Do you support Australia's plan to launch legal action against Japan over its whaling program in Antarctic waters?

Should be a "Who Cares' choice.

The other trick they may employ is to pick through the judge's findings, and harp on about the three lines that they like and ignore the other 60 pages that they don't as well as the fact that overall they lost.

Yes David I can hear it now: Japan bribed the ICJ!!! Those Bastards!!! At least that's what Cap N Crunch will tell them happened and because he's got a ship called the Steve Irwin the Ozzies will lap it up like milk.

I think Australians will only realise the embarrassment after they drop the court case or lose it. Knowing Australian national pride, my guess is they will choose to lose it and then blame someone else (probably Japan!) for it.

Yes. It's a welcoming sight to see this insignificant country from down under embarass themselves once again.

Being bitter is not good for your health, mate.

Do you support Australia's plan to launch legal action against Japan over its whaling program in Antarctic waters?

Yes. It's a welcoming sight to see this insignificant country from down under embarass themselves once again.

Isn't it embarrasing to be from Australia right now?

Never embarrassed to be an Aussie, brother. Every day I feel lucky to have been born there.

Isn't it embarrasing to be from Australia right now?

Actually, with the thought that Australia may lose this ICJ action if based on the true interpretation of the IWC charter and agreements and the fact that too few sovereign nations recognize the so called sanctuary in international waters, it may be a good thing for the matter to be discussed at the ICJ.

Garthgoyle,

My understanding is that it means Japan is gathering biological data on whales for use in scientific studies, such as those being conducted by Japanese researchers as well as international researchers who are members of the IWC's Scientific Committee, which can contribute to our ability to utilise whales optimally in accordance with the ordinary meaning and spirit of the whaling convention.

I have a question; what does "scientific research" means when Japan says that's their reason for whaling program?

sarcasm123 at 11:45 AM JST - 31st May Let's put the facts together now, people: 1. Japan had practically no >whaling fleet before they adapted Western ways of whaling.

That's irrelevant to the question of whether Japan has a food culture which includes whales. They have since the 12th century. Whether a particular food is eaten every day, occasionally or rarely is also irrelevant.

sarcasm123 at 11:01 AM JST - 31st May Try asking the Norwegians. Or the Faroe Islanders. Why, are they pretending to do research too?

No, they reject the IWC Moratorium hunt whales to eat. Period. And that's acceptale to you but Japan's research whaling is not? Because if that's he case your agenda has nothing to do with being anti-whaling.

I support Australia as I hope that this issue can be resolved one way or the other, perferqably with an understanding and an agreement that suits all parties.

The MINKE whale is NOT in danger of 'extintion'. You need to get your information from somewhere other than an organization the FBI considers an eco-terrorist.

sarcasm123 - The funny thing is that the "Minke whales are not in danger of extinction" data is coming from the guys who want to hunt them for commercial purposes.

And how many MINKE whales did Watson tell you there are?

sarcasm123 at 10:31 AM JST - 31st May Oh come on, even Japan partly admits that the "research" story is just a >cover up, a loop hope. In other words: just pretending.

You probably mean a loop hole. But you don't seem to understand what that means. A loophole is called just that because it passes the requirement, be it a law or regulation. It has nithiung to do with "pretending" which is called "fraud".

But you are right, it will have to be proven. See my first post here: >get some real researchers out there to evaluate Japan's "research" and >whether or not this "research" requires lethal sampling. If they do >this, I feel that the conclusion will be just like I wrote.

I hope you do realize that you have just admitted that Japan conducts Research Whaling. What you are now arguing is that the method involved, ie; killing whales, isn't necessary.

I guess you've never seen the old Japanese woodblock prints from the >early Edo period of whaling. Nononono, my dear. The Japanese claim is as follow: "we Japanese have >been eating this whale for centuries". My question again: how did those >28 whaling ships provide "We, 50 million Japanese" with whale meat on a >regular basis? Normal Japan, IF they even ate whale at all, ate whale >perhaps a few times per year.

Yes the Japanese have been hunting whales for food since the 12th century. But if you know anything at all about Japan, which I seriously doubt, Your error lies in your assumption that whale is eaten "regularly". Japanese don't eat whale as often as we eat steak. Whale has never been and and is not now such a large component of the Japanese diet that they need the world's largest whaling fleet. In fact you can live in Japan for years and never run accross whale meat. There are plenty of Japanese who have never tasted whale meat.

Now, tell me honestly: do you think the Japanese are now suffering >because they cannot eat whale 2 or 3 times a year?? :P

For some yes for some no, and the vast majority probablym don't care. But it's mostcertain that it's neither your position nor mine to make that decision.

Yes, in 1908 the United States, along with nations like England, Norway, Australia were busy decimating the global whale populations, flensing them for oil and throwing the carcasses overboard in one of the most brutal and barbaric wastes of any natural resource.

So, in other words, some who claim it is Japan's culture to whale, >should in fact be claiming that it is much more the West's culture to >whale. Yet, I NEVER hear any western people state stupid things >like: "it is our culture to whale so we should keep doing it forever".

Try asking the Norwegians. Or the Faroe Islanders.

In 1908 Japan had just modernized it whaling fleet at was at the highest >capacity ever. 28 ships, my dear, 28 ships. For 50 million mouth to feed.

Which is more than enough. If you understand that whale meat has never been and is not now found on every dinner table in Japan.

sarcasm123 at 10:38 AM JST - 31st May

Come on, david, no stalling. Show me the reference.

You only just confirmed you could read Japanese.

Why the impatience? Are you worked up or something? Keep it cool man, or the moderators will have to come down on you again.

Moderator: davidattokyo and sarcasm123, please do not bring your ongoing battle to this thread. You've both posted enough on this topic.

IWC Scientific Committee

I said SCIENTISTS not Whalers. As you told us so often: the W stands for Whaling.

get some real researchers out there to evaluate Japan's "research"

Been there, done that. IWC Scientific Committee has twice acknowledged the scientific value of Japan's contribution to it's work and indeed the work of other fora.

The onus is on Australia to prove that all of the evidence (from the IWC Scientific Committee etc) that Japan's science is indeed science is actually somehow wrong.

Essentially Australia has to discredit the IWC Scientific Committee and much of the work of many of it's members in order to do that. It's far more likely that the court will recognise that the IWC Scientific Committee's statements on the matter discredit Australia's politically motivated assertions that Japan's contribution is not science.

Essentially Australia has to discredit the IWC Scientific Committee and much of the work of many of it's members in order to do that.

Easy. Just ask real scientists to evaluate its work. Both you and I know how they feel about it.

Come on, david, no stalling. Show me the reference.

Do you read Japanese? I don't have an English reference for you, I'm afraid.

Yes, I do read Japanese. Where do you think the "28 ships" fact comes from. No Japanese would ever dare to write such things in English!

Everything you just wrote says exactly what I stated; AUSTRALIA WILL HAVE TO PROVE THAT JAPAN HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH IWC REGULATIONS. Explain how "COMPLYING" and "PRETENDING TO COMPLY" differ in a MATERIAL sense. Your whgole rgument that Jaqpn is "pretending" to do research is ridiculous as it sumbits research findings to tjhe IWC Scientific committe., with if it were "pretend research" would habe been denounced as so ages ago.

Oh come on, even Japan partly admits that the "research" story is just a cover up, a loop hope. In other words: just pretending. But you are right, it will have to be proven. See my first post here: get some real researchers out there to evaluate Japan's "research" and whether or not this "research" requires lethal sampling. If they do this, I feel that the conclusion will be just like I wrote.

I guess you've never seen the old Japanese woodblock prints from the early Edo period of whaling.

Nononono, my dear. The Japanese claim is as follow: "we Japanese have been eating this whale for centuries". My question again: how did those 28 whaling ships provide "We, 50 million Japanese" with whale meat on a regular basis? Normal Japan, IF they even ate whale at all, ate whale perhaps a few times per year. Now, tell me honestly: do you think the Japanese are now suffering because they cannot eat whale 2 or 3 times a year?? :P

Yes, in 1908 the United States, along with nations like England, Norway, Australia were busy decimating the global whale populations, flensing them for oil and throwing the carcasses overboard in one of the most brutal and barbaric wastes of any natural resource.

So, in other words, some who claim it is Japan's culture to whale, should in fact be claiming that it is much more the West's culture to whale. Yet, I NEVER hear any western people state stupid things like: "it is our culture to whale so we should keep doing it forever".

In 1908, Japan had only 30 whaling ships because they had just started to join the modern western steam powered whaling fleets. But they were hunting whales, like the arctic aborigines, centuries earlier.

In 1908 Japan had just modernized it whaling fleet at was at the highest capacity ever. 28 ships, my dear, 28 ships. For 50 million mouth to feed.

sarcasm123

Funny you think whaling was no big deal when in fact whalers were near the top of Japan's Edo era "Rich List".

Citation please.

Not holding my breath though.

Do you read Japanese? I don't have an English reference for you, I'm afraid.

Funny you think whaling was no big deal when in fact whalers were near the top of Japan's Edo era "Rich List".

Citation please.

Not holding my breath though. You have a bad track record when it comes to showing evidence...

sarcasm123,

1 party does it anyway pretending to fit the conditions

OK, so please prove that there is no research coming from Japan's research programmes. E.g., prove that all of the data provided to the IWC Scientific Committee is not actually scientific data, and prove that the scientists using the data are not actually scientists.

That is what Australia will need to do in court.

Good luck. You'll need whale loads of it.

Are you going to tell me that those 28 ships were capable to put whale meat on the table a number of times per week for a significant part of that population?

Your idea of what is and isn't "culture" is bizarre.

sarcasm123,

The court isn't going to investigate how long Japan's whale culture has existed for. That has no relevance to the court case.

Funny you think whaling was no big deal when in fact whalers were near the top of Japan's Edo era "Rich List". Gee, they sure must have been clever to get so rich through whaling, which, according to you did not exist in any scale until 60 years ago.

how much goes to normal restuarants, and how much is put into school lunches.

ICR releases the tonnage that is allocated for acquisition by education boards for school lunches. Yet another example of you asking for information without checking for it first yourself. I guess you don't actually care, you are just pushing out your propaganda no matter what the facts are.

I want a detailed explanation on the financial side of this whaling institute

That's all public information too...

I want a detailed analysis of financial flows between Japan and African and Asian countries in the IWC

That's all public too...

and how these flows of money influence voting behaviour.

I don't know how one could quantify that. You are nuts if you think that Japan's ODA programmes exist for the purpose of influence votes at the IWC.

Sarcasm; whaling started in Europe in tyhe 9th century. And in Japan in the 12th century. Suggest you drop this "it's not a tradition" or "it started in the last 60 years" nonsense.

sarcasm123 at 11:18 PM JST - 30th May prove that Japan is violating IWC regulations (which it isn't) I will give you the same answer I wrote a few days ago: 2 parties have >an agreement on NOT to do something except under some specific >conditions, and then 1 party does it anyway pretending to fit the >conditions. Do you think the party can be found guilty of braking the >agreement? I think many will answer "yes".

Everything you just wrote says exactly what I stated; AUSTRALIA WILL HAVE TO PROVE THAT JAPAN HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH IWC REGULATIONS. Explain how "COMPLYING" and "PRETENDING TO COMPLY" differ in a MATERIAL sense. Your whgole rgument that Jaqpn is "pretending" to do research is ridiculous as it sumbits research findings to tjhe IWC Scientific committe., with if it were "pretend research" would habe been denounced as so ages ago.

and prove that Australia has enforcement jurisdiction over the AAT >(which it doesn't). If part 1 turns out in favour of Australia's claim it will be a question >of whether this second party is really relevant.

It won't. So good luck with that.

I won't bother going into your inaccuracies; Japanm was whaling before >60 years ago. As did plenty of other contries. Yet non of them is going that far as to >PRETEND to be doing research in order to continue whaling. Why do you think GHQ pushed whale meat as a protein source after WWII? >Because Japan ALREADY HAD a large modern functional whaling fleet.

Notice the AFTER WWII part. 60 years ago. What a long culture...

I guess you've never seen the old Japanese woodblock prints from the early Edo period of whaling.

And if want to look at whale catches from 100 years ago you'd better >look well beyond Japan. In 1908 Japan - with it's oh so important whaling culture - had less >than 30 whaling ships. I believe the US had about 700. Care to comment >on this?

Yes, in 1908 the United States, along with nations like England, Norway, Australia were busy decimating the global whale populations, flensing them for oil and throwing the carcasses overboard in one of the most brutal and barbaric wastes of any natural resource. In 1908, Japan had only 30 whaling ships because they had just started to join the modern western steam powered whaling fleets. But they were hunting whales, like the arctic aborigines, centuries earlier.

krisallenation - Also If a determined country use ¨scientific research¨ as excuse, using your brain again youll find out theres no need to kill that animal in danger of EXTINTION to study it...

The MINKE whale is NOT in danger of 'extintion'. You need to get your information from somewhere other than an organization the FBI considers an eco-terrorist.

sure, give it a go. Just don't throw a tantrum when you lose the case by maliciously accusing the integrity of the court.

Also If a determined country use ¨scientific research¨ as excuse, using your brain again youll find out theres no need to kill that animal in danger of EXTINTION to study it...

In 1908 Japan - with it's oh so important whaling culture - had less than 30 whaling ships. I believe the US had about 700. Care to comment on this?

And let me add that the population of Japan at that time was almost 50 million. Are you going to tell me that those 28 ships were capable to put whale meat on the table a number of times per week for a significant part of that population?

A second miracle with the fishes? :P

prove that Japan is violating IWC regulations (which it isn't)

I will give you the same answer I wrote a few days ago: 2 parties have an agreement on NOT to do something except under some specific conditions, and then 1 party does it anyway pretending to fit the conditions. Do you think the party can be found guilty of braking the agreement? I think many will answer "yes".

and prove that Australia has enforcement jurisdiction over the AAT (which it doesn't).

If part 1 turns out in favour of Australia's claim it will be a question of whether this second party is really relevant.

I won't bother going into your inaccuracies; Japanm was whaling before 60 years ago.

As did plenty of other contries. Yet non of them is going that far as to PRETEND to be doing research in order to continue whaling.

Why do you think GHQ pushed whale meat as a protein source after WWII? Because Japan ALREADY HAD a large modern functional whaling fleet.

Notice the AFTER WWII part. 60 years ago. What a long culture...

And if want to look at whale catches from 100 years ago you'd better look well beyond Japan.

In 1908 Japan - with it's oh so important whaling culture - had less than 30 whaling ships. I believe the US had about 700. Care to comment on this?

scarcasm;

I think you are imagining a scope far in excess of Australia's claim to stop Japanese Research Whaling in the AAT. As has been repeated many times, there are two humps that Australia must overcome; prove that Japan is violating IWC regulations (which it isn't) and prove that Australia has enforcement jurisdiction over the AAT (which it doesn't). These are the merits which any court of law will need to establish first and foremost. Your post describes an anti-whalers wet dream containing issues which are under the jurisdiction not of the ICJ but the IWC. I won't bother going into your inaccuracies; Japanm was whaling before 60 years ago. Why do you think GHQ pushed whale meat as a protein source after WWII? Because Japan ALREADY HAD a large modern functional whaling fleet. And if want to look at whale catches from 100 years ago you'd better look well beyond Japan. The last American Whaling vessel was decommissioned in the 1920s. As for Australia: "From 1952 until 1962 a whaling station operated at Tangalooma, Queensland, on Moreton Island, which harvested and processed 6277 Humpback Whales during that period. It was forced to close after it had drastically reduced the number of whales in the eastern Australian Humpback population." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_Australia So Why don't you sit back, relax and enjoy the show as the Austalian claim falls flat on it's face, but allows the Rudd govt to take credit for "having done something".

I support it, and I hope EVERYTHING will be investigated in great detail.

I want to see graphs with the number of whales catched by Japanese from 100 years ago until now. That way we will understand how ridiculous the "it is our culture" claim is. Japan only started whaling on a large scale relatively recently. Whale meat was not common in Japan until about 60 years ago.

I want to see a very detailed history of the last 30 years, so we can see how the exact same institute, people, and infrastructure that were used for commercial whaling are now used for "research".

I want to see a detailed explanation on what happens with the whale meat from the catches: how much is caught, how much goes in the freezer for forever, and what happens with the rest: how much goes to normal restuarants, and how much is put into school lunches.

I want to see a detailed investigation of the "research papers" published by these whalers. How much of it uses samples taken in a lethal way, how much of that really needs lethal sampling. How many papers are published in what kind of journals: Japanese journals nobody reads, Japanese papers published by - let's say - "friends" of the whalers, and international peer reviewed papers. I want TRUE researchers from the field commenting on the overall quality of this research, and the need of lethal sampling.

I want a detailed explanation on the financial side of this whaling institute: what comes from the sales of meat, what comes form donations from what kind of organisations, and how much comes from us, the taxpayers. I want that last amount compared to what REAL research institutes receive, institutes working on subjects that actually matter.

I want a detailed analysis of financial flows between Japan and African and Asian countries in the IWC, and how these flows of money influence voting behaviour.

And finally, I want this all presented also to the general Japanese public, so that finally its eyes will open to the incredible wast ofe money this whole "research" lie is.

I suport it fully. It's about time that the silly legally meritless arguments constantly put forth by the anti-whaling crowd get obliterated in a court of law where common sense, logic and reason prevail.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/29/2912950.htm?section=world

Win or loose in court battle , I don't think Rudd will care that much as long as this show can help his party win some points.:-)

Absolutely spot on. They'll just blame the lawyers, and proclaim that they fulfilled their campaign promises.

Judging by comments in the Aussie media, few are fooled. Some of those that are having been posting here at JT though ;)

This whole thing can just be a ...show to help Rudd in coming election, soon. Only last week or so someone complained about why there isn't any money in the budget for taking Japan to court over whaling like Rudd had promised during the last election. Then boom, few days later there is money available to take on Japan before the next election. Win or loose in court battle , I don't think Rudd will care that much as long as this show can help his party win some points.:-)

I sure do support Australia's decision.

I think this court case will be the circuit breaker than breaks the back of the anti-whaling movement. It will not be a good look at all when the court finds that Japan is acting entirely consistently with the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, and that Australia is wrong.

Everyone should take just 2 minutes to go to the IWC homepage and read each of the four paragraphs of Article VIII of the whaling convention.

*Disillusioned

I have been to australia & i know about the things you have mentioned. have experienced the beauty of whales as well. i've also experienced the beauty of many other animals that human's eat. if you read what i had written, the word "controlled" is there. so, glad to hear aussie's have such strict ocean stocks management programs . japan hunts whale under the guise of research to appease the international community. is japan the only country out there still eating whale?

Australia has no jurisdiction to bring this legal action. This is just a huge waste of taxpayer money.

second that.

jinjapan - australia, get over it already. humans kill animals for food. obviously, everything that's taken out of the ocean & any animal in general that is killed in the wild has to be controlled. must be pretty bored down under . oh right. it's an election year.

Board? You've never been to Australia, have you? You have no idea of the conservation efforts made by ALL Australians, have you? You have no idea of the world's most strict ocean stocks management programs in place within Australian waters, have you? You have no idea what it is like to be sitting in the surf at 5am and have whale surface within 5m of you and check out, have you? - Besides these few minor points, there is also the point of Japan pissing in the face of the rest of the world by hunting whales for food under the guise of research. But, I guess that is besides the point, right?

International suits over unsanctioned foreign commercial (or otherwise) incursions into national waters, or designated protection zones are correct protocols; the identity and nature of the litigants is simply a point of legal detail. Support is irrelevant; it's a matter of law.

If the law is unclear or ill-defined, then it's still a matter of law and has to be resolved on that basis; however support could prove relevant if the process of definition is subject to some kind of ballot. Whether I personally support something going on between Japan, Australia and The Hague, or not, is about as moot a point as moot points can get.

they shouldn't* cover it up

I don't care that Japan kills whales, (but they should cover it up with a 'scientific research' lie. ) Australia.. let them do what they want.

australia, get over it already. humans kill animals for food. obviously, everything that's taken out of the ocean & any animal in general that is killed in the wild has to be controlled. must be pretty bored down under . oh right. it's an election year .