national

Aussie PM criticizes antiwhaling activists after Japan decides to free them

217 Comments

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

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

217 Comments
Login to comment

Smart move on Japan's part ... somebody's learning the nuances of how to quietly solve diplomatic headaches.

19 ( +19 / -2 )

Might as well. The only thing they can charge 'em with is mere trespassing for first-time offenders. Not worth all the trouble for what would've been a very light punishment.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Epic fail from hard line Japan. A crack in the public opinion armor!

-14 ( +7 / -20 )

The bitter disappointment that will be voiced by some people over the news of their release will be something to truly LMAO about! LOL!

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

oh HAPPY DAY!!!

Now if they had been Chinese this headline would be totally different. They'd have the book thrown at them. Japan knows not to mess with the Boxing Roos. It'd be the Battle of Coral Sea Part II.

-13 ( +9 / -22 )

It's quite wise for Japan to keep a low profile on the issue of whaling, as virtually the entire world opinion is against it. But it must be hard for some in the Fisheries Agency etc. to do so, as the whole whaling business continues basically because of national pride. There's no real demand for whale meat and the effort is a major sinkhole for public money.

2 ( +10 / -9 )

lostrune2Jan. 10, 2012 - 07:29AM JST Might as well. The only thing they can charge 'em with is mere trespassing for first-time offenders. Not worth all the trouble for what would've been a very light punishment.

Actually, under Maritime law (which is the law that applies in this situation), there is no such thing as "trespassing", and in fact these individuals have committed absolutely no criminal offense at all. It is bad manners to board someone else's ship without permission, but not illegal. In point of fact the closest that maritime law comes to this situation is that of a stowaway, and Maritime law requires that these people be dropped off at the nearest convenient port, in this case Australia.

What was different in the Bethune case was that he was armed, had previously assaulted the ship's crew, etc. These people offered no violence and just came to deliver a message. You could no more arrest them for trespassing than you could the postman.

7 ( +13 / -7 )

virtually the entire world opinion is against it

Rubbish. Certain media outlets/individuals might want you to believe that, but looking around and seeing the actual voices of various peoples over the last couple of days it would seem the tide is turning and people have grown weary of the pro-violence, pro-cultural imperialist collection of misfits and their illegal and self-satisfying acts of terrorism.

1 ( +12 / -15 )

So, will the SM2 now return to the nearest Aussie port/rendezvous with an Aussie vessel to offload the three? Either way the SI has the chance to get rid of its tail. Mission accomplished.

-4 ( +10 / -12 )

The three activists, who are members of an environmental group, said they were helping Sea Shepherd “end illegal whale poaching.”

Wrong. It is legal. They should have just thrown them over board.

-7 ( +9 / -19 )

“The best way to stop whaling once and for all is through our court action” in the International Court of Justice in the Hague, she said

It's legal for now. BUT it is also offensive to do whaling right in fullview of a country who deems it illegal.

3 ( +11 / -7 )

It's legal for now.

It'll be legal once the court case has completed too.

BUT it is also offensive to do whaling right in fullview of a country who deems it illegal.

Come on, it's not like they are nude sunbathing in Abu Dhabi.

The whaling activities take place in international waters where no one has to see it taking place, unless they spend millions of dollars such as SS does to go out of their way to do so. If it weren't for the Australian media having nothing better to this wouldn't be an issue.

-1 ( +9 / -13 )

Good to hear that they will be released. But in a way it would have been better had Japan done her typical reaction and made long term headlines over the issue. They are learning.

Good luck with the rest of the season working to make whaling as inconvenient as possible.

0 ( +9 / -8 )

What a shame the japanese have capitulated, these prirates should have been brought back to japan and tried for piracy. Dissapointed in the hard line japan let go of so easily.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

I would love to hear a Japanese PM one day use those same words and state the obvious - that whaling under scientific research pretences is " unacceptable and costly to the Japanese taxpayer "....that`d be the day..

1 ( +7 / -6 )

"Return us to shore in Australia and then remove yourself from our waters”

This line made me laugh.

Maritime law requires that these people be dropped off at the nearest convenient port, in this case Australia.

Actually, South America may actually be closer, depending on the actual location of the ships at the time.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Last time I checked Japan was not an enemy of Australia and this token of goodwill probably won't be forgotten.

They came with the message, “Return us to shore in Australia and then remove yourself from our waters,” Sea Shepherd said.

I'd do what they ask by stopping off at Heard Island and leaving them there.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

spudman

Epic fail from hard line Japan. A crack in the public opinion armor!

Epic fail? Hardly. SS just got the Australian PM to condemn their MO.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

Smart move on Japan's part ... somebody's learning the nuances of how to quietly solve diplomatic headaches.

What a shame the japanese have capitulated, these prirates should have been brought back to japan and tried for piracy. Dissapointed in the hard line japan let go of so easily.

From Japan's point of view, if they had charged them, there would be news stories for the next several months. By releasing them they avoid the publicity.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

"What a shame the japanese have capitulated, these prirates should have been brought back to japan and tried for piracy. Dissapointed in the hard line japan let go of so easily."

Pirates? A little over the top eh?

0 ( +6 / -5 )

Token of goodwill?...give me a break ...this is the best way for Japan to get the issue off the headlines - thats why they are handing them over quickly..

4 ( +6 / -2 )

@Daijoboots

Interesting post. The rhetoric sounds similar to that of a corporate lawyer. Some parts of what your post are true. People grow weary. They lose the taste for battle. Corporations and deep pocket lawyers are experts at the turtle game.

Then there are those who will go the distance with you. There are people who love the long hard battle for what they believe is right. They will never stop and their spirit cannot be broken. It is at that time when the tables get turned.

I applaud your way of speaking though. I can tell you are a professional at what you do. You could easily be the head of Slytherin. You sound almost like Draco....calling them misfits.

Acts of terrorism???

You are playing with words. Terrorism is commonly thought of as ; bombs, guns, suicide bombers, HUMANS killed by covert organizations that hide from the public eye.

No, I'm sorry Daijo. I respectfully disagree with you. There is only one organization that is spilling blood into the water. There is only one organization that is actually using weapons - Harpoons!!!... launched at innocent mammals.

I hate to break the news to you but Japan's scientific research isn't research at all. Research usually requires the subject to be alive.

Now Daijo, I have only one request and I ask it on behalf of most of the readers here. Please don't insult our intelligence trying to convince us that what they are doing is "scientific". I have "The Discovery Channel" and I haven't seen a video presented by Japanese scientists yet. The organization you protect offers no transparency because they simply can't.

Migration patterns, birthing rates, eating habits, etc etc cannot be discovered after you've harpooned them.

To be honest, Daigo, I've never really followed the matter. I wouldn't eat whate meat and I'm not really concerned about what someone in some small corner of the world is eating. I'm just happy that person is eating. What I do have a problem with is someone trying to tell me the emperor is wearing clothes when I can see he's butt naked.

I know it's a multimillion dollar industry for you but hey IF the world has a problem with this and they are trying to protect the creature then you need to respect that. Instead Japan goes for bribes and loopholes and insults everybody's intelligence in the process. Not cool. That puts me on the other side. Even if it's really not my beef I can still see that Japan's whaling industry are bold face liars. Nothing more I hate in the world than a liar.

-2 ( +8 / -9 )

Gillard thanked Japan for its cooperation and criticized the boarding tactic as "unacceptable and will ultimately be costly to the Australian taxpayer". "No one should assume that because an agreement has been reached with the Japanese government in this instance that individuals will not be charged and convicted in the future" ,she said.

This isn't the first time that the Japanese have released a few morons who illegally climbed aboard their vessels. I believe the first time was in 2008. Bethune was taken to Japan because he was involved in physically attacking the whalers.

These three fools were conned by the eco-terrorist Watson into ILLEGALLY boarding the SM2 and asking for a ride home after the eco-terrorist SS abandoned them there. Dumb, Dumber, and Dumbest will be home soon and can go back to living in the trees.

5 ( +10 / -7 )

Probably the smartest thing to do. Keeping them aboard for the hunting season and/or taking them back to Japan for trial would have cost a LOT more than to let them go, and still the actions of the three have brought attention to Japan's 'science'. So, I guess it's win-win for the environmentalists.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

I have NO OBJECTION to using my tax dollars in this way.... please send more of my tax dollars to help the SS effort.

-5 ( +8 / -12 )

Epic fail? Hardly. SS just got the Australian PM to condemn their MO.

And only after immense public pressure to secure their release did the Prime Minister have to do something. The Aussie public generally has had their hackles raised by the Japanese Govt's arrogance in chasing a boat, not a whale to just outside territorial waters. Never mind what a failing Prime Minister says, it's public opinion that counts, unlike the feckless Japanese public who are unable to protest against their government,(it's a crime in Japan without Govt permission) the Aussies hold their pollies to task. It's the difference between real and pseudo democracies.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Where have those posters gone now who were proclaiming the three would be hung, drawn and quartered, force-fed whale 3 times a day, etc? Logic and commonsense has prevailed as I predicted it would. We await the SS next move.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

Nice post Netninja! I think it is useful to remember that this all started with these whalers abusing the law by exploiting a loophole as dishonestly as possible. They are using it as a cover for commercial whaling and the only ones doing anything about it, whether we like them or not, is SS.

Both groups flout the law, but the whalers started it. And while the ban on commercial whaling should probably be repealed, many here are quick to criticize SS for not going through legal channels to change things while not expecting the same of the whalers.

You may hate liars most of all Netninja, but for me they are second on my list. Hypocrites get the top spot!

-4 ( +4 / -7 )

@smithinjapan

So, I guess it's win-win for the environmentalists

What did they win?

2 ( +6 / -5 )

@Vikingflute

as virtually the entire world opinion is against it

Really? Or did you just make that up?

I'm sure most people in the world don't give 2 hoots. And a lot of starving people would like some of that whale meat action if they had things like the internet or newspapers to even know about it.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

spudmanreincarnated

Never mind what a failing Prime Minister says, it's public opinion that counts...

if so it doesn't say much for Australian public opinion or their ability, or lack there of, to be rational about the anti-whaling cause.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

@ gogogo

I have NO OBJECTION to using my tax dollars in this way.... please send more of my tax dollars to help the SS effort.

As a tax-paying Australian resident, I take offense at this. Please DON'T waste MY valuable tax dollars on this rot. Bill SS for any costs incurred, then ban them from Australain ports if they don't pay up. In fact, ban them anyway as their tactics are the opposite of what the goverment are doing.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Exactly. There's only one country in the world that is fighting whaling through the courts and to have your actions condemned by the Prime Minister and the Attorney General can not be regarded as a good thing.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Actually considering they were off the coast of Western Australia, the loonies three shpuld have gotte dropped off at Cheynes Beach Whaling Station.

http://www.whaleworld.org/About_Whale_World/Cheynes_Beach_Whaling_Company

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@ReformedBasher

I have NO OBJECTION to using my tax dollars in this way.... please send more of my tax dollars to help the SS effort.

As a tax-paying Australian resident, I take offense at this.

As also a tax-paying Australian resident, I am EXTREMELY happy my tax dollars are being used to save the whales.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

WOW, someone in Nagatacho turned on the ON switch to their noodle & used it! Whoda thunk it!

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Gerard: You're not the first to make this false comparison. Are cows wild born creatures that gracefully swim the oceans?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Releasing these three man was a wise decision on the Japanese side. No information about the deal behind the scenes about what they asked for in return from the Australians.

Gillard criticizes antiwhaling activists

Is that all the Japanese asked for? I doubt.

An Australian customs ship was headed toward the security ship Shonan Maru No. 2 to collect the three men: ..........."It is anticipated that this will take some days and be subject to weather conditions," Gillard said in a statement.

What does it mean, will SM2 wait for the custom custom ship for days while letting Steve Irvin slip out from her tailing? Was this Watson's plan? Or he hoped SM2 will instantly deliver the activist to Japan, thus pulling out from the game?

Watson seems to be a smart resourceful man trying to make it big by involving outsiders and diplomacy, but as I see he doesn't have specific plans, he rather makes it out as things are going on and the whole thing is getting worse every year.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

"I don't understand why it's not ok to kill and eat a whale but it is ok to torture cows from the moment they are born to provide us with meat and milk. As for whale meat, I had some and found it very tasty so can understand there would be a demand."

"Gerard: You're not the first to make this false comparison. Are cows wild born creatures that gracefully swim the oceans?"

Moderator: Just curious. Why is Gerard ON topic and I'm OFF topic?

Moderator: Gerard's post is not on topic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@ Gogogo,

Saving whales, I'm okay with.

Saving SS, I'm not.

If a species of animal is either endangered or needlessy abused, I'm all for stopping it, assuming it makes sense. For example, spending huge amounts of money to save some rare beetle on a remote island would be a waste to me. The whales too, unless they are actually endangered and/or needlessy abused, I have no problem with people catching them and eating them. I realise death by harpoon is a bad way to go but try watching how killer whales kill other whales and tell me what's worse.

0 ( +6 / -7 )

@ NetNinja

As I said, I don't mind what you eat. I do mind if you do it to the point where you hurt the planet.

Well said.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Next time will be shoot first and then ask questions.....

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The Munya Times - What does it mean, will SM2 wait for the custom custom ship for days while letting Steve Irvin slip out from her tailing? Was this Watson's plan? Or he hoped SM2 will instantly deliver the activist to Japan, thus pulling out from the game?

The first time 2 eco-terrorist SS fools climbed aboard a Japanese vessel (2008), the whaler took them some 200 nm and dropped them off with an Australian vessel and the eco-terrorist Watson had to go get them.

I assume in this case that the SM2 will continue on course until the Australian custom ship catches up and then a transfer will take place. By that time, another Japanese security vessel should be in a position to keep track of the eco-terrorist scow.

The eco-terrorist Watson's plan was to abandon the 3 losers and hopefully leave the faster security vessel behind to deal with a new problem. One security vessel or another will still be trailing Watson before, during, and after the transfer is made.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

I'm lovin' it. Ersatz "progressive" Gillard finally denounces the SS eco-terrorists. Eco-bunnies in OZ and elsewhere hopping mad. It will also hurt her in the polls but Gillard needs to publicly come down on Canada as well. Paul Watson is a criminal, endangering the lives of Japanese and Aussies.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Best thing to do is have the 3 pay for all of the expenses. The expense of having the 3 in a berthing. Then add the cost of the customs cutter. The eco-pests will learn a lesson.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

ReformedBasher - As a tax-paying Australian resident, I take offense at this. Please DON'T waste MY valuable tax dollars on this rot.

Well, I am an Australian residing on Japan and I take offense to my taxes and tsunami relief donations being used to support the so-called, 'research'. Does that make us even?

As an Aussie resident you should be quite pissed by the fact that, the last two PMs have made election promises of stopping this farce and here we are, five years later and still no resolution what-so-ever!

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Yuriotani,

What I wud love to see is those idiot whaling vessels pay their own way instead of having me & the rest of Japan paying for this insanity, meanwhile funds go wanting in Tohoku!

0 ( +4 / -4 )

as virtually the entire world opinion is against it

Sadly not the case. Money talks and if you pay poor island and African countries enough, they'll vote with the Japanese as they don't care one way or the other.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Gillard thanked Japan for its cooperation and criticized the boarding tactic as “unacceptable and will ultimately be costly to the Australian taxpayer.”

Thats hilarious Gillard, l am personally happy for you to use my taxes (especially my carbon tax, you know the one you promised we would never get) and put these towards the costs. I would rather this money go to a worthy cause rather than an incompetent leader like you. Afterall the SS tactics may be unacceptable, but you are equally unacceptable as a PM so please do us all a favour and keep your mouth shut.

-7 ( +3 / -9 )

What a shame the japanese have capitulated, these prirates should have been brought back to japan and tried for piracy. Dissapointed in the hard line japan let go of so easily.

Japan would've lost that case and wasted taxpayers' money, if the judge didn't dismiss it outright.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

ReformedBasher: "What did they win?"

A blue-fin tuna from the Mediterranean! No, but really, it is win-win for them. They get released with no charges, and have drawn all sorts of attention to their cause (even negative attention is attention!).

As for the 'I'm offended as a tax-payer' crap, you'd think the J-government spending $30 million in earthquake relief funds to defend the whalers would be more of a burr in your saddle.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

As an Aussie resident you should be quite pissed by the fact that, the last two PMs have made election promises of stopping this farce and here we are, five years later and still no resolution what-so-ever!

The government has taken their concerns to the ICJ for civilized, mature resolution there. Australia has no jurisdiction over Japan, the war is over. Taking it to court and letting the judges rule is the most Australia can do.

If the Australian voters were led to believe otherwise, then they were just a bit silly, weren't they.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Well, I am an Australian residing on Japan and I take offense to my taxes and tsunami relief donations being used to support the so-called, 'research'. Does that make us even?

Convince others with your actions. Vote with your feet.

As an Aussie resident you should be quite pissed by the fact that, the last two PMs have made election promises of stopping this farce and here we are, five years later and still no resolution what-so-ever!

"Progressive" promises aren't really meant to be taken seriously. They are mostly about making the listener feel good.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

As usual, j-gov catch and release any criminals in the sea. and also like those pirates know about it. I think that if the SS targets chinese ships and board it, they weren't able surviving.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

arrestpaulJan. 10, 2012 - 12:31PM JST

The eco-terrorist Watson's plan was to abandon the 3 losers and hopefully leave the faster security vessel behind to deal with a new problem.

This is a serious accusation.

Watson didn't let BB and her crew down, didn't let Ady Gil down and SSCS payed for Bethune lawyers. I don't think he planned to let them down but I think he risks their safety, freedom or even lives by letting and assisting them boarding the Japanese security vessel.

My very personal opinion is that I don't object any demonstrations, campaigns, and tactical operations carried out bye Sea Shepherd, Greenpeace or any other non-governmental environmental organizations and activist until it is within the frame of the law. I take it as a natural thing in democracy.

I think that demonstrating is acceptable but boarding the security vessel is plain wrong.

A./ It creates security concern for the Japanese as they cannot take it for sure they boarded empty handed and must check the whole vessel searching for tracking devices, in best case, or anything else.

B./ The boarding and cutting through the barbed wires are dangerous they might lose their lives. Steve Irvin and the BB are also protected the same way, as they wouldn't welcome the Japanese boarding their ships either.

C./ Watson might think he creates diplomatic issues with the help of Australian citizens but the outcome of these issues are uncertain and are not in the hands of Watson i.e. gambling. He wanted to place the Australian government under pressure to stand up for their citizens but just gave a good playing card into the hands of the Japanese. They returned the men and now it's their turn to put pressure on the Australian government by asking support in return for their courtesy. Get support?? O.K. No support?? Still can run a trial in Japan or before international court. Watson was plain wrong even if he won't let them down.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Well, I am an Australian residing on Japan and I take offense to my taxes and tsunami relief donations being used to support the so-called, 'research'.

Well unless you gave your tsunami donations to the government you will be pleased to know that your donations have gone to Tohoku. But I think that you knew that already.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

For those of you who think that the SS has won the PR battle. This is from a major Australian newspaper where it likens them to Somali pirates. The comments underneath are very interesting as well, calling Watson 'obnoxious', 'a nasty piece of work' etc

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/all_pirates_must_be_punished

Some claim that there is no such thing as bad PR. I'd be very interested to see the positive spin placed on this.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

@spudmanreincarnated

The Aussie public generally has had their hackles raised by the Japanese Govt's arrogance in chasing a boat, not a whale to just outside territorial waters

Where I work, the "Aussie public" was annoyed that this ever became a news item. They'd prefer to watch something else on TV during their lunch hour.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

@smithinjapan

ReformedBasher: "What did they win?" A blue-fin tuna from the Mediterranean!

Funny :-)

As for the 'I'm offended as a tax-payer' crap, you'd think the J-government spending $30 million in earthquake relief funds to defend the whalers would be more of a burr in your saddle.

Prove it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Ok so many posters on here are critisising the 3 for boarding the Japanese vessel. My question is this, what exactly was the Japanese vessel doing there in the first place? Was it transiting the area as some posters have suggested? No it wasnt. Was it heading south towards the whaling grounds? No it wasnt. The facts are, the SM2 was heading North away from the whaling grounds at very slow speed (between 5 and 9 knots), the SM2 then arrived off Rottnest island and proceeded to loiter in the area between 29.86 and 35 km from the nearest shoreline. It arrived in this position 5/1/12 at 10:50 am and reduced its speed to 1.7 knots while heading directly towards the Australian mainland. So what exactly was the SM2 doing? It was waiting for the Steve Irwin is exactly what it was doing as the Steve Irwin was in port and departed at 12:56 on the 6/1/12. So in other words the SM2 was waiting to tail and harrass the Steve Irwin and yet the SS bashers and Japanese would have you believe that the SM2 was merely transitting the area on its way to protect the glorious whalers.

-5 ( +3 / -7 )

@Jimmy Mills

Shooting the protestors won't help anyone, including the whalers.

I say dump them on an island and tell the Australian authorities where they are to picked up. SS can foot the bill and hopefully get banned. How about protecting orangutans in Indonesia instead? Not heroic enough for their tastes?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

And of course you are willing to share the site, etc so that we can confirm your statements. And thx, you also just shot down many of the arguments posted here by others.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

It"S ME

And of course you are willing to share the site, etc so that we can confirm your statements.

Certainly, firstly log into the internet and go to google and well look it up for yourself there buddy....

And thx, you also just shot down many of the arguments posted here by others.

Yes l know it must be upsetting to realise that a lot of you have swallowed the JWA, ICR and Ginza Glens story hook line and sinker. How sad

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Readers, please do not be impolite toward one another. If you are not willing to be tolerant of opposing views, then please do not post here. And remember that neither side has the moral high ground.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cletus.

Riddle me this. If YOU can track the whalers online than why can't SSCS do so too and why is there even an argument if the SM2 was in Australian waters or not. No need for drones, etc.

I am sure the SSCS ships have Internet access on them?

And I googled it on the AIS site and the SM2 is listed as "Out of range".

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Nobody has to prove anything.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It"S ME

Riddle me this. If YOU can track the whalers online than why can't SSCS do so too and why is there even an argument if the SM2 was in Australian waters or not. No need for drones, etc.

I never said l could track the whalers online l merely said that according to the independent information that is available on both the whalers and SS locations at a particular time this is what it appears has happened.

And I googled it on the AIS site and the SM2 is listed as "Out of range".

Your looking in the wrong area l think

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Ms. Gillard is absolutely right to criticize the actions of these three blokes. As the current law stands and with the loophole regarding scientific whaling, Japan catches the annual quota that is permitted due to this loophole. Like it or not, it is currently legal. Whether or not most whales end up in sushi shops is irrelevant to the current laws in place. That is why Ms. Gillard says that the best and only way to stop the whaling is in an international court. Ironically, I think the SS has made the whole situation worse by raising awareness in Japan and making Japanese people more interested in eating whalemeat rather than protecting the whales! I just hope that doesn't turn out to be true. Demand for whalemeat in Japan is so low, it isn't funny. Most people under forty have either never eaten it at all or maybe tried it once and thought it was pretty average. Let's try to keep it that way.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

More interesting points to ponder about this whole saga.

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard said the customs ship would likely take several days of traveling at top speed to rendezvous with the security ship the Shonan Maru No. 2 to pick up the three Australians

This quote makes no sense when you look at it. Given that the incident took place 30 km off the coast of Australia and given the fact that the SM2 had been slowly cruising up the coast and had come to pretty much a dead stop and waited for the Steve Irwin to leave port then why would it take days to collect the men unless after they where caught the SM2 hastily departed Australian waters. So they can sit for days off an Australian port but when bordered they flee to open seas. Strange.

The article also states.

Gillard said the Japanese government had been told the Shonan Maru No. 2 “was not welcome” within Australia’s exclusive economic zone before the three activists boarded it in Australian waters.

So the vessel was told it was not welcome within 200 km of the Australian coastline yet it sat for days 30 km off the coast. What did the Australian government do about this? Why was nothing done. Now what l find interesting is that last year the Japanese government complained about Russia flying aircraft around Japan outside its 200 km EEZ yet here we have a JGC manned vessel being told its not welcome in our EEZ and they not only ignore our EEZ but also our contaguos zone and stop and stake out an Australian port. Yet all the anti activists on here are failing to mention this. Even the JT headline screams that the protesters are in the wrong yet here is the PM of Australia saying the Japanese where told not to come within 200 km of the mainland and yet they came to within 30 km.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

why is there even an argument if the SM2 was in Australian waters or not

Because the SM2 was skulking with its AIS turned off.

Before it turned it off - http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?oldmmsi=431934000&zoom=10&olddate=1/5/2012%2010:58:00%20AM

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Cleo,

The statement you copy and pasted makes it all a mute point now as the Australian PM is quoted as saying the SM2 was told it wasnt welcome inside our EEZ and it was a mere 170km inside that line. Remember this vessel is manned by JCG members acting on orders from the JCG therefore the Japanese government has blatantly ignored the wishes of Australia and sailed its vessel into waters it was explicitly told not to enter. Therefore it was an illegal entry and SHOULD have been boarded and either impounded as an illegal entry or forcefully removed. I think the Japanese are very lucky this didnt happen to them

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Cletus, I agree - the SM2 should have been ordered (and made) to remove itself from Aussie waters before any activists had a chance to breach its 'security'. Japan appears to be keeping as low a profile as possible about the whole thing, presumably because they know making a fuss and having everything out in the open would show them in a much worse light both legally and morally than anyone else involved.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

For all those who has made comments about the three Idiots that boarded the Japanese Ship, please be reminded of some facts that are very relevant :

The Shonan Maru 2' is not a whaling ship as such, it is a "Muscle - Security" ship - Used mostly on spying on the protest ships and for protection of the other whaling ships. The three dickheads that boarded it does NOT represent the Sea Shepherd organization. They actually belong to the "Forest Rescue" environmental group!

Please don't associate or allocate blame of their stupid antics to the Sea Shepherd Movement - Read and focus on the facts people!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Cleo.

I can't track any of the SSCS ships either right now via the site.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It"S ME

I can't track any of the SSCS ships either right now via the site.

Because they are out of range

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

ReformedBasher < Please make note of my last comment - Those idiots did not AND does not represent the Sea Shepherd movement!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Cletus,.

Doh, the site told me that, same reply as when I tried to trace the whaling ships. Now Global Positioning Systems mean that you can be located anywhere on this globe within a 3 metre accuracy.

Guess they all switched their AIS off. Pity, if they need help or need to be rescued, etc.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

It"S ME

Doh, the site told me that, same reply as when I tried to trace the whaling ships. Now Global Positioning Systems mean that you can be located anywhere on this globe within a 3 metre accuracy. Guess they all switched their AIS off. Pity, if they need help or need to be rescued, etc.

Actually no if you look at the AIS map it only tracks within a certain distance from land. Well thats what us members of the public see otherwise if you could trace then at sea then it would make it easy for say the pirates of the world to track particularily valuable ships for example.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

the SM2 should have been ordered (and made) to remove itself from Aussie waters before any activists had a chance to breach its 'security'.

They would have if they could have Cleo, but it would been illegal. Hence they didn't.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Hope you aussies eco supporters are happy about funding these three idjits jaunt around the ocean, wasting valuable tax $'s . Dickheads these three, if they thought things through they could have been employed instead of wasting tax payers money and time.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Cletus.

Dead wrong. That is the info they make available to the public(free of charge).

They collect and publish all the info to subscribers, etc and the info is also used in legal cases like the AG incident.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

OnlyAGaijin - 1.The three dickheads that boarded it does NOT represent the Sea Shepherd organization. They actually belong to the "Forest Rescue" environmental group!

Please don't associate or allocate blame of their stupid antics to the Sea Shepherd Movement - Read and focus on the facts people!

Then how do you explain their being on an eco-terrorist scow in the first place? Is Watson running a taxi service? Were they stowaways? How did these 3 fools manage to get from the SI to the SM2? Who's little boat did they use? Who were they communicating with via their SS radios?

Are you suggesting that these 3 were hiding on board the SI and then stole a small boat, cold water suits, and radios before heading over to the SM2? Who piloted the small boat back to the SS scow?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

"Gillard said the Japanese government had been told the Shonan Maru No. 2 “was not welcome” within Australia’s exclusive economic zone before the three activists boarded it in Australian waters."

Would all postersof the last couple of days, that couldn't accept that The Japanese ship was where it shouldn't be, now like to publicly apologise.

As I said yesterday, This was a Clear & Arrogant Insult to Australia......very disrespectful.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Hope you aussies eco supporters are happy about funding these three idjits jaunt around the ocean, wasting valuable tax $'s .

Just like you kiwis funded your Peter Bethune last year. Still doing the book tour in NZ - I hear he was popular there?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

ObviousDemon

Would all postersof the last couple of days, that couldn't accept that The Japanese ship was where it shouldn't be, now like to publicly apologise. As I said yesterday, This was a Clear & Arrogant Insult to Australia......very disrespectful.

Well said. I too am waiting for the apologies from those that have been supporting Japan when it turns out all along the Japanese ship had no right to be where it was and as such this whole incident is the fault of the SM2. Its interesting non of the pro Japanese are acknowledging this point though

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

I guess this incident does affect bilateral trade, hence why suddenly labor changed their stance on the situation.. even though Gillard, Rudd and labor in general support the cause..

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yep.

I read through about 50 posts before anyone even hinted at 'where the boat was'.

Some even Quoted Mz. Gillard, yet chose to overlook THIS quote.???

Some still continue to haggle over 'How do we KNOW where the boat actually was'??

Well, it was "In Australian Waters" and we KNOW this, because Australia's PRIME MINISTER told you so, and nobody from Tokyo has come out to try to discredit it........

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

I hope the three protesters will be forced to pay the bills for the costs they forced the rest of Australia's tax payers to pay just to have them returned !!!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Patrick Smash,

You seem to prejudge the outcome of the ICJ process, so much so that you claim to speak of all of us.

I see a strong possibility that the ICJ ruling will conflict greatly with your preconceptions about the nature of the research whaling.

If such is the case, you will find yourself in the perhaps uncomfortable position of needing to then reconcile it with your conflicting views, and perhaps reconstruct your views accordingly. I hope you are able to accept the ICJ's objectivity, over your own personal convictions.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

My understanding of maritime law is that all legally flagged and registered vessels can navigate in a countrys EEZ without any problem or need for any formal permission.

Because this boat was in aussie waters doesnt make it legal for three unemployed drop kicks to board it coz they dont like it sailing there. THAT EQUATES TO PIRACY full stop.

Eco terroists = unemployed wastrels.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

To my humble understanding, even a warship may enter national waters, as stated in the sea law convention, if the intend means no harm. This happens when eg us ships make a port call. Nevertheless even if the Aussie pm states that the sm2 entered aussi waters, this does not necessarily mean it is correct. No offense to our Australian nationals intended.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

ExportExpert

My understanding of maritime law is that all legally flagged and registered vessels can navigate in a countrys EEZ without any problem or need for any formal permission.

The fact is they were not only in Australia's EEZ (after being instructed by our government not to be) they where also inside our contaguos zone. Now my issue here is the Australian government requested that the Japanese Coast Guard vessel NOT enter our EEZ. Now before everyone jumps up and down about this not being a JCG vessel please have a look at the sign painted on the side of the vessel in particular the one the says in massive letters "Government of Japan" So the Japanese government ignored the Australian governments request not to enter the Australian EEZ. Now to see the hypcrisy in this we need only look back at last year when Japan raised hell over Russia flying planes outside Japans EEZ, when Japan complained about China sailing ships in international waters outside its EEZ. Do you see the issue? Japan complains when other countries come near its EEZ but it happily sends a government vessel into another nations EEZ even after being asked not to.

Because this boat was in aussie waters doesnt make it legal for three unemployed drop kicks to board it coz they dont like it sailing there. THAT EQUATES TO PIRACY full stop.

Ok fair point maybe the Australian government should have treated this vessel like others that enter our EEZ illegally, seize the vessel and burn it, place the crew into immigration detention centres and then deport them. I agree that would have been a much better outcome although a bit more costly in money terms.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

"By International Law"........One country can Nuke another, if it has correctly followed the process (Please note that neither Australia or Japan have any nuclear weapons)......still doesn't make it ethical, let alone how 'friends' treat each other.

If a Chinese Government boat went sailing under the Golden Gate bridge looking to pre-emptively harrass anti-homophobia protestors, who annually go out to protest China's annual Homophobia Hunt (but just for Research) would that be ethical, or acceptable? Especially if they had already been warned by U.S. authorities not to come within 200kms??

And then if you had to read internet posters saying "but their GPS doesn't show that they were actually UNDER the Bridge" so it can't be true, despite live TV coverage with pictures on NBC?????

Ridiculous....

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Cletus.

Since when is the SM2 a JCG vessel? Pls, provide proof.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

A nice image courtesy of Wikipedia that should hopefully explain the situation to those who are unsure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zonmar-en.svg

The fact is they were not only in Australia's EEZ (after being instructed by our government not to be) they where also inside our contaguos zone = international waters.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

It"S ME

Since when is the SM2 a JCG vessel? Pls, provide proof.

Please tell me your joking.. PLEASE

Ok lets see, it has been repeatedly reported including on this site that the SM2 is manned by JCG personal to act as security for the whalers, it is also painted with a rather large sign on the side that says "Government of Japan". Now yes its not a commissioned Coast Guard vessel but is leased by the GOJ and manned by the JCG. Much the same as other nations lease civilian vessels for use by their military, coast guards or government agencies. One example is the Aust customs vessel currently heading to pick up the three men its a leased civilian ship manned by Australian customs therefore is a customs vessel as the SM2 is leased and operated by the JCG.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

It's Me

Have you SEEN a picture of SM2 lately???

It's painted white with 10 foot high ENGLISH letters saying "Government of Japan"

Of course, it would have reached out to the English speaking world if it had been more Jinglish.....hehheeeeee

"Japan the Boatist Governmentying (but not holds the Harpooning)"

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@Frungy

Actually, under Maritime law (which is the law that applies in this situation), there is no such thing as "trespassing", and in fact these individuals have committed absolutely no criminal offense at all.

General maritime principles will strongly disagree with you here,

general maritime principles stated that it was unlawful to board another ship without its permission. "The vessel is entitled to resist boarding action."

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the domestic law of the country where a ship is registered - in this case Japan - applies.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

YubaruJan. 10, 2012 - 05:45PM JST General maritime principles will strongly disagree with you here, general maritime principles stated that it was unlawful to board another ship without its permission. "The vessel is entitled to resist boarding action."

Principles, not laws. There's a world of difference between the two. Like I said before, it's bad manners (unprincipled) to board someone else's ship, and if you're caught doing it you can expect the back of someone's hand as they try to stop you doing it, but once you're on the ship and have demonstrated no hostile intent then you can't smack them around.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

GW, I hate the ideal of my tax money supporting the slaughter of whales. I call them "eco-pests" because they are more of a nuisance than a actual threat. A group of terrorists would of boarded and have used deadly force upon the crew. They did good by turning them over to the Aussies.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Cletus

In this case Australia had no authority to dictate whether the SM2 could or couldn't sail into, out of, or loiter in its EEZ. As long as the SM2 was not availing itself of the marine resources of the Australian EEZ, i.e. fishing, drilling, mining, etc., which it was not, it did not need anyone's permission to transit or loiter there. You're confusing EEZ with territorial waters for which there are restriction even if conducting 'innocent passage'.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

USNinJapan2

In this case Australia had no authority to dictate whether the SM2 could or couldn't sail into, out of, or loiter in its EEZ. As long as the SM2 was not availing itself of the marine resources of the Australian EEZ, i.e. fishing, drilling, mining, etc., which it was not, it did not need anyone's permission to transit or loiter there. You're confusing EEZ with territorial waters for which there are restriction even if conducting 'innocent passage'.

2 points here, 1 they not only breached the EEZ (despite being asked not to but also the contaguos zone), they didnt transit the zones they sat off the coast and waited for the SS vessel. Yet the media in Japan have made claims that the SM2 was transiting the area on the way to the whaling grounds. An obvious lie on their part.

Point 2 would you consider this a hostile act by the Japanese government? I will remind you of what you said last year in response to Russia flying aircraft around Japan OUTSIDE its EEZ. You stated that while not illegal it is a hostile act. So what would you describe Japans actions as in this case? Yes they can transit the EEZ, they can transit the contaguos zone. But once they enter the contaguos zone then they are subject to Australian customs laws, now as we have seen in past years the SM2 has deployed concussion grenades against SS vessels. And under the customs regulations for Australia these items are banned in Australia so a least if these items where on board a Japanese vessel in Australian waters then they are breaking Australian law. They are also disrespecting Australia's wishes by entering these zones despite being instructed not to.

Finally have a look back through this very site and see the Japanese responses when a Chinese, Korean or Russian plane or ship enters NEAR Japans EEZ. Read the outrage it causes. Now imagine a Chinese Coast Guard vessel sails up and stops 30 km off Tokyo, Nagoya or another Japanese city. What would the Japanese response be. Honestly think about that how would the Japanese react because this is PRECISELY what they have done to Australia.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

UsninJP

Good post, bout the only one of yours I have ever agreed with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cletus, I think you need to understand the term international waters because you'll find that the contaguos waters are in international waters and although they are 'unwelcome' by the Australian government they have breached no law. Something that the Attorney general said a couple of days ago.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Heda_Madness

Cletus, I think you need to understand the term international waters because you'll find that the contaguos waters are in international waters and although they are 'unwelcome' by the Australian government they have breached no law. Something that the Attorney general said a couple of days ago.

While the JCG vessel was free to transit through the area or even loiter in the area the point l am trying to make is the hypocrisy of the situation. As l have said all one needs to do is go back through articles on this site to see this, Japan screams and carries on every time a Chinese or Russian or Korea ship or plane comes near the Japanese EEZ. Yet here we have an example of a Japanese government vessel ignoring the wishes of a major ally and stalking its coast. So next time there is an issue where the above mentioned nations come near Japan causing a spat l will expect to see you standing there lecturing all the offended Japanese that they have no right to complain. And if you dont then that makes you a hypocrite too.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

it's bad manners (unprincipled) to board someone else's ship, and if you're caught doing it you can expect the back of someone's hand as they try to stop you doing it, but once you're on the ship and have demonstrated no hostile intent then you can't smack them around.

So in effect what you are saying then is that, as an example here, I could board, let's say a cruise ship while it is in international waters, and there is nothing illegal about it? Just because I may not have any hostile intent?

I highly doubt it.

Plus these two guys boarded with the intent of having the ship return them to Australian shores to stop them from pursuing the boat tracking the whalers.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

As long as there's whale meat for me if I want to eat it in Japan or anywhere else, this is a non-event. No lives were lost, just some shenanigan of self-righteous Aussies who were lucky it is a Japanese ship and not from some other less forgiving countries.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Cletus

You need help if you can't differentiate between the unarmed Shonan Maru 2 and a Russian bomber circumnavigating Japan on a practice nuclear bombing run.

Perhaps you should take a hint from the Australian government's non-response to the SM2's presence in its contiguous zone. They knew that their authority to enforce any of their laws, customs or otherwise, in the contiguous zone is very limited (and wielded only in extreme circumstances) and sensibly didn't choose to enforce them on an innocent party.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Cletus

Yes, the Russians didn't break any laws or violate sovereign airspace with their bombers, BUT, they did knowingly intrude deep into Japan and South Korea's ADIZs which most modern countries have and for which they consider intrusion by military (especially nuclear-capable) aircraft to be a hostile act, certainly diplomatically if not militarily.

This what I said IRT the Russian bomber flights around Japan last year. As for the Korean and Chinese vessels in Japan's EEZ to which the GOJ routinely objects, is it just a coincidence that they are almost all fishing vessels engaged in poaching Japan's marine resources? No hypocrisy in either case.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

(read all the comments? sameolesameole)BUT. Gillard stating this is going to be costly and will cost the tax payer is pathetic. Wong didnt live any wiggling inches in her financial huh? Not even enough to send a boat just a little south of the coast line? Boy Japan are good with their people's well-being! They can send boats all the way down there. Australia is so stingy its whinging about sending one little boat with a bit of gasoline and a couple of people on board down to pick up some Australians-who obviously have the Australian public in mind?!?! That certainly is one tight financer. No defence costs involved whatsoever? And I can hear it now-to cover this cost there will be ANOTHER tax!

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

USNinJapan2,

Yes yes your right, your always right. My humblest apologies for having an opinion on an issue that is relevant to my country. I will just wait until the next Japanese hissy fit over someone being near there EEZ let alone closer and l will remind them of this issue.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

illsayit

Australia is so stingy its whinging about sending one little boat with a bit of gasoline and a couple of people on board down to pick up some Australians-who obviously have the Australian public in mind?!?! That certainly is one tight financer. No defence costs involved whatsoever? And I can hear it now-to cover this cost there will be ANOTHER tax!

But you need to remember sending a boat to collect these guys takes away from the other task of collecting the boat loads of illegals that are coming to Australia. Maybe we can start directing a few of them north to say Japan. After all the caring sharing Japanese would welcome them with open arms....

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Well now we know where that carbon tax can be directed-or maybe just offering jobs to the unemployed, with transfer costs added as bonus could help out-seeing we are talking about cost for one thing, and cletus is suggesting redirecting costs for another.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Cletus

Yes, I am right.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

For all of our dear posters that want to use "Australia's AG Nichola Roxon says" to prove their own point of view, here's what she said tonight, after ANOTHER Japanese whale boat coming within FIVE miles of Australain Territory....

"We have asked our embassy today to reiterate to the Japanese government that whaling vessels are not welcome in Australian territorial waters," a spokesperson for Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said in response to the claim.

"The Australian government believes strongly that Japan's so-called scientific whaling is illegal."

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/government-reminds-japan-whalers-to-stay-out/story-e6frfku0-1226241198624#ixzz1j3QByj6M

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@ Ihope2eatWhales - Dude, you've been "hoping" to do that for a long time. Ever heard of a supermarket? You can get the junk there canned or sometimes in the meat section. Careful though - you may just be getting dolphin laced with mercury - the labelling laws in regards to the actual meat are extremely weak here.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Dear friends in Japan. Aussies genuinely like Japanese people and welcome Japanese tourists with open arms. After all the hostility and ugliness of WW2 we are good friends in the international scene HOWEVER Japan insists on provoking Australian anger by continuing to support their so-called "scientific whaling" fleet. Only the Japanese government would think westerners are so stupid as to not recognise the fleet for what it is...a commercial whaling enterprise. So now, Japanese friends, hear this and hear this loudly:

WE DO NOT WANT YOUR WHALING SHIPS COMING INTO OUR TERRITORIAL AND ECONOMIC-EXCLUSION -ZONE WATERS. THIS IS DISRESPECTFUL TOWARDS A FRIENDLY NATION AND HIGHLY PROVOCATIVE.

Australians, as a rule, do not support the actions of the protesters in illegally boarding a Japanese vessel although they understand the sentiment behind the actions of the protesters. Today, however, the Japanese ship, the whale catcher Yushin Maru No. 3, ventured inside Australia's 12 nautical mile territorial limit, where our local law bans whaling. Another vessel of the Japanese fleet went as close as four nautical miles to Tasmania's Macquarie Island. Imagine Japan's anger had an Australian military vessel steamed into your territorial waters without permission or provocation.

No...this has to stop. Either Japan respects its friendly neighbours like Australia or it runs the risk of losing its erstwhile high level of respect amongst ordinary Australian citizens. We do NOT agree with your spurious whaling "research" and will continue to lobby for it to be stopped in the legal forums of the UN. At the moment you can continue to go whaling in international waters BUT STAY OUT OF AUSTRALIAN WATERS BECAUSE WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF JAPAN RUBBING MUD IN OUR FACES!!! Is that clear dear Japanese friends?!?

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

cleoJan. 10, 2012 - 08:41AM JST So, will the SM2 now return to the nearest Aussie port/rendezvous with an Aussie vessel to offload the three? Either >way the SI has the chance to get rid of its tail. Mission accomplished.

The above article states:

"An Australian customs ship was steaming full speed toward a Japanese whaling vessel to pick up three activists "

So,no, mission not accomplished at all.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

well put your money where your mouth is telly and get some Australian boats down there. Tell your govt that you want your taxes spent on defending Australia.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

UtrackJan. 10, 2012 - 09:13AM JST “The best way to stop whaling once and for all is through our court action” in the International Court of Justice in the Hague, she said It's legal for now. BUT it is also offensive to do whaling right in fullview of a country who deems it illegal.

Someone in Australia being able to "see" the research whaling being carried out is a physical impossibility because of the distance involved. It is being carried out in international waters where Australian laws have no jurisdiction and can not be enforced.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

"virtually the entire world opinion is against it

Rubbish. Certain media outlets/individuals might want you to believe that, but looking around and seeing the actual voices of various peoples over the last couple of days it would seem the tide is turning and people have grown weary of the pro-violence, pro-cultural imperialist collection of misfits and their illegal and self-satisfying acts of terrorism."

wise words, couldn't agree more

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Well said telly2.

Editor; All are from Western Australia state = All are from Western Australia. = Ok All are from the state of Western Australia. Ok better.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

888naff...what planet do you live on? Most of the western world, apart from Scandinavia, deplores whaling. Regardless...this issue is not about the legality of whaling in international waters, it is about the actions of these protesters (appalling, but understandable) and the incursion of HEAVILY ARMED security vessels escorting your whaling fleet into Australia's territorial and economic-zone waters. Whaling is ILLEGAL in these waters so, with respect, we want your ships to nick off and stay away!

To "Illsayit"...the only reason Australia has not sent frigates into these areas to police the activities of Japanese whalers and the protesters is because our weak-kneed politicians are scared of the economic repercussions. The average Aussie would have love to have seen Japanese security vessels who breached our waters, seized and then escorted back to international waters, warned about ever coming down this way ever again!

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Smart public relations move by Japan, who came across as the reasonable injured party against the unwarranted incursion of the eco-loons. Now if the Australian government will do it's part and recoup the monies spent on transporting the individuals back home, It will send the proper message.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

As to the issue at hand...this is going to turn out really badly for the Japanese. Australian sentiment was against the protesters initially but after your vessels came into OUR waters the tide of opinion changed quickly. Our government might be weak-kneed but our population does not take kindly to being pushed around by bullies or have your forgotten the lessons of WW2?

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Just because you have law enforcement officials on board a non coast guard registered sea vessel, it doens't mean that civilian vessel is now a military vessel...

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Interesting response, midoritori. So if a Japanese vessel is sinking in our waters should we send you a bill for their rescue after the event??? I think the Japanese government has acted wisely in what is an escalating situation likely to cause great offence to the people of Australia. We do not take kindly to foreign vessels coming into our waters just as Japan bleats long and hard whenever a Chinese or NK vessel steams into yours.

The legality of whaling is something which will eventually be decided by the UN and other international organisations. If Japan carries out whaling in international waters then most Aussies would NOT support the illegal boarding of their vessels by protesters, much as they might sympathise with them. However...once your vessels come into OUR waters then it's a whole new ball game. Whaling is illegal in all the territories and waters controlled by Australia. Your whaling fleet would do well to respect that.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Patrick Smash,

I did not predict the outcome of a future court case. I never have done that.

In your comment you compare the possibility of Japan winning the case to OJ walking free, and history being "full of legal victories for the rich and powerful after all."

To not prejudge the outcome of the case means one accepts the possibility that Japan can actually win the case fair and square on legal merits. You are already making excuses for such an eventuality, rather than opening yourself to the possibility that your views are poorly-formed. Psychologically I can understand such a reaction, although it is not objective or rational.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Great to see here, Heda, Ossan & others jumping up & down the second a Chinese fishing boat has entered Jteritorial waters, yet when a Jwhalimg/fishing waters enter. Aus territorial waters it is fine! How about Aus CG or better still navy blow these Jvessels out of the water in our waters just as you call for against Chinese, or would you consider this "racist" but if Japanese do it is ok? Cant have it both ways! So which is it, Jvessels can hunt & encroach on other nations territorial waters, but no-one can to Japan, or Japan happy to open up it's waters to Chinese & Russians, just as it considers Aus waters Japanese now apparently? This goes to you "ItsMe" as well. Can't wait to see Glenn Inwoods who millions of Jtaxpayers money goes to every yr, has to say in response for this incursion! & just invade it does not get reported in Jmedia, Google Aus gov warns Jwhalimg vessels on incursions

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

I wonder if the Aussies will charge the three with the cost of the trip to pick them up?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

ObviousDemon - "Gillard said the Japanese government had been told the Shonan Maru No. 2 "was not welcome" within Australia's exclusive economic zone before the three activists boarded it in Australian waters."

Hahahaha. The SM2 didn't invite these 3 fools on board. These 3 fools were conned by the eco-terrorist Watson into ILLEGALLY boarding a vessel and handing the Captain a note that read, "Return us to shore in Australia and then remove yourself from our waters," The eco-terrorist Watson then abandoned these 3, letting the governments of Australia and Japan to deal with his stupidity, and continued on his way.

Gillard thanked Japan for its cooperation and said the boarding tactic was "unacceptable and will ultimately be costly to the Australian taxpayer." "No one should assume that because an agreement has been reached with the Japanese government in this instance that individuals will not be charged and convicted in the future," she said.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

DJbooth - yet when a Jwhalimg/fishing waters enter. Aus territorial waters it is fine!

FYI - The SM2 was not "whaling" plus it isn't even considered a "whaling" vessel. It's a "security" vessel. Wasn't the eco-terrorist scow SI formerly used as a "whaling vessel"?

Do Australian laws specific to "whaling" and "whaling vessels" apply to non-whaling vessels within Australian waters?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

ArrestPaul, your ability to stand in the face of truth & logic are truly impressive, along the lines of North Korea.

For the rest of our regular viewers, from The Age, this morning;

Earlier, Greens leader Bob Brown accused the Japanese of provoking the conflict by sailing into Australian territory. ''The whalers have taken one more step in aggravating this dispute,'' he said. ''They are thumbing their noses at Australia again.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/australia-rebukes-japan-over-breach-20120110-1ptlv.html#ixzz1j5PX2veX

as I've repeated, regardless if it's 1 mile or 10, a JCG boat or a whaling boat, etc,etc,etc, MOST Australians see this as a BIG INSULT to us from our 'friends' in Japan.

If these tree huggers took offense, and decided to make a Non-Violent protest that brought Japan's Arrogance into the Front Page media, then I'm proud of their action! It's on a level with ripping up a Parking Ticket, knowing that it's illegal, and being willing to face whatever consequences there may be, as being 'the price of admission' of my protest.

What decides Australian Government's reaction to these things is How Much Grief they get from the public & the media, and you can see from Julia/Nicola/Bob Brown's Reactions, that they've heard PLENTY!

Enjoy your whale meat while you can!

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

OK, Just to save time....

Arrest Paul's next argument will be..

"But Evil SS TRICKED the whale boats (sorry, Security boats) into following them into Australian (Sorry, 'International, ie Japanese owned') Waters, so it is SS who insult Australia...."

1) YES....the whalers/JCG staff were easily SUCKERED.

2) The reason this works is because A) All Whaling vessels (regardless of nationality)are viewed as illegal, and not allowed to enter Australian ports B) Sea Shephard are NOT viewed as an illegal entity in Australia, and are welcome in Australian waters.

For the Japanese Government to 'demand' that Australia take action to stop SS interferring with their activity that Australia sees as illegal, and is waiting for them to respond to Australia's Legal Action (March 2012 deadline), shows the COMPLETE lack of respect fro Australia's cultural freedom to democratically decide to be disgusted by whaling.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

DJboothJan. 11, 2012 - 02:02AM JST Great to see here, Heda, Ossan & others jumping up & down the second a Chinese fishing boat has entered >Jteritorial waters, yet when a Jwhalimg/fishing waters enter. Aus territorial waters it is fine

Was the SM2 whaling in Austraklian waters? No. Was it even whaling at all? No. Did it ram an Aunstralian Maritime Safety Agency vessel? No. Did it run from one? No. So what's he point of your comparison?

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The problem with Australia's anti-whaling position, and it is a big problem, is that the legal basis on which it stands is not recognized by international law. Even if Australia is successful in cour against Japanese whaling, the Japanese can blithely ignore the court order declaring this action illegal because Australia's territorial claims to the Australian Antarctic Territory are not recognized by the rest of the world. Japan can rightly claim that its whaling fleet is operating in international waters, within terms laid down by the International Whaling Commission, and has sought to avoid confrontations with anti-whaling protest ships. Can the Australian Government be seen to condone the action of these members of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society who boarded a Japanese whaler? The sooner the Australian Government has a presence in these waters the better.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

telly2Jan. 10, 2012 - 11:17PM JST To "Illsayit"...the only reason Australia has not sent frigates into these areas to police the activities of Japanese >whalers and the protesters is because our weak-kneed politicians are scared of the economic repercussions. The >average Aussie would have love to have seen Japanese security vessels who breached our waters, seized and >then escorted back to international waters, warned about ever coming down this way ever again!

You are very wrong. THe only reason that Australia has not sent AMSA vessels (no, they don't send frigates, please get a clue) is because Australia has ZERO jurisdictuion over the waters where the rersearch whaling is conducted. Australia politicians are not weak-kneed, they are sensible and educated. unlike the SS supporters, and know that the Antarctic Treaty forbids them from taking action that could be interpreted as excercising juriosdiction. Foreign vessels that do not conduct any operations in an EEZ have the right of free passage, a point the Australian government was quick to recognize. Your post is an exampole of how Watson, a known liar and showman has hoodwinked the Australian population and is feeding off of natonalism and racism to support his criminal eco-terrorist activities and cash flow from the Discovery Channel.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

telly2Jan. 10, 2012 - 11:27PM JST As to the issue at hand...this is going to turn out really badly for the Japanese. Australian sentiment was against the >protesters initially but after your vessels came into OUR waters the tide of opinion changed quickly. Our government >might be weak-kneed but our population does not take kindly to being pushed around by bullies or have your >forgotten the lessons of WW2?

Total nonsense. Read the opinions under any Australian news article on the subject and you'll see most Australians consider the three idiots and pirates. This opinion certainly hasn't changed at all with the Australian and Japanese governments agreeing to resolve this matter quickly. As for your racist WWII tripe, habe you forgotten that without us "Sepos" you would be speaking Japanese and eating whale burgers now?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

ObviousDemon - ArrestPaul, your ability to stand in the face of truth & logic are truly impressive.......

Thank you.

ObviousDemon - OK, Just to save time....

Arrest Paul's next argument will be..

That ObviousDemon like to make things up and post them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

DJBooth, I really do wish you would stop accusing me of things that I haven't said. I strongly urge you to stop mentioning me in your posts unless you are directly quoting me. Something you would be unable to do in this case because I'm pretty sure that I haven't commented on Chinese boats in Japanese territorial waters.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Ossan & USNinjapan FYI I & others have been recently commenting on not the SM2's incursion, but the YM3, which in case you haven't follow international media reports came within 8nm of Aus coast. & you cannot say oh it's not a whaling vessel, it clearly has painted on it's side "RESEARCH", it also has a loaded harpoon on it's prow!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

What is Greens leader Bob Brown's official position in the Australian government? Besides being a spokesmodel for the eco-terrorist Watson and the 3 fools who just ILLEGALLY boarded a vessel to ask for a ride home.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

As a leader of the Greens who keep Labor party in government he pretty much holds the balance of power in the Australian parliament with the current political situation - so he does have a lot of clout whether you like it or not arrestpaul.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

marcelito - As a leader of the Greens who keep Labor party in government he pretty much holds the balance of power in the Australian parliament with the current political situation

Does he have the authority to illegally influence police or maritime authority investigations for political purposes? isn't he the same person who overrode Australian government authorities decision NOT to allow the eco-terrorist helicopter pilot into Australia?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

OssanAmerica

Oh Ossan so many things wrong with your post here l dont know where to start.

You are very wrong. THe only reason that Australia has not sent AMSA vessels (no, they don't send frigates, please get a clue)

Really, l seem to remember Australia sending a frigate to this area to rescue a yachtsman a few years back. We also send our naval vessels to stop illegal boats in northern WA all the time. So please maybe you should take your own advice.

Australia politicians are not weak-kneed, they are sensible and educated. unlike the SS supporters, and know that the Antarctic Treaty forbids them from taking action that could be interpreted as excercising juriosdiction.

Who's talking about the Antarctic treaty we are refering to JCG vessels within eyesight of the mainland of Australia. So yes they are very weak kneed. They can stop illegal Indonesian boats, they can stop boat people but they refuse to take action against the Japanese. Laughable

Foreign vessels that do not conduct any operations in an EEZ have the right of free passage, a point the Australian government was quick to recognize.

Yes they do have right of passage. But it also states that they cannot use this right as described by innocent passage if it is " prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State". Now a foreign government vessel stalking out a port with the purpose of harassing a vessel does indeed prejudice the peace and security of the state one could argue.

Your post is an exampole of how Watson, a known liar and showman has hoodwinked the Australian population and is feeding off of natonalism and racism to support his criminal eco-terrorist activities and cash flow from the Discovery Channel

And your responses are spoon fed straight from the ICR and JWA and their NZ mouth piece Ginza Glen. You even swallowed their line that they werent in Australian waters.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

arrestpaul

I guess with a username like "arrestpaul" its hard to expect you to be even and unbiased with your opinions. And you do seem to love the word eco terrorists. Which incidently does also fit the definition of the J Whalers and their action so from now on l think we should also refer to the J Whalers as eco terrorists as well in the name of fairness.

Does he have the authority to illegally influence police or maritime authority investigations for political purposes? isn't he the same person who overrode Australian government authorities decision NOT to allow the eco-terrorist helicopter pilot into Australia?

Proof, or are you just venting

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Cletus - Really, l seem to remember Australia sending a frigate to this area to rescue a yachtsman a few years back.

Nations can send the nearest vessel capable of effecting a "rescue" including warships.

Yes they do have right of passage. But it also states that they cannot use this right as described by innocent passage if it is " prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State". Now a foreign government vessel stalking out a port with the purpose of harassing a vessel does indeed prejudice the peace and security of the state one could argue.

Which "state"? Who's "peace"? The Neatherlands? The SM2 was not blocking or impeding Australian maritime traffic. It wasn't even harrassing the eco-terrorist SI unless you consider following a vessel to be "harrassment".

3 ( +4 / -1 )

arrestpaul

Nations can send the nearest vessel capable of effecting a "rescue" including warships.

Indeed so maybe you had better tell that to OssanAmerica as he seems to not understand that point as he claimed it was "wrong" and to suggest it the poster needed "to get a clue"

Which "state"? Who's "peace"? The Neatherlands?

Um arrestpaul they where 30 km off the AUSTRALIAN port of Fremantle. That is no where near the Netherlands. Oh and the fact they where waiting for a vessel to leave the Australian port and then follow the vessel through Australian waters actually is called stalking in Australia. Just so you understand here is the definition of stalking under Australian law "following, loitering near, watching or approaching, an intimidating, harassing or threatening act against a person, whether or not involving violence or a threat of violence". So by definition under Australian law the JCG vessel was breaching the peace and breaking Australian law while in Australian territory and if the Government had a spine they would have stopped the SM2 while it was in these waters and escorted them out of our waters or escorted them to the nearest detention center.

The SM2 was not blocking or impeding Australian maritime traffic. It wasn't even harrassing the eco-terrorist SI unless you consider following a vessel to be "harrassment".

Again as they where in Australian waters they where actually stalking which as l have mentioned is an offence

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

they where 30 km off the AUSTRALIAN port of Fremantle...Again as they where in Australian waters

The phrase that you're looking for is 'international waters'.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Cletus - Ah someones been reading to much of the world according to MaCarthur. You realise how ridiculous your last statement actually is. There was more than just the mighty US involved you know.

71 years ago, PM Churchill sent a coded message to PM Curtin (Fadden?) that British forces were engaged in Europe and North Africa and Australia would be on it's own for a while. The message was intercepted. Australian forces were also engage in the Atlantic and North Africa.

Curtin then made a public appeal to the U.S. for support - "....I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.... we shall exert all our energies towards the shaping of a plan, with the United States as its keystone which will give to our country some confidence to be able to hold out." (Melb Herald 27th December 1941.)

Guadalcanal was the first U.S. offensive in the Pacific. 800 miles from Australia and 6,000 miles from the U.S.. Which country benefitted most from that decision?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

arrestpaul - I,ll take your statement in general terms and not just referring to Bob Brown ( since you obviously don,t have any proof ) -Does any politician have a right to influence any investigation for political purposes?...Are you serious? What world do you live in ?..yeah that never happens anywhere, especially in Japan which is a shining example of clean politics and business...bwahah....:-) But since you obviously don,t have any hard data to prove that Bob Brown is influencing this or any other maritime investigation in any way I suggest you take a chill pill mate.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@arrestpaul: What the hell does that have to do with anything? Why you quoting stuff that is 60+ years old?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Cletus - Indeed so maybe you had better tell that to OssanAmerica as he seems to not understand that point as he claimed it was "wrong" and to suggest it the poster needed "to get a clue"

OssanAmerica seems to have a better understanding of the situation than you do. There is a difference between sending a Navy vessel on a "rescue mission" and ordering one to intercede in an eco-terrorist scam.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

All of you claiming that the Japanese vessels violated Australian territory or law are out to lunch. A vessel of any nation, be it a whaling vessel or a military vessel, has the right under international maritime law to conduct innocent passage (normal transit) through another nation's Exclusice Economic Zone (<24NM) AND Territorial Waters (<12NM). As long as the Japanese vessels (whaler or security) wasn't doing any whaling while in the Australian EEZ or Territorial Waters they have done nothing illegal no matter how close they get to an Australian landmass. Remember that Australia has outlawed the act of whaling inside its Territorial Waters and EEZ but have not and cannot legally prevent whaling vessels from sailing in/through their waters. In other words, because the Japanese vessels were not actively whaling or doing any of the things that are specifically prohibited without permission in an EEZ or TW (fishing, drilling, mining, launching aircraft, etc.), they had just as much right to be where they were as the Sea Shepherd vessels they were following. And let's also not forget that just following or tailing another ship is not illegal. The whalers were clearly not welcome in Australian waters and I certainly don't dispute that, but their incursion was not illegal and the most the Australia government could legally do to excerise their jurisdiction in their EEZ/TW was to conduct a routine inspection to check for safety, customs, etc. violations and permit them to continue on their way.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Heda_Madness

The phrase that you're looking for is 'international waters'.

Maybe you should go to Tokyo and explain that little fact to the Japanese as well. As l have said many times, they seem to expect every other nation to abide by their 200 km EEZ (which is international waters) and they cry foul when a nation sails a vessel through these waters. Yet cant see the difference when they do it not once but numerous times to another nation. But as you seem to have trouble seeing that as well then maybe your not the best person to speak on the subject.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Cletus - Um arrestpaul they where 30 km off the AUSTRALIAN port of Fremantle. That is no where near the Netherlands. Oh and the fact they where waiting for a vessel to leave the Australian port and then follow the vessel through Australian waters actually is called stalking in Australia. Just so you understand here is the definition of stalking under Australian law "following, loitering near, watching or approaching, an intimidating, harassing or threatening act against a person, whether or not involving violence or a threat of violence". So by definition under Australian law the JCG vessel was breaching the peace and breaking Australian law while in Australian territory and if the Government had a spine they would have stopped the SM2 while it was in these waters and escorted them out of our waters or escorted them to the nearest detention center.

Hahahaha, so you're saying that if the SM2 were to be found on the streets of Perth that it could be arrested for "stalking".

Do you have anything concerning "maritime law"? Is there a law against "stalking" in international waters?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

First of all that is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion and anyway I don't need to go to Tokyo but I clearly need to explain it to you. You've constantly claimed that they are in breach of Australina law and they are in Australian waters but they aren't.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

ArrestPaul...I AM an Australian and can tell you the current mood of Australians, all legalities and niceties aside...here goes:

-We do not want Japanese security vessels coming into our economic or coastal control zones without an invitation, period!

-The vast majority of the Australian population OPPOSE whaling.

-Australians do not support the illegal boarding of any nation's vessels, despite how much sympathy we might feel for the protesters.

-Those Australians opposed to whaling find the Japanese government's LYING and DUPLICITOUS position of using the EXCUSE of "scientific whaling" as a cover for Japanese taxpayer-funded whaling to be risible at best and insulting at worst!

-You accuse the protesters and those opposing whaling as being "racist" and appealing to racism. That is errant NONSENSE! Race has nothing to do with it. Any nation that stuffs around in my nation's territorial waters is going to get a black eye...got it? And yes, we could do it if things, unfortunately, escalated out-of-hand. You military is no match for ours...despite how small a nation we are.

-Japanese hypocrisy runs rampant in this thread. The Japanese government jumps up and down whenever a NK or Chinese vessel approaches your waters but we Aussies have to shut up, according to you, when you do the same to us. No bloody way, pal!

-Australia has supported Japan in the past in all its post-war endeavours. We have contributed to any disaster relief to help the people of Japan and despite the terrible atrocities inflicted upon WW2 Aussie soldiers in Changi and the Burma railway by the Imperial Army, we have forgiven, forgotten and become friends. And this is our reward...your naval vessels disrespecting our wishes and invading our territorial waters.

ArrestPaul...are you familiar with the English term, "You haven't got a leg to stand on!" Look down, my friend...your legs seem to be missing!

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

marcelito - I,ll take your statement in general terms and not just referring to Bob Brown ( since you obviously don,t have any proof ) -Does any politician have a right to influence any investigation for political purposes?...Are you serious? What world do you live in ?..yeah that never happens anywhere, especially in Japan which is a shining example of clean politics and business...bwahah....:-) But since you obviously don,t have any hard data to prove that Bob Brown is influencing this or any other maritime investigation in any way I suggest you take a chill pill mate.

Thanks for the suggestion but a story on the Australia Visa Bureau website suggests otherwise.

07 December 2011 Environmental activist group Sea Shepherd have had their efforts to protest against whaling fleets impeded by the Australian government, who have denied their helicopter pilot's Australia visa application.

The incident isn't the first time that the Australian government has stepped in to deny members of Sea Shepherd access to the country. Two years ago, both Sea Shepherd leader Paul Watson and his first officer Peter Hammarstedt were denied an Australian visa until a petition and intervention from Greens leader Bob Brown and former environment minister Ian Campbell forced the government's hand. http://www.visabureau.com/australia/news/07-12-2011/whaling-protests-helicopter-pilot-denied-australia-visa.aspx

0 ( +2 / -2 )

USNinJapan2

I actually agree with you on several points

A vessel of any nation, be it a whaling vessel or a military vessel, has the right under international maritime law to conduct innocent passage (normal transit) through another nation's Exclusice Economic Zone (<24NM) AND Territorial Waters (<12NM).

Agreed that they can transit the EEZ and territorial waters, as you pointed out "normal transit". The fact is the SM2 didnt transit the zones it sailed up the coast and stopped 30 km off the port of Fremantle and waited for several days for the SI. Now by your definition is that a normal transit? Also the innocent passage you state also has conditions such as the passage must not be "prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State". One would construe a vessel waiting off shore for another vessel to leave port so as to follow and harass as not being in the interest of peace and good order. Would you agree? Furthermore the SM2's actions actually fall into the definition of stalking under Australian and WA law. So one could also argue that yes they could legally transit the area but to wait of the port for days to harass another vessel well....

As long as the Japanese vessels (whaler or security) wasn't doing any whaling while in the Australian EEZ or Territorial Waters they have done nothing illegal no matter how close they get to an Australian landmass.

Technically true morally false. And my whole argument is this, Japan expects its neighbours to respect its EEZ but fails to respect other nations. Remember July last year Japan protested Korea Air testing a civilian airliner over Korean territory because it was claimed by Japan, Sept 2010 the Japanese forced a protest boat out of its EEZ it wasnt fishing, mining or taking resources just protesting. There have also been several incidents where Japan has protested Chinese transit of its EEZ by both naval vessels and Coast Guard vessels.

In other words, because the Japanese vessels were not actively whaling or doing any of the things that are specifically prohibited without permission in an EEZ or TW (fishing, drilling, mining, launching aircraft, etc.), they had just as much right to be where they were as the Sea Shepherd vessels they were following.

Agreed in principle however as pointed out above would you also say that it is hypocritical for the Japanese to expect a certain action from its neighbours in regards to its EEZ when it does the opposite to another nation? What would you say if China parked a Coast Guard vessel 30 km off Tokyo for several days? What would you say to the Japanese who protested about this? Would you say tough luck? No l bet you wouldnt.

And let's also not forget that just following or tailing another ship is not illegal.

Actually under Australian law it is. And as the incident took place in waters where this law is applicable l disagree with your statement.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

gogogo - What the hell does that have to do with anything? Why you quoting stuff that is 60+ years old?

71 years old. I thought it was obvious that I was addressing Cletus's post -

Cletus - Ah someones been reading to much of the world according to MaCarthur. You realise how ridiculous your last statement actually is. There was more than just the mighty US involved you know.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Heda_Madness

First of all that is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion and anyway I don't need to go to Tokyo but I clearly need to explain it to you.

Ok so you are saying that as an Australian l have no rights to voice my disappointment at Tokyo for ignore my governments request that the SM2 not enter the EEZ around Australia, is that correct? Also the fact that l have pointed out several examples now where Japan has complained and several posters here have agreed with Japans indignation when the same thing occurs to them, this doesnt strike you as hypocritical? So basically you are saying bad luck sit down and take it, but when China or Korea enter Japans EEZ to protest, to transit etc and Japan complains the likes of you and others are all oh poor Japan these evil neighbours dont respect Japans EEZ. See what lm saying?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

arrestpaul

71 years old. I thought it was obvious that I was addressing Cletus's post - "Cletus - Ah someones been reading to much of the world according to MaCarthur. You realise how ridiculous your last statement actually is. There was more than just the mighty US involved you know."

Correct and l was responding to a pro Japan post that raised the issue.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Cletus.

You are confusing the EEZ with territorial waters and what lass apply in each 'zone' and what a country can do legally to enforce the applicable laws.

The definitions of each have been given multiple times now as well as the worldwide legal distances from shores. Those apply to ALL nations 0f this world, no single nation can claim otherwise.

So we get arguments that say oranges and others that say apples. What japan does in it's own EEZ is not relevant to this discussion and a poor mans argument, IMHO.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

telly2 - ...I AM an Australian and can tell you the current mood of Australians, all legalities and niceties aside...

I appreciate your opinion of what you think Asutralians want but it's the legalities that are at issue.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

It"S ME

You are confusing the EEZ with territorial waters and what lass apply in each 'zone' and what a country can do legally to enforce the applicable laws.

Funny you should mention this, here is a news story from Australia today "THE federal government has reminded Japan that its whaling vessels are not welcome in Australia's territorial waters amid claims one strayed close to Macquarie Island.I n a clear breach of a 2008 federal court order forbidding whaling vessels in Australian territorial waters." The article the goes on to say "We have asked our embassy today to reiterate to the Japanese government that whaling vessels are not welcome in Australian territorial waters," a spokesperson for Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said in response to the claim." So here are the Japanese no entering Australia's territorial waters as well in violate of a court order. Will love to see you back pedal out of this one.

What japan does in it's own EEZ is not relevant to this discussion and a poor mans argument, IMHO.

Love it thank paul, so in your opinion Japan can complain as much as they like and forcefully remove a protest vessel from its EEZ yet Australia must remain silent when Japan does the same to it. Well that sums you up perfectly do as Japan says not as Japan does.....

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Now if you had actually read what I wrote and replied to that I might take you more serious.

If they strayed into territorial waters than yes, you are right but I seen no proof of it so far like a link to the article you quoted. So far it is all hear-say for me and many others.

Yes, any nation can remove a vessel from its EEZ that violates the LAWS set by the UN for EEZ zones, the countries laws do NOT apply.

Pls, counter international law or explain how australian law supercedes it.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

CletusJan. 11, 2012 - 10:37AM JST Oh Ossan so many things wrong with your post here l dont know where to start.

The please don't.

ou are very wrong. THe only reason that Australia has not sent AMSA vessels (no, they don't send frigates, please >et a clue)

eally, l seem to remember Australia sending a frigate to this area to rescue a yachtsman a few years back. We also >end our naval vessels to stop illegal boats in northern WA all the time. So please maybe you should take your own >dvice.

Tell me when's the last time Australia sent a frigate to stop the Japanese research whaling that is taking place in international waters. Military vessels are used for rescue due to proximity or necessity but have no role in maritime law enforcement. Illegal immigrants are often in need of rescue operations because of the frequent unseaworthiness of the boats used.

ustralia politicians are not weak-kneed, they are sensible and educated. unlike the SS supporters, and know that >he Antarctic Treaty forbids them from taking action that could be interpreted as excercising juriosdiction. wo's talking about the Antarctic treaty we are refering to JCG vessels within eyesight of the mainland of Australia. So >es they are very weak kneed. They can stop illegal Indonesian boats, they can stop boat people but they refuse to >ake action against the Japanese. Laughable

There are no JCG vessel in Australian waters, in Australian EEZ waters or even in nternatiomnal waters near Australia. All of the research vessels are owned by Kyodo Senpaku, a commnercial fisheries company. Foreign vessels that do not conduct any operations in an EEZ have the right of free passage, a point the Australian government was quick to recognize.

es they do have right of passage. But it also states that they cannot use this right as described by innocent passage >f it is " prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State". Now a foreign government vessel >talking out a port with the purpose of harassing a vessel does indeed prejudice the peace and security of the state >ne could argue.

The Australian government saw no threat to the peace, good order or security of the coatal state. The SM2 has never "harassed: any vessel. Even SSCS themselves have only reported being followed. Harassment is the MO of the SSCS eco-terrorists. The Australian government was quick to recognizae that the SM2 had the right of free passage. You got a problem withthat suggest you take it up with them.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

No, that's not what I said at all. I said that whatever the Japanese governments stance on their EEZ is irrelevant to your claim that the Japanese ship is in breach of international law. Because it's not. It is in international waters and is therefore entitled to be there. Your government has gone on record to say that they are not welcome. They have also said that they are not in breach of any law and that the three who boarded the ship were subject to international law.

I'm struggling to see how you and the other SS supporters who've joined this site are unable to understand this. I suspect that it's because you all struggle to understand the law.

Secondly I have not posted about other countries entering the EEZ and it's only thanks for the disinformation and personal attacks by DJBooth that you could assume that.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Cletus

A few points:

The fact is the SM2 didnt transit the zones it sailed up the coast and stopped 30 km off the port of Fremantle and waited for several days for the SI. Now by your definition is that a normal transit?

Yes, totally normal. Ships can and do anchor at a location of their choice for hours, days, even weeks sometimes during their transit. There should be no issue with the nation if the vessel is not doing anything specifically prohibited like commercial fishing, drilling, mining, etc.

... the passage must not be "prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State". One would construe a vessel waiting off shore for another vessel to leave port so as to follow and harass as not being in the interest of peace and good order.

The J vessels were/are certainly following the SS ships, but they certainly haven't been actively harassing them like SS usually does to the whaling vessels. As stated previously, simply following or tailing another vessel is not illegal and I haven't seen anything that suggests that the Japanese had done anything other than follow the SS vessles at a distance. If you're going to try and apply the "prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State" line to the J vessels I would think that it would apply tenfold to the SS vessels. No?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

-Continued for Cletus-

Actually under Australian law it is. And as the incident took place in waters where this law is applicable l disagree with your statement.

Ludicrous. I'm sure stalking is a crime under Australian criminal law regarding persons, but it certainly isn't applicable to vessels at sea or their crew. The movements of a ship and the actions of the ship's master in operating it are governed by international maritime law and the maritime Rules of the Road, not laws that apply to personal conduct on land. You can disagree all you want but you certainly won't be able to produce here the exact words of the stalking law which states that it applies to ships and their masters.

As I've pointed out before, almost all of the cases in which the GOV has taken offense to the presence of Korean or Chinese vesslels in its EEZ were cases in which the JCG caught them redhanded poaching Japanese marine resources (fish). The other cases you've mentioned coincidentally involved unresolved territorial disputes over land masses which are claimed by multiple countries. If you can't see that those cases and this one belong in different fuit baskets, i.e. apples and oranges, I don't know what to say to that.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

It"S ME

If they strayed into territorial waters than yes, you are right but I seen no proof of it so far like a link to the article you quoted. So far it is all hear-say for me and many others.

So you are happy to sit hear and rely purely on JT for your information on this issue. Maybe if you broadened your horizons and read some media reports from say Australia you would also see the other side of the issue like the information that l quoted. As for me providing you the links maybe you should look for yourself.

Yes, any nation can remove a vessel from its EEZ that violates the LAWS set by the UN for EEZ zones, the countries laws do NOT apply.

Ah ok so there is a UN law regarding Taiwanese protest vessels entering Japanese claimed EEZ then is there, or is there a UN law regarding Korea Air testing their aircraft over Korean territory near the Japanese EEZ. As these are 2 examples of Japan complaining about people violating their EEZ. But l get it its ok for Japan to whine about this but if Japan does it to another nation they forfeit their right to complain. Point taken

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

arrestpaul - sorry my friend , presenting a petition on an issue to a government minister who subsequently changes its decision as a result of that petition is not " illegally" influencing anything. Pefectly legal,open and above board...kind of behaviour your sempais at the Japanese whaling lobby could learn from - not that they have any interest to do so... sorry buddy

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

OssanAmerica

Tell me when's the last time Australia sent a frigate to stop the Japanese research whaling that is taking place in international waters.

You are right they normally send a customs vessel due to the fact it has a ice hardened hull whereas warships dont.

Military vessels are used for rescue due to proximity or necessity but have no role in maritime law enforcement.

Oh ok so Australia doesnt use its navy to stop illegal immigrant vessels or illegal fishing vessels? Sorry but they actually do both quite frequently and not purely to rescue but to stop, search and detain as well. And we also deploy our naval vessels to anti pirate duties which is "maritime law enforcement" duties.

Illegal immigrants are often in need of rescue operations because of the frequent unseaworthiness of the boats used.

There are no JCG vessel in Australian waters, in Australian EEZ waters or even in nternatiomnal waters near Australia. All of the research vessels are owned by Kyodo Senpaku, a commnercial fisheries company. Foreign vessels that do not conduct any operations in an EEZ have the right of free passage, a point the Australian government was quick to recognize.

Yes the vessel SM2 is owned by Kyodo Senpaku, but it is leased to the Japanese government for use and manning by the JCG a fact well documented and reported even by this site. Not to mention the rather large writing on the side of the vessel that says " Government of Japan". So just to be clear a civilian owned, JCG leased and operated vessel (hence a JCG vessel), now are we clear on that. If you need clarification please refer to current pictures of the vessel or news reports on the vessel.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

USNinJapan2

As I've pointed out before, almost all of the cases in which the GOV has taken offense to the presence of Korean or Chinese vesslels in its EEZ were cases in which the JCG caught them redhanded poaching Japanese marine resources (fish). The other cases you've mentioned coincidentally involved unresolved territorial disputes over land masses which are claimed by multiple countries. If you can't see that those cases and this one belong in different fuit baskets, i.e. apples and oranges, I don't know what to say to that.

What l can clearly see is that you firmly believe that Japan can do as Japan pleases and everyone else must be quite and accept Japans actions. In that respect coming from and American that is totally understandable.

So Japan can demand countries not enter its disputed EEZ an EEZ that is only recognised by a couple of nations. Japan can complain and militarily chase them out. Yet Japan can enter a nations EEZ (even when asked not to) an EEZ that is world recognised even by Japan and you say be quiet and dont complain. And l am purely talking about times when there was no exploitation but mere transit of the Japanese EEZ. And there are many cases of this. But you seem blinded by this and refuse to accept the case that whats good for one is good for all.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

@arrestpaul

Australia Visa Bureau website suggests otherwise.

That site is not the Australian visa site it is run by a private company in the UK. http://www.visabureau.com/contact-us.aspx

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cletus

The disputed EEZs in Japan's case are due to the fact that the ownership of the landmasses (islands) themselves to which the EEZs are attached are currently disputed among multiple nations. IMO that's an entirely different situation than Austalia's territorial claim and subsequent EEZ jurisdiction and Antarctic Whale Sanctuary claims. No one, aside from Australia and the four countries that recognize its Antarctic claims, acknowleges that there's any dispute there at all. As far as the rest of the world is concerned the area is international waters over which no one has any jurisdiction. You obviosuly don't feel this way so on this we'll simply have to continue to disagree.

I, however, absolutely maintain based on international maritime law that the Japanese vessels' presence in the Australian EEZ and Territorial Waters in this latest case near the mainland and Tasmania was unwelcome but entirely legal.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Japan should respect other countries rules and regulations. The Australian EEZ extends oh 200 nm from its shores? If Japan does not do this why should any country respect its EEZ? The Whaling fleet is not welcome in Australian waters. Since they are not commercial ships but run by the government, they have no "right" to "transit". Second that ship is harassing another ship and not doing a transit. Thus by following the Sea Sheppard they are engaged in Whaling activities.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Since our ProWhaling friends want to just keep saying the same thing over again and again,

Jan. 11, 2012 - 05:00AM JST

ArrestPaul, your ability to stand in the face of truth & logic are truly impressive, along the lines of North Korea.

For the rest of our regular viewers, from The Age, this morning;

Earlier, Greens leader Bob Brown accused the Japanese of provoking the conflict by sailing into Australian territory. ''The whalers have taken one more step in aggravating this dispute,'' he said. ''They are thumbing their noses at Australia again.''

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/australia-rebukes-japan-over-breach-20120110-1ptlv.html#ixzz1j5PX2veX

as I've repeated, regardless if it's 1 mile or 10, a JCG boat or a whaling boat, etc,etc,etc, MOST Australians see this as a BIG INSULT to us from our 'friends' in Japan.

If these tree huggers took offense, and decided to make a Non-Violent protest that brought Japan's Arrogance into the Front Page media, then I'm proud of their action! It's on a level with ripping up a Parking Ticket, knowing that it's illegal, and being willing to face whatever consequences there may be, as being 'the price of admission' of my protest.

What decides Australian Government's reaction to these things is How Much Grief they get from the public & the media, and you can see from Julia/Nicola/Bob Brown's Reactions, that they've heard PLENTY!

Enjoy your whale meat while you can!

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Readers, please stop posting repetitive messages.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

For the "I refuse to consider the quotes provided, coz I haven't personally seen the website that they come from" crowd;

Jan. 10, 2012 - 08:37PM JST

For all of our dear posters that want to use "Australia's AG Nichola Roxon says" to prove their own point of view, here's what she said tonight, after ANOTHER Japanese whale boat coming within FIVE miles of Australain Territory....

"We have asked our embassy today to reiterate to the Japanese government that whaling vessels are not welcome in Australian territorial waters," a spokesperson for Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said in response to the claim.

"The Australian government believes strongly that Japan's so-called scientific whaling is illegal."

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/government-reminds-japan-whalers-to-stay-out/story-e6frfku0-1226241198624#ixzz1j3QByj6M

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

coming within FIVE miles of Australain Territory....

Did they enter or not, that is what matters legally. If they didn't enter the above statement is null and void. Oh, I got her nearly pregnant, carries the same weight. It either is or not.

All I see in your supplied sources is political posturing to get support, etc.

So Roxon sez they can enter the EEZ but not the territorial waters.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I'm hearing, "1) It's NOT Australia's Waters, 2) It's in no way illegal, 3) they are not actually a whaling boat, 4) It's not a JCG boat, etc" quite repetitively.

1) It WAS in Australian Territorial waters - Julia Gillard said so.- and it WAS a huge insult to the vast majority of Australians, who consider Japan as a friend.

2) We're not sure if it's illegal, because Japan have yet to meet their obligations under the ICJ, for Justice to be considered by the independant umpire.

3) It was a whaling boat last year, it is travelling as part of the whaling team, it's named in sequence with the other whaling boats (YM1,2,3,etc), it is self-labelled as Government of Japan, and stated it is a Security vessel for the whaling team.

4) It's paid for by JCG (ie YOUR TAXES), manned by JCG, and labelled with ten foot high writing "Government of Japan"

Do you guys have any OTHER points as to why it's OK for The Government of Japan to "thumb their nose" at Australia so thoroughly & arrogantly???

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

It"S ME

Coming within FIVE miles of Australain Territory.... Did they enter or not, that is what matters legally. If they didn't enter the above statement is null and void. Oh, I got her nearly pregnant, carries the same weight. It either is or not.

Well given that they where 5 miles (some reports say 4 miles) of Australian territory (that is land) then yes they did enter given territorial waters are 12 miles. They where only 7 miles inside Australian territorial waters and all this after the Japanese government was told to get their ships out of our waters. As an Australian taxpayer l want our government to take a stronger stance against these arrogant Japanese. Catch them in the act and seize their ships, chuck the crew in a detention center and treat them as illegal entries. Enough is enough Japan get the **** out of our waters.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Cletus.

Again pls, check the LEGAL definitions, which have been posted before. Your government, etc can do so and get it right.

Till than all discussion are null and void, we all need to use the same legal resources and info.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

marcelito - presenting a petition on an issue to a government minister who subsequently changes its decision as a result of that petition is not " illegally" influencing anything.

There were 2 items listed, a petition and (plus?) intervention from Brown to override several Australian government decisions to enable eco-terrorist violence.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

gogogo - That site is not the Australian visa site it is run by a private company in the UK.

But was the information incorrect?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

arrestpaul

There were 2 items listed, a petition and (plus?) intervention from Brown to override several Australian government decisions to enable eco-terrorist violence.

Brown merely requested that the immigration minister explain the reason for the denial of the visa's. And as there was no valid legal reason the immigration minister was forced to overrule the initial political decision. Simple as that, the Australian government was trying to appease the Japanese government by making it hard for SS, but as Australia unlike Japan is a true democracy it couldnt legally stop the people entering the country.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It's simple people. The Japanese vessels weren't doing any whaling while inside the Australian EEZ or TW so they had every right to be there. Just as much right as the Sea Shepherd vessels. How unwelcome they were or how the Australian populace feels about it is irrelevant. Maritime law dictates that they have the right to innocent passage through Australian waters. Whether they were following another vessel, any vessel, is also irrelevant. This is why the Australian government is doing little more than expressing their displeasure with the Japanese government and reiterating that the whaling-associated vessels are not welcome. They haven't, can't, and won't say that the Japanese ships were illegally in Australia's EEZ and TW because they know full well that they don't have the legal authority to do so.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Agree with USNinjapan2 100%.

Those are the facts regardless if you are pro- or con-whaling. Of course open to proof to invalidate that data. (verifiable of course).

1 ( +4 / -3 )

USNinJapan2.

For me looking at the ID it means US Navy personnel stationed in Japan(aka USNinjapan2)

Now if go by my other friends in the Navy, etc, those guys do know the maritime laws VERY WELL. As does any other maritime agency, etc. Aka way better than I do.

And I am not even remotely connected to them but also a vet in my own country.

This is a legal topic and NOT an anti-whaling one.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This is a DISRESPECTING Australia topic

I can't help it if people in Australia mistakenly believe that they have authority and jurisdiction in situations and locations where they don't according to international laws and standards accepted by the rest of the world. It's just too bad if you feel disrespected or offended by another country when it is acting in accordance with the law. You're certainly entitled to your emotional (and far from rational) response but that country certainly shouldn't bear any responsibility for how you feel. It's absurd that you are pinning a territorial and resource oriented dispute between two nations on something other than law.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

"I can't help it if people in Australia mistakenly believe that they have authority and jurisdiction in situations and locations where they don't according to international laws and standards accepted by the rest of the world. It's just too bad if you feel disrespected or offended by another country when it is acting in accordance with the law. You're certainly entitled to your emotional (and far from rational) response but that country certainly shouldn't bear any responsibility for how you feel. It's absurd that you are pinning a territorial and resource oriented dispute between two nations on something other than law."

So if Japanese Government boats sail merrily into Pearl Harbour, 'just for kicks', aven after the US politley asks them not to come within 200 miles, it's no disrespect, coz it's not Illegal?

Nice Logic path

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Obviously many regulars are commenting on the "whaling" aspect of the article. Nice to know that the issue of "captivity" is over. However, the issues of "possible illegal boarding", of Sea Sheppard getting involved, of the territorial issues of jurisdiction and of the whaling and whale conservation still continue.

We now sit to see what will become of those 3 Australian citizens in Australia.

SAD that the article was written to "invite" such controversial reaction from the readers. Each key area is related, but requires a separate in depth and well researched discussion and not just "opinions" and "prejudices". The article could have limited it to information specific and directly related to the incident to bring the key issue/s into perspective. In any case... at least it got the attention of those interested.

The media must "report" the incident ... yes.... but not write it in a manner to "invite" heated emotional discussions which does not help to resolve the "problems" behind what is happening. But then... that may be journalism.

The KEY to the whole thing is HOW TO LIMIT WHALING OR TO END IT ALL TOGETHER IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE OR WARRANTED.

There are two ways now available that comes to mind.

One is to STOP IT AT THE SOURCE by:

REPLACING THE NEED to conduct whaling by ALL nations by funding programs to change occupations, diets of consumers and the use of whale by-products.

Replacing all the industries that are related to and benefit from whaling and whale by-products.

The Second it to ENFORCE what ever laws that can be created by whatever means available, provided the laws and the methods of enforcement are "acceptable" to ALL concerned.

It is almost like trying to stop the burning of the AMAZON forests or to stop our so called Global warming.

An interesting thought is:

Should the world's multi-billionaires decide to FUND the CHANGE from whaling to some other means of "survival" by paying for the education, training and maintenance of every person in every industry related to whaling and subsidize the diets of those that do consume whales.... would that really be helping the whales?

One that is obvious is that the donated funds used by Sea Sheppard may go a lot further if they actually did HELP and fund the whaling communities to "change" to other more "acceptable" ways like aquaculture of raising tuna and help to fund the change of whale by-product related industries to other industries.

(But then.... other questions may come up... is tuna "intelligent" like the whales and dolphins? The how about the cows or the pigs? And finally... does intelligence make the cut between food and pet or even a friend? But then... what is intelligence?)

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Does this mean that you think Japan seizing Chinese boats in their territorial waters is illegal? At least Australia has the decency to talk to the Japanese government and ask them to leave rather than just arrest them. With the Yushin Maru No.3 now well within 12-nautical-miles of Australian land and refusing to leave, it will be interesting to see what happens. At the very least, this is a disrespectful and hypocritical action by the Japanese government (regardless of what you think about whaling in general).

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

These three guys, under the cover of darkness, approached a commercial vessel with a determination to board the craft and impose their will on the crew.

To do so, they acted in the full knowledge that they were operating outside the law, would be committing an act of trespass and were beyond Australian territory. They had to travel 40 kilometres to sea from Bunbury in Western Australia, well past the limit of Australian territorial waters, which is 22 kilometres. They had to get past spikes. They had to avoid razor wire. They worked in darkness. They risked tipping into an ocean swell.

Once on board they sought to dictate terms. They demanded that the vessel they had just illegally boarded, the Shonan Maru No.2, return them to Australia and abort its mission. If their demands were not met, they would go on a hunger strike. The Japanese ship has continued to sail south. The three men are now captive and, having entered a Japanese ship in international waters, are subject to Japanese law.

There are still news reports describing this as a diplomatic ''crisis'' between Australian and Japan. What crisis? There is no crisis. The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has offered no sympathy for the protesters: ''The conduct of these three Australians in my view is unacceptable.'' This would please the Japanese government. She has also complained that the cost of extracting the three men would run to hundreds of thousands of dollars in the expense of sending a ship to get them.

Her views will resonate widely with Australians even though the overwhelming majority are, like me, opposed to Japan's continued whale hunting, especially in southern waters far from Japan. The federal government has taken Japan to the International Court of Justice in an effort to curb its whaling operations.

We've also had dubious commentary from another pirate operating far from his home waters, Paul Watson, a Canadian who runs the anti-whaling operation called Sea Shepherd. It was Sea Shepherd vessels which took the three illicit boarders to the Japanese ship.

Having aided the trespass, Watson told the media: ''I think the Australian government would be very embarrassed if an armed Japanese vessel can just pick up Australian citizens in Australia and then take them away to Japan. Japanese vessels have no right to take prisoners in Australian waters.''

Pull the other one. The incident did not take place in Australian territory, and the ''prisoners'' went to great effort to get into their prison. Australia has a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone, which the Shonan Maru No. 2 had entered, but it was entitled to do so as this zone is not the same as territorial water.

The great flaw in the environmental movement is the sanctimonious belligerence of so many of its protagonists, the lies and exaggerations, and the assumption that they are above the law and can disrupt and destroy the businesses of other people who are operating lawfully.

The three men who boarded the Japanese vessel are a classic example. They belong to a small group in Western Australia called Forest Rescue, which specialises in blockades and hyperbole. As its website states: ''Forest Rescue have a no compromise approach against anything that threatens Western Australia's biodiversity … our state is on the brink of ecological collapse by native forest logging, land clearing and mining companies.''

If justice were to be served, Tuxworth, 47, Petterffy, 44, and Pendlebury, 27, would be on the first leg of a long journey down to the Southern Ocean, then back to Japan, then into the care of the Japanese justice system. We might see them back in Australia in six months, at no cost to the Australian taxpayer.

If they regarded this as too great an indignity, and engaged in a hunger strike, they should be allowed to be the masters of their own fate. Let them accept the consequences of their own brinkmanship. Nobody forced them into this predicament. Nobody did them any harm.

I say this even though I believe Japan's whaling operation is pointless and cruel and the three men acted with physical courage, are not seeking personal gain and are not engaging in violent acts.

As I write, the Australian Customs ship Ocean Protector is on its way to an ocean rendezvous with the Shonan Maru No. 2 to collect these three men. So the Gillard government is doing what it does best: wasting taxpayers' dollars while managing to achieve the worst of both worlds - not sending a strong message to Japan and not sending a strong message to law-breaking, grandstanding, moral blackmailers.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

It's great to see that everyone feels so involved, my 2 cents;

Seashepard-esque antiwhaling activists should be criticized; their unlawful methods deserve as much!

Likewise, whaling in the ANTARCTIC, as supported by the Japanese government, should be deplored for operating under the false pretense of "research"; making whaling there in effect illegal.

Both these parties should be forced to cease and desist their actions immediately, and then lawfully dealt with, without interference of endless political filibustering. Everybody here is aware of the elephant in the room: both parties have crossed the line of what is true and rightful. The first government to truly deal with it as such and ACTS accordingly, will have my utmost respect.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

CletusJan. 11, 2012 - 02:02PM JST OssanAmerica Tell me when's the last time Australia sent a frigate to stop the Japanese research whaling that is taking place in >international waters. You are right they normally send a customs vessel due to the fact it has a ice hardened hull whereas warships >dont. Military vessels are used for rescue due to proximity or necessity but have no role in maritime law enforcement. Oh ok so Australia doesnt use its navy to stop illegal immigrant vessels or illegal fishing vessels? Sorry but they >actually do both quite frequently and not purely to rescue but to stop, search and detain as well. And we also deploy >our naval vessels to anti pirate duties which is "maritime law enforcement" duties.

Whatever. The fact remains that Australia has NEVER sent a military vessel to confront the Research Whaling fleet. Why? Because there is no basis for doing so. The whaling is being done in international waters.

There are no JCG vessel in Australian waters, in Australian EEZ waters or even in nternatiomnal waters near >Australia. All of the research vessels are owned by Kyodo Senpaku, a commnercial fisheries company. Foreign >vessels that do not conduct any operations in an EEZ have the right of free passage, a point the Australian >government was quick to recognize.

Yes the vessel SM2 is owned by Kyodo Senpaku, but it is leased to the Japanese government for use and manning >by the JCG a fact well documented and reported even by this site.

The SM2 is manned, that means officers and crew, by civilian seafarers, most likely members of the All Japan Seamens Union. There are JCG officers onboard because they have law enforcement and arrest powers, which the crew do not., The SM2 is not manned by the JCG.

Not to mention the rather large writing on the side of the vessel that says " Government of Japan". So just to be >clear a civilian owned, JCG leased and operated vessel (hence a JCG vessel), now are we clear on that. If you need >clarification please refer to current pictures of the vessel or news reports on the vessel.

No you are not clear on anything. The SM2 is neither leased to not operated by the JCG, it merely has JCG officers onboard. And not as deck crew either. The SM2 is operated by Kyodo Senpaku as part of the research whaling fleet. If you are convinced that having "Government of Japan" painted on a ship is suifficient evidence that it is a government owned/leased/manned ship, do you feel that a whaling ship that has "RESEARCH" painted on it is conducting Research Whaling? Or are you ging to resort to hipocrisy?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

telly2Jan. 10, 2012 - 11:27PM JST As to the issue at hand...this is going to turn out really badly for the Japanese. Australian sentiment was against the protesters initially but after your vessels came into OUR waters the tide of opinion changed quickly. Our government might be weak-kneed but our population does not take kindly to being pushed around by bullies or have your forgotten the lessons of WW2?

These protesters must've been a three blind mice. The ship they boarded was NOTt a whaling ship. It was a surveillance vessel sent to monitor the Sea Shepherd's activities by the Japanese Government. This happened in the Australian Economic (not territorial) Zone, where our laws are not enforceable - Australia simply claim exploitation rights to natural resources. The ship was passing through on its way to Antarctic waters, where the "Australian zone" is only recognised by a small handful of countries (not even the US recognise Australian 'ownership' there). How these muppets' actions are supposed to have prevented whaling I'll never know. I am not a supporter of the Japanese using the cover of science to whale commercially but neither am I a supporter of stupid people doing illegal, idiotic things and tax money being used to bail them out. So the pickup of these activists is supposedly costing Australian taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The ship was passing through on its way to Antarctic waters

Wrong. It was hanging about the coast after coming up from Antarctic waters.

How these muppets' actions are supposed to have prevented whaling I'll never know.

Raise public awareness of GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN security vessels hanging around the Australian coast, delay the SM2 to get it off the SI's tail.

Instead of sending an Aussie ship out thousands of miles to pick them up, the three could have been transferred to the SI, which is close by, at no cost to the Aussie taxpayer. Doing idiotic things and wasting tax money cuts both ways.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

The SS is worse than the gestapo. Throwing acid is obscene.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Throwing acid is obscene

Blowing holes in the bodies of living animals is obscene.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

cleo - Instead of sending an Aussie ship out thousands of miles to pick them up, the three could have been transferred to the SI, which is close by, at no cost to the Aussie taxpayer. Doing idiotic things and wasting tax money cuts both ways.

You seem to forget that the eco-terrorist Watson abandoned the 3 foolish ranglers in an attempt to avoid the SM2. Watson wasn't/isn't going back for them. Just like with Pete Bethune, these 3 are on their own. Watson's motto seems to be "use 'em and lose 'em".

1 ( +4 / -3 )

cleo - Blowing holes in the bodies of living animals is obscene.

And you'll promote, condone, and support violence to stop it? Is that correct?

2 ( +4 / -3 )

Rotten butter, bad music and standing in the way? Yes.

As for retrieving the three boarders, if the cost to the taxpayer is a problem, then Australia should bill Japan for the costs. The Shonan Maru #2 had no business in Australian territorial waters, had spent days just hanging around and could easily have spent another few hours offloading the men to accommodate their friends the Australian government. Instead they chose to steam off full-speed down south, thus increasing the cost to the Aussie taxpayer to have a boat chase off after them. Add in the YM3 presently continuing to violate Aussie waters in the Macquarie Island World Heritage Area, and what we have here is sheer bloody-minded bad manners and bad faith on the part of the whalers.

If the government had acted quickly instead of believing the false coordinates given to them by the Japanese whaling industry then the three men could have been taken off the ship close to shore at very little cost. Perhaps Madame PM could send the bill to Japan. It's only a tiny fraction of the whaling 'research' budget.

Can't say I'm up to date with Aussie politics, but I have read claims that the cost of picking up the three men will still cost the taxpayers less than the PM's recent pay raise. Any Aussies care to comment?

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

cleo - If the government had acted quickly instead of believing the false coordinates given to them by the Japanese whaling industry then the three men could have been taken off the ship close to shore at very little cost. Perhaps Madame PM could send the bill to Japan. It's only a tiny fraction of the whaling 'research' budget.

The Australian government didn't force these 3 fools to leave the eco-terrorist SI vessel. The SM2 didn't ask these 3 fools to ILLEGALLY board their vessel.

The Sea Shepherd organization deleivered these 3 fools to the SM2 and then abandonded them there.

If anyone should be recieving a bill for their retrieval it should be the eco-terrorist SS, the Foolish Rescuers, and the 3 fools themselves (who apparently only wanted to go home).

4 ( +5 / -1 )

when will japan learn to take these people back to japan and throw them in jail. its the only way to stop these terrorists from doing this. and if paul watson is so big on stopping the whaling why didnt he board the whaling ship......oh thats right the crazy leader sends the pawns to do the dirty work and risk there lives to do a stunt like this

0 ( +1 / -1 )

derrallJan. 13, 2012 - 01:41PM JST when will japan learn to take these people back to japan and throw them in jail.

If the charges were greater than simply trespass/unauthorized boarding, I'm sure they would have. Peter Bethune found out in 2010.

if paul watson is so big on stopping the whaling why didnt he board the whaling ship......oh thats right the crazy >leader sends the pawns to do the dirty work and risk there lives to do a stunt like this

Not just that. I believe there is still an arrest warrant out for Watson in Japan.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Please Note, the Australian PM has CRITICIZED the protestors...........but di she CHARGE them with anything???

I can't believe it takes an Aussie to point out to you that the PMs criticism is 'Political Diplomacy' aka Tatemae....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Look, I'm opposed to the whaling, I have established this much through posts on this forum. In principle, I support what the Sea Shepherd is trying to do. I don't consider them eco- terrorists - I think that is sensationalist spin and a rediculous misuse of language, but jeez, they really are a bunch of amateur idealists at times that barely look competent enough to be taking on the considerable task they have self assigned. I agree with the PM here, you can't carry on like feckless fools and expect Australia to bail you out all the time. Watson needs to smarten up. He puts his crew of amateur idealists into dangerous situations; some life threatening, some complex legal and then expects Australia to bail him out when push comes to shove. It's unprofessional.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Tamarama....

Good Points, fair, balanced view.

But They ARE Amateurs.....they are NOT professionals......hence 'volunteers'

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

ObviousDemon

Tamarama....

Good Points, fair, balanced view.

But They ARE Amateurs.....they are NOT professionals......hence 'volunteers'

Sure, I get that. But I'm not really sure how the SS takes on crew - if or what the process is. Watson seems like a single-minded and driven individual who is a competent skipper - and he attracts others to his cause, but from what I have seen their whole operation seems a bit like Keystone Cops at times. For what they are doing, they seem to need more training, more focus, more skills, more experience. They need to be better at what they do. Smarter. But they just keep pulling these cheap stunts that show poor judgement and a good deal of naivety. They are a little TOO amateur for mine.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

ObviousDemon - Please Note, the Australian PM has CRITICIZED the protestors...........but di she CHARGE them with anything???

Several high level Australian's involved with the Aussie legal and law enforcement departments have WARNED these morons that they may not be so lucky the next time. If they continue to break the law, they could end up in an Australian or Japanese prison.

Green Brown has repeatedly interfered with Australian authorities over visa and maritime rules and regulations concerning the eco-terrorist SS. I'm suggesting that AG Roxon has agreed not to charge these 3 fools because she is being politically strong armed by Green Brown into not following Australian law.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good scapegoat, though that tax money is put to a silly use..

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@arrestpaul

Hahahaha, so you're saying that if the SM2 were to be found on the streets of Perth that it could be arrested for "stalking".

You're oversimplifying, Arrestpaul! They would need a restraining order first.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Nessie - You're oversimplifying, Arrestpaul! They would need a restraining order first.

And the SM2 would have to grow legs but anything is possible in the minds of the eco-terrorist "supporters" when it comes to defending and justifying the continued violence of their favorite eco-terrorist organization.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

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

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites