crime

Sea Shepherd sues Japanese whalers in Netherlands for piracy

83 Comments

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

© 2013 AFP

©2022 GPlusMedia Inc.

83 Comments
Login to comment

Go SS!

I wish these stories were written more accurately "Japan" does not defend whaling as a tradition....etc. It is the Institute of Cetacean "Research" and their particular ilk. In the future, they may be the Institute of Cetacean Watching instead of dastardly slaughter of these intelligent, magnificent mammals.

-16 ( +26 / -42 )

“The Nisshin Maru’s captain then attacked these boats by repeatedly ramming them, by using water canon to flood the engine room and sabotage the engines and by throwing explosives,”

was it ever reported by Japanese media, NHK? i don't remember.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Environmental group Sea Shepherd has filed a suit against the crew of Japanese whaling ship Nisshin Maru alleging piracy

The irony of this is just ridiculous. Its "pot calling kettle black" to a whole new level.

3 ( +21 / -18 )

The Sea Shepherd claiming piracy against the japanese?? ... this is hilarious coming from a crew who have broken every seafaring rule in the book over the years.... talk about unadulterated hipocracy....

21 ( +36 / -15 )

Excuse me, what? My head almost exploded reading this... illegal refueling? WTF is that?

9 ( +18 / -9 )

This will get dismissed. Another "legally stupid" move by Sea Shepherd. Their lawyers are sucking up their contribution funds like it's going out of style.

3 ( +18 / -15 )

Here's what I found about "illegal refueling" according to International Regulations for Avoiding Collisions at Sea (http://www.bosunsmate.org/seamanship/rulesoftheroad.php) Part A, Rule 3, g (iii) where replenishment at sea inhibiting a vessels maneuverability, which may lead to collision between vessels, is negligence to comply with safety regulations. But wouldn't SS be similarly liable for not complying with safety regulations per Part B, Rules 7 & 8? Whatever...

3 ( +7 / -4 )

I know that most of you reading this fall on one or the other side of this argument. But I rarely read anything here that actually makes sense to the real issues. As a person living in Japan, and one that has done volunteer work in Tohoku, whaling is a matter of priority that needs to considered.

The amount of money spent on whaling is not approved by a citizen vote. But should be. It is arguable that these funds are needed here in Japan. Needed to rebuild the north, help the victims of 311 or to help invite industry to the region. Japan spending money on whaling while these problems remain is criminal. Especially when a lot of that money originated in donations for Tohoku.

Japan has something like a 17% poverty rate. Many of these people are single moms or single women who are an underemployed class in Japan in most cases. Why can a government spend on whaling while people here in Japan need this help?

The media image of Japan is significantly damaged internationally because of this practice. Japan wants to be an Olympic host, wants to be on the UN security council and wants to be respected internationally. This kind of dirty issue hurts all of those ambitions and makes Japan look like a backwards state. Proactive change in this policy could help win Japan great support world wide. Politically it is a no brainer.

Cost - The cost of maintaining this practice is impractical in a nation with the debt and financial issues it faces. If this was entirely a private funded issue, then perhaps it would be a different question. But state funding this in this economy is insane and unproductive for the people of Japan.

All this said, this law suit and others costs Japan money too. As each time they need to file suits, defend against them or send people to be involved.

The money spent on whaling could be spend on better things. As a tax payer here I want that to happen and for whaling to end the waste of tax money for the benefit of an archaic practice. Let us spend this money where it is needed, HERE in Japan and stop this silly issue today.

18 ( +30 / -12 )

Once the ships engaged in the refueling procedures displayed the correct lights or day shapes to signal their intentions, it was the responsibility of all other vessels in the vicinity to stay clear.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

If whales were cute we wouldn't be having this conversation.

3 ( +10 / -8 )

Of course the money spent of whaling could be spent on something actually needed. They even stole disaster money to keep it going. Remember 87% of Japanese don't eat whale meat and are not likely to do so in the future. Remember 6,000 tons of last years harvest remains unsold.Without constant government aid whaling would collapse as it is a many loser.

As for Green Peace, they have not used explosives on other ships.

4 ( +14 / -10 )

Another day, another round of SS stupidity. The bickering, and the issue as a whole, will never end.

tkoind2, very well said.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

"Environmental group Sea Shepherd has filed a suit against the crew of Japanese whaling ship Nisshin Maru alleging piracy and attempted manslaughter ..."

“The Nisshin Maru’s captain then attacked these boats by repeatedly ramming them, by using water canon to flood the engine room and sabotage the engines and by throwing explosives,”

Let's show the videos to the US Court of Appeal to see if they had mistaken badly who is the real pirate! Throwing explosives into the engine room seems like the conduct of a terrorist and unbecoming of a nation's conduct in self defense!

-13 ( +7 / -20 )

"...by using water canon to flood the engine room and sabotage the engines and by throwing explosives,” Tony Ew, you don't actually believe that, do you? Watson is on record saying that it's good to tell lies if it gets attention for your cause." Doesn't it sound too ridiculous to be true? Of course. So it's best to assume it's not.

Same as the Dutch prosecutors did before and will do again.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Their ship wouldn't be getting rammed if they weren't breaking their restraining order and driving their ship right in front of the Japanese fleet. The SS captains ought to be charged for attempted manslaughter of their own crews from reckless endangerment.

11 ( +17 / -6 )

Japan defends whaling as a tradition and accuses Western critics of disrespecting its culture.

But it's research, isn't it? Bwaaaaaa!

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

To all,

Actually, you guys should cry now.

The world ethics abviously takes a stance against Japan here. Japan is keeping being no good in all areas.

These are great signs of decline of the nation believe it or not.

The narrow-minded nationalism of current generation is consuming the reputation of Japan.

-9 ( +8 / -17 )

All readers stay on topic please. The story is about the court action. Focus your comments on that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So these idiots go around harassing Japanese ships then sue after they cause a collision? That probably makes sense to those on the political Left but it's just plain ridiculous to everyone else.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

Wolfpack, so anyone who has a political or social issue you don't agree with is an idiot?

It is called protesting. It can be in a ship at sea, in a city street, in a court room. If you believe in something and you are willing to put your own bones on the line to support your ideas, I think you deserve more respect than "idiots" by some poster on a relatively unimportant web site.

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

illegal refueling? WTF is that?

This refers to the whale sanctuary. Vessels are not allowed to partake in refuelling operations within the sanctuary for environmental reasons.

This is where Japan is coming undone. They state they are operating within the orders of the IWC and conducting research, but they are ignoring all the other regulations that go with the IWC charter, including the whale sancuary. When Australia's case hits the international court later this year Japan will be ordered to stop whaling, no ifs or buts about it, but it will mean Japan will drop out of the IWC and start unrestricted whaling because, "It's their culture." This will open the door for a barrage of international condemnation and action. The only language the Japanese understand is money. I'd like to think the 'modern' world will start to put economic sanctions and restrict exports to Japan until they grow up. The Japanese culture of sending factory ships to the other end of the world to harvest thousands of whales that have been protected by other countries was only in practice from the 1950's to the early 80's. It is not culture. It is business, therefor, it is illegal.

-7 ( +10 / -17 )

I hope Sea Shepard Goes ahead with this and wins.

-8 ( +12 / -20 )

People who think its weird for them to sue are not getting it. For SS any publicity is good publicity. It brings whaling out in the open.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

I do agree that for SS, publicity is a major goal in all their actions.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

@ Wolfpack:

"So these idiots go around harassing Japanese ships then sue after they cause a collision? That probably makes sense to those on the political Left but it's just plain ridiculous to everyone else."

Uh, Wolfpack, this has naught to do with "left" or "right". I'm left of Canadian centre, and I recognize that SS are a bunch of reckless idiots. And that they're wasting Dutch court time and donor money.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

SS is running around the world, crying about Japan, hoping to embarrass her by shamelessly exploiting the sympathies of those ignorant of the issue. The facts alleged in this lawsuit are ridiculous, but thats part of the strategy: on one hand, turn this situation into a painful embarrassment for Japan; while on the other hand, seemingly unaffiliated parties mount a 'soft' (social) media campaign painting Japan as unreasonable, for not giving up in light of other priorities.

Covering yourself in filth and wailing about your mistreatment to ignorant passersby is a well-worn tactic used by those with no pride. I hope Japan considers her response well, in light of the broader strategy being employed and the interests involved.

These TERRORISTS, to get what they want, are attempting to damage Japan across a broad spectrum interests. Japan needs this taken care of expeditiously, and giving up would only invite more such BLACKMAIL. Im honestly surprised Japan hasnt yet outsourced/contracted-out the 'handling' of these criminals...

10 ( +16 / -6 )

DisillusionedMar. 22, 2013 - 09:53AM JST "illegal refueling? WTF is that?"

This refers to the whale sanctuary. Vessels are not allowed to partake in refuelling operations within the sanctuary for >environmental reasons.

Please provide a link to support this statement. Environmental concerns are not within the IWC's authority.

This is where Japan is coming undone. They state they are operating within the orders of the IWC and conducting >research, but they are ignoring all the other regulations that go with the IWC charter, including the whale sancuary.

This is where your argument is getting undone. The same IWC Article VIII which authorizes research whaling under Scientific Permits excludes participants from recognizing other IWC conventions. Specifically, neither the Commercial Whaling Moratorium nor any IWC designated "Sanctuaries" need be recognized by the research whalers, This is all available to the public on the IWC site.

When Australia's case hits the international court later this year Japan will be ordered to stop whaling, no ifs or buts >about it, but it will mean Japan will drop out of the IWC and start unrestricted whaling because, "It's their culture."

Unfortunately for you, that is rather unlikely to happen. "THE former prime minister Kevin Rudd launched legal action against Japan's whaling program despite opposition from senior ministers and officials who warned it was likely to fail and strengthen the hand of the Japanese. Leaked United States diplomatic cables also indicate that the decision to take Japan to the International Court of Justice was designed to divert public pressure on Labor over whaling. The Department of Foreign Affairs warned that the case against Japan's ''scientific'' whaling would ''either fail completely or, at best, set up the Japanese to simply make changes to their program to improve the science''.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/doomed-whaling-fight-aimed-at-saving-labor-vote-20110104-19f52.html

The antics of Sea Shepherd, an organization designated Eco-Terrorists by the FBI, "Pirates" by the US Courts, and lead by an international fugitive from justice, filing one absurd frivolous suit after another and foolishly believing that Courts of Law are as gullible as wealthy celebrities and internet sheep, is doing nothing in terns of conservation.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

hahahahahahahahahahaha. ROFLMAO

The joke of the century (so far). The pirates ate trying to sue the fishermen for piracy. Oh please stop it. It's hurting.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahah....

4 ( +13 / -9 )

"Japan defends whaling as a tradition and accuses Western critics of disrespecting its culture."

And yet in the paragraph before, in this very same article, they claim it's for science! The Japanese arguments for whaling are about as strong and hard to see through as a broken window.

I have no doubt this lawsuit will get tossed. At the very least, there's nothing the Netherlands can do to Japan (maybe brag about getting further in the WBC, but that's it), but bringing more attention to the terrorism of the whalers never hurts. And them claiming SS rammed their ships is ridiculous -- some little fibre-glass boats ramming a massive eco-terrorist diesel ship?

-5 ( +13 / -18 )

Ossan: "The antics of Sea Shepherd, an organization designated Eco-Terrorists by the FBI,"

Ah, your famous 'FBI definition' of what constitutes terrorism. You've already seen time and again the very same definition more than fits the bill for the Japanese whalers. Here they fit it more than ever; using explosives, willfully ramming ships, acoustic weapons against vehicles IN FLIGHT, water cannons, etc. You know who the real terrorists are here, Ossan, you just for some reason defend their "Is it better with mayonnaise or soy sauce" 'science'.

-5 ( +11 / -16 )

Just a cheap publicity stunt to rake in more donations from their ignorant supporters.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

The whaling case is being heard at International Court of Justice, right now.

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=1&code=aj&case=148&k=64

Why cannot they wait till the judgment is delivered?

I think Japan will win the case, just as a former US State department official observed. At that time, all the people who said "Japan violates international treaty" shall apologize.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

So,if the Eco-Terrorist-Whalers lose the case in the Netherlands - will they be as enthusiastic about submitting to a Dutch court ruling as they expect SS to be about the USA one?

I think not somehow.

The notion that SS are any more hypocritical than the Eco-Terrorist-Whalers is laughable. Big doses of dissimulation on both sides. But one side is dissembling trying to prevent needless torturous deaths of intelligent sea mammals - and the other is dissembling in order to do more of it.

So take my donation and milk as much publicity as you can out of it SS.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

One of the saddest points about ehaling is how the take money earmarked for 3/11 victims and instead use it for something even most of Japan doesn't care about. Hopefully they raise that point in the suit--it takes international embarrassment for the j-government to act.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Ultimately they will lose, but that will cause the 'culture' argument to kick in while intelligence goes out the window. And how could anyone possibly believe the whalers' arguments that SS rammed their ships? Those little SS ships would do NOTHING against the giant Nisshin Maru or the South Korean ice breaker they brought in for 'defense'. The terrorist actions of the whalers have been proven time and again. Heck, they wouldn't even allow SS to help them search for the body of a crewman when he went overboard, that's how heartless and petty the whalers are.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

FreePeter, so the only reason you have against whaling is that you do not like whales killed. The world is not made to fit your personal liking. Spend all your money for your hobby. But that does not give you, or give anyone the right to violate the right of other people.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

@SmithinJapan

Ah, your famous 'FBI definition' of what constitutes terrorism. You've already seen time and again the very same definition more than fits the bill for the Japanese whalers. Here they fit it more than ever; using explosives, willfully ramming ships, acoustic weapons against vehicles IN FLIGHT, water cannons, etc.

I've seen many of your posts Smith and you seem to be a pretty intelligent guy, but you understand how rediculous this argument comes across? THEY ARE DEFENDING THEMSELVES. If an armed insurgent charges the gates of a military installation, are you going to blame the military for taking defensive measures? If SS wasn't there menacing and harassing the whalers, there would be no need for them to defend themselves. Defending oneself is not terrorism...

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Tizalleyman: "If an armed insurgent charges the gates of a military installation, are you going to blame the military for taking defensive measures?"

If your going to use metaphor, at least make it apt. There's no 'military base' in the Southern Ocean, despite the Japanese government giving $28 million US earmarked for disaster relief so that the coast guard -- that's right, the Japanese coast guard THOUSANDS of miles from the coast -- can go in as armed mercs and preparing all sorts of weapons to engage with the SS. When you ram ships that's not 'defense'. When you fire acoustic weapons at helicopters in flight that's not 'defense'. When you bring in additional ships to ram ships that's not 'defense'. When you use explosives and other weapons, that's not 'defense'. The Japanese are on the offensive, and as I stated earlier the definition of 'eco-terrorist' that Ossan likes to provide from the FBI can EASILY be applied to the whalers. They aren't down there for science.

As I also said, this case will likely just get thrown out of court, but it'll bring media attention on something the Japanese don't want attention put on and they'll, as always, very quickly change from defending the whaling as 'science' to accusing Western nations of 'attacking Japanese culture and tradition'.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Whaling is fishing.Whales are large Fish. End of that issue.

Environmentalism is a hobby supported by people who contribute for a cause, it is NOT a commercial enterprise, or a legitimate purpose for a ship to be at sea, it is a political act. None of the publicity stunts of this small group of aggressive radicals are worthy of news coverage, i am sorry to see that many people are fooled by the propaganda of the anti whaling clowns. The problem is that at sea, ships cannot stop or turn quickly and refueling in artic waters where the weather can change very fast is a life and death matter, not a tool for games playing. The anti whalers are completely in the wrong here, and the court will throw the case out i am sure. it is just another grandstanding play. As are all the silly charges. What a joke. No one respects them any more and they shoulid just go home. Japan has every right to do what they decide to do. And I am proud that they are standing up for their rights.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

"Whales are large fish."

Yep. And elephants are large reptiles, and bacteria are tiny marsupials.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

If I am reading this article correctly I believe SS just themselves in the foot since they filed a case to a criminal court, not a civil court in which as the court proceeds their actions will be placed under scrutiny us much as the Nishinmaru. At the end Netherlands will require to press charges against the SS not Nishinmaru.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Disillusioned

This refers to the whale sanctuary. Vessels are not allowed to partake in refuelling operations within the sanctuary for environmental reasons.

It's high time someone schooled you on this. Refueling in antarctic waters is prohibited ONLY by Australia within their self-proclaimed and globally unrecognized Australian Arctic Territory. In other words, it's only "illegal" if one accepts Australia's claim over that portion of the Southern Ocean and since the international community (all but 4-5 nations) disregards Australia's claim, it's hardly illegal to conduct refueling there. Like it or not, it's not Australian waters as far as 99% of nations are concerned so by practice Australia's domestic laws don't apply there. Verdict: Not "illegal."

Furthermore, the UN's International Maritime Organization (IMO) has prohibited the use of heavy fuel oils to fuel ships below 60 deg. south since 2011. All fuel oils are classified as one of No.1-6 Fuel Oils based on their characteristics and only No.5 and No.6 Fuel Oils are heavy fuel oils. Now, fuel used by ships for propulsion is called Bunker Fuel of which there are several categories: Bunker A, B, and C. of which only Bunker B and C, which are No.5 and No.6 Fuel Oils are heavy fuel oils. The ICR operates its research whaling fleet exclusively using Bunker A which is a No.2 Fuel Oil and not a heavy fuel oil. Most ships burn Bunker B and C because they are less refined and therefore much cheaper than Bunker A which is a similar grade to home heating oil and automobile diesel fuel. Despite the added cost, the ICR has complied fully with the IMO's prohibition of heavy fuel oils in antarctic waters and the fuel that is used by the vessels of the whaling fleet as well as the fuel aboard the South Korean commercial refueling vessel was all Bunker A/No.2 Fuel Oil which is NOT heavy fuel oil. Verdict: Once again, NOT "illegal."

It really shouldn't be any wonder why only Australia and those with anti-whaling sentiments have claimed that the refueling of the ICR's whaling fleet is "illegal" (but have taken no action), and why the IMO, who has the only recognized legal authority in this case, has never stated anything of the kind. Unfortunately for you Disillusioned, it's illegal in your mind only because you want it to be illegal, but alas no more than wishful thinking.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

Chris: "Whaling is fishing.Whales are large Fish. End of that issue."

If you have no idea about biology, it is indeed. Whales are not fish, they are mammals. Same as you. But Japanese 'science' never has made much sense in regard to whaling. I'd venture this lawsuit would make them think a little more, but we're talking about a country that one second exploits loopholes to say it's for science, and then claims your attacking their culture when you point out the plot holes. That'll be their ONLY defense in this trial, despite them claiming it's all about science. And what is that science, exactly? "Taste's better with soy sauce" is not science.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

Sea Sheperd has rammed Norwegian Coast Guard ships, they should not be so quick to talk about bad seamanship.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Are the crews of SS seriously baked or something? This is just ridiculous.....

2 ( +6 / -4 )

KariHaruka: ”Are the crews of SS seriously baked or something? ”

It's called 'roosters coming home to roost', as much as you might not want to consider yourself the doer instead of the victim for a change. It's not an attack on culture, not an attack on cry-baby ideals that never existed centuries ago, it's the end of a truth -- there is no logical reason for the whale hunt, and definitely no scientific reason.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

smithinjapanMar. 22, 2013 - 11:04AM JST "Japan defends whaling as a tradition and accuses Western critics of disrespecting its culture." And yet in the paragraph before, in this very same article, they claim it's for science! The Japanese arguments for >whaling are about as strong and hard to see through as a broken window.

It is both smith. The Japanese (as do Koreans) eat whale. It is cultural and a tradition. The IWC was formed and exists to regulate the WHALING INDUSTRY. The conservation measures it takes including Research Whaling under Scientific Permit is for he purpose of sampling populations with a view to resuming commercial whaling if the populations allow it. It isn't "science for the sake of science" as you seem to believe.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

smithinjapanMar. 22, 2013 - 11:07AM JST "Ossan: "The antics of Sea Shepherd, an organization designated Eco-Terrorists by the FBI," Ah, your famous 'FBI definition' of what constitutes terrorism.

Yes it is famous and persistently ignored by SSCS supporters and JBs like yourself.

"The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."

http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-threat-of-eco-terrorism

You've already seen time and again the very same definition more than fits the bill for the Japanese whalers. Here >they fit it more than ever; using explosives, willfully ramming ships, acoustic weapons against vehicles IN FLIGHT, >water cannons, etc. You know who the real terrorists are here, Ossan, you just for some reason defend their "Is it >better with mayonnaise or soy sauce" 'science'.

It does't fit the bill at all since the Research Whalers are NOT an environmentally oriented group, something with which all Sea Shepherd supporters would adamantly agree. You may have noticed that the FBI does not deem Whalers as "eco-terrorists". Nor does the US Courts deem the Whalers to be "pirates" the way they do Seas Shepherd. The US Courts have also have also recognized all acts as you cite to be acts of self defense against harassment and assault by Sea Shepherd. I understand South Korea chickened out of their planned Kochujang Whale science for fear of the anti-whalling countries. This from a country that claims to have the oldest evidence of human whaling and a tradituion opf eating whale.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19498874

http://content.www.rspca.org.uk/cmsprd/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobnocache=false&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1233001165403&ssbinary=true

2 ( +8 / -6 )

YuriOtani

What makes me think twice is how Japan claims Australian waters are not

Uh, where have you been? It's not just Japan. It's Japan and every other nation on this planet except for the UK, New Zealand, France and Norway. Including Australia, an infinitesimally small percentage of the governments of the world, just .015% , recognize Australia's territorial claims in the Antarctic and Southern Ocean.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

SS is probably making a mistake here because, if this does go to court, it will probably be proven and publicised that SS was the one instigating the illegal activity and endangering the environment. They might have shot themselves in the foot with this one. But, in the meantime, the lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

USNinJapan2 so you think the US should disregard Australian law? While American courts and law is treated as gospel. Japanese whalers are going halfway around the world to do this evil deed. Australia needs to use military force to stop the whalers. A country has the right to use military force to protect their territory. They need to protect this sanctuary from the wreckers.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Australia needs to use military force to stop the whalers. A country has the right to use military force to protect their territory. They need to protect this sanctuary from the wreckers.

The fact that they haven't leads to one of two conclusions: Australia either lacks the will or lacks the ability to enforce their supposed authority.

Clearly, either something is funky with the laws, or Australia just doesn't care.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

In court, Japanese whaling authorities should stick to their research defense, however absurd. If they stray into the defense of culture approach they will be more exposed than ever for the environmental predators they clearly are. 

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Their idea of a ramming seems to be running a fast boat like the Ady Gil back and forth under the prow of a less maneuverable Japanese vessel until it gets hit.

Haha.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

In court, Japanese whaling authorities should stick to their research defense

No, what Japan need to do is say that they were sailing legally. And ask the SS what they were doing and they will say blocking the Japanese ships from refueling. When pushed the SS will say they intentionally positioned their boat between the two ships. Whaling doesn't come into it.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Ossan: "Yes it is famous and persistently ignored by SSCS supporters and JBs like yourself."

Love it! You guys fall back on that 'Japan basher' argument faster than Japan falls back on the 'cultural tradition' argument when it's proven they lack the science they promote with whaling. At least you admit that it's not science -- that's a baby-step.

And yes, your constantly posted FBI definition of eco-terrorism most certainly fits the bill of the whalers. They are terrorists to a T.

" I understand South Korea chickened out of their planned Kochujang Whale science for fear of the anti-whalling countries"

What does South Korea have to do with any of this, your hatred aside?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ossan: "This from a country that claims to have the oldest evidence of human whaling and a tradituion opf eating whale."

Imagine that! A country that claims to have the oldest evidence of whaling stopping whaling and not claiming the culture argument! You do realize that your seething hatred of all things Korean has just defeated Japan's own fall-back argument when they admit it's not for science, right? If SK can stop whaling despite it being tradition, why is Japan lacking in backbone?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heda: "Whaling doesn't come into it."

Well, science -- the loophole -- doesn't come into it, that's for sure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

YuriOtaniMar. 23, 2013 - 01:53AM JST USNinJapan2 so you think the US should disregard Australian law?

All nations disregard laws where that law has no jurisdiction. Would you not disregard Japanese law if you were in Hawaii?

While American courts and law is treated as gospel.

No they are not. If they were the world might be a more peaceful place, But that's not how it works. US law applies only where US courts have jurisdiction or over US individuals and entities.

Japanese whalers are going halfway around the world to do this evil deed.

Whether the research whaling is "evil" or "good" is a matter of personal interpretation with no means of objective measurement.

Australia needs to use military force to stop the whalers. A country has the right to use military force to protect their >territory. They need to protect this sanctuary from the wreckers.

It isn't Australian territory. Australia has a claim to it, and to act as if it has jurisdictional authority would prejudice it's claim. Australia has no authority to use their military there.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

It is called protesting. It can be in a ship at sea, in a city street, in a court room. If you believe in something and you are willing to put your own bones on the line to support your ideas, I think you deserve more respect

You're forgetting that the second part of civil disobedience is accepting the consequences of that disobedience. If you trespass to protest a nuke site, for example, you can't whine about being thrown in jail. If you follow and harass ships at sea, you can't whine when they take out restraining orders against you or when there is a collision.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Environmental group Sea Shepherd has filed a suit against the crew of Japanese whaling ship Nisshin Maru alleging piracy and attempted manslaughter after they clashed in the Antarctic Ocean in February, their lawyers said on Thursday.

A similar suit was filed by Sea Shepherd in the Netherlands in 2010 but prosecutors did not follow it up with a case.

It appears that the eco-terrorist SS "filed" a suit with the Dutch criminal court but the Dutch court hasn't decided if the eco-terrorist SS have legal standing to bring such a case. IF ACCEPTED, then the eco-terrorist SS lawyers will have to PROVE that what they "claim" happened actually happened. The eco-terrorist SS lawyers will also have to "actually" prove, not just "claim", that the whalers violated any Dutch laws.

Acts of self-defense are NOT illegal.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

"A similar suit was filed by Sea Shepherd in the Netherlands in 2010 but prosecutors did not follow it up with a case."

This previous case was also brought by this Dutch Sea Shepherd supporting lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld and dismissed. It will undoubtedly be dismissed again. I hope she has fun explaining how the Sea Shepherd ships got close enough to the Whalers to received the alleged "damages".

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/12/24/12-35266.pdf

3 ( +6 / -3 )

****Surely Watson knows by now that the world considers him the laughing stock and a loose canon. A charlatan and a lying old man intent upon getting as much publicity and donations as possible to overflow his coffers. How ironic to claim the Japanese are pirates when he himself claims he and his bunch of ferals are in fact, not protesters but pirates.

The whole charade is cringeable behaviour with a 63 year old man who has no dignity , class or morals. This whaling hate campaign is all for his own ego, money of course ( donate donate donate) an unhealthy dose of racism and footage for Whale Wars the comedy.

Little wonder Australian journalists dont comment on the on going sagas of "this year we will stop whaling" , because they never ever stop whaling ... as one well known journalist wrote " he's a joke just a little grub" , now hes sueing the Japanese, well look out supporters your well earnt money will be going on his useless constant legal cases always sueing someone and not on conservation.

Mistah Watson is a known braggart and liar, he only defends emotive animals which bring a tear to your eyes , his own words in an interview " baby tears have tears in their eyes so their easy to exploit" , yeah a real hero I dont think.

Just dont try and muscle your way into my country ( he will be arrested in the USA) with your buddy the most hated despised and craziest ex politician in the country Bob Brown, because your type is not welcome here. If Australia lets a fugitive thug set foot in Australia then Julia Gillard is morally corrupt and it's great she wont be PM after September. NB I am an animal lover not an animal rights extremeist like the indoctrinated hippies on the SS ships ,whaling is horrible but so too is the killing of any animal.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

baby "SEALS" have tears in their eyes and are easy to exploit* ....ammendment
-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If it is the case that Sea Shepherd(SS) was illegally blocking the Nisshin Maru(NM) from bunkering, is there any IMO, UNCLOS, or other sanctioned body that would grant the NM the right to forcibly "push" the SS aside? SS claims that the NM crew hurled flash bang grenades onto their deck, and directed their water cannons into their smokestack and flooded their engine compartment, and rammed them from astern, and port.

In the interest of safety of all ships and crews concerned, if SS positioned itself alongside the oil tanker Sun Laurel(SL) impeding safe bunkering, isn't the prudent action for the NM to withdraw until SS has vacated the scene and conditions are safe to bunker, instead of engaging in any act that could be construed as combative or violent?

Would the insurers or underwriters for the NM, and whaling fleet approve of any operations that knowingly and forseeably result in a collision and risk of life or property?

Video and photos provided by SS appears to show the NM colliding with both SS, and SL, hurled flash bang grenades onto the SS, and SL decks. The lifeboat davit seemed to be damaged by the collision with the NM.

My understanding is that the SSCS fleet communicated to the whaling fleet that they wouldn't impede bunkering north of 60 degrees, and that they honoured that. Apparently, the NM bunkered north of 60 degrees without interference from SS, then returned to the Southern Ocean to continue whaling.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Anonsequitur

Because they have to maintain a set course and speed, both vessels (provider and receiver) conducting a Replenishment At Sea (RAS/bunkering) are categorized as restricted in their ability to maneuver and have the right of way over all other vessels except vessels that are not under command (adrift). Other vessels that encounter two vessels that are in any stage of a RAS (approach, replenishing, breakaway) must avoid them by changing their course to ensure that the ships involved in the RAS don't have to alter their course or speed to prevent a collision. Obviously a vessel like a Sea Shepherd vessel that is intentionally disrupting a RAS operation will ignore this Rule 18(a) of the maritime "Rules of the Road" and intentionally create an unsafe situation where a collision is likely. The master of the Bob Barker should have his skipper's license revoked, period.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Anonsequitur

Watch this video of the collision taken from the Nissin Maru. This video, unlike the Sea Shepherd videos that start much later AFTER the Bob Barker has positioned itself between the NM and the Sun Laurel, shows how the two RAS vessels were already coming together on a parallel course when the Bob Barker approached from astern and injected itself between them. There is simply no way of (rationally) justifying this unsafe action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ATFZJWcF6I

5 ( +7 / -2 )

SO atlest the very least we should say at very least Paul Wastons arrest warrant for Germany has bin done & gone with. Just check your facts, Costa Rica failed to present facts on the case, so the only outstanding interpol warrant for PW is for "hoolgshism" by the Jgov, sure this is more Important than murders or child apducters from Japan!

Is so funny to see posts from USN telling of navigational law,(a master of aircraft carriers, but at the same time a pilot is said boats), but as he stated approaching from the port quarter without giving notifaxation of intentions over radio is ILLEGAL, yet by his own laws then the AG was ILLEGALY rammed & sunk, but then the NM illegally approached other vessels, then collideded with them, saying they had right of way, while the master of the vessel saw an impedance, ignored it, & used his vessel to ram another, then to use his water cannons to disable the othe vessels engines/props,(gee sound like anybody elses complaint? eg ICR), but hey they don't have to abide by rules of safe navigation, they are Japanese, also theMexico treaty dosnt apply to to them even though they signed it! NO REFEULING BELOW 60' PARALELL

But then let's continue on USN's interpretations ofthe rules of safe navigation, he clearly states in previous post of how approaching vessels from the port quarter, without the master giving radio notification of the vessels intention is illegal, ESP if the vessel they rammed gave radio notifaxation of their intent to maintain course & speed, thus the vessel approaching is making an ILLEGAL MANOUVER. But please enlighten us all how the J-vessel were such a victim, then had to throw explosives down smothers vessels exhaust as self defense???

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

International Navigation Rules, or "Rules of the Road," are written with the assumption that vessels DO NOT want to collide with each other. Why is it so hard for some to understand that these rules can't be applied to Sea Shepherd vessels as they normally would be applied because safe navigation isn't their intent to begin with? On the flip side, you're an idiot if you think that a collision or confrontation of any kind is desired by the vessels of the whaling fleet. They would be happiest if they never even saw a Sea Shepherd vessel. Of course the same can't be said for the Sea Shepherd crews.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Thanks, USIJ2, for your RAS/bunkering explanation, and ICR video.

For arguments sake, lets stipulate that SSCS MV Bob Barker(BB) was illegally interfering with Nisshin Maru(NM) bunkering with tankship Sun Laurel(SL).

There appears to be video shot from multiple wide-angle vantage points from SSCS ships BB, and their small patrol boat(RHIB) which seems to show the NM ramming the BB from astern , and in the act, colliding with the SL, which reportedly damaged its lifeboat davit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKBq0S6AsxY

It would appear in this engagement, that the BB was already alongside the SL, when the NM steered a course to forcibly push the BB aside.

Again, stipulating to BB IMO/UNCLOS violations regarding RAS, is there any violations committed by the NM for apparently ramming the BB to push it aside? What responsibility is there for the NM to avoid collision with its own tankship, SL? What safety protocol would permit the NM crew to hurl flash bang grenades onto both the decks of the BB, and SL? Is there any sanction of the NM for directing its water cannon to disable engine of the BB?

Why didn't the NM withdraw, in-order to de-escalate the conflagration, and risk of collision? If I'm at a petrol station, waiting for a vehicle ahead of me to clear the way for me to fill, and they do not, I have some simple options to consider. Thoughts about my vehicle insurance, motor vehicle regulations, and my own sense of safety, would preclude any violent act that involved ramming the "belligerent" vehicle blocking me, and colliding with the filling station apparatus risking fire or explosion. The much safer and prudent action would be to report "belligerent" motorist to the authorities, then drive to another filling station.

In this video, Paul Watson, also reports that the SL, a non-ice class tankship, violates IMO regs for sailing in ice at 12kts without a searchlight.

The ICR, and SSCS both edit their videos, and present their photos to win in the court of public opinion. SSCS accuses ICR of splicing their video make it appear the BB is ramming the SL. ICR tries to depict the BB ramming the SL, and NM.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The SSCS vessels had no business being within 500 yards of the Whaling vessels, much less alongside. SSCS knew they were obligated to comply with the order because they made a court effort to get the order dismissed. They are in contempt of a Court Order and arrest warrants should be issued for all participating SSCS members.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Anonsequitur - My understanding is that the SSCS fleet communicated to the whaling fleet that they wouldn't impede bunkering north of 60 degrees, and that they honoured that. Apparently, the NM bunkered north of 60 degrees without interference from SS, then returned to the Southern Ocean to continue whaling.

If the eco-terrorist SS said they wouldn't impede bunkering north of 60 degrees, then it will be understood by the Dutch court that the eco-terrorists were deliberately impeding bunkering south of 60 degrees. The court also understands that the eco-terrorist HAVE NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to impede any vessel - anywhere.

The pirate Watson is asking the Dutch court to charge the whalers for DEFENDING themselves against the illegal and dangerous actions of the eco-terrorist SS. The eco-terrorist SS has NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to violate Maritime Rules. Watson put his vessel and crew in danger in order to put the whaling vessels and crew in danger. Watson chose to violate Maritime rules and now expects the Dutch court to ignore Watson's maritime violations and charge the whalers for attempting to complete a normal and legal refueling.

If Watson continues to act this stupidly, the Dutch court may file charges of their own against Watson and the eco-terrorist SS for wasting the courts time with his filing of frivolous charges.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Anonsequitur - Why didn't the NM withdraw, in-order to de-escalate the conflagration, and risk of collision? If I'm at a petrol station, waiting for a vehicle ahead of me to clear the way for me to fill, and they do not, I have some simple options to consider. Thoughts about my vehicle insurance, motor vehicle regulations, and my own sense of safety, would preclude any violent act that involved ramming the "belligerent" vehicle blocking me, and colliding with the filling station apparatus risking fire or explosion. The much safer and prudent action would be to report "belligerent" motorist to the authorities, then drive to another filling station.

In this video, Paul Watson, also reports that the SL, a non-ice class tankship, violates IMO regs for sailing in ice at 12kts without a searchlight.

This incident did not occur at some landlubbers petrol station and there were no other "petrol stations" within hundreds of nautical miles. The only reason that the eco-terrorist SS were there was to impede the refueling. Under Maritime Rules, the eco-terrorist SS should have been no where near the refueling vessels. Watson chose to violate Maritime Rules and now whines that maritime rules were violated. Watson has proven that he doesn't believe that Maritime Rules apply to him and his garbage scows.

Whiney Watson whines that a vessel that he is illegally stalking and harrassing is traveling without a searchlight. I doubt that the Dutch court will even consider this a serious charge. Considering the long history of violence committed by the eco-terrorist SS, the Sun Laurel could post extra lookouts to both search for ice AND to avoid the violence of the eco-terrorist SS.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

OA,

SSCS USA says they are in full compliance with the US 9th Circuit injunction. Command of SSCS' operation was transferred to SSCS Australia, their ships are Dutch, and Australian flagged, sailing in Australian/International waters on the other side of the world. SSCS ships are crewed by members from more than 20 different countries, and captained by an Indian, Swede, Chilean, and Canadian.

My understanding is that SSCS USA has ceased funding the anti-whaling operation, Paul Watson, has resigned his command position, and assumed "observer status," and receives no pay.

Does US law have jurisdiction outside its territory, over non-US citizens, and non-US organizations?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

AP, My understanding is that the whaling fleet had refueled without interference from SSCS, north of 60 degrees as they promised.

Will the underwriters for the Japanese whaling fleet approve of them using the ships to apparently ram SSCS ships as a means of conflict resolution? I know my vehicle insurer would never approve, my coverage could be revoked, and/or premiums raised substantially if I was shown to have used my vehicle to ram another that was "blocking" my attempt to fill at a petrol station. I could be prosecuted for assault for driving in such a reckless manner as to endanger lives and property.

It seems the responsible reaction to perceived illegal refueling obstruction of SSCS, is to withdraw from foreseeable violent confrontation that risks lives, property, and the environment and to report their action to the appropriate authorities.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Anonsequitur - .....It seems the responsible reaction to perceived illegal refueling obstruction of SSCS, is to withdraw from foreseeable violent confrontation that risks lives, property, and the environment and to report their action to the appropriate authorities.

HAHAHA. Watson and the eco-terrorist SS have NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to attack anyone during refueling operations or at any other time.

What seems reasonable to me would be for the Netherlands to remove the eco-terrorist SS garbage scows from their national ships registry. Then they wouldn't be continually embarrassed by, or associated with, Watson's repeated acts of violence. The Netherlands promotes violence by allowing the eco-terrorist SS scows to enter and leave ports under Dutch protection. The Dutch could stop the eco-terrorist SS attacks on the whaling vessels.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Seems reasonable to me & the rest of the world Jwhalers would stop ILLEGALLY POACHING IN A DESIGNATED SANCTUARY! & for those that don't understand what a "sanctuary" is, it is a place where no hunting takes place, just as hunting rhinos in designated sanctuaries is ILLEGAL.

Also just as refueling below the 60 degree parallel is also ILLEGAL, as agreed to by the documents signed by Japan in the Mexico Treaty.

& as for "rules of the road" re maritime law it is very simple , a vessel approaching from the port quarter MUST GIVE WAY, unlike the Jwhaling vessels do, they MUST ALSO NOTIFY ANY LOCAL VESSELS OF THEIR INTENT, course, & speed, UNLIKE Jwhaling vessels do. As for collisions all masters of vessels must do all they can to avoid said collision, UNLIKE Jwhaling vessels, & just for proof just look up multiple collisions of the Nishan Maru & GreenPeace vessels, yrs previous to SS being in Antarctica, & collisions blamed on the master of the NM by maritime authorities. Funny how the NM has had multiple collisions with environmental vessels & ALL of these have been caused by the master of the NM, & by him approaching the vessel with right of way & ramming it!

About time these negligent & law breaking masters are bought before the courts...

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

& as for "attacking" a vessel approaching from the port quarter to a vessel maintaining speed & course & correctly notifying local vessels via radio of it's intent makes the offending vessel the NM, then the fact it used water cannons the flood/disable the other vessel, & throw grenades down a exhaust pipe/smoke stack! Gee I wonder who was the attacking/aggressive vessel? Pretty obvious to me & the rest of the world...

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

DJboothMar. 27, 2013 - 08:05PM JST Seems reasonable to me & the rest of the world Jwhalers would stop ILLEGALLY POACHING IN A DESIGNATED >SANCTUARY! & for those that don't understand what a "sanctuary" is, it is a place where no hunting takes place, just >as hunting rhinos in designated sanctuaries is ILLEGAL

IWC Article VIII under which the issuance of Scientific Permits is authorized specifically exempts participants from recognizing IWC conventions. Namely the "Moratorium on Commercial Whaling" and "Sanctuaries" Therefore, it is NOT ILLEGAL and it is NOT POACHING, no matter how many times you repeat this fallacy.. Rhino poaching is illegal because it there is no authorized hunting at all and it takes place on sanctuaries that have no exceptions. No Comparison.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

DJbooth - Seems reasonable to me & the rest of the world

The majority of "the rest of the world" doesn't care about whales, or whaling. There is only a very small vocal minority that objects to whaling and it's a much smaller minority that supports the repeated acts of violence repeatedly committed by the eco-terrorist SS. It seems that only the pro-violence Netherlands will register the eco-terrorist SS garbage scows.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Dear Mr Arrestpaul, if in fact the rest of the world did not care about whaling as you state, then why would the Aus & NZ gov's be taking the J gov to the ICJ, why would Chilean gov tell J gov" if the whaling ships enter 1ft into Chilean waters the ships would be impounded & all crew thrown into jail" 1yr ago, why would Sth American countries try to pass a "international backed whale sanctuary in the Atlantic"? That's right, because in fact the right wing Japanese are actually the vocal minority as you describe it. The rest of the world recognizes & abides by the IWC GLOBAL MORITORIUM on whaling, Japanese gov is the MINORITY that choose to not abide by it. Unlike many other nations whose history involved whaling, & some dating way further back than Japans.

Also for your information only 2 SS ships are registered in the Netherlands, SS has 4 ships, so yes another country also registers their ships, & nor were they boarded by police upon their arrival in port, which does not support your statements of criminals, or terrorists arriving at an international port very well does it?

& funny how you describe them "garbage scows", yet until just last yr one was infact a well maintained J gov "RESEARCH" vessel, it still has its markings there today to prove such!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

& Mr Arrestpaul, if in fact your comment about "anti-whalers were the vocal minority" were in fact true, then why in an international comity on whaling, the IWC, has not the GLOBAL MORITORIUM ON WHALING not been overturned? Don't worry I can answer it for you, the vocal pro-whalers are in fact the minority...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

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