign, Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson threatened to ram his ship into the slipway of a Japanese whaler, saying he would give it “a steel enema”. He has been reported as referring to Greenpeace as “Yellowpeace” over its refusal to use violence, and in a 2007 interview with the New Yorker claimed credit for sinking – in port – 10 ships. The magazine’s assessment was that he and his crew had attempted to scuttle two vessels and had successfully sunk two others.

    He should have been arrested and jailed long ago. Unfortunately, he’ll get somebody killed before it comes to that.

    C.L.

    January 10, 2010 at 8:05 pm

  54. In 33 years of action he has not caused an injury to anyone.

    Not for lack of trying Head, as the vid I posted shows.

    Don’t sound much like the pirates of old to me!

    Perhaps just a lying sack of shit who can’t man up to what he did on Feb 9th 2009 and lies about it. However under the definition Watson and the other stack of lowlifes would easily qualify as pirates and perhaps even terrorists.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 8:06 pm

  55. If it was not for Paul Watson this blog would not be here…

    Far out.

    Catallaxy founder Jason Soon revealed as an SS deep cover agent!

    C.L.

    January 10, 2010 at 8:11 pm

  56. Head:

    You still there or too busy figuring out a way to spin that Vid I posted?

    As I said, payback is a bitch.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 8:12 pm

  57. Well JC imagine for a moment that you are a mammal that lives in the Ocean and gets a harpoon fired at you, tearing into your vital organs. Then you are hung unpside down so you either bleed to death or drown or even get electric shocks to help you on your way. All the time the rest of your family can here your screams of pain.
    Anything Paul Watson has done pales into insignificance against the crime against humanity- so a pirate -who cares- no one else is doing the job that needs to be done. History will eventual record him as a hero to the whales and many people who respect their right to live having been nearly hunted to extinction. Terrorist-well I hope like hell the japanese are terrified every time they see him.

    Dave Head

    January 10, 2010 at 8:14 pm

  58. Yea Cl… Jason and the others owe everything to the brave, Watson lover of whales and slamming other people’s ship up the backside and then lying about it like a real alpha male.

    Head, is your middle name Dick

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 8:14 pm

  59. The very physically demonstrative boys on the SS batboat – the vessel dubbed a “gaymaran” by Tim Blair – including “Captain Kiwi” and “Crewman Kissyface,” were certainly being macho beefcakes in that video shot from their ranks. They weren’t laughing for long. LOL.

    C.L.

    January 10, 2010 at 8:16 pm

  60. jc, the vid you posted: large steel ship against large steel ship-is that the one huh! Maybe you have not noticed a small Ady Gill against a steel boat 20 times it size. Get real.

    Dave Head

    January 10, 2010 at 8:17 pm

  61. Oh, right Dick so caught out lying you’re now trying to tug at my heart strings.

    Answer the question bozo:

    Do you deny the attack of the japanese ship last Feb or not?

    ( we kill animals ever day of the week in the west. As for screaming animals? Ever watched pigs in a slaughterhouse?)

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 8:18 pm

  62. O JC like i never had that ‘joke’ thrown at me before – you are not original at all. Pity you did not have any constructive response to my post. Sounds like you ship is sinking too!

    Dave Head

    January 10, 2010 at 8:19 pm

  63. Well JC imagine for a moment that you are a mammal that lives in the Ocean and gets a harpoon fired at you, tearing into your vital organs. Then you are hung unpside down so you either bleed to death or drown or even get electric shocks to help you on your way.

    Dave, do you believe abortion should be banned and that those who confront abortionists in physically confronting ways are heroes?

    Yes or no?

    C.L.

    January 10, 2010 at 8:20 pm

  64. jc, the vid you posted: large steel ship against large steel ship-is that the one huh! Maybe you have not noticed a small Ady Gill against a steel boat 20 times it size. Get real.

    As I said, Dick, payback is a bitch hey? But like any typical green leftie you’re screaming like a stuck pig when the shoe is on the other foot.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 8:21 pm

  65. JC-I don’t eat pork. so you are safe.
    And yes there was action last year- so what-did anyone sink?

    Dave Head

    January 10, 2010 at 8:21 pm

  66. O jc Thanks for the compliment-it’s better than being a right turd

    Dave Head

    January 10, 2010 at 8:22 pm

  67. Dick:

    I could well imagine you’d have that joke thrown at you at every other day judging by your behavior and general attitude.

    You’re not posting arguments, Dick, you’re posting moral positions which is a bit different and then evading issues such as Feb 9th vid.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 8:24 pm

  68. No compliment there, dick, just a quip against another typical moralizing leftist green turd.

    Now get a set and answer my question about last Feb 9th without the moralizing. Man up for a change or borrow a set of knackers and answer the question.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 8:28 pm

  69. And yes there was action last year- so what-did anyone sink?

    So what? Well stop whining like a little girl when Watson’s batboat is sunk.

    As i said payback is a real bitch.

    Next time round perhaps the Japanese navy ought to head down there and protect their people by opening fire on the pirates and assorted lowlifes.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 8:31 pm

  70. JC maybe you can’t see a moral issue when it rams you. But its also a legal issue that has not been tested. As for the 9th Feb. vid If thats all you got to hang your hat on then you aint got much. Of course the boats hit one another -so what. In case you have not heard it is called ‘The whale wars”. It would be better if a government which had balls took Japan to the international tribunal on the law of the sea-but that has only been threatened by Australia-again and again. In the meantime japan just laughs off all the talk. In the end direct action is the last resort. You may not agree but plenty do. Tough!

    Dave Head

    January 10, 2010 at 8:35 pm

  71. How to lose a PR war

    rog

    January 10, 2010 at 8:38 pm

  72. JC is going into potty mouth overdrive – he does that when he loses an argument (which is most of the time)

    rog

    January 10, 2010 at 8:40 pm

  73. JC: “Or perhaps payback is a bitch.”

    I don’t know of any area of law where “payback” (aka two-wrongs-make-a-right, tit-for-tat, an-eye-for-an-eye, etc) is a reasonable excuse.

    As to your video, I think the Sea Shephard is in the wrong there – just as much as the SM was in the Ady Gil instance.

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 8:47 pm

  74. Thanks Rog. Multiple that by 6800 times and thats how many whales Japan has killed for ‘research” [yeah right]. In all that time they have only published 4 peer reviewed scientific reports from those 6800 whales. Research that the IWC has repeatedly condmened as not needed. In fact NZ and Australia researchers have more infomation from non-lethal research. But I suppose that after killing that many whales its handy to know that some eat fish.
    It’s strange that before the zero quota ban by the ICRW [before the IWC] Japan in fact did very little whale research. But its facts like these that those blowing hot air on this blog are not interested in.

    Dave Head

    January 10, 2010 at 8:47 pm

  75. god what a soup of half-baked ideas and sloppy thinking. Let’s try and knock a few of these away.
    .
    “If it was not for Paul Watson this blog would not be here and millions of people would not know what the japanese were doing to whales.”
    .
    in other words, the end justifies the means. That’s textbook amoral logic. Next…
    .
    Of course the boats hit one another -so what. In case you have not heard it is called ‘The whale wars”.
    .
    okay, so when greenies ram whalers, it’s ‘so what, this is war.’ But when whalers ram greenies, it’s tears and sobs. Totally inconsistent.
    .
    Well JC imagine for a moment that you are a mammal that lives in the Ocean and gets a harpoon fired at you, tearing into your vital organs. Then you are hung unpside down so you either bleed to death or drown or even get electric shocks to help you on your way. All the time the rest of your family can here your screams of pain.
    .
    by that logic, all hunting is immoral. In fact all killing for the purpose of eating meat is immoral.
    .
    Anything Paul Watson has done pales into insignificance against the crime against humanity
    .
    I hate to quibble, but technically, it’s a crime against whales (whaledom?) not humans/humanity. And it’s not a crime if it’s legal; which brings us back to the start of the thread.

    daddy dave

    January 10, 2010 at 8:51 pm

  76. Dave Head, everyone knows they’re hunting whales to eat and using the “research” provision as a loophole. That’s a given. That doesn’t justify ramming them; unless you think whale hunting is murder (which clearly you do).
    I guess you consider duck hunting to be murder? Fishing? No?

    daddy dave

    January 10, 2010 at 8:54 pm

  77. Ken (quoting UNCLOS) “Piracy consists of any of the following acts: … It seems arguable that SS’s harassment of the whalers fits this.”

    Wouldn’t the apparently deliberate attacking (with water cannon and sound), ramming and sinking of another vessel by a privately held Japanese whaler fit that description – a little bit more definitely than “arguably”?

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 8:59 pm

  78. “Semi Regular Libertarian if the caps fits wear it! The trade sanctions you mention are the only way to enforce the various MEA’s the japanese are breaking BUT trade sanctions are against WTO rules. Any other ideas?”

    I wasn’t suggesting that we retaliate with sanctions. Re read what I wrote and comprehend it before you call me uninformed.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 10, 2010 at 8:59 pm

  79. “Wouldn’t the apparently deliberate attacking (with water cannon and sound)”

    No.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 10, 2010 at 9:00 pm

  80. A real whale conservationist:

    http://vichislopsharkhunter.homestead.com/MinnietheMinkeWhale1.html

    Read all 11 or so pages.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 10, 2010 at 9:03 pm

  81. We are talking about the killing [illegally] of endangered species [Fin whales] with humpback whales on the list this year-also still endangered. I can’t think of any ducks that are endangered-can you?
    Killing to eat -well in our slaughter house they kill humanly -like “bang’ instant death.
    And yes SSCS tatics are justified in my opinion -shared by many others.
    A sideways glancing blow of a large steel ship against another large steel ship is bit on the light side when put against trying to run over a very small boat by comparision. In the end I support SSCS and you don’t. I think I can live with that.
    I doubt some of you would have the balls to take a punt onto a duck pond [unless you are duck hunters]. Some people[thank god] have the courage of their convictions to take action that could be dangerous and I respect that.
    Good-night

    Dave Head

    January 10, 2010 at 9:06 pm

  82. DD they’re not hunting whales to eat. Much of the whalemeat goes to pet food, and whalemeat is only a very minor part of the Japanese diet.

    They’re hunting whales to prop up a section of their corrupt but symbiotic political and business establishment. Without whaling a number of businesses go broke and those businesses prop up tame politicians.

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 9:12 pm

  83. SRL, maybe attacking with water and sound doesn’t fit, but I think ramming and sinking does on any reasonable interpretation.

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 9:13 pm

  84. “but I think ramming and sinking does on any reasonable interpretation.”

    We can confirm that if the Japanese refuse to release their own video.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 10, 2010 at 9:16 pm

  85. Dick:

    Whose laws are the breaking? Japanese laws? No.

    Australian laws? Fuck off.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 9:25 pm

  86. JM

    Whether or not the industry is anchored to a corrupt system is not our business. That’s an internal Japanese issue. If they want to continue to support a corrupt system, bad for them, but it isn’t out problem and doesn’t remove the fact that they are acting legally.

    No one recognizes our claim in the southern ocean other than 4 other countries with similar claims.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 9:32 pm

  87. We are talking about the killing [illegally] of endangered species
    .
    Really. I thought we were talking about this:
    imagine for a moment that you are a mammal that lives in the Ocean and gets a harpoon fired at you, tearing into your vital organs. Then you are hung unpside down so you either bleed to death or drown or even get electric shocks to help you on your way. All the time the rest of your family can here your screams of pain.
    .
    make up your mind what the moral imperative is, please. Endangered species? Animal cruelty? Or “crimes against humanity?” We can’t have a sensible discussion when you keep slipping out one door and coming in through another.

    daddy dave

    January 10, 2010 at 9:34 pm

  88. JC, I think you’ll find that the Australian laws are giving the Sea Shepherd organisation cover for their activities.

    In other words, they are legally not pirates.

    The Japanese laws similarly give the whalers cover as they are engaging in a lawful activity according to Japanese law.

    So there’s an unresolved conflict between Japanese and Australian law.

    But ramming and sinking is irrelevant to that dispute and contravenes maritime law – both international and of both countries. IMHO the Japanese captain is toast.

    SRL, the Japanese have released their video – I’m not sure what your point is.

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 9:38 pm

  89. DD can’t discuss more than one thing at once. We know that.

    [Please provide a valid email. Sinc]

    Whale

    January 10, 2010 at 9:43 pm

  90. JC, no the corrupt Japanese political system is not our business, but it does remove the food security argument as it shows the true motivation is not food security but the security of the whaling business and the political security of the politicians it supports.

    So, we shouldn’t subsume our own interests to the mendacious arguments of the Japanese during negotiations with them, should we?

    BTW, since you’re a market guy you may be interested in the following:

    “In 2008/09 the whaling industry in Japan needed a subsidy approaching US$ 12 million in order to break even.8 .

    Overall cummulative subsidies reported since 1988 come to $164 million.

    Wholesale prices of whale meat per kg in Japan have been falling since 1994, starting at just over US$ 30/kg in 1994, and declining to US$ 16.4/kg in 2006.

    The average amount of whale products in stockpile inventories in the main cold-stores (about 40% of total refrigeration capacity) shows an increase from around 1500 tonnes in 1997 to around 4000 tonnes in recent years (since 2005).

    In other words, the whaling industry is heavily subsidized, prices are falling and stockpiles rising. Low demand in other words.

    My source is Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society report “The Economics of Whaling”, p4. I assume you won’t like the source but I would point out that they are summarizing and extracting their figures from official Japanese documents which they reference.

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 9:46 pm

  91. If the japanese captain is toast as you say then the ramming of the japanese ship last year still hasn’t been dealt with unless you think that incident is so 2009.

    If the Australian government is giving those thugs cover then we’re also aiding and abiding piracy as the japanese are acting within their rights.

    Here’s my bet… the Japanese captain is not toast at all and the Japanese government would do nothing to act against him as they shouldn’t.

    The japanese have history on their side seeing they were rammed last february, which “Dick” Head refers to as “a little action”. Seeing there’s history the Japanese can claim they were taking evasive action against these environmental lunatics.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 9:49 pm

  92. JM

    That’s right, I wouldn’t trust the source because environmental zealots prefer to lie even when they don’t have as it’s in their nature. So nothing that comes from these groups could ever be considered reliable. “Dick” Head is a perfect illustration of what I mean.

    As I said, it is not not business.

    Even though I would think the subsidy is wrong the arguments the japanese are using are not illogical. If food security is there issue then the subsidy can be considered a reasonable argument in that context.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 9:56 pm

  93. Rog, speaking of whaling posts and bogus claims of Japanese wrongdoing, is this you over at Jennifer Marohasy’s blog in 2006?

    “In my opinion Greenpeace are now promoting terorr (sic).”

    C.L.

    January 10, 2010 at 9:57 pm

  94. JC, turning directly towards another vessel and attacking it with water cannon is in no way evasive. Except for perhaps a Bizzaro-world definition of “evasive”.

    Subsequently running it over …. I’ll let you work that out for yourself.

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 9:58 pm

  95. “JC, turning directly towards another vessel and attacking it with water cannon is in no way evasive. Except for perhaps a Bizzaro-world definition of “evasive”.”

    Perhaps.

    Unless you heard the crew of the trimaran (on Youtube) noting and laughing at how they had spent the last few hours harassing the ships so that they were “zig-zagging all over the place.”

    If you were aware of that fact, you might not be surprised that the Japanese used water cannons immediately that the boat came alongside.

    Sorry to let the inconvenient facts intrude on your noble fantasy.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 10, 2010 at 10:03 pm

  96. You can’t view those actions in isolation, JM. The japanese ship was rammed last February and it looked like at one stage it was going to get tipped over.

    The japanese actions are perfectly reasonable in that context in order to keep loons at bay.

    After last Feb’s actions by the loons there’s no way the Japanese captain could have avoided those measures in dealing with the piracy.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 10:03 pm

  97. JC, food security is an empty argument when it comes to whales.

    The Japanese often use it in regard to rice and restrictions on imports. And I concede the logic of that as rice is a staple of their diet.

    However, whale is not a staple and is in fact showing falling demand (and has been for many years). It is also not traditional, only being of any particular importance during and after the war when it was very important.

    The fact that prices are now falling and they’re stockpiling the stuff shows that. I wouldn’t expect you to be supporting the subsidies keeping the industry alive if it were say the “butter mountain” in the EU.

    Why does Japan get a free pass?

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 10:04 pm

  98. I’m no fan of whaling, but this fantasy misrepresentation and mischaracterisation of these shitbag Greenpeace arseholes is particularly tiresome.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 10, 2010 at 10:05 pm

  99. Abu, the AG did not “come alongside” the SM. It was stationary. The SM clearly turns towards the SM. Those are facts.

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 10:05 pm

  100. JC, turning directly towards another vessel and attacking it with water cannon is in no way evasive
    .
    It’s not evasive, true, since it does not involve changing course but I think they’d argue it was self-defense. Don’t you? What would you do if there was a hostile craft that was in hosing range?

    daddy dave

    January 10, 2010 at 10:06 pm

  101. I’m not supporting the subsidies, JM. I’m simply saying that the Japanese argument flows in a reasonable context if the silly support of subsidies is removed.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 10:06 pm

  102. I’ve seen the video. The notion that the whaler would have been highly maneuverable in those seas is pure fantasy.

    The sane course of action was to stand clear. The result of being a microcephalic fool and playing chicken with a large ship is now plain for even the dimmest land lubber to see. Feeble defenses are just mealy-mouthed bullshit.

    Good night.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 10, 2010 at 10:08 pm

  103. JC, I said earlier in this thread that I thought the Sea Shepherd was wrong in the earlier incident, at least from what I can see in the video which is quite similar to this incident.

    I also said I didn’t think two wrongs make a right, which is what you seem to be arguing.

    I don’t understand why you loudly trumpet the sins of one player in the earlier incident while ignoring the sins of the other player in the current incident.

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 10:09 pm

  104. Couple of interesting pics of the SS gaymaran here. I didn’t know they used lasers to blind Japanese seamen. Note also that the wankers have a pirate’s skull and crossbones on the the boat’s hull.

    C.L.

    January 10, 2010 at 10:11 pm

  105. Abu exactly summarizes my sentiments towards these human dregs.

    If their ship sunk with all those scumbags on board I’d say the human species gained by avoiding their DNA being transferred to future generations.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 10:11 pm

  106. From the Youtube, transcript courtesy of the evil fact-loving Tim Blair:

    Crewman Kissyface: “Yeah, we slowed them down for sure. They were zig-zagging the whole time.”

    Captain Kiwi: “Well team, f***** good effort guys. [High fives!] It’s been a good day. Pity we haven’t got a couple of thousand litres more fuel …”

    If you spend all day crossing the bows and conducting harassing actions against a large ship with a tiny craft, you can’t cry foul when you get fucked up. Unless you are mentally retarded.

    Man up, grow some sack, and admit that your luck ran out, Enviro-fascist whiners.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 10, 2010 at 10:13 pm

  107. Yep, CL. That’s Rog prior to the sex change and the breast enhancement surgery.

    It’s the same deadpan style and the usual references to authority.

    That’s before he met Geoffrey.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 10:15 pm

  108. DD: “It’s not evasive, true, since it does not involve changing course”

    But it does involve the SM changing course Dave. Have a look at a split screen of all three videos (including one from the deck of the Ady Gil)

    The AG is clearly stationary. The SM clearly changes course and charges the AG.

    I don’t think there can be any real argument, the captain of the SM is toast. He ran them down.

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 10:16 pm

  109. they’re such fascist freaking whiners, aren’t they.lol

    They basically a sackless bunch of whiny pussified beta males.

    “Dick” Head is a good example.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 10:18 pm

  110. It was stationary. The SM clearly turns towards the SM. Those are facts.

    They’re not “facts.” They’re opinions. The Jap ship was moving, the SS batboat was moving and the third vessel, from which the video you’re referring to was taken, was also at least drifting. For an amateur to reduce all of these nautical and technical variables to phony “facts” is, of course, laughable.

    It seems the SS whale troopers had been buzzing, pursuing and otherwise harrassing Japanese vessels all day – a day whose macho mischief the all-male crew were congratulating themselves about in one video.

    C.L.

    January 10, 2010 at 10:18 pm

  111. ………..and trying to blind the japanese pilot. Of course the Japanese pilot could claim he was blinded by the lasers the fascist whiners were using and consequently couldn’t see the batboat. That could actually be the reason they were run over.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 10:22 pm

  112. Abu both sides regard the other as engaging in illegal activities. Both sides have (untested) legal theories to justify their stance.

    The Sea Shepherd people believe the Japanese are violating a valid whale sanctuary, the Japanese believe they have the right to whale in the area.

    But that’s irrelevant. We’re talking about maritime law here. And the Japanese are clearly in the wrong.

    Unless you want to argue – as you appear to do – that violence is an acceptable response to provocation and “illegal” (in the Japanese estimation) activities inflicted on the Japanese.

    The Japanese ran that boat down and sunk it. On no planet did they have the right to do that.

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 10:22 pm

  113. All I see is a large ship under steam in a rough sea, colliding with a craft of foolish fuckheads. I don’t see this mythical “turn on a dime” ship that you dream about JM, that would have nimbly leapt out of the way.

    This fantasy view you are pushing shows you have nil understanding of the realities of piloting a large ship in those seas. This isn’t Hollywood, mate. Those ships were zig-zagging all day, according to Greenpeace testimony. You can’t cry poor mouth if your number comes up and you end up punching your ticket. You can only play hopscotch on the minefield for so long.

    Those dullards are lucky they aren’t part of the ecology at the bottom of the sea instead of getting charity roots back at the mother ship from feral sheilas who think they’re the alphas of the unwashed shitbag tribe.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 10, 2010 at 10:22 pm

  114. It’s clear that I am NOT arguing violence is the answer, JM. I’m saying that if you play Russian roulette of your own accord, someone will eventually get the chamber with the .45 ACP load. So if you buy into the game, it’s some cowardly bullshit to bitch about it after you end up with someone else’s grey matter all over your best Greenpeace t-shirt.

    Use your loaf, son.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 10, 2010 at 10:25 pm

  115. Watch the videos Abu. One day you’ll recognize when you’ve been head-butted by reality. If you can’t see the SM turning you’re blind.

    The Japanese are in the wrong, and the captain is going to lose his certificate.

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 10:27 pm

  116. Meh.

    You’re full of shit, JM, and probably just like the tools on the gaymaran – not man enough to be responsible for your own actions.

    Welcome to the real world, sonny.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 10, 2010 at 10:29 pm

  117. JM

    The japanese cap may have been temporarily blinded by the lasers. We don’ know the full extent until we hear the story. But I’m sure the lasers attacks will be part of the defense.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 10:30 pm

  118. Ahh, abuse. Don’t you just love it.

    And your point is what exactly, Abu?

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 10:31 pm

  119. JC, I don’t think being blinded by lasers is a much of a defense when you’re:

    * turning directly towards the other craft,
    * directing water cannon at it, so you can obviously target it,
    * filming the bloody thing and maintaining your camera angles and sight of it throughout.

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 10:33 pm

  120. My point? To repeat the above:

    “I’m saying that if you play Russian roulette of your own accord, someone will eventually get the chamber with the .45 ACP load. So if you buy into the game, it’s some cowardly bullshit to bitch about it after you end up with someone else’s grey matter all over your best Greenpeace t-shirt.

    Use your loaf, son.”

    My point is:

    If you play chicken with large ships in small craft you can’t complain if your luck runs out. Too complex for you.

    As I stated above, I am NO FAN of whaling. I just think that the game is the game is the game. If you think you’re man enough to play it, don’t be a bitch if you punch your ticket.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 10, 2010 at 10:34 pm

  121. Abu is speaking English?

    Whale

    January 10, 2010 at 10:37 pm

  122. Abu, they weren’t playing chicken when this happened, they were idling in the water. Stationary.

    What happened earlier is of no relevance.

    The Japanese captain charged them. If he did it in a fit of anger and lost his head, he is not excused.

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 10:37 pm

  123. The end justifies the means as far as I’m concerned.

    The Greenpeace heroes are real men and the sort of men whales will happily swallow and regurgitate safely.

    End of story.

    Whale

    January 10, 2010 at 10:40 pm

  124. Sorry Whale real men don’t whine. They’re beta through and through.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 10:44 pm

  125. You’re not a real man jc? Since you do nothing but whine.

    Whale

    January 10, 2010 at 10:46 pm

  126. Phil’s back, as demented as ever.

    jc

    January 10, 2010 at 10:49 pm

  127. The Greenpeace manly hero-hunks were having a whale of a time and entertaining the masses.

    What more could we want?

    Whale

    January 10, 2010 at 10:53 pm

  128. JC: “… if the silly support of subsidies is removed.”

    Yeah, but the Japanese whaling industry hasn’t been profitable without the subsidies for over 20 years. Without them it would collapse.

    And then, there wouldn’t be this dispute.

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 10:55 pm

  129. In the interests of accuracy, can I just point out that Sea Shepherd are not Greenpeace.

    They’re a splinter organisation that feels that Greenpeace are pussies and not “real men”

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 10:57 pm

  130. Vic Hislop is not what you would call a “conservationist”; he is a great white hysteric, makes his money out of scaring the living daylights out of everybody and preaches that a good shark is a dead shark

    rog

    January 10, 2010 at 10:57 pm

  131. Hi Phil.

    C.L.

    January 10, 2010 at 11:08 pm

  132. We shouldn’t analyse this too much. We should just enjoy how hilarious it was to watch the very physically demonstrative all-male gaymaran crew whooping it up before having their toy boat crushed thanks to their own idiocy. The final touch was the Jap hose operator who continued to blast them anyway. That was pure gold.

    C.L.

    January 10, 2010 at 11:10 pm

  133. We shouldn’t analyse this too much. We should just enjoy how hilarious it was to watch the very physically demonstrative all-male gaymaran crew whooping it up before having their toy boat crushed thanks to their own idiocy.
    .
    You’re right.
    It is pretty funny.

    daddy dave

    January 10, 2010 at 11:24 pm

  134. “Abu, they weren’t playing chicken when this happened, they were idling in the water. Stationary.”

    Let’s see: This “Captain” is so incompetent mariners under him don’t know how to use a throttle?

    Pull the other one, this one’s got a red shift.

    ——————————————————

    Now rog – as for Hislop:

    http://vichislopsharkhunter.homestead.com/TopTenVicHislopInternetMyths.html

    2. He was once reputed to say the entire species (great white sharks) should be eradicated. This was at the time of Shirley Durdin’s attack in 1985. I don’t doubt this was a likely statement of his. In fact, it seems probable to me.
    This is a lie…..nowhere in any of Vics exhibitions, in newspaper articles or in his book does Vic make this statement……again this person was asked to produce evidence or the source of where he saw or heard this statement….and once again…he was found to be lacking any substance or evidence of what he claims Vic said. The truth of what Vic says is that while our fish stocks are being depleted the large predatory shark isn’t being fished for…..Vic made the point that the large predatory sharks should be culled to bring a balance back to the ocean between the natural prey of the large predatory shark and the available fish stocks so that all marine creatures could recover in a balanced environment.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 10, 2010 at 11:46 pm

  135. SRL, what’s your complaint? They were stationary and didn’t get out of the way? Even though they have no obligation to do so.

    Sorry, I thought earlier you were arguing that they deliberately accelerated into the SM and caused the collision.

    Which is it? You’re pathetic.

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 11:54 pm

  136. In his <a href="http://www.avionnewspaper.com/news/2005/09/27/Science/Australia.Debates.Culling.Shark.Population-998968.shtml

    “There is no doubt we need a huge national cull, because sharks are a massive blight on marine life,”

    rog

    January 10, 2010 at 11:56 pm

  137. CL I’m not sure what you’re arguing.

    But your last few comments seem to be suggesting that the Japanese captain should make a homophobic claim in his own defense – “but the crew were poofters your Honor, what else could I do?”

    JM

    January 10, 2010 at 11:56 pm

  138. Send in Captain Pugwash and co he’d sort the whole thing out

    tal

    January 11, 2010 at 12:04 am

  139. “…but the crew were poofters your Honor, what else could I do?”

    Hey, good idea!

    Maybe the SS pilot could also explain to His Honour why he and his crew were trying to blind seamen with lasers and foul props with dragged ropes.

    But the Jap captain didn’t “do” anything. A bunch of mutually infatuated pirates in tights spent the day trying to cause havoc at sea. At the end of the day, they filmed themselves congratulating one another for a hard day’s harrassment of shipping whereupon they drifted in front of a Jap ship.

    It was hilarious.

    C.L.

    January 11, 2010 at 1:17 am

  140. JC you and your fellow supporters keep reverting to insults when your “facts” are shown to be nothing more than ill informed opinions. Calling Dave a dick head on a regular basis just shows what sort of a small minded person you are where if people dont agree with your opinions you revert to insults. Their are a lot of facts in this debate, you JC offer little and to be honest, your contributions are not worth the time to read.

    You keep going on about the Steve Irwin colliding side on with the Whaling boat which no one denies, a side ways glance is hardly endangering the lives of the whalers. If the japanese wanted to bring their illegal whaling activities to court by getting their government to charge the Steve Irwin then they would have done so. As they have not and the Australian police cleared them i can not see what your point is? As for the other correspondence about the NM2 being in the right when it rammed the Ady Gil you are obviously blinded by your own made up opinions. natical law is very clear here, the vessel on port gives way, and as the boat changed direction towards the ady gil they intentionally put themselves on a collision path. In no way can you argue fact… well you do but with juvenille comments and one eyed opinions.

    As the Japanese are a member of the IWC and bound by their laws they have a duty to keep within the laws. By clearly not conducting research thier position is worth nothing and they are conducting illegal whaling. This is the issue here, and Watson and SSCS are only down there upholding the IWC laws that the Aussie and NZ governments do not want to uphold.

    When your ready for a mature discussion please respond in the meantime keep your comments to yourself which i am sure you wont. Now what response do you have for these comments?

    Mike Eastwood

    January 11, 2010 at 1:50 am

  141. CL: “Hey, good idea!”

    You condemn yourself.

    And stop using the word “blind”. “Dazzle” I’ll accept but there has been no blinding.

    JM

    January 11, 2010 at 2:00 am

  142. Oh and CL: “whereupon they drifted”

    They didn’t drift. They were standing off, out of the way and were charged and run down.

    JM

    January 11, 2010 at 2:04 am

  143. No, the gaymaran’s men-in-tights filmed themselves congratulating one another for a hard day’s harrassment of shipping whereupon they drifted in front of a Jap ship looking to prevent further illegal acts of piratical sabotage. They’ll have to explain to a court why they were trying to blind Japanese seaman and why they were trying to disable ships. The only one condemning himself is you.

    Fortunately for observers like us, the end result was a truly hilarious, thoroughly deserved comeuppance.

    C.L.

    January 11, 2010 at 2:32 am

  144. SRL, what’s your complaint? They were stationary and didn’t get out of the way? Even though they have no obligation to do so.

    Actually they do have that obligation.

    Yobbo

    January 11, 2010 at 4:52 am

  145. Good morning. I see the ranting and raving has continued over-night.
    Yobbo [well named] obviously has a great deal of knowledge of the rules of the sea -not. Actually a moving vessel has an obligation not only to steer away from stationery one but to keep away from it.
    I can’t see a lot of substantive debate going on here-just a lot of self opinionated unknowledgeable anonymous guys with nothing beeter to do than stand in judgement on real men with a real cause , with the odd person who makes a relevant and factual comment [like JM]. My contributions to this blog now stop- a waste of time trying discussing issues with most of you. Maybe next time you will come back as a whale!

    Dave Head

    January 11, 2010 at 5:53 am

  146. O by the way, who was at fault will be decided by 2 martime authority investigations [NZ & Aussie] which will carried out by people who actually know the rules of the ocean.

    Dave Head

    January 11, 2010 at 6:04 am

  147. Bunch of pansies. Man up, little green beta-males. You pays your money, you takes your chances. No use crying if you lose the game, ladies.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 11, 2010 at 7:24 am

  148. I think Abu means “pay” and “take”.

    Whale

    January 11, 2010 at 7:49 am

  149. I would have thought the Australian Martime Authority has no standing to investigate.

    Anyway here is the bottom line.

    He just clearly enunciated the fundamental, unaltered Japanese position: whale meat is part of Japan’s cultural heritage; international law allows Japan to whale in open waters; Japan isn’t hunting threatened species; and if Australians have a cultural objection to hunting whales, most Japanese find their eating kangaroos disgusting — without encouraging vigilantes to disrupt the Skippy-killing.

    We wait with eager anticipation for the Rudd government to respond. I reckon it’s going to be

    Those naughty, naughty Japanese

    Sinclair Davidson

    January 11, 2010 at 8:32 am

  150. UNCLOS and IWC are toothless tigers which is why Sea Shepherd has successfully provoked Japan into what can be claimed as an act of piracy.

    rog

    January 11, 2010 at 9:46 am

  151. Tim Blair compares it to Usain Bolt being hit by a train; by walking in front of a train and then refusing to move.
    .

    Bethune’s reaction? “Ooooh! So scared!” A crewmate joins in: “Somebody get me outta here!” They’re still laughing as the Shonan Maru draws closer. Bear in mind that the Japanese ship’s top speed is only 13 knots. The sleek Ady Gil gaymaran can hit 45, if anyone could be bothered firing up its 1000-horsepower engines.

    .
    if any of the pro-Ady Gil commenters here can refute Blair’s position, go right ahead.
    .
    Saying that the Shonan Maru rammed the Ady Gil or that it committed piracy requires a wilful ignorance of the facts, specifically the relative size and speed of the two boats.

    daddy dave

    January 11, 2010 at 10:09 am

  152. Both the Japanese and the Whalers won’t talk about the issue and instead engage in dubious activity in basically lawless parts of the world.

    You reap what you sow under such circumstances. Especially when you cross paths for most of the day then idle in front of a larger, slower ship.

    Hislop was brought up tongue in cheek. The ACF called him up to cull the Tiger sharks in order to try and save that baby Minke whale. Also rog, if you believe any media report on him, take it with a grain of salt. He gets asked all kinds of asinine “gotcha” questions. He was asked after culling some sharks once “What gives you this right? When are you going to start on the whales?” ???

    Sometimes conservation doesn’t take the form you expect it to. Likewise, a trade treaty with the Japanese is more likely to end whaling than Garret beating his chest and worthless court proceedings.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 11, 2010 at 11:37 am

  153. Mike Westwood asks
    Now what response do you have for these comments?

    Not much of a response, Mike other than you’re a fucking moron. Making slight of the Feb 9 2009 ram kinda proves you’re a fucking idiot just like “Dick” Head, as that was his response too.

    Abu is right, you environmental loons are real beta males, high fiving when things go your way but screaming like a bunch of whiny kids when they don’t. In fact you two give betas a bad name.

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 11:37 am

  154. Here are Rules of the Sea:

    http://asianyachting.com/AYmasters/l3rules.htm

    So far as I understand them, the Japanese ship should have nothing to worry about by a maritime investigation. The skipper of the AG should be worried.

    More laws here:

    http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?doc_id=649&topic_id=257#8

    dover_beach

    January 11, 2010 at 11:39 am

  155. DB look up COLREGS

    It’s the mariners Law

    rog

    January 11, 2010 at 11:43 am

  156. MW asks JC for a response to his claim that JC keeps reverting to insults and JC responds

    “you’re a fucking moron”

    QED

    rog

    January 11, 2010 at 11:45 am

  157. “DB look up COLREGS”

    That is my second link, rog. Did you fail to spot it?

    dover_beach

    January 11, 2010 at 11:48 am

  158. Yobbo [well named] obviously has a great deal of knowledge of the rules of the sea -not.

    Which placitum of the aforesaid law sanctions use of lasers to blind seamen, Dave, you moron?

    A reference if you please.

    C.L.

    January 11, 2010 at 11:50 am

  159. Rog:

    You’re comprehension abilities are about as good as Homer’s on a bad day.

    Mike Westway hasn’t done anything other then state his positions and lie a little all wrapped up in that moralizing tone only beta type environmentalist loons can muster.

    You still haven’t answered CL’s question, Rogette. Was that you on Jenny M’s site calling Paul Watson a terrorist…… before your sex change?

    Now run along as Geoffrey is calling out for you.

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 11:53 am

  160. Rog, does your loitering on this subject here mean that you now repudiate your 2006 view – as stated on Jennifer Morahasy’s blog post on the whaling dispute – that Greenpeace are terrorists?

    C.L.

    January 11, 2010 at 11:53 am

  161. All this attention, I’m flattered

    rog

    January 11, 2010 at 12:00 pm

  162. answer the question?

    Did you refer to Watson as a terrorist on Jen M’s blog?

    you coward, rog. You complete coward.

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 12:08 pm

  163. Here’s a picture of terrorists in action. Note the beard on the older beta male throwing acid at the Japanese

    ship.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/gallery-e6frg6n6-1225816681848?page=11

    The beard is obviously a display of kinship with his mid east bros.

    Note also the thug with the laser gun slightly to the right of the beard-throwing the acid- trying to blind japanese seamen..

    Whiny “Dick” Head and Mike Westway want us to ignore these acts and focus on the fact that the batboat was smashed.

    We are as well and ROTFL.

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 12:23 pm

  164. I don’t mind that you’ve changed your mind, Rog. I just think it would aid discussion if you explained what prompted you to embrace green terrorism. Did a neighbour accidentally poison your geraniums or what?

    C.L.

    January 11, 2010 at 12:25 pm

  165. To Dave Head:

    A drifting vessel has no particular special right of way and is deemed to be underway. The Japanese ship was required to turn to starboard to avoid a head-on collision which it did.

    The AG was obligated to make every attempt to avoid a collision, they made no attempt at all. They were playing chicken.

    Yobbo

    January 11, 2010 at 2:46 pm

  166. They were drifting – a vessel with a stopped engine is considered to be not under command.

    The japs turned and rammed the Ady Gil.

    rog

    January 11, 2010 at 3:49 pm

  167. The japs turned and rammed the Ady Gil.
    .
    so, you’re not going to bother addressing or refuting anything anyone else has said, except to repeat the same Sea Shephard PR soundbite? Is that all you’ve got?

    daddy dave

    January 11, 2010 at 3:58 pm

  168. So if you cut the motor off, you are withheld from responsibility and everyone else finds out how?

    Anyway:

    JM sez:

    “Abu, they weren’t playing chicken when this happened, they were idling in the water. Stationary.”

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 11, 2010 at 3:59 pm

  169. and by the way, “japs” is racist. I tolerated it from my grandmother who lived through world war II; what’s your excuse.

    daddy dave

    January 11, 2010 at 4:00 pm

  170. Rog:

    Answer the question, you jerk. Why the 180 degree turn.

    On Jenny M website you were calling Watson a terrorist and now you’re defending him and referring to him as a hero.

    Don’t be a coward and explain.

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 4:10 pm

  171. daddy dave, “Jap” is not a racist term except to overly sensitive Americans, who can’t even order a white coffee without the NAACP and ACLU slapping their arse in a bear trap.

    Infidel Tiger

    January 11, 2010 at 4:17 pm

  172. “Jap” is not a racist term except to overly sensitive Americans
    .
    okay; I can accept that.

    daddy dave

    January 11, 2010 at 4:23 pm

  173. Although, you never know what’s racist these days. Apparently caling a Pakistani a Paki is the equivalent of “nigger” in the UK. What an age we live in. Don’t anyone dare call me an Aussie, or you’ll be as popular as a Jap on an Anzac Day.

    Infidel Tiger

    January 11, 2010 at 4:29 pm

  174. I dont know why the japs did a 180 deg turn JC, perhaps you could bring some sanity the issue (said whilst laughing in one’s sleeve)

    rog

    January 11, 2010 at 4:37 pm

  175. …I got told by a guy from London that using the N-word was liable to get you glassed or worse.

    Have the poms watched The Wire?

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 11, 2010 at 4:41 pm

  176. Rog:

    You re not laughing in your sleeve, your driveling saliva on your sleeve like you normally do.

    Can’t answer the question can you? You coward, rog. You two bit coward. Just piss off.

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 4:45 pm

  177. Anyone seen Head and Westway… the two gneiuses putting forward moral positions thinking they were factual debating points?

    Where are those two intellectuals slobs?

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 4:52 pm

  178. I knew that I could rely on you JC, you always under achieve.

    From news.com

    Sea Shepherd have now released a three-minute, 20-second unedited video clip shot aboard the Ady Gil and posted on YouTube, showing crew members relaxing and joking on the roof of the boat until moments before the collision with the Shonan Maru 2.

    The Japanese vessel is visible in the distance as Captain Pete Bethune asks crew member Laurens de Groot to relay instructions to have the Ady Gil stopped.

    Two minutes into the clip, the long-range acoustic device aboard the Shonan Maru 2 can be heard.

    The trio watches unconcerned and takes photographs as the ship approaches and appears to turn towards them with its water cannons aimed at the Ady Gil.

    Seconds before the collision the men start yelling.

    The footage ends a split second before the impact as the cameraman scrambles clear.

    rog

    January 11, 2010 at 5:18 pm

  179. Rog:

    The change of subject strategy was ruined by Homer and seeing it used now is more of an amusement than anything else.

    Answer the question, you two-bit coward. Man-up and answer the question….

    Why are you accusing Watson of being a terrorist on Jenny M’s site while turning him into a hero for all beta males like yourself, Head and Westway at this site?

    Get a sack and explain it Rog.

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 5:28 pm

  180. O by the way, who was at fault will be decided by 2 martime authority investigations [NZ & Aussie] which will carried out by people who actually know the rules of the ocean.

    Yea, sure, Head. Like the japanese are going to listen to these two bodies after their own people were hounded, boarderline maniac bearded terrorists throwing acid at them and trying to blind them with lasers.

    Yep, that sure is going to be adhered to by the Japanese government.

    Does derangement syndrome run through the entire family or was yours the result of using too much dope?

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 6:05 pm

  181. “Why are you accusing Watson of being a terrorist on Jenny M’s site ”

    Care to provide some evidence?

    rog

    January 11, 2010 at 6:10 pm

  182. “throwing acid at them”

    Somebody tell JC what butyric acid is..

    rog

    January 11, 2010 at 6:11 pm

  183. Wooo

    “bearded terrorists ”

    So its beards now, eh?

    rog

    January 11, 2010 at 6:12 pm

  184. Yobbo: “The Japanese ship was required to turn to starboard to avoid a head-on collision which it did.”

    Not only is this a butchery of the rules, it’s completely backwards. You are required to give way to vessels on the starboard side (that’s the right hand side to you). Rule 15. You are also required to take early and obvious action to avoid the collision. Rule 16. The SM did neither.

    The very last thing you’re allowed to do is turn into them.

    “The AG was obligated to make every attempt to avoid a collision, they made no attempt at all.”

    They were the stand-on vessel, they were required to hold their course (which is what they did) until the risk of collision becomes too great and then try to prevent it as best they can (Rule 17) which is also what they did.

    JM

    January 11, 2010 at 6:16 pm

  185. Cl:

    Could you please put up the link to Jen M’s Site where Rog made the accusations as he’s in denial since he last saw your comment and wants to play childish games.

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 6:18 pm

  186. “They were the stand-on vessel, they were required to hold their course (which is what they did) until the risk of collision becomes too great and then try to prevent it as best they can (Rule 17) which is also what they did.”

    I thought you said they were sitting there idling in a smaller, quicker boat.

    …you called ME pathetic before. FMD.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 11, 2010 at 6:18 pm

  187. So its beards now, eh?

    Yep. Look at that creature.

    ship.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/gallery-e6frg6n6-1225816681848?page=11

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 6:22 pm

  188. JC – butyric acid is described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butyric_acid

    “Butyric acid is found in rancid butter, parmesan cheese, vomit, and body odor and has an unpleasant smell and acrid taste, with a sweetish aftertaste”

    It smells like vomit. Otherwise it has no particular bad effect. You could probably eat it if you could hold it down.

    JM

    January 11, 2010 at 6:23 pm

  189. Oh, that’s ok, right, JM?

    So if I came over and threw a bucket of shit over you that would be okay too as it wouldn’t kill you.

    As long as I wore a beard, looked the part of an “environmental activist” the cops would probably say that I did well and not arrest me.

    The guy with the laser gun…. Well he’s just messing about trying to start a game of gotcha with his buddies on the Japanese ship. All in fun.

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 6:28 pm

  190. SRL, as far as I’m concerned they were sitting there idling. But other people here seem to want to dispute that.

    It doesn’t matter whether their course and speed was 1/2 knot in direction X or 0 knots in direction X, they were still entitled to sit still as they were the stand-on vessel and were entitled to believe that the SM would not break the law and run them down.

    Got it yet?

    JM

    January 11, 2010 at 6:29 pm

  191. “It doesn’t matter whether their course and speed was 1/2 knot in direction X or 0 knots in direction X, they were still entitled to sit still as they were the stand-on vessel and were entitled to believe that the SM would not break the law and run them down.”

    “SRL, as far as I’m concerned they were sitting there idling.”

    “They were the stand-on vessel, they were required to hold their course (which is what they did) until the risk of collision becomes too great and then try to prevent it as best they can (Rule 17) which is also what they did.”

    Please tell me how they tried to prevent this, given they were too incompetent as mariners to use the throttle…

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 11, 2010 at 6:32 pm

  192. You’re wrong, JM.

    The AG was stopped in front of the Japanese ship. It wasn’t alongside it until the Japanese ship was on top of it. It was a head-on situation and here’s what rule 14 states:

    Unless otherwise agreed [Inld] When two power-driven vessels are meeting on reciprocal or nearly reciprocal courses so as to involve risk of collision each shall alter her course to starboard so that each shall pass on the port side of the other.

    That is what the Japanese ship did. The retardboat on the other hand just sat there and played chicken.

    Rule 15 has to do with ships running parallel to each other, completely irrelevant.

    Yobbo

    January 11, 2010 at 6:39 pm

  193. “The AG was stopped in front of the Japanese ship. ”

    Not according to the latest footage, the japs came over the horizon and veered to starboard, t-boned AG then turned to port

    The crew were lying on the deck of AG, they had switched off the motors as they were low on fuel and were just hanging around.

    rog

    January 11, 2010 at 6:50 pm

  194. Well it seems to me that if you’re going to engage in these tactics you shouldn’t bitch and moan when something goes wrong.

    I should think that whoever paid for that nice bit of kit wouldn’t be too happy about how much care SS took of the equipment.

    BirdLab

    January 11, 2010 at 7:00 pm

  195. rog,

    What footage shows what both boats were doing? Have you got a link?

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 11, 2010 at 7:17 pm

  196. SRL, we’re talking about the Blair video (particularly from 2:30 on where the SM is clearly shown turning towards the AG).

    There is also a split screen version showing all three points of view – from the AG, from the SM and also from the Bob Baxter some distance away. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLdUISE3e8c)

    Look at Blair’s one from 2:30 on (ignore all the irrelevant banter beforehand – that’s what’s getting people here distracted).

    Then watch the split screen one.

    It’s obvious. From all perspectives.

    They got ran down. Deliberately.

    JM

    January 11, 2010 at 8:05 pm

  197. Yobbo

    You are absolutely, completely wrong.

    Try this from Sky news: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9zuJUC-hvg

    Key phrases:-

    ” … he [the AG] has right of way”

    ” … he [the AG] is entitled to maintain his course”

    ” … at it looks like he [the SM] turned into him”

    Sorry. You’re wrong.

    No need for an apology. I doubt you have the integrity for it.

    JM

    January 11, 2010 at 8:09 pm

  198. Yobbo, just to be clear about the bankruptcy of your argument, the boats were not head-on.

    They were on similar headings, not reciprocal headings or anything like it. Rule 14 has no application.

    No-one with any sense could say they were head on after viewing any of these videos.

    JM

    January 11, 2010 at 8:17 pm

  199. I still really don’t understand why if a larger, slower ship tries to run over you, why you sit back and say “Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!” instead of trying to get the hell out of there.

    If you didn’t like Corrigan, did you leave your car on the rail tracks when a Patrick’s train came down the line?

    Now I’d say it was intentional but the Ady Gil a sitting duck? Hell no.

    That’s obviously bad behaviour by the SM. Still, I stand by my comments that provocation and dubious activity in disputed waters asks for trouble.

    Of course, the Ady Gil didn’t mind being rammed, because this is about PR, not taking a harpoon for a whale.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 11, 2010 at 8:28 pm

  200. Blah blah blah.

    All this BS pseudo lawyer talk from JM and his ilk won’t mask the fact that a speed boat full of beta male cry babies played chicken on the high seas and got their arses handed to them on a plate.

    Stop your bleating and sophistry ladies, we all saw what you were up to that day and you admitted it on tape. Suck it up, enviro-weenies.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 11, 2010 at 8:32 pm

  201. Whale wrote: “I think Abu means “pay” and “take”.

    Whale/Cyd – you need to expand your knowledge, my PEDantic friend:

    http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/You+pays+your+money

    Abu Chowdah

    January 11, 2010 at 8:37 pm

  202. Try this from Sky news:
    .
    Sky News brought in a water taxi operator, showed him the footage that we’ve all seen, and asked for a spot opinion. Interesting… but not exactly a smoking gun.
    .
    Blah blah blah
    .
    exactly. JM keeps dancing around key facts, singing and blocking his ears.

    daddy dave

    January 11, 2010 at 8:58 pm

  203. Paul Watson, portrait of a man in peak fitness.

    Frankly if he ever got in the water the Japanese could end up harpooning the wrong mammal.

    No wonder he didn’t skipper the batboat. It would have sunk without the Japanese running over it in error.

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 9:15 pm

  204. SRL, the difference is that the sea is not a set of railroad tracks (or lanes on a highway), it’s open in every direction.

    They sat there for the simple reason that they believed the SM would obey the law. It didn’t.

    Thanks for acknowledging that.

    And all this stuff about the banter beforehand is irrelevant. The captain of the SM blew it – badly. And he’ll have to answer for it.

    JM

    January 11, 2010 at 9:28 pm

  205. Yobbo, I think you should at least be retracting your nonsense about “head-on” at this point, don’t you?

    JM

    January 11, 2010 at 9:30 pm

  206. JM

    If you read fatso’s wikipage you’ll see that he’s not just a whale lover (self portrait). The fat fuck has basically been a pirate and terrorist for a decent swag of his life.

    There’s nothing new in the way he’s acting in the southern ocean just a different date.

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 9:31 pm

  207. I haven’t watched the tapes, but if the Japs had the chance to avoid and deliberately didn’t then that is wrong and should be prosecuted if possible. I have no sympathy for the SS morons, but still, wrong is wrong.

    pedro

    January 11, 2010 at 9:32 pm

  208. How you going with the evidence JC, your hit rate of 100% failure remains unchallenged.

    rog

    January 11, 2010 at 9:33 pm

  209. “And all this stuff about the banter beforehand is irrelevant. The captain of the SM blew it – badly. And he’ll have to answer for it.”

    Blah de blah de blah blah blah.

    You oxygen bandit.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 11, 2010 at 9:36 pm

  210. What evidence is that, Rog, the evidence that you were on Jenny M’s site proclaiming the human whale (Paul Watson) a terrorist?

    You’re saying that wasn’t you?

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 9:37 pm

  211. Hey pedro, I agree – wrong is wrong. But if you watch a few of the vids it’s soon obvious that a small nimble craft strayed into the path of a large ship in rough seas.

    I’m opposed to whaling. But I’m even more offended by stupidity and lies.

    I don’t think the captain of the Japanese whaler will have to worry about the outcome of any inquiries in this instance.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 11, 2010 at 9:38 pm

  212. And all this stuff about the banter beforehand is irrelevant.
    .
    not really. We’re operating in a situation of incomplete information. Footage from a single vantage can be misleading. Hence all the discoveries of UFO’s for instance, and the illusion of players being offside when you’re watching soccer on TV.
    .
    Given that we don’t know exactly who was doing what, or why, the behaviour on those on board the Ady Gil is very illuminating.
    .
    My guess is that they thought the Japanese vessel would move, but misjudged its maneouvreability, or lack thereof.
    .
    You’re very keen to dismiss any facts that put the Sea Shepherds in a poor light as irrelevant, aren’t you JM.

    daddy dave

    January 11, 2010 at 9:41 pm

  213. New Zealand Herald is no fan of Jap whaling, However…

    A full investigation is some time away, but experts who looked at footage of the incident seem to agree that the Ady Gil is not blameless and may be mainly, if not entirely, to blame for what occurred. Even the most hardened opponents of whaling may consider that protest that endangers lives and destroys a $2.5-million boat bought mainly with sponsors’ money is foolhardy and intemperate.

    So the SS was to blame.

    C.L.

    January 11, 2010 at 9:41 pm

  214. Hey CL

    You have that link to Jen M’s site where Rogette proclaims Paul (The whale) Watson a terrorist as he’s trying to slide out of it demanding evidence like Bird demands evidence of there being no martian pyramids.

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 9:44 pm

  215. Given that we don’t know exactly who was doing what, or why, the behaviour on those on board the Ady Gil is very illuminating.

    Indeed. The SS video demonstrates beyond any doubt that the terrorists were indulging in mutually reinforcing, no-turning-back machismo. One wonders if it would have happened at all if their were a few women on board saying, ‘boys, we’ve had a good run, let’s motor and call it a day.’

    C.L.

    January 11, 2010 at 9:44 pm

  216. DD, provocation is not a defense. The SM deliberately ran down and destroyed another craft – placing both crews in danger.

    And it broke the rules on collision-avoidance to do it.

    JM

    January 11, 2010 at 9:45 pm

  217. My first thought was that a fast little boat couldn’t be run down by a lumbering big boat without making it happen. But that is just a guess. Anything can happen and the evidence will probably always be unclear because the Southern Ocean is not exactly chockers will innocent bystanders. Has anyone checked whether Jess Watson was near by and has a view. 😉

    pedro

    January 11, 2010 at 9:45 pm

  218. Morahasy had a post up in 2006 on another incident from the Greenpeace war on Jap whalers, an allegation of ramming etc.

    Rog weighed in with links about Greenpeace attacks on — wait for it — a nuclear power plant:

    In my opinion Greenpeace are now promoting terorr (sic).

    So he’s gone from believing greenies are terrorists to hailing them as heroes and exemplars of true manliness.

    [LINK].

    C.L.

    January 11, 2010 at 9:49 pm

  219. The New Zealand Herald:

    full investigation is some time away, but experts who looked at footage of the incident seem to agree that the Ady Gil is not blameless and may be mainly, if not entirely, to blame for what occurred. Even the most hardened opponents of whaling may consider that protest that endangers lives and destroys a $2.5-million boat bought mainly with sponsors’ money is foolhardy and intemperate.

    C.L.

    January 11, 2010 at 9:50 pm

  220. JC, I don’t care about “fatso” and his personal behaviour.

    An argument like that wouldn’t absolve an AFL player in the tribunal (well, most of the time anyway) let alone here. (“X is a dickhead, so I king-hit him, he deserved it. Let me off.”)

    The SM clearly, absolutely broke the rules, about as badly as your example from Feb, but with far more dangerous consequences – which were foreseeable given the relative sizes of the two crafts.

    The SM’s captain is toast.

    JM

    January 11, 2010 at 9:51 pm

  221. JC, i guess your name is short for just a [deleted. Sinc]? You do nothing on this site but rave on and on about shit which you know nothing about. Ill informed comments with abuse seems to be your only way of getting your point across. Oh, and if you think you win an argument by trying to post more messages than anyone else you are a sad fuck. Grow up and get a job.

    Oh and Dover_beach, jsut because you post links doesnt mean your right, have you actually read any of them? I still can not read on there how a ship is allowed to change course and run over another vessel, stationary or not, you have no evidence or laws so shut it.

    Thats the last of me on here as i am not going to waste my time with a [deleted. Sinc] like you.

    Mike Eastwood

    January 11, 2010 at 9:53 pm

  222. No Westwood, I’m not that, you are. Just a filthy lowlife one that happens to lie a lot and postures moral positions as though they are factual, arguable points.

    My comments aren’t ill informed whereas yours are just a pack of bullshit rolled into turd.

    Get a job? I have one. How about you finding something to do other than spreading turgid bullshit over the web and get all shitty because people catch you out.

    Go fuck yourself westwood, you crap artist. Try that moral posturing with young impressionable kids not here.

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 10:00 pm

  223. Thanks for the link CL. I wasn’t able to trace the exact word search.

    he also had this to say:

    Greenpeace say that they were hit from behind yet photos clearly show damage to their bow.

    Typical dopey greenies, dont know if they are coming or going.

    Posted by: rog at January 8, 2006 09:41 PM

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 10:04 pm

  224. JC, just watch the videos mate. The SM clearly came up from behind and clipped their bow.

    What are you going to believe? Some ignorant commentator, or you own lying eyes?

    JM

    January 11, 2010 at 10:07 pm

  225. JM:

    I’m not using fatso’s wiki link as some argument about the batboat being deservedly crushed. I posted to show the fat whale has a lot of form in the area of terror and piracy on the high seas seeing he’s wanted by a lot of countries.

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 10:08 pm

  226. Westwood’s contribution to the debate so far…

    Regarding the feb 9th 2009 attack on he japanese vessel.

    You keep going on about the Steve Irwin colliding side on with the Whaling boat which no one denies, a side ways glance is hardly endangering the lives of the whalers.

    It was denied by fatso Watson though at the time.

    ( Westwood Useless pathological dickhead).

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 10:17 pm

  227. The anti-wahling New Zeland Herald”

    A full investigation is some time away, but experts who looked at footage of the incident seem to agree that the Ady Gil is not blameless and may be mainly, if not entirely, to blame for what occurred. Even the most hardened opponents of whaling may consider that protest that endangers lives and destroys a $2.5-million boat bought mainly with sponsors’ money is foolhardy and intemperate.

    Looks like what we thought: the SS was to blame.

    C.L.

    January 11, 2010 at 10:22 pm

  228. I just watched the split screen clip and the same two clips whole on youtube and you can see the AG’s engines fire up as the Japs close with it. My best guess is that the AG moves across their bow at the last minute. I couldn’t whether the japs definitely swerve, there was apparent movement to the side but they were in a heavy sea and being filmed from another possibly moving boat. the footage from the jap ship seems to show a course set for a near run across the bow of the AG to let the water cannon have a good shot.

    pedro

    January 11, 2010 at 10:23 pm

  229. …i am not going to waste my time with [deleted]…

    Mike, may I suggest that you join the all-male SS speedboat division.

    C.L.

    January 11, 2010 at 10:28 pm

  230. Wow:

    It’s the last of Mike “West-wood”. How awful is that? It’s a loss of enormous proportions.

    West- World ought to start looking in the mirror a lot more to figure what a real lying sack of turd “one” looks like.

    (Question? Why do most leftwingers, enviro-facists hate being made fun of when they post stupid comments, as they really can’t take it back)

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 10:33 pm

  231. The SM deliberately ran down and destroyed another craft – placing both crews in danger.
    .
    You can’t know that for certain. Please stop stating opinions as if they are facts.
    But I’ll tell you what we do know!
    We know for sure that the captain and crew of Ady Gil displayed a reckless disregard for maritime safety. That’s what’s known as a fact.

    daddy dave

    January 11, 2010 at 10:55 pm

  232. Once again JC, no evidence at all. !00% failure rate remains unchallenged.

    And CL – so what?

    Greenpeace were promoting terrorist attacks on a nuclear power station.

    You guys really know how to waste time.

    rog

    January 11, 2010 at 11:16 pm

  233. “My comments aren’t ill informed …”

    HA!

    rog

    January 11, 2010 at 11:18 pm

  234. Rog:

    1. You ask for evidence.

    2. Deny the evidence

    3. Then don’t deny the evidence by arguing the point you made at Jennifer’s site with CL.

    Honest question: Are the hormone drugs you’re taking for the sex change inhibiting normal thinking processes. Tell Geoffrey as he’s a doctor.

    Rog, you really have to be the stupidest commenter here. In fact you tower over Homer’s stupidity.

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 11:21 pm

  235. CL I find it hard to believe that a man like yourself, a person of infinite integrity, and adherence to the very foundations of the western intellectual tradition, a man who would have been at Socrates side assisting with the hemlock; is indulging in homophobic rants like this.

    Or are you really just a bigoted bogan in a cheap suit?

    JM

    January 11, 2010 at 11:28 pm

  236. And CL – so what?

    Greenpeace were promoting terrorist attacks on a nuclear power station.

    Morahasy’s post was about a whaling confrontation and an alleged ramming. Your response was to call them terrorists. Now you say they’re heroes.

    C.L.

    January 11, 2010 at 11:29 pm

  237. JM, I am pretty much a bogan, yes, and I rarely wear suits. But no, your 1980s-style attempt to shut down mockery of an all-male group of men in tights – whose mutually reinforcing machismo caused them to drift into, and be crushed by, a Japanese security vessel – won’t work. And no, I wouldn’t have assisted Socrates’ suicide (note and learn from the apostrophe). Suicide is a mortal sin. Finally, the charge of bigotry is amusing coming from someone who clearly has a race problem with the Japanese – even to the point of trivialising SS attempts to blind Jap seamen with lasers.

    C.L.

    January 11, 2010 at 11:38 pm

  238. “My comments aren’t ill informed …”

    HA!

    Yup, that’s a howler.

    But with Mike Eastwood’s 2nd effort, we finally got what this thread’s been begging for since comment #1 – a moron wailing.

    Eastwood… Puns… Paxton! Good God, blow me down if it isn’t a conspiracy!

    FDB

    January 11, 2010 at 11:38 pm

  239. Rog asks for “evidence”. Here’s Rog on Jennifer’s site making better arguments against piracy and act of terror by the sea Shepherd and Gangrenepeace.

    I’m titling this, Rog The early days (before the converting over to a doctor’s wife)

    January 08, 2006
    Greenpeace & The Japanese: Who Rammed Who?

    Greenpeace say that they were hit from behind yet photos clearly show damage to their bow.
    Typical dopey greenies, dont know if they are coming or going.
    Posted by: rog at January 8, 2006 09:41 PM

    There are various international marine laws including collision at sea; generally fishing boats, if they are displaying the appropriate lights, symbols and sounds are exempt.
    Greenpeace are intruding into a lawful workzone and are provoking the Japanese to commit an injury that would be used as publicity against them.
    Greenpeace are deliberately taking a risk of injury.
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 06:03 AM
    In fact the law (rule 18 COLREGS) states that all vessels, except those not under command or restricted in their ability to manoeuvre, to keep out of the way of a vessel engaged in fishing.
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 06:40 AM

    Here are a couple of points (from a non expert)
    The Greenpeace p/r says that “the captain of the Sunrise tried to pull out of the way of the oncoming whaler.”
    This is in conflict with the video where the skipper clearly says that he maintained course and speed.
    Both extracts confirm that the Greenpeace ship was under way.
    Also in the video the Greenpeace skipper claims he was in open waters – judging by the number of ships at anchor or in the vicinity “open waters” could be debated.
    Under maritime law the Greenpeace ship must give way to the fishing ship. Also under maritime law all skippers must at all times make every effort to avoid a collision. Whilst the Japanese ship did make warning the Greenpeace ship made no obvious effort to avoid collision.
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 10:47 AM

    Principles, ethics and rule of law are thrown out the window by the greenies to be replaced by emotive arguments and moral equivalence – mob rule.
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 01:06 PM

    Greenpeace have a weblog recording some of the crew’s impressions like this one;
    “At first Arne (captain of the Arctic Sunrise), maintained his course and speed, as he was obliged to do under maritime rules of the road.”
    Capt Arne might be looking for a new vessel.
    http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 02:18 PM

    How is whaling an act of “eco terrorism” whilst fishing is a recreational sport?
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 02:21 PM

    The issue of this thread is did Greenpeace ram the Japanese or vice-versa? If they did, and the evidence presented does raise some issues with regards to their statements (their captain did state that prior to the collision he maintained speed and course and it is a fact that they hit the Japanese with their bow), then there is a problem with Greenpeace maintaining their stated policy of non-violent action.
    Other photos from past collisions also raise some questions as to who hit whom however Greenpeace appear to have eluded further inquiry.
    If they had a legitimate case I would have thought that they would have pursued it through the courts.
    Personally I think Greenpeace were outmanouevered on the seas.
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 03:01 PM

    OLREGS states that all vessels, except those not under command or restricted in their ability to manoeuvre, to keep out of the way of a vessel engaged in fishing.
    COLREGS also state that fishing vessels “shall not impede the passage of any vessel following a traffic lane” but are not banned from fishing. This is in line with Rule 9 which states that “a vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway.”
    http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?doc_id=649&topic_id=257
    It will be interesting to see who will take it further.
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 04:14 PM

    Phil listen to what the Greenpeace skipper said on the video; “maintained course and speed”
    Davey, Tim Flannery has said that some whales are pretty dumb “much like sheep” and could see no problem in sustainably harvesting them.

    We now have another group shunting Jap whale boats, the Sea Shepherds
    http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_060108_1.html
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 04:43 PM

    Phil, At a different thread you said you were reading Richard Dawkin’s book The Ancestor’s Tale which includes something about whales and where they fit from an evolutionary perspective. I don’t have a copy of the book handy, but if you do, could you tell us please how they are related to people from an evolutionary perspective? Are they closely related to the hippopotamus?
    Posted by: jennifer at January 9, 2006 05:07 PM
    I thought it had some irony, Sea Shepherds guarding the flock of Sea Sheep?
    No?
    Back to the ironing….
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 05:09 PM

    Sea Shepherd appear to be quite jolly about their role as pirates and have enjoyed some commercial success marketing pirate merchandise to kids of all ages who seek a romantic link.
    It’s difficult to envisage pirates who “uphold the law” unless it is booty they be after.
    http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_051228_1.html
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 10:48 PM

    Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore has split and formed his own rather less hysterical group
    http://www.greenspirit.com/index.cfm
    He says that todays Green activists are people “..who prefer rhetoric to fact and refuse to evolve beyond confrontation,”
    “.. I see environmental groups today becoming increasingly extreme, promoting arguments that have less to do with the environment than their own political agendas.”
    http://www.sensibleenvironmentalist.com/
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 11:09 PM

    Greenpeace may well be say they are committed to non violence but the sending out young and enthusiastic volunteers in ‘rubber duckies’ in stormy Antarctic waters to play ‘human shield’ against grenade loaded harpoons does not appear to be the action of a group promoting the responsible and considerate preservation of life.
    Posted by: rog at January 10, 2006 04:34 PM

    If Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd succeed in damaging or immobilising a ship they will be classed as pirates and the Skippers of Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd would be held accountable.
    Similarly if crew of Greenpeace or Sea Shepherd end up in the water their lives could be at risk and the would be held accountable. Photos and reports of rubber duckies dodging whale hunters in 25 knot winds and choppy seas make you wonder.
    For all their sakes you would hope that they have a functioning Risk Management Plan in place.
    Posted by: rog at January 11, 2006 01:42 PM

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 11:42 pm

  240. Rog asks for “evidence”. Here’s Rog on Jennifer’s site making better arguments against piracy and act of terror by the sea Shepherd and Gangrenepeace.

    I’m titling this, Rog The early days (before the sex change and converting over to a doctor’s wife)

    January 08, 2006
    Greenpeace & The Japanese: Who Rammed Who?
    http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001097.html

    Greenpeace say that they were hit from behind yet photos clearly show damage to their bow.
    Typical dopey greenies, dont know if they are coming or going.
    Posted by: rog at January 8, 2006 09:41 PM

    There are various international marine laws including collision at sea; generally fishing boats, if they are displaying the appropriate lights, symbols and sounds are exempt.
    Greenpeace are intruding into a lawful workzone and are provoking the Japanese to commit an injury that would be used as publicity against them.
    Greenpeace are deliberately taking a risk of injury.
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 06:03 AM
    In fact the law (rule 18 COLREGS) states that all vessels, except those not under command or restricted in their ability to manoeuvre, to keep out of the way of a vessel engaged in fishing.
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 06:40 AM

    Here are a couple of points (from a non expert)
    The Greenpeace p/r says that “the captain of the Sunrise tried to pull out of the way of the oncoming whaler.”
    This is in conflict with the video where the skipper clearly says that he maintained course and speed.
    Both extracts confirm that the Greenpeace ship was under way.
    Also in the video the Greenpeace skipper claims he was in open waters – judging by the number of ships at anchor or in the vicinity “open waters” could be debated.
    Under maritime law the Greenpeace ship must give way to the fishing ship. Also under maritime law all skippers must at all times make every effort to avoid a collision. Whilst the Japanese ship did make warning the Greenpeace ship made no obvious effort to avoid collision.
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 10:47 AM

    Principles, ethics and rule of law are thrown out the window by the greenies to be replaced by emotive arguments and moral equivalence – mob rule.
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 01:06 PM

    Greenpeace have a weblog recording some of the crew’s impressions like this one;
    “At first Arne (captain of the Arctic Sunrise), maintained his course and speed, as he was obliged to do under maritime rules of the road.”
    Capt Arne might be looking for a new vessel.
    http://weblog.greenpeace.org/oceandefenders/
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 02:18 PM

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 11:43 pm

  241. here’s more from the same thread:

    How is whaling an act of “eco terrorism” whilst fishing is a recreational sport?
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 02:21 PM

    The issue of this thread is did Greenpeace ram the Japanese or vice-versa? If they did, and the evidence presented does raise some issues with regards to their statements (their captain did state that prior to the collision he maintained speed and course and it is a fact that they hit the Japanese with their bow), then there is a problem with Greenpeace maintaining their stated policy of non-violent action.
    Other photos from past collisions also raise some questions as to who hit whom however Greenpeace appear to have eluded further inquiry.
    If they had a legitimate case I would have thought that they would have pursued it through the courts.
    Personally I think Greenpeace were outmanouevered on the seas.
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 03:01 PM

    OLREGS states that all vessels, except those not under command or restricted in their ability to manoeuvre, to keep out of the way of a vessel engaged in fishing.
    COLREGS also state that fishing vessels “shall not impede the passage of any vessel following a traffic lane” but are not banned from fishing. This is in line with Rule 9 which states that “a vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway.”
    http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?doc_id=649&topic_id=257
    It will be interesting to see who will take it further.
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 04:14 PM

    Phil listen to what the Greenpeace skipper said on the video; “maintained course and speed”
    Davey, Tim Flannery has said that some whales are pretty dumb “much like sheep” and could see no problem in sustainably harvesting them.

    We now have another group shunting Jap whale boats, the Sea Shepherds
    http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_060108_1.html
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 04:43 PM

    Phil, At a different thread you said you were reading Richard Dawkin’s book The Ancestor’s Tale which includes something about whales and where they fit from an evolutionary perspective. I don’t have a copy of the book handy, but if you do, could you tell us please how they are related to people from an evolutionary perspective? Are they closely related to the hippopotamus?
    Posted by: jennifer at January 9, 2006 05:07 PM
    I thought it had some irony, Sea Shepherds guarding the flock of Sea Sheep?
    No?
    Back to the ironing….
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 05:09 PM

    Sea Shepherd appear to be quite jolly about their role as pirates and have enjoyed some commercial success marketing pirate merchandise to kids of all ages who seek a romantic link.
    It’s difficult to envisage pirates who “uphold the law” unless it is booty they be after.
    http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_051228_1.html
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 10:48 PM

    Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore has split and formed his own rather less hysterical group
    http://www.greenspirit.com/index.cfm

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 11:43 pm

  242. Here’s more

    How is whaling an act of “eco terrorism” whilst fishing is a recreational sport?
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 02:21 PM

    The issue of this thread is did Greenpeace ram the Japanese or vice-versa? If they did, and the evidence presented does raise some issues with regards to their statements (their captain did state that prior to the collision he maintained speed and course and it is a fact that they hit the Japanese with their bow), then there is a problem with Greenpeace maintaining their stated policy of non-violent action.
    Other photos from past collisions also raise some questions as to who hit whom however Greenpeace appear to have eluded further inquiry.
    If they had a legitimate case I would have thought that they would have pursued it through the courts.
    Personally I think Greenpeace were outmanouevered on the seas.
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 03:01 PM

    OLREGS states that all vessels, except those not under command or restricted in their ability to manoeuvre, to keep out of the way of a vessel engaged in fishing.
    COLREGS also state that fishing vessels “shall not impede the passage of any vessel following a traffic lane” but are not banned from fishing. This is in line with Rule 9 which states that “a vessel engaged in fishing shall not impede the passage of any other vessel navigating within a narrow channel or fairway.”
    http://www.imo.org/Conventions/contents.asp?doc_id=649&topic_id=257
    It will be interesting to see who will take it further.
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 04:14 PM

    Phil, At a different thread you said you were reading Richard Dawkin’s book The Ancestor’s Tale which includes something about whales and where they fit from an evolutionary perspective. I don’t have a copy of the book handy, but if you do, could you tell us please how they are related to people from an evolutionary perspective? Are they closely related to the hippopotamus?
    Posted by: jennifer at January 9, 2006 05:07 PM
    I thought it had some irony, Sea Shepherds guarding the flock of Sea Sheep?
    No?
    Back to the ironing….
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 05:09 PM

    Sea Shepherd appear to be quite jolly about their role as pirates and have enjoyed some commercial success marketing pirate merchandise to kids of all ages who seek a romantic link.
    It’s difficult to envisage pirates who “uphold the law” unless it is booty they be after.
    http://www.seashepherd.org/news/media_051228_1.html
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 10:48 PM

    Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore has split and formed his own rather less hysterical group

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 11:44 pm

  243. Rog:

    Is that enough evidence? Let me know as I’m posting the entire thing in Wikirogette which is linked to wikihomer.

    So people people will be able to access wikihomer from wikirogette and contriwise too.

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 11:49 pm

  244. JM:

    I’d like to use Rogette’s 2006 well researched arguments in regards to the law of the sea and how it applies to the batboat.

    Early Rog says:

    There are various international marine laws including collision at sea; generally fishing boats, if they are displaying the appropriate lights, symbols and sounds are exempt.
    Greenpeace are intruding into a lawful workzone and are provoking the Japanese to commit an injury that would be used as publicity against them.
    Greenpeace are deliberately taking a risk of injury.
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 06:03 AM
    In fact the law (rule 18 COLREGS) states that all vessels, except those not under command or restricted in their ability to manoeuvre, to keep out of the way of a vessel engaged in fishing.

    so how don’t these laws that Rog brought in the similar 2006 piece at Jennifer’s site not apply in this instance as ti seems to me they do.

    (H/T to Rog)

    jc

    January 11, 2010 at 11:53 pm

  245. CL: “Suicide is a mortal sin.”

    Ahh! Finally out of the gutter and the mad scramble for the high moral ground.

    I knew I could rely on you CL. Stay classy.

    JM

    January 11, 2010 at 11:53 pm

  246. JC, I don’t agree with rog’s opinion (as quoted by you) about provocation. Provocation is not a justification and not a defense.

    I think if you look at the incident itself, rather than bringing in other irrelevant context (such as your earlier example from February, shit knows what relevance that has) that the SM is clearly in the wrong.

    They clearly ran this vessel down, and it was clearly deliberate.

    JM

    January 12, 2010 at 12:00 am

  247. JM

    Another good point raised by Rog:

    Sea Shepherd appear to be quite jolly about their role as pirates and have enjoyed some commercial success marketing pirate merchandise to kids of all ages who seek a romantic link.
    It’s difficult to envisage pirates who “uphold the law” unless it is booty they be after.

    (H/T Rog)

    Rog raised an excellent point at the time that the booty these “pirates” are looking for is increased donations.

    It’s hard to argue with Rog’s point here, JM.

    jc

    January 12, 2010 at 12:01 am

  248. The anti-wahling New Zeland Herald”

    A full investigation is some time away, but experts who looked at footage of the incident seem to agree that the Ady Gil is not blameless and may be mainly, if not entirely, to blame for what occurred. Even the most hardened opponents of whaling may consider that protest that endangers lives and destroys a $2.5-million boat bought mainly with sponsors’ money is foolhardy and intemperate.

    Looks like what we thought: the SS was to blame.

    I’m not scrambing anywhere, JM. I truly am stationary. You might consider drifting away from your Bruce Ruxton-like attitude to the Japanese, though.

    C.L.

    January 12, 2010 at 12:04 am

  249. Greenpeace say that they were hit from behind yet photos clearly show damage to their bow.

    Typical dopey greenies, dont know if they are coming or going.

    Hear hear, Rog.

    C.L.

    January 12, 2010 at 12:05 am

  250. JM:

    According to Rog, the batboat was hindering a fishing vessel getting on with the business of fishing and therefore are “intruding in a lawful work zone”, which according to Rog is a no no.

    “As quoted by me” I hope you’re not suggesting I doctored (not Geoffrey) any of his quotes as you can match them up with the link i posted.

    jc

    January 12, 2010 at 12:05 am

  251. I wasn’t going to respond to this charge from CL, but I will for clarity.

    “is amusing coming from someone who clearly has a race problem with the Japanese ”

    I don’t. I’ve lived there for a substantial period and can speak (rudimentary) Japanese. I’m very sympathetic to them (and I say that as an Australian with ancestors who fought against them during the war, people who aren’t nearly as sympathetic towards them as I am.)

    I met my wife there.

    F*** off CL. You have a choice between retracting that statement or admitting that you’re …. I’ll let you work it out.

    JM

    January 12, 2010 at 12:09 am

  252. I’ve lived there for a substantial period and can speak (rudimentary) Japanese.

    Ah. Some of his best friends are Japanese.

    Original.

    C.L.

    January 12, 2010 at 12:11 am

  253. No, sorry JC I’m not suggesting you doctored it, I just haven’t looked at the original. Largely because I don’t really care. rog doesn’t speak for me and I don’t speak for him.

    If you’re worried, I take it back.

    As to your point. So long as we can put the maritime law thing behind us, we can discuss whether the Sea Shepherd people are entitled to conduct their operations.

    But that’s a separate issue from what happened here. That’s a conflict between Australian and Japanese law.

    Here, it’s quite clear – the SM f***ed up big time and the captain is going to have to face the consequences.

    JM

    January 12, 2010 at 12:14 am

  254. but experts who looked at footage of the incident seem to agree that the Ady Gil is not blameless and may be mainly, if not entirely, to blame for what occurred.

    I would be forced to agree with this after reading Rog’s arguments, such as:

    Principles, ethics and rule of law are thrown out the window by the greenies to be replaced by emotive arguments and moral equivalence – mob rule.

    (H/T to Rog)

    jc

    January 12, 2010 at 12:15 am

  255. Jm

    na, JM don’t give it a moments thought I misunderstood.

    Look I really don’t know much about the law and it’s consequences with regard to maritime issues such as this one.

    I really don’t care from that perspective. I think the Japanese were hounded and they finally decided it was pay back time.

    I don’t want to see our relationship deteriorate as your a good guy and have always been pretty decent.

    I appreciate your position but disagree with you, JM.

    Thanks.

    jc

    January 12, 2010 at 12:20 am

  256. No problem, JC. Travel well.

    JM

    January 12, 2010 at 12:22 am

  257. Yeah, the NZ Herald dislikes whaling but they’ve consulted experts who’ve condemned the SS. No surprise there. SS vessels should be impounded when next in an Australian port. Tubby Watson and all crewmen responsible for lasering Japanese seamen’s eyes, attempting to foul propellers and otherwise disrupting safe shipping should be arrested by the AFP.

    C.L.

    January 12, 2010 at 12:22 am

  258. Once again, that Lionel Hutz gravatar looks eerily apt.

    FDB

    January 12, 2010 at 12:23 am

  259. As is your Charles Manson.

    But mine is Joe Quimby, Democrat icon.

    C.L.

    January 12, 2010 at 12:25 am

  260. Mine’s practically a photo of me, actually. Manson didn’t wear glasses.

    And yes of course, Quimby’s hair is slightly longer than Hutz’s (wait, are you meant to do apostrophes like that after a ‘z’?… shit, I don’t think this has come up before).

    Anyway, this puts your Teddy Kennedy fixation in a different light – I take it you’d prefer Sideshow Bob in charge? Fyodor would find that amusing perhaps.

    FDB

    January 12, 2010 at 12:37 am

  261. That’s a bit scary if you say the pic is a good likeness of you FDB, as come to think of it, it does seem to look like Charles Manson.

    Is it okay if i call you Charlie from now on?

    jc

    January 12, 2010 at 12:50 am

  262. I rarely contemplate or write about liberal icon, Teddy. Probably any one of the Simpsons would do a better job in the US, Barney included.

    C.L.

    January 12, 2010 at 12:53 am

  263. Dave “Dick” Head.
    This program is not legitimately “scientific” because it has not been peer-reviewed and does not have precise quantifiable goals.

    Should, we send it to Phil Jones and the team for peer review?

    You sound so 2008, as “Bruno” would say.

    jc

    January 12, 2010 at 4:11 am

  264. Greenpeace said this, Greenpeace said that…

    it’s the Sea Shepherd dopey

    In the quoted instance (2006) Greenpeace interfered with a fishing process which is in breach of COLREGS.

    In this instance the Sea Shepherd boat was away from the fishing area and motionless – an entirely different set of circumstances

    Video footage of the incident appears to back the claims by the Ady Gil crew that they were deliberately targeted by the whaler. The footage shows the Ady Gil lying stationary in the water, as the Shonan Maru 2 changes direction to steam at speed toward them. the Ady Gil crew are seen clambering into the back of their boat as the Japense ship, firing water cannons at them and nearly submerging them with its wake, ploughs into their boat.

    rog

    January 12, 2010 at 7:12 am

  265. They clearly ran this vessel down, and it was clearly deliberate.

    Say it enough times and it becomes fact, is that the deal, JM?

    Abu Chowdah

    January 12, 2010 at 7:39 am

  266. JM, have a look at the tape and look for the AG’s engines powering up as the japs start to cross their bow. You can clearly see the increase in foam at the back of the engines.

    pedro

    January 12, 2010 at 9:11 am

  267. http://www.ecorazzi.com/2010/01/09/ady-gil-captain-we-tried-to-turn-to-starboard-just-before-impact/
    We were just idling. My guy driving tried to turn to starboard at last minute but was too late. Also had a wave pick us up which carried us another metre or so into danger. In the end we had right of way. They were on our port side and they were also overtaking. So it is up to them to steer clear of us regardless. A good result for the Japanese in short term, but this will hurt them dearly in the long term I believe.”

    Dave Head

    January 12, 2010 at 9:19 am

  268. JC -when you just throw insults it tends to indicate you don’t have real answers to contribute.
    At least I use my name-knowing that inarticulate people use it to make childish comments-which i heard long ago in the schoolyard and have long got over.
    Maybe you work for a japanese Company? It really does not matter jack-shit what you think of SSCS – the 30 years + of conservation work in the oceans will continue. But I suppose it gives you something to comment on to bring some meaning to your sad existence.

    Dave Head

    January 12, 2010 at 9:27 am

  269. In fact if you watch the video footage from the Bob Barker you will see how the Jap ship changed course quickly to bring it onto a collision course with the Ady Gil.
    .
    If the Ady Gil drifted into the path of the Shonan Maru, on camera, it would create the visual illusion that the Shonan Maru was quickly turning.

    daddy dave

    January 12, 2010 at 9:48 am

  270. “SRL, the difference is that the sea is not a set of railroad tracks (or lanes on a highway), it’s open in every direction.

    They sat there for the simple reason that they believed the SM would obey the law. It didn’t.

    Thanks for acknowledging that.”

    So…why didn’t these experienced mariners get out of the way if their engines were idling.

    It’s just a PR stunt. They rammed the Japanese previously and they agitated them this time by playing chicken beforehand and attacking the Japanese crew with lasers.

    It’s a shithouse one at that. The focus has gone to seamanship and laws of navigation and away from cruelty to sentient animals that don’t really need to be slaughtered.

    I’m going to pay some due credit to the environmentalists who are “too soft” for the SS. Their take they tell the public is very hard to convince the general public is wrong. It is cruel, prolonged, unnecessary and wasteful. The only real counter argument is that there is no true int’l law and there are cultural considerations.

    What matters is if any species becomes more threatened or not, and the subsidies keep the industry going. That’s it. If animal cruelty is an issue, then all the Japanese need to do is create a better killing machine.

    The idea that you can’t eat whale meat except if you’re a traditional society smacks of the romantic noble savage outlook. A lot of people might agree with it and there could be genuine conservationist reasons to agree, but it also smacks of forcing your ideas on others. 95% of the population who agree in any way (e.g, limited as my opinion) that whale should be mitigated eat meat that is either/or mass slaughtered or battery/feedlot raised.

    “If the Ady Gil drifted into the path of the Shonan Maru, on camera, it would create the visual illusion that the Shonan Maru was quickly turning.”

    I am fairly sure the SM turned but also the AG powered a little to ensure a collision.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 12, 2010 at 10:28 am

  271. So who thinks Japans whaling program is inconsistent with it’s obligations under various treaties,conventions, IWC regulations, UN law etc?
    Well we know the great unwashed defending the Japanese on this blog don’t think[know] it is, but these guys do & have said so:
    Professor Donald R. Rothwell Challis Professor of International Law BA, LLB (Hons) (Qld); LLM (Alberta); MA (Calgary); PhD (Sydney)

    Professor David J. Bederman
    Emory University School of Law
    Atlanta, Georgia , USA

    Jon M. Van Dyke
    Attorney-at-Law
    Honolulu, Hawaii U.S.A.

    I think maybe I’ll go along with them.

    Dave Head

    January 12, 2010 at 11:41 am

  272. You might well be right, DH.
    What are you going to do about it?
    What do you suggest the Australian government do about it?

    Ken Nielsen

    January 12, 2010 at 11:44 am

  273. Head:

    IWC is the equivalent of the UN. No one gives a shit what they say as no one adheres to their stupid pronouncements. It’s a talkathon crapfest and the idea that you would use that outfit as some sort of moral arbitor as about the same as listening to the UN human rights platitudes when Iran, Cuba or Libya is chairing that committee.

    Well we know the great unwashed defending the Japanese on this blog don’t think[know] it is, but these guys do & have said so:

    We’re not defending the Japanese as much as we’re highly critical of those two bit rat bags infesting the southern ocean with their moralizing zealotry and actually endangering people’s lives although, as I said removing a few of those fuckers from the gene pool would be a plus for our species.

    Lastly, who gives a toss what those academics think anyway. You tried to peddle the crap about peer review yesterday as though it was some sort of answer to authority and we all know what’s happened to the reputation of peer review since those loons at East Anglia were forced out naked.

    jc

    January 12, 2010 at 11:54 am

  274. a communist pro-whaler

    http://enpassant.com.au/?p=6234

    At the moment the continued existence of humanity depends on the ongoing exploitation of animals. Under capitalism that exploitation can be cruel.

    It is possible that a democratic and planned society could decide to move away from all animal products. But socialism is for the future.

    Today people eat animals to live. As long as the minke whale is not in danger of becoming extinct, then there appears to me no reason not to harvest some of its stock for human consumption.

    From the Australian Government’s point of view its opposition to whaling appears to be linked to our imperialist claims to the Australian Antarctic Territory rather than any concern for the sustainability of the minke.

    And of course the Government thinks it is popular to oppose whaling (which it is), but this too presents a problem for them. Once again Rudd has promised the world but so far has delivered only the toilet door key.

    Only 4 countries recognise our Antarctic claims. Unsurprisingly each also claims part of Antarctica.

    According to the Australian Antarctic Division website the ‘Australian Antarctic Territory covers nearly 5.9 million square kilometres, about 42% of Antarctica and nearly 80% of the total area of Australia itself.’

    In addition Australia claims that ‘the Australian Antarctic territorial waters extend 200 nautical miles out to sea from the Australian Antarctic territory.’

    Japanese whalers operate in these waters. The Australian Government uses diplomatic means to try to stop this because it is not yet prepared to physically enforce its imperialist claims to Antarctica and its waters. Diplomacy is imperialism without guns.

    The Rudd Government’s anti-whaling stance is but a pawn in Australia’s claims to Antarctica. No one on the left should support this imperialist adventure under the guise of defending whales.

    For Australian imperialism whales are the WMDs of the water.

    Then there is the politics of the shepherds of the sea and warriors of the water.

    Apart from physically preventing indigenous people from traditional killings (in cahoots with the far right in one case) and supporting Australian imperialism, their politics are essentially elitist and dogmatic. There is one truth and that is that killing even one whale is evil and the Sea Shepherd will do anything to prevent that.

    jtfsoon

    January 12, 2010 at 1:32 pm

  275. Meanwhile, I see Tony Abbott brings some policy clarity [not] to how the Opposition will deal with this:

    “We don’t like whaling. We would like the Japanese to stop,” he told Macquarie Radio yesterday.

    “On the other hand, we don’t want to needlessly antagonise our most important trading partner, a fellow democracy, an ally.”

    But today the Opposition stance appeared to be unclear with Abbott refusing to t rule out legal action during a radio interview and Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt calling the Government to stick to its promise and take international legal action against Japan.

    Actually, I also heard him on the ABC saying that the government should send a boat down to get between the Sea Shepherd and the Japanese.

    Good one, Tony.

    steve from brisbane

    January 12, 2010 at 1:54 pm

  276. steve

    not a big fan of Tony but most Australians don’t really give a toss about this issue either way. On the other hand he looks like he has successfully wedged the Aboriginals and the Greenies on that lock up of rivers by Bligh

    jtfsoon

    January 12, 2010 at 1:56 pm

  277. I think most Australian care, but know that we’ll never do anything really serious to enforce our objections.

    In the big scheme of things, the Cape York rivers issue won’t matter much either way. Anna Bligh is on her way out anyway, by all accounts.

    steve from brisbane

    January 12, 2010 at 2:16 pm

  278. Steve:

    Most Australians care although I’m not sure they like seeing piracy and terror tactics on the high seas by two-bit gangsters like these zealots.

    Sea Shepherd appear to be quite jolly about their role as pirates and have enjoyed some commercial success marketing pirate merchandise to kids of all ages who seek a romantic link.
    It’s difficult to envisage pirates who “uphold the law” unless it is booty they be after.

    H/T to Rog for the quote.

    jc

    January 12, 2010 at 2:22 pm

  279. Official SS view of Turnbull (2007):

    Australia’s anti-whaling measures were strongly sponsored by former Environment Minister Ian Campbell, but his successor Malcolm Turnbull put an end to any progress on ending whaling for fear of upsetting Japanese interests.

    “We were beginning to make some progress with Senator Campbell,” said Captain Paul Watson. “He was sincerely dedicated to protecting whales in Australian waters but the Howard government removed him and replaced him with the unapproachable Malcolm Turnbull who is more interested in pursuing business deals with Japan than protecting the whales.”

    Also at that link:

    According to Kevin Rudd, the leader of the Labour Party, gunboats will be sent out to protect whales in Southern Ocean Sanctuary. The navy would be deployed to enforce laws banning the slaughter of whales in the Australian Antarctic Territory.

    Where are the gunboats?

    C.L.

    January 12, 2010 at 3:12 pm

  280. I swear, I’m going to just start cutting and pasting my earlier responses.

    SRL: “So…why didn’t these experienced mariners get out of the way if their engines were idling. ”

    Now cut-n-paste:

    “They sat there for the simple reason that they believed the SM would obey the law. It didn’t.”

    Short version:

    SRL: If X why Y?
    Me: Because of Z, where Z negates Y.
    SRL: If Z why Y?
    Me: Because of Z, where Z negates Y.

    This could get very boring quite quickly.

    JM

    January 12, 2010 at 3:55 pm

  281. The New Zealand Herald is no fan of Jap whaling. However…

    A full investigation is some time away, but experts who looked at footage of the incident seem to agree that the Ady Gil is not blameless and may be mainly, if not entirely, to blame for what occurred. Even the most hardened opponents of whaling may consider that protest that endangers lives and destroys a $2.5-million boat bought mainly with sponsors’ money is foolhardy and intemperate.

    Sounds about right. The SS was to blame.

    C.L.

    January 12, 2010 at 3:57 pm

  282. Well then CL, if the NZ Herald said it it must be right..the gospel truth..

    That said, the incident should serve as a reminder to Japan and other whaling nations that most of the world holds their bloody activities in contempt.

    It’s the bit you left off

    rog

    January 12, 2010 at 4:32 pm

  283. Rog:

    However it seems to you agree with, CL in terms of the last bit.

    How is whaling an act of “eco terrorism” whilst fishing is a recreational sport?
    Posted by: rog at January 9, 2006 02:21 PM

    I agree with your point there actually, rog. good point.

    H/T to rog.

    jc

    January 12, 2010 at 4:45 pm

  284. I would have said you’d agree with Cl from you earlier comments, Rog.

    jc

    January 12, 2010 at 4:58 pm

  285. I agree with Same Wlyie over at Core economics.

    I don’t like the killing of wild animals. Even fishing now seems to me like unnecessarily cruel plunder of the natural world, whereas years ago I was keen on line fishing and spearfishing. I don’t like the killing of whales and dolphins. I don’t like the shooting of wild bears in the US. When I lived in New Hampshire 250 licences were issued in that state each year for the killing of black bears, which are majestic creatures that do no harm to anyone. Likewise, I don’t like the killing of kangaroos.

    Advocates of Japanese whaling point out that Australia is hypocritical in its opposition to whaling because we slaughter millions of kangaroos. They are right aren’t they? It is hypocritical to pillory Japan for killing wild creatures in their natural environment when we do it on such a massive scale ourselves. Ken Henry stated in a speech on 22 October that licences for the slaughter of 50 million kangaroos have been issued in the last 10 years.

    Let me be clear. I don’t advocate the killing of whales. Whaling is, in my opinion, disgraceful and cruel destruction of beautiful wild creatures. But that is also how I feel about the killing of kangaroos.

    There is no point in saying that current Japanese whaling is different because it threatens an endangered species. That is simply false. Last year Japan sought to take 935 minke whales and 50 fin whales, but did not reach those numbers because of the disruptive activities of Greenpeace. Minke whales are not endangered. There are about 650,000 Minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere — see the Wikipedia entry. Tim Flannery has described Minke whales as rabbits of the sea.

    Some would say that kangaroos need to be slaughtered to protect agricultural interests. Those people side with the Japanese view that commercial interests have primacy over the interests of wild creatures. The dumbest argument in favour of slaughtering kangaroos is that it is in the interests of the kangaroos themselves — sure, that makes sense.

    Its not just kangaroos. The killing of dugongs in the north of Australia is even worse. Dugongs really are in grave danger of extinction, but their slaughter is sanctioned by the Australian Federal Government.

    Australia and Japan are both guilty of viciously cruel slaughter of wild creatures in their own habitat without justification. But we are also guilty of hypocrisy.

    jc

    January 12, 2010 at 5:16 pm

  286. “SRL: “So…why didn’t these experienced mariners get out of the way if their engines were idling. ”

    Now cut-n-paste:

    “They sat there for the simple reason that they believed the SM would obey the law. It didn’t.””

    Some “mariners” you’ve got there. If you don’t know how to use the throttle, don’t go into international waters.

    Semi Regular Libertarian

    January 12, 2010 at 5:53 pm

  287. I do really hope someone takes this to court, and then we can definitely know that JM is wrong. Right know, we may judge that he is very probably wrong.

    dover_beach

    January 12, 2010 at 6:09 pm

  288. Yeah well, I think we are all pretty well in general agreement that whatever the rights and wrongs of whaling or this incident, nothing is going to happen.

    Next subject…

    Ken Nielsen

    January 12, 2010 at 6:10 pm

  289. “I swear, I’m going to just start cutting and pasting my earlier responses.”

    We thought you’d been doing that for ages. You’re tiresomely repetitive and impervious to facts.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 12, 2010 at 6:11 pm

  290. dover: “we may judge that he is very probably wrong.”

    That may be your judgement, or rather your opinion, but you can’t explain how. As this thread has shown.

    Abu: “impervious to facts”

    Which particular facts, Abu? Care to point them out, or are you just throwing out meaningless rhetoric?

    JM

    January 12, 2010 at 7:03 pm

  291. “That may be your judgement, or rather your opinion, but you can’t explain how. As this thread has shown.”

    A judgement is an opinion, JM; the fact that you don’t know this is one of the reasons I have come to avoid conversing with you. What this thread has illustrated, as other threads have, is that you are immune to facts.

    dover_beach

    January 12, 2010 at 7:06 pm

  292. JM, mainly the fact that if you spend all day conducting harassing actions in a nimble pleasure craft against a hulking ponderous whaler, which you adit on tape resulted in the target zig-zagging all over the place, you can’t bitch about it like a petulant little beta-weenie when your luck runs out.

    Whaling is abhorrent, but lies and double-talk, failing to man up and accept your responsibility, cannot be ignored.

    Abu Chowdah

    January 12, 2010 at 7:16 pm

  293. JC, I know that you are stupid, there is no need to constantly prove it.

    rog

    January 12, 2010 at 7:28 pm

  294. judgement – is based on the considered weighing of evidence

    opinion – is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic

    rog

    January 12, 2010 at 7:30 pm

  295. Abu, what is abhorrent is support for a captain who lost his head, took matters into his own hands and ran down and sunk another craft putting that crew into immediate danger while also somewhat endangering his own crew.

    There can be no justification for that.

    And your pissweak attempts to justify it do you no credit.

    JM

    January 12, 2010 at 7:50 pm

  296. Dover, refer to my response to Abu.

    JM

    January 12, 2010 at 7:51 pm

  297. JC, I know that you are stupid, there is no need to constantly prove it.

    Rog, the first lie there is that you “know”. You don’t.

    Secondly I’m not the one looking like a complete moron (like you) where your previous comments at another site actually run 180 degs counter to the arguments you putting forward here.

    You go from referring to these people as terrorists and loons to calling them heroes. Rog, you are a complete arseclown who makes Homer appear a genius.

    jc

    January 12, 2010 at 8:09 pm

  298. At Crikey, Mungo MacCallum concludes that the Rudd government will soon have to take international legal action against Japan to maintain its political credibility.
    Does it help political credibility for the government to take action that will probably fail and for the several years it will take to wind its way through the very slow international court will give Japan a way of avoiding discussion because it is “sub judice”?
    Then if Australia loses,Japan can say that it has the law its side.

    Are you sure this is a wise action for the government to take? Does the Rudd government strike you as one that would take a likely futile quixotic action?
    Would it help or hinder the Security Council pitch?

    Ken Nielsen

    January 12, 2010 at 8:33 pm

  299. Rudd’s handling of a little fishing problem bodes well for his stewardship of the U.N.

    Infidel Tiger

    January 12, 2010 at 8:45 pm

  300. Ken

    They will take the action because it will make Rudd look good and it will suit japan also as the issue will go to the courts and take it off the political table, as they don’t like slanging matches. Rudd can use that for domestic reasons to show he’s doing something and it will also make him look good for the UN job later on.

    jc

    January 12, 2010 at 8:46 pm

  301. No, Rog, the NZ Herald isn’t the gospel truth. But it’s a respected newspaper that strongly opposes whaling. It has also sought opinion from expert observers and these have attributed blame to the SS*. Given all we now know – including attempts to sabotage ships under way and attempts to blind Japanese seamen with lasers – this isn’t surprising.

    Case closed.

    C.L.

    January 12, 2010 at 8:51 pm

  302. The NZ herald op ed was made without viewing all the evidence…it was an opinion not a judgement.

    Charges have been laid with a Dutch prosecutors – the case is not closed.

    rog

    January 12, 2010 at 9:17 pm

  303. “judgement – is based on the considered weighing of evidence

    opinion – is a subjective statement or thought about an issue or topic”

    Poor ol’Rog. Here is the Cambridge Dictionary:

    judgment noun (DECIDE)
    (also
    judgement
    ) /ˈdʒʌdʒ.mənt/ n

    [U] the ability to form valuable opinions and make good decisions
    to show good/sound/poor judgment
    I don’t think you have the right to pass judgment (on others) (= to say whether you think other people are good or bad).
    I’m going to reserve judgment (on the decision) (= not say whether I think it is good or bad) for the time being.

    [C] a decision or opinion about someone or something that you form after thinking carefully

    opinion noun
    /əˈpɪn.jən/ n

    [C] a thought or belief about something or someone
    What’s your opinion about/on the matter?
    People tend to have strong opinions on capital punishment.
    He didn’t express/give an opinion on the matter.
    Who, in your opinion, (= Who do you think) is the best football player in the world today?
    He’s very much of the opinion that alternative medicine is a waste of time.

    [U] the thoughts or beliefs that a group of people have
    Eventually, the government will have to take notice of public opinion.
    There is a diverse range of opinion on the issue.
    There was a difference of opinion as to the desirability of the project.
    Opinion is divided as to whether the treatment actually works.
    Both performances were excellent, it’s simply a matter of opinion as to whose was better.

    [C] a judgment about someone or something
    Her opinion of Adam changed after he’d been so helpful at the wedding.
    She has a good/high opinion of his abilities (= thinks he is good).
    I have a rather bad/low/poor opinion of my sister’s boyfriend (= I do not like or approve of him).
    He has a very high opinion of himself (= thinks he is very skilled/clever in a way that is annoying).

    [C] a judgment made by an expert
    My doctor has referred me to a specialist for a second opinion on the results of my blood test.

    There you go, you poor wretch.

    “Abu, what is abhorrent is support for a captain who lost his head, took matters into his own hands and ran down and sunk another craft putting that crew into immediate danger while also somewhat endangering his own crew.”

    Yes, that would be abhorrent if the said captain had actually done what you purport him to have done; fortunately for us, and unfortunately for you, he hasn’t. That is why I hoped this matter be decided in a court of law so we could finally end your ignorant bleating.

    dover_beach

    January 14, 2010 at 8:18 am

  304. Sorry, blockquote ends after …you poor wretch.

    Also, the para that follows is a response to JM.

    dover_beach

    January 14, 2010 at 8:36 am

  305. I see the butt-heads are still at it. I just thought I’d pop back to tell you I have been following a facebook group that has grown to 425,000 people -all against Japanese whaling.

    Dave Head

    January 17, 2010 at 4:51 am

  306. Head:

    What’s your point about Facebook? Is that supposed to impress? What exactly am I supposed to be enthralled about?

    jc

    January 17, 2010 at 10:45 am

  307. JC -just that you are out=numbered 425,000 to one & then some.
    Now the Australian Government has publically stated that it will take legal action against Japan in 6 months if no progress is made in other ways. Which is admitting that it agrees that Japan whaling is illegal [& I bet they have better legal advice than jc etc].
    Seeing jc is such a supporter of the rule of law [except japanese whaling] he must be really pleased.

    Dave Head

    January 18, 2010 at 2:49 pm

  308. Head:

    The 425,000 Facebook pals you have sharing the love for the blubbers doesn’t faze me in the slightest. In fact I would have been shocked if there wasn’t a large number of idiots like you throwing out the love on a stupid medium such as Facebook about freaking whales.

    Now the Australian Government has publically stated that it will take legal action against Japan in 6 months if no progress is made in other ways.

    Wow, that sounds awfully like that scene in Team America where Hans Blix threatens Kim Jong Il with a very angry letter from the UN.

    Which is admitting that it agrees that Japan whaling is illegal [& I bet they have better legal advice than jc etc].

    See the You tube segment again.

    Their legal advice would of course be focused on our what increasingly looks like illegitimate claim for a large part of an ocean.

    The Japanese are correctly saying, fuck you to that.

    Seeing jc is such a supporter of the rule of law [except japanese whaling] he must be really pleased.

    What rule of law, Head? Our law that says we own ½ of southern ocean that no one else can use other than the blubber population? No one accepts our self-declared ownership rights, Head.

    The Japanese have a quota, which they are allowed to exploit. Nothing else counts much.

    jc

    January 18, 2010 at 3:04 pm

  309. DH I’ll still be very surprised if they do take legal action.
    I believe they have been advised (after coming to government) that the chance of success was small. There is even a risk that the court would rule that the IWC is in breach of its undertaking to prepare a new conservation plan on scientific advice. If it did that almost certainly (on conservation grounds alone) there would be a quota of minke whales that could be harvested.
    Some time back Japan wanted IWC to seek an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the legality of the moratorium but IWC refused.

    Ken Nielsen

    January 18, 2010 at 3:27 pm

  310. To qoute jc “The Japanese have a quota, which they are allowed to exploit. Nothing else counts much.”
    Well actually a lot of other conventions. MEA’s etc do count. They gave themselves quota {jarpa] which was supposed to be for scientific purposes-but everyone knows [even jc I suspect] is a front for commercial whaling -which has been illegal for a long tim.
    jc simply only see’s the facts the [perverted] way he wants to.

    Dave Head

    January 19, 2010 at 4:56 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: