national

3 Sea Shepherd activists detained aboard Japanese whaling vessel

210 Comments

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

© 2012 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

210 Comments
Login to comment

Time for the rule of law to impose itself on this carnival freak show. Five years in a Japanese prison for each of these "adventurers."

-8 ( +19 / -27 )

Theyd better get ready for a few months of harsh captivity, Japanese style. But now the Japanese gov't have a PR headache on their hands they don't want.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

To be honest, serves them right, they broke the law to invade into government property being the vessel. Had they kept at bay and used their other tactics, that would be ok.

14 ( +24 / -11 )

Can we keep them as prizes sir? the country is dire need of middle-school English tutors, even these Australians and their peculiar dialects may come in good use.

7 ( +13 / -8 )

What's the point of them boarding the Japanese vessel at night. (Realty Show Ratings?) They are lucky to be called "prisoners" and not getting themselves shot during this incident.

11 ( +14 / -3 )

Put em in the freezer! That will cool them off.

1 ( +12 / -11 )

they broke the law to invade into government property being the vessel.

They're still (deliberately, I imagine) breaking the law, but the Shonan Maru 2 is the property of Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, not the Japanese government.

-2 ( +12 / -14 )

Now the Aussie government has a bit of a dilemma on their hands. West Australia was bombed by the Japanese and having an armed coast guard ship just off the coast is getting the locals pissed off. The older members of society starting to pay more attention to this issue. SM2 chose to chase the boats back to port and now with non Sea Shepherd activists involved the snowball gets bigger. Why is the JT headline so misleading? Now does SM2 hold on to them and head back south to the ice or does it hang around and wait for a transfer to Tokyo or somehow off load them to the Aussie govt? Time will tell but regardless this issue isn't winning Tokyo any friends down under. Asahi and Kirin amongst others might be getting nervous. At the end of the day the only way this issue will get solved is if Japan inc tells the govt to pull it's head in.

-8 ( +7 / -15 )

Nobody is allowed to board a ship without the permission of the owner. Those guys should study maritime laws before doing such things.It is the same than intruding a house. They were lucky that they were not in Oklahoma.

13 ( +19 / -9 )

So tired of this yearly 'my stick is bigger than yours' routine. Both sides need to go home and do something more useful with their time.

Also Japan needs to realize shooting whales with explosive tipped harpoons will never be stomach-able to many people from a basic animal cruelty standpoint, regardless of reason.

Given I don't see this sentiment going away, Japan pressing this issue is souring it's image for very little gain. I'm sure there are many more lucrative and less contentious endeavors Japan could be putting it's time and money into instead.

Maybe then finally we can see an end to this yearly mess. Here's hoping no-one looses their life on either side because of this.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

26 km is 14 nautical miles - just on the edge of the Aussie territorial sea. A strong wind would blow them over the line - no doubt then they'd claim faulty equipment. As ever, the whalers are thumbing their noses at the people whose back yard they are playing in.

Let the wind blow, let them enter Aussie waters proper, let the ship and its crew be detained until a favourable settlement is reached at the ICJ.

-2 ( +18 / -20 )

yes I agree Foxie, thank God it wasnt Oklahoma. At least the Japanese are better at sensing the situation out. In stead of jumping to a righteous front. WA is so isolated a situation and whoever is running their propaganda machine there obviously feeds the SS. Youd have to realize that like in AMerica the econmic situation is pushing everyone to their limit. Tensions are rising along with free time. As for Japan dropping a bomb there-you arent talking about the casino are you? You know a economical bomb.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

yeah right Cleo-maybe those 3 were over the line gambling, and lost.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

They were lucky that they were not in Oklahoma.

Even gun toting NRA types wouldn't have a whaling ship in Oklahoma. There is no ocean there! They might like the harpoons though

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Whaling is a crime. The whaling criminals will stop at nothing, they'd kill people if it helped them achieve their inhumane goals.

-6 ( +16 / -22 )

What makes you think they lost? I'm pretty sure they knew what they were getting themselves into before they decided to do it, they know what happened to the Kiwi who tried it last year, no reason to imagine things would be any different this time.....?

1 ( +14 / -13 )

Not supporting any form of violence, but these POWs ( Prisoners Of Whaling ) should be released given the undeniable good cause they have been fighting for.

If the Govt does want to demonstrate its authorities in defending its rights in international waters -- Go sending the SDF / Coast Guards to the Northern Territories / Kurils etc instead of capturing a few innocents who bravely fought for protecting the whales -- already under serious threats from global pollutions... soon they will only seen in the form of electronic images !

-7 ( +8 / -14 )

So they used the cover of darkness and somehow navigated their way around wires to "sneak" on board ... but they were actually being observed the whole time and got caught before doing anything? Too funny.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Not supporting any form of violence,

I don't think anyone is suggesting the three Aussies have engaged in any violence or destruction of property. They snuck on board the Japanese whaling fleet’s security vessel while it was being 'guarded' by armed coast guards, which is surely embarrassing for the Japanese coast guard.

The Shonan Maru cannot return the men to an Australian port without breeching the Aussie 'Whalers Not Welcome' stance, which would involve some fancy diplomatic footwork - and no doubt the Aussies would need to take their time checking the SM's credentials once in port, allowing the SI to get well away. If the SM sails off south after the Steve Irwin, it will technically be physically and forcibly removing Australian nationals from Australian territory without benefit of customs and immigration clearance, and incarcerating them on a foreign vessel for months - ditto if it decides to head back to Japan with them. Another diplomatic headache.

-12 ( +9 / -21 )

You cannot break and enter regardless of motive or good intentions. But something tells me that they knew well the consequences of their actions. I am almost inclined to believe that they wanted to get caught. If their intention was to draw attention to their cause with their detention, but without any violence or negative publicity...well they got it. Now prepare to sit in a jail cell for a bit.

13 ( +14 / -3 )

Seize the Shonan Maru 2 -- Rescue the activists -- Send the whale poachers and their Tokyo funded thug-force on a one-way flight home to Japan -- Use the SM2 for target practice and make a new artificial reef out of it.

Most people don't realize that this conflict did not start with sea-hippies throwing stink-bombs at whaling ships on TV.

The fact is Japan's whaling industry has historically violated size limits, species protections, seasonal limits, sanctuary boundaries, all manner of quotas, and even facilitated "pirate whaling" (front companies in foreign countries killing whales illegally and smuggling the unreported meat back to Japan).

The latest abuse of a loophole intended for science is merely the continuation of a long pattern of criminal behavior on the part of Japan's whalers and the amakudari (corrupt officials) who ensure their business partners in the internationally prohibited industry receive government funded subsidies.

-13 ( +9 / -21 )

And what exactly was a Japanese manned coast guard vessel doing 26 km of the coast of Australia? Imagine the outrage if China sent a coast guard vessel that close to Japan. 2 sets of rules as usual

1 ( +13 / -11 )

No matter what the opinions stated here, still this Sea Shepherds org. is at fault by boarding the Japanese ship. That's trespassing and there is no excuse for that. Jail them. If the Japanese whalers are doing illegal acttions on their waters, catch them and jail them too. That simple.

5 ( +9 / -5 )

And what exactly was a Japanese manned coast guard vessel doing 26 km of the coast of Australia? Imagine the outrage if China sent a coast guard vessel that close to Japan. 2 sets of rules as usual

There wasn't a coast guard ship there. The Shonan Maru 2 is a Japanese whaling ship, that had coast guard officers on board for security.

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Cleo,

Great post, it seems the poor Japanese are in a bit of a sticky position. They can take their Coast Guard manned armed vessel into an Australian port, no doubt the police would then inspect the vessel for illegal weapons, oh wait on they where in Australian waters already and armed... So why isnt the Australian navy or border patrol stopping and searching their vessel, lm sure they would now have grounds to do so. If found in breach of any Australian laws seize the ship and do what they do to the rest of the illegal ships that enter Australia sink it or burn it. That will teach the arrogant rude Japanese to sail a para military vessel through our waters.

Ah Japan youve done it again!!!

-8 ( +7 / -15 )

Badge213

There wasn't a coast guard ship there. The Shonan Maru 2 is a Japanese whaling ship, that had coast guard officers on board for security.

Oh so a vessel manned by armed coast guard people may not be a commissioned coast guard vessel but its still a coast guard vessel in every sense of the word.

But you have an interesting point if its not a coast guard vessel then the para military people on a civilian vessel become mercenaries or armed civilians both of which breach Australian law. You lose either way.

So board the Sm search it, seize it, or sink it and get these arrogant Japanese out of Australian waters NOW!

-11 ( +6 / -17 )

Sea Shepherd said it had helped the three men from the Forest Rescue Australia environmental group to board the Shonan Maru No. 2 26 kilometers off Australia's west coast.

So they are not SSCS members and they are Australian citizens. SSCS seems widen the game by involving others, that might create some challenge to the Australian government for they are obliged to fully represent and protect their citizens abroad. Considering the public demand involving the press in Australia to push their government in more action against the Japanese whaling it might be effective.

They were now "being held as prisoners on board the Japanese vessel the Shonan Maru No. 2"which had been tailing the Sea Shepherd ship the Steve Irwin and had "armed Japanese military personnel," Sea Shepherd claimed.

A very unpleasant and highly risky development, not clear for me what SSCS is up to.

Japanese taking Australian prisoners in Australian waters might even create diplomatic problems. SSCS might as well hope that with the presence of Australian citizens on board of SM2 and forcing their vessel to Australian port, they can prove that "armed Japanese military personnel" approached the Australian shores to 26 kilometers in haunt (tailing) of their unarmed conservation society vessel. That's not a happy news for the Australians.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

"armed Japanese military personnel"

Love the Hype here.

Coast Guard is NOT part of any Military organisation(anywhere) rather they are part of the river and waterways police.

Japanese ships are considered part of japans sovereignty, so the three are trespassing on Japanese soil and the Coast Guard being is legally entitled to be there as they did in previous years.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

Here's a picture of the three who boarded the Japanese Shonan Maru 2.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-01-08/forest-rescue-activists/3763020

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If the SM sails off south after the Steve Irwin, it will technically be physically and forcibly removing Australian nationals from Australian territory without benefit of customs and immigration clearance, and incarcerating them on a foreign vessel for months - ditto if it decides to head back to Japan with them.

From the article:

“It appears that the law that will cover (their) detention, for want of a better word, is the Japanese law,” said Roxon

If anyone has the contact information for the Australian Attorney General, it seems that she is under the misconception that if you baord a foreign vessle you are in breach of the law of that nation. Cleo, on the other hand has a remarkable knowledge of Australian law and seems to think that they are in fact under Australian law.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

These posts are great. Looks like most support the Japanese whalers and the laws they are not breaking. Thumbs up for all of you. And thumbs down for all of those that say the Japanese are doing illegal whaling. They are not at all.

If you do not want to follow the law, then move to North Korea, Iran...and a choice of lots of other places.

If those three Aussies want to go home, show them the plank and point them in the right direction.

I support the whalers 110%

-3 ( +11 / -14 )

There wasn't a coast guard ship there. The Shonan Maru 2 is a Japanese whaling ship, that had coast guard officers on board for security.

It's still an unwelcome ship with armed personnel on board in Aussie's contiguous zone (up to 24 nautical miles). In this zone, Australia may exercise the control necessary to prevent or punish infringements of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations.http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/InternationalLaw_AustraliasMaritimeBoundariesandZones

-12 ( +7 / -19 )

-11 ( +5 / -16 )

26 kilometers off Australia’s west coast.

Most news sources say it was 40 kilometers.

So where did AFP get 26 kilo?

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Most news sources say it was 40 kilometers.

So where did AFP get 26 kilo?

The icr is claiming 40km. SS are giving the position as 32 degrees S 115.21 degrees E, which is about 26km off the coast.

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

Bebert: "Time for the rule of law to impose itself on this carnival freak show. Five years in a Japanese prison for each of these "adventurers."

For what, Bebert? You wouldn't even get NEAR that much for trespassing in Japan, and that's the maximum these people can be charged with. When it was Bethune the Japanese claimed he was armed, so they charged with not only with trespassing but with violation of the swords and firearms law, etc. etc. These guys, I'm assuming, were NOT at all armed.

They knew what they were doing, and now the Japanese are in a bit of a conundrum. They can't very well keep them detained on board and continue their activities for the whalers, they can't take them to an Australian port since the ship is armed with Japanese coast guards, and if they take them back to Japan to face some sort of facade of justice they leave the fleet and face international pressure on both the program and the release of prisoners.

True, you can argue that what they did was 'stupid', but given that they knew what they were doing and have now forced Japan's hand in a number of ways, you could also say it's quite smart.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Heda - as with most things the whalers embroil themselves in, the law isn't the main problem; it's the appearance of an armed ship lurking in Aussie waters, making off with Aussie nationals....It's tamago-gohan on the face and a pain in the posterior for Japan whatever they decide to do.

-14 ( +8 / -22 )

So just to confirm that you agree that it's not:

technically be physically and forcibly removing Australian nationals from Australian territory without benefit of customs and immigration clearance, and incarcerating them on a foreign vessel for months

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Vernie: "They are lucky to be called "prisoners" and not getting themselves shot during this incident."

If the Japanese shoot anyone during their 'science' escapades they can kiss whaling goodbye, at least in the Southern Ocean, for good... loophole or no loophole. They would have escalated the incident to the point of no return. As it is, there's not much they can do to these guys that won't screw the Japanese government. They let them go? screwed. They take them back to Japan? screwed (because they have to leave the fleet and because of the international attention it brings to whaling). They keep them on board for the duration? screwed (again, pressure). They take them to an Aussie port? screwed (they would be bringing an armed ship into Aussie waters, which is against the law as it is not a military vessel with permission to do so).

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

SS are giving the position as 32 degrees S 115.21 degrees E, which is about 26km off the coast.

Who in their right mind would believe them?

I am sure the Aussie govt. has tracked them by satellite and know they are legal.

Why do people think whales are more special than other animals we have domesticated to feed the masses?

Would be nice to domesticate whales and make it easier to harvest them for their delcious meat.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Got to ask in what way the SM2 is being armed?

Vulcan cannons, SAM, etc or pistols/knifes/crossbows that we are assured by SSCS is common on their ships and perfectly legal? Even when boarding a different nations ship it is ok to carry a knife because that is what sailors do and carry standard?

Honestly interested in the list of offensive weapons that the SM2 carries.

Come on less hype/propaganda and more realistic thinking here please.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

As it is, there's not much they can do to these guys that won't screw the Japanese government.

Oh and smith is also an expert on maritime law?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

SM2 now has an interesting dilemma. Even under Japanese law these people cannot be held until the end of the hunt without charge. To be charged they must be returned to Japan. The dilemma is break off from pursuing the Steve Irwin and take the protesters to Japan, break off and transfer them to another Japanese vessel on it's way to Japan or break off and transfer them to an Australian vessel in a brokered deal to release them.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

It"S ME

Coast Guard is NOT part of any Military organisation(anywhere) rather they are part of the river and waterways police.

Sorry but you are wrong there, by definition (and please consult a dictionary if you please). "The branch of a nation's armed forces that is responsible for coastal defense, protection of life and property at sea, and enforcement of customs, immigration, and navigation laws."

Japanese ships are considered part of japans sovereignty, so the three are trespassing on Japanese soil and the Coast Guard being is legally entitled to be there as they did in previous years

Interesting you say they trespassed on sovereign Japanese soil. Mind you a vessel that was many kms inside Australia's waters. So who is breaching who's sovereignty there. Nah wouldnt be Japan they are never in the wrong...

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

It"S ME

Got to ask in what way the SM2 is being armed?

Well lets see they have used LRAD, concussion grenades and pepper sprays in the past. All of which are illegal in Australia and seeing how this vessel was in Australian waters then it was breaking Australian law and should be immediately boarded and searched for illegal contraband. Afterall as many on here claim its NOT a coast guard vessel after all.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

A coast guard or coastguard is a national organization responsible for various services at sea. However the term implies widely different responsibilities in different countries

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Cletus.

Maybe do some research yourself and see who the Japan Coast Guard falls under. Hint: Wiki helps and takes less than 20 seconds.

How did the SM2 trespass? They got legal right of passage, if not why did the Aussie Coast Guard not arrest them or chase them?

Laws works for both sides and not just for the one you chose.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

From a recent article in the Australian press:

The federal Environment Department said that in steaming through the EEZ, Shonan Maru No. 2 was acting within its rights to free navigation under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Given that Australia's contiguos zone is 44 km out from the shore line and this vessel was at around 24 km according to Australian media and the contiguos zone allows for "a state can exert limited control for the purpose of preventing or punishing "infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea". And given that the SM2 was carrying people who have in the past been armed with weapons that are illegal in Australia maybe the Aussie government should actually get serious and investigate this vessel a bit more.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Cletus.

Again. What are those ILLEGAL weapons on the SM2. You obviously got information that your goverment and most of the world lacks.

And if course Australian laws supercede UN, etc ones.

Time to show us what you know and we don't.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

>“It appears that the law that will cover (their) detention, for want of a better word, is the Japanese law,” said Roxon I believe it's called MARITIME law....I wonder how the Aussie gov't would respond to anyone boarding an Australian owned vessel?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Interesting situation, of an Aus coast guard vessel was within Japanese coastal territory, eg 24nm, & was boarded by Japanese activists then left Japanese territorial waters then it would be called kidnapping by Jpress, yet they feel a JCG vessel has rights within Aus territorial waters? What right does Aus CG have within Japanese waters? & if it is not a JCG vessel, but intact a Jwhalimg vessel then it is ILLEGAL for it to enter the Aus EEZ Either way the SM2 has a legal obligation to return the activists to Aus soil to face Aus law NOT Japanese

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

It"S ME: "Japanese ships are considered part of japans sovereignty, so the three are trespassing on Japanese soil and the Coast Guard being is legally entitled to be there as they did in previous years."

So if Chinese ships enter Japanese territory, as these Japanese ships were inside Australian territory, the Chinese ships are Chinese soil and if a Japanese coast guard or someone else boards the ship they are trespassing on Chinese soil?

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Are the Japanese hunting whales in Australian waters? What are those ships doing there?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

unreconstructed: "Oh and smith is also an expert on maritime law?"

I know a wee bit, but I was referring more to the politics on the issue -- and it's pretty clear I'm much better versed in politics than yourself. You've proven that time and time again. :)

YuriOtani: "Are the Japanese hunting whales in Australian waters? What are those ships doing there?"

Exactly!

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

26 miles = 41.8 kilometers

I think AFP is confused.

News in Australia is saying 40 kilos.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Requesting to board ship; has not been asked and granted, so very naturally those three guys have been detained. The law stipulates even being shot onsite. This topic doesn't require any further discussion.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Smith. Anybody boarding on a ship without the captain permission is trespassing on that countries soil(granted less severe than illegally entering an embassy).

How can a Captain marry a couple in international waters and the marriage will be legal in the country under which the ship sails? Because the countries/flags laws apply onboard.

DjBooth. What is the name of the JCG Vessel involved? Provide a link to its name under the JCG registry. The SM2 can hand them over to any vessel sailing under the Australian flag and is in compliance.

Maritime law covers all those eventualities and also defines which countries laws onboard a ship sailing under a nations flag.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

It"S ME: "Smith. Anybody boarding on a ship without the captain permission is trespassing on that countries soil(granted less severe than illegally entering an embassy)."

They were in Aus. waters, not international waters, so again, if a Chinese ship enters Japanese waters (let alone 'disputed waters'), and the coast guard boards their ship without the captain's permission (and lest we forget the Japanese coast guard seems to think the whole world is part of its coast, as is clear here), are they trespassing and subject to Chinese law?

It seems as with the J-government, a certain number of posters on here want to have their cake and eat it, too. The J-ships can go WHEREVER they want and claim it's Japanese coast and so have the coast guard present (at the cost of the homeless in Tohoku), but if it's the other way around, even hypothetically, the argument changes (or goes unanswered completely).

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

It"S ME

Again. What are those ILLEGAL weapons on the SM2. You obviously got information that your goverment and most of the world lacks.

AGAIN, the people on SM2 have been filmed in the past using concussion grenades other weapons which are illegal to possess in Australia. And given they where in Australian waters they are breaking Australian law. All the authorities need to do is board the SM2 and see what weapons are on board and in violation of Australian law. Simple but hard for some to understand

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

So Japan can send ships into another countries waters and hunt whales?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

It's in the hands of the moderator and the editor who I've emailed and I'm sure that they will be along in the future. Thanks for your input this evening, and I wish you the best of luck.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

cleoJan. 08, 2012 - 05:38PM JST If the SM sails off south after the Steve Irwin, it will technically be physically and forcibly removing Australian >nationals from Australian territory without benefit of customs and immigration clearance, and incarcerating them on >a foreign vessel for months - ditto if it decides to head back to Japan with them. Another diplomatic headache.

Nonsernse. Japanse law applies onboard a Japanese flagged vessel, the three stooges are current NOT in Australia, they are effectively detained in Japan. Have we forgotten Peter Bethune's escapade already?

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Australia says they weren't in Australian waters.

Australian news say they weren't in Australian waters

But SIJ says they were. Why? So he can rant and rave against Japan. Like he needs a reason.

7 ( +12 / -5 )

smithinjapanJan. 08, 2012 - 09:12PM JST ItThey were in Aus. waters, not international waters, so again, if a Chinese ship enters Japanese waters (let >alone 'disputed waters'), and the coast guard boards their ship without the captain's permission (and lest we forget >the Japanese coast guard seems to think the whole world is part of its coast, as is clear here), are they trespassing >and subject to Chinese law?

What waters, international or otherwise makes no difference, a person needs permission from the Master to board any vessel. Ciolation of which will nearly always result in detainment for unauthorized entry. Don't believe? Go board the nearest oceangoing ship you find from a dinghy at night. Coast Guard officers of every country are Law Enforcement officers and can board both domestic and foreign flag vessels. Refusal or in the case of Chines vessels, flight, is a chargable offense. So is ramming them. Finally you still can't understand that "Coast Guard" doesn't mean they can not leave the "coast". If you could read Japanese you'd see that the JCG is actually the Maritime Marshalls Agency. That means law enforcement. THey are onboard JMSADF ships operating off Somalia because of their arrest powers. Honestly get a clue.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

DJboothJan. 08, 2012 - 08:19PM JST Interesting situation, of an Aus coast guard vessel was within Japanese coastal territory,

YThe SM2 is not a JCG Vessel. It is a research whaling vessel ownmed by Kyodo Senpaku with JCG offerces onboard for their arrest powers.

eg 24nm, & was boarded >by Japanese activists then left Japanese territorial waters then it would be called >kidnapping by Jpress,

How do you know? Most "normal" people both Japanese and Australians would have enough common sense to recognize that these imbeciles deliberately boarded a ship at night without permission and deserved whatever they had comming.

yet they feel a JCG vessel has rights within Aus territorial waters?

Yup that's right. The law of the flag applies onboard a ship. Furthermore, even under Australian law, boarding a vessel without permission is tresspass.

What right does Aus CG have within Japanese waters?

Exact same rights as any other vessel.

& if it is not a JCG vessel, but intact a Jwhalimg vessel then it is ILLEGAL for it to enter the Aus EEZ Either way the >SM2 has a legal obligation to return the activists to Aus soil to face Aus law NOT Japanese

Firstly the SM2 is was not in Australian EEZ waters, Secondly the Australian law against whaling ships applies to operating (as in whaling) and calling at Australian ports, The right of the SM2 to safe paassge was quickly recognized by the Australian government.

12 ( +16 / -4 )

Is this a hostage situation?

How exactly will PM Noda deal with this?

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

ObviousDemonJan. 08, 2012 - 08:55PM JST Japanese Whaling in areas that Australia had named as "Whale Sanctuaries" has been an insult to nearly ALL >Australians for longer than Japan has used weak, irrational "Scienctific Research" excuses.

Your post suggests that either "reading English" is not a strong point in Australia, and/or that the racist sentiment in Australia is so deeply ingrained to the extent of overiding rational thinking.

"A major area of discussion in recent years has been the issuing of permits by member states for the killing of whales for scientific purposes. The use of such permits is not new. The right to issue them is enshrined in Article VIII of the 1946 Convention. Whilst member nations must submit proposals for review, in accordance with the Convention, it is the member nation that ultimately decides whether or not to issue a permit, and THIS RIGHT OVERIDES ANY OTHER COMMISSION REGULATIONS INCLUDING THE MORATORIUM AND SANCTUARIES. Article VIII also requires that the animals be utilised once the scientific data have been collected." http://iwcoffice.org/conservation/permits.htm#guidelines

As for Coal Exports, you'd better take another look at how important Japan is to Australia. "As the world's largest coal exporter, Australia supplies markets in more than 20 countries around the world. Major markets in 2009-10 were Japan (39%), China (14%), South Korea (14%), India (11%), Taiwan (9%) and Europe (6%) - see charts below." http://www.australiancoal.com.au/the-australian-coal-industry_coal-exports.aspx

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Requesting to board ship; has not been asked and granted, so very naturally those three guys have been detained. The law stipulates even being shot onsite. This topic doesn't require any further discussion.

From the PHOTO, That ship is in full view of Australia so 26km is most likely the correct distance The ship is floating the law. The Australian citizens are floating the law. Two wrongs don't make a right. Someone in Australia who saw this ship should have contacted the Coast Guard to run that Ship off.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

OOps I meant flouting the law.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

"How do you know? Most "normal" people both Japanese and Australians would have enough common sense to recognize that these imbeciles deliberately boarded a ship at night without permission and deserved whatever they had comming. " Ossan America

Please don't dare to suppose what "normal" & "common sense" mean to Australians.

I would imagine that 95+% of Australians can NOT look past "Scientific killing",then continue a conversation about "common sense".

They boarded a WHALING ship .........in a world that has NO LEGAL COMMERCIAL WHALING .........a third of the way around the world from Japan .......Kayaking distance from a public Australian beach.

....and you DARE to propose what Australians THINK??????

I'm in a blended Japanese-Australian family,currently in Australia, watching the hourly news update on TV. This is the LEAD story, and I assure yoy that there is NO suggestion that the Aussies are the bad guys in this situation.

I am offended that you come on an international forum, and use your very false and warped idea of 'what Aussies think is normal' to try to convince others that whaling is a perfectly legitimate exercise!

0 ( +6 / -6 )

So. Ossan is the vessel part Of the Jwhalimg fleet, therefor ILLEGAL within the Aus EEZ, or is it JGD which means it has no maritime or legal rights within Aus waters, eg witin 24ml of Aus coastal lands?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

I am not for whaling or against it either, however it is absolutely outrageous and uncalled for jumping onto the Japanese vessel in protest. Australian government has taken the Japanese whaling commission to court so they so just bloody well leave the whalers alone until justice has taken course. I am an Australian citizen but am disgusted with such ridiculous actions. SS were also refused entry into Fremantle port (Aus) for not taking down their pirate flag when asked to... how pathetic. They should be fortunate that the Japanese didn't shoot them dead in self defense because If I am correct, a vessel is equivalent to ones own premises.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

....and you DARE to propose what Australians THINK??????

Australia is a free country is it not? Freedom to speak ones own right and thoughts. So, from one Australian to another, lets be tolerant of other peoples beliefs, culture and thought processes regardless of where they come from without looking like a clown dragging down the rest of us. Lets stick to the topic at hand here, boarding the Japanese ship. It is illegal. Japan found a loophole to whale in the legal system and are exploiting it. So what? Boarding another vessel is straight out piracy mate, and its not on. Australia has taken them to court so let justice run its course.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Lets get something straight under UNCLOS Contiguous zone is designated as 24 nautical miles(Beyond the 12 nautical mile limit there was a further 12 nautical miles or 24 nautical miles from the territorial sea baselines limit) with the 24 nautical miles the nation obtains the right of;

The contiguous zone, in which a state could continue to enforce laws in four specific areas: pollution, taxation, customs, and immigration.

This means the nation at hand does not obtain right for criminal justice on board another national flag's ship.

In any case the court will throw the book regardless of nation at ones caught trespassing another national flag vessel and even consider piracy (or contempt of) in such cases. It is no laughing matter trying to board another vessel at high seas whatever their intention maybe.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

So again why is Japan hunting in another countries waters and or EEZ? The eco pests are trespassing on the Japanese ship but the Japanese fleet is trespassing as well.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

According to the Australian Attorney Genera 'the incident happened outside territorial waters'.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

Australia's EEZ extends beyond territorial limits. So again why are they hunting whales so close to Australia?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Go Sea Shepeherd! I am curious what the Japanese people think of their government? Also about the juridical system in Japan? I ve did not heard one Japanese citizen give his oppinion. Is that normal, or are they afraid that their government is as corrupt as what and throw you in jail... because face it, it is no democracy. Any Japanese citizen have a comment on that?

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Their punishment should be to eat some freshly caught whale. If they don't want to accept it, they should be detained til Japan is finished with its whale hunt.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Umm Andy your comment is below the comment of a person who is Japanese. Right YuriOtani, and I agree with YuriOtani's comments.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Whaling is wrong when these vessels cross into protected waters! Do they really care about protected areas! The evidence that they continue to take Whales from those waters is real! Sure they will keep those prisoners they catch while conducting illegal fishing/whaling! I think a warning cannon shot over the bow! If that doesn't send the message, then by international laws they don't observe, Sink the ship! That should send a message! While were at it, sink all the Greenpeace vessels that now look the other way or don't respond to those vessels and crew that still attempt to stop illegal taking of massive amounts of sea life to be sold as a commodity! We all have to live here! And those with the means to take and sell don't possess any right to profit from our resources! What if I were to come and remove what you think is yours and sell it! It's stealing! Never steal from yourself! That's what we are doing! We as a race of humans, have no rights or expectations to anything! Was the Japan vessel in those protected waters when they were boarded? No! That vessel was most likely headed in that direction! They know where the Whales go! And so do the activists! Japan has many problems and insane attempts at solutions!

-14 ( +2 / -16 )

Without reading this whole thread, some here have missed the words Maritime Law.

Refer to it for some answering of questions, things may become clearer.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

So again why are they hunting whales so close to Australia?

Because that is where the cutest ones flap their tails in majestic awe. Oh look at that, they're just so intelligent.

Simon Peterffy, 44, Geoffrey Tuxworth, 47 and Glen Pendlebury, 27

Mammals of about the same intelligence I'd say.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Seems to me OssanAmerica has got it right, others are banging on the wrong door.

These three aussies have commited piracy, no different from what the somalis do . The japanese are quite within their rights to detain these guys as PIRATES.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

This is the LEAD story, and I assure yoy that there is NO suggestion that the Aussies are the bad guys in this situation.

Oh wow we have a representative here it seems.

From what I've seen reporting has been uncharacteristically neutral...it's almost like there is a whiff of um, you can't just go and illegally board a foreign vessel outside territorial waters, i.e. they are screwed. The Attorney-General also came across as resigned to the fact that what the three clowns just did was illegal and worse for the clowns, outside of Australia's legal jurisdiction.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

@smith:

You wouldn't even get NEAR that much for trespassing in Japan, and that's the maximum these people can be charged with. When it was Bethune the Japanese claimed he was armed, so they charged with not only with trespassing but with violation of the swords and firearms law, etc. etc. These guys, I'm assuming, were NOT at all armed.

From the article:

“The boats approached the Shonan Maru under the cover of darkness and the three negotiated their way past the razor wire and spikes and over the rails to successfully board the Japanese whaling vessel,” Sea Shepherd said of the Forest Rescue trio.

I'd like to know how they "negotiated" their way through the maze of defenses prepared for them. If they carried some sharp objects for cutting to do so, they might be considered armed too.

A few decades out from the moratorium on commerical whaling, there is no reason that a small amount of whale hunting cannot be done by Japan annually, especially if the whales taken are mostly from types like the minke which are plentiful. Norway, Iceland etc. should be able to as well, as long as the catches are monitored closely for types and numbers.

The people that disagree, especially those that would go to the extent that the eco-terrorists do, need to take a step back and reexamine their own lives and quit trying to enforce their beliefs on the many Japanese who support their country's right to do limited whaling.

No amount of foreign pressure will stop the Japanese. It might curtail their whaling a bit and cause them many troubles, but they will not give up. And they should not.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Meh. As long as they're hunting non-endangered whales (and yes, PETA, there IS such a thing), then I don't see how this is any different than any other fisheries operation. The laws as written allow certain species to be taken in certain areas of the world. As long as they're in those areas and taking those species, it's not "poaching" no matter how hard the Sea Schlepers and Forest Rescue Australia (FRA) drones want to believe so.

These three suckers from FRA were conned into doing the trespassing this year because none of the Sea Schlepers wanted to go through what Bethune did previously. How very brave of the Sea Schlepers. I wonder which group they will dupe into being their patsies next season?

6 ( +9 / -3 )

These three aussies have commited piracy, no different from what the somalis do . The japanese are quite within their rights to detain these guys as PIRATES.

Actually, no. It's not piracy unless they tried to commandeer the vessel. Based on the article, the only thing I see them guilty of is trespassing. By having the Coast Guard personnel on-board, the whaling fleet even gets around the whole "civilians detaining civilians against their will" issue. As soon as the trespassers were caught, they were turned over to the Coast Guard personnel. I GUARANTEE those Coast Guard personnel were well instructed on what can and cannot be done in trespassing cases. No need risking a legal mistake once trespassers were taken into custody.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

ObviousDemonJan. 08, 2012 - 10:16PM JST "How do you know? Most "normal" people both Japanese and Australians would have enough common sense to recognize that these imbeciles deliberately boarded a ship at night without permission and deserved whatever they had comming. " Ossan America Please don't dare to suppose what "normal" & "common sense" mean to Australians.

I find it offensive that you degrade the intelligence of ther average Australian person in that manner.

I would imagine that 95+% of Australians can NOT look past "Scientific killing",then continue a conversation >about "common sense".

So you are saying that 95% of Australians can't read and comprehend English, and follow through with a rational thought process. I find that pretty darn insulting.

They boarded a WHALING ship .........i

They boarded a ship without permission, an act illegal under both Australian, Japanese asnd Internbational Maritime law. What type of ship is irrelevant.

in a world that has NO LEGAL COMMERCIAL WHALING .

The SM2 is part of a Research Whaling fleet acting under IWC Article VIII. It is not a commercial whaling ship. Nor was it conduicting any whaling at the time.

........a third of the way >around the world from Japan .......Kayaking distance from a public Australian beach.

The Japanese research whakling fleet does not conduct operations within Australian waters or even within the Australian EEZ. They do so in international waters over which no nation has specific jurisdiction. The SM2 was not in Australian waters and regardless, has rhe right of free passage.

....and you DARE to propose what Australians THINK??????

Sure do. Every Ozzie I know is sane and level headed and respects law and order, regardless of their individual views on whaling or other issues. The fact that Australia as a nation can function indicates that this is the norm, rather than the exception.

I'm in a blended Japanese-Australian family,currently in Australia, watching the hourly news update on TV. This is >the LEAD story, and I assure yoy that there is NO suggestion that the Aussies are the bad guys in this situation.

The three who boarded the ship did so in violation of Australian, Japanese and Internationally accepted Maritime Law. In addition, the Australian government has stated that the SM2 was not in Australian waters when it was boarded, It appears that it not so much a question of "bad" than it is "stupid". Have you ever heard of a New Zealander named Peter Bethune?

I am offended that you come on an international forum, and use your very false and warped idea of 'what Aussies >think is normal' to try to convince others that whaling is a perfectly legitimate exercise!

I hereby apologize for expressiong my FALSE and WARPED view that most Australians are sensible level headed law abiding individuals. However I reject your view that miost Australians canm't read, have no common sense and are racist to boot.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

DJboothJan. 08, 2012 - 10:34PM JST So. Ossan is the vessel part Of the Jwhalimg fleet, therefor ILLEGAL within the Aus EEZ, or is it JGD which means it >has no maritime or legal rights within Aus waters, eg witin 24ml of Aus coastal lands? Both way yours screwed!

"Government's options were restricted because the incident happened outside territorial waters."

http://www.news.com.au/national/sea-shepherd-protesters-may-be-tried-in-japan-after-boarding-whaling-vessel-being-detained/story-e6frfkvr-1226239481962

7 ( +11 / -4 )

The anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd said three Australian activists were being held as 'prisoners'

They say a lot of things. And hope that they are heard by the ignorant or irrational.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Hahahaha. 3 morons decided to illegally board a Japanese flagged vessel and "demand" that they be returned to where they came from. That just cracks me up. Hehehe.

The Australian government says this occured OUTSIDE of their jurisdiction.

According to AUS Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, "The boarding of this vessel has occured in a zone where we do NOT have direct jurisdiction" and, "People taking action into their own hands means that they will be then be governed by the laws that apply".

That means that, regardless of what the pro-violence, eco-terrorist SS and their supporters are saying, Japanese laws apply to the illegal actions of these 3 morons.

As far as the YM2's actual whaling is concern - They were NOT whaling. The YM2 doesn't even appear to have a harpoon gun mounted on it's bow.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Hahahaha. 3 morons decided to illegally board a Japanese flagged vessel and "demand" that they be returned to where they came from. That just cracks me up. Hehehe.

The Australian government says this occured OUTSIDE of their jurisdiction.

According to AUS Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, "The boarding of this vessel has occured in a zone where we do NOT have direct jurisdiction" and, "People taking action into their own hands means that they will be then be governed by the laws that apply".

That means that, regardless of what the pro-violence, eco-terrorist SS and their supporters are saying, Japanese laws apply to the illegal actions of these 3 morons.

As far as the YM2 being involved in actual whaling - They were NOT whaling. The YM2 doesn't even appear to have a harpoon gun mounted on it's bow.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

-Hoo Boy!-That's a Whole Lotta Blubbering over the same old Same Old ! All "Expert opinions i'm (Yawn,,,) SURE!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

being held "prisoner" i love their connotation as if sneaking on board was something they are supposed to do.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

CrazyJoe - Here's a picture of the three who boarded the Japanese Shonan Maru 2.

All 3 look like they are quite familiar with life inside a prison.

(Except for the mandatory bathing, that is.)

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Japan's Fisheries Agency confirmed that three men who said they were Australian had boarded the Shonan Maru No.2 - A SURVEILLANCE CRAFT - and that there were coast guard officers on board the ship.

Ooops. Not a "whaling" or "research" vessel but a "surveillance" vessel.

If the YM2 wasn't actively "whaling", why are the eco-terrorists attacking them?

Or ILLEGALLY boarding them?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

So what did these bozos think was going to happen? Sneak up to a ship, illegal board it, and what? Have a welcoming party?

5 ( +7 / -2 )

An interesting tactic by the anti-whalers. Attracting a lot of attention nonviolently. Good one! I wonder what it will take to turn the Japanese ships around and leave the whales alone. There are better things that must be done on Planet Earth.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

blah, blah,blah...these conservationists will become a point to rally around as Australians protest the slaughter of whales in the southern ocean. The Japanese government will bow down and hand back the prisoners after slaps on the wrist.

More PR disaster for this distasteful Japanese pastime.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

There are better things that must be done on Planet Earth.

I note that while you're not shy about spouting this vague statement, you're coming up very short on specifics that would apply to professional mariners (or anyone, for that matter). Just another one of those "whine about the problem but offer no solutions" people, I guess.

If the YM2 wasn't actively "whaling", why are the eco-terrorists attacking them?

Or ILLEGALLY boarding them?

If I were to guess, it would be because the ship was shadowing the Bob Barker and transmitting its location to the rest of the Japanese fleet. This would allow the rest of the fleet to stay away from the Sea Schleper's mother ship. Once the Schlepers figured that out, they tried to make the shadow leave by sacrificing three pawns in the hopes that it would force the SM2 to return to port with them. If successful the Barker could then close on the fleet without a shadow.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Due to a lack of rations, prisoners aboard the Shonan Maru were forced to eat whale meat for the rest of the journey.

This quote was taken directly from my imagination.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

I don't see how Watson could be so smug as to think that he could repeat what he did with Bethune in 2010 and get any sympathy. He knew these three would get arrested under J-law. And these three obviously didn't read what Bethune had to say about Watson afterwards having been left to hang and dry in a Japanese jail. Some people are sinmply stupid and guillible.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

This is the LEAD story, and I assure yoy that there is NO suggestion that the Aussies are the bad guys in this situation.

Please. It wasn't the lead story on channel 7's sunrise program this morning (arguably the most popular morning show nationwide) and it was given less than one minute, basically saying that the Australian government was limited in what it could do about illegal behaviour of clowns outside territorial waters.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@Ossan:

I don't see how Watson could be so smug as to think that he could repeat what he did with Bethune in 2010 and get any sympathy. He knew these three would get arrested under J-law. And these three obviously didn't read what Bethune had to say about Watson afterwards having been left to hang and dry in a Japanese jail. Some people are sinmply stupid and guillible.

They needed to do something drastic to draw more attention to their activities and to set up good storylines for the next batch of "Whale Wars" programs. The three who illegally boarded the Japanese ship probably are dumb enough to go along with probable jail time in order to get their hour or two of fame on TV.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Of course they knew they would get caught. Their statement delivered was a message: "Return us to shore in Australia and then remove yourself from our waters." They are making a sacrifice and I am sure are prepared for the PR and 1 year in Jail. Lots of publicity for their cause. Arrested 26 miles off Australia's coast in International waters, but inside Australia's 200-mile economic zone. What are the Japanese whaling ships doing there? Making friends? Dealt with under Japanese law? Anyone else see an escalation here? Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said the weekend’s incident exemplified why it was necessary to put an Australian Customs vessel in the Southern Ocean to monitor activities between the Japanese fleet and Sea Shepherd activists. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/attorney-general-nicola-roxon-has-said-australian-whaling-activists-would-face-the-consequences-of-their-actions/story-fn59niix-1226239673528

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Firstly, I apologise on behalf of Australians who DONT support the sea sheppard or forrest gnomes. Whats the escalation Lucky?.. are the Japanese going to invade us with their customs officers?, perhaps we are upset because anyone eating whale isnt eating our Aussie Beef (largest export year to Japan was 2011 I believe) and a customs ship in southern waters could curtail the tactics of the Sea Sheppard, Abbott has previously cautioned against protesting about japanese whalers http://www.theage.com.au/environment/australia-tells-japan-stop-whaling-20100108-lyrv.html , and yes patrick, i have delt with forrest protesters in Pemberton Western Australia and they are very militant, jail time to promote a cause would'nt faze them.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Ooops. Not a "whaling" or "research" vessel but a "surveillance" vessel.

With a harpoon.

Fadamor - You're correct about the motives, but have the wrong ship. The SM2 was/is tailing the Steve Irwin. The Bob Barker is still with the whaling fleet.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Seems the Jmedia is trying to sensationalize this a little, first the three are NOT Sea Shepherd activist, second it was NOT a whaling ship according to the Jgov, otherwise it would not be allowed by law within Aus EEZ. So which is it? Either a whaling vessel has broken Aus laws, or the Jmedia & press releases from the ICR are making up lies again!

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

DJboothJan. 09, 2012 - 09:42AM JST Seems the Jmedia is trying to sensationalize this a little, first the three are NOT Sea Shepherd activist, second it >was NOT a whaling ship according to the Jgov, otherwise it would not be allowed by law within Aus EEZ. So which >is it? Either a whaling vessel has broken Aus laws, or the Jmedia & press releases from the ICR are making up >lies

Total nonsense. This is hardly making any news in Japan. In contrast it's a big news in Australia. And even there there sane and rational Australian government and public is showing no support for these embarassing clowns. The SM2 is a surveillance ship, not a whaling ship. And no Australian laws have been broken except by the 3 morons who illegally boarded it. The Australian government has already stated that the location of the incident is outside Australian jurisdiction.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

So the Sea Sheppard has become the hunted? Wonders what the security ship will do next?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

if it was me i would leave those 3 on an ice shelf in Antarctica. seeing as they won't do that, take them back to japan and try and lock them up in a japanese prison for a few years. they clearly broke the law.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Whatever happened to majority rules? Most countries are against whaling and the few that support Japan were bribed by them. Google 'Japan bribes for whaling'. As for the trolls posting here supporting whaling, get a life.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

Sorry but what the Japanese are doing is LEGAL...hence loophole. I say treat these eco pirates like they did back in the day. Keel Haul these idiots. With all the money the SS uses to build boats, and terrorize LEGAL activities, they could do so much more for the environment buy donating all that cash to conservation. Nothing but a bunch of glory seeking idiots. Hopefully these people are detained for x years in a Japanese prison.

0 ( +7 / -8 )

@smithinjapan

They were in Aus. waters, not international waters

Now that Ossan has proven you incorrect on this point, which you repeated twice without verification, I hope you will join me in thanking him for his hard work and committment to backing up his facts. Thank you, Ossan.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Also, @YuriOtani,

all countries except landlocked ones fish outside their waters. If you want Japan to fish only in its own terrirtorial waters, then that should apply to all other countries. And yet you are strangely silent on Australia fishing outside it's territorial waters. Why is that?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Many Australians must feel their government are nothing more than lapdogs when incidents like this occur. Most would probably concur that boarding a foreign vessel without permission is illegal and akin to piracy, and thus not support the actions of Sea Shepherd et al despite their noble cause. But why was the Japanese ship so close to the Australian coast and protest vessels? Was the Japanese ship trying to incite or avoid anti-whaling protest activity? Also, where is K. Rudd, the rather evangelical and media-savvy Australian foreign minister? Perhaps, if the protesters were carrying illegal drugs, the Australian government, spearheaded by none other than Mr Rudd, would spare no expense in negotiating the most favourable outcome for the protesters. It has been reported in the media many times that the Japanese pelagic whaling fleet is actually financially bankrupt, but kept afloat by Japanese government bailouts. This must be giving impetus to the Sea Shepherd's cause of putting the Japanese whalers out of business.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

So the question is "what will Japan do with the eco pests?"

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

well hopefully they will convince them that it is better to talk to the Japanese. And hopefully or the lappy-puppies can start to talk about fishing them waters and giving everybody a job

0 ( +1 / -1 )

and if you dont mind me saying yuri-most Japanese arent very good at convincing-theyve got to learn to use more words-someone like you perhaps

0 ( +1 / -1 )

DJbooth.

You understand the legal difference between national waters(google it) and a EEZ.

Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,[1] is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state.

Just watched a Video on J-TV(30sec news) of the boarding that was taken with night-vision by the boarders. All the news said was that it happened = finished.

Sorry, you re getting shot down here a lot but provide no proof of your own.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Forgot to add, Australian laws and their banning of weapons only applies within their legal territories.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

So is the security ship harassing the eco pests in Australian waters? An armed ship not part of any navy. Not under naval discipline, sort of like a privateer. What gives Japan the right to send thi ship into another countries waters?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Yuri.

So far the SM2 is tailing the ship(same stuff that SSCS vessels does to the whalers). Goose & Ganter, or Kettle & Pot, take your pick. Again, pls, cite their armament(no-one else did when asked).

Again read above they never entered another nations waters(EEZ yes).

1 ( +4 / -3 )

A couple of interesting quotes:

"We don't believe that it's an appropriate practice and we would like it to stop. We are not in the least bit impartial about that. "But that doesn't mean that there is a free open slather if people take the law into their own hands."

And

Mr Watson criticised the federal government's response to the crisis as "the bullshit politics of betrayal". "Nicola Roxon has been quick to condemn these three brave men by saying they were detained by the Japanese in international waters and Australia would be powerless to stop them being taken back to Japan," Mr Watson said.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

They were in Aus. waters, not international waters

Now that Ossan has proven you incorrect on this point....

Sorry, but has some vital post of Ossan's been removed? Because I've just read through them all again and cannot find any 'proof' of anything regarding the position of the SM2. All he gives is a link to an article that quotes Inwood (25 miles off the coast). The same article also quotes Watson (within the 24-mile contiguous zone). Until one or the other comes up with a time-stamped video of the boarding showing coordinates, it's a he-said-he-said situation.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Make the pirates walk the plank, I say.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

cleo - Because I've just read through them all again and cannot find any 'proof' of anything regarding the position of the SM2.

According to Australian Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, "THREE Australian protesters who boarded a Japanese whaling ship outside the country's waters were likely to suffer the consequences of taking the law into their own hands." http://www.news.com.au/national/sea-shepherd-protesters-may-be-tried-in-japan-after-boarding-whaling-vessel-being-detained/story-e6frfkvr-1226239481962#ixzz1ivnvqd3P

Apparently the highest ranking lawyer in Australian law enforcement is under the impression that the incident took place OUTSIDE of Australian waters. Only the eco-terrorist Watson is claiming that it occured within Australian waters. It looks like the eco-terrorist Watson miscalculated.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

mnnnn, that is interesting heda. Open slather referring to what? Fishing industry there by Japan and the rest of Asia? Yeah open slather would be a good way to describe it, and would put my boundaries up. And Watsons bullshit politics I could easily agree with. Australia is so quick to just cut off any of it's citizens, responsibility or care for. And the politicians especially. Australian politicians are so quick to defend the rest of the world, and rub it in every dinkum vegie kids face, yet claim you areAustralian and youll have to pay to prove it first and then theyll just think of you as baggage.And seeing Im Australian, Im enjoying saying that!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

YuriOtani - So is the security ship harassing the eco pests in Australian waters? An armed ship not part of any navy. Not under naval discipline, sort of like a privateer. What gives Japan the right to send thi ship into another countries waters?

The SM2 is only following the eco-terrorist vessel. They're not trying to ram them, or sink them, or throw glass bottles of acid at them. No green lazer lights are being used to blind the crew. No helicopter is dropping lightbulbs filled with paint or acid on them.

The SM2 is NOT an armed vessel. In the latest pictures of the SM2 (it's painted white and has the words, "Government of Japan" written on it's side) you'll notice that there is NO harpoon gun mounted at the bow.

The SM2 is currently a "security" vessel, not a "whaling" vessel. Whaling vessels are not allowed close to Australia. Security vessels are allowed free passage thru Australian waters.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

DJbooth - Seems the Jmedia is trying to sensationalize this a little, first the three are NOT Sea Shepherd activist, second it was NOT a whaling ship according to the Jgov, otherwise it would not be allowed by law within Aus EEZ. So which is it? Either a whaling vessel has broken Aus laws, or the Jmedia & press releases from the ICR are making up lies again!

Of course these 3 were not SS members. The eco-terrorist Watson learned a lesson when SS member Bethune ILLEGALLY boarded a Japanese flagged vessel. He was taken to Japan, arrested, held in jail, and eventually found guilty in a court of law. Watson doesn't want to pay court costs and expenses for 3 more eco-terrorists.

These 3 are members of the Forest Recluse and that's the group who will footing the bills for this screw up, not the eco-terrorist Watson.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

These idiots will never learn. One day an international incident will happen and then what? All for some stupid whales.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

cleo - With a harpoon.

There is no harpoon gun on the SM2.

Fadamor - You're correct about the motives, but have the wrong ship. The SM2 was/is tailing the Steve Irwin. The Bob Barker is still with the whaling fleet.

The eco-terrorist BB is currently following/leading the YM3 around in circles. They have no idea where the whaling FLEET is located.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

No the stupid ones are the HUMANS!!! The rest of the species on this planet just carries on as they should and live within their boundaries....we are the virus that eats the planet up and leaves nothing for our descendants.

I think these three guys have accomplished exactly what they wanted to do. There probably wasn't any ulterior motive at all. They have brought this discussting slaughter of watched or endangered wildlife back into the spot light. Good for them.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

The 3 should enjoy the hospitality of a brig in the Japanese vessel until transfer to a Japanese lock-up in Tokyo!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

@It"S ME

And if course Australian laws supercede UN, etc ones.

How about the UN World Charter for Nature. I guess that doesn't apply because the Japanese gov't feels like they can ignore it if they want. But when somebody else supposedly breaks a UN law against them, it does apply. (@arrestpaul, you may want to pipe in here since you seemed to be so interested in it in one of the last articles.)

.21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:

(a) Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common activities and other relevant actions, including information exchange and consultations;

(b) Establish standards for products and other manufacturing processes that may have adverse effects on nature, as well as agreed methodologies for assessing these effects;

(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment;

(d) Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;

(**e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

.22. Taking fully into account the sovereignty of States over their natural resources, each State shall give effect to the provisions of the present Charter through its competent organs and in co-operation with other States.

.23. All persons, in accordance with their national legislation, shall have the opportunity to participate, individually or with others, in the formulation of decisions of direct concern to their environment, and shall have access to means of redress when their environment has suffered damage or degradation.

.24. Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter, acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met.**

Hmm, I guess the Japanese can ignore this one since they don't like this.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@genji17

With all the money the SS uses to build boats, and terrorize LEGAL activities, they could do so much more for the environment buy donating all that cash to conservation.

First, Sea Shepherd doesn't build boats the 2 main boats, Bob Barker and Steve Irwin, are built in 1950 and 1972 respectively. The other boats, Ady Gil and Brigitte Bardot, were built for circumnavigating the globe, not by Sea Shepherd. They were purchased after their previous careers. Secondly, the full name is Sea Shepherd is the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. So by donating to Sea Shepherd, you are "donating all that cash to conservation."

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@arrestpaul

Apparently the highest ranking lawyer in Australian law enforcement is under the impression that the incident took place OUTSIDE of Australian waters. Only the eco-terrorist Watson is claiming that it occured within Australian waters. It looks like the eco-terrorist Watson miscalculated.

Maybe Japan has bribed her/gov't into saying that. Japan only seems to get places when they bribe.

The SM2 is only following the eco-terrorist vessel. They're not trying to ram them, or sink them, or throw glass bottles of acid at them. No green lazer lights are being used to blind the crew. No helicopter is dropping lightbulbs filled with paint or acid on them.

The SM2 is NOT an armed vessel. In the latest pictures of the SM2 (it's painted white and has the words, "Government of Japan" written on it's side) you'll notice that there is NO harpoon gun mounted at the bow.

Let me remind you that the SM2 rammed and sunk the Ady Gil. There is no proof of the green lasers. Please, show me some evidence. The helicopter hasn't dropped anything on the whalers. The helicopter pilot refuses to drop anything out of the helicopter. It is only used for reconnaissance.

Get over the word acid. Oh my goodness, I drink citric acid every morning with my breakfast. The butyric acid is less acidic than orange juice, beer, wine, etc. From Wikipedia, "Butyric acid is a weak acid with a pKa of 4.82, similar to acetic acid (main component of vinegar), which has pKa 4.76."

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Still wonder what the charges will be? Illegal boarding of a merchant ship with the intent to surrender?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@otaku2012

All for some stupid whales.

Whales are one of the most intelligent beings on the planet. We are not. The whales brain is the largest to have ever evolved on the planet. We are one of the stupidest and most selfish beings on the planet. We care only for ourselves and don't care for anything else. We think that we can butcher our planet. Soon, there won't be anything left and we will all die and be the cause for our own self-destruction and extinction.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@YuriOtani

Illegal boarding of a merchant ship.

Do regular "merchant ships" have armed coast guard members on them and "Government of Japan" painted on the side?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

SSCSforever - How about the UN World Charter for Nature. I guess that doesn't apply because the Japanese gov't feels like they can ignore it if they want. But when somebody else supposedly breaks a UN law against them, it does apply. (@arrestpaul, you may want to pipe in here since you seemed to be so interested in it in one of the last articles.)

It's always nice when you mention my nom de plume "arrestpaul" but what does your post have to do with the 3 fools who were conned by the eco-terrorist Watson into ILLEGALLY boarding another nations vessel?

(c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment;

What "applicable international legal provisions" apply to ILLEGALLY boarding another nations vessels besides the fact that the boarders can be detained and taken to that nations port where they can be arrested and judged by that nations laws?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

cl400, I did google 'Japan bribes for whaling' and found a report according to London Sunday times. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20007554-501465.html . Interesting stuff! genji17, I am glad that you believe the Japanese whaling is LEGAL. And the stance of doing so for science probably does kind of make sense?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Heh, they can't charge 'em much. They were only trespassing.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Illegal boarding of a merchant ship with the intent to surrender?

Dastardly....

Regardless of what the tatemae charge is, the honne charge will be 'making our security ship, wot cost us billions of tax yen that we don't have to spend in the first place, look stupid'.

jdowe - Your repeatedly removed post is racist and offensive. Please desist.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Have you ever seen an Asian/African/or Purely Latino country conquer another Ethnic (Naturalized) Country in the past 1000 years? Maybe a lot of internal wars but not against another , let's call it RACE. NO.

Don't know which (if any) textbooks you have read. Imperial Japan ring any bells? Or maybe in your eyes that is not "conquering" but being "invited" to "help" the likes of Korea, Singapore, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, The Philippines,,,etc.. How about the Han Chinese persecution of many other Chinese ethnicities through history? You have not read of the countless examples of massacres between African ethnicities, Rwanda for example?

EVERY race and nation under the sun has committed outrages against other humans, of the same race and others. To suggest it is a white man's problem just shows your ignorance.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

They crawled out of the sea, drop them back in. Problem solved.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Surely someone in Japan is wise enought to do a Cost-Benefit analysis on holding these guys.........but then again, a person with that logic would have to do a Cost-Benefit on the whole whaling Kabuki show......

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@ObviousDemon

Surely someone in Japan is wise enough to do a Cost-Benefit analysis on holding these guys.........but then again, a person with that logic would have to do a Cost-Benefit on the whole whaling Kabuki show......

Yes, a normal, logical person would think that. Unfortunately, Japan doesn't want to have to comply with what other countries and NGOs have to say because they think it would make them look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world. But here's the thing that they haven't figured out yet. More people would praise Japan for stopping the horrific murder of one of the most intelligent beings on the planet than would condemn the decision.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

These muppets intentionally boarded a Japanese government ship in international waters, placing themselves under Japanese legal jurisdiction. The Australian government has asserted this. Now they are going to get a very long ride in Japanese custody, and are going to face detention and trial in Japan, where, if the Japanese government still believes that Sea Shepherd members won't do this again, they will get suspended sentences and be allowed to return to Australia in about a year.

I hope they like sushi.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

According to Australian Attorney-General Nicola Roxon....

...who apparently gets her information undiluted straight from Inwood. Maybe she needs to check the GIS on the SM2, which will show the exact location at 4:30 in the morning, the time of the boarding.

Looking at pictures of the newly-painted white SM2 (did the naff paint job come out of our taxes, too?) makes me wonder if the whalers are trying really hard to p off as many people as possible this year. Surely it's not legal to go painting 'Government of Japan' in huge letters on a supposedly privately-owned ship? And for a 'Government of Japan' ship with armed military on board to be lurking on the very edge of another country's contiguous zone (and that a country with a legal dispute against Japan in progress) can't be good diplomacy, can it?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

cleo - According to Australian Attorney-General Nicola Roxon.... ..who apparently gets her information undiluted straight from Inwood. Maybe she needs to check the GIS on the SM2, which will show the exact location at 4:30 in the morning, the time of the boarding.

That still makes it 2 to 1 that this incident didn't occur with Australia's jurisdiction.

Looking at pictures of the newly-painted white SM2..........

Glad to see you found an updated photo. Do you see a harpoon gun mounted on the SM2's bow?

The SM2 is being used as a security vessel and not a whaler. Australian law allows security vessels free access to travel thru their waters.

These 3 fools voluntarily and ILLEGALLY boarded a foreign flagged vessel and now they are subject to the laws of that nation. Oops.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

YYYYAAAAAYYYYYYY. The three are being handed over to Australian authorites. Personally It was a straight insult on Japan whalers part to hunt in full view of the Australian shoreline. A straight insult to the people of Australia who deem those action illegal.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

cleoJan. 09, 2012 - 12:42PM JST Sorry, but has some vital post of Ossan's been removed?

cleo-

The linked article has been changed/upgated. If you had read it when I first posted it you would have seen that the quote was from Australian Attorney-General Nicola Roxon

0 ( +3 / -3 )

SSCSforeverJan. 09, 2012 - 08:53PM JST. Yes, a normal, logical person would think that. Unfortunately, Japan doesn't want to have to comply with what other countries and NGOs have to say because they think it would make them look bad in the eyes of the rest of the world. But here's the thing that they haven't figured out yet. More people would praise Japan for stopping the horrific murder of one of the most intelligent beings on the planet than would condemn the decision.

Who said Japan is not complying with the international rules? They are. This is why Australia cannot do nothing but complain. These Sea Shepards are nothing but bunch of pirates. SSCS actions include deliberate rammings, hurling of projectiles at Japanese vessels, including items containing butyric acid, a foul smelling and slippery substance, the hurling of glass items onto Japanese decks with attendant broken glass hazard, the use of illegal laser beams at Japanese crew, which could impair eyesight either temporarily or permanently. These laser beam usages are illegal in the U.S. when directed at aircraft. Generally, piracy is any illegal act of violence or depredation committed outside territorial waters for private (rather than political) ends by crew or passengers of a private ship against another ship or crew. Inside territorial waters such crimes constitute armed robbery at sea and are the responsibility of the state. These definitions emerged from customary international law, the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, and the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which has become the de facto constitution for the world's oceans.

The UNCLOS, the UN Charter, and more broadly, customary international law, provide authority that may be invoked for seizing a pirate ship, boarding a ship on the high seas, conducting hot pursuit, and taking action in furtherance of the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense. On the high seas or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of a state, any nation may seize a pirated ship, arrest the pirates, and seize the property on board and submit the matter to its civil and criminal courts. Only warships and military aircraft or vessels in government service, however, may exercise this authority.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

SFJP330 - the story is not quite so simple if the activists who boarded the ship did so in Australian waters. They are Australian citizens and if they were involuntarily taken out of Australian territory by a foreign ship, there would be a legal argment. That was one of the points which was raised by the selectively quoted Australian international law expert mentioned elsewhere.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Cleo

According to Australian Attorney-General Nicola Roxon....

...who apparently gets her information undiluted straight from Inwood. Maybe she needs to check the GIS on the SM2, which will show the exact location at 4:30 in the morning, the time of the boarding.

From the horses mouth. Notice that he doesn't dispute her claim:

Mr Watson criticised the federal government's response to the crisis as "the bullshit politics of betrayal". "Nicola Roxon has been quick to condemn these three brave men by saying they were detained by the Japanese in international waters and Australia would be powerless to stop them being taken back to Japan," Mr Watson said.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

@sfjp330

This is why Australia cannot do nothing but complain.

Australia has filed a lawsuit against the Japanese whaling program through the International Court of Justice. That sounds like a little more than a complaint to me.

SCS actions include deliberate rammings, hurling of projectiles at Japanese vessels, including items containing butyric acid, a foul smelling and slippery substance, the hurling of glass items onto Japanese decks with attendant broken glass hazard, the use of illegal laser beams at Japanese crew, which could impair eyesight either temporarily or permanently. These laser beam usages are illegal in the U.S. when directed at aircraft.

Sea Shepherd has never hurt or tried to hurt anybody but the Japanese Whaling fleet has. If you don't remember, the Japanese whalers threw brass bolts, golf balls, and bamboo spears into the small inflatable boats with the intent to hurt people. They also threw flash grenades and shot at the crew on the Steve Irwin. The have numerously aimed the LRAD at the helicopter pilot. The Japanese are the ones at fault not Sea Shepherd. The lasers do NOT cause permanent damages. You mention that the lasers are illegal in the US when pointed at an aircraft, for obvious reasons. The whalers have pointed the LRAD at the helicopter which can cause him to crash and freeze to death. The lasers have never been pointed at an aircraft and they aren't even under any sort of US laws. The whalers don't even have an aircraft. The lasers aren't illegal.

I still don't understand how they are pirates but they have decided to embrace the term even though it isn't true. If they were pirates, they would have already been arrested and charged, which hasn't happened.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The SM2 is being used as a security vessel and not a whaler.

It's part of the whaling fleet. Claiming it's not strictly a whaling vessel is simply more sutra-copying.

That still makes it 2 to 1 that this incident didn't occur with Australia's jurisdiction.

? Inwood says one thing, Watson says another.... how is that 2 to 1?

Heda - 'Ms Roxon said such and such' does not mean that Watson thinks what she says is correct, or that he doesn't dispute what she says. Elsewhere Watson has challenged Roxon to actually check the SM2's GPS. He has also pointed out that the SM2 did not have its AIS system activated. If it did, Roxon would be unable to claim she had 'no idea' where the ship with the men on it was and would have no need to contact Tokyo to confirm the ship's location.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

cleo - ? Inwood says one thing, Watson says another.... how is that 2 to 1?

And Australian Attorney-General Roxon agrees with Inwood. That makes it two to one that Australia has no jurisdiction concerning this incident.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

SSCSforever - Sea Shepherd has never hurt or tried to hurt anybody....

Hahahaha, You only have to look back to Pete the Pirate's trial to find a whaler who was injured by the violent actions of the eco-terrorist SS. Filling a SS scow's bow with concrete and then deliberetly ramming a vessel (twice) while it's attempting to leave it harbor is still considered an attempt to "hurt" someone. Ramming vessels in the Antarctic is still considered to be an attempt to "hurt" someone.

The eco-terrorist SS have continually tried to injure and harm whalers. That's why they throw glass bottles of acid and red phosphorus flares at the whalers. Green lazers can cause blindness. That's why it's illegal to point them at pilots, and others, in many countries.

You're grasping at straws desperately trying to build a strawman that proves the violence of the eco-terrorist SS isn't violence.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

cleo - It's part of the whaling fleet. Claiming it's not strictly a whaling vessel is simply more sutra-copying.

But do you see a harpoon gun mounted on the bow of the SM2? Is the SM2 actively "whaling" or are they just following the eco-terrorist SI?

I notice you don't have a problem when the eco-terrorists follow the whalers but you seem to have a problem when a security vessel follows the eco-terrorist around.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I notice you don't have a problem when the eco-terrorists follow the whalers but you seem to have a problem when a security vessel follows the eco-terrorist around.

Cute. I know I don't need to spell it out for you.

Good guys hindering the bad guys = Good

Bad guys hindering the good guys = Bad. Extra bad when they lurk around the edges of the territorial waters of countries that object to their presence and their activities, with AIS switched off to make themselves invisible to legitimate coastal authorities. Obviously up to no good and clearly aware of their own dodginess.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

This is Paul Watson we're talking about. If he genuinely believed that they were in Australian waters he would be telling Ms. Roxon that in no uncertain terms. The fact that a senior officila in Australia is clearly disagreeing with him speaks volumes.

Paul Watson noted, in his book "Earthforce!":

Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently, "as Ronald Reagan did.
3 ( +3 / -0 )

cleo - Cute. I know I don't need to spell it out for you.

Good guys hindering the bad guys = Good

Bad guys hindering the good guys = Bad.

And you consider the people who are throwing glass bottles of acid and dropping lightbulbs from a helicopter to be the "good" guys? The people who brag that they have sunk 10 ships and rammed 4 others are the "good" guys? The people who abandonded the crew of the Bardot and just abandoned 3 fools to whatever legal action the whalers had in store for them are the "good" guys?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If he genuinely believed that they were in Australian waters he would be telling Ms. Roxon that in no uncertain terms.

He's telling her not to take his word for it but to check the SM2's GPS.

The fact that a senior officila in Australia is clearly disagreeing with him speaks volumes.

The fact that a senior official in Australia is clearly swallowing the whalers' coolaid is what speaks volumes. Just check the GPS, already.

arrestpaul - the Good guys are the people trying to stop the lying, cheating sutra-copying thugs shooting barbaric exploding harpoons into marine mammals and indiscriminately killing mothers and babies in a sanctuary.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

So the Australian Attorney General has been making statements of fact 'They were in international waters'.

That's the top legal person. Making as a statement as a fact. Without knowing that the information she is saying is correct.

That doesn't sound like something a legal person would do. When it would be pretty easy to disprove it.

Unlike Paul Watson who cinstantly makes statements of fact which are ultimately disproven by evidence.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

cleo - The fact that a senior official in Australia is clearly swallowing the whalers' coolaid is what speaks volumes. Just check the GPS, already.

How did you decide that Roxon and Australian government officials haven't taken it upon themselves to verified this information independently? Because Watson told you otherwise? Because Watson tells you what to think?

Why do you assume that EVERYONE is lying except the eco-terrorist Watson? The Paulrus is a proven liar. He's been lying for decades.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

SSCSforeverJan. 10, 2012 - 11:04AM JST Australia has filed a lawsuit against the Japanese whaling program through the International Court of Justice. That sounds like a little more than a complaint to me.

Doesn't make a bit of difference. Big deal with International court. Australia's territorial claims to the Australian Antarctic Territory are not recognized by the rest of the world. Australia loses again.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@sfjp330

Big deal with International court. Australia's territorial claims to the Australian Antarctic Territory are not recognized by the rest of the world.

Actually, it is recognized.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

SSCSforever - Actually, it is recognized.

Recognized by whom? Which nations actually recognize Australia's land (water?) grab? Please be specific. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

arrestpaul

Recognized by whom? Which nations actually recognize Australia's land (water?) grab? Please be specific. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

UK, France, NZ and Norway unsurprisingly Japan doesnt recognise it but how would they as they routinely trespass on the claim.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Cletus - UK, France, NZ and Norway

So you're saying that 4 nations out of 193 recognize Australia's claim. Well, I guess that's a start. What are the chances of a majority of nations (97 or 93 more than there are) recognizing Australia's claim before this case comes before the ICJ?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

0

CletusJan. 11, 2012 - 10:45AM JST

arrestpaul Recognized by whom? Which nations actually recognize Australia's land (water?) grab? Please be specific. Thank >you in advance for your cooperation. "UK, France, NZ and Norway unsurprisingly Japan doesnt recognise it but how would they as they routinely trespass on the claim. So yes about as many countries recognise Australia's claim as countries that recognise Japans Senkaku claim yet Japan uses its military to defend that unrecognised claim."

The United States, an anti-whaling nation, doesn't recognize it either. Neither do the largest countries, Russia China, India, etc etc. The Senkakus are recognized as Japanese by the entire world except China and Taiwan. But China considers Taiwan to be part of China.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Now those three Australians should sit in jail for a while even should be charged terrorist act. I. Hope they did not have weapon on them because if they did that shows their intent to injure the crew.... overall throw the keys away for few months!!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hope they did not have weapon on them because if they did that shows their intent to injure the crew....

They were released because they had no weapons. No harm was done (except to the 'security' boat's pride) and no one was hurt. There has been no suggestion of any intention to harm anyone.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Terrific... Amazing how one issue can invite so many participants with related but more emotional reactions which does not address the key issues.

Could someone diagram or put into logical and rational perspective what the key issues are, then try to get the discussions into a more meaningful area of discussion?

I believe the key issue here is:

IS THE BOARDING OF THE SHIP LEGAL OR ILLEGAL IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS? (AND NOT THE WHALING ITSELF.)

The second issue is:

WHAT IS THE JURISDICTION OF AUSTRALIA IN INTERNATIONAL WATERS OVER PERSON/S (AUSTRALIAN NATIONALS) WHO "INTENTIONALLY" AND "SNEAKILY" BOARDED A FOREIGN SHIP?

(Since they are Australians, if it was in Australia and they boarded a ship in the same manner, how will they be treated?)

Then the other issues start.... Did we get a clear answer to those questions?

What do you all think?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

kazetsukai - Could someone diagram or put into logical and rational perspective what the key issues are, then try to get the discussions into a more meaningful area of discussion?

The short version is that eco-terrorist Watson abandoned 3 Foolish Rangers who then proceeded to ILLEGALLY board a non-whaling Japanese vessel in international water. The 3 then demanded that they be taken home. Australia has no legal jurisdiction over this event. The governments of Australia and Japan reached a compromise to transfer the 3 to an Australian ship because the eco-terrorist Watson refused to have anything to do with these 3 fools.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

cleo - They were released because they had no weapons. No harm was done (except to the 'security' boat's pride) and no one was hurt. There has been no suggestion of any intention to harm anyone.

The 3 Foolish Rangers only wanted to go back to Australia. Apparently, the eco-terrorist Watson wouldn't take them home. Maybe the 3 thought they were being kidnapped by Watson and were asking the nearest vessel for help?

It will be interesting to see what the 3 fools have to say once their words are no longer filtered thru Watson.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@arrestpaul

Maybe the 3 thought they were being kidnapped by Watson and were asking the nearest vessel for help?

You clearly didn't research either SSCS, Forest Rescue, or other articles about the incident. The 3 men approached Paul while the SI was docked in Fremantle and asked if SSCS would assist in boarding the SM2.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

SSCSforever - You clearly didn't research either SSCS, Forest Rescue, or other articles about the incident. The 3 men approached Paul while the SI was docked in Fremantle and asked if SSCS would assist in boarding the SM2.

So you're saying that the 3 foolish fescue fools always intended to ILLEGALLY board the SM2 and the eco-terrorist Watson was well aware of this plan and agreed to it.

So why did the eco-terrorist Watson claim that these 3 fools were kidnapped? Was Watson lying or did he forget that he agreed to drop them off and then abandon them?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@arrestpaul

So you're saying that the 3 foolish fescue fools always intended to ILLEGALLY board the SM2 and the eco-terrorist Watson was well aware of this plan and agreed to it.

Yes, except they did not illegally board the vessel. The SM2 was illegally in Australian waters.

From Humane Society International: "Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, it is an offense for a whaling vessel to operate anywhere inside Australia’s 200 nautical mile EEZ, not just within our 12 nautical mile territorial waters. HSI therefore maintains that the Shonan Maru No 2 was always in breach of the Act while it was inside Australia’s EEZ and therefore should have been apprehended at this stage. Similarly, the incursion of the Yushin Maru No 3 into our waters off Macquarie Island is also a breach of the Act, and of great concern given the World Heritage listing of this sub-Antarctic area. HSI is very pleased to hear that the three whale activists detained on board the ship will now be released."

According to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the SM2 and YM3 are in breach of Australian law.

So why did the eco-terrorist Watson claim that these 3 fools were kidnapped? Was Watson lying or did he forget that he agreed to drop them off and then abandon them?

They were kidnapped. They were taken out of Australian territory against their will and without authorization of Australian customs.

Paul was not lying. He was completing the plan that the men wanted. They wanted to board the SM2, have it take them back to port, and the Steve Irwin would flee from the SM2's trail. He didn't abandon them. He requested that the 3 men be transferred to the Steve Irwin so the Aussie custom vessel, Ocean Protector, did not have to go to pick them up.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

SSCSforeverJan. 13, 2012 - 07:04AM JST. Paul was not lying. He was completing the plan that the men wanted.

If Paul wasn't lying, and he was completing his plan, then here's a question for you: Will the average Australian taxpayer love whales as much when they see the bill for retrieving those three goofy anti-whaling activists from the Shonan Maru 2? Cost is estimated in the vicinity of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars. The Sea Shepherd group, whose boat the activists were purportedly trying to help, should contribute to the cost, and was met by outrage from, guess who: your buddy Paul Watson and the Sea Shepherd anti-whaling group. Paul Watson wrote in a letter to Gillard, stating bill for the recovery of three Australian citizens from the Shonan Maru #2 is absurd. The Australian goverment should file a suit against Sea Shepard to recover the cost. There is no reason why taxpayers of Australia has to pay for these three stooges rescue.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

SSCSforever - Yes, except they did not illegally board the vessel. The SM2 was illegally in Australian waters.

Hahahaha, you're a hoot. These 3 fools were not invited on board the SM2. Since you can't legally board a vessel without permission, no matter what you claim, they ILLEGALLY boarded the SM2.

Let's see, the HSI is not a recognized legal authority. The Australian DA, who is a recognized legal authority, disagrees with the HSI. The SM2 isn't a whaling vessel. The SM2 wasn't whaling. Hmmmm, who's opinion should I believe? I choose the DA.

These 3 fools were no more kidnapped than you would be if you walked up to some strangers car, opened the door, got in, and demanded to be taken home.

The eco-terrorist Watson was obviously lying about this from his very first propaganda broadcast.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@sfjp330

Will the average Australian taxpayer love whales as much when they see the bill for retrieving those three goofy anti-whaling activists from the Shonan Maru 2?

Like I said before, Paul requested that the 3 men be transferred to the Steve Irwin so that it would not cost the Aussie taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars. The Aussie gov't ignored their request. The 3 men are not from Sea Shepherd. They are from Forest Rescue Australia. Why should either of these organizations foot the bill when the gov't didn't respond to a much simpler and cheaper plan, and in the first place, not have the Shonan Maru 2 escorted out of Aussie waters.

The Australian goverment should file a suit against Sea Shepard to recover the cost.

Aussies should file a suit against their gov't for not following through on the promises and allowing vessels to illegally enter their waters and not do anything about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@arrestpaul

The Shonan Maru 2 shouldn't have even been in Aussie waters in the first place. If they had complied with Aussie law, they wouldn't have had to deal with this problem.

Let's see, the HSI is not a recognized legal authority. The Australian DA, who is a recognized legal authority, disagrees with the HSI.

So you think that HSI just mad up the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It is an official act in Australia. No matter who filed the suit against the whalers, it was put through by an official Aussie judge and is now a law. The Shonan Maru 2 clearly breached this law.

The SM2 isn't a whaling vessel. The SM2 wasn't whaling.

It doesn't matter if they are whaling or not. Their job is to protect the rest of the whaling fleet and are, therefore, part of the fleet. This is no secret.

These 3 fools were no more kidnapped than you would be if you walked up to some strangers car, opened the door, got in, and demanded to be taken home.

Haha. What if that person was protecting murderers and allowed them to continue to murder and torture people. What if the only way to stop the murderers was to stop and distract their security and have the a citizen catch the murderers because the police reuse to do anything about it. The murderers security would also be in another country where they have crossed to border illegally. Wouldn't you try and do everything in your power to stop torture and murder if it were happening to people?

The eco-terrorist Watson was obviously lying about this from his very first propaganda broadcast.

The IRC is the ones feeding the propaganda to people, NOT Sea Shepherd.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

SSCSforever - Aussies should file a suit against their gov't for not following through on the promises and allowing vessels to illegally enter their waters and not do anything about it.

The DA's office doesn't agree with you but you can always dream.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

SSCSforever - The Shonan Maru 2 shouldn't have even been in Aussie waters in the first place. If they had complied with Aussie law, they wouldn't have had to deal with this problem.

So you think that HSI just mad up the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It is an official act in Australia. No matter who filed the suit against the whalers, it was put through by an official Aussie judge and is now a law. The Shonan Maru 2 clearly breached this law.

The DA's office doesn't agree with you.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

SSCSforever - It doesn't matter if they are whaling or not.

That sums up your position pretty well.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Who is this "DA" you speak of?

Maybe you mean "AG" = Attorney General = Christina Roxon.

She was given this job approx 3 weeks ago, by her BOSS, the PM (Prime Minister) Julia Gillard.

While Both ladies are diplomatically making Public Statements denouncing vigilante action, they have also said blatantly & clearly that JAPANESE WHALERS ARE IN CONTRAVENTION OF BOTH AUSTRALIAN LAW, AND FORMAL REQUESTS TO THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT.

Please do not take selective peices of Australian Government statements, and post them here out of context to try to strengthen your otherwise weak arguments.

I posted the exact quotes from the Australian Government that contradict you, as well as their direct sources, here & on other threads days ago, and yet, here you are trying to win your argument by misquoting etc.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

For those trying to use the argument that "SM2 is NOT a whaling ship",

Please scroll to the photo at the top of this article which is labelled as

"The Japanese harpoon ship Shonan Maru No.2"

I believe this illuminates that you are trying to argue that black is white, on an article that begins with a photo of black.

nice Logic Path......

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The 3 Aussies from the Harpoon Ship are on their way back to Australia.

Has anyone heard of the Australian Government charging them with anything????????

0 ( +1 / -1 )

ObviousDemon - For those trying to use the argument that "SM2 is NOT a whaling ship", Please scroll to the photo at the top of this article which is labelled as "The Japanese harpoon ship Shonan Maru No.2" I believe this illuminates that you are trying to argue that black is white, on an article that begins with a photo of black.

That's an old file photo. The SM2 is currently painted white.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I suggest that you are arguing that Black is White........and you say it's "White"....

THIS article's Photo Label says it's a Harpoon Ship.......Surely Posters arguing the Opposite would be "Off-Topic"???

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Readers, please stop bickering and keep the discussion civil.

The SM2 used to be a harpoon ship. It isn't now. And it wasn't last season either.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@OssanAmerica

The SM2 used to be a harpoon ship. It isn't now. And it wasn't last season either.

The SM2 still had "Research" on the side of it for the last 2 years even though it isn's actively whaling. It was only changed for this season and it is still part of the whaling fleet. According to Australian law, an ship in the Japanese whaling fleet is not allowed in Australian waters and they broke this law by going into the Australian EEZ, plain and simple.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

SSCSforever - The SM2 still had "Research" on the side of it for the last 2 years even though it isn's actively whaling. It was only changed for this season and it is still part of the whaling fleet. According to Australian law, an ship in the Japanese whaling fleet is not allowed in Australian waters and they broke this law by going into the Australian EEZ, plain and simple.

I don't believe that your interpretation of Australian is legally binding on anyone.

FYI - the eco-terrorist Bob Barker used to be a whaling vessel.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I don't believe that your interpretation of Australian law is legally binding on anyone.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"@arrestpaul

FYI - the eco-terrorist Bob Barker used to be a whaling vessel.

Hahaha. I literally just laughed out loud. This comment just shows that you had to resort to pure stupidity to try and support your weak and failing argument. The Bob Barker stopped whaling in 1962 (That would be 50 years after the fact as well as being purchased by different companies. The SM2 is still owned by Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, LTD. and is still part of the Japanese whaling fleet.) when it was refurbished to become a Norwegian Coast Guard vessel. It has also be used for a fuel resupply vessel as well as conducted paid Arctic wildlife tours.

I don't believe that your interpretation of Australian law is legally binding on anyone.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 prohibits any ship in the Japanese whaling fleet (this includes the SM2) to come into the Australian EEZ. It isn't my interpretation of the law, it IS the law"

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 prohibits any ship in the Japanese whaling fleet (this includes the SM2) to come into the Australian EEZ. It isn't my interpretation of the law, it IS the law"

The federal Environment Department said that in steaming through the EEZ, Shonan Maru No. 2 was acting within its rights to free navigation under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2011C00751

236 Offences relating to foreign whaling vessels

(1) The master of a foreign whaling vessel is guilty of an offence if the

vessel is brought into a port in Australia or an external Territory and the master has not obtained the written permission of the Minister for the vessel to be brought into the port. Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.

(2) Subsection (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

(3) An offence against subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by a

fine not exceeding 500 penalty units.

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply if: (a) the vessel is brought into the port in accordance with a

prescribed agreement between Australia and any other country or countries; or

(b) the vessel is brought into the port under the direction of a

person exercising powers under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State; or

(c) an unforeseen emergency renders it necessary to bring the

vessel into the port in order to secure the safety of the vessel or human life. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (4). See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.

(5) In this Act:

foreign whaling vessel means a vessel, other than an Australian vessel, designed, equipped or used for:

(a) killing, taking, treating or carrying cetaceans; or (b) **supporting the operations of a vessel or vessels designed,** **equipped or used for killing, taking, treating or carrying cetaceans.**

--Looks like the spokesperson for the federal Environment Department doesn't know his own laws. Or the situation; the SM2 was not 'steaming through the EEZ'.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

cleo - (b) supporting the operations of a vessel or vessels designed, equipped or used for killing, taking, treating or carrying cetaceans.

--Looks like the spokesperson for the federal Environment Department doesn't know his own laws. Or the situation; the SM2 was not 'steaming through the EEZ'.

Thank you cleo, that was very helpful. Now all you have to prove is that the SM2, a designated "security vessel", is actively involved in the act of whaling.

Following another vessel is not actively whaling. The FED's legal opinon of this matter carries more weight than your opinion of what the law should mean.

"Steaming through the EEZ" is a very old maritime reference that refers to a vessel using a nations waters. The SM2, and any other vessel, is allowed to use Australian waters for whatever purpose they chose unless there is a law "specifically" forbidding such action. As you so kindly pointed out, Australian law doesn't specifically forbid or address "security vessels" following eco-terrorist vessels.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@arrestpaul

As you so kindly pointed out, Australian law doesn't specifically forbid or address "security vessels" following eco-terrorist vessels.

So...it doesn't have to be specific. Just because it doesn't say the specific situation doesn't mean that they aren't breaking the law. That's completely ridiculous. The SM2 clearly is supporting the whaling fleet and that is exactly what the law states. It says "supporting the operations of a vessel or vessels designed, equipped or used for killing, taking, treating or carrying cetaceans." The SM2, without a shadow of a doubt, is a supporting vessel to the whaling fleet. Your argument (if you can call it that) hold ZERO weight.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

SSCSforeverJan. 15, 2012 - 10:08AM JST The SM2 used to be a harpoon ship. It isn't now. And it wasn't last season either. The SM2 still had "Research" on the side of it for the last 2 years even though it isn's actively whaling. It was only >changed for this season and it is still part of the whaling fleet. According to Australian law, an ship in the Japanese >whaling fleet is not allowed in Australian waters and they broke this law by going into the Australian EEZ, plain and >simple.

Your interpretation of Australian law doesn't agreee with the Australian Attoney General. And she has infnitely more authority than you do on the matter. Please feel free to send her a strong email. Not that it matters since you;re going on and on about past history now.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Now all you have to prove is that the SM2, a designated "security vessel", is actively involved in the act of whaling.

It doesn't have to be 'actively whaling'. The law specifies vessels supporting the operations of a vessel or vessels designed, equipped or used for killing, taking, treating or carrying cetaceans, which is exactly what the SM2 is doing.

The SM2, and any other vessel, is allowed to use Australian waters for whatever purpose they chose unless there is a law "specifically" forbidding such action.

Come on, put your glasses on and read the law again. It does specifically refer to the actions of the SM2 in supporting the operations of the whaling fleet.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

cleo - Come on, put your glasses on and read the law again. It does specifically refer to the actions of the SM2 in supporting the operations of the whaling fleet.

The Australian Attorney-General disagrees with your interpretation of Australian law. Don't blame me.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

SSCSforever - The SM2 still had "Research" on the side of it for the last 2 years even though it isn's actively whaling.

SSCSforever - Hahaha. I literally just laughed out loud. This comment just shows that you had to resort to pure stupidity to try and support your weak and failing argument. The Bob Barker stopped whaling in 1962.

So you agree that the eco-terrorist scow Bob Barker and the SM2 used to be used as whaling vessels and that neither vessel is currently taking whales.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@arrestpaul

So you agree that the eco-terrorist scow Bob Barker and the SM2 used to be used as whaling vessels and that neither vessel is currently taking whales.

Yes, but you fail to mention that the Bob Barker is not supporting a whaling fleet while the SM2 is. Australian law states that "supporting the operations of a vessel or vessels designed, equipped or used for killing, taking, treating or carrying cetaceans," which is exactly what the SM2 is doing. I doesn't matter what the previous career of a ship is, it matters what the current career is.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

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