crime

Greenpeace protests anti-whaling arrests

27 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

27 Comments
Login to comment

So two wrongs make a right? Hey I'm no big fan of whaling, but still doesn't give Greenpeace, or SeaShepard crews to go an take the laws into their own hands, or in this case, pretty much breaking into some place and stealing stuff.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While I'm not strongly against whaling, I'm tired of hearing this cop-out that "it's only at a few upscale restaurants". Horse crap. You can get a plate of whale at any izakaya for $5 bucks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Unfair treatment?

They broke intro a warehouse and stole mail, then admitted it at a press conference.

Fair treatment means charging them with the crime that they have admitted to - and are financially benefiting from.

What is unfair about being treated like a criminal when you've admitted your crime?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

hokkaidoguy - they are financially benefitting from? I didn't realise Greenpeace ativists were stealing whalemean to sell for themselves; I thought they were against selling and consumption of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Breaking into and stealing? Like Japan breaking into the Southern Protected waters (not recognised by Japan, but claimed by Australia) and 'stealing' whales? Much of a muchness.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Benjie, I believe Australia doesn't own any waters that are more than 200 miles off it's coast. But good try mate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First time offense, theft of less than yen 300,000, items recovered, perps admitting to the offense (even if not repentant) - and they should get a yen 5,000 fine and a good'day.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the two are banned from direct contact with the group

That's probably what the 'unfair treatment' is about. They're being prevented from engaging in a legal occupation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Potsu. Whaling HAS occurred in Japan for centuries and a brief google search will prove that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bushlover:

Australian Whale Sanctuary: http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/cetaceans/sanctuary.html IWC's overlapping Southern Whale Sanctuary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Ocean_Whale_Sanctuary

Under Australian law, it is illegal to 'fish' for whales, dolphins etc.

Under Australian law, they have every right to send in the troops, but not internationaly. Diplomatically it would be extremely counterproductive too, although it is the Australian Governement's duty to uphold its law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So what happens to the whalers that were illegally taking whale meat for themselves and possibly selling it? I find the rules of law quite funny here. If I discovered someone had murdered another person for profit by stealing their mail, I would be arrested and the true criminal would be off scott free. Funny sad, of course.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If someone broke into a locked garage to recover a stolen motorcycle and took that motorcycle to the police and handed it over to them in order to uncover bike theft, how would they be treated?

If and only if they would be treated differently in that case, this is a case of unfair treatment.

In Britain, which is where I come from, for an act to be theft, the intention to permanently deprive the owners of possession of the item is necessary. Of course, this is Japan and the Japanese legal definition of theft applies, whatever that may be. So who were the owners? The people who posted the whalemeat were possibly not the owners. Giving the meat to the police would therefore seem to me, at least, to invalidate the charge of theft, but not breaking and entering.

I wonder if they did break into the warehouse. Again, under British law, it is necessary to break something, however small it may be, for a charge of breaking and entering. Did they break their way into the warehouse? Were they really charged with "breaking and entering" or was this a mistranslation?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

what happens to the whalers that were illegally taking whale meat for themselves and possibly selling it?

The powers that be decided that Kyodo Senpan, the operators of the whaling fleet, 'gave' the meat to the crew members as a bonus. Never mind the fact that the meat is supposed to be sold to cover the cost of the 'scientific research' and that huge amounts of government loans (=our taxes) remain unpaid because the 'scientific research' doesn't turn a profit. In other words, the taxpayers (the vast majority of whom do not eat whalemeat) are the only ones to lose out. And the whales, of course.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Benjie, Australia can call it whatever they like. Australian law doesn't override International Law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anything goes on the open seas. Greenpeace. Just might become GreenAgressive if Japanese police try to do that. Be careful of nature lovers. They can go militant very very quickly. As for the labeling of terrorist, it's so funny. What Japanese will do for their whale meat.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bushlover: Which international law are you talking about exactly? The 'law' of the high seas? Or are you referring to agreements/treaties signed?

Australia's claim to these waters, as identified in the Antarctic treaty, not privvy by Japan or US, is legally binding in Australia, NZ, France, etc. Japan chooses not to recognise this. Greenpeace does.

In an International court of law, Australia's right to impose Australian law on non-nationals is a contentious issue in which there are conflicting international laws (right to defend territory VS recognised territory).

Just as Japan sees fit to 'expel' Chinese boats from Senkaku and Russia sees fit to shoot at Japanese fisherman around Kuril Isles, Australia and Greenpeace can claim intrusion by Japan. This is a territorial dispute legally.

Greenpeace is encouraging Japan to whale in its own waters, not in waters claimed by someone else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

(not recognized by Japan(or the majority of the world), but claimed by Australia(and 4 other nations))

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“Japan is one of the seven largest economies in the world, and with power comes responsibility,”

Now, where's that story about moral education?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Australia's claim to these waters, as identified in the Antarctic >treaty, not privvy by Japan or US, is legally binding in Australia, NZ, >France, etc. Japan chooses not to recognise this. Greenpeace does.

Just as Japan sees fit to 'expel' Chinese boats from Senkaku and Russia >sees fit to shoot at Japanese fisherman around Kuril Isles, Australia >and Greenpeace can claim intrusion by Japan. This is a territorial >dispute legally.

Last I checked Greenpeace is a NPO and not a sovereign state. What their opinion maybe as regards territorial or diplomatic issues means absolutely nothing. I think best to to stick to Australia's position.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There is nothing unfair about arresting people for burglary. It's a crime no matter what the intended outcome is.

The interesting thing is that Australia hasn't done anything to arrest the whalers. Does this mean that they think that their sanctuary has no basis in international law? Or are they toothless?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hear me now lads, they did a break and entry and need to do jail time. If the action they committed was sanctioned by Greenpeace, it has confirmed itself as a terrorist organization.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Scottishthug - Last I heard, terrorism is more related to the spreading of fear, maming, causing widespread death and destruction, etc. Hardly the profile for Greenpeace.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japan is just as big a hypocrite in this whale fight as it claims the West is. Hunting whales is not vital to anyone in Japan.

Japan tries to make this an issue of the West trying to push its values on Japan, invading Japan's realm of culture and livliehood. Isn't a big part of the issue right now,Japan killing whales in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary and even in Australian waters? How long has Japan been hunting whales around Antarctica? What happened to all of the whales around Japan? If they were just killing whales around Japan, would it be as big an issue? Once they start killing animals in another part of the world, killing animals that are part of the economy and culture of other places(Australia, New Zealand)it becomes everybody's business.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

mrfish33, Japan does support endangered species protection treaties, that's because Japan supports protecting endangered species. But Japan does not support protecting non-endangered species. Did you not realise that it's Japan that is buying elephant ivory from Southern African nations?

Hunting whales is not vital to anyone in Japan.

You asked everyone, huh?

Isn't a big part of the issue right now,Japan killing whales in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary and even in Australian waters?

No. The Antarctic Whale Sanctuary and the Australian version were only established after 1994. The Japanese were already hunting there before then.

How long has Japan been hunting whales around Antarctica?

Since the 1930's, pretty much the same time as every major whaling nation was down there.

Why 70 years later is Japan supposed to suddenly stop whaling there?

What happened to all of the whales around Japan?

Ask the foreign whalers who killed so many of them back in the 1800's! As for the whales that are here today, Japan's research indicates that many of them are increasing in numbers, and commercial whaling is undisputably possible for 2 baleen whale species there, with a 3rd just a matter of time before it too is confirmed.

If they were just killing whales around Japan, would it be as big an issue?

Do Australians oppose Icelandic and Norwegian whaling?

Once they start killing animals in another part of the world, killing animals that are part of the economy and culture of other places(Australia, New Zealand)it becomes everybody's business.

Sure, and why was this not a problem 70 years ago, but it is a problem now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

why was this not a problem 70 years ago, but it is a problem now?

Lots of things that weren't problems 70 years ago are problems now. We aren't our great-grandparents.

70 years ago the world was a place we wouldn't recognise.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The two should be given a metal for preventing those that eat whale meat from getting mercury poisoning. Really, you might as well break open a thermometer and suck out the mercury inside it than eat whale.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Davidattokyo,

I love the excuse that cause foreigners did it Japanese should be allowed to do it.

By supporting endangered species treaties Japan is infringing on the rights of subsistence hunters. Please explain who or what entity in Japan whaling is vital to?

Japan does what it wants and when others question what it does it whines about being mistreated by the West.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites