KeikoTokyo comments

Ossan the deal is about simply changing the name of Japans whaling, NOT ending it! It simply states we will no longer hunt under the guise of 'scientific research', we will now hunt under the name of 'commercial hunts', & we will take more than we currently do! So please once again where is the compromise? Ohh & we will resume coastal whaling, so therefore taking more, even more whales killed, not less! Just because japan posted its quota in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary at over 1,000, it actually took just over 500, under the current deal trying to be pushed through by Japan we want a minimum of 800. Correct me if I am wrong, but as far as I understand 500 is still less than 800?

davidattokyo; re bribery & how it continues even this week, as I am sure you are already aware of;

"The chairman of this week’s international summit on whaling is being secretly funded by a Japanese company to stay in a luxury hotel, it was revealed Sunday."

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpps/news/japan-courts-whale-delegates-at-summit-dpgonc-km-20100620_8216431

davidattokyo;"Additionally the "scientific uncertainties" were by no means universally agreed as warranting a blanket moratorium, indeed there was no advice from the Scientific Committee that a blanket moratorioum was warranted. Nonetheless, the dirty tricks of the anti-whaling camp made the "moratorium" possible. They appointed their own members as "representatives" of newly independent nations in places such as the Caribbean, and used these extra votes to obtain the 75% majority needed to have the "moratorium" imposed. You can get the details of that here: http://luna.pos.to/whale/gen_ume_yado.html (check the names of the foreigner delegates for yourself to confirm). The reason these same nations who had their votes abused are to this day accused of taking bribes is revenge for replacing the fake delegates appointed by the anti-whaling camp with genuine representatives from those countries, and voting consistently with their own beliefs rather than those of the fascist anti-whalers."

Ohh do you mean the investigation carried out by an independant group, eg non government, & with no reason other to uncover the truth! & in doing so have these countries/delegates that have been bribed caught on tape doing so! & yet you have failed in any way to provide any proof of the WWF bribing nations! & where exactly would the WWF get the funds to bribe countries, yet it has been proved how Japan has given aid priority to those who vote with them in the IWC, & the buildings provided from these same funds! & how they are TOTALLY not needed by some islands, now used to house chickens! But most of all the BLACKMAILING by the Japanese government involved in foreign aid/support for developing nations, is simple, you want our yen, then you vote the way we tell you too= BLACKMAIL/BRIBING/CORRUPTION.

davidattokyo;"Gee cleo, you are so wise. Why does any sovereign nation ever adhere to any international agreement?"

Because they have credibility, & integretity, where they follow through with the treaties & agreements they sign, & do not stoop to bribery & corruption to do as they wish. Many countries wanted to continue hunting whales after the moratorium, yet they all complied to the agreements they made, without resorting to lies, or corruption to continue. Now even Iceland is being bought into line, if they want to join the EU they MUST give up whaling. Which also shows it is not just an issue of other countries trying to make Japan comply, it is the world trying to move forward, & 3 rogue nations dragging the chain. Time to grow up & join the 20th century.

Ohh & by the way New Zealand is planning on following Australia's lead if this deal does not go through. So therefore you have 2, & maybe more Sth American countries willing to take Japan to the IWC over the hunts claiming "scientific purposes".

500 in the Antarctic in the last few years is still less than over 800 being demanded by Japan, & must I state again, Japan alone is wanting to hunt in a designated Sanctuary, no other country does this, or wants to...

Ossan;"And perhaps you can explain why it delights you that the IWC may remain unchanged, with a Moratorium with loopholes in effect."

Because the loopholes can be closed legally, ergo no more hunts for 'scientific purposes', at the very least in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, & at the very least if this does not happen Japan will show all it cards by withdrawing from the IWC, & such bringing about legal action to end these hunts. So therefore less whales slaughtered than by the compromise deal anyway. & as I have shown with actual numbers, less whales are being slaughtered now than under the 'compromise deal' currently being offered! So if it remains the status quoe still less than will be slaughtered than the deal going through.

Ossan you fail to remember the IWC had quota's in place prior to the moratorium, Japan was one of the countries that refused to abide by them, that is why the moratorium was bought about in the 80's, to save the species. Since then Japan has refused to abide by the rules as others have, ergo we now have the current state. & as you have stated if Japan does not like the new rules it can simply leave, & you have stated the ICJ has no juristiction now, so are you now saying it would & does have juristiction? Because your previous comments have contradicted this?

taj;"Who needs to hide? Canada left the IWC, after it realized it was mostly a waste of time. Canada's not hiding. Norway and Iceland said, "So long and thanks for all the fish." They left the IWC. They're not "hiding behind anyone's skirts."

Canada does not commercially hunt, sorry scientifically hunt, indigenous hunting by Inuit is done in traditional ways, & takes no more than 50 per year, & is allowed under IWC rules. Nor does it, Norway, or Iceland travel over halfway around the world to hunt in a designated sanctuary, & THAT is what is bringing much shame to Japan, the lies, the bribery & corruption, the total disregard for other nations in that area, & the views of the people there, yet we expect them to respect us & our so called "traditions" when we do not do the same for them. & as for "tradition" Japan has not been hunting in the Antarctic for centuries, only since the loss of the second world war, when it could have been called necessary, unlike now.

"Seventeen mostly pro-whaling nations have had their voting rights suspended at the International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in Morocco, in what could be a blow to Japan's hopes of resuming commercial whaling."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/22/2933768.htm

Guess the bribes & prostitutes are simply for entertainment this time as they no longer have a vote...

Ossan; so once again are you simply stating that Japan has to be given whatever it wishes, or it will simply ignore & pull out of the IWC & do whatever it wishes anyway? So what is the point of this meeting then? Or any compramise deal if Japan will just do as it wishes anyway? & just how do you think this will be recieved by the rest of the world? & just who's skirt are we going to hide under once we leave the IWC?

amerijap; my definition of international observers is the same as the IWC, must be 2 minimum on a boat.

2, all the crew on the Japanese boat, apart from the 2 observers were directly connected to the whaling fleet, which was operational at the time, on board the Shonan Maru 2

3, yes that is what the rest of the world & I am saying, & has been for years. Japan's whaling industry has hidden under the skirt of the IWC stating 'scientific research' for years. The rest of the world no longer accepts it as it is a blatent lie. If Japan now chooses to leave the IWC under who's skirt are they going to hide behind to justify our actions? Are we simply going to say to the rest of the world we do not care, we are just going to hunt in a designated sanctuary, & act as poachers?

Oh so you mean it will no longer be 'research', it will simply be 'commercial'? Please explain the difference in our hunts in the Antarctic under this change? Because I can see none other than the term for it!

ammerijap;"The bottom line is that Japan needs to provide an ample evidence that they conduct whaling for scientific "research," if they insist it is ethical and legitimate practice, whether it is conservationist or utilitarian perspective. By scientific, I mean, empirical/analytical study of whales from the academic and scholastic interests of researchers and academic professionals."

So what you mean is, if Japan provides 1 boat, with 2 international observers to count, while that same boat reports back to the Japanese hunting vessels the position of prey, that it should be considered helping research?

arrestpaul;"Presently, research whaling IS ALLOWED. The anti-whaling zealots violently object to that."

Well what will happen when Japan rejects/leaves the IWC, does that same belief preserve? Even though we are hunting in a necognised sanctuary? Do we still have the same rights we claim under "scientific research"?

Ossan, just to prove my previous statement;

http://www.japantoday.com/category/politics/view/japan-may-quit-whaling-commission-if-ban-stays-put

w4w, they have been using violence against anyone who tried to show it for years! Even when offered more $ not to hunt dolphins than too, they stated "they are cockroaches" & continued. Many attempts, both internally & externally have been tried, the only winners so far have been the "fishermen" through violence. Showing a documentary film is not violent! It is giving people the chance to see the truth, or at the very least another side to make up their own decision! THAT is NOT violent! THAT is FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

blunderbuss;"Business as usual! ...But why should Britain care if the Japanese want to eat whale meat?"

The article is about bribery & corruption of a world organisation to suit the wishes of 1 country. & I guess like most nations that have followed the moratorium on whaling see this corruption as another abuse of the IWC. as the IWC is not there to do Japans bidding.

Ossan, you keep claiming it is simply Australia trying to ruin Japans fun, but here is some more proof of other nations willing to halt whaling, Japanese or other wise;

"The German parliament has declared that in order to be granted EU membership, Iceland must stop whaling"

From; http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=40764&ew_0_a_id=363870

I guess that also shows how EU nations will be voting at the upcoming IWC meeting, not just Australia...

"The German parliament has declared that in order to be granted EU membership, Iceland must stop whaling,"; http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=40764&ew_0_a_id=363870

So I guess Japan will not be bribing Germany, or other EU nations then!

Ossan, & as for killing less whales under new regulations Japan does not abide by current ones! So why would the world believe we would abide by new ones? Secondly as for numbers killed, lets look at actual figure killed in Antarctic waters for a start; last year just over 500, similar the year before, etc, etc, under the new proposal Japan is demanding at least 800. As far as my understanding of maths goes 500 is less than 800, so just how is this reducing numbers killed?

Secondly if you were so concerned about conservation you would know Sei, or Fin whales, Humpbacks, & Sperm whales are endangered species as listed by CITES, yet Japan hunts them! So as someone who is so interested in conservation would you not be outraged by this, & want it to end?

Ossan it is nice to see you are interested in conservation now! So then if the IWC does not allow commercial whaling then you would be in support of Japan ending its hunts, & abiding by the IWC rules then? Because that is why they are doing it, for conservation. Or are you saying Japan should leave & do whatever it wishes? & would that not open another can of worms? To leave the IWC & hunt commercially in a designated sanctuary! I think that would give SSCS more justification for action!

So Eric Cartman is giving advice for our foreign policy now! "Screw you guy's, I'm going..."

Ossan;"The Times has shown itself to be an anti-whaling propaganda mouthpice so we can chuck that "trusted" out the window."

Are you once again denying indefensible proof? & stating all the world is just racist? Oh but then once again you are American right? Where SSCS holds NPO rights, & is based? So why are you not petitioning/protesting them to loose this right in your own home country? While at the same time stating if other countries wish to close the 'loophole' then they should also bribe the IWC? But then again you complain when Aus takes Japan to the ICJ to close the 'loophole'? So where do you actually stand? Or does it just change with the argument?

I find it so sad/embarressing that we claim freedom of speech, yet while right-wing groups preach, while others trying to conduct their lawful business are put out of business by them, yet we pursue Interpol to arrest foreign activists on the same charge? Yet we do not enforce this same law at home?

HedaMadness, but who would he sue? A deckhand with no money? That would be so successful. Just as davidattokyo has been!

Once again is Paul Watson there on tape saying he allowed the bow & arrow? Or is it just a crewmember/deckhand giving his personal views? The URL does not give any evidence other than 'here say'. PLEASE provide truth, NOT yours or others assumptions.

Zenny11;"I take anything that comes out of the SS camp(incl. supporters) with a whale-ship of salt."

That was from Bethunes wife! Maybe not the biggest supporter of SSCS at the moment!

"The decision by anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd to ban New Zealander Pete Bethune from future protests was a bid to help him avoid jail time, says his wife Sharyn."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/1066961/bethune-ban-for-his-own-good

Hmm, it keeps getting more interesting...

tigris;"Jason Stewart, the Aucklander who was at the helm of the Ady Gil during the collison, told TV3 that Bethune had been given the go-ahead to take the bow and arrows on board"

So who told Jason Stewart this? Did Paul Watson say this to him? Or was it his own assumption?