ihope2eatwhales comments

Posted in: China warns Japan against stationing workers on disputed isles See in context

To China: Taiwan does not want to be part of you. Tibet does not want to be part of you. Okinawa does not want to be part of you.

14 ( +16 / -2 )

Posted in: Japan's GDP revised up, boosting case for sales tax hike See in context

Of course, tax is not good for an economy. However, Japanese government has massive debt. Increase in tax would occur in this context.

To repay the debt, Japanese government must either cut the expenditure such as pension payments, or raise tax and generate the inflation.

Raising tax and inflation have same basic impact of decreased real wage for workers. Japanese government prefers to do this, rather than cut the expenditure.

Personally, I prefer expenditure to be cut. However, politically it is impossible as voters do not think seriously about this problem. They will never vote to cut their pensions.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan's GDP revised up, boosting case for sales tax hike See in context

gogogo, Maybe you are talking of increase in consumption tax to 10%. It is hard for low income person, no doubt. For other people, tax is only on consumption, but there is other ways to use income, such as investment and savings. So it is not 5% salary decrease, really.

Kabukilover, I think many residents of Japan can do more to protect themselves from increasing taxes than reduce consumption.

Unfortunately, Japanese have lent too much money to Japanese government, which now has too much debt. As Japanese get older, they want Japanese government to repay them. Just interest to pay is huge number. 0.9% growth in one quarter is not the sufficient amount to boost tax revenues greatly. Japanese should be prepared to have taxes rise more in future, to pay back debts owed by the government. Otherwise, Japanese should accept that government can not afford to pay pensions any more.

Japanese must face the tough choice. Sooner is better.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Posted in: Former Guns N' Roses drummer joins protest against dolphin hunt See in context

I know songs of Guns and Roses well. But I never heard of this man Sorum.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Posted in: Why gold is making a comeback See in context

Sue Jones,

Your wealth will later be passed on to your descendants etc.

This is not so true for residents of Japan, unfortunately.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: Angelina Jolie speaks out against rape in war zones See in context

Of course she must be commended for her work.

But we should end war itself, not just rape in war.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan says Australia trying to impose its culture in whaling row See in context

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

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

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Posted in: Japan's whaling is not science, expert witness tells int'l court See in context

Although Japan presented to ICJ evidence that shows scientific nature of whaling activities, western media has not reported it. Will western media also not report result of ICJ, if Australia's claim is rejected?

I am amazed how unprofessional western media is.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Posted in: Japan says Australia trying to impose its culture in whaling row See in context

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

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

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Posted in: Sea Shepherd loses Australia bid for charity status See in context

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 )

Posted in: Japan says Australia trying to impose its culture in whaling row See in context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Posted in: Japan's whaling is not science, expert witness tells int'l court See in context

cleo,

But nothing that justifies the killing of thousands of animals.

Fortunately, cleo's determination is no more than that. As you do not like animals to be killed, I do not understand why you enjoy to conduct the futile discussion about it.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Posted in: Japan says Australia trying to impose its culture in whaling row See in context

Disillusioned

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

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

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

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

It is hunting under the false pretense of research.

False.

Japan does not have a solid defense for their case.

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

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

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

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Posted in: Japan says Australia trying to impose its culture in whaling row See in context

wtfjapan,

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

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

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

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Posted in: Japan says Australia trying to impose its culture in whaling row See in context

hoserfella,

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

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

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

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

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

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

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Posted in: Japan says Australia trying to impose its culture in whaling row See in context

gogogo,

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

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

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

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

Posted in: Japan says Australia trying to impose its culture in whaling row See in context

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-9 ( +7 / -16 )

Posted in: Japan's whaling is not science, expert witness tells int'l court See in context

zichi, my point is anti-whaler never accept anything pro-whaler may say. Anti-whaler always says many things, jumps from one thing to next thing, and finally back to first thing again.

But anti-whaler can not deny ICJ judges, who are not anti-whalers or whalers. I hope you will respect ICJ decision, even if it not be anti-whaling decision. Because, it is judgement of law. Judgement of law is how to resolve such dispute, I think. Do you agree?

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Posted in: Japan's whaling is not science, expert witness tells int'l court See in context

zichi, anit-whaling comment on Japan Today mean nothing. Watch ICJ case carefully. You will not agree what you hear from Japanese side, but ICJ judges will decide. Only it matters.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Posted in: Japan's whaling is not science, expert witness tells int'l court See in context

The Australian complaint is against Japan not meeting its 'good faith' obligation to halt the commercial killing of whales in the Southern Sanctuary.

If there is such obligation under ICRW, Japan would quit, certainly.

To contrary, Australia has the 'good faith' obligation to seek development of whaling industry, which is purpose of whaling agreement. But they do not. They even say publicly, they oppose it.

I expect Japan will tell it to Hague judges from this week. Australia hypocrites must be exposed harshly.

Japan claims the aim of the 'research' is to prove that a commercial hunt is sustainable.

I think Japan gives detailed explanation to Hague judges this week. Of course, you will not like it, and complain anyway, as you are anti-whaler. But it does not matter, only law does. What Hague judges decide is only important thing.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Posted in: Australia harpoons Japan's whaling program at U.N. court See in context

It must be said, decrease in whales was not good. More whales is better, we need it for more sustainable whaling.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan's whaling is not science, expert witness tells int'l court See in context

Disillusioned,

If anyone can unequivocally convince me that killing whales for research or for food is necessary I may be swayed

I am sure, it is impossible to convince you.

I grew up on the east coast of Oz and was a surf lifesaver and surfer for more than 30 years (I still surf in Japan). When I was a kid I never saw whales on the east coast of Australia, but they are a common sight on the east, west and south coasts of Australia now due to the ban on commercial whaling.

No, it is due to lack of unsustainable whaling. Not because of ban on sustainable commercial whaling.

They state there are ample Minki whales now, but is that the original population size? Nobody knows!

There are 500,000. It is enough to catch small number, such as 1%.

Whale and krill were balanced before commercial whaling wiped out whale populations throughout the world. Whales are needed to keep krill populations in check!

Maybe now, humans are needed to keep minke population in check. Also, minke whale taste nice as well.

For every 'one' pro-whaling point I have 'five' anti-whaling points to refute them.

You are free to be anti-whaling. However, it does not change law, or fact that whaling will continue.

If Japan is serious about commercial whaling, they should manage the stocks of whales in the waters around Japan and stop exploiting the populations of whales that are only there because of conservation efforts of the southern hemisphere countries and call it 'research'!

Australia does no conservation for whales, it just does not hunt them. It is just doing nothing.

-9 ( +1 / -9 )

Posted in: Japan's whaling is not science, expert witness tells int'l court See in context

Disillusioned,

Japan will have difficulty refuting Australia's point and justifying a kill quota of a thousand whales a year.

It is easy. They explain the important research aim, for benefit of the sustainable whaling. This is the purpose of ICRW. And show, even IWC scientific panel uses the data of Japan.

ICJ judge can not deny such fact, ICJ judge is not whale expert like IWC scientific panel. So, they can not say it is not the science, as Australia defines.

I do not think Australian case is really serious. Australia Prime Minister just decided it for election in Australia.

The Japanese have previously stated they are researching the viability of commercial whaling.

Right. It is the purpose of ICRW. ICJ judges will know it, they are legal experts.

If they use this and culture to support their case it will be over very quickly for them.

Culture is not point of ICJ case. I do not understand why you think it will be over quickly. Maybe it already over for Australia, though.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Posted in: Japan's whaling is not science, expert witness tells int'l court See in context

Citizen2012,

Can't wait to see how Japan is going to prove that what they are doing is science !!!

Me too! How can anti-whalers continue to ignore, when ICJ is shown much evidence?

browny1,

If JWA by it's own admission, states there are 761,000 fast breeding minke whales in the Southern Ocean (as Zichi pointed out above), what more "essential" data is required?

To decide the sustainable number, we need to know about natural change in size of population of whales. If number is growing fast, we can take extra. But if number is declining, like population of Japanese people, then we should take lower number.

When will there be enough research to show that the numbers are healthy for the re- commencement of commercial whaling?

Already, we know there can be sustainable whaling. Question is, what is best number to catch? This number will change, as time goes by. So the ongoing research is required for it.

Why doesn't the JWA have the gumption to say we've now established that a population exists for viable hunting, quit the IWC and begin it's practice?

I think so too, but Japan is very weak country, diplomatically.

Pride and obstinancy and a lack of guts.

I agree only for "lack of guts", sad to say.

zichi, thank you for ICJ link. Maybe I try to watch on weekend.

-14 ( +1 / -15 )

Posted in: Japan's whaling is not science, expert witness tells int'l court See in context

I am certain Japan will win.

Australia cannot prove that Marc Mangel's opinion only is "correct" view of "science".

Even IWC scientific panel uses data collected by Japan. ICJ will never rule IWC scientific panel is not doing science, in favour of opinion of single scientist.

-15 ( +5 / -21 )

Posted in: Date-Krumm, Nishikori advance at Wimbledon See in context

Great news for both!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Australia harpoons Japan's whaling program at U.N. court See in context

Disillusioned

Now, you are being funny! Thank you! Whale numbers have increased because pro-whalers have not been allowed to kill them, de sho?

Whale numbers can increase even when "pro-whalers" kill them.

It is sustainable whaling.

We do not seek the unsustainable whaling, which is whaling the decreases numbers of whales.

Thunderbird2,

Trouble is I know in my heart that nothing will change until there are no whales left on the planet, and mankind has exterminated another sentient species.

Please try to use head to think, instead of heart. Maybe then you not so worried.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Posted in: Australia harpoons Japan's whaling program at U.N. court See in context

Disillusioned,

Why is it funny? Do you disagree that the reason there are increasing whale numbers is because of international conservation efforts and the international ban on commercial whaling?

Anti-whaler to claim credit for reproduction of whales is ridiculous. Anti-whalers do not do artificial insemination of whales. Whale numbers increase because of NATURE.

Sustainable whaling is to take less than natural increase.

Special effort by anti-whalers is not required.

Do you have another explanation as to why whale numbers are increasing? I would love to hear it!

Birds and bees. I should not explain in much detail on Japan Today :)

Then, you can explain to me why Japan feels they have the sole right to commercially harvest them

Japan does not feel it has sole right. All nation have same rights. It is why IWC was formed. We need to make sure each whaling nations takes number

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Posted in: Australia harpoons Japan's whaling program at U.N. court See in context

Disillusioned,

Cl400 - The main aim of Japanese whale research is to prove commercial whaling is viable -for Japan, which it may very well be, but the only reason it would be viable is due to the conservation efforts of many other countries

It is funniest thing to read on Japan Today, today.

Japan has a long history of exploiting other countries for personal gain, this making their cultural defense very true.

Not a very good comment.

smithinjapan,

Everyone with half a brain knows this.

Maybe, everyone with only half a brain thinks it.

Only people who still think the planet might just be square and you can fall off the edges truly believes Japan is conducting science.

Make-believe.

-13 ( +2 / -15 )

Posted in: Australian court case against Japanese whaling to begin Wednesday in The Hague See in context

yabits,

Are you claiming the Japanese are too hapless or inept to develop it? Or just too unmotivated?

If motivation can develop such a technology, anti-whaling nations such as Australia, US, UK, Germany would already have such a technology.

There is tracking technology being used for fish and marine mammals today.

You must be genius. So, please provide detailed steps of how to use tracking technology on huge, fast minke whales.

From the blood and tissue, scientists could estimate age, gender, pregnancy, etc.

Where is evidence of such the method? Even Australia has not claimed it to Japan.

It should not require slaughtering hundreds of samples to get a statistically valid result on any of the tests.

There are 515,000 minke whales. 850 is less than 0.2%. It is not unreasonably large number.

And, as the methods of the non-lethal testing become more improved and validated, the need for killing as many whales to validate the data will decrease.

Japan uses the non-lethal research in feasible cases, it does more such research than Australia.

But, to aim for the non-lethal methods only, at any cost, is nonsense. ICRW purpose is development of whaling industry. Not development of non-lethal whale research method. Final purpose of research is to support the sustainable whaling in future.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.