Activist boat 'sliced in two' by Japanese whalers

[CJvR]

The video of the collision from the point of view of the Bob Barker are also not quite useful, as the video of the Barker was shot to port, which may cause the Shonan Maru to appear to manuever to starboard, even if it was not commanded to do so, due to the motion of the Barker herself.

I think the aspect change of the Shonan early in the sequence is rather abrupt. Looks a bit more suspicious than the Japanese video but since the cameras isn't stationary it might be an illusion.

[Chardok]

It is the blatant contempt for international law which makes me say that. You don't think they're openly thumbing their noses at international law by pretending that their entire whale catch is for "scientific research"?

I don't think the crews are, necessarily (RE: Thumbing).

I hate the whole idea of what they're doing, of course. my particular favorite little nugget is how they paint "RESEARCH" on the side of the boat.

[Darth Wong]

It is the blatant contempt for international law which makes me say that. You don't think they're openly thumbing their noses at international law by pretending that their entire whale catch is for "scientific research"?

It's not as though the whaling crews get together to twirl their mustaches and think about how they can violate international law to be as douchey as they possibly can.

That's a stupid criticism. You can look at any kind of douchebag you want, whether it's a greedy bank CEO or a drunk driver or a spammer or someone who routinely litters, and he doesn't think he's a douchebag, never mind deliberately trying to be one.

[tim31]

While I find the insidiously denialist actions of the Japanese whaling fleet reprehensible, I can't help but wish that Sea Shepard could put the same sort of effort into berating the Australian government into growing a pair on this issue and actually taking a stand. I'd be hard pressed to find anyone around here that supports the whaling industry, but time and again the government's response has merely been to monitor the issue with RAN or Fisheries assets.

[Burak Gazan]

The video of the collision from the point of view of the Bob Barker are also not quite useful, as the video of the Barker was shot to port, which may cause the Shonan Maru to appear to manuever to starboard, even if it was not commanded to do so, due to the motion of the Barker herself.

I think the aspect change of the Shonan early in the sequence is rather abrupt. Looks a bit more suspicious than the Japanese video but since the cameras isn't stationary it might be an illusion.

It's hard to say, there is a fair bit of sea running there which might have been a factor. But they definitely appear to come to starboard sharply, then are in the process of coming back to port when the collision occurs. Looking at the japanese vid alone though, the bearing was definitely changing left-to-right steadily up until they goosed the engines on the yacht. That close in, both vessels are by definition 'in extremis' and it really doesnt matter who is on who's side and what the rules say.

[Sidewinder]

Lesson learned: Don't take on a ship that's bigger than yours unless you have something that can sink it.

Lesson 2: Don't declare war on someone unless you're able to WAGE WAR.

Seriously, do the environmentalists really think ATTACKING a ship from another nation's merchant marine, is smart? Let's not delude ourselves; trying to foul the propellors, aiming lasers and lobbing stinkbombs at another ship, IS an attack. A judge at a maritime court will probably rule the ramming a legitimate act of self-defense.

[open_sketchbook]

I dislike whaling, but I fucking hate Greenpeace and greenpeacian organizations, so I'm marking this down with a Nelson Mutz "Haw-haw" and going about my day. It's their own damn fault for thinking that they're being all edgey and heroic, the idealistic idiots.

While the Japanese are kind of dicks about this whole whaling thing, they actually aren't doing anything explicity illegal. If "being a dick" was reason enough to "declare war" on something, why aren't we chucking molotovs at Glen Beck's set?

[Solauren]

Lesson learned: Don't take on a ship that's bigger than yours unless you have something that can sink it.

Lesson 2: Don't declare war on someone unless you're able to WAGE WAR.

Seriously, do the environmentalists really think ATTACKING a ship from another nation's merchant marine, is smart? Let's not delude ourselves; trying to foul the propellors, aiming lasers and lobbing stinkbombs at another ship, IS an attack. A judge at a maritime court will probably rule the ramming a legitimate act of self-defense.

Maybe they are trying to make Whaling too expensive to continue.

Consider; You could almost consider the Sea Shepard's actions acts of piracy. At the very least, they are aggressive.

What if they are trying to get Japan to send escort ships to protect the 'scientific' expedition? That would make the profitablity of Whaling questionable at best.

I doubt the Sea Shepards are that smart, but you have to admit, that would bankrupt Whaling beyond the point of logically keeping it up.

[salm]

I dislike whaling, but I fucking hate Greenpeace and greenpeacian organizations, so I'm marking this down with a Nelson Mutz "Haw-haw" and going about my day. It's their own damn fault for thinking that they're being all edgey and heroic, the idealistic idiots.

While the Japanese are kind of dicks about this whole whaling thing, they actually aren't doing anything explicity illegal. If "being a dick" was reason enough to "declare war" on something, why aren't we chucking molotovs at Glen Beck's set?

Saying that it´s wrong to use illegal ways to counter certain immoral acts is not usefull. Sometimes you have to break the law to make a difference. Otherwise actions like the ones commited by people like Rosa Parks would be nothing more than criminal acts.

No matter if you are for the Sea Shepards or not in this case using the legality as an argument for moral decisions is allways bad when the law in practice is a bad one or when the law is abused.

[open_sketchbook]

I dislike whaling, but I fucking hate Greenpeace and greenpeacian organizations, so I'm marking this down with a Nelson Mutz "Haw-haw" and going about my day. It's their own damn fault for thinking that they're being all edgey and heroic, the idealistic idiots.

While the Japanese are kind of dicks about this whole whaling thing, they actually aren't doing anything explicity illegal. If "being a dick" was reason enough to "declare war" on something, why aren't we chucking molotovs at Glen Beck's set?

Saying that it´s wrong to use illegal ways to counter certain immoral acts is not usefull. Sometimes you have to break the law to make a difference. Otherwise actions like the ones commited by people like Rosa Parks would be nothing more than criminal acts.

No matter if you are for the Sea Shepards or not in this case using the legality as an argument for moral decisions is allways bad when the law in practice is a bad one or when the law is abused.

I don't remember Rosa Parks blinding the bus driver by shooting him in the eyes with a laser, or dropping what basically amounts to a chemical weapon in a nearby seat, or slash the tires. The Civil Rights movement did break a lot of laws, but did so non-violently; in fact, nonviolence was central to the movement. By contrast, these asshole are out there in their boats talking about "declaring war" and adhearing to non-violence less because of ideals and more because they know the limits of what they can get away with.

[CJvR]

What if they are trying to get Japan to send escort ships to protect the 'scientific' expedition? That would make the profitablity of Whaling questionable at best.

Wasn't the ship they played tag with a security ship? It seems to have had a water cannon rather than a harpoon on the bow.

[Ford Prefect]

You know it only just occured to me that many of us have been saying 'Sea Shepard' which is bizarrely Freudian.

While I find the insidiously denialist actions of the Japanese whaling fleet reprehensible, I can't help but wish that Sea Shepard could put the same sort of effort into berating the Australian government into growing a pair on this issue and actually taking a stand. I'd be hard pressed to find anyone around here that supports the whaling industry, but time and again the government's response has merely been to monitor the issue with RAN or Fisheries assets.

It's almost totally pointless to try and get the government to act against Japanese whaling. They don't want to pressure the Japanese government over the issue so they can stay in their good books. I don't think it would meaningfully impact Australia's national self interest to give Japan a kick up the bum, but there you go.

[weemadando]

A few quick notes.

The Ady Gil has now sunk while under tow back for salvage.

Last I checked, whale meat isn't even used for school meals anymore, it's primarily pet food now.

And this isn't a racist "anti-Japanese" thing, it's an "anti-disingenuous unsustainable fisheries practices being done in Australian waters for no other purpose but to prevent unemployment behind the veil of research which you maintain by bribing small nations to vote to uphold your position on the matter."

[salm]

I don't remember Rosa Parks blinding the bus driver by shooting him in the eyes with a laser, or dropping what basically amounts to a chemical weapon in a nearby seat, or slash the tires. The Civil Rights movement did break a lot of laws, but did so non-violently; in fact, nonviolence was central to the movement. By contrast, these asshole are out there in their boats talking about "declaring war" and adhearing to non-violence less because of ideals and more because they know the limits of what they can get away with.

Yes, but now you´re using different arguments than the legal status of Sea Shepards actions. You´re now saying that their actions are morally wrong because they are violent which is a lot different than saying that they´re morally wrong because they´re illegal.

[Archaic`]

being done in Australian waters

Point of fact. While us Aussies do claim those waters, our claim to that is incredibly weak, and is only recognized by the other nations which claim territories around the south pole. The claims aren't recognized by Japan, or by the UN. As far as the law of the sea is concerned, they're international waters.

I do sometimes wonder why they don't do the whaling in the waters of the Norwegian claim though. Seems like they'd give them less of a problem than we do.

[Formless]

open_sketchbook, why are you hung up on the violence of their actions anyway? That by itself wouldn't make their actions automatically immoral. You might point out that being violent won't help them, but that is again a totally different argument. Just because the 60's Civil Rights and anti-war movements were dedicated to non-violence on principal doesn't mean all protesters have to be. The Sea Sheppards don't think enough is being done about this issue, so they are doing whatever they think they have to that they can get away with to save the whales. Until a more legitimate authority like Japan or Australia can be arsed to do something about the Japanese whaling industry, the most you can say is that they are incompetent, not immoral.

[Alyrium Denryle]

being done in Australian waters

Point of fact. While us Aussies do claim those waters, our claim to that is incredibly weak, and is only recognized by the other nations which claim territories around the south pole. The claims aren't recognized by Japan, or by the UN. As far as the law of the sea is concerned, they're international waters.

I do sometimes wonder why they don't do the whaling in the waters of the Norwegian claim though. Seems like they'd give them less of a problem than we do.

the Norwegians, to their credit, manage their "fishery" to be "sustainable". If the japanese move their operation there, the norwegians know that the whale populations will collapse and wont allow it.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I don't remember Rosa Parks blinding the bus driver by shooting him in the eyes with a laser, or dropping what basically amounts to a chemical weapon in a nearby seat, or slash the tires. The Civil Rights movement did break a lot of laws, but did so non-violently; in fact, nonviolence was central to the movement. By contrast, these asshole are out there in their boats talking about "declaring war" and adhearing to non-violence less because of ideals and more because they know the limits of what they can get away with.

Why is violence inherently wrong? War is after all an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest thing.

Put a utilitarian spin on it. The suffering whales undergo as a part of this commercial whaling (they are after all of a level of intelligence on par with elephants or so... and elephant poachers get shot)far outweighs the utility gained by turning them into school lunches and pet food. For fucks sake the demand is not even present in japan to support whaling. The government does it to prevent unemployment (a miniscule amount of it) and as a point of national pride (in other words: Fuck you westerners). It is not justified. However there is no legitimate framework upon which to realistically put pressure on the japanese to stop.

Some level of violence and sabotage is the only way to reduce the moral evil that is whaling. The argument can be made, and it would be correct, that Sea Shepherd is bad at it but that is not the same as their actions being morally blameworthy.

[Neko_Oni]

And this isn't a racist "anti-Japanese" thing, it's an "anti-disingenuous unsustainable fisheries practices being done in Australian waters for no other purpose but to prevent unemployment behind the veil of research which you maintain by bribing small nations to vote to uphold your position on the matter."

The problem is that it IS a racist thing for many Australians. They lump all Japanese in together as part of the whale murdering conspiracy hating everyone from Japan, while as others have pointed out, most Japanese don't eat the meat anyway.

[weemadando]

And this isn't a racist "anti-Japanese" thing, it's an "anti-disingenuous unsustainable fisheries practices being done in Australian waters for no other purpose but to prevent unemployment behind the veil of research which you maintain by bribing small nations to vote to uphold your position on the matter."

The problem is that it IS a racist thing for many Australians. They lump all Japanese in together as part of the whale murdering conspiracy hating everyone from Japan, while as others have pointed out, most Japanese don't eat the meat anyway.

I was mainly referring to my own views, but yeah - most Australians are ill-informed about the Japanese whaling industry. But then again, I think that whaling is really only the tip of hte iceberg. If Sea Shepherd really want to do something to sustain biodiversity in the oceans, why not start going after the mass-fishign fleets of the world who we know aren't sustainable (the oft-misquoted line being that by 2050 fisheries stocks will be at unrecoverable levels) but keep on pulling in massive catches and ridiculous levels of by-catch.

Whales are just cute and cuddly though - remember the issues with Orange Roughy, Toothfish and others? Hell, I remember one fisherman saying that they were doing the world a service by wiping out the Orange Roughy as it was so ugly he wouldn't want his grandkids to ever have to see one.

[Knife]

Lesson learned: Don't take on a ship that's bigger than yours unless you have something that can sink it.

Lesson 2: Don't declare war on someone unless you're able to WAGE WAR.

Seriously, do the environmentalists really think ATTACKING a ship from another nation's merchant marine, is smart? Let's not delude ourselves; trying to foul the propellors, aiming lasers and lobbing stinkbombs at another ship, IS an attack. A judge at a maritime court will probably rule the ramming a legitimate act of self-defense.

Actually, aside from the lolz of watching the dumbshits do crazy things on the show, one of the enduring things about Whale Wars is it is honest to god warfare. Oh, not shiny new guns, planes, and the cool gizmo's most military enthusiasts like; rather, it is at it's base a show where a band of people struggle with defining their strategy and how it affects their tactics, how the enemy affects their tactics, and how their tactics define their strategy. It is a show where they don't have ultimate resources and their logistics plays a big part of their strategy, and their willingness to operate with their tactics as long as physically possible with their resources and logistics.

Minus the shiny toys, everything about warfare that people study is represented on that show. Small unit tactics as the auxiliary craft try to assault the Japanese with the limitation that the mother ship can't keep up. Small unit tactics of the Japanese as they maneuver their harpoon ships in blocking/escort actions and even aggressive charges on the enemy. Reconessance with the Sea Shepard's helicopter and how they use that information to plan tactics and strategy. Emotional conflict between the crew; between hard core believers and those who are not as hard core. Conflict between people with training and knowledge useful in their situation and those who want to 'wing it'. Command issues, moral issues, and medical issues.

*shrug* I find it fascinating, besides just the 'what the hell are they going to do next' factor.

[open_sketchbook]

I don't remember Rosa Parks blinding the bus driver by shooting him in the eyes with a laser, or dropping what basically amounts to a chemical weapon in a nearby seat, or slash the tires. The Civil Rights movement did break a lot of laws, but did so non-violently; in fact, nonviolence was central to the movement. By contrast, these asshole are out there in their boats talking about "declaring war" and adhearing to non-violence less because of ideals and more because they know the limits of what they can get away with.

Why is violence inherently wrong? War is after all an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest thing.

Put a utilitarian spin on it. The suffering whales undergo as a part of this commercial whaling (they are after all of a level of intelligence on par with elephants or so... and elephant poachers get shot)far outweighs the utility gained by turning them into school lunches and pet food. For fucks sake the demand is not even present in japan to support whaling. The government does it to prevent unemployment (a miniscule amount of it) and as a point of national pride (in other words: Fuck you westerners). It is not justified. However there is no legitimate framework upon which to realistically put pressure on the japanese to stop.

Some level of violence and sabotage is the only way to reduce the moral evil that is whaling. The argument can be made, and it would be correct, that Sea Shepherd is bad at it but that is not the same as their actions being morally blameworthy.

I'm no hippy loser; war is awesome and we should do it more often.
/exaggeration

However, if you're going to compare these Greenseapeace-whatever people to the Civil Rights movement, I'm going to point out why such a comparison is retarded.

[tim31]

Hell, I remember one fisherman saying that they were doing the world a service by wiping out the Orange Roughy as it was so ugly he wouldn't want his grandkids to ever have to see one.

How enlightened. That's about the extreme opposite of saying that we need another global war with plenty of mine-laying and submarine operations keeping fishing fleets docked for ten years to allow the stocks to replenish. Rationalised in one long sentence!

It's almost totally pointless to try and get the government to act against Japanese whaling. They don't want to pressure the Japanese government over the issue so they can stay in their good books. I don't think it would meaningfully impact Australia's national self interest to give Japan a kick up the bum, but there you go.

Do they still care about being chummy with the Diet? The swing has obviously been towards China over the last two decades, with the major exports to Japan that come to mind being pulp(and shit, hasn't that been a fun stoush) and fruit. I guess their lobby groups work harder?

[Lonestar]

Oh they are certainly idiots. However there are two problems with the legitimate approaches.

1) The IWC is a weak body. Not only is there a whaling faction that like republicans does not argue in good faith, or obey the regulations in good faith (see: japan) but member nations can just withdraw and not be subject to those same regulations. That is why they have so many concessions granted to them and why Japan (and certain nordic countries) flout the law. They can just take their ball and go home and the anti-whaling faction views that it is better to give in to them so that at least they report their harvests.

2) Brought up on charges by whom exactly? They whale in international waters.

Vigilantism is perfectly acceptable when no law exists that can redress the wrong, and when no body is in place that can create the necessary laws. It is like claiming that vigilantism is wrong in an anarchy.

The kind of vigilantism that the Sea Shep folks use is incredibly dangerous to themselves and others though. I would say that all forms of vigilantism are potentially dangerous to the perpetrators and others. (Lawful Good here)

Frankly, if the Sea Shep folks really wanted to make a difference, the protesting would be better served in Japan/Japanese waters or using their monies for a PR campaign(not that they aren't getting that with their "America's Most Stupid Sailors" TV show). We're trying to grind our way through international climate agreements, climate agreements that are MUCH more controversial than whaling, and we can't pull off a more binding agreement with regards to whaling?

[Formless]

However, if you're going to compare these Greenseapeace-whatever people to the Civil Rights movement, I'm going to point out why such a comparison is retarded.

edit: never mind, I misread his post.