national

Japan says Australia trying to impose its culture in whaling row

205 Comments

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

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2013. Click For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

205 Comments
Login to comment

Maybe if Japan would stop lying people might take it seriously. If you want a whaling industry, then call it that. Stop playing with loopholes and corruption

28 ( +40 / -12 )

Selective reporting as per usual.

Japan came out with all guns blazing and accused Australia of being engaged in "an emotional anti-whaling moral crusade that in the name of zero-tolerance tolerates Sea Shepherd's violent extremism, the politicisation of science, the collapse of the IWC and now, before this court, baseless accusations of bad faith against Japan''.

They also accused them of "Australia can't impose its will on other nations nor change the International Whaling Commission (IWC) into an organisation opposed to whaling,''

6 ( +18 / -12 )

The meat is eaten by many Japanese consumers

No it's not.

providing data that would allow the country to whale

Show us the research data.

14 ( +32 / -19 )

Japan says Australia trying to impose its culture in whaling row

So? There was another time in the not all so distant past that Australia and a large portion of the population of the world saw fit to impose on so-called "Japanese culture". And thankfully the "world" won!

Japan, with regards to whaling for one, has not learned it's lessons. Sometimes the "world" is right and "they" are wrong!

13 ( +29 / -16 )

“We do not criticise other cultures,” he said. “Were it necessary to establish the superiority of one culture over another the world would never be at peace.”

Nice thought, except, I feel that Japan often fights blindly to defend actions based on culture, without giving real though to whether the particular custom is good for today's modern world. I think some Japanese politicians are very willing to start wars in order to defend the superiority of Japan.

15 ( +26 / -11 )

We do not criticise other cultures,” he said. “Were it necessary to establish the superiority of one culture over another the world would never be at peace.”

And you call what's going on in the world today "peace"? Don't criticize? Oh right....you IGNORE instead!

2 ( +9 / -7 )

'Japan is conducting a comprehensive scientific programme because it wishes to resume commercial whaling, based on science, in a sustainable manner'. This statement absolutely stinks.

-5 ( +10 / -15 )

'Japan is conducting a comprehensive scientific programme because it wishes to resume commercial whaling, based on science, in a sustainable manner'. This statement absolutely stinks.

Why? That is PRECISELY what the IWC was set up for.

0 ( +14 / -14 )

Yes, well Japan certainly seems to think it's culture and traditions are more important than those of other countries in this case.

Because Australia also has a culture of whaling. In fact, the whaling industry was integral to the foundations of the nation - as it was for other countries like the US, whose whaling ships also fished the waters around Australia for it's whaling culture and industry. Whaling was one of the first and most successful industries in Australia, and many coastal Indigenous cultures have Whales as part of their Dreamtime stories.

So why is Japanese culture more important than any of that? It's certainly not older than the Indigenous Culture. Does the mere fact that they killed whales add to their sense of importance?

No. It's just selfishness. It's picking and choosing when you wish to be a global citizen, and when you don't.

8 ( +18 / -10 )

This defence is shameful on japans part. They aren't defending the scientific vaule at all in these quotes only appealing to emotional claims of impositions agaisnt culture..

You know australia and nz use to whale too.. It once was culture there too, but thankfully culture often should and does change.

The culture excuse is a bad one, there seems to be a very poor scientific case otherwise they would be sticking to that.

Why are lethal methods required to count something, to restart an industry in an area that has nothing to do with traditional japan, to catch something that no one particularly seems to want to eat anyway.

5 ( +15 / -10 )

They aren't defending the scientific vaule at all

You mean apart from:

Japan is conducting a comprehensive scientific programme because it wishes to resume commercial whaling, based on science, in a sustainable manner

Which is pretty much why they will win.

-11 ( +8 / -19 )

Totally agree with Japan.

“I can understand the emotional background to this position but fail to see how it can be translated to a legal position.”

THIS ^^ in particular.

-12 ( +13 / -24 )

Sorry australia. You already lost

-14 ( +13 / -26 )

Between 1989-2012, lethal research under JARPA/JARPA ll, produced 80 papers published in peer-review journals.

Between 1988/89 to 2004/05, 7,528 whales were killed for lethal research. During this period, 63 papers were published in peer-review journals.

On average, 120 whales are killed for every paper published.

The cost to the taxpayer is on average, about ¥370 million/paper.

25 years of research whaling has cost the taxpayer more than ¥30 billion.

Under President Reagan, in return for fishing rights in American waters, Japan dropped its objection to the whale hunting ban, which was a one way street and ended Japan's whaling. The point is, the whaling was less scared than obtaining the fishing rights, so the idea that its whaling was a strong part of its culture and history, wasn't so strong afteral. But it wasn't long before America dishonored their agreement and cancelled the fishing rights, leaving Japan with a serious loss of face. http://files.isanet.org/ConferenceArchive/cc9cd0e9623a43b1b1c041d02368510c.pdf

Dropping its objections to the whale hunting ban was one way with no return unless it left the IWC and later returned with new objections. The alternative under the IWC was the research whaling.

The number of whales which can be killed for lethal research is not unlimited by the IWC Treaty. Limits are set.

According to the Japan Whaling Association, there are more than 750,000 Minke whales in the Southern Hemisphere. According to the IWC, there are more than one million.

Kyodo Senpaku remains the only whaling company. Back in 2006, the top 5 or 6 fishery companies gave away their stakes in the Kyodo Senpaku because even with the introduction of commercial whaling those fishery companies could see no future in whaling. The top 5 or 6 food supply companies also gave up their stakes in the Kyodo Senpaku.

Last year, Kyodo Senpaku was given money from the Tohoku reconstruction fund. Kyodo Senpaku was given a loan of ¥1.5–2 billion (uS$19–25 million) to refit the Nisshin Maru and enable it to continue operations for a further 10 years. To facilitate Kyodo Senpaku’s repayment of that loan, the government of Japan would, at taxpayers’ expense, pay 50 to 90 percent of the company’s operating deficit for the following three years.

The sales figures for whale meat have been falling from about 9,000 tons in 2006, to a current level of about 4,600 tons. Some argue that is about supply and demand, more supply more demand, but I don't see it that way, because there's still a stockpile of whale meat.

This year, once again, Japan will allow the import of Fin whale meat from Iceland which will further depress sales of domestic whale meat. The Fin whales remains a listed endangered or threatened species.

Win or lose, I remain opposed to all commercial activities in the Antarctic which is fast becoming a graveyard for sunken ships.

12 ( +19 / -7 )

Where is the science? Again why is lethal research required? Tag, document etc etc

Science involves methodical, peer reviewed research.

There is a position, "There are enough whales in self sustaining populations to resume limited whaling".

Where is the data?

Then and not without importance, just because you "can" do something doesn't always mean you should.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

It just shows how childish the Japanese nationalists are.

6 ( +17 / -11 )

zichi, Japan is in complete compliance with all IWC rules and regulations agreed by all countries involved. Show me where they are not complying with the rules.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

Japan came out with all guns blazing and accused Australia of being engaged in "an emotional anti-whaling moral crusade that in the name of zero-tolerance tolerates Sea Shepherd's violent extremism, the politicisation of science, the collapse of the IWC and now, before this court, baseless accusations of bad faith against Japan''.

I think Japan's whaling program is a complete waste of taxpayer money that should be spent elsewhere, but I must admit their defense as posted by Heda_Madness is spot on.

Surely Australia has more important things to worry about and spend their own taxpayer money on. I'm not sure about the television media, but it doesn't seem to be getting too much coverage in the Australian broadsheets.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Last resort for the weak. Its an attack on our culture! haha Whaling has NOTHING to do with culture.!! Its an invention to try to justify a course of action. Yes, the world has the right to debate the environment issues even if it causes an 'inconvenience' for Japan. How about the Tohoku misuse of charity funds? Including the ones that were diverted to whaling?? Is that also JP culture? Looks like nobody has an opinion on that one!

4 ( +9 / -5 )

@sfjp330

zichi, Japan is in complete compliance with all IWC rules and regulations agreed by all countries involved. Show me where they are not complying with the rules.

Were in my comment did I say they were not? But I would still like to see Japan give up its research whaling in the Antarctic which is very expensive to the taxpayer.

If Japan wins the case, what would it accept in return for ending its Antarctic activities? Maybe if we offered to give them Paul Watson, it would consider that a better catch. He could go to prison for "x" number of years, but would achieve his dream of ending Japanese whaling in the Antarctic. Just a thought.

8 ( +13 / -5 )

Last year, Kyodo Senpaku was given money from the Tohoku reconstruction fund. Kyodo Senpaku was given a loan of ¥1.5–2 billion (uS$19–25 million) to refit the Nisshin Maru and enable it to continue operations for a further 10 years. To facilitate Kyodo Senpaku’s repayment of that loan, the government of Japan would, at taxpayers’ expense, pay 50 to 90 percent of the company’s operating deficit for the following three years.

Doesn't sound like a loan to me. More like free money. Unless Kyodo Senpaku has to reimburse the government for the 50 to 90% of taxpayers money used to cover the operating expense losses?

And no one in Japan, not really anyway, cares one way or another. The apathy is beyond words and for me ends up in expletives rather than adjectives.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Boom! Exactly what I and others have been saying any time people who defend Japan and KNOW it is not about science claim others are being Imperialist and pushing their views on Japan's 'traditional whaling culture' (in the Southern Ocean, in diesel ships!). As it is not within or anywhere NEAR the Japanese coast, and they constantly whine about maintaining their whaling culture despite claiming the purpose is for science, they are therefore pushing their own views on the world.

When one person in a room of more than 200 is screaming that everyone is wrong while he or she is right... well...

4 ( +12 / -8 )

Yubaru

Doesn't sound like a loan to me. More like free money. Unless Kyodo Senpaku has to reimburse the government for the 50 to 90% of taxpayers money used to cover the operating expense losses?

I expect the loan will be waived or just forgotten about?

7 ( +10 / -3 )

What part of fish finders, massive ships and modern tactics is cultural?? You want to use "culture" as an excuse? Get back in your little boats and do it like you did in the old days - and stay in your own damn waters.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Both countries have agreed to be bound by the verdict of the Hague-based court.

So why is Japan crying now ? Just wait for the court verdict with honor and maturity.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Australia trying to impose its culture

Now that is clutching at straws

6 ( +10 / -4 )

If Japan keeps mixing "culture" and "whale eating" together the court will rule that Japan is killing whales for "culture" and not for science. Keep it up Japan you are going to lose.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Kyodo Senpaku is a cost conscious zero racketeering enterprise.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Of course Australia is trying to impose its own culture and values on Japan. It is typical Western arrogance, which makes no effort to try to understand other cultures and imagines its culture is superior to every other and should be copied by everyone.

-12 ( +7 / -19 )

First time I've ever heard "Australia" and "culture" in a sentence together.

11 ( +16 / -5 )

It's not just Australia. It's the whole F'en world. Pull you head our of your anus Diet and come into the 21st century.

7 ( +14 / -7 )

Of course Australia is trying to impose its own culture and values on Japan. It is typical Western arrogance, which makes no effort to try to understand other cultures and imagines its culture is superior to every other and should be copied by everyone.

Pray tell what regarding the whale killing culture of Japan is it that the world should be copying?

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Japan has said the important point to ICJ. It is the court for law, not court for imposing Australian culture, or values, on other state.

Other commenter say, Australia and New Zealand used to have the whaling culture, too. It is fine. But it is nothing to do with Japan, what culture Australia or New Zealand had in past, has now, or in future. Nor anything to do with law. Japan has same rights to determine own culture as Australia and New Zealand. And whaling is taking place in the international waters, where nation has right to catch the marine resources, including the whales. Although Australia also thinks international waters is Australia's waters.

Other commenter say, where is data? Well, IWC scientific panel uses the data. If commenter wishes to see data, maybe try to join IWC scientific panel. It is strange to ask to see data, even though IWC scientific panel itself has it. Of course it exist. Japan does not catch many whales and then not collect the data. Even Australian lawyer said, Japan has collected data.

Other commenter say Japan should talk about science. Do not be rushing. Japan has more days of teaching ICJ of Japan's research, this week.

Despite an international whaling moratorium in force since 1986, Japan continues to catch whales in the Antarctic under a treaty that allows unlimited whaling for scientific research.

It is wrong. It is despite international whaling convention that whaling moratorium continues, because Australia and others do not show the good faith to remove moratorium, by 1990, as was written into agreement.

Under a 1946 treaty on whaling, to which Japan is a signatory, countries can catch unlimited numbers of whales if they are needed for scientific purposes, regardless of the moratorium agreed in the 1980s.

Even article itself says moratorium is not important, concerning research. Article should not contradict itself.

But critics say the real reason for the hunt is to continue harvesting whale meat.

“Japan is conducting a comprehensive scientific research programme because it wishes to resume commercial whaling, based on science, in a sustainable manner,” he said.

Why does article say "But critics say"? Purpose of the research is for collecting the data which help the sustainable whaling, as said in article itself. Article writer, or critics do not understand this basic issue well, and just arrange the different comments one after another.

The treaty does not address what counts as science, but Australia argues that Japan’s collection of raw data without having in mind a specific question does not qualify and that its research is just a smokescreen.

It shows Australia knows that Japan collects the raw data. However, Australian definition of science is just their argumentation.

Activists are hoping for a ruling against Tokyo that they believe will put an end to whaling in the Southern Ocean - though Japan could withdraw from international whaling agreements and continue whaling even if it did lose the case.

Article should say what Australia will do if it loses the case. Because it is most likely.

Whaling was once widespread around the world, but Japan is now one of only a handful of countries that continues the practice. The meat is eaten by many Japanese consumers who consider it a delicacy.

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

The World Court may rule;- 1. Japan allowed to continue their 'scientific research'. 2.All scientific data shall be distributed to entire world 3. None of the whale meat shall be eaten -such as within 10 minutes after being caught, the whales shall be poisoned. This allows Japan to stash their integrity on their activity.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@sf2k They were being pretty honest this time - calling their research a means to the end of justifying commercial whaling.

@Yubaru Could be, but why are they wrong in this instance. The Western notion of human rights and freedoms say you should be allowed to do what you want until it infringes onto the rights of others. The right to enjoy a world with whales is also a right, but as long as commercial whaling is limited to numbers that do not threaten this, this right is not infringed. In such a case, the only rights being infringed are those of the Japanese.

@NZ2011 Don't impose your culture onto others. Aussies may think an irrational desire to protect whales overrides their culture. Not everyone agrees.

Ultimately, this whole crap IS very much an attempt by Australia to push its values onto others. Otherwise, they should be submitting their own evidence to prove our whale populations are so weak that ANY commercial whaling will kill them.

3 ( +10 / -7 )

Japan has said the important point to ICJ. It is the court for law, not court for imposing Australian culture, or values, on other state.

Yes, it is about a court for law to determine if Japan is respecting, or not, the treaty they signed so why is Japan bringing the "culture exception" on the table , there is no loophole about culture allowing a country to continue whaling ? Bring your scientific researches (if you have any) that does justify your current whaling activities and public tax money funding.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

This is a poor situation for Japan. Playing the 'cultural imposition card" just doesn't wash these days. Imposing culture IS in fact the name of the game now as it always has been. And you can cry to the moon about it - it is still going to happen.

For now the world overwhelmingly is against whaling.... and so Japan will be forced to stop. Japan doesn't like this, but she simply doesn't have the international clout to DO anything about it. But worry not Japan. Within a generation or so whales will again become vital protein source as world resources deplete and you'll be able to point your fingers and smile "I told you so" as everyone else scrambles for what's left of the worlds few precious resources. The commons-rapists (all humans... but Japan is especially good t this) devour resources without regard to consequence - for now, whales are off the menu and Japan and her revolting right-wing, knuckle-draggers look increasingly childish as they whine about big, bad Australia and NZ imposing "their cultural views on Japan".

Why does Japan always appear so weak on the international stage? It is a curious thing. Japan has thumped a few major powers over the years and yet, their diplomats so often come across as petulant and irrelevant.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

impose foreign moral standards on Japan

This is a strange statement since all countries that go by international conventions and law agree to be subjugated by standards that aren't necessarily that country's standards. And laws and treaties are basically codified moral standards and codes of behavior.

Koji Tsuruoka, said his country had the right to hunt and kill the marine mammals for scientific research.

And where is this written?

Tsuruoka said Japan caught and killed 850 whales each year, providing data that would allow the country to whale without risking a repeat of past over-whaling and stock depletion.

Seem very illogical. Kill so won't over kill. The data that is needed is where the whale lives, how long, how do they live, and how many are there. Don't need to kill them to get this info. This this case, Japan does not seem like a Buddhist country.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Tsuruoka said Japan caught and killed 850 whales each year, providing data that would allow the country to whale without risking a repeat of past over-whaling and stock depletion.

Japan has changed their wording, they used to say "weighing the stomach content" (to see what the whales eat), now are saving something else. Flip flop to whatever sounds better.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The meat is eaten by many Japanese consumers who consider it a delicacy.

Really? Most people think it tastes like sh*t.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

gogogo,

Japan has changed their wording, they used to say "weighing the stomach content" (to see what the whales eat), now are saving something else. Flip flop to whatever sounds better.

It is not flip flop. Japan collects many types of data, not only the stomach content.

I am glad you say it sounds better. If anti-whaler can admit such thing, it means Japan is winning at ICJ. Please keep reading more articles. This is best chance ever for Japan to teach western media about Japan's scientific contribution.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

If Japan will not respect international law then it should not get international events like the Olympics. If the courts fail the Whales, then the Olympic bid will serve as a large platform to bring it into the light.

Even though they failed, The Janese govs intent to kill an endangered species in a designated sanctuary crosses so may moral and ethical boundaries, I believe I will never be able to think of Japan in a good light again. I just can't understand or believe the cold hearted and simple minded excuses!

The struggle to get the Japanese public to recognize this is a humanitarian effort and to get them to look at the scientific data has become too much trouble for the effort , the whales still need to be saved but our attempts to reason have always been to deaf ears and I see no sign of change. Sacrificing the life of cetaceans because of one (SICK) cultural characteristic? Ok then keep your products in Japan and live in isolation and we'll see you in Antarctica..

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Oh! I thought it was all about science!

Now with this statement Japan admits its not - case closed.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

This doesn't gel. Australia had a well developed Southern Ocean whaling industry operatring out of Carnavon and other ports providing whale product for food and other uses long before Japan had even thought about sending whaling ships south of the Equator. Not enough research (historical)!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Somehow I see the words "culture" means the Japanese way regardless of other opinions. For foreigners who live in Japan, many run into 'you must think like a Japanese if you live in Japan'. It's difficult to win an argument based on this kind of thinking. Japanese rarely point the finger at themselves and admit mistakes.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

A 2006 review of Japan’s Antarctic scientific whaling programme, conducted by the IWC’s Scientific Committee, found that the research had failed to achieve any of its stated objectives.

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Whom am I imposing my culture on?

I have no authority to do so, but I am free to express my opinion, and again if Japan was using traditional, cultural methods in Japan's waters then... That's Japan's business.

This is international waters and an environmental issue, whales species were almost hunted into extinction.. This requires international co-operation, to be honest I'm not even totally opposed to limited catches as long as the process is as humane, transparent and honest as possible, which I don't believe is the case currently.

Human society progresses, things change, that is not cultural oppression, that is normal and a sometimes nessasary progress.

As an example, because slavery was once culturally exceptable in many places should it be now? Of course not.

Should china be allowed to have all of Asia pacific because it once may have traditionally thought it "owed" it.. Of course not.

Should Japan return to a feudal system?? I'm sure most people enjoy their freedoms, thier last names, being able to own land and potentially escape the class thy were born into..

Right now all around the world we have people being killed, punished and opressed under this cultural tradition blah blah excuse.. It's not valid. The facts are what matter.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

I wouldn't have so much of a problem with Japan's illigal whaling if they didn't insist on the blatant lie that its for research. Its a slap in the face to the international community that Japan must think that it is so stupid.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Whaling advocates , zionists and those in favor of Big Oil seem to run in the same circles.... very consistent, language is so similar it's funny/odd/sad.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

This culture thing is hilarious. The Japanese are going half way across the world in a fleet of whaling vessels with a factory ship, armed, with their coast guard, righ to within spitting distance of the Australian coast, and conducting whaling under the guise of science. This is Japan inflicting its own views of its own food culture on others, making Japan the imperialist in this case. Get this, no one is really complaining about Japan's other hunts, including the annual North Pacific hunt. Australians are complaining about whaling in a whale sanctuary off the coast of Australia. Japan can eat whale for all I care, so long as its not a protected species, but catch it in waters nearer home, and don't force me (the taxpayer) and those who have donated towards recovery of Fukushima to foot the bill for this unsustainable dinosaur industry.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

“Are all cetaceans sacred and endangered?” asked Tsuruoka. “I can understand the emotional background to this position but fail to see how it can be translated to a legal position.”

Try harder. The WW consensus is when you sign a treaty to not kill endangered species, you do not kill endangered species ! Is that so hard to understand ? Now if you want to argue if whales is an endangered species or not by your local standards and found your position is not longer the same with the rest of world that directed the treaty you signed in the first place then just revoke your position in that treaty and exclude yourself.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Australia’s opposition to Japanese whaling is an attempt to impose foreign moral standards on Japan

Interesting comment. One could argue that Japan is doing the same thing by continuing whaling.

countries can catch unlimited numbers of whales if they are needed for scientific purposes

Please not: "If they are NEEDED"

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Purpose of the research is for collecting the data which help the sustainable whaling

But even if the moratorium were to be lifted and 'sustainable whaling' allowed, the sanctuary remains in place and out of bounds to commercial whalers. So why is Japan 'researching' whales in the sanctuary?

As others have pointed out, by playing the culture card Japan is shooting itself in the foot. The Article 8 loophole says nothing about culture.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

what i always find interesting is the humanization of a species, when that species is not human. we concern ourselves so much over certain ones putting such mysticism in place, and others that are not so cozy we ignore.

we should be looking at the data- i believe there is enough already to show that some species of whale should be off the protected list. - though i will get howls of derision for suggesting it.

but will i get the same support for suggesting caps and limits on shark? since the want for shark fins is taking too much from our stocks. - ah - but wait - no one likes sharks, they are not nice like whales are......

in several cultures around the world whale meat was important- as it was forced out of the diets because of laws stating it was Inhumane to hunt- instead the people had to buy processed food and now they have more illness- such as diabetes- go check the health illness endemic to the native peoples who used to eat whales.

placing quota's and caps in place are usually done to prevent overfishing- not to create humans out of a species that is not human

3 ( +8 / -4 )

AriesKJJ

If Japan will not respect international law then it should not get international events like the Olympics.

Well, it is Australia that does not respect international law, and it will soon lose this case at ICJ just as their own expert predict.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/australian-court-case-against-japanese-whaling-to-begin-wednesday-in-the-hague

Don Rothwell, an Australian National University expert on international law in relation to whaling who has advised the Australian government, said Australia's case would be difficult to make. Australia will argue that Japan's whaling is commercial, is not scientific, is conducted within a whale sanctuary and is in breach of conventions on biological diversity as well as endangered species. "If it was an easy case to make, previous Australian governments would have no doubt explored these options," Rothwell told Australian Broadcasting Corp.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

CH3CHO , my time trying to reason with, manipulative tiny minded trolls is done. I was just serving notice.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Japan uses culture as an excuse for many things. It's so sad how they continually demonstrate how undeveloped they are. We know they don't eat whale meat, nor dolphin meat, though they still have their 'cove' exercise every year. In fact, it seems they don't care much for animals at all. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2013/02/19/issues/millions-of-dogs-cats-coddled-200000-gassed-each-year-in-pet-mad-japan/

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Yeah...all the Japanese people in my town that I've talked to wouldn't really care if it's stopped. If it's that much about culture, wouldn't members of that culture express the same thing as reported? Most of them would be happy if Japan stopped whaling (while some didn't want to talk about possible action, yet were ok with the idea of not eating whale again).

0 ( +2 / -2 )

cleo,

But even if the moratorium were to be lifted and 'sustainable whaling' allowed, the sanctuary remains in place and out of bounds to commercial whalers. So why is Japan 'researching' whales in the sanctuary?

Read paragraph 7(b) and its footnote of this document.

http://iwc.int/cache/downloads/1lv6fvjz06f48wc44w4s4w8gs/Schedule-February-2013.pdf

Japan lodged an objection and therefore, due to Viena Convention on the Law of Treaties, the sanctuary does not apply to Japan.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Why is it ok for the Inuit to whale as a part of their culture, using motorized outboard engines and rifles, but Japanese cannot. Sort of ironic considering there is a good body of evidence showing the Inuit actually came from Japan. how people pick and choose their battles based on what's popular back in the homeland and not paying heed to other people's cultures. I'm sure it would take five minutes of research to find something easily manipulated to be embarrassing to many Australians on the world stage, like say their dealings with their Aboriginal peoples?

For those who say whale meat is not eaten by many in Japan, that is not my experience. I have it every time I visit my inlaws and sometimes when I go for sushi.

It would be an amazing world if people dealt with facts rather than what suits them. I for one do not know what's going on in the higher ups minds in Aus or Japan, but I can relate to the experiences I have had which I outline above.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

'#StopTaiji' TwitterStorm: Wed. July 3rd to end the Dolphin slaughter in Japan.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Could be, but why are they wrong in this instance. ...................... The right to enjoy a world with whales is also a right, but as long as commercial whaling is limited to numbers that do not threaten this, this right is not infringed. In such a case, the only rights being infringed are those of the Japanese.

First off tell it to the whales that get killed off every year. Then consider this, IF the research was for scientific purposes ONLY, please explain to me why then is the meat then sold off for consumption?

Sounds like commercial whaling for profit under the guise of research.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

The Article 8 loophole says nothing about culture.

And article 8 says absolutely nothing about a loophole. Something that you are well aware of.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

So wait, is it "culture" or "scientific research"? Just man up and say you don't care what anyone thinks and hunt. I don't agree with it, but it just makes it look worse when Japan keeps changing reasons...

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Citizen2012

The WW consensus is when you sign a treaty to not kill endangered species, you do not kill endangered species ! Is that so hard to understand ?

The minke whales which are the target of Japanese research whaling are not endangered. Is it so hard to understand? Unlike Australia, Japan has vested interest in keeping whales from extinction, to carry on sustainable whaling.

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

And whilst your on the 'culture' front, Japan has played the Australia should not be forcing THEIR culture on other nations card. But JT is too selective to post that and you need to look at the NZ media for a more balanced review.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

You hurt the sea, sea will take revenge. Japanese should learn.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Shinjuku No Yaju

Is it so hard to face the facts? It is research whaling.

-3 ( +8 / -11 )

Why does Japan want to continue the same number of whale kills when they can't even sell what they already have. Remember most Japanese, some 85%, don't eat whale meat any more and they are not likely to start this late in the game. It is a dying custom and it will not be brought back as it is no longer in fashion.

It simply does not make sense financially. If it was a profitable business, the government would not have to give it so much tax money to keep it going. Without government support the whaling industry would be a dead industry. Do we really need whales to be hunted for dog food which by the way is one of the markets for whale meat in Japan? They even took some of the money that was supposed to be used for Tsunami disaster relief to keep the whale industry going.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

History Jul. 03, 2013 - 09:35AM JST

The World Court may rule;- 1. Japan allowed to continue their 'scientific research'. 2.All scientific data shall be distributed to entire world 3. None of the whale meat shall be eaten -

Read Article 8, paragraph 2 of IWC convention.

http://iwc.int/cache/downloads/1r2jdhu5xtuswws0ocw04wgcw/convention.pdf

2 Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.

It is an obligation of IWC member countries to pocess the meat of whales taken in reaserch whaling.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

It simply does not make sense financially.

There are so many other things in this country that make no sense what-so-ever financially that to the government here whaling is more symbolic than anything else. In the overall budgeting of cash here, this so-called whale research is drop of water in the ocean at best.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Christopher Blackwell

Why does Japan want to continue the same number of whale kills when they can't even sell what they already have.

Because It is RESEARCH.

It simply does not make sense financially.

Thank you for supporting the view that it is not commercial whaling.

-7 ( +3 / -10 )

Why does Japan want to continue the same number of whale kills when they can't even sell what they already have.

Because It is RESEARCH.

The 'research' doesn't exist in a vacuum. Japan states the point of the 'research' is to establish the sustainability of commercial whaling. Japan wants to resume commercial whaling, that is why (it says) it is doing the 'research'. But they cannot sell even the drastically reduced catches Sea Shepherd has imposed, which brings us back full circle to Christopher Blackwell's question; why do they want to continue killing whales when they cannot sell the ones they have already killed?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Nonsensical arguments trotted out to dispute Japan's whaling activities:

It's a waste of taxpayers' money- only because anti-whalers can't see the benefit: jobs, food, etc.

It's a cover for commercial sale and consumption, which is always accompanied by the "Japanese don't eat whale anymore" argument. -well, which is it? Are they consuming or not, because these two arguments cancel each other out.
-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Japan wants to resume commercial whaling

Which is in accordance to the purpose of the IWC. As opposed to Australia that is hell bent on permanently banning commercial whaling which is against the purpose of the IWC.

Hence Japan saying

'Australia cannot change the International Whaling Commission (IWC) into an organisation opposed to whaling. '

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Tsuruoka: “I can understand the emotional background to this position but fail to see how it can be translated to a legal position.”

There it is in a nutshell and therein lies Australia's/anti-whalers' problem.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

hoserfella,

I wouldn't have so much of a problem with Japan's illigal whaling if

It is not illegal whaling. ICJ will judge it so, soon. Pay attention, please.

they didn't insist on the blatant lie that its for research.

ICJ judgement will settle this complaint of anti-whalers. If Japan wins, it means it is not "blatant lie". You will be wrong.

Its a slap in the face to the international community that Japan must think that it is so stupid.

When you see you were wrong, you may feel stupid, if you do not feel so now. Japan is doing research on terms of whaling agreement, not research on terms of anti-whaling agreement. This is very simple thing, I am sure you are wise person, so I do not know why you not understand it.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Japan says Australia trying to impose its culture in whaling row

apart from "sporting & drinking cultures" I am not sure what sort of culture exists in Australia....

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Right, wrong, it's all subjective. Hopefully this court can rule objectively and put an end to this silly issue.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Its embarrassing as hell watching Japan make an a$$ of itself on the world stage, you would think by now the govt & bureaucrats would start to comprehend how Japan is making itself look, but then again obviously they are clueless!

Like I have said a million times, Japan, STICK to catching a few coastal whales/porpoises that actually will be eaten & the whole problem goes away.

Galivanting to the Antarctic makes Japan look very very bad & is a colossal waste of my taxes to boot, NOW STOP THE NONESENSE!

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Sourpuss: yes, it is a waste of tax payers' money and yes, nobody is eating it, which is evident by the 4,000 tons in cold storage and backed by governmental plan to give it away to schools for lunches. Hope this helps answer your questions.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

“Japan is conducting a comprehensive scientific research programme because it wishes to resume commercial whaling, based on science, in a sustainable manner,” he said.

He should have also added......'So in the meantime we are resuming commercial whaling and hiding behind the comprehensive scientific research mumbo jumbo crap we keep telling everyone.'

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

So japan always plays for the whole team and fisherman can vote, but whales can't. Just this weekend my friends uncle who's in the fish industry told me how baleen whales just come and swim in between the nets and swallow their catch of Saury and sardines. I say this again and again on these forums but whaling is actually a form of Pest control. But that can't be said in the open or white people will flip out. I'm fine with it as long as the killed whales are not endangered and the meat doesn't go to waste.

I also want to add that many anti whaling lobbyists in Australia and America couldn't care less about the well being of the whales. They want to make Japan less protein self sufficient so they can sell more cattle to Japan.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Kujira-niku (whale meat) is NOT "considered a delicacy" by many Japanese. That's why tons of the stuff are parked in commercial freezers. Plus it is suspected of high levels of poisons such as mercury. No laughing matter. Japanese consumers are voting by buying other things. Give it up, Japan!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I would say Japan is trying to impose it's 'culture' on the world and the oceans with it's immoral whaling practices. In the name of Japanese 'culture' they're lopping the heads off the food chain, lying about it being for scientific research, wasting government money on an industry that isn't profitable anyway, and misguiding the Japanese public with a xenophobic marketing campaign for it. And whenever they get challenged on it they retreat behind their sacred 'culture' as if that inviolable principle should be the last word.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

On the world stage, Japan has some major issues, whaling, nuclear energy and revisionism of its war history by PM Abe?

1 ( +8 / -7 )

GW Jul. 03, 2013 - 12:09PM JST

Its embarrassing as hell watching Japan make an a$$ of itself on the world stage, you would think by now the govt & bureaucrats would start to comprehend how Japan is making itself look, but then again obviously they are clueless!

When the judgment comes down in favor of Japan, we will know which country is really clueless.

Galivanting to the Antarctic makes Japan look very very bad & is a colossal waste of my taxes to boot, NOW STOP THE NONESENSE!

Tax payers approved the budget for research whaling through the parliament. It is democracy and you cannot ignore the majority opinion on how the tax be used.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

ihope2eatwhales is like a bad rash that wont go away. but hey eventually they do and people are so much better off without it. LOL

0 ( +7 / -7 )

I agree with praack and others with the complete subjectivity of it all. To be honest I worry more about the future of sharks in the worlds oceans. (Who feel just as much pain when they are harpooned or netted out of the water.) It really is a culture clash behind the scenes of the main IWC agreement. Just look who is taking who to the courts!

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@ihope2eatwhales and if Japan loses then you should be a good samurai and fall on your sword, never to post another rant here on JapanToday. that sound fair!?

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

wtfjapan

@ihope2eatwhales and if Japan loses then you should be a good samurai and fall on your sword, never to post another rant here on JapanToday. that sound fair!?

That is fine with me. But Japan shall win this case.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

@CH3CHO yes Japan could win, but theyd still have to deal with SS, the ICJ judgement wont stop them even if Japan wins. LOL

0 ( +6 / -6 )

zichi

On the world stage, Japan has some major issues, whaling, nuclear energy and revisionism of its war history by PM Abe?

Except for nuclear energy, they all look minor issues to me.

wtfjapan

@CH3CHO yes Japan could win, but theyd still have to deal with SS, the ICJ judgement wont stop them even if Japan wins. LOL

SS? Once ICJ rules in favor of Japan, how many people in the world will support and donate money to SS?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

The purpose of the research whaling was to ensure the numbers of the Minke whales increased which they have from 750,000 (Japan Whaling Association) to more than one million (IWC) in the Southern Hemisphere, so why the need for anymore research?

I think its safe to say, nearly all Japanese people eat rice, but the same can no longer be said about eating whale meat. Maybe before, but no longer. Some prefectures, like Hokkaido eat very little or no whale meat. Mostly eaten in Tokyo, Miyagi and some places in the South.

How many buy whale meat just to give to their cats?

Probably, commercial whaling would no longer make financial sense? If the whaling company Kyodo Senpaku made commercial whaling it would go bankrupt quite quickly.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

as for me. australia culture and Japan have good combination. come to whale barbieQ with harmony everyone!

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Japan says Australia trying to impose its culture in whaling row

And Japan is not trying to impose its "whaling culture" in the row?

0 ( +5 / -5 )

wtfjapan,

yes Japan could win, but theyd still have to deal with SS, the ICJ judgement wont stop them even if Japan wins. LOL

Having lost ICJ case, Australia would lose more face if they failed to bust the vigilante pirate group. SS always talk of illegal whaling, however, Japan's whaling will be legal.

Only fool could back SS in such circumstance. Australia can not be such.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

zichi, I partially agree with you. There are enough whales so just set some catch limits for commercial whaling and see what happens.

Whalers are happy. Tax payers are happy. Whale eaters are happy. Everyone is happy except those cultural imperialists who oppose whaling out of love for whales.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

You guys are just restless on the subject, each time it's a hit ! ;)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Whalers are happy. Tax payers are happy. Whale eaters are happy. Everyone is happy

The whales are not happy. Especially the ones with big holes blown in them.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

How come Japan and the "culturalists" always argue it's Japan vs. "The West"? Either it's East vs. West or Japan vs. (whatever countries disagree with them). Japan is not that culturally important to take this stance.

Oh, and Australia... More east than Japan.

Perhaps we should start discussing it is modern values vs. not-so-modern values.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

It is not illegal whaling. ICJ will judge it so, soon. Pay attention, please.

ihopetoeatwhales - wrong again. Please stop falling asleep during class or Ill have to send a note home to your parents.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

hoserfella

I do not think Australia can prove that Japanese research whaling is not scientific research in the court of law, especially when IWC itself sees it scientific research. Australia will inevitably lose this case.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Excuse #1 It is for scientific research. Excuse #2 It is to protect dwindling fish stocks. Excuse #3 It is our culture.

If #1 is not working, try #2 and then #3.

When something is about science, then there is only one excuse #1. Japan and the range of excuses it uses means it is not about scientific research. The trouble is some normal folk actually support and believe all this and when you talk to them they start ranting off about its their culture...... Ironic thing is many of these people who complain don't even like or eat Whale meat!

Its just to maintain those few who make a living off the Whale industry. Maybe the government should spend these research funds on finding a replacement industry.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

CH3CHO - I do not think Australia can prove that Japanese research whaling is not scientific research in the court of law

Well, I don't think Japan can prove Australia is forcing their culture on Japan by requesting them to stop hunting whales for commercial purposes under the guise of research in a whale sanctuary they choose to ignore. Japan's so-called 'research whaling' is not illegal, but it is unethical and exploits a privilege given to them by the IWC. Research is conducted to answer questions. If there are no questions, it is not research. It is hunting under the false pretense of research. Japan does not have a solid defense for their case. If their only claim is a whaling culture then their case is shot to sh!t. If they are gonna 'cry foul' cos the West is forcing its culture onto Japan the West can quite easily rebut with the same claim about Japan. The southern ocean is not a traditional or culturally significant whale hunting area for Japan.

Somebody mentioned the Inuit people hunting whales and compared to Japanese whaling. The Inuits hunt a small number of whales from their local waters for subsistence. Japan wants to travel halfway across the world to hunt large numbers of whales for profit. A very large difference, don't you think?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Disillusioned

Well, I don't think Japan can prove Australia is forcing their culture on Japan by requesting them to stop hunting whales for commercial purposes under the guise of research in a whale sanctuary they choose to ignore.

Japan does not have to prove so.

Japan's so-called 'research whaling' is not illegal,

Thanks. That will save the day for the old folks at ICJ.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Whales are cute.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

No CH3CHO, Japan does not have to prove so, but they also cannot cry the 'forcing culture' foul either. And, please do not take snippets of my posts out of context to support your own platforms. Thank you.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Disillusioned

Japan's so-called 'research whaling' is not illegal, but it is unethical and exploits a privilege given to them by the IWC.

IWC does not give privilege. Every nation already has rights. Canada also has right to catch whales, even though not being the IWC member. Joining IWC is just agreement for the non-scientific whaling, such as commercial whaling. This is the meaning of Article VIII.

Research is conducted to answer questions. If there are no questions, it is not research.

Japan has questions, so it is not relevant point. Big question is trend of whale numbers. We know only estimate of minke whale numbers. IWC scientific panel agrees, 515,000 whales. However, without research we can not know the annual increase or decrease in numbers of whales. Investigation of it is one purpose of Japan's research.

It is hunting under the false pretense of research.

False.

Japan does not have a solid defense for their case.

It is anti-whaler's hope, but I think it is just make-believe.

If their only claim is a whaling culture then their case is shot to sh!t.

I think it is just introduction of Japan's defense. Please check news again tomorrow, and day after. You can surely learn more of the research then.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Whale populations estimates http://iwc.int/estimate

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Show us the research data.

If you really cared you would make the minimal effort needed to see it. It is easily available online.

Why are lethal methods required to count something

They aren't. But counting the whales isn't all the data needed to determine sustainability and sustainability isn't the only issue they are researching.

Where is the science? Again why is lethal research required?

The research is all over the place, just open your eyes. And there is some data that can't be collected non-lethally.

2.All scientific data shall be distributed to entire world

It is distibuted.

None of the whale meat shall be eaten

Sorry ICJ doesn't have the power to change the IWC charter which REQUIRES the meat be processed.

And where is this written?

It is written in Article VIII of the IWC charter.

The data that is needed is where the whale lives, how long, how do they live, and how many are there.

No you also need to know the fertility rate, age of sexual maturity, etc. And they are also researching other issues that you seem to be ignoring.

A 2006 review of Japan's Antarctic scientific whaling programme, conducted by the IWC's Scientific Committee, found that the research had failed to achieve any of its stated objectives.

That is why it is called research. There is no guarantee that you will achieve your aims.

The WW consensus is when you sign a treaty to not kill endangered species

First what treaty is this you speak of? And Minke whales aren't endangered.

So why is Japan 'researching' whales in the sanctuary? The Article 8 loophole says nothing about culture.

But the Article VIII non-loophole does specifically say that no other part of the IWC regulations apply to whaling under Article VIII, thus the sanctuary is irrelevant.

The purpose of the research whaling was to ensure the numbers of the Minke whales increased

No that was ONE purpose. there are many others and even if that was the only one it requires continual updating as climate change and ocean pollution may cause a change.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

If you really cared you would make the minimal effort needed to see it. It is easily available online.

So easily available you cannot be bothered to back up your case by giving a single link. And no, I really do not care to go looking for half-baked excuses for killing and/or torturing marine mammals, or any other kind of animal.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

I wonder if everyone has had a chance to actually read the description of the issue being heard at the ICJ.

Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia s. Japan: New Zealand intervening)

On 31 May 2010, Australia instituted proceedings against Japan, alleging that “Japan‟s continued pursuit of a large-scale program of whaling under the Second Phase of its Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic („JARPA II‟) is in breach of obligations assumed by Japan under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling („ICRW‟), as well as its other international obligations for the preservation of marine mammals and the marine environment”

The following link at ICR's site gives a good Q&A about JARPA II from Japan's standpoint. http://www.icrwhale.org/QandA2.html

1 ( +3 / -2 )

cleo

The whales are not happy.

Stop anthropomorphizing. It's not rational.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

The Japanese say the whaling is for scientific purposes and they should argue their case on those grounds. Culture has nothing to do with it, even if you believe that a miniscule number of taxpayer-funded whalers counts as a national "culture". There are far more people in Japan taking upskirt pictures than there are whalers, so maybe that should be considered a culture too?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

So easily available you cannot be bothered to back up your case by giving a single link.

It is not my case it is Japan's case. And you have admitted being to the page with most of the links so I don't know why you are so upset.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Fortunately the ICJ is not an internet forum where emotionalism, anti-Japan sentiment, Whale hugging and worship, Australian territorial aspirations, eco-terrorism support, misguided conservation, cultural imperialism are considered a basis for argument. In contrast, Japan's arguments are solid based on law and the actual raison-d'etre of the IWC and it's regulations. Sorry folks but having read the complaint and the response so far, at this point I'd say Australia should have listened to the U.S. and not engaged in a losing battle because they are going to get their rear end handed to them on a platter. All the thumbs down in the universe isn't going to change this fact.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Got another foul up in Japan's defense of its so-called research. The pro-whaling pair and the JICR are claiming Japan needs to kill a thousand whales a year to count the number of whales, which in itself is a farce. However, due to the vigilance of a certain environmentalist group their annual catch has been around a few hundred per year for the last decade or so. Now, I acording to the JICR they have been able to accurately assess whale populations based on such a small number caught, thus proving that Japan does not need to kill a thousand whales a year to provide this data. Fail!

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

you have admitted being to the page with most of the links

That's what you're taking as evidence of research data? 'Cruise reports', sightings of blue whales (involving no dead minke), counting seabirds (ditto), bovine-pig-mouse-whale chimera clones and failed objectives? Oh my.

No wonder you didn't want to give a link.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

How about the Tohoku misuse of charity funds? Including the ones that were diverted to whaling?? Is that also JP culture? Looks like nobody has an opinion on that one!

Allow me. You might do well to bother familiarising yourself with places like Ishinomaki (it's in Tohoku) which has been a whaling community since the Edo period and was smashed by the tsunami just two years ago, before throwing words around like "misuse of charity funds". And let's not forget that money was allocated from government budget, not from donations, for increased security in response to the soon-to-end cultural piracy by Sea Shepherdess.

it just makes it look worse when Japan keeps changing reasons...

They haven't changed their reasons, you are just hearing more in English about it now as that is the language being used in this court and one which I assume you understand. They are not "doing it for science" or "for the sake of the body that is science" as some people like to twist it.

Here is what the Japanese government is saying.

"Japan is conducting a comprehensive scientific research programme because it wishes to resume commercial whaling, based on science, in a sustainable manner," he said.

And here is something else the government is saying. Ouch.

"I can understand the emotional background to this position but fail to see how it can be translated to a legal position."

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Australia imposing its culture? It has no culture to impose.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Hey, throw another whale on the barbie!

'The meat is eaten by many Japanese consumers....'. It is this sort of sloppy and exaggerated reporting that gets people all worked up over nothing. I am yet to hear a Japanese person say, 'Let's have whale tonight'. But I've heard many say, ' Let's have chicken/pork/beef/lamb/noodles/sukiyaki tonight.'

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

So people seem to keep talking about whale meat as a delicacy or how this is a culture battle, how this issue revolves around the desire to eat whale meat, but again I must say the driving force behind this issue is the desire to catch fish, it's just simple economics. Japanese fisherman are in competition with whales for fish. Whaling is a pest control issue in disguise. For each ton of whale that is removed from the sea, you free up 10x the biomass 1 level down in the food chain and 100x the next level below. Baleen whales feed off of the lower levels of the food chain so 2 levels down and we're probably talking about krill and zoo plankton, but earth is so overpopulated with people that we are competing wither whales for food at this level too. We use krill for furikake and shrimp flavoring for cup noodles among other things like feeding farmed fish.

Also, someone in this thread said whale meat has high concentrations of poison, but I think you are confusing that with information from "the cove". Top predators like dolphins, orca, and sperm whales have high concentrations of mercury, but baleen whales, especially ones that live in the Southern Hemisphere have some of the cleanest meat because most of the industrialized nations are in the Northern hemisphere and baleen whales feed near the base of the food chain..

Shaving down the population of minke whales and any other non endangered whales (are there any others?) is the only way to help other whale populations rebound ( especially the blue whales which are still endangered) and slow down the hollowing out of the mid-tier of the ocean food pyramid.

Humanity is consuming oceanic resources at an alarming rate, led by Japan. But last time I checked, Japanese are thinner than their brethren of other industrialized nations and do a better job of eating all sorts of things down the food chain, which keeps the food chain balanced. Protein derived from the sea only costs 2 units of carbon per kilo where as chicken is 6 and beef is 17. People who hate whaling are people whose's livelihood is less dependent on the ocean so they have little to no buy in and can be swayed simply on emotional issues because they don't or can't see the entire picture.

If you truly want to help the whales, never eat sushi, and pray for ww3 to happen. The only time fish stocks rebounded in the Atlantic during the 20th century was during WW2. We are all guilty of taxing nature, even the vegetarians among us. I just get upset when North Americans (1/3 of all the human biomass on the planet) lecture other people who are using fewer calories to sustain their own existence by using more diverse sources of protein (which is more sustainable).

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I think it is time to drop the nastiness about Australia and culture...., moderator??

At least we have the balls to take the matter to court to get ruled on and I am sure the govt lawyers would have presented a decent case before proceeding.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

AustPaulJul. 04, 2013 - 12:17AM JST I think it is time to drop the nastiness about Australia and culture...., moderator?? At least we have the balls to take the matter to court to get ruled on and I am sure the govt lawyers would have >presented a decent case before proceeding.

Considering the amount of nastiness Japan and other countires always gets on these forums I think the culture comment is hardly worth complaining about. But anyhoo best read Australia's claim and Japan's response before making such a statement about the case.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

It takes on average the killing of 120 whales to produce one scientific paper. Massive overkill?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

That's what you're taking as evidence of research data?

Yes I take the list of peer reviewed research papers with links to many of them as evidence of research. The fact that you don't is just proof of bias.

It takes on average the killing of 120 whales to produce one scientific paper. Massive overkill?

No, actually it takes many times that as the research plans clearly explain. It is just that any given whale can produce data that is used in more than one paper.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

It's almost laughable that somebody had the nerve above to say that there is not much more to Australian culture than drinking and sport. One of the keys to the creation of our identity as a young nation has been our involvement in the Antarctic. Australia has more than a hundred year history of involvement in scientific discovery and preservation of the Antarctic region. Australian legends have been created and generations of Australians have warmed their hearts with stories of hardship and survival from explorers such as Mawson and Davis.

We have a claim to an Antarctic territory which is based on discovery and a long historical association with the region. It is laughable that given some of Japan's ridiculous claims to islands in this region that they do not recognise this claim, especially when our goals are to preserve the region in its natural state rather than exploitation. Our desire to preserve the region is outlined in the Antarctic treaty which Japan interestingly enough is a signatory to.

http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~kpt/terraquest/va/history/treaty.html

We continue to maintain an extremely high presence in the region and our government spends a great deal of money funding scientific research activities. Australia is known globally as the gateway to the Antarctic.

Given all that we do there, to then have Japan bring naval vessels, factory whaling ships, refueling ships and the like and for Japan to breach our territorial waters in places such as Macquarie Island in a blatant disregard for everything that Australian explorers and scientists have worked so hard to preserve is a slap in the face. To then base your greed for protected resources on a false claim to scientific research is an even bigger slap in the face.

The only reason previous Australian governments have done nothing about it is because of our economic relationship with your nation, but now, the final straw has been pulled. Your cultural claim to whaling is a joke and you need to understand that public opinion in Australia is waning as a result of your stubborn approach to this situation.

Sure, it is your cultural right to eat whales and dolphins in your own region and I support this right, but stay the hell out of the Antarctic. I know Japan is often stubborn in diplomacy, but it would pay to heed and understand the feelings of your friends in the Asia Pacific region.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

AkashiAussieJul. 04, 2013 - 01:44AM JST

We have a claim to an Antarctic territory which is based on discovery and a long historical association with the region. >It is laughable that given some of Japan's ridiculous claims to islands in this region that they do not recognise this >claim,

Strange sense of humor. Only 4 countries on the entire planet recognize Australia's claim. The United States, an anti-whaling nation, does not recognize Australia's claim.

We continue to maintain an extremely high presence in the region and our government spends a great deal of money >funding scientific research activities. Australia is known globally as the gateway to the Antarctic.

So it's Australian territory? Afraid not.

To then base your greed for protected resources on a false claim to scientific research is an even bigger slap in the >face.

The IWC Scientific Committee is about to confirm that Japan's Research Whaling is scientific research. Time to put this fallacy to bed for good.

The only reason previous Australian governments have done nothing about it is because of our economic relationship >with your nation, but now, the final straw has been pulled.

Incorrect. Previous Australian government administrations, as well as the current one can not send AMSA ships to the territory to chase the Japanese Research ships out, because they HAVE NO JURISDCTION. Having a claim does not make it yours. Australia has stooped to letting eco-terrorists do their dirty work since they themselves legally can not.

Your cultural claim to whaling is a joke and you need to understand that public opinion in Australia is waning as a >result of your stubborn approach to this situation.

Actually, it is Australia's devious presence in the IWC a body that exists to regulate the WHALING INDUSTRY while advancing an agenda to stop ALL WHALING that is a joke.

Sure, it is your cultural right to eat whales and dolphins in your own region and I support this right, but stay the hell out >of the Antarctic.

Proof that you couldn't care less about whales. You concern is that the Japanese are doing something in an area which you think belongs to Australia. Erroneously.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

A realist, sure kill as many whales as you want in Japan, but where is it your cultural right to stomp on every environmental agreement in your never ending quest for more and more natural resources. I noticed the other day that there are lots of whale watching tours in Japan itself. Go and kill those whales if you want to kill whales. Stay out of the designated whale sanctuaries that Australians lost their lives for and spent so much money trying to create.

I know that Japan knows very little about sustainable fishing practices as evidenced from fishing practices from the recreational level to the commercial, but perhaps it's time you learn. Sure, it might be sustainable for your country to take out 1000 whales a year, but what if every other country decided the same thing? "If Japan can do it, why not us?"

I used to side with Japan on this issue, mainly due to a bigger hate for the environmental terrorists in SS than the whalers, but your arrogance and stubbornness on this issue has swayed me big time. I donated my hard earned cash to the Tohokou reconstruction effort, and it is nice to know that it is going to good use. Disgraceful.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I donated my hard earned cash to the Tohokou reconstruction effort, and it is nice to know that it is going to good use. Disgraceful.

You know what is disgraceful? Comments like this. Why? Because it illustrates that you mistakenly associate your donation with government funds used to defend the whaling fleet against a soon-to-end cultural crusade; that you are unaware there are coastal towns in Tohoku that have depended on the whaling industry for hundreds of years and were destroyed by the tsunami two years ago, and that had you known of these towns or of the area in general to which you donated and that accordingly reconstruction funds would be used in such industry that you would think twice about your donation, even though as just mentioned donations have not and could not be used in that manner; that as someone else mentioned above the relative amount of money spent on whaling as a total of the reconstruction budget is a drop in the ocean, yet blown out of proportion and amplified with emotion.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Thank your government if, God Forbid, a future disaster happens: I gave money 4 times( A % of each paycheck after the tsunami) almost every single person I know donated something, even children. I would never kill a whale nor would I allow anyone else to harm any cetacean while I was present... but some of my hard earned money may have gone to support an illegal and immoral Whale kill? Hard to ever trust the Japanese government again or send funds that way. Do I want to change your culture? I want to change the Whale's Culture: they are the ones that are dying. Learn about Cetaceans, they have Spindle Cells like humans, they have self awareness like you!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

there are coastal towns in Tohoku that have depended on the whaling industry for hundreds of years and were destroyed by the tsunami two years ago

In the absence of any commercial whaling since 1986 when the moratorium came into effect, how can these coastal towns have been dependent on a whaling industry that supposedly hasn't existed for over a quarter of a century? Unless you're admitting that the 'research' is a make-work programme, ie a commercial enterprise.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Here is a bit of Australian cultural attitude toward whales at play. From yesterday.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/17862564/tugboat-crew-rescue-trapped-humpback/

2 ( +3 / -1 )

OssanAmerica Jul. 04, 2013 - 02:09AM JST Incorrect. Previous Australian government administrations, as well as the current one can not send AMSA ships to the territory to chase the Japanese Research ships out, because they HAVE NO JURISDCTION. Having a claim does not make it yours. Australia has stooped to letting eco-terrorists do their dirty work since they themselves legally can not.

Australia have choices but PM Gillard refused to intervene in the Antarctic whaling conflict. Australian politicians has become much more money driven. If the politicians can't see how it benefits them directly then they don't seem to care much about it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

AkashiAussieJul. 04, 2013 - 02:19AM JST

A realist, sure kill as many whales as you want in Japan, but where is it your cultural right to stomp on every environmental agreement in your never ending quest for more and more natural resources. I noticed the other day that there are lots of whale watching tours in Japan itself. Go and kill those whales if you want to kill whales. Stay out of the designated whale sanctuaries that Australians lost their lives for and spent so much money trying to create."

I have no knowledge of any Australians who "lost their lives" creating whale sanctuaries or how much money they spent on such things; if they did it was wasted. Australia has the right to create however many "whale sanctuaries" they want to--in their own territorial waters. Japan has more right to hunt whales in International waters than Australia has the right to create so-called "whale sanctuaries"; in fact Australia has no authority whatever to regulate hunting or fishing anywhere outside of its own territory. Don't be so sanctimonious, and so what if there are whale-watching tours in Japan or anyplace else? Apparently you do not even know that there are many different kinds of whales and whale-watching tourists usually see "killer whales" or Orca. Do you know why they are called killer whales? Because they kill other mammals, often just for the fun of it. Nature is not a Disney movie, as apparently many people seem to imagine.

What is troubling is that a country like Australia can be so arrogant as to imagine it has the right to dictate the mores and cultures of other countries and tell people what they can and cannot eat, and thinks other countries should adopt Australia's beliefs. It is really astounding and unbelievable that a so-called "civilized" country could have such presumptions. I thought China and the USA were arrogant and loved telling everybody else what they should and shouldn't do, but Australia has those two beat by a country mile.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

AkashiAussie

Australia has more than a hundred year history of involvement in scientific discovery and preservation of the Antarctic region. Australian legends have been created and generations of Australians have warmed their hearts with stories of hardship and survival from explorers such as Mawson and Davis. We have a claim to an Antarctic territory which is based on discovery and a long historical association with the region.

This is another fun part of this trial. ICJ is most likely to declare that Antarctica does not belong to Australia in the judgment. The Australian territorial ambition may well go down the pipe because of its too much greed.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

sfjp330Jul. 04, 2013 - 08:19AM JST "OssanAmerica Jul. 04, 2013 - 02:09AM JST Incorrect. Previous Australian government administrations, as well as the current one can not send AMSA ships to the territory to chase the Japanese Research ships out, because they HAVE NO JURISDCTION. Having a claim does not make it yours. Australia has stooped to letting eco-terrorists do their dirty work since they themselves legally can not."

Australia have choices but PM Gillard refused to intervene in the Antarctic whaling conflict. Australian politicians has >become much more money driven. If the politicians can't see how it benefits them directly then they don't seem to care >much about it.

Really? Please tell me what "choices" they have? Complain? Done that. Coddle the eco-terrorists to harass them? Done that. File a claim at the ICJ? Done that. What Australia can not do is to enforce it's laws in a territory to which it only has a claim as that would risk prejudicing the claim itself. I don't see those "choices" you refer to.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Tamarama, thank you for nice story. Also in Japan, fishermen make habit to free whales when they are caught in the nets, if it safe to do so. Unfortunately, sometimes fishermen have died, though.

Here is nice story from Australia as well: http://www.smh.com.au/national/whaling-decision-is-ours-alone-japan-claims-20130703-2pcii.html

India's judge Dalveer Bhandari said: "what injury if any has Australia suffered as a result of Japan's alleged breaches of the ICRW through JARPA II?"

Also I find other ICJ news: http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/17861511/japans-expert-backs-whaling-as-science/

"It is definitely a scientific research program," the Norwegian scientist told the court.

"The programs are giving critical information about the ongoing changes in the Antarctic ecosystem."

I suppose, Japan Today will post similar story about it, soon. It is important for anti-whalers to see the information.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

This is what happens when you run into a court of law with nothing but non-legal arguments.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

For a balanced report on the subject, go to an Australian media outlet:

Japan has claimed a clear and indisputable legal right to determine alone how it will conduct its Antarctic scientific whaling, at the International Court of Justice. Whatever sympathy might be felt for whales, the global treaty on whaling had a crucial proviso that it was up to each member government to grant their citizens special scientific permits to take whales, Japan's counsel Alain Pellet said. "The terms of article eight (of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling) are unambiguous," said Professor Pellet, of the University of Paris Oeust.

For a balanced report on the subject, go to an Australian media outlet:

2 ( +5 / -3 )

"Japan says Australia trying to impose its culture in whaling row" One look at history clearly demonstrates which of these 2 countries has a " tradition" of imposing its "culture" on others...and it sure ain`t Australia.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

One look at history clearly demonstrates which of these 2 countries has a " tradition" of imposing its "culture" on others...and it sure ain`t Australia.

This comment shows a historical blindness that would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Ooh here's another decision which is not going to help the cultural crusade/sinking ship that is Sea Shepherd: the Australian federal court has ruled that donations will not be tax deductible.

"The Federal Court of Australia turned down an appeal from Sea Shepherd for charity status under tax laws, ruling the object of its campaigns were the Japanese whalers, not the care of animals."

Ouch. By the Australian government.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/17856499/sea-shepherd-loses-australia-bid-for-charity-status/

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Are all the comments from Australian hippies? Japan has its own right and there are alot more important issues in the world which makes it odd that it is Australia constantly trying to bully Japan on this issue. Perfect put:

“I can understand the emotional background to this position but fail to see how it can be translated to a legal position.”

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

As mentioned up-thread - India's judge Dalveer Bhandari said: "what injury IF ANY has Australia suffered as a result of Japan's alleged breaches of the ICRW through JARPA II?"

That's the heart of every civil court case, "someone" must have suffered an "injury" or there is no court case. That "injury" could be physical injury, a fianancial loss, property loss, slander, malic, discrimination, etc.

If Japan is abiding by the rules and regulations of the IWC, which Australia is a member of, how is Australia being "legally injured" by Japans research whaling in international waters? Hurting the feelings of animal-rights activists in Australia doesn't give Australia a legal basis to sue Japan.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Nessie - One look at history clearly demonstrates which of these 2 countries has a " tradition" of imposing its "culture" on others...and it sure ain`t Australia. .......This comment shows a historical blindness that would be laughable if it weren't so tragic.

You are not seriously going to suggest Australia has more of a " tradition" of imposing its "culture" on other countries than Japan are you? Wanna check with the respective neighbouring countries in regards to that?

The only laughable or a tragic thing are the right winger denials. Then again denial is what your ilk does best - be it of historical facts or world opinion in regards to the " scientific " whaling research.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"Consumption of whale and dolphin meat, as is the practice in Japan, is a source of high levels of mercury poisoning. Tetsuya Endo, a professor at the Health Sciences University of Hokkaido, has tested whale meat purchased in the whaling town of Taiji and found mercury levels more than 20 times the acceptable Japanese standard" keep eating that tripe and you may start goind numb in your extremities.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I do not know Australia well, but I understand Australia was founded by people of one culture imposing it on people of another. (Maybe a nationalistic Australian does not like it to be said.)

So maybe it is Australian culture to try to impose anti-whaling culture on Japan.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Ihope2eatwhale

I do not know Australia well, but I understand Australia was founded by people of one culture imposing it on people of another. (Maybe a nationalistic Australian does not like it to be said.) So maybe it is Australian culture to try to impose anti-whaling culture on Japan.

The first Anglo Saxon people to arrive in Australia were transported there against their will from Britain.

Australia was founded by people of one culture imposing it on people of another

Would that be the same as the Japanese and Ainu? The Americans and the Indians? The Anglo Saxons and the Celts? The Brits and the Irish? The Chinese and the Tibetans? The Christians?

I think we could draw up a very long list of cultures imposing itself on others.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@ ihopetoeatwhales - sorry, thats weak ...Australia as a country has never tried to impose its "culture" on any other sovereign country, unlike you know who.... Check your history books -( then again maybe not the official Japanese ones that were selectively " edited" by the right wing nationalistists with their whitewashed version of history).

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

ihope2eatwhales

there's also the history of Japan imposing its culture on Korea for nearly 100 years, then China, then the whole of SE Asia? Which country did Australia ever invade? But was also invaded by the Japanese.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

CH3CHO

Numerous countries that once existed on Australian Continent and near by islands.

Care to name them then?

Australia has never invaded another country in its own right, with the possible exception of occupying German Papua during WW1.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

ihope2eatwhalesJUL. 05, 2013 - 09:23AM JST 'I do not know Australia well.....' That's the most truthful statement you have made through all these JT articles. like with our previous arguments you need to read more and study it before making fantastic claims. I imagine you are just following and so being led by your nationalistic newspapers, tv and of course ****by being Japanese it is easy to believe one side over the other without researching the truth and reality of the matter. You could say the same about Australians so go to the Internet and look for information. Don't listen to the rubbish on tv. And go overseas and become a little more worldly.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Sorry Robert, if you do not like it to be said. I do not claim Japan can blame. But I do not think Australia can blame others. My wonder if, how did original people of Tasmania think of forebears of Australians?

And I hope Australians can appreciate in 21st century that Australian culture belongs in Australia.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

wtfjapanJul. 05, 2013 - 09:21AM JST "Consumption of whale and dolphin meat, as is the practice in Japan, is a source of high levels of mercury poisoning. Tetsuya Endo, a professor at the Health Sciences University of Hokkaido, has tested whale meat purchased in the whaling town of Taiji and found mercury levels more than 20 times the acceptable Japanese standard" keep eating that tripe and you may start goind numb in your extremities.

Anyone who has lived in Japan for any amount of time knows that "whale meat" is hardly commonly eaten. And "dolphin meat" can only be found locally in the regional areas where they are taken and it is a custom. As for mercury content it applies to the smaller toothed whales such as pilots whales and dolphins, neither of which are a subject of Australia's suit. For that matter, mercury content is not either. But thanks for the totally off-topic blurb.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Yes Aussie's being holier than thou about this is unbearable. But Japan needs to be serious about its whaling and stop lying its "research" rouse.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The IWC Scientific Committee which reviews and consults with Japan prior to Japan issuing Scientific Permits under IWC Article VIII to date has never declared Japan's research to be anything but research. Australia's argument that "it's not research" to date has not been proven, the burden of proof which Australia carries. Knowing that it can not prove this, Australia is disingenuously attempting to reverse the burden which will invariably fail. Better brace yourselves for when the ICJ declares that it is indeed "research".

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Robert Roo - ...... I imagine you are just following and so being led by your nationalistic newspapers, tv and of course **by being Japanese it is easy to believe one side over the other without researching the truth** and reality of the matter. You could say the same about Australians so go to the Internet and look for information. Don't listen to the rubbish on tv. And go overseas and become a little more worldly.

In the interest of "researching the truth", have the desendants of the original "Australians", the Aborigines and the Torres Strait Islanders also filed suit, or joined the Australian suit, against Japan in the International Court?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

“We do not criticise other cultures,” he said. “Were it necessary to establish the superiority of one culture over another the world would never be at peace.”<-- you just did!

In the name of Science, they hunt and kill for research....... what a logic!

Now in the name of cultures, they hunt and kill......... what's next?

“Are all cetaceans sacred and endangered?” asked Tsuruoka. Soon unless idiots like you stop the nonsense!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

ihope2eatwhalesJUL. 05, 2013 - 06:00PM JST 'Sorry Robert, if you do not like it to be said. I do not claim Japan can blame. But I do not think Australia can blame others. My wonder if, how did original people of Tasmania think of forebears of Australians? And I hope Australians can appreciate in 21st century that Australian culture belongs in Australia.'

It is not Australian culture. They want you to stop lying and stop eating an endangered animal plain and simple. The rest of the world has done so????" arrestpaulJUL. 06, 2013 - 03:43AM JST 'In the interest of "researching the truth", have the desendants of the original "Australians", the Aborigines and the Torres Strait Islanders also filed suit, or joined the Australian suit, against Japan in the International Court?' Sorry what's the relevance? If they have joined or not? The argument is about whaling not the locals. The people's of Australia you will find are very mixed amongst themselves. Unlike japan it is quite multi cultural and with that comes a certain respect for all cultures. Of course many will say that is not true but there are good and bad in every culture. Stop eating the whales all the others have done so....

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Tetsuya Endo, a professor at the Health Sciences University of Hokkaido, has tested whale meat purchased in the whaling town of Taiji and found mercury levels more than 20 times the acceptable Japanese standard

Well actually he tested meat from one species of dolphin. And one sample, the highest one, was at that level.

keep eating that tripe and you may start goind numb in your extremities

They have been eating 'that tripe' for decades and Professor Endo didn't report any evidence of any effect on the adults or children.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

“There is a real danger in whale and dolphin meat, but word is not getting out,” said Tetsuya Endo, a professor at the Health Sciences University of Hokkaido and an expert on mercury in sea animals.

Like tuna, dolphins and small whales are predators that appear to be accumulating mercury as they eat fish in increasingly contaminated oceans.

The Japanese kill 1,000 minke and other great whales every year in hotly disputed “research whaling” in the Antarctic and the northern Pacific. Japan calls the hunt research to avoid the international ban on commercial whaling, but then allows the sale of the meat in supermarkets.

In addition, about 100 whales and 21,000 dolphins are killed annually in coastal waters, according to Japan’s fisheries agency. The meat is hardly a vital food source. A minority of Japanese eat whale meat, and dolphin is less common, consumed in a handful of rural areas as well as regional cities like Osaka.

Such generational differences may be what finally ends the dolphin hunt. While Taiji residents over 60 are enthusiastic consumers of dolphin and whale meat, most of those under 40 no longer eat it at all, according to many people here.

“We’re not saying that consumption of dolphin should disappear, but I think it’s inevitable that it will,” Mr. Ryono, the councilman, said. “As the older generation disappears, so will demand for dolphin meat.”

Too bad about that hey Mike?

3 ( +4 / -2 )

dolphins and small whales are predators that appear to be accumulating mercury

True

The Japanese kill 1,000 minke and other great whales every year

Well actually they haven't killed 1,000 Minke and other great whales in a year for over 30 years. But as your statement about mercury applied to dolphins and small whales it doesn't apply to Minke and other great whales.

but then allows the sale of the meat in supermarkets.

No, as has been repeated many times they are REQUIRED by the regulations to process the meat.

Too bad about that hey Mike?

Not at all. If the Japanese decide to no longer eat whale or dolphin then that is their decision to make. Not yours or Australia's or Sea Shepherd's

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Robert Roo - Sorry what's the relevance? If they have joined or not? The argument is about whaling not the locals. The people's of Australia you will find are very mixed amongst themselves. Unlike japan it is quite multi cultural and with that comes a certain respect for all cultures. Of course many will say that is not true but there are good and bad in every culture. Stop eating the whales all the others have done so....

The relevance is that this thread is about Australia's attempt to impose foreign moral standards on Japan and whether they have any LEGAL basis to do so. The members of the IWC established the rules. Australia doesn't want to follow the rules it agreed to follow. Australia makes a claim to the Antarctic that 190 other nations refuse to recognize.

I would like to know about whether the "original" Australians (those who were subjugated by western explorers) have joined the Australian culture clash lawsuit against Japan.

p.s. Whales are still being eaten by several nations so your claim that "all others have done so" is either blatantly false, propaganda, or wishful thinking.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Every single person here in Japan understands that it's not really "for scientific purposes". What's the issue?

And on culture. Cannibalism is part of Papua New Guinea's historic culture. Therefore - hey - it must be ok, right?

Stating "it's part of our culture" isn't a defense against something abhorrent.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Whale meat is NOT popular in Japan, and my son's school head refused to accept it on the menu when the Prefectural Office tried to install it as part of the required dietary needs of children. In the 14 years of living here, I have only once ever seen whale meat in a store and there wasn't much of it.

Japan trying to use the culture thing is ludicrous, given that they use it all the time!

Perhaps if Japan didn't kill the baby calf with its mother a few years ago, in plain view of cameras that taped the whole thing, and against the rulings of the convention, people would take their requests to continue whaling seriously? And as another commenter stated, call it what it is, "Whaling Industry", because it's anything but "Scientific research".

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Perhaps if Japan didn't kill the baby calf with its mother a few years ago

Perhaps is that was actually what was done, but since that isn't what the picture shows I guess that can't be the reason as you claim.

and against the rulings of the convention,

What about it was against the ruling of the convention. I can't find any part of the convention that would prohibit killing a calf and its mother, even if that was what the picture shows.

because it's anything but "Scientific research".

'Scientific research' is an industry.

Stating "it's part of our culture" isn't a defense against something abhorrent.

Well then I guess it is a good thing that they are following the IWC regulations which is all the defense they need.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Perhaps is that was actually what was done Ummm... what?

'Scientific research' is an industry. Wait... really? You categorically think that what occurs with whaling in Japan is "scientific research"? Hehe... Mike? I have a bridge. Going cheap...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

You categorically think that what occurs with whaling in Japan is "scientific research"?

Well let see. They collect data, they analyze the data, they get their results peer reviewed, and they publish their reviewed results. Sure sounds like science to me.

And thank you for catching my one letter typo, that based on the context was still obvious as to what it meant. But those that couldn't figure it out the word should have been 'if' not 'is' making the statement "Perhaps if that was actually what was done". Since you didn't comment on the rest of the statement I assume you agree with it? And with no comment on the rules of the convention or following of the regulations I guess those pass muster too?

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

don-in-japan - Every single person here in Japan understands that it's not really "for scientific purposes".

Really? Do you speak for everyone in Japan? Then where is all this opposition to Australia's attempt to impose it's culture on Japanese whaling coming from? I don't think you really meant to say "every single person" when there is really only a small vocal minority who repeatedly objects to whaling and to the Japanese.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

bookowlsJul. 07, 2013 - 09:12AM JST Whale meat is NOT popular in Japan, and my son's school head refused to accept it on the menu when the >Prefectural Office tried to install it as part of the required dietary needs of children. In the 14 years of living here, I have >only once ever seen whale meat in a store and there wasn't much of it.

You are correct in that it is "not popular" in the sense that you can find it all over Japan as commonly as MacDonalds. However it can be found if you look for it. Certainly not a mainstream food as it probably was in the past.

Japan trying to use the culture thing is ludicrous, given that they use it all the time!

What is ludicrous about the statement that "Japan has whaled for centuries and whale meat has been and still is consumed"? This statement is a fact.

Perhaps if Japan didn't kill the baby calf with its mother a few years ago, in plain view of cameras that taped the whole >thing, and against the rulings of the convention, people would take their requests to continue whaling seriously? And >as another commenter stated, call it what it is, "Whaling Industry", because it's anything but "Scientific research".

If it were Commercial Whaling is disguise as you claim, they would never take a calf because it makes no commercial sense. Commercial whaling requires only large mature animals with the most meat. Only for research purposes would an immature specimen be necessary. And as Research Whaling under Scientific Permit fully in accordance with the IWC regulations, a research programed reviewed by the IWC Scientific Committee in advance, it is not "against the rulings of the convention" in any way, So what is it if it's not Research Whaling? Because it sure isn't Commercial Whaling.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

CH3CHO

Numerous countries that once existed on Australian Continent and near by islands.

Care to name them then?

At your request, Koori, Ngunnawal, Murri, Murrdi, Nyungar, and so on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indigenous_Australian_group_names

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@CH3CHO

You named tribes that lived on the contintent but first they are not countries and secondly Australia has a country is one of the youngest in the world and came into existence around 1900 and in its own right, unlike the Japanese, have never invaded another country, which means my original comments stands.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

' CH3CHO Australian territorial ambition may well go down the pipe because of its too much greed.' On the contrary it is Japan that is eating the whales because of greed. Australia's territory claim is merely for preservation from vultures and buzzards who don't seem to care who or what is eaten when

3 ( +4 / -2 )

Has everyone had a chance to read Japan Whaling Associations's Q&A about this issue? There are some interesting points of view in their answers to claims from anti-whalers.

http://www.whaling.jp/english/qa.html

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

zichi

You named tribes that lived on the contintent but first they are not countries

They were. A community with people, territory, and governing body which is not under another government is a country. Australia imposed its culture on them.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

OnsenJul. 08, 2013 - 11:06AM JST Has everyone had a chance to read Japan Whaling Associations's Q&A about this issue? There are some interesting >points of view in their answers to claims from anti-whalers. http://www.whaling.jp/english/qa.html

Anti-whalers by definition are not interested in facts.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Really? Do you speak for everyone in Japan?

Thanks champ, but I didn't claim to do that. Pardon me for operating under the assumption that the obvious was... well... obvious.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

It is not only the voice of Australia, but the world's. To reconsider a position it's wise Japan.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Mike O'Brien: Well then I guess it is a good thing that they are following the IWC regulations which is all the defense they need.

Except they're not doing that. They're not resting on that - they're playing the culture card. Which is laughable... stating "Hey, it's our cultural heritage" is ridiculous. Both in the sense that it's "their culture" (so... traversing thousands of kilometers in whaling ships is "Japanese culture"?), and that the notion of "culture" should protect an abhorrent act.

I get the sense that a lot of the people pro-whaling here aren't really such, they're just pro-argument (not aiming this at you Mike, just a general observation). Same people can be found from article to article, stirring the pot.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Except they're not doing that. They're not resting on that...

But it doesn't matter. They can play 5 thousand irrelevant cards. As long as they show one card that shows they are following the IWC regulations, they win.

That is why I get the sense that a lot of the people anti-whaling here aren't really such, they're just pro-argument hence their continually bringing up these irrelevant issues while ignoring the relevant one.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Roxana A.Jul. 09, 2013 - 12:04PM JST It is not only the voice of Australia, but the world's. To reconsider a position it's wise Japan.

An often repeated fallacy. The rest of the word does not care about whales, they have a life.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

As far as I'm concerned Japan can Whale all it wants around its own territorial waters but the minute it wants to whale in International waters it becomes an International issue. Especially when no other country in the world is whaling in the waters around Antarctica.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

marcelito - sorry, thats weak ...Australia as a country has never tried to impose its "culture" on any other sovereign country,

The Aborigines might disagree with you.

Australia’s opposition to Japanese whaling is an attempt to impose foreign moral standards on Japan and has no legal basis, Japan told the World Court on Tuesday in a case brought by Australia.

Instead of just taking land from the original inhabitants, this time, Australian is trying to use the the World Court to impose it's will on another country AND establish it's claim to the Antarctic Ocean.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

An often repeated fallacy. The rest of the word does not care about whales, they have a life.

Speak for yourself. I personally care and I also care what is the use or rather "misuse" of my tax money with those whalers leechers of public funding.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Robert Roo - ......Japan calls the hunt research to avoid the international ban on commercial whaling, but then allows the sale of the meat in supermarkets.

Australia agreed to abide by the rules of the IWC. The IWC requires that the meat not go to waste. Therefore it's sold and consumed. Them's the rules whether you agree, or approve, of them or not.

It seems you don't understand Australia's position in this case. Australia is arguing that even though scientific research is allowed by the IWC, the scientific research conducted by Japan doesn't meet Australia's definition of scientific research. According to the IWC, Australia doesn't have a say in how another nation conducts scientific research. Will the court decide otherwise?

Australia also claims it controls the waters around the Antarctic and has jurisdiction over what happens there. Only 3 or 4 of the 194 nations in the UN accept Australia's "claim". "IF" Australia were to win this court case, only Australia and Japan have agreed to abide by its ruling. None of the other nations would have to accept Australia's claim.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

arrestpaul: Therefore it's sold and consumed.

Except... it's not. So - by your definition - Japan are in contravention of the IWC regulations?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Japan should consider Australia was once a Whaling country and realised how cruel and unnecessary it really was , A massive difference. We try to Preserve the whales, Japan uses a loophole Slaughtering Whales in the name of science Please Don't Censer it as is Facts.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

“We do not criticise other cultures,” he said. “Were it necessary to establish the superiority of one culture over another the world would never be at peace.”

Yep. I never hear criticisms of other cultures. It's not like there were two big new stories this year about such cases. Like the Japanese delegate to the UN saying Japan "is one of the most advance country" in terms of their justice system and told everyone to "Shut up" when people called that into question. Or the Japanese Olympic bid chief saying other countries weren't as "safe" as Japan. No, no criticisms at all, cause it's not criticizing if you're the best at everything!

Seriously, I don't like Sea Shepherd very much, but at least they're doing what they're doing for a real reason. Japan is just doing it to create a market that doesn't exist. They're not selling all of their whale meat and no one wants to buy as much as their hunting. Get off it, Japan, please.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

This -

Yes, well Japan certainly seems to think it's culture and traditions are more important than those of other countries in this case. Because Australia also has a culture of whaling. In fact, the whaling industry was integral to the foundations of the nation - as it was for other countries like the US, whose whaling ships also fished the waters around Australia for it's whaling culture and industry. [sic] No. It's just selfishness. It's picking and choosing when you wish to be a global citizen, and when you don't.

Quite so.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

How arrogant and simplistic for anyone to think that the issue of anti whaling has to do with wanting to change Japanese culture.

We want to change the whales culture: after all is is them that are dying! The Whaling advocates in Japanese culture suffer from what... hurt feelings and an inferiority complex?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

but the minute it wants to whale in International waters it becomes an International issue.

Your right. And since they are following the international regulations there should be no problem.

Except... it's not.

Except.. it is. And the IWC regulation says "Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed". So all they have to do is try and sell it.

No, no criticisms at all

Your right none of your examples are criticisms of culture.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

@ Mike O'.... except under IWC Article VIII, any country that wants to hunt whale for "Research" purposes can but it is Japan and Japan only that cites this Article as justification for doing so. It is Japan and Japan only that sails more than 8,000 miles from its shores to whale in International waters while both Iceland and Norway whale in their own territories. Japan sets a bad example.... suppose 20 other countries also cited Article VIII and took whales from Antarctica for "research" purposes. Australia is saying that what Japan is doing is not Research and they intend to prove that. Killing an endangered or protected species, especially in the numbers that Japan does, is illogical. Any real conservationist would never think of actually killing a species they are trying to protect. Japan is not trying to protect these whales.... they want to eat them. Heck.... Japan is also enabling both Iceland and Norway by buying whale meat from both countries. I like Japan but what they are doing is just plain selfish.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

but it is Japan and Japan only that cites this Article as justification for doing so

First it is justification. And second other countries have used it in the past. The fact they don't currently desire to use it does not invalidate the Article.

It is Japan and Japan only that sails more than 8,000 miles from its shores to whale in International waters

So? International agreements allow any nation to take fish, whales or crustaceans from international waters.

Japan sets a bad example...

How?

suppose 20 other countries also cited Article VIII and took whales from Antarctica for "research" purposes.

Why? Is there any indication that 20 other countries are interested in whaling.

And what if 20 countries who aren't members of the IWC decided they want to take whales from Antarctica for commercial purposes?

Australia is saying that what Japan is doing is not Research

Good luck on that. Japan collects data, analyzes the data, submits the results for review and has the results published. Also the IWC Scientific Committee agrees that the data Japan collects help them in their job of monitoring whales species status.

Killing an endangered or protected species, especially in the numbers that Japan does, is illogical.

Again, why? The maths for the statistics are well known and understood, and they indicate that the sample size Japan uses is logically and scientifically correct. While the IWC's RMP, based on the best science and proven historical species management say the levels at which Japan takes whales is sustainable.

Any real conservationist would never think of actually killing a species they are trying to protect.

Where did Japan say they were conservationist trying to protect whales? I seem to remember them stating they were trying to prove that some whale species could be safely commercially hunted.

Japan is not trying to protect these whales.... they want to eat them.

No kidding. And they make no secret of that fact.

I like Japan but what they are doing is just plain selfish.

Why is it selfish? How are there actions hurting any other countries interests?

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

@ Mike.... So you believe that no other country out there wants to whale anyway? That the rest of the countries that could whale actually do not because they have no interest in doing so? Hmmmmm...... you're just guessing.... but considering that many countries did whale in the past I believe your guess is wrong. And.... if there is a profit to be made there would be hundreds of ships out there whaling everyday. But I guess, like you say, no one is interested. The rest of the world is playing fair and honorable while Japan is being extremely selfish.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So you believe that no other country out there wants to whale anyway?

Yes I believe that. Since most countries aren't part of the IWC and thus can whale all they want and yet they don't. And the countries that are part of the IWC could have either objected to the moratorium, like Iceland and Norway, or conduct whaling under Article VIII, like Japan, and yet they don't. So yes, based on those facts I don't believe other countries who aren't currently whaling want to any more.

but considering that many countries did whale in the past I believe your guess is wrong.

So considering that many countries did have the death penalty in the past, you must believe they want to return to having the death penalty, right? Or could it be that those countries don't hunt whales any more because they don't want to?

And.... if there is a profit to be made there would be hundreds of ships out there whaling everyday.

No. If there was a significant profit to be made there would already be hundreds of ships out there today. Since as I already told you all those countries that aren't part of the IWC, about 120, can currently hunt whales all they want.

The rest of the world is playing fair and honorable while Japan is being extremely selfish.

And again, how is Japan be selfish?

I asked you 7 questions in my first response and you ignored every one of them. Do you not know the answers or do you not want to answer for some reason?

-7 ( +1 / -7 )

@ Mike.... you seem to think that the rest of the world's countries are nothing but scoundrels.... you give them no credit for self restraint and respecting the IWC despite their not being signatories of the treaty. Bottom line is this.... the Decision will come from the World Court in a few months. Japan will try to prove their research is scientific and plausible and that will justify its taking of so many whales each year. Australia, with the backing of many other countries, will try to prove Japan's research is not plausible. When the decision is handed down by the World Court I'd be extremely surprised if Japan wins. I'm sure all of your points will be covered at the court.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Iceland & Norway left the IWC and thus are not bound by their rules. Russia is actively whaling and South Korea wants to resume whaling as well.

Japan has the option to also leave the IWC and there is talk to do so and set up a new organisation that only has pro-whaling countries.

Too many countries want to turn the IWC into an anti-whaling organisation.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

you seem to think that the rest of the world's countries are nothing but scoundrels

No that would be you. I believe they don't hunt whales because they don't want to, while you believe they don't hunt whales because they are afraid to upset other countries.

Bottom line is this.... the Decision will come from the World Court in a few months.

No actually that decison, no matter which way it goes, will have no effect on whaling. Zero, zip, nada. Because Japan can always quit the IWC and start legal commercial whaling.

Australia, with the backing of many other countries

One country isn't many.

Iceland & Norway left the IWC and thus are not bound by their rules

No, Norway has been an IWC member from the beginning and continues to be a member, while Iceland did leave the IWC for a short while but then rejoined and continues to be a member. They both can whale because they objected to the moratorium and thus by the IWC regulations the moratorium does not apply to them.

Russia is actively whaling

The only whaling that I know of for Russia is abotiginal whaling, which is permitted by the IWC. The USA and Greenland also have IWC permitted aboriginal whaling. While Canada, who quit the IWC, allows whaling.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

More than 1 is opposed -

"The Governments of Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the United States jointly condemn any actions that imperil human life in the Southern Ocean," they said in a joint statement released by the US State Department. "We are deeply concerned that confrontations in the Southern Ocean will eventually lead to injury or loss of life among protesters, many of whom are nationals of our countries, and whaling crews," they said. "We remain resolute in our opposition to commercial whaling, including so-called 'scientific' whaling, in particular in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary... and are disappointed about the recent departure of the Japanese whaling fleet for the Southern Ocean."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8954985/Nations-unite-against-Japans-annual-whale-hunt.html

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

don-in-japan - Except... it's not. So - by your definition - Japan are in contravention of the IWC regulations?

Hahaha. Maybe by your definition. IWC regulations never said you eat it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

More than 1 is opposed -

Well David, that joint statement is nice. But has about zero to do with backing at the case in the ICJ which is what the comment by danalawton was talking about and that is what I was responding to.

Hahaha. Maybe by your definition. IWC regulations never said you eat it.

What the IWC regulations say is it has to be processed as far as practicable. What other practible use can you think of for it? Would you be happier if they used it for some other purpose.

-7 ( +0 / -6 )

It Japan is truly Whaling for "scientific / research" purposes then they should donate the whale meat to less the needy outside of Japan that are starving. I'm sure they'll take whale meat over nothing at all. Try that for 10 years and we'll see if Japan continues to do "research".

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

then they should donate the whale meat to less the needy outside of Japan that are starving

Why should they do that?

Oh and then there is the fact that CITES basically prohibits them from exporting any whale meat to any countries except to Iceland or Norway.

-9 ( +0 / -8 )

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