national

U.S. judge turns down whalers' appeal to restrain Sea Shepherd's activities

127 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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

127 Comments
Login to comment

odd and unbelievable accusation !

0 ( +3 / -3 )

All the plaintioff has to do in run the Whale Wars videos for the Judge. And submit the SSCS web paftges that proudly declare what ships they've rammed. All the evidence to support the P,aintiff's claim is made availavle by the defendants. "whaling" isn't even the issue before the court.

-7 ( +8 / -15 )

Whilst I support the SS, both parties are equally aggressive. Just how do the whalers get flash grenades? It has been written that the sonar devices are military grade. The whalers are making out like they are the victim. Another chunk of the Tohoku funds to pay for the court fees. That's the real crime.

9 ( +19 / -10 )

Close the loophole that allows unused "samples" to be consumed and this issue will resolved.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

Close the loophole that allows unused "samples" to be consumed and this issue will resolved.

That makes too much sense Of course that won't make any difference at all to the anti-whaling crowd.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Whilst I support the SS, both parties are equally aggressive

What kind of logic is this? One party openly declares an intent harass and interfere with another parties' operations. The only thing that other party is harasssing are the whales. Who is going over to whom to cause trouble?

-9 ( +9 / -18 )

Keep up the good fight whalers! Keep the meat coming. It's delicious!

-12 ( +8 / -20 )

Japan’s whaling fleet kills up to 1,000 whales a year, an allowed exception

Japan’s whaling fleet tries to kill up to 1,000 whales a year, in a blatant misuse of a loophole.

All the plaintioff has to do in run the Whale Wars videos for the Judge. And submit the SSCS web paftges that proudly declare what ships they've rammed. All the evidence to support the P,aintiff's claim is made availavle by the defendants.

Are you saying the wailers are too dumb to give the judge freely-available evidence?

Maybe they can throw the bones to the victims of Tohoku/Tepco?

They throw the bones, offal and any other inedible - er, not needed for research, bits in the waters of the Antarctic.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

OssanAmerica

What kind of logic is this? One party openly declares an intent harass and interfere with another parties' operations. The only thing that other party is harasssing are the whales. Who is going over to whom to cause trouble?

You must have slept through the start of this years season where the whalers, oops sorry l mean JCG manned vessels harassed the SS vessels and violated the territorial waters of another nation, breached court orders and generally showed the Japanese to be truly arrogant and ignorant of other nations. I guess thats the difference though SS is a private organisation whereas the whalers are state sponsored and supported bullies.

4 ( +13 / -9 )

Close the loophole that allows unused "samples" to be consumed and this issue will resolved.

How about follow up on the promise to review the effects of the whaling moratorium, and issue limited whaling licenses if whale numbers are shown to be increasing (which they are)? They wouldnt have to continue this charade if they werent tricked into agreeing to the whaling agreement.

Of course that wouldnt stop the likes of SS. Neither would this court order if it went through

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

@ Cleo

wailers

Don't agree with you but nice pun

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Poor Japanese whalers, begging for understanding and pity from a world that does not agree with their policies. Pathetic.

You want this to stop? Stop whaling!

12 ( +17 / -5 )

On the grounds of occupational health and safety, these eco-terrorists should be stopped. All workers should be entitled to work in an environment free from harassment.

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

How is it most other countries can perform their scientific studies by monitoring the life cycle of species of interest. Catch and release ?? Collect samples from the ones that have expired ?? Surely they don't need to keep slaughtering all these whales in the name of science do they ?? Just how much can you learn from all your "deadly information collections" ?? It's not like they are evolving at a astronomical rate.

The excuse this country uses to justify the hunting of the whales is piss poor and the whalers are drawing attention to yet another example where japan shows it's true colors

9 ( +13 / -4 )

America has spoken. We will never support Japan's whaling industry.

So what's it going to be Japan?

Whaling Operations - We don't agree Iran Sanctions - We don't agree Hague Convention (LBP) - We don't agree Base locations - We don't agree

Are we going back to the good ol days? You want another shot at the title?

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

US Judges can't even uphold the American constitution let alone rule sensibly on other matters. This is not so much about whaling but more about harassment on the seas. What the judge is saying in effect than you can attack and harass a ship and it's ok.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

@ Ossan: It's perfectly logical. Like I said, both sides are aggressive. What part of that logic don't you understand? Whilst we're on the subject of "logic" then answer this: How is it logical to use money from the Tohoku donations to fund whaling?

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Ha, ha! Another failed 'we are the victims' plea from the Japanese. Good stuff!

5 ( +11 / -6 )

How can we get this judge replaced with one who is more in tune with traditional conservative values?

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

j4p4nFTW

How can we get this judge replaced with one who is more in tune with traditional conservative values?

Time to respect the umpires decision there buddy, now you have EVERY nation in the region you whale telling you to go away, you have the IWC saying stop whaling, you have lost court cases now in Australia and US. When will you Japanese get it through your heads we dont care for you whaling, its not traditional, its not cultural its nothing more than exploiting a loophole for your own greed. Face facts you lost deal with it....... What a sad day when you realise your mighty nation isnt as universally loved as you thought.. HAHAHA

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Macpaul Emeka Ekwueme

I wish the Japanese govt. would send some naval ships to protect the whalers and sink the damn SS boats. I'm pretty sure once a couple of fatalities are sustained they'll think twice about their self proclaimed hypocritical mission.

Didnt you try sending navy ships to help exploit resources at the other end of the globe once before? That ended well for you then too didnt it? Just think you send warships into a region that isnt yours and l think you will find the nations in that region may respond unfavourably to your actions.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Ossan: "One party openly declares an intent harass and interfere with another parties' operations. The only thing that other party is harasssing are the whales. Who is going over to whom to cause trouble?"

Not only did you intentionally ignore (or worse yet, are ignorant of?) the abusive and illegal actions of the whalers he did not mention their use of sonic weapons on helicoptors IN FLIGHT (which could have resulted in murder), their using bamboo poles and grappling hooks to assault SS members, which also could have easily resulted in much more serious injuries and/or death, intentionally ram ships that are more or less stationary in the water, etc. In short, neither you nor the whalers have any grounds to stand on in suggesting ONE side is aggressive and committing crimes while the other side is victim (the usual crying by the Japanese).

The US was right to throw this "we are the victims here" begging from the pro-whaling side, and I have no doubt they are looking at each other in disbelief saying, "B-b-b-b-but we have done nothing wrong! What is the meaning of this?"

Yet more money they've wasted that could have been spent on better, and certainly needed, things. But not -- it's part of the 'culture' of Japan, right? (oops! forgot, it's for science!)

3 ( +10 / -7 )

But doesn't this mean that it could be legal for the whalers to harass Sea Shepherd?

[turns to different camera] Did you know that admiralty court rulings affect every party on the high seas, not just your 'oh I am such a helpless victim who thinks I got a favourable ruling' arse?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

One of these days a japanese crew member will get injured.. Then what?! Guess watson wont be prosecuted.. What a terrorist group. Guess if the judge order in favor for japan he would be faced with angry activist

-5 ( +6 / -11 )

On the grounds of occupational health and safety, these eco-terrorists should be stopped. All workers should be entitled to work in an environment free from harassment.

Don't hunt whales in the antarctic. WH&S issue solved.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

If we harnessed the energy from these whaling discussions, we'd have an viable solution to meet the world's needs right there...

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Leave the damned whales alone. Japan, go back home and start investing in whale watching. Then Japan's standing will at least improve in the eyes of the world. No way to look good on this issue, whalers. Keep at it Sea Shepherd. If not for you, this issue would simply expire.

5 ( +10 / -5 )

Help protect these beautiful and majestic creatures.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

One of these days a japanese crew member will get injured.. Then what?! Guess watson wont be prosecuted.. What a terrorist group. Guess if the judge order in favor for japan he would be faced with angry activist

The United States will never be in favor of Japan's whaling actions, so give up now. The US government has already made their stance on the issue of whaling and you're only wasting your time. Like I said in an earlier argument with OssanAmerica, YOU WILL NEVER WIN! Stop wasting your time and money in the American judicial system because you will not get anywhere.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Oh the whales are so beautiful, shame on the Japanese for not sharing my view.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

This single US west "left" coast judge does not speek for me as an american, please don't be misguided to think he represents Americas view... I strongly support whaling and think the worlds view of whaling needs to be changed as times have changed now that almost all whales are no longer indangered as was the reason to stop whaling to start with... Whales need to be managed to keep supplies and harvested same as anything else. EAT MORE WHALE

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

This single US west "left" coast judge does not speek for me as an american,

To the above poster and all others slamming this judge... Seeing as how he has yet to even issue a written opinion on this matter, what on earth do you base these statements on? Did you read the transcript of oral argument? Did you read any of the briefs filed? Did you for even a second contemplate that, just maybe, there was a fairly complex legal issue involved and that, perhaps, such a ruling was warranted? It is complete and unabashed ignorance to reduce this legal decision to: Judge sides with non-whalers, Judge must be a leftist, activist, Sea Shepherd sympathizer.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

The Sea Shepherd's activities are radical and borderline violent, but sorry, I don't feel bad at all for Japan's whaling industry. SS doesn't have a good approach, but Japan's just butthurt that other countries don't support their right to hunt down whales.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

To the above poster and all others slamming this judge... Seeing as how he has yet to even issue a written opinion on this matter, what on earth do you base these statements on? Did you read the transcript of oral argument? Did you read any of the briefs filed? Did you for even a second contemplate that, just maybe, there was a fairly complex legal issue involved and that, perhaps, such a ruling was warranted? It is complete and unabashed ignorance to reduce this legal decision to: Judge sides with non-whalers, Judge must be a leftist, activist, Sea Shepherd sympathizer.

Exactly, for all we know he might be considering that the matter is beyond the court's jurisdiction.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Leave the damned whales alone. Japan, go back home and start investing in whale watching.

There is whale watching in Japan I think...

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@mimitchy

Oh the whales are so beautiful, shame on the Japanese for not sharing my view.

You made me laugh, 10/10 for good trolling!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Sea Shepard are Eco-terrorists, that funny. In that case, where is Capt. Nemo and the Nautilus when you need them.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Leave the damned whales alone. Japan, go back home and start investing in whale watching.

There is whale watching in Japan I think...

Yes, one notable case is the very brave Mr Izum iIshii in Futo, Izu. He's a former whaler who realized that live whales are worth more than dead ones (you can only eat a dead one once) & had a career change. He could use some support, if you're ever down that way.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

j4p4nFTW, "How can we get this judge replaced with one who is more in tune with traditional conservative values?"

Well the strategic error was filing the case in a territory with an independant judiciary. Looking forward to the whalers presenting their evidence at the ICJ.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

So much excitement, the judge has only turned down the initial request for an injunction against the illegal attacks by the eco-terrorist organization.

I think Sea Shepherd lovers won't be so happy after round two.

No reasonable judge could accept that anyone has the right to do what Sea Shepherd does. Unless the judge accepts Sea Shepherd's claims about jurisdiction, I have faith that the US legal system will reach the just outcome.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

judge: "remember kids a bit of violence and unlawful behaviour in foreign lands is ok in the usa"

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I like the Japanese whaler's argument here.

They claim they should be allowed to kill whales because they are in international waters and no country's laws apply to them.

Then Sea Shepard comes along and harasses them and they want the U.S. to stop it.

Hey Pal, they're YOUR rules Sea Shepard playing under. Sea Shepard is using the same loophole you are and now you want to claim foul. If you can't play the game by your own rules, go home and learn to enjoy inoshishi. There's plenty of them for you get your sadistic rocks off.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

@ihope2eatwhales. I agree with you. Some posters here did not get the meaning of the court request. So whilst the court did not follow an immediate request to stop SS, there will be a ruling later on. The issue here is violence at sea, not whaling. And even though all of us want to see fair justice, this will just follow international law...

1 ( +4 / -3 )

CletusFeb. 17, 2012 - 08:53AM JST What kind of logic is this? One party openly declares an intent harass and interfere with another parties' operations. >The only thing that other party is harasssing are the whales. Who is going over to whom to cause trouble?

Thabnks for your usual; nonsense cletus.

You must have slept through the start of this years season where the whalers, oops sorry l mean JCG manned >vessels

No Whalijg vessel is "manned" by JVG personnel. Some vessels have JCG personnel onboard because they have law enforcement powers.

harassed the SS vessels

Cite one example whereby a Japanese whaling vessel approached a SSCS vessel without being provoked by the SSCS first. Even thge prcious ADy Gil was coducting harassment operations prior to the collision. No such examples of initial aggression on part of the whalers exists, otherwise trhey would have been widely broadcast by the SSCS themselves.

and violated the territorial waters of another nation,

Not accvording to the Australian government, whom, if I'm not mistaken has more autyhority over the matter than you.

breached court orders

What court orders issued by what court of what counytry and does it have any jurisdiction in waters where those laws can not be enforced?

and generally showed the Japanese to be truly arrogant and ignorant of other nations.

That's your personal opinion. I find antiwhalers truly arrogant ajnd ignorant of other nations and cultures because they are they ones making demands on others to stop or change.

I guess thats the difference though SS is a private organisation whereas the whalers are state sponsored and >supported bullies.

Defending oneself from aggression is not cosidered being "bullies" anywhere in the wor;ld. The term describes SSCS perfectly. Don't believe me,? Read their declared intent and how they intrend to accomplish it. Theire words, not the Whalers.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

cleoFeb. 17, 2012 - 08:50AM JST "Japan’s whaling fleet kills up to 1,000 whales a year, an allowed exception" Japan’s whaling fleet tries to kill up to 1,000 whales a year, in a blatant misuse of a loophole.

No, it;s an ALLOWED EXCEPTION under Article VIII of the IWC regulations. You and I both know it is. Whether it's "misuse" or not is a matter that won't be known until the ICJ court ruling.

"All the plaintioff has to do in run the Whale Wars videos for the Judge. And submit the SSCS web paftges that proudly declare what ships they've rammed. All the evidence to support the P,aintiff's claim is made availavle by the defendants."

Are you saying the wailers are too dumb to give the judge freely-available evidence?

You need ton stop this offensive prctoice of calling the whalers "dumb". Particularly since the whalers themselves aren''t handkling anything, their attornies are.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

The Truth MattersFeb. 17, 2012 - 08:07PM JST I like the Japanese whaler's argument here. They claim they should be allowed to kill whales because they are in international waters and no country's laws >a apply to them.

No they don't. Have you read the complaint filed with the court?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

OssanAmerica, "I find antiwhalers truly arrogant ajnd ignorant of other nations and cultures because they are they ones making demands on others to stop or change."

You sound like you'd complain if someone objected to you jumping to the front of a que. The arrogance of the whalers is evident. They are arrogantly imposing their will on the majority of nations and cultures around the southern ocean who object to their whaling, arrogantly ignoring the majority of the nations of the IWC who dont want them to hunt and arrogantly ignoring the IWC scientific committee who do want or see the need for the lethal 'scientific research'.

You're just upset that the above US Judge doesnt accept the FBI's tag, and your favourite, that Sea Shepherd are terrorists. Whats more, he doesnt accept jurisdiction because private organisations are legally allowed to interdict and protest in international waters where national authorities are not.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

tkoind2Feb. 17, 2012 - 09:48AM JST

Poor Japanese whalers, begging for understanding and pity from a world that does not agree with their policies. Pathetic.

NetNinjaFeb. 17, 2012 - 10:01AM JST

America has spoken. We will never support Japan's whaling industry.

@tkoind2 & NetNinja: As some others have already stated, this is not about whaling. It's about Sea Shepherd's belligerent, dangerous, and 'illegal-if-done-on-land-in-any-country' methods of activism. Besides, this result isn't the end of this case. It's just beginning.

Just wiki their captain, Paul Watson and take a look at the section: "Charges and prosecution"...

Watson was sentenced to 10 days in prison and fined $8,000 for his actions during a Canadian seal hunt protest in 1980. He was convicted of assaulting a police officer. He was also found guilty under the Seal Protection Act for painting harp seal pups red and being on what is known as the "front". Watson was arrested in 1993 in Canada on charges stemming from actions against Cuban and Spanish fishing boats off the coast of Newfoundland. In 1997, Watson was convicted in absentia and sentenced to serve 120 days in jail by a court in Lofoten, Norway on charges of attempting to sink the small scale Norwegian fishing and whaling vessel Nybranna on 26 December 1992.

....and the list goes on and on and on. The SS are not liked by any government.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

SwissToniFeb. 17, 2012 - 10:40PM JST "OssanAmerica, "I find antiwhalers truly arrogant ajnd ignorant of other nations and cultures because they are they ones making demands on others to stop or change."

You sound like you'd complain if someone objected to you jumping to the front of a que. The arrogance of the >whalers is evident. They are arrogantly imposing their will on the majority of nations and cultures around the >southern ocean who object to their whaling,

Very poor analogy. They are conducting research whaling AS SANCTIONED AND AUTHORIZED under IWC regulation ARticxle VIII. That is a fact and it is up to the IWC members who are against it to changethge regulations. Furthermore, those "nations around thesouthern ocean" admit that they have no territorial jurisdiction over those waters and are therefore dictating their will over international waters. That is pretty darn arrogant, wouldn't you say?

arrogantly ignoring the majority of the nations of the IWC who dont want them to hunt and arrogantly ignoring the >IWC scientific committee who do want or see the need for the lethal 'scientific research'.

Nonsense. As stated above all the IWC needs to do is to eliminate the Scientific Permit system, But the IWC can't do that because without it the Scientific Committee would have no access to data. The anti-whaling nations have an agenda to ensure that no data goes to the Coimmirttee and no basis of overturning he 1986 Moratorium ever arises. Such an agenda, objectively, is counter to the very charter and purpose of the IWC, and those nations should leave the IWC andfor heir own anti-whaling organization.

You're just upset that the above US Judge doesnt accept the FBI's tag, and your favourite, that Sea Shepherd are >terrorists.

Total nonsense. You obviously have no experience with civil litigation. Preliminary Injunctions incivil cases are extremely diffucult to obtain except under the most extreme time-pressured circumstances, usually on a level that warrants a criminal action. To this date it not even clear if SSCS has even answered the original complaint, In others words this is just the begining.

Whats more, he doesnt accept jurisdiction because private organisations are legally allowed to interdict >and >protest in international waters where national authorities are not.

Show me where the presiding judge ever stated that. He hasn't. He couldn't possibly make such a statement prior to the case being heard. What you are doing it quoting the SSCS's attorney and putting those words in the Judge's mouth,.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

MasterBapeFeb. 17, 2012 - 10:14AM JST @ Ossan: It's perfectly logical. Like I said, both sides are aggressive. What part of that logic don't you understand?

Try anwsering these questions: -Who is approaching whom? -Who has openly declared an intent to harass whom?

Self-Defense is not "aggression". The SSCS's actions are aggressive because it is unprovoked,. The Whalers would have be chasing the SSCS and shooting harpoons at their ships to be aggressive,

What part of this logic, no COMMON SENSE do you not understand?

Whilst we're on the subject of "logic" then answer this: How is it logical to use money from the Tohoku donations to >fund whaling?

NO contribution money, domestic or foreign, is going towards the research whaling program. The funds are coming out of Japan's area recovery budget, ie; out of Japanese taxpayer money,

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

OssanAmerica, "Preliminary Injunctions incivil cases are extremely diffucult to obtain except under the most extreme time-pressured circumstances, usually on a level that warrants a criminal action. To this date it not even clear if SSCS has even answered the original complaint, In others words this is just the begining."

Thats really the point isnt it. There is little time as this hunt is nearly over, it isnt a criminal case and even on the relaxed levels of evidence required in civil cases the whalers have failed to make their point.

"To this date it not even clear if SSCS has even answered the original complaint, In others words this is just the begining."

SSCS' answer, "Moure filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit".

0 ( +2 / -2 )

SwissToniFeb. 18, 2012 - 12:47AM JST "OssanAmerica, "Preliminary Injunctions incivil cases are extremely diffucult to obtain except under the most extreme time-pressured circumstances, usually on a level that warrants a criminal action. To this date it not even clear if SSCS has even answered the original complaint, In others words this is just the begining." Thats really the point isnt it. There is little time as this hunt is nearly over, Yes that is exactly the point. Whether SSCS's acts of aggression will be stopped in time for this year's hunt...

Yes that is the point. Whether this court action stops SSCS's activities during this year's hunt is really insignificant compared to whether it will stop it in the future seasons.

"To this date it not even clear if SSCS has even answered the original complaint, In others words this is just the begining."

SSCS' answer, "Moure filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit".

Of course Moore did. That's the standard response for any attorney as an initial response regardless of the merits of the case. One would have to file a really stupid complaint, like say....claiming that an aquarium is ENSLAVING the whales and marine mammals on it;s premises, to get a judge to dismiss a complaint on the first hearing. The question on what basis did Moore ask for dismissal? On the grounds that SSCS aren't harassing and ramming the whsalers? I doubt it. I'll bet it was on jurisdictional grounds, a tough one because a Judge would have to be prepared to admit that the US Federal Court has no jurisadiction over an organization created and existing under the laws of the State of Washington.

"it isnt a criminal case and even on the relaxed levels of evidence required in civil cases the whalers have failed to make their point.

You are jumping the gun. If, and this is mighty big IF, SSCS's only answer to the response was to ask the court to dismiss the complaint, then this case hasn't even gotten off the ground yet. It should lead to the next stage of discovery. The plaintiffs, or for that matter, even the defendants haven't had a chance to "make their point" yet.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

A U.S. federal judge Thursday declined to immediately restrain the activities of a Washington state-based anti-whaling group.

.....Judge Richard Jones said he would issue a written ruling later, but that he’s inclined to deny a request for a preliminary injunction....

.....Moure filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, but the judge has not ruled on that request.

The only decision that the judge appears to have made is that he won't be rushed into making a decision.

This case is still about the violence of the eco-terrorist Watson, the violence of his SS, and their financial support in the U.S..

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The Truth Matters - I like the Japanese whaler's argument here.

Hey Pal, they're YOUR rules Sea Shepard playing under. Sea Shepard is using the same loophole you are and now you want to claim foul.

If the truth actually mattered, who's rules are the eco-terrorist SS actually "playing" under? Do they abide by any nation's rules? It doesn't appear that way.

What "loophole" are you referring to? Is there a "loophole" that allows the eco-terrorist SS to ram and sink other vessels? Is there a "loophole" that allows the eco-terrorist SS to launch glass bottles of acid at the vessels of any nation?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Yay. At least the US courts have some sense.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

A little win for the greenies against the eco-terrorist whalers.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

SwissToni,

arrogantly imposing their will on the majority of nations and cultures around the southern ocean who object to their whaling

It's like saying humans shouldn't go to the moon because aliens might object. Japan's whalers cannot impose their will on people who aren't in the Southern Ocean.

arrogantly ignoring the majority of the nations of the IWC who dont want them to hunt

Such nations must leave the IWC if they cannot accept the rules of the IWC, which includes allowing whaling.

arrogantly ignoring the IWC scientific committee who do want or see the need for the lethal 'scientific research'.

The IWC Scientific Committee has said that sustainable whaling is possible, this is ignored by anti-whaling nations who don't like IWC rules, not Japan.

You're just upset that the above US Judge doesnt accept the FBI's tag, and your favourite, that Sea Shepherd are terrorists. Whats more, he doesnt accept jurisdiction because private organisations are legally allowed to interdict and protest in international waters where national authorities are not.

Where did the judge say such a thing? I think you are imagining it.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

OssanAmerica, you make many excellent points. It is very arrogant of anti-whaling people to arrogantly try to deny Japan it's rights under international law in the Southern Ocean. To then claim Japan is the villain is just crazy, or racist perhaps. It is hard to say for sure without knowing the people who say such mad things.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Ihope2eatwhales, "It's like saying humans shouldn't go to the moon because aliens might object. Japan's whalers cannot impose their will on people who aren't in the Southern Ocean"

Well coming down from lalaland for a bit, we all share the planet, the whalers are aware of the many countrys objections to their whaling and yet they ignore that and carrying on hunting anyway. That my friend is the definition of arrogance.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

It is not arrogance to ignore crazy people. It is arrogance to think one can deny another his culture.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

So all those that think differently are crazy people and the cultures of those nations surrounding the area and objecting can just sod off then? Your egalitarian thinking is heartwarming.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I think most people in those countries are not effected by whaling in international waters, just a few crazy people make much noise about it. You seem like one of them. I had whale sashimi the other day, I doubt it ruined your day when I did so.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Run out of argument and resorted to insult and ridicule then? Oh dear.

When you leave school youll learn that isnt the way to impress. This dispute will be won by logic and pressuring the whalers until they cant afford to go on.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

SwissToniFeb. 19, 2012 - 12:40AM JST Well coming down from lalaland for a bit,

SwissToniFeb. 20, 2012 - 10:48PM JST Run out of argument and resorted to insult and ridicule then? Oh dear.

When you leave school youll learn that isnt the way to impress. This dispute will be won by logic and pressuring the whalers until they cant afford to go on.

Who's has run out or argument? The court case in the U.S. is still ongoing. The judge only delayed his decision until a later date. I assume he still has hours of whale wars video to watch. Since this case is about the violence of the eco-terrorist Watson and his SS, what better evidence is there than the eco-terrorist SS's own video record of them ramming ships and launching glass bottles of acid at people who disagree with them?

Right now, the pressure is on the eco-terrorist SS to prevent the judge from stopping their funding in the U.S..

1 ( +2 / -1 )

If you read the transcript of the court proceedings, it's funny how both sides trip over themselves and call the whalers the 'defendants'.

http://www.seashepherd.org/images/stories/news/2012/news_120217_ICR_v_SSCS_court_transcript.pdf

THE COURT: Counsel, don't you see a remarkable difference between someone approaching you with an AK 47 and someone throwing beer bottles with butyric acid?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I would like to see someone throw beer bottles full of butyric acid at the judge, to test the reaction. AK47 or not, it is wrong. Even school children know this, only crazy people don't.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

SwissToni, pressuring the whalers will not work. We whale eaters back them up. Your "pressure" is water off a duck's back. And, of course, you know it did not spoil your Saturday when I ate whale sashimi. Your wish to deny other people their choice is selfish, and not logical at all. Thank you.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

School children know it's wrong to blow holes in animals and drag them around bleeding until they die, only crazy people don't.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

ihope2eatwhales

I would like to see someone throw beer bottles full of butyric acid at the judge, to test the reaction. AK47 or not, it is wrong. Even school children know this, only crazy people don't.

Oh how some people just cant accept the umpires decision and complain when things dont go their way. Thats 2 court cases the whalers have now lost. But that wont stop them... Just waiting for them to play the racism card now.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

arrestpaul, "this case is about the violence of the eco-terrorist Watson and his SS, what better evidence is there"

If SS were demonstrably terrorists do you think there would be any trouble getting an injuction? Obviously the judge doesnt agree with you.

ihope2eatwhales, ". Your "pressure" is water off a duck's back"

Clearly not, hence the court cases.

"Your wish to deny other people their choice is selfish, and not logical at all."

Fella, youre still not getting it right. Its impossiblel to offer freedom of choice with no limits. Treating animals the way whales are treated in the hunt is inhumane, if not its pathologically cruel. Either way its a poor choice of behaviour for apparently civilised people.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

SwissToni

Its impossiblel to offer freedom of choice with no limits.

To rule out whales when Japanese people catch them with harpoons is arbitrary. There is no logical reason to exclude whales only, or only when Japanese people catch them. The US permits harpooning of whales itself.

This is why your "pressure" will never work.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

ihope2eatwhales

To rule out whales when Japanese people catch them with harpoons is arbitrary. There is no logical reason to exclude whales only, or only when Japanese people catch them. The US permits harpooning of whales itself.

You cant seriously not understand the difference between Japans commercial whaling and the subsistence whaling carried out by some native tribes in Alaska. Heres the difference, the Alaskan whaling is purely for food, its conducted in US waters and is limited. The Japanese whaling is for food (yet you sit on a stockpile of thousands of tons of meat some of which is decades old), you whale in waters that are located 10's of thousands of km's from your coast.

Now if you where whaling in your own waters and there wasnt a huge stockpile maybe peoples attitudes would be slightly different.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Some countries permit limited native subsistence hunts Japan's deep sea commercial whaling industry has no argument on the grounds of subsistence or culture. Kyodo Senpaku exists simply to churn money. Thats the reason the moral argument has already been won.

The whalers could well have preempted the ICJ court case with this attempt to get an injunction. The Judge has already said he's seen no evidence to show SS wants anyone to get hurt. If the move to quash the case isnt successful then the judge has to take world opinion, the whalers actions and their motives into account in his final ruling. Any ruling could impact the whalers standing in the ICJ, not to mention opening the ICR up to counter suit by Sea Shepherd.

Pressure will never work? It already has matey.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

cleo - If you read the transcript of the court proceedings, it's funny how both sides trip over themselves and call the whalers the 'defendants'.

THE COURT: Counsel, don't you see a remarkable difference between someone approaching you with an AK 47 and someone throwing beer bottles with butyric acid?

Good find, Cleo. I wouldn't want to be a lawyer for either side in this case. I notice that the judge felt that he had to issue several warnings BEFORE the lawyers were permitted to speak in court. Instructions to the court are not unusual but warnings to the lawyers are. I'm guessing the judge is already fed up with the pre-trial bickering. A courtroom is no place to have a "internet forum-type" of discussion. Someone might be heading for a "contempt of court" charge before this is over.

The judge also said, "By contrast, the factual issues are not so complicated. The parties have put together a very comprehensive collection of videos and photographs, which I have seen, and I have reviewed that evidence. And while the parties have many disputes, I think they agree on what is happening between them in the southern ocean. I think it is also abundantly clear from the videos that have been presented to this court that there is no question of the activities that are taking place.

The judge makes it clear that he is aware that the whalers are whaling and that the eco-terrorist SS are repeatedly committing acts of violence. The judge said, "Please understand I have read your briefs. I can give you a word of caution, and perhaps it is a word of advice, it is not in your best interest to restate or read portions of your briefing to the court".

So far, the judge has only ruled that he will not allow a PRELIMINARY injunction against the eco-terrorist SS. The judge has also delayed any ruling on the eco-terrorist SS request to toss this case out. The judge considers the case to be too complicated for an immediate decision and there is little legal precedent to help him. The judge does hold that U.S. law - 28 USC section 1350 - Alien's action for tort - does give him jurisdiction over what is happening.

Will the judge decide that violence should be allowed just because one group doesn't like or approve of the actions of another? I don't think so.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

SwissToni - Thats the reason the moral argument has already been won.

The whalers could well have preempted the ICJ court case with this attempt to get an injunction. The Judge has already said he's seen no evidence to show SS wants anyone to get hurt. If the move to quash the case isnt successful then the judge has to take world opinion, the whalers actions and their motives into account in his final ruling. Any ruling could impact the whalers standing in the ICJ, not to mention opening the ICR up to counter suit by Sea Shepherd.

Pressure will never work? It already has matey.

The "moral argument" isn't on trial here. The judge has already seen the videos, including the eco-terrorist's own videos, and heard the eco-terrorists own words that they intended to ram the whalers and then steered their scows into the Japanese vessels. He's hear the eco-terrorists say they were going to "light up" the whalers as the eco-terrorists fired red phosphorus flares at the whalers. The repeated eco-terrorist violence is obvious and the judge said, "I think it is also abundantly clear from the videos that have been presented to this court that there is no question of the activities that are taking place".

The plaintiff's (SS) response seems to be "but your honor, those people are whaling and our violent actions are justified." That's not a defendable position in any court.

It's absurd to say that the ICJ court case could have been preempted with this injunction. Different courts and different legal issues.

I agree that "pressure" has been effective. More and more nations have revoked or refused to register eco-terrorist vessels because of their repeated acts of violence. Many countries have issued warrants for and arrested eco-terrorist SS members. While a vocal minority proclaim the eco-terrorists have wide support, the legal systems of the world are closing in on the pro-violence eco-terrorists.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

arrestpaul, nice try. The judge refused the lawyers to read their submissions because he had read them and understood there to be a bit of a rush to get a decision. He wanted the hearing done in the one day. A real service to the whalers considering the hunt is so far along. He made his decision on the preliminary injunction and was very clear. He said no based upon the hardships suffered by the whalers, none that could be demonstrated and the public interest the whalers seek to avoid but not the judge it seems.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Cletus - Oh how some people just cant accept the umpires decision and complain when things dont go their way. Thats 2 court cases the whalers have now lost.

Wrong. The "umpire" has only decided not to issue a PRELIMINARY injunction against the eco-terrorist SS. The "umpire" also decided not to imeadiately rule on the eco-terrorist request that the case be tossed out. The case is "alive and well" and still before the court.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

arrestpaul, the judge didnt accept that violence was done, the whalers failed to show Sea Shepherds actions had hurt anyone. Thats the basis of the whalers case.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

SwissToni - nice try. The judge refused the lawyers to read their submissions because he had read them and understood there to be a bit of a rush to get a decision. He wanted the hearing done in the one day. A real service to the whalers considering the hunt is so far along. He made his decision on the preliminary injunction and was very clear.

I'm not sure you understand the difference between a preliminary injunction, which would have been an immediate judicial call to end the violence and the still pending request to end the violence among other things. The judge is still in a position to eventually demand an end to the violence. This case isn't closed.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

SwissToni - the judge didnt accept that violence was done, the whalers failed to show Sea Shepherds actions had hurt anyone. Thats the basis of the whalers case.

Wrong. According to the judge, "Now, it is clear to me what the Sea Shepherd is doing in the southern ocean has the potential to be dangerous to human life. The southern ocean is a dangerous place in and of itself. I think everyone agrees that the Sea Shepherd's tactics make it a little more dangerous under the circumstances of what they are engaging in. I think it is self-evident by the videos presented by the parties."

The judge clearly accepts the fact that the eco-terrorist SS has been committing repeated acts of violence against the whalers.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The Japanese whaling is for food (yet you sit on a stockpile of thousands of tons of meat some of which is decades old),

If the researchers catch on average 5000 Metric tons for 10 years and you claim that there are "tons of meat some of which is decades old", what would be the approximate inventory (stockpile as you say)?

http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/j/study/enyou/pdf/shiryo2_4.pdf

2 ( +2 / -0 )

nigelboy

"The Japanese whaling is for food (yet you sit on a stockpile of thousands of tons of meat some of which is decades old)," If the researchers catch on average 5000 Metric tons for 10 years and you claim that there are "tons of meat some of which is decades old", what would be the approximate inventory (stockpile as you say)?

Nigelboy, try reading my post again it says in quite plain english that there is a stockpile of thousands of tons (approximately 5-6000 tons) and yes some of it dates from before the ban on commercial whaling. " including meat stored frozen from before the moratorium on commercial whaling" this quote is from the JWA website. So they even admit some meat in the stockpile may be 30+ years old.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

arrestpaul,

Wrong. According to the judge, "Now, it is clear to me what the Sea Shepherd is doing in the southern ocean has the potential to be dangerous to human life. The southern ocean is a dangerous place in and of itself. I think everyone agrees that the Sea Shepherd's tactics make it a little more dangerous under the circumstances of what they are engaging in. I think it is self-evident by the videos presented by the parties." The judge clearly accepts the fact that the eco-terrorist SS has been committing repeated acts of violence against the whalers.

Funny quote, considering these quotes are also from the same judge

Justice Richard Jones said the conservationists' actions in the Southern Ocean were potentially dangerous, but rejected claims that any whalers had been hurt by the harassment, which he likened to ''petty vandalism''.

And he also said

And he queried why the whalers were attempting to obtain a favourable ruling in his US District Court, after they refused to abide by an injunction obtained in the Australian Federal Court against whaling in an Australian Antarctic whale sanctuary.

So yes technically while the case hasnt been fully wrapped up the judges initial statements certainly do not look good for the whalers and the fact that they failed so far to get an injunction only highlights the issue further and opens the door for not only SS to file a counter compliants.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Nigelboy, try reading my post again it says in quite plain english that there is a stockpile of thousands of tons (approximately 5-6000 tons) and yes some of it dates from before the ban on commercial whaling. " including meat stored frozen from before the moratorium on commercial whaling" this quote is from the JWA website. So they even admit some meat in the stockpile may be 30+ years old.

I think that must be wrong? Whale meat for human consumption is the same as storing any other meat. I think it would be less than five years,after that, it's usually sold on for cat food?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Zichi,

Im just going by what is written on the Japan Whaling Association website. The quote is in response to a question about whale meat from endangered species being in the stockpile. You would hope they dont sell it for human consumption but the question is why keep it for so long and if whale meat is so enjoyed here why is the stockpile so big and parts of it so old.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Cletus

Very weak. Let's put the entire answer shall we so we get a clearer perspective.

The explanation they offer is... "Products from species of large whale other than minke whale in the market could have originated from several sources including meat stored frozen from before the moratorium on commercial whaling, by-products from past scientific catches by Iceland and Norway, stranding, or by-catch.

Illegal catches or trade are unlikely sources since the Government of Japan has strict regulations that prohibits whaling for species regulated by the IWC in compliance with the moratorium on commercial whaling and because the import of whale meat from non-IWC member countries is prohibited by regulation.

DNA analyses of samples of whale products currently distributed in the Japanese markets conducted by the Fisheries Agency of Japan and Traffic-Japan have not substantiated any illegal catches or trade.

Media reports of illegal whale meat in Japanese markets have come from DNA analyses conducted by scientists from New Zealand and the U.S.A. Contrary to standard scientific practice, samples used as the basis for their reports have not been provided for verification.

There are other matters of scientific procedures that seriously question the credibility of these reports. The IWC's Scientific Committee has rejected consideration of some of these reports."

Yep. It looks like a "there is a bug in my soup" tactic by anti-whalers. What a surprise!!

Now that we got this BS out of the way, care to answer my question, Cletus???

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The judge is still in a position to eventually demand an end to the violence.

The judge made a point of asking when the whaling season would be over (the whalers said the end of March). Maybe he's planning to demand a temporary end to the violence started April Fool's Day.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

SwissToni,

Some countries permit limited native subsistence hunts

You said, "Treating animals the way whales are treated in the hunt is inhumane, if not its pathologically cruel. Either way its a poor choice of behaviour for apparently civilised people."

So, do you mean US whalers are not civilized people? Are they pathologically cruel?

Because their hunting methods are no match for Japan's.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

arrestpaul, thank you for the information of the court case. I have not read the lengthy document, so I thank you for sharing your understanding.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

SwissToni,

arrestpaul, the judge didnt accept that violence was done, the whalers failed to show Sea Shepherds actions had hurt anyone. Thats the basis of the whalers case.

The basis of the case is that ramming ships and throwing bottles of acid has the potential to cause injury to people. They are not trying to get compensation for past actions.

Of course, only crazy people could think that ramming ships and throwing glass bottles of acid does not have the potential to cause injury.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

nigelboy

Very weak. Let's put the entire answer shall we so we get a clearer perspective. The explanation they offer is... "Products from species of large whale other than minke whale in the market could have originated from several sources including meat stored frozen from before the moratorium on commercial whaling, by-products from past scientific catches by Iceland and Norway, stranding, or by-catch.

Indeed it is, l merely highlighted the relevant passage for you. And even in the full quote it says exactly the same as what l said that parts of the stockpile are decades old. Now so we are clear because you are seemingly having difficulty l said initially "yet you sit on a stockpile of thousands of tons of meat some of which is decades old". See l even highlighted the bit you miss quoted when you said "you claim that there are "tons of meat some of which is decades old"

So Nigelboy can you please show me exactly where l claim "TONS of meat is decades old". Seriously please try to read and comprehend before miss quoting.

Now that we got this BS out of the way, care to answer my question, Cletus???

How can l answer your question when you cant even read my initial post correctly. Maybe when you get that right then we can discuss. Sheez.....

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

If throwing a bottle at someone stops them doing something much worse - like torturing an animal - it's not wrong.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If children throw glass bottles at me because I ate whale sashimi, I will call the police. And the children will get in trouble without a doubt.

And people will ask serious questions of the parents of those children.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

ihope -

If the children threw glass bottles at you in an attempt to stop you digging the guts out of a living cow or dog of pigeon, I would hope the parents of those children would be the ones calling the police, and that you would be the one in trouble and with a lot of serious explaining to do.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

dog or pigeon.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Cletus - Funny quote, considering these quotes are also from the same judge

Justice Richard Jones said the conservationists' actions in the Southern Ocean were potentially dangerous, but rejected claims that any whalers had been hurt by the harassment, which he likened to ''petty vandalism''.

And he also said

And he queried why the whalers were attempting to obtain a favourable ruling in his US District Court, after they refused to abide by an injunction obtained in the Australian Federal Court against whaling in an Australian Antarctic whale sanctuary.

So yes technically while the case hasnt been fully wrapped up the judges initial statements certainly do not look good for the whalers and the fact that they failed so far to get an injunction only highlights the issue further and opens the door for not only SS to file a counter compliants.

I quoted the judge directly. I'm not sure who you are quoting but the judge didn't say, "Justice Richard Jones said...." nor did the judge say, "And he queried why the whalers...." ?????

What the judge DID say was, "I think everyone agrees that the Sea Shepherd's tactics make it a little more dangerous under the circumstances of what they are engaging in. I think it is SELF-EVIDENT by the videos presented by the parties."

The judge believes that the actions of the eco-terrorist SS are DANGEROUS.

The judge also said that his court has jurisdiction to decide this case.

This hearing was to determine if the court should issue a PRELIMINARY injunction. A PERMANENT injunction is STILL pending.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

cleo - If throwing a bottle at someone stops them doing something much worse - like torturing an animal - it's not wrong.

I see you are continuing to defend the violent actions of the pro-violence, eco-terrorist Watson and his SS.

Violence is not wrong if you can repeatedly use it to force others to do your bidding. Right?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

ihope2eatwhales, "The basis of the case is that ramming ships and throwing bottles of acid has the potential to cause injury to people. They are not trying to get compensation for past actions."

And throwing percussion grenades, poking people with sticks, throwing nuts and bolts, employing ELRAD on aircraft in the air.

The whalers want an exclusoin zone so Sea Shepherd cant interfere with their operations. The basis of their claim is the unsafe environment presented to their crew by Sea Shepherds operations. They cant however show that Sea Shepherd has injured their crew, or indeed anyone, anywhere, ever. It can be shown that crew have been killed and injured while whaling.

In those cercumstances its highly unlikely the judge will issue an injunction stopping a demonstration because something may go wrong sometime, maybe. He needs a good reason and the whalers have so far offered no proof of violent injury. The judge could just as easily say stop whaling if they dont want crew exposed to any danger.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

arrestpaul - No, violence is wrong. Make no mistake. But sometimes it's the lesser of two evils. That definitely applies in this case.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

cleo - The judge made a point of asking when the whaling season would be over (the whalers said the end of March). Maybe he's planning to demand a temporary end to the violence started April Fool's Day.

The judge also made a point of saying, "*I think the court has to take a practical consideration of the evidence before me. When you throw or launch glass bottles at a ship with people on deck you put every one of them at risk of injury. This is particularly so when you use large slingshot-type devices to project bottles, with unpredictable results as to where they will land or if they will cause injury to any other person. This is also true when you launch flares, intended to start the netting covering the deck on fire. You put people at risk of injury also when you point laser beams at the bridge of a vessel. You put people at risk of injury when you use thick ropes in an attempt to disable the rudder or propeller of a ship. You put people at risk of injury because they will be unable to maneuver through storms and through ice flows. One of the videos specifically shows a large iceberg or large ice chunks in the ocean. I think it is self-evident the potential harm that could cause if the ship was unable to maneuver through that. Also, when you pilot your boats too close to the whaling boats there is a serious risk of injury, a lesson I think that is abundantly clear from the collision with the Ady Gil two seasons ago. Now, to be honest, what the Sea Shepherd is doing, it appears to me, some of it is closer to what I would characterize as petty vandalism. I am talking now about the paint bomb attacks and the smoke bombs. Most of what they are doing does put people at risk of injury in that ocean area**."

The judge specifically considers "paint bombs" and "smoke bombs" to be some sort of petty vandalism.

The judge considers the OTHER actions of the eco-terrorist SS to be DANGEROUS.

The ICR is asking that the judge impose a 800-meter perimeter around their vessels to keep the eco-terrorist SS from endangering human life. I think that would be a fair compromise. The eco-terrorists can still yell "shame on you" but the eco-terrorists wouldn't be able to endanger their own people by putting them within the range of a 10 foot pole held by a whaler.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Indeed it is, l merely highlighted the relevant passage for you. And even in the full quote it says exactly the same as what l said that parts of the stockpile are decades old. Now so we are clear because you are seemingly having difficulty l said initially "yet you sit on a stockpile of thousands of tons of meat some of which is decades old". See l even highlighted the bit you miss quoted when you said "you claim that there are "tons of meat some of which is decades old"

Cletus

If you choose to be technical about it, where does it state that the samples came from the "stockpile"?

"Contrary to standard scientific practice, samples used as the basis for their reports have not been provided for verification."

I gave you a link to the catches and inventory for each year which basically indicates that there is in fact a periodic and fluctuating inventory. Therefore, why in the world there would be stocks dating back before the moratorium? It makes absolutely no sense.

Hence, unless you can prove that these samples were in fact originated from the cold storage in Japan and taken recently, your assertion that "tons of meat some of which is decades old" is merely a wishful thinking on your part.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Thanks to cleo for putting up the link to the proceedings. Looks to me like Harris & Moure are looking pretty ridiculous, reflecting SSCS's position per se. I had thought they would present a far better defense. When I look at certain points, I wonder if SSCS shouldn;'t have gotten better legal representation. For example the "rub" betweeen Harris and the Judge regarding the M/V Steve Irwin's ramming action was poor, no judge tolerates being taken for a fool. I also question Harris' actual experiemce with internatioinal law. For example he states; "I am not going to rehash that briefing, but I will note that we, again, call on this court to honor international comity by honoring the Australian federal court's decision finding plaintiffs' whaling illegal." Even a layman knows that you can not apply comity to a defaut ruling. Judge must have thought this as Harrris was speaking. I'll bet there will be a change of defense lawyers as the cases progresses. No point in arguing now which is winning, neither are. The decion against issuing a preliminary injunction seems to have much to do with how long this would take to implement, the problem of enforcement, and how soon the hunt season would be over. Clearly the judge isn't blind to SSCS's actions and he's certainly not going to dismiss the complaint. I also see that a "conservation group" has submitted an Amicum brief for the defedants. Great. I think the US Justice Department should be submitting one for the plaintiffs. I do suspect that SSCS will "tone down" their aggression for the balance of the season for the simple reason that should anyone on either side now get injured, or more boats damaged, it will work against them in this case.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

cleo - No, violence is wrong. Make no mistake. But sometimes it's the lesser of two evils. That definitely applies in this case.

Once again, you are justifying the violence of the eco-terrorist SS.

Do you believe that establishing an 800-meter perimeter around the ICR vessels would prevent people from being hurt?

The lawyer for the eco-terrorist who was recently struck by a bamboo pole was also present at this hearing. The eco-terrorists claim that one of their eco-terrorists, who was throwing glass bottles of acid at the crewman aiming a water cannon, was "attacked" by the whalers when he moved so close to the whalers that they could reach him with 10 foot pole.

I would love to hear the eco-terrorist lawyer explain that action. - Your honor. My client couldn't manage to injure the crewmen by throwing glass bottles of acid from a distance of 20-meters so he was forced to move within 4-meters but only to increase his chances of actally hitting someone. It is the whalers fault this idiot was injured because they keep DEFENDING themselves.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"The lawyer for the eco-terrorist who was recently struck by a bamboo pole was also present at this hearing. The eco-terrorists claim that one of their eco-terrorists, who was throwing glass bottles of acid at the crewman aiming a water cannon, was "attacked" by the whalers when he moved so close to the whalers that they could reach him with 10 foot pole."

The funny thing is that his presence andf the SSCS member's complaint supports the Plainiff's position entirely.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

It's clear the judge isn't buying the whole "research whaling" smokescreen that the ICR uses.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

It's clear the judge isn't buying the whole "research whaling" smokescreen that the ICR uses.

The court isn't being asked to deternine if the whaling is "research" or not.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

nigelboy

If you choose to be technical about it, where does it state that the samples came from the "stockpile"?

Well Nigelboy as you have difficulty with this, the JWA (thats the Japan Whaling Association) states when discussing the presence of endangered whale meat that "meat stored frozen from before the moratorium on commercial whaling". Now this sentence is the key, forget the whole endangered argument my point is the JWA is saying that they have meat frozen hence stored from decades ago. Do you understand now, its not about the fact that it came from an endangered animal but the fact that they have in their whale meat inventory some meat that is decades old. Now surely if it was so popular then the turnover would have removed it true? And given that a good proportion of the whale meat caught ends up in pet food is there really a need to continue the hunt as it is now and why push for free unlimited hunting when Japan is sitting on a huge stockpile, consumption is dropping, and the meat ends up going for pet feed.

Hence, unless you can prove that these samples were in fact originated from the cold storage in Japan and taken recently, your assertion that "tons of meat some of which is decades old" is merely a wishful thinking on your part.

Nigelboy, so you are saying that the JWA has their facts wrong is that right. Because thats exactly what they state on their website and its exactly what l have stated here and you even quoted it yourself so maybe you should go back and reread what you actually wrote yourself earlier on.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Shrkb8 - It's clear the judge isn't buying the whole "research whaling" smokescreen that the ICR uses.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. What is clear is that the ICR is not asking the court to address any research issues. The judge did ask the ICR lawyers why they were not pursuing any damage or interference to research claims. The ICR responded that this is a safety issue and that they have passengers and crew that they were trying to protect.

THE COURT (Judge): Let me ask you a few questions, counsel. I have identified that balancing hardships as an issue for this court. If the purpose of the Institute of Cetacean Research is truly research, why have I not seen any documented evidence of how defendants' activities are interfering or disrupting your ability to conduct research?

MR. NEUPERT (ICR lawyer): Well, the objective of the injunction, your Honor, is to protect property and life. That is the objective. We didn't bring this case under a theory of, if you want, tortious interference with business opportunity. We could have easily pleaded a case of tortious interference with business opportunity. We have the opportunity to engage in legal research - or research on the high seas, you are interfering with that. That is not the predicate of the case. You haven't seen any evidence from us on that subject because that is not the predicate of the case. The predicate of the case is we have crew and passengers who are put at daily risk of serious harm that must stop. That's what is at risk. We have put ample evidence of that before you....

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

If the children threw glass bottles at you in an attempt to stop you digging the guts out of a living cow or dog or pigeon

How about fish? This is Japan.

I eat whales also. The good crews of the whaling vessels catch and kill them. We are all in it together. If no one hoped to eat whales, there would be no need for research or to kill them, either. If one thinks violence against whalers is justified, then the same should be true for those who eat whales.

But we know that such violence would not be tolerated by police.

And the parents of such children committing the crimes would be asked hard questions.

Violence against other members of our society is no way to resolve disputes. I thought the American judge would think so, maybe I do not understand American values like I thought, after 9/11.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Cletus, the JWA does not have inventory. They are talking about Japanese markets. I have seen the JWA HP many years ago, and I recall this question and answer was there, even then. So, I suppose this text is more than a decade old at least, much closer to the time of the introduction of the moratorium. You should understand it in that context, and listen carefully to nigelboy.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Do you believe that establishing an 800-meter perimeter around the ICR vessels would prevent people from being hurt?

Not necessarily. The whalers are quite capable all on their own of starting fires in the boiler room, firing what they claim to be fire extinguishers into their own faces and jumping overboard in the middle of the night. What an 800-metre perimeter would do is prevent the SS boats getting between the harpoons and the whales or between the harpoon ships and the factory ship thus preventing the saving of whales, and that would not be a good thing.

How about fish? This is Japan.

How about fish? We are talking about mammals. The Antarctic is not Japan. Your point?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Well Nigelboy as you have difficulty with this, the JWA (thats the Japan Whaling Association) states when discussing the presence of endangered whale meat that "meat stored frozen from before the moratorium on commercial whaling". Now this sentence is the key, forget the whole endangered argument my point is the JWA is saying that they have meat frozen hence stored from decades ago. Do you understand now, its not about the fact that it came from an endangered animal but the fact that they have in their whale meat inventory some meat that is decades old. Now surely if it was so popular then the turnover would have removed it true? And given that a good proportion of the whale meat caught ends up in pet food is there really a need to continue the hunt as it is now and why push for free unlimited hunting when Japan is sitting on a huge stockpile, consumption is dropping, and the meat ends up going for pet feed.

Nowhere does it state that the sample in question came from the source from Japan. They are questioning the samples in of itself.

"Contrary to standard scientific practice, samples used as the basis for their reports have not been provided for verification"

Furthermore,

"There are other matters of scientific procedures that seriously question the credibility of these reports. The IWC's Scientific Committee has rejected consideration of some of these reports."

I repeat. So unless you can prove that the samples in question did come from Japan and was taken recently, your claim "tons of meat some of which is decades old" is simply A WISHFUL THINKING ON YOUR PART.

Secondly, Japan has law on "frozen foods" 食品衛生法 which bascially restricts meat products from being distributed to the market which are old. Hence, like most all frozen meat products or by products, they are distributed to the market on a First in, First out basis. <-------This is a no brainer since there is no point in storing a meat that are no longer marketable. (It becomes worthless)

Nigelboy, so you are saying that the JWA has their facts wrong is that right. Because thats exactly what they state on their website and its exactly what l have stated here and you even quoted it yourself so maybe you should go back and reread what you actually wrote yourself earlier on.

No Cletus. You're basically misleading the JWA answer to suit your agenda.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

ArrestPaul,

While the ICR is trying to prevent the trial from addressing the whole "research" farce, the judge did indicatethat his opinion will be based in part on the fact that the whalers were hunting whales in a whale sanctuary and had violated the Australian whale sanctuary, and that killing the whales in the sanctuaries was against international and Australian law. In other words he is looking at the "dirty hands" of both sides. He refused to impose an immediate injunction in part because it would increase the killing of whales in the sanctuary.

You seem to conveniently ignore the parts of the transcripts that contradict your position.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Arrest paul,

The judge took the ICR lawyers to task for trying to characterize the Sea Shepherd efforts as "terrorism". He likened it more to vandalism.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Shrkb8,

You are wrong. The Judge took Sea Shepherd's acts of ramming, propeller fouling and bottle throwing and shooting very seriously. The comparison to "vandalism" was specifically about pant and smoke bombs.

"Now, to be honest, what the Sea Shepherd is doing, it appears to me, some of it is closer to what I would characterize as petty vandalism. I am talking now about the paint bomb attacks and the smoke bombs. Most of what they are doing does put people at risk of injury in that ocean area."

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Shrkb8 - While the ICR is trying to prevent the trial from addressing the whole "research" farce, the judge did indicatethat his opinion will be based in part on the fact that the whalers were hunting whales in a whale sanctuary and had violated the Australian whale sanctuary, and that killing the whales in the sanctuaries was against international and Australian law. In other words he is looking at the "dirty hands" of both sides. He refused to impose an immediate injunction in part because it would increase the killing of whales in the sanctuary.

HAHAHAHA. Court cases are very complicated proceedures but not impossible to understand unless you get your information from the eco-terrorist Watson.

The ICR is asking the court for an injunction against the repeated acts of violence being committed by the eco-terrorist SS. The eco-terrorist response to the court is that the research being done by the ICR isn't actually research. That doesn't answer the question before the court which is about stopping the repeated act of violence committed by the eco-terrorist SS. The eco-terrorist SS is only trying to justify their violence to the court. The eco-terrorist SS is admitting that they are committing repeated acts but that they have good reason for doing so. And that their repeated acts of violence isn't really violence. The judge has already said the many of the actions of the eco-terrorist SS is DANGEROUS so he's not buying that lie.

Since the one Australian case was issued as a default judgement against an ICR captain, it holds no legal weight in the U.S. court. Regardless of how important that is to the eco-terrorist Watson's wailing.

There is no international law against whaling in a whaling sanctuary. Only the International WHALING Commission's regulations which allows research and other types of whaling.

The judge didn't impose an immediate, temporary injunction because the eco-terrorist SS are presently wandering aimlessly around looking for a Japanese factory vessel to ram. If the eco-terrorists had any idea where their intended victims were, he may have ruled differently.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

How about fish? We are talking about mammals.

I do not think mammal life and fish life is so different. All life must be respected, cleo.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I do not think mammal life and fish life is so different. All life must be respected

I agree with your words, but find it difficult to believe you mean them. You're quite happy eating the flesh of creatures that have died in agony?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

cleo,

You're quite happy eating the flesh of creatures that have died in agony?

I am not happy for any creature to suffer pain. However creatures suffering pain is a part of nature. Although I wish nature were different, I also believe nature is this way for a reason. I am comfortable with nature as it is, not as I wish it to be in an imaginary world.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

cleo - I agree with your words, but find it difficult to believe you mean them. You're quite happy eating the flesh of creatures that have died in agony?

You seem quite happy supporting and promoting violence as a means to reach your demands. You demand that whaling be stopped and you're willing to support anyone who is willing to cause injury, destruction, and possibly death to human beings if it will stop whaling.

Is violence the answer to every situation or just when YOU decide it is?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

you're willing to support anyone who is willing to cause injury, destruction, and possibly death to human beings

No one is willing to 'cause injury, destruction, and possibly death to human beings'. Stop being a drama queen.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

cleoFeb. 22, 2012 - 11:44PM JST No, violence is wrong. Make no mistake. But sometimes it's the lesser of two evils. That definitely applies in this case.

cleoFeb. 24, 2012 - 11:07PM JST No one is willing to 'cause injury, destruction, and possibly death to human beings'. Stop being a drama queen.

Didn't you just say that violence was the "lesser of two evils"?

Didn't you say that violence "definitely applies in this case"?

It certainly sounds like you are in favor of violence and any resulting injury, destruction, and possible death to human beings that it might cause. Violence is OK if you get what you want.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"lesser of two evils"

Lesser evil - the wailer ship has a stinky deck, maybe a bit of paint on its phoney 'Research' sign.

Greater evil - Whales in great numbers are subjected to a potentially slow, extremely painful and horrific death.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

cleoFeb. 22, 2012 - 11:44PM JST No, violence is wrong. Make no mistake. But sometimes it's the lesser of two evils. That definitely applies in this case.

You're saying that VIOLENCE, specifically the violence committed by the eco-terrorist SS, should be applied against the whalers because you object to all whaling. You support the eco-terrorist SS because they are doing what you want them to do.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

**I'm proud of you Sea Shepherd and as long as you keep up the fight to stop the Japanese from killing whales I will continue to support you in spirit and financially. Go Sea Shepherd......STOP JAPAN WHALE KILLERS!!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In 1986 the IWC issued a moratorium on all commercial whaling BUT Japan DEFIES the ban and participates in year-round whaling. The IWC also says its permitted to hunt whales as long as they are caught for research not commercial purposes. Japan sells whale meat. But we all know, Japan is that deceitful they will use any loophole they can find.

Our oceans are dying, when the oceans die all life on earth will die. Please read marine science, why is it that egoist Japan is so narcissistic that it views SAVING OUR OCEANS as a clash between Japanese & Western cultures.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is illegal to whale, case closed. Judge Richard Jones http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/02/16/18707549.php

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

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

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites