world

Sea Shepherd loses Australia bid for charity status

38 Comments

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

© 2013 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

38 Comments
Login to comment

I see the federal court is not overwhelmed by fuzziness and emotion for the majestic, and can see the cultural crusade for what it is.

SS - Sinking Ship.

2 ( +12 / -12 )

“Taking steps to interrupt or prevent others harming animals in the wild, as Sea Shepherd does, is not the provision of ‘short-term direct care to animals’,” the court said in its judgment.

Pathetic that in the minds of Sea Shepherd this was a valid legal argument.

-1 ( +10 / -10 )

"We depend upon the largesse of a global public that supports what we're doing."

If you're in financial duress you either don't have as much support as you claim, or your supporters are all talk/type and not prepared to put their money where their mouth/keyboard is unless they see a direct benefit. "I mean hey if I'm gonna pay it in tax anyway...."

0 ( +9 / -10 )

$4 mill a year is very expensive for what is nothing more than an annual series of stunts - and ones that put the lives of SS members and the people they're fighting against in serious danger.

Ever since they pranged their Batboat on the first trip out ($1.5 million down the crapper), it should be obvious that these people aren't the ideal custodians of someone else's money.

0 ( +10 / -11 )

Oooops, and Australia supported them.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Looks like perhaps Australia is finally waking up. If so the SS skull & crossbones don't have very long left.

2 ( +11 / -10 )

Australian politicians must be anti-whaling, but even Australian Federal Court of course does not let anti-whaling feelings determine judgement. As Federal Court rejects anti-whaling Sea Shepherd, I am sure ICJ will reject anti-whaling Australia. Law is nothing to do with anti-whaling.

-4 ( +7 / -12 )

its activities did not constitute the provision of "short-term direct care to animals"

If there's no whaling, the animals can take care of themselves - I see this as "long-term" direct care to animals if they manage to stop the whalers...

0 ( +9 / -9 )

Remember that the Australian Federal Court also ruled a few years ago that Australia can't enforce their laws on foreigners in their claimed EEZ around their claimed Antarctic Territory.

It seems unlike the Australian government/politicians who feel they can ignore what the laws actually say, the courts follow what the laws say.

If the ICJ judges follow the same idea, that laws mean what they say, then Australia's court case is in trouble.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

Very interesting. Not that the court has decided this, but that the regular pro-SS posters on here have stayed clear of the story. Wonder why that is?

And well done to the JT for covering this story, now if they could only cover the other parts of the court case in the Hague as has been covered by the international media...

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Maybe it would help if the SS go out and feed the whales a couple buckets of fish while battling the Japanese fleet. Then reapply for charity status. Learn from the Japanese and create your own loophole.

-2 ( +3 / -6 )

Discovery Channel should be their big money source. Millions of dollars to take up space between commercials is the norm on TV.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

(Rogue) nations hunting and killing whales. In spite of moratoria. For whatever reason, purpose or profit. What benefit to science? What benefit to who or what? About Japan, does the nation really need to pursue this hunt, do the people really want to see whale meat in the supermarkets, the surplus of the cull? Or is it just a principle or a need to defy international rules that vex Japan? I'd like to see some real answers. I don't condone some of the things Sea Shepherd has done, but if they hadn't millions of people wouldn't have known about the issues of whale killing most countries disapprove of.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

@hkitagawa "Consumption of whale and dolphin meat, as is the practice in Japan, is a source of high levels of mercury poisoning. Tetsuya Endo, a professor at the Health Sciences University of Hokkaido, has tested whale meat purchased in the whaling town of Taiji and found mercury levels more than 20 times the acceptable Japanese standard" and you want to put that stuff in your body, go right ahead! LOL

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Ron Barnes

It is for the help of people, Not like Japan where Over seas $ were donated to help the people of the tsunami and was spent on the whaling fleet I for one will never donate to Japan again Knowing where the money is spent.

You evidently don't know where the money is spent. None of the money the GOJ has spent on its ICR's research whaling program has ever come from money donated by the public (domestic or international) to fund recovery efforts in the Tohoku region. The money came entirely from the GOJ's annual budget, which having been generated from taxes, the GOJ has complete freedom to spend it on what it deems appropriate.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Why Fish in The Australian Antarctic waters If you Don't Like Chinese Ships In their own waters in Arrears Japan has annexed it is a very simular situation.

No it is not a very similar situation. Most countries acknowledge and accept that Japan has a legitimate claim to the islands in question. While only 4 other countries acknowledge Australia's claim. Also Australia signed the Antarctic Treaty which prohibits them from enforcing their claim against anybody who isn't Australian (as the Australian Federal Court ruled a few years ago), while Japan has signed no treaty prohibiting their enforcement of their claim.

The two situations are not at all similar.

@wtfjapan. thank you for your informative post. So it appears that the only meat actually tested was from only one species, pilot whales. And that no testing was actually done to see if the reported levels found in the 50 test subjects had any ill effects from the mercury. Also in Minamata people with less than 191 ppm were found to have no symptoms, that is more than 3 times the maximum level Professor Endo found and over 9 times the average level he found.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

As long as Japan keeps hunting whales under the guise of "scientific research", I will not purchase new Japanese products.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

"Yogi ZunaJul. 05, 2013 - 01:25AM JST As long as Japan keeps hunting whales under the guise of "scientific research", I will not purchase new Japanese products

And that has what to do with Australia denying Sea Shepherd charity status?

1 ( +5 / -4 )

"scientific research"? then why whale sushi and sashimi are available in Japan?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

kidojapanJul. 05, 2013 - 05:35AM JST "scientific research"? then why whale sushi and sashimi are available in Japan?

Firstly, because the IWC Article VIII under which Japan conducts research whaling REQUIRES them to process and utilize the meat. Secondly, fisheries research gaining assistance in their operational funding by selling their catch is a common practice in most countries.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

If Japan were not hunting whales under the very real fraud of so-called "scientific research", Sea Shepherd would not be in such need of "charity status", as they would need much less funds, so it has a LOT to do with it.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

If Japan were not hunting whales under the very real fraud of so-called "scientific research", Sea Shepherd would not be in such need of "charity status", as they would need much less funds, so it has a LOT to do with it.

Wait, why does Sinking Ship need charity status? Put your money where your keyboard is and donate anyway. C'mon. Or do you need something in return? And just how many charities do you know which commit illegal and violent behavior? Is it any wonder the Australian federal court said no.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

If Japan were not hunting whales under the very real fraud of so-called "scientific research", Sea Shepherd would not be in such need of "charity status", as they would need much less funds, so it has a LOT to do with it.

But your claim makes no sense. First because as has already been pointed out, they don't have to be a charity for people to give them money as shown be the fact that many Australians have given them money in the past. And second because Japan could stop doing their very real research and just quit the IWC and start whaling commercially. Or are you claiming that if Japan wasn't part of the IWC and was still whaling that the SSCS wouldn't oppose them? Or if the IWC lives up to the moratorium and reviews the status of Minke whales, resulting in them issuing Japan a commercial quota, wouldn't the SSCS still oppose them?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

considering they have broken every seafaring safety rule in the book, I am surprised they haven't been classified as pirates instead of charity....

4 ( +4 / -0 )

As long as Japan keeps hunting whales under the guise of "scientific research", I will not purchase new Japanese products.

You do that. Your purchasing power will be sorely missed. And how ingenious of you to equate whaling with everything Japan does. Another classic example of emotion overriding reason.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Japan could stop doing their very real research

A chuckle to start the morning with. Thank you, Mike.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

In the past I have donated to Greenpeace but never to the Sea Shepherd group. The members of Sea Shepherd are neither "terrorists" or "pirates" two very over used words in today's modern speak.

Without the likes of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd in the Antarctic during the Japan's whaling hunting, we wouldn't know what it was actually getting up to and certainly there wouldn't have been any world attention from the international media.

The Sea Shepherd group may of had its application for charity status rejected but it will always have the money to continue to operate for as long as it thinks its needed. The group receives large donation from many Hollywood stars and also rock musician stars.

Personally I would like to see the Antarctic kept free of all activity not just the whale hunting.

If Japan wins its court case then I expect the Sea Shepherd group will always been in the Antarctic waiting to greet them?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The members of Sea Shepherd are neither "terrorists" or "pirates"

Thank you for your opinion. Another court of law, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, disagrees with you.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Daijoboots

Thank you for your opinion. Another court of law, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals, disagrees with you.

Since when were all courts 100% correct 100% of the time?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Since when were all courts 100% correct 100% of the time?

Yeah that's great.

"You don't need a peg leg or an eye patch. When you ram ships; hurl containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate, no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be."

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Daijoboots

just how many non terrorist terrorists are bang up by the Americans at Gitmo?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

just how many non terrorist terrorists are bang up by the Americans at Gitmo?

Not sure. Is it more or less than the number of terrorists aboard Sea Shepherd?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Daijobots

the American court declared the Sea Shepherd "pirates" there's no mention from the court about them being "terrorists".

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

there's no mention from the court about them being "terrorists"

That's nice. The FBI has mentioned them.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

To>>>>> USNIN Japan 2 <<<<<<I found my information in this paper. So I will restate. I will never donate or help donate to Japan. Knowing The money Will not be spent on the people affected. It is a very said country thinks like this can happen.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Eco-terrorism definition by the FBI:-

http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/the-threat-of-eco-terrorism

Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of "eco-terrorism" have occurred around the globe. The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

So I will restate. I will never donate or help donate to Japan. Knowing The money Will not be spent on the people affected. It is a very said country thinks like this can happen.

Japan will be fine without your financial might. They have and continue to spend money on those affected, despite your vast knowledge. And things like what can happen? Tying everything together into one emotional bundle?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Ron Barnes

What paper? Not a cent of your or anyone else who donated to the disaster relief fund's money has been spent on the ICR's research whaling. Only government funds originating in tax revenue has been used for whaling. If you're claiming otherwise I'd like to see something in the form of proof to back up your ridiculous claim.

2 ( +2 / -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