This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Protesters held on Japanese whaling ship

TripLover said:
>Thank goodness they're safe!

Suicide as a protest?
Click to expand...

Apparantly so, although It wasn't suicide according to them.

They tried to throw one of the letter deliverers over the side into the icy cold water!

I know they were silly trying to deliver the letter in the way they did, but what the whalers tried to do is just not on, SURELY.
 
//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7193212.stm
------------------------------------------------------
"It became very clear yesterday that Sea Shepherd had no intention of retrieving their two intruders, who boarded the Yushin Maru with backpacks carrying a change of clothes, toiletries and other sundry items.
"The Australian government accepted Japan's request to assist and remove the men from our research vessel to allow us to continue our work."
--------------------------------------------------
Finally, is there anyone who still believes
"Sea Shepherd's claim to victimhood" is true?

Sarapva,
>if a person is prone to killing whales, they're also prone to other kinds of violence, including against people.

Barking up the wrong tree....Does the funny preach feel good?

Kyoto returnee,
This will be "interesting" to know if Australians know international law and Maritime Law.
At least watching Timor's Maritime Boundaries problem, the answer would be No.
Now "Antarctica belongs to Australia"?
Why noy using such passion to save and indemnify the native Australians/Aborigine, especially "Stolen Children"? Ask Cathy Freeman.

Chi65, now you would understand the fact "flag of registry designates which nation's Law is superior"- In this case, Japanese law and International law is effective. Australian law is just a noisy outsider's text.
 

I personally think many are taking this to seriously.

I thought it was quite funny.

In all honesty as you say, looks like the protesters knew what they were doing and the fact is, it seems to have worked as obviously they were "smarter" than the whalers.

Let's face it.. If the whalers would have said, "No worries, all good" or something to the tune and let the two return to their vessel, the whole thing would have been over quick smart.

The whalers fell for it, hook, line and sinker.
 

It is rare for me to read coverages of UAE meda, but it is a good title.
Wondering which dipping sauce of tempura they requested...
 
Kyoto Returnee, you have never replied to my asking seriously.
You would never say sorry for mistake or misunderstanding.
OK, Is that aussie way to discuss?

Could you explain logically about only two followings?

#1 Do you really believe Antarctica is a part of Australia, as Aussie court and Newspapers repeat?
#2 Why 1st priority for Minke whale, not Aborigine inside Australia?
 
TripLover said:
Chi65, now you would understand the fact "flag of registry designates which nation's Law is superior"- In this case, Japanese law and International law is effective. Australian law is just a noisy outsider's text.
Click to expand...

A bit simple minded to see only the shipside of the story. It did not come first, even if the action of the two was questionable.
I actually hoped, the japanese first wish to let them go would apply for the two then, not Inwoods, if you look back. Its obviously you who did not read my texts, as becomes clear now. It was mentioned more than once.
On the other hand, no law was considered in the end, if you look closely, just agreements between the parties involved, to keep it civil.
Otherwise a court would probably have had to sort the real (incl. international, also concerning the part of the area against the ship's own. . .) lawholders out, which did not happen.
If things were that easy. . .

Even if you did not mean me:

TripLover said:
#2 Why 1st priority for Minke whale, not Aborigine inside Australia?
Click to expand...

Thats another issue and would belong to an aussi forum, in my opinion.
And there I would also be very critical then, be sure!

But it has another story, nothing to do with Japan, and cannot be compared, nor would any court accept this as any reason in this context.

>if a person is prone to killing whales, they're also prone to other kinds of violence, including against people.

Barking up the wrong tree....Does the funny preach feel good?
Click to expand...

I am with Sarapva in this, it makes very much sense in general and does not only fit the whalers themselves, obviously also many pro whalers, as we could see here.
Keep on barking, Sarapva;-)
 
Last edited:
What are you talking about?
Law is law, and the sea shepherd guys are illegal, just with logic.
No one is talking about your hope, or your opinion.
You were talking that Japanese whalers illegal with Australian law and so on.
So I repeated here, Japanese legislation is the law effective on the japanese ship, accroding to INTERNATIONAL Maritime Law.
And a the end, They were released in a state of grace.
However, still law is the only rule to govern, at least in Japan.
>-international, also concerning the part of the area against the ship's own-
Do you conveniently want to change the present maritime law ?

>Thats another issue and would belong to an aussi forum, in my opinion

Really, You read the thread carefully as you want? Kyoto Returnee first introduced here non-related things as follows.

>Interantional Child abduction laws (Hague) is just one law which seems to be a chilling thought, considering the issues it has with North Korea..

Could you explain which part of his text is related to Whaling?

>obviously also many pro whalers

At least, Don't ignore the fact. "In the past, in 1997, Sea Shepherd leader, Watson was convicted in absentia by Norway on charges of sinking a Norwegian whaling ship." violence in the interests of justice?
 
Last edited:
Chi65 said:
I am with Sarapva in this, it makes very much sense in general and does not only fit the whalers themselves, obviously also many pro whalers, as we could see here.
Keep on barking, Sarapva;-)
Click to expand...

Thanks - I intend to! I'm really just trying to make sense of things here. I agree with Kyoto Returnee that the protestors who boarded the Japanese ship did exactly what they intended to do - stay on the ship and halt the whaling. Of course the Sea Shepherd is known for being radical, but as far as I know they've never hurt a person or taken anyone hostage.

Posted by Kyoto Returnee:
Kevin Rudd is the only one I know as we now have a totally new labour goverment.

I'm out of touch myself here..
Click to expand...

I only know Stephen Smith's name because it's mentioned so much in the news articles!
 

It depends on the Aussie and who discusses it.

One thing I appreciated in Japan was when someone made a mistake, they did actually apologize and admit to it.

In Australia, possibly also the US, we tend to want to hide and possibly protect our mistakes, although we are always silently conscious if we do make that mistake.

It's usually a longer process for us and at the end of the day, all usually comes good and fixes itself. I think it's a cultural thing that Japanese have trouble understanding.

I know it drives my wife crazy living here how people do not apologize as often as they do in Japan, but it's a very different culture with different ways of thinking and one realy has to try to understand and accept and ultimately appreciate at the end of the day.

Your first question, I honestly do not know as I have not researched it, but then again, if the Australian courts ruled that it is, I would have to study the case thoroughly and make my own personal opinion.

Australia is a strong democracy so the courts here are fair dinkum.

Your second question.

My wife Rieko, I and little Kai all went for a drive a few days ago to an aboriginal beach community in a suburb named Yarrabah.

You don't usually see non aboriginals their so it is as unique for them as it is for us, but we love it as the locals are so friendly and the becah looks so natural.

I suppose a little similar to un-developed beachside communites in Asia.

We had a walk along the local beach and their was a large sea turtle flipper on the sand.

These animals are protected, with the exception of Australian aboriginals who are aloowed to hunt them for food as they are other protected species. I'm not sure about whales though.

That however doensn't change my mind as I felt really bad seeing that flipper on the beach, and would disagree if they killed whales for food as the Japanese whalers do.

It's a very personal decison/opinion and does not point to race or culture.

I just don't agree with it.

My uncle has a large farm and breeds Herreford and Simital British cattle.

They have their house dogs, they get standard food..

The farm dogs are fed mainly rabbits which my uncle shoots.

When I was younger, I went along with my unlce to hunt for these rabbits.

I spotted one and opened fire at it hiding in the long grass.

We walked over to recover, and what I am about to tell you changed my life forever.

The poor little thing was hopping in agonizing pain minus it's back leg.

I had actually blown it's back leg off.

My uncle finished it off with a quick shot to the head.

I am an animal lover and care dearly for all animals.

I'm not sure how other's feel, but If I see an injured animal, I can imagine if that was me and think and feels it's pain.

Like I said, it's a very personal opinion and I'm sure other's feel the same in some way, shape or form.

Like I said, race, religion, culture, whatever, has nothing to do with it..

Black, white, pink, I do not care..

If you ever have a newborn child, you will understand as compare it to any other newborn and we are all pretty much the same.

I guess what changes us is personality and teachings by our peers.

Lay low TripLover, and remember, do not take people's ideas so personally as they are not targetting you personally.

Mate, life is to bloody short so go grab yourself a nice coldie (beer) and av a good weekend:122:
 

This is exactly how I feel about it. Thanks K.R. for those nice stories. I think if I were to visit a native village in the U.S. where they hunted whales, I'd also be against their killing a whale. From a distance, I can intellectually say that I agree with their right to kill whales since that's how they survive, but I know that deep down I really don't agree with it. It has nothing to do with who they are - it's the killing that seems wrong to me.
 

You seem a bit confused and are someone, who obviously relates unrelated things in a wild and from you only created in a new and even unfinished order now(give yourself some airings, please, no one hates you!). . .and obviously have not understood a thing, of what I wrote, and where and why. Don't start with the beginning, please, when it has moved during the process, for example, and in clear relation to the development of the process.

We were not talking about Kyoto Retournee either, only about a few very well clearly related sentences from me, please, and I can repeat every word, but you can read them yourself.

By the way, you might like to read the text above about the section Whaling in Japan in general, opinions are very well allowed. I hope, I don't have to copy this one either.

And I repeat here, just as an example, that even if a ship has its own countrie's flags right on board, it does not have the same one on other places outside in relation to those, particularly not in territories, that are not their own.
We were not talking about maritime law, but japanese one on the ship, said by yourself(!), if you may have a look again. And if that would be all there is, the ship could as well go anywhere and do what they like, even shipping through other countrie's rivers and harbours etc., and if someone would try to stop them via delivering a note, he would be a terrorist according to this, not the japanese ship's law.

The other parts are not yet fully explained by either part (Australia, Japan, other countries, who voted for the sanctury in that territory, the whaling comittee etc. etc.) as also said, because they stopped it before it came onto the table via court, as I wrote already. Its not at all clear, in general.
And that has nothing to do with me nor me wanting to change nor whatsoever in that direction, that makes no sense, sorry. Don't make things up and mix them to your liking, please.

And if you cite things, that I cited from you, for example, you cannot ask me, only yourself.

But as said, no one is hating you
 
>You seem a bit confused
OK, I would like to illustrates points what you could understand as wiigles do.
There are 3 standing points about anti-whaling
#1 Scientific Point of View
#2 Legal Point of View
#3 Ethical Point of View

#1 With Scientific Point of View, Most scientists agree that
for 600 thousands Minke Whales now alive, hunting 1 thousand of them per year has an insignificant effect. The whaling is sustainable.

#2 With Legal Point of View, The starting point is, what kind of law is effective in the case. International Law and the ship's owners law-this case Japanese Law-according to Maritime Law, These are effective. With these laws, The whalers are iinocent. Now Australians are complaining with Australian Law. So I have asked the first question. "Do you really believe Antarctica is a part of Australia?" Some newspapers in Australia describes "the whalers are in Australian water". It sounds strange for the rest of the world, but I can understand such propaganda gain public support. So I don't care Australians chunner inside Australia.

#3 With Ethical Point of View,.
My second question is just related to the point. Chi65 seems misunderstanding the intent of the question, "Why Minke whale 1st, Native Australians left?" There are many moral compasses around the world. Hindu-majority country doesn't accuse beef eating sailors, and Muslims don't condemn pork eaters. 150 years ago, when US fleet comes to Japan for establishing a Whaling base, Japanese were afraid of Beef eaters. Now, Japanese understands, there are many cultures around the world, and there are some consensus about human rights. But Japanese doesn't accepted the idea killing cattles and pigs and kangaroos are OK, but whales are not OK. No clear evidence that Minke whale is much more intelligent than pig(Pig is known smart animal to be a pet)
Generally, ethical conflict, It is important that Who accuses Whom. In this case, Australian culture accuses Japanese culture about ethics as "barbarian" , "cruel" and so on.
So not only Japan, but also Australian ethics of both countries are important.
Do you understand?
So My second question is, to know Australian culture. Why Australians are enthusiastic about Minke whales, and not about Aborigine? Japanese travelers observeded the extinction process of native Australians inside Australia. Their languages and cultures are still going to extiction. For Japanese, "Human 1st, Animals second, including cattles, kangaroos, and whales" is an ethcal rule, However, in Australia, something would be different. So Many japanese want to know why Australians go so crazy, even tries to violate international law -human wise to prevent war-. We hear many reports from Japanese living in Australia recently about racism coming back even in elementary schools.
In other sayings, Japanese are intent upon whether Australians can accept pluralism around the world or not.
 
Talking about Cruel and barbarian, I would have a short talk about old times.

There was a smrat youg leader, eleced by poll -democratic process.
He did economic reconstruction of the destructive nation.
He was enthusiastic to make the human beings better,
Of course he was a vegetarian, no-alcohol-drinker.
His allegiant were also vegetarians.
The only problem was, they are a bit intolerant of
adoption of foreign culture, but citizens didn't care.

The leader's name is, as you know, Adolf Hitler.
His allegiant were - Heinrich Luitpold Himmler, Rudolf Walter Richard Heß, and so on.

Japanese consensus would be "If There is no fear of extinction, Take care of racism and cruelty 1st, before taking care of other nation's food culture. Cruelty is not related to eating habits" Don't you think so?
 
We had it all before, incl. Hitler. . .check the other threads, please.
I don't feel like endles repetitions, also what others already wrote many times, and those were not my post and points either, what you try to build up there.
Zig zagging does not interest me either.
Go, ask other's time and attention (or better, read the other threads, before you start once more, there you have plenty of answers from many already), if you can't get it together, OK?

The whaler's law must not be those of a ruler of the world though, if many disagree, by the way. A formal case was bypassed, probably because it is so unclear. . .and would thus have stopped even more and for longer(!!).
We already know, who really support the pros, everybody can read it, thus so can you. . .

I have strong doubts, that those ships can really do what they want and everywhere, with what they do not own, but belong to more than just to the japanese ship or law, sorry to say. Thats not at all sorted out.

And put on scales, two people entering a ship and on the other side killings of many hundred whales against many people's will under a fake (and it is a fake!)explanation. . .sorry, the scales go very much down for the whalers, for sure for in many people's eyes of the rest of the world, that can think a bit (not only the aussis), and watch the videos and incoming informations.
It stinks there, more and more (I am not saying, you, but its pretty obvious, that the same game of putting sand in people's eyes continues, but the picture itself does not change, sorry to say. In fact, it becomes more and more clear because of such games).

I do not support clear mass-killings under such circumstances (on dolphins neither). And my points and reasons were made many times and already at the beginning of my writings in this section (see already about the posts from Taiji, for example). I still see no reason to change them, in contrary.

Also, Hitler was a mass-killer(and his vegetarianism is more than questionable), built up imaginary enemies via racism (those same terms(!) can easily be found around Glenn Inwood, as we already realised. etc.), to lead to a war, while Greenpeace and all those who are against war and killings and just wish to stop exacty this and thus are not working this way. Maybe you consider this a bit?
We say in such a case, der Vergleich hinkt gewaltig, if something is out of proportion. . .

I happen to know and have seen via documentations (that arrived us via Berlinale filmfestival a bit ago) of a few "scientific methods" on humans from the Japanese in Mandshuku, very similar to Hitler methods on jews and children particular, if not worse. The same excuses were made here, even later on in front of the court, once it came to this, and were not accepted, in contrary: guilty for murder! (go, check the Nürnberg processes)
Can't help, it has the same deadly smell and the same terminology, almost exactly so. . .stay aware of this, people!

That eating habit reason is also already pretty worn out, since such habits change all the time, its flux, and everywhere, according to many circumstances. We had it all too.
And our pigs are our problem(thus we have to sort it out, not you), whereas whales do not belong to Japan, but to all, thus its a global issue, not just a Japanese, nor just an Aussi. . .
Thats clearly nonsense to compare.

I have very little interest in fighting against worn out clothes, and in fighting in general.

Go to the searches, please, and try to find out, before you go into endless repetitions, that we know by heart by now.
Good bye.
 
Last edited:
caster51 said:
Sea shepherdﾂ &ﾂ A whaler

窶嗅窶嗜窶嗅
Click to expand...

It took the Japanese government to make the whalers see the funny side which ultimately saw the kidnapped protesters released.

Scary people these whalers..
 
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/rss/nn20080119a7.html

they are like fly
 
But on the scales with mass-murder they are still just small echoes. . .

I find some things as questionable (and prefer Greenpeace), as said before, but on the other side even more.
 
Chi65 said:
But on the scales with mass-murder they are still just small echoes. . .
I find some things as questionable (and prefer Greenpeace), as said before, but on the other side even more.
Click to expand...

That's right - the whalers are butchering huge mammals from the sea. The Sea Shepherd is trying to intercept, now and then ramming another ship, sinking two ships. I think butchering mammals is more of a violation of life than sinking a ship.

It sounds like Paul Watson is doing only what he can do to live with his conscience after making eye contact with a harpooned whale. He's channeling his frustration at not being able to do anything for that whale into trying to prevent the murder of other whales.
 
Yes,
but that makes it an emotional issue (no judging, just stating a fact) on the anti-whaler side,
while many are trying to argue from their office-table and call any other aspect a bambi-effect/factor (what a joke, if thats implied onto whales, they don't even realise this!) and as such irrelevant for the whole whaling theme, of course, from the pro-whaler-side, what else.

Anyhow, since there is a general battle on this emotional/rational field as well (even if many so-called rationals act out of very (from themselves) ignored emotional reasons, haha), they often fight against much more than just an anti whaler. In fact, maybe they would even like to change sides, but can't any more, for example because of their moneymaking professional situation. Which again makes them react like been attacked personally, once more also being very emotional, which the degradings and flamings that they tried or openly showed here too, made it clear enough. In which case any rational argument from them looks even more funny (particularly, if it speeds up, bypassing former questions, this typical zig-zagging. . .), only they don't realise it any more.

Its not, that I can't understand both sides
(one even has to try to understand the other side too, but that does not mean, that one has to accept or bow to it, which they expect in consequence, plain rubbish, it only shows their real reasons, and mostly very quickly. . .!)

And the far more dangerous one is the one, who continuously tries to find reasons for unproportional (and unnecessary) mass-killings.

Any anti-dictator will be forgiven (also for more drastic actions, if others didn't work), if not also honoured in the long run, but hardly the ice-cold dictator himself, who walked over corpses of whichever kind. Those killed ones will become the dead ones who constantly reappear for hauntings, no matter from which species.
Not so those who were handled with thanks and respect, even if eaten. They may live on in changed usefull form as welcomed reminders and friendly souls. Older cultures sure knew about this. Japanese also ought to know this, according to their own traditions. If they forgot, they are clearly blinded by the money, I can only repeat myself. They haunt themselves by calling for opposition this way. A very delicate balance is disturbed.

I am very much for giving some japanese culture back, or keeping it, but I mean that of cooperation with and respect for nature (humans and whales etc. are as much nature).
 
I can see what you mean here, Chi. Pro-whalers are saying that anti-whalers are emotional in a "bambi" kind of way (looking at whales like cute animals). I think for Paul Watson it's much more than that. I can hardly begin to imagine the guilt and sorrow he must have felt. Also the emotional response of activists who try to intervene with the dolphin slaughter is obviously much more than a "bambi effect". They suffer in empathy with what the dolphins and whales must be feeling.

I can see how pro-whalers might feel that it's wrong to kill these whales, but also feel obligated to keep doing so because of the money aspect or because they owe their loyalty to someone who's whaling. But I agree with what you said, Chi, about how the Japanese must be piling on bad karma for themselves by going against their own earlier culture (in not killing too many whales).
 
the emotion makes big donation as their big business from ppl who watch their performance.

it is a scheme of donation on purpose
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Japanese age of consent (misinterpreted fact or blatant lie?)
2
Replies
43
Views
176K
Shimke
S
Do Japanese people really stare if you have blond hair and blue eyes?
2
Replies
43
Views
166K
mdchachi
E
Are Whales, dolphins, more intelligent than humans?
Replies
16
Views
39K
Ukigumo
W
Why do only few Japanese men go for Western women?
2 3
Replies
66
Views
112K
think_too_mut
P
  • Poll Poll
What is a valid reason not to hunt whales for meat?
4 5 6
Replies
143
Views
30K
ewww
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…