Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 3 votes

Sea Shepherd announces Operation Relentless


  • Please log in to reply
134 replies to this topic

#31    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 May 2013 - 07:25 AM

[quote name='Yamato' timestamp='1369976250' post='4794809']Right, if it's shiny and grey and from the government, it's here to help,[/quote]

Irrelevant to the question of whether the Sea Shepherd has the authority to enforce laws.

[quote]and civil action can't possibly be relied upon to change the world when government fails to take responsibility for itself or for the malfeasance of others.[/quote]

Irrelevant to the question of whether the Sea Shepherd has the authority to enforce laws.

[quote]With that kind of attitude having to rely on military force to solve all our problems we wouldn't have evolved as a species.   We'd be living in the dark ages, nobody brave enough to sit on a bus, or pee in a white toilet, or go to jail and suffer physically for the right to vote.   All great social change through the ages didn't come about because some bureaucrat stood on a podium and took credit for it, it happened because people cared enough to break laws of the day to realize a greater good.[/quote]

Canada disagrees.

Also, not relevant to the question of whether the Sea Shepherd has the authority to enforce laws.

[quote]That said, what law is Sea Shepherd breaking?[/quote]

The ones shown, piracy on the high seas and failure to follow collision prevention procedures as instructed in the internationally accepted Rules of the Road.

[quote]Your definition of piracy fails on line #1.   a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed.  There isn't even an act of violence, much less an illegal act of violence. [/quote]

Regardless of what you may believe, ramming a boat with your boat is considered physical violence, and throwing objects at other boats is also considered physical violence.

And yes, they are all illegal, as they were not performed in an act of defense against themselves or others.

[quote]If Sea Shepherd is "violent" then they would have killed someone by now, [/quote]

Great definition.  Thousands of abused spouses agree with you.

[quote]much less seriously injured someone which they haven't even done that, in over 36 years of operation.[/quote]

Sure.  Losing an entire season of work because you came down with a serious case of acid to the face doesn't really count as an injury.

Sheesh, what's a "serious injury"?  Death?

[quote]If Sea Shepherd are "violent illegal terrorists", then pull that "law" out and arrest them.[/quote]

That would be against the law.  Some people like to follow the law, and not take it into their own hands.

[quote]Why aren't they sitting in an Australian jail if you're correct and I'm not?[/quote]

Same reason why Japanese whalers are still whaling.  Politics.

[quote] The fact that hasn't happened in 10 years of Antarctic campaigns speaks volumes about what "laws" they're not breaking.[/quote]

Or, alternatively, how ineffectual the Sea Shepherd has been until they started getting funded by the Discovery Channel.

[quote]]If you start with that false pretense, then the rest of your analysis goes without saying.  But that isn't established, that's just another empty claim.[/quote]

The false pretense where I quote the exact law as it appears in the books, along with the exact actions which are in violation of those law?  Those false pretenses?

Or am I doing something else that could be seen as a false pretense, such as trying to deflect attention away from the previous claim of authority of law enforcement into some sort of...moral justification for...what, world revolution or somesuch?  As opposed to actually talking about the authority they don't have.

Or am I making claims that I haven't backed up?  That could be considered a false pretense as well, I suppose.



[quote]The World Charter for Nature[/quote]

Hee hee...the one with 111 votes for, and 1 against, from the U.S.A.?  Okay...

[quote]21.  States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities,
international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:


(a)  Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common
activities
and other relevant actions, including information exchange and
consultations;

©  Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the
conservation of nature and the protection of the environment
;

(d)  Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not
cause damage to the natural systems located within other States or in the
areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction
;

(e)  Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.[/quote]

Go on...

Please explain where this authorizes civilian vessels to use unnecessary violence in order to enforce...what, co-operation?  Like sharing the results of any research?  Follow internationally agreed upon provisions for conservation?  Like those administered by the IWC?  Ensure that damage to natural systems is avoided?  Such as not ramming into fuel vessels or interfering with an at sea refueling?  Please, do explain how exactly one can interpret "The Sea Shepherd has immunity  to breaking laws, because it is enforcing laws" from the above.

I'm eager to hear it.

[quote]Law enforcement agencies don't have "rights", they have powers that they're authorized to use. [/quote]

And the Sea Shepherd is not a law enforcement agencies.  Ergo, it has no rights, or powers, or authorization, to intentionally engage other vessels in physical violence because it doesn't agree with their mission.  Ergo, the Sea Shepherd broke the law.

[quote]Yes, you must show me that Sea Shepherd doesn't have the authorization to enforce the law,[/quote]

Done.

[quote]and the law they're enforcing is a multi-layered geographical and diplomatic ban on Japan's illegal whaling in the Southern Ocean.[/quote]

Feel free to source your claim.  False pretences and all that.

[quote]If ramming vessels in the act of law enforcement is "illegal" then why is ramming ships in the act of illegal fueling and illegal whaling not illegal?[/quote]

Because some people are intelligent enough to understand the concept of not apprehending a jaywalker by running over him with your car.  Repeatedly.  And then posting the videos on YouTube.

[quote]This pro-government hypocrisy is getting to be absurd.[/quote]

Well, pro-law, anti-vigilantist, anyway.

[quote]The conventions you're citing don't solely apply to Sea Shepherd because you don't politically agree with Sea Shepherd. [/quote]

No.  The conventions don't solely apply to the Sea Shepherd because they apply to all vessels at sea.  My view of their idiotic tactics (not their politics) has nothing to do with it.

[quote]Absolutely not.  None of those actions are illegal in the act of law enforcement.[/quote]

Yep.  They are.  That's why we have juries.  To determine what mitigating circumstances apply.

[quote]You can't accept the premise that Sea Shepherd is enforcing the law and so you wind up with word counts like this when law enforcement does not face juries for said actions.[/quote]

More along the lines of "I can't accept the premise because you haven't actually supported the premise."  whereas I have shown specifically where the opposite is indeed supported.

Asides from it being a tradition for several millenia that intentionally ramming a ship into the side of another

[quote]That bears no semblance to reality whatever. [/quote]

Not a sailor, then.

[quote]Physically blocking the illegal transfer of fuel is the intention; that is a non-violent legal method of enforcing the law on the high seas.[/quote]

Incorrect.  Anytime you use physical force to hurt, damage, or destroy, it is, by sheer definition, violence.

But you have to keep the masses happy, so you engage in a bit of sleight-of-hand.  Go through the motions, and then ensure nothing will happen for several years, until everyone has quieted down again.  Or, alternatively, you can consider it a coincidence that it took Australia 2 years to file the paperwork, at which time New Zealand filed a Declaration of Intervention, which took the court more time, and which even now, three years later, they are barely at the oral hearing stage.  It's up to one's individual perception, I suppose.

[quote]It takes a long time for bureaucracy to function.   You should check out death row in the US if you think that's a long time in bureau-time.[/quote]

I don't think it's long term at all.  If anything, it's a little speedier than I would have expected.  It's certainly faster than Australia would like it to be.

[quote]If any state wants to enforce an embargo or a blockade in international waters, and it responds with deadly violent force, nobody runs and gets these rules out and punishes them for it.[/quote]

Of course.  Why would you apply civilian rules to a military situation?

[quote]Israel's deadly assault on Freedom Flotilla a few years ago is case in point.   What you're citing doesn't render anyone a "terrorist" much less a "pirate".[/quote]

Terrorist?  How did that come into the discussion?

But yes, by definition (and legal ruling), the Sea Shepherd are pirates.  You can take that up with the courts if you disagree.

[quote]You need violence to do that, and you don't have any.[/quote]

Except for the part where the Sea Shepherd actively uses physical force to hurt, damage, or destroy the other vessels.  Which, by definition, is violence.  Take that up with Merriam and/or Webster.

[quote]You believe that civil society can't enforce the law no matter what, and so you are as government-reliant as the criminal whalers you defend.[/quote]

No, I believe the Sea Shepherd is not authorised to act as Law Enforcement.

That "false pretenses" thing?  Does that include taking the answer for one question and the pretending it is the answer to a different question?

[quote]They'd never get on deck if they weren't being paid with someone else's money, taken by the government by force.   Supporting whalers is supporting the destruction of our oceans, the extinction of whale species, the violation of the moratorium on commercial whaling, the violation of the spirit and letter of the World Charter for Nature, the violation of the Whale Sanctuary, the violation of the Antarctic Treaty, the Australian EEZ, the Australian Antarctic Territory.   And now they're being taken to court for it as they should.[/quote]

Yeah, not interested in how you justify your politics.

Feel free to justify your legal claims, however.

[quote]Governments enforcing their own laws by going to war on each other don't follow rules 9, 10, 13, or 18.[/quote]

Actually, yeah, they do, because common sense dictates...oh, right...

Anyhow, rules of engagement for combat are different than rules of the road for navigation.  All ships at sea follow the rules of the road because most sailors are quite happy to stay above the water, not below, and keeping your ships from colliding with each other helps prevent that.

Of course, if you are actively trying to poke holes in each other with high explosive artillery, collisions are not the immediate concern, and you are well into a military situation anyway.

[quote]The difference between how governments resolve their differences and Sea Shepherd is, governments kill people and Sea Shepherd does not. [/quote]

That, and governments are elected through a system voted into place by representatives of that government, who also continue to represent the interests of their voters to the government in question, whereas the Sea Shepherd prefers the more "Mr. Samson voted against the School Prom!  Let's go egg his house!" approach.

[quote]The entire premise of your argument is invalid.[/quote]

The one where the Sea Shepherd is held accountable to the same laws all ships at sea are held to?

[quote]Sea Shepherd is authorized to do what they do, by the letter of the law,[/quote]

Feel free to show us those letters.  Any time now.

Wouldn't want people to accuse you of making empty claims based on false pretenses or anything.

[quote]and doesn't have to play by a 2nd standard that you have to admit governments are immune to, even though they're not. [/quote]

A double standard...that applies to all vessels at sea?  Doesn't that kind of invalidate the concept of a double standard?

And, incidentally, I am not the one claiming that it is okay to break laws as long as you are performing Law Enforcement.  That was you, remember?  I am the one who said that you are still breaking the laws, regardless, and that the punishment would be mitigated by the circumstances.

[quote]If you think they're in the wrong, take them to court,  not Japan.[/quote]

Who, Sea Shepherd?  They are already on the wanted list of most world ports.  What point would there be for me to get involved?

Incidentally, could you stop throwing in new points all the time?  The post creep is getting ridiculous.  Stick to the original question you asked, instead of flying of into moral tangents.


#32    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,215 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 May 2013 - 09:36 AM

LOL, see that's why it's easier to do it the way I did it, aquatus.  You failed to match up your quote tags and it winds up looking like that.  No better than my use of italics.  The difference is you spent time trying to match up your tags and I didn't. Breaking every paragraph down into sentences creates banter.  Not reading a reply before replying to it yourself creates incohesive and lagging train of thoughts.   Sea Shepherd has the authority to enforce the law on the high seas per the World Charter for Nature.  If that bothers you, then lobby to change the letter of the law.  But for now, the letter matches the spirit.  And nobody in the world has legally challenged Sea Shepherd on this for over 35 years.  

LOL no you can't commit "violence" against a physical object, that's absurd.

This is a moral issue aquatus.  This is about the survival of our oceans.  If we don't think that's a moral issue, then maybe we don't understand how important the oceans are.  One can be a humanist and agree with me, because it's that important to the future of mankind.

Ships in war do not follow those rules of yours.   Trying to single Sea Shepherd out as the only ships in the sea that don't follow these unenforceable conventions is ridiculous.  The Japanese whalers are being taken to court.  If your position has any legal leverage to it whatsoever, then I don't know why Japan is the one being dragged through the legal mud.   I think 'Operation Relentless' combined with the joint legal actions of Australia and New Zealand is a good start to shutting this government subsidized poaching operation down.   The Japanese fleet has already been sunk economically.   But because the central bank of Japan can print infinite amounts of money and destroy the value of its own currency, the Japanese whalers are still in business.   It's government creating jobs, as usual.

Violence is in the dictionary and it has a definition and what Sea Shepherd does ain't it.  

Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.

With this issue, the violence comes from the Japanese whalers who fire harpoon guns into the back of whales' heads and bleed them out in torturous 20 minute deaths until they drown exhausted in their own blood.   That's barbaric violence against whales.   You don't care about that violence.  You ignore that Sea Shepherd doesn't seriously injure much less kill anyone which is the very definition of violence.  They're a refreshingly non-violent organization that I wish governments could learn to emulate.  

Governments kill each other to settle their disputes and so they get to play with a double standard?  Governments don't always recognize the sovereignty of other governments and so they have to kill each other over the disagreement.  Support the organization that pays its bills, that doesn't kill anyone, and doesn't need to bilk you out of your own money by force in order to pay for it.

I've justified my legal claim on another thread entitled "Australia takes Japan to court over whaling".   Japan is on the legal defensive here.  Sea Shepherd is gearing up for another campaign in the Antarctic.   This is very good progress, unless one is a Japanese nationalist sympathizer feeling frumpy about Japan not poaching whales anymore.  Dishing out endless amounts of rhetoric to turn the tide now is too little, too late.   Sea Shepherd is winning this war and it's time to turn the screw hard on Japan.  Strike while the iron is hot, if you will.  They're coming up embarrassingly short of their annual whale quota, desperately fighting inflation destroying their currency, their debt is going sky high, they've got more problems with China and North Korea than they can comfortably handle (and the US is expected to come to the rescue for that too) and their charade is coming to an end eventually anyway because if the whales don't disappear, the money will.

The Letters were already delivered in my reply above, but if repetition is necessary:

from The World Charter for Nature:

21.  States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities,
international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:


a.  Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common
activities
and other relevant actions, including information exchange and
consultations;

c. Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the
conservation of nature and the protection of the environment
;

e.  Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

Edited by Yamato, 31 May 2013 - 10:33 AM.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#33    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 May 2013 - 10:29 AM

View PostYamato, on 31 May 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

LOL, see that's why it's easier to do it the way I did it, aquatus.  You failed to match up your quote tags and it winds up looking like that.  No better than my use of italics.  The difference is you spent time trying to match up your tags and I didn't.

No, actually, the computer does that for you; it doesn't let you post if you have too many quotes.

Unfortunately, it also has a function that, if one posts multiple times within a specific period, it merges the posts together, and defaults to the above.

I prefer the quotes because it is a good indicator of post creep.

Quote

Breaking every paragraph down into sentences creates banter.  Not reading a reply before replying to it yourself creates incohesive and lagging train of thoughts.

You mean like randomly making conclusions about other people that weren't even under discussion, giving answers to questions that do not actually address the question, throwing in half a dozen new points which were also not part of the original discussion, and abruptly changing the topic from a rather straight-forward legal claim to some subjective moralistic argument?

I agree.  Incohesive posts are annoying.

Quote

Sea Shepherd has the authority to enforce the law on the high seas per the World Charter for Nature.

You have not shown that.  Who is granting the authority?  What does the authority entail?  There is nothing in what you posted that indicates that any civilian craft is authorized to engage in violent conflict another vessel in pursuance.  I asked you to show me where it gives authority, not where it defines whatever it is trying to promote.

Quote

If that bothers you, then lobby to change the letter of the law.  But for now, the letter matches the spirit.  And nobody in the world has legally challenged Sea Shepherd on this for over 35 years.

There is no letter there.  There is nothing there that talks about enforcement authority in any way, shape, or form.  Heck, if anything, it specifies "..through the use of common activities..." of which ship ramming is not one.  By all means, point out specifically where the authority is given.  Highlight it, bold it, show an example of it, do something, anything, other than continue repeating yourself without offering anything in support of your claim.  Repeating that jaywalking is illegal and we should all work to prevent it does not equate to "The use of unnecessary force has been authorized".

Quote

LOL no you can't commit "violence" against a physical object, that's absurd.

Why do you say something like that?  What in the definition of violence indicates that it cannot be directed at an object?

Quote

This is a moral issue aquatus.

No, it isn't.

You may have some moral point to pick, but whatever that point is, it has absolutely nothing to do with things like authorization and legal responsibility.  Individuals are not allowed to impose their morality on others, particularly not through the use of violence.

Quote

Ships in war do not follow those rules of yours.

I already explained that and I am not going to repeat myself.  You, on the other hand, need to stop making things up on the fly that conflict with your desire to be right.

Quote

Trying to single Sea Shepherd out as the only ships in the sea that don't follow these unenforced conventions is ridiculous.

Trying to pretend that is what I did is even more ridiculous.

You asked what laws were broken.  I gave you the specific laws that were broken.

I asked what law gave them authority.  You did not provide the law that gives them authority.

Quote

The Japanese whalers are being taken to court.  If your position has any legal leverage to it whatsoever, then I don't know why Japan is the one being dragged through the legal mud.   I think Operation Relentless combined with the joint legal actions of Australia and New Zealand is a good start to shutting this government subsidized poaching operation down.   The Japanese fleet has already been sunk economically.   But because the central bank of Japan can print infinite amounts of money and destroy the value of its own currency, the Japanese whalers are still in business.   It's government creating jobs as usual.

Not interested in yet another set of new topics.

Quote

Violence is in the dictionary and it has a definition and what Sea Shepherd does ain't it.  

Then quote the definition and show how it is not it.  Better yet, prior to making a claim, double-check your information (as in, look up the word in the dictionary), like I did (which is why I know exactly what the dictionary says), and why I know that you did not double-check, considering your previous LOL about what violence is (let me guess...you Googled it and picked the first definition that sounded like it supported you).

Stop making unsupported claims.  If you say something, back it up.

Quote

With this issue, the violence comes from the Japanese whalers who fire harpoon guns into the back of whales' heads and bleed them out in torturous 20 minute deaths until they drown exhausted in their own blood.   That's barbaric violence against whales.   You don't care about that violence.  You ignore that Sea Shepherd doesn't seriously injure much less kill anyone which is the very definition of violence.  They're a refreshingly non-violent organization that I wish governments could learn to emulate.  

Irrelevant to the question of whether the Sea Shepherd has any authority to enforce anything.

Quote

Governments kill each other to settle their disputes and so they get to play with a double standard?  Governments don't always recognize the sovereignty of other governments and so they have to kill each other over the disagreement.  Support the organization that pays its bills, that doesn't kill anyone, and doesn't need to bilk you out of your own money by force in order to pay for it.

Irrelevant to the question of whether the Sea Shepherd has any authority to enforce anything.

Quote

I've justified my legal claim on another thread entitled "Australia takes Japan to court over whaling".   Japan is on the legal defensive here.  Sea Shepherd is gearing up for another campaign in the Antarctic.   This is progress, unless you're a Japanese nationalist sympathizer feeling frumpy about Japan not poaching whales anymore.  Dishing out endless amounts of rhetoric to turn the tide now is too little too late.   Sea Shepherd is winning this war and it's time to turn the screw hard on Japan in court in addition.  Strike while the iron is hot if you will.  They're desperately fighting inflation destroying their currency, their debt is going sky high, they've got more problems with China and North Korea than they can handle (and the US is expected to come to the rescue for that too) and their charade is coming to an end eventually anyway because if the whales don't disappear the money will.

Irrelevant to the question of whether the Sea Shepherd has any authority to enforce anything.

Quote

The Letters were already delivered in my reply above, but if repetition is necessary:

Not only is it not necessary, you were specifically asked to stop repeating yourself, and clarify the specific point that was under question.

Quote

From The World Charter for Nature: yadda, yadda

As I said:

Please explain where this authorizes civilian vessels to use unnecessary violence in order to enforce...what, co-operation?  Like sharing the results of any research?  Follow internationally agreed upon provisions for conservation?  Like those administered by the IWC?  Ensure that damage to natural systems is avoided?  Such as not ramming into fuel vessels or interfering with an at sea refueling?  Please, do explain how exactly one can interpret "The Sea Shepherd has immunity  to breaking laws, because it is enforcing laws" from the above.

Please answer the above questions, noting where it say "explain", not "repost that last thing you posted".


#34    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,215 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 May 2013 - 10:47 AM

Please explain where this authorizes civilian vessels to use unnecessary violence in order to enforce...

Are you serious?  

21.  States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities,
intern
ational organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:

(e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

"Go on?"  To where?   Explaining what this means?   It means what it says, that States, organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.   Not that they "can", or that they "should", or that they "would be able to but darnit you don't agree and your opinion is what matters", but that they SHALL.   That is the explanation, and that is the letter of the law.   Sea Shepherd is fully authorized by law to do exactly what it's doing in the Antarctic every year and they're winning this fight.   Backing down now would be tactically asinine.

The rest of the banter is obsolete if you can't even grasp plain English in the letter of the law.  I suggest reading the entire Charter so you also understand the spirit of the law which the Japanese criminal whalers are in deep violation of.

This argument never wasn't moral.  Species of great whale have been run into the ground one after another and it's time to put a stop that crap now before it's too late.   Now that Japan is on the defensive up against the ropes it's time to land combination power shots hard to the body and then back upstairs to the head to KO this imperial relic once and for all.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#35    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 May 2013 - 12:44 PM

View PostYamato, on 31 May 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

Please explain where this authorizes civilian vessels to use unnecessary violence in order to enforce...

Are you serious?

Absolutely.  That's why I asked you three time to explain your position.

Quote

21.  States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities,
intern
ational organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:

(e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.

"Go on?"  To where?   Explaining what this means?   It means what it says, that States, organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.   Not that they "can", or that they "should", or that they "would be able to but darnit you don't agree and your opinion is what matters", but that they SHALL.   That is the explanation, and that is the letter of the law.

And now, I have to ask...

Are you serious?

What exactly do you think Authorization (particularly as it pertains to law enforcement) means?  You've got a bad record for definitions here, so maybe the problem is that you are thinking something means something that it doesn't actually mean.

Quote

Sea Shepherd is fully authorized by law to do exactly what it's doing in the Antarctic every year and they're winning this fight.  Backing down now would be tactically asinine.

No, no, and yes.

Quote

The rest of the banter is obsolete if you can't even grasp plain English in the letter of the law.  I suggest reading the entire Charter so you also understand the spirit of the law which the Japanese criminal whalers are in deep violation of.

Pointless.

Quote

This argument never wasn't moral.  Species of great whale have been run into the ground one after another and it's time to put a stop that crap now before it's too late.   Now that Japan is on the defensive up against the ropes it's time to land combination power shots hard to the body and then back upstairs to the head to KO this imperial relic once and for all.

That isn't the argument.  The argument is about whether or not the Sea Shepherd is authorized to use violence under the excuse that it is engaging in law enforcement.  On a broader level, the argument is about the stupidity of the Sea Shepherd's actions on a legal level, considering how many laws and lives they endanger, on a political level, seeing as to how they are directly responsible for destroying progress toward ceasing of whaling, and even on a logical level, in that putting the entire ecosystem at risk of a major fuel spill is a backassward way of protecting whales.

That you have a thing about whales is all on you.  If that's your thing, great, more power to you, but no one, especially not the Sea Shepherd, gets to use violence to push their morality onto other people.  You have every right to feel that X is the most important thing there is, but you do not have the right to demand that everyone else agree with you about it.


#36    Papagiorgio

Papagiorgio

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 847 posts
  • Joined:17 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia PA

  • I'm just saying.

Posted 31 May 2013 - 06:27 PM

View PostYamato, on 30 May 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

Maybe Sea Shepherd should have a trillion dollars so they can afford to do everything anyone can think of that they're not already doing.  

Why claim that Sea Shepherd isn't concerned themselves about pollution?   In a word, ignorance.
Then they should stop wasting time and money playing pretend pirates, and use the money they get to do some real good. But they won't because the ratings would suffer. They don't care about whales or pollution. They care about ratings and the almighty dollar.

I'm just saying.

#37    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,215 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 June 2013 - 08:09 AM

View PostPapagiorgio, on 31 May 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

Then they should stop wasting time and money playing pretend pirates, and use the money they get to do some real good. But they won't because the ratings would suffer. They don't care about whales or pollution. They care about ratings and the almighty dollar.
Saving the lives of whales, sharks, dolphins, fish, seals, reefs, and beaches is a waste of time?

They care about the almighty dollar for no other reason than to do their job, giorgio   Are you aware that Sea Shepherd crew are unpaid?  It baffles me to understand how Sea Shepherd of all organizations cares about the almighty dollar.   We can say that about a lot of for-profit corporations, not for people who aren't even paid.   If you are chosen to crew on a SS ship, you get three vegan squares a day and a bunk.  Some of the motivation for some of the crew is to be on TV, but why should that extra motivation be counted against them?   Having multiple motivations to do something will only push you harder.   Why shouldn't they or we care about ratings too?    I hope that three billion people learn about who they are so the world creates more non-profit organizations who will emulate them.  I'm not sure what Bavarian Raven likes about your post, but Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is 36 years old.  They couldn't have been caring about nothing but ratings for the first 30 years of operations because there were no ratings.  If you're really just complaining about the media coverage and think there should be a media blackout of Sea Shepherd activities then the question begged is why.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#38    Sir Wearer of Hats

Sir Wearer of Hats

    SCIENCE!

  • Member
  • 15,166 posts
  • Joined:08 Nov 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queensland, Australia.

Posted 01 June 2013 - 08:56 AM

wasting time is pratting about committing piracy.
not wasting time is what the Aussie goverment is doing by taking legal action

I must not fear. Fear is the Mind-Killer. It is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and to move through me. And when it is gone I will turn the inner eye to see it's path.
When the fear is gone, there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

You may think you're cool, but you'll never be as cool as Peter Capaldi with an electric guitar, on a tank, playing the Doctor Who theme.

#39    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,215 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 June 2013 - 06:37 PM

View PostSir Wearer of Hats, on 01 June 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

wasting time is pratting about committing piracy.
not wasting time is what the Aussie goverment is doing by taking legal action
Let's hope so.  It's taken three years to get to this point....sitting in the judicial mud, just waiting.   That's a lot of whales, and hundreds are swimming in the ocean today thanks to Sea Shepherd.    And the slog through the red tape isn't nearly over yet, with Australia hoping for a final decision by the end of the calendar year.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#40    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,215 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 June 2013 - 08:39 PM

If people seriously can't understand plain English and defy the letter of the law, then how are they ever going to follow any law?   Laws aren't multiple choice, you don't get to act mentally retarded about the laws that you don't like.  If you don't like the law, it behooves you to get off the couch and do something about changing it.   It's baffling how anyone could stoop to that much disregard for the law to support the political will (i.e. "pride") of a single government who thinks it's above the law.

Now the criticism is "taking risks" of spilling fuel?   Life is taking risks.  If you're not taking risks, you're not living.

My position is as clear as a crystal bell.  It's the World Charter for Nature, the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, the Australian Antarctic Territory, the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone, the Antarctic Treaty, physically blocking these slaughters on the high seas and taking the criminal Japanese whale poachers to court.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#41    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,215 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 01 June 2013 - 09:10 PM



"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#42    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 21,226 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 02 June 2013 - 11:03 AM

This has become ludicrous.  Here is what plain English sounds like:


Charter of the UN:

CHAPTER VII
ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES
OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION
*Note the specific reference to which scenarios this applies to.


Article 39
The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the
peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall
be taken in accordance to articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and
security.
*Note who specifically has what job, and what their duties are, and where the authority to to carry out those duties comes from.

Article 45
In order to enable the United Nations to take urgent military measures, Members shall holdimmediately available national air-force contingents for combined international enforcement action.  The strength and degree of readiness of these contingents and plans for their combined action shall be determined within the limits laid down in the special agreement or agreements referred to in Article 43, by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee.
*Note the specific authorization to create an enforcement team, and a specific reference to who and how the limits of this authorization will be determined.

Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security
Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to
the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
*Note the specific mention of hard limitations, which cannot be over-ridden by the authority in Article 45.


That's plain English.  That is specific authorization.  That tells you exactly, with absolutely NO INTERPRETATION NEEDED, who is going to do what, to which extent, and even what the subject being authorized is not authorized to do.  And this is just the Charter itself.  It breaks down even further.  The Security Council in Article 45 is required to produce their own SPECIFIC regulations as to who, can do what, when, and when not.  (That would be the "Capstone Doctrine", which lays out specifically what the UN Peacekeeping Force can and can't do).

That is what Authorization is.  Authorization is a formal, legal statement outlining the rights, responsibilities, and limitations of a group, as well as who the group itself will consist of, and who it answers to.

Authorization for Law enforcement is not some half-assed, non-specific, non-descriptive, interpret-at-will, out-of-context, paragraph.  That's not called Authorization.  That's called Quote Mining.

But hey, let's be fair.  After all, it's not like you created this argument; you can't be blamed for not understanding how ludicrous it is.  No, no, the keen intellects aboard the Sea Shepherd are the ones telling you what to repeat, and they certainly don't require anything too difficult from their followers, such as...understanding things (in fact, it's often better if they don't.  Just ask Pete Bethune).

Let's take a look at World Charter for Nature.  Let's start with its classification:  A/RES/37/7

That first letter "A" indicates that this is a document submitted to the General Assembly.  Okay, we knew that.

What's that "RES" stand for?  It reflects the nature of the document.  "RES" stands for Resolution.

What's a Resolution?  A resolution is formal expressions of the opinion or will of the UN.  It is, basically, the UN saying "Guys, this is a really cool idea, let's agree to do it!"

Note that Resolutions do not have actual enforcement powers.  Note that they neither confer nor require any rights, responsibilities, obligations, or mandates.  Resolutions are voluntary, to whatever extent the member nations choose to implement them (amusingly, the US is the only member nation of the UN who decided to vote against the World Charter for Nature).

It even mentions this in the articles of implementation:

21.  States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities,
international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall:

(a)  Co-operate in the task of conserving nature through common
activities
and other relevant actions, including information exchange and
consultations
;

( B)  Establish standards for products and manufacturing processes that
may have adverse effects on nature, as well as agreed methodologies for
assessing these effects;

©  Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the
conservation of nature and the protection of the environment;

(d)  Ensure that activities within their jurisdictions or control do not
cause damage to the natural systems
located within other States or in the
areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction;

(e)  Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.


Note that, just like any other document presented by the UN, the World Charter for Nature specifies exactly who is allowed to do what, which limits apply to them, and where those limits can be found.

That's plain English too.  It requires no interpretation of any kind.  Nowhere in this document will you find anything pertaining to enforcement.

Incidentally, principle 21 (not Law, Regulation, Article, Rule, just...principle) is part of a section titled Implementation.

Implementation of what?  Oh, didn't we mention?  The World Charter for Nature has an entire section called Functions, which are the specific actions which are meant to be implemented.

Quote

II. FUNCTIONS
6. In the decision-making process it shall be recognized that man's needs can be met only by ensuring the proper functioning of natural systems and by respecting the principles set forth in the present Charter.
7. In the planning and implementation of social and economic development activities, due account shall be taken of the fact that the conservation of nature is an integral part of those activities.
8. In formulating long-term plans for economic development, population growth and the improvement of standards of living, due account shall be taken of the long-term capacity of natural systems to ensure the subsistence and settlement of the populations concerned, recognizing that this capacity may be enhanced through science and technology.
9. The allocation of areas of the earth to various uses shall be planned, and due account shall be taken of the physical constraints, the biological productivity and diversity and the natural beauty of the areas concerned.
10. Natural resources shall not be wasted, but used with a restraint appropriate to the principles set forth in the present Charter, in accordance with the following rules:
(a) Living resources shall not be utilized in excess of their natural capacity for regeneration;
( B) The productivity of soils shall be maintained or enhanced through measures which safeguard their long-term fertility and the process of organic decomposition, and prevent erosion and all other forms of degradation;
© Resources, including water, which are not consumed as they are used shall be reused or recycled;
(d) Non-renewable resources which are consumed as they are used shall be exploited with restraint, taking into account their abundance, the rational possibilities of converting them for consumption, and the compatibility of their exploitation with the functioning of natural systems.
11. Activities which might have an impact on nature shall be controlled, and the best available technologies that minimize significant risks to nature or other adverse effects shall be used; in particular:
(a) Activities which are likely to cause irreversible damage to nature shall be avoided;
( B) Activities which are likely to pose a significant risk to nature shall be preceded by an exhaustive examination; their proponents shall demonstrate that expected benefits outweigh potential damage to nature, and where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activities should not proceed;
© Activities which may disturb nature shall be preceded by assessment of their consequences, and environmental impact studies of development projects shall be conducted sufficiently in advance, and if they are to be undertaken, such activities shall be planned and carried out so as to minimize potential adverse effects;
(d) Agriculture, grazing, forestry and fisheries practices shall be adapted to the natural characteristics and constraints of given areas;
(e) Areas degraded by human activities shall be rehabilitated for purposes in accord with their natural potential and compatible with the well-being of affected populations.
12. Discharge of pollutants into natural systems shall be avoided and: (a) Where this is not feasible, such pollutants shall be treated at the source, using the best practicable means available; ( B) Special precautions shall be taken to prevent discharge of radioactive or toxic wastes.
13. Measures intended to prevent, control or limit natural disasters, infestations and diseases shall be specifically directed to the causes of these scourges and shall avoid adverse side-effects on nature.

Silly Sea Shepherd, forgetting something like that!  Why, some might think you did it on purpose!

Anything authorizing enforcement there?  Nothing?  Oh my....shocker.

Quote

Now the criticism is "taking risks" of spilling fuel?   Life is taking risks.  If you're not taking risks, you're not living.

What do you mean, "now"?  It was in my first post.  I am not going to respond to the asinine latter half of the post.

Quote

My position is as clear as a crystal bell.  It's the World Charter for Nature, the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, the Australian Antarctic Territory, the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone, the Antarctic Treaty, physically blocking these slaughters on the high seas and taking the criminal Japanese whale poachers to court.

Oh, yes, it is perfectly clear, and makes just as much sense as someone declaring we have a moral obligation to take care of the environment, and if we happen to cause a fuel spill in the process of protecting it, oh well! cest la vie! *cue wacky sound clip*

But then, I am biased.  Perhaps my ability to read plain English is not quite as good as I think it is.  Let's get a second opinion.

Let's see what the guy who actually submitted the latest revision to the General Assembly thinks:

World Charter for Nature by Samar Singh

From the above (my bolding):

Quote

Its main significance lies in the fact that, for the first
time, the highest international forum for the consideration of
human affairs not only found time to debate the issue at length
but also developed a consensus on certain fundamentals
necessary for sustaining life on earth and acceptable to the
nations of the world.


Quote

These principles are certainly high-sounding and may even
appear utopian to realize. Besides, the Charter is strictly not a
legal document binding on the nations of the world. At best,
it is what the jurists would call a “soft law” instrument, having
a normative character from its adoption by the UN General
Assembly.


Quote

However, it is a declaration of global importance, setting out
the basic principles that must be observed in order to achieve
the conservation of nature and natural resources. It is verily
a moral code of behaviour in human relationships with nature.

Quote

For the latter, the Charter sets out rules to be
observed, while for the individuals and groups of individuals,
its principal value is formative, as a code of conduct, aimed
at the establishment of a consciousness, whose legal elements
will in most cases remain to be developed by the national
legislatures.



Quote


As the Charter for Nature is formally a recommendation of
the United Nations General Assembly, it is not binding on theStates in a strict sense



Quote

This principle is concerned not so much with legal duties as
with the moral responsibilities, which each citizen must
assume.

Wow...Mr. Singh really goes out of his way to emphasize that this document is not enforceable, cannot confer authority, nor can it demand any particular action from any particular party.  Wonder how the Sea Shepherd missed that?

Anyhow, what it all comes down to is what the rest of the world already knows.

The Sea Shepherd is a pirate ship.  They are violent.  They are not authorized to be violent towards anyone, particularly not in the enforcement of their own morality.  And in claiming that the World Charter for Nature authorizes them to be violent, they are completely ignoring the entire text of the resolution, or lying about it and omitting the parts that tell you specifically that it doesn't do what the Sea Shepherd claims it does.

Ignorance or Deception.  Your choice.

Q.E.D.


#43    Yamato

Yamato

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 15,215 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 03 June 2013 - 06:19 AM

And yet my position remains is as clear as crystal.  It's the World Charter for Nature, the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary, the Australian Antarctic Territory, the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone, the Antarctic Treaty, physically blocking these slaughters on the high seas and taking the criminal Japanese whale poachers to court.  

Finding an op-ed about the World Charter for Nature and ignoring the rest of the position doesn't even matter because Mr. Singh's analysis doesn't bear relevance to anything I said.   Nobody is saying that "the World Charter for Nature is binding to the states".  It isn't binding TO ANYONE, such that if you don't enforce it, you won't be in any trouble for not enforcing it.  Enforcement is voluntary.   The claim you're making is that Sea Shepherd can't volunteer to enforce the law because it is a "soft law".  But there is no law you can cite stating that they can't enforce the law that they're authorized to enforce, "soft" or not.   The states should be enforcing their own laws already, and they're not.  

What's the other component of your pro-whaling opinion?  That Sea Shepherd could cause an oil spill!  Every ship on the ocean risks that, somehow that risk is only brought up when Sea Shepherd encounters Japanese poachers.  So with a choice between 1. Defending the oceans, or 2. Not defending the oceans because one is worried about an oil spill, am I supposed to take that choice seriously?   That's no choice at all.  It's either fighting a non-violent war against criminals at the scene of the crime, or it's sitting in a chair flapping against it.

There is nothing "violent" about Sea Shepherd tactics and their entire history of never causing a single death proves it.   If you want to blame a dead Japanese poacher on someone, blame it on the whaling fleet.

Even without explicit language like the Charter to reference, authority to enforce the law is inherent in the law.  This is a special case because the authorization is explicitly granted and it makes Sea Shepherd even more immune which is why as an organization they've never been convicted of a felony in 36 years.   Everyone has the authority to enforce the law, de facto.  I can arrest you and put you in chains until some government agent comes and picks you up and takes you off of my lawn.  I can beat you severely until you're completely subdued, and then watch you off to jail in your bloody clothes.   If I catch a crime in progress and I intervene and stop that crime, I'm not breaking the law even if I have to use violence that Sea Shepherd never used in 36 years.   If I blocked a rapist from raping his next victim by putting my body physically between that rapist and its victim, that doesn't make me a criminal, "violent", or a "terrorist". I don't need explicit powers of law enforcement granted to me by some agency in the sky to stop that crime myself.   What stupidity to think we live in a world when government bureaucrats sit on their bums and watch women get raped, I have to sit on my bum too because they do it.   I don't have a Charter explicitly telling me that I shall enforce the law when I do it, either.  But I can and should anyway.  And shall.  Whether some criminal sympathizer or government appeaser cries on the internet about it or not.   If I volunteer to stop a murder in progress and I have to use deadly force to stop it, that's just too bad to the murderer and his tearful fan club.  

Even if government is the only agent capable of law enforcement one can respect, the government of Australia already told these whalers to stop whaling and the whalers don't listen.  The Japanese whaling fleet has been in contempt of an Australian Federal Court order since 2008 that prohibits them from killing whales in Australian territorial waters.  So it's not the lack of authority that makes the difference to whaling supporters, it's a consummate lack of respect for nature itself that supporters of these Japanese criminals demonstrate, regardless of who orders them to stop their illegal activities.   To support these whalers, you have to take the legal position that they're above the law, that nobody has the authority to stop them.   That's not limited to Sea Shepherd; that's not limited to one state or the other  That's inclusive to all states.

Japan is going bankrupt and their fleet is economically sunk already but this isn't a free enterprise, this is government subsidization thanks to a magic printing press of the Japanese central bank.  It's apparently easy to support rich welfare-laden poachers on the taxpayer dole, serving poisonous government-meat to a small minority of Japanese people stupid enough to eat the stuff.   What a priority!   If Japan wants to whale, it should do it in its own waters.   Not 7,000 miles away in a whale sanctuary.

Japan is losing this battle.  The taxpayer funded poachers returned home in 2013 with their worst haul of poisonous whale meat yet.   Ranting and raging on a message board isn't going to stop the losers from losing.  If you want to make a difference and rape the world's oceans so Japanese people can poison themselves, then amend the World Charter for Nature with Mr. Singh's opinions tacked onto the end saying "We're sorry this is just "soft law" and nobody has to do anything about anything written here.  Sorry to bother you.  Carry on."

If Sea Shepherd is guilty of crimes then arrest them and take them to court.  If they're "terrorists" then Australia and at least 15 other countries of the world are aiding and abetting terrorists.   If they're "terrorists" then everyone donating to Sea Shepherd is a terrorist too.  This word is so overused in the 21st century by hypersensitive politically correct statists of all stripes, it doesn't even have any meaning anymore.  We're all "terrorists" now for some political opinion we have, because the word is meaningless.   The fact that they're coming back to the Antarctic in 2013-2014 to serve the whalers another big piece of themselves speaks volumes about what the law is.

Japan now finds itself on the defensive legally.  Australia is taking Japan to court and the proceedings begin June 26, 2013.  We hope for a decision by year's end to thwart their next barbaric campaign of poaching endangered whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

Edited by Yamato, 03 June 2013 - 06:38 AM.

"The power to declare war, including the power of judging the causes of war, is fully and exclusively vested in the Legislature.  The Executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question" ~ James Madison
"Peace cannot be achieved by force, only by understanding."  ~ Albert Einstein
"To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.   To impose on them a wretched life of hunger and deprivation is to dehumanize them." ~ Nelson Mandela
"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.  Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." ~ Mahatma Gandhi

#44    psyche101

psyche101

    The Customer.

  • Member
  • 38,300 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 03 June 2013 - 06:49 AM

View PostSir Wearer of Hats, on 01 June 2013 - 08:56 AM, said:

wasting time is pratting about committing piracy.
not wasting time is what the Aussie goverment is doing by taking legal action

I hope you are right. The Sea Shepherd has been active for decades now, no sign to stoping anything let alone whaling, and the Government have taken years just to get to a hearing, and NZ had to come along and help it along.

But some very successful TV shows have surfaced in the meantime.

Australia is not serious about cetacean management, this is a publicity stunt.

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who

#45    psyche101

psyche101

    The Customer.

  • Member
  • 38,300 posts
  • Joined:30 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oz

  • If you stop to think, Remember to start again

Posted 03 June 2013 - 06:53 AM

View PostYamato, on 03 June 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:


There is nothing "violent" about Sea Shepherd tactics and their entire history of never causing a single death proves it.   If you want to blame a dead Japanese poacher on someone, blame it on the whaling fleet.


Spoken just like Watson.

You really are kidding yourself.

SEA SHEPHERD’S VIOLENT HISTORY

1977: Founding member of Greenpeace, Paul Watson, expelled from the organisation after a
campaign against sealing during which he threw the sealers’ clubs and skins into the sea.

1977: Watson establishes Sea Shepherd organisation. States that Sea Shepherd is not a protest
organization. “We are [a] self-appointed policing organization given credibility by the terms of
the United Nations Earth Charter of 1982.”



1978: Watson admits to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) programme As It
Happens that his work is aimed at raising funds for his organisation, Sea Shepherd.
Watson:You see, the seal is very easy to exploit as an image. We have posters, we have
buttons; we have shirts … all of which portray the head of the baby seal with tears coming
out of its eyes. Baby seals are always crying because the salt tears keep their eyes from
freezing. But they have this image of ... they are baby animals; they are beautiful. And
because of that, coupled with the horror of the sealer hitting them over the head with a
club, it is an image which just goes right to the heart of animal lovers all over North
America.”



1979: A Sea Shepherd vessel rams the whaling vessel “Sierra”, causing considerable damage.
“Sierra” survives attack.

1980: The IWC at its meeting in Brighton, United Kingdom, assigns high-level protection to two
Canadian Government delegates after Watson threatened to kill them for voting against a
moratorium on sperm whales. Delegates given Royal Canadian Mounted Police protection until
their return home to Canada.

1980: The “Sierra” is sunk in Lisbon harbour. Sea Shepherd claims responsibility. Investigation
shows limpet mines used to blow up the vessel.

1981: Sea Shepherd claims responsibility for the sinking of the two whaling vessels, Ibsa I and
Ibsa II, in the Spanish harbour of Viga.

1983: Paul Watson and “Sea Shepherd” vessel engineer Paul Pezwick, tried and convicted in a
Quebec, Canada, court for “interfering in the annual seal hunt in the Gulf of St. Lawrence”. Trial
followed arrest in March 1983 when “Sea Shepherd” vessel boarded by Canadian police. “Sea
Shepherd” fortified including electric barbed wire around the deck’s edges. Seventeen crew
arrested. Watson and three others flee across ice to Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, but caught and
arrested. Watson charged additionally with piloting a ship in a dangerous manner, intimidation of
the sealers and being unlawfully within a half mile of the seal hunt – a violation of the Seal
Protection Regulations. Watson sentenced to 15 months imprisonment.

1983: In retaliation for Watson’s arrest by Canadian police, animal rights extremists slash car
tires and spray paint slogans on walls of buildings in the inner city of Quebec. “Fisheries Murder
Seals” and “Set Paul Watson Free” slogans spray painted on the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans offices in Keele Street. Animal Liberation Front delivers letter to the Quebec Star
newspaper admitting causing several thousand dollars worth of damage to the Department’s
Keele Street offices.1986: Sea Shepherd attempts to stop Faroe Islands pilot whale harvest. Using rifles, Sea
Shepherd activists shoot at Faroe Islands police in an attempt to sink their rubber dinghies. The
vessel “Sea Shepherd” was ordered to leave Faroese territorial waters. The police report of 7
October 1986 states: “One of the rubber dinghies was attacked directly by a “Speed Line” line
rifle. The attack … endangered the lives of the police crewmembers ... and signal flares
containing phosphorous was thrown at the police. At a later stage the Sea Shepherd used “toads”
(rotating iron spikes, pointed and sharp at both ends) against the rubber dinghies … petrol was
poured over the side of the ship and signal flares were thrown from the “Sea Shepherd” in an
attempt to set the petrol on fire.”

1986: Sea Shepherd claims responsibility for the sinking of two whaling vessels in Reykjavik,
Iceland, and for malicious damage to a whaling station. (This act of violence was carried out after
Iceland stopped whaling in line with the IWC moratorium on commercial whaling.) Attack
carried out by Sea Shepherd members Rodney A. Coronado and David Howitt. (Coronado linked
to Animal Liberation Front and arrested eight years later by United States FBI for his part in an
ALF attack on Michigan State University research laboratory. Charges included use of an
explosive device, theft and arson.)

1988: Paul Watson returns in Iceland demanding to be held responsible for the sinking of the
whaling vessels in Reykjavik in 1986. (He is arrested and held for questioning and told he could
face several years’ imprisonment. In a press release, the Icelandic Ministry of Justice stated: “At
questioning, Paul Watson has admitted that he has given some remarks that connect him with the
sabotage, but in spite of this he now claims that he neither took part in the planning nor the
execution of the sabotage.”) There was no evidence incriminating Watson. He was ordered to
leave the country and declared persona non grata in Iceland.

1991: A US crew member on a Mexican fishing vessel, reports that Sea Shepherd, some of whose
crew were armed with rifles, rammed his vessel causing considerable damage.

1991: Scott Trimmingham, president of Sea Shepherd quits in protest. “We had rules about not
hurting anyone, about not using weapons. I left because those rules and that philosophy seems to
be changing.” Outside magazine (Sept. 1991). Paul Watson admits there are arms on board “Sea
Shepherd”. “We confront dangerous people. As the captain, it is my responsibility to protect the
lives of my crew ... Therefore, I have prepared myself for the possibility of defending my crew in
a situation that could go never occur, but if it does I will use firearms to first intimidate and then
to defend,” Watson tells the Los Angeles Free Weekly (April 24, 1992).

1992: Sea Shepherd makes unsuccessful attempts at ramming three Costa Rican fishing vessels.
In a written complaint to the local authorities the fishermen report that the Sea Shepherd crew
shot at them with bullets containing a red substance, hitting two of them and causing them great
pain.

1992: Sea Shepherd makes unsuccessful attempt at scuttling the whaling and fishing vessel
“Nybræna” at her moorings in the Lofoten Islands, northern Norway. Attack committed by Paul
Watson, girlfriend Lisa DiStefano and one other Sea Shepherd member. Watson later states: “The
scuttling of the Nybræna was not a terrorist or criminal act. We were responsible for removing an
instrument of death and destruction without causing death or injury.” Charges laid against
Watson, who fails to turn up in court. Watson convicted in absentia and sentenced to 120 days in
prison.

1992: Sea Shepherd vessel “Whales Forever” collides with Norwegian Coast Guard vessel
“Andenes” on July 4. Charges against Paul Watson include negligent navigation, refusal to leaveNorwegian waters on orders of the Coast Guard and transmitting false distress signals. (Tape
supplied)

1993: Paul Watson orders the crew on board the Sea Shepherd vessel “Edward Abbey” (formerly
US Navy) to open cannon fire at a Japanese fishing vessel. Sea Shepherd crew do not carry out
the order, but instead fire a shot across the bow of the Japanese vessel. The Japanese vessel does
not stop. (Recorded by Yorkshire Television Documentary “Defenders of the Wild – Ocean
Rider”.)

1993: Paul Watson claims in an open letter to the people of Norway that Sea Shepherd has sunk
eight ships and rammed and damaged a further six vessels. In the same letter, he states: “The Sea
Shepherd Conservation Society is a law abiding organization. We rigidly adhere to and respect
the laws of nature or lex natura. We hold the position that the laws of ecology take precedence
over the laws designed by nation states to protect corporate interests … the smell of guilt is
already a stench in the nostrils of God.”

1993: Federal Grand Jury in Michigan State hands down five-count indictment against Coronado
for illegal use of explosives, extortion, threats to interfere with interstate commerce and interstate
transportation, to commit arson, theft and destruction of government property and for receiving
stolen property. Indictments stem from February 1992 fire-bombing of Michigan State University
in East Lancing. Coronado involved in sinking two whaling vessels in Iceland in 1986.

1994: Sea Shepherd claims responsibility for the unsuccessful attempt at scuttling the combined
minke whaling and fishing vessel “Senet” at her moorings in Gressvik. The vessel was salvaged,
but the water had caused considerable damage. Paul Watson tells Norwegian newspaper
Dagbladet on January 26 that former US navy “Seal” commandos took part in attack on the Senet.
“Certainly these men are trained to kill, but they are also well disciplined and respect my orders,”
he told the newspaper.

1994: Sea Shepherd loses observer status at the International Whaling Commission. IWC
Secretary, Ray Gambell, declares that the IWC and all its member states ardently condemn Sea
Shepherd’s acts of terrorism.

1994: US National Fisheries Institute asks for investigation into Sea Shepherd. “The recent
alleged actions against Norwegian fishing vessels constitute a clear case of piracy,” it says in a
letter to former US IWC Commissioner James Baker. “Acts of violence against fishermen of any
nation cannot be tolerated. Their safety and livelihood could be threatened unless US officials
vigorously condemn violence on the high seas.”

1997: Paul Watson arrested at Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam, Netherlands, for the 1992
attempted scuttling of the Norwegian combined whaling and fishing vessel “Nybræna”. Arrested
by Dutch police after Interpol issues warrant. Serves 80 days in prison in the Netherlands, the
equivalent of the necessary two-thirds of the 120-day prison sentence handed down by Norway.
2000: Watson campaigns against the Makah people of Northwest United States. He uses
intimidation to prevent the Makah from carrying out their IWC approved catch of the gray whale.
2002: Watson tells Animal Rights 2002 Conference in Washington DC that if a person dies from
one of his actions, he would consider it “collateral damage”. He believes it is not possible to
“commit violence against non-sentient objects. Property damage is not violence.”




LINK

Things are what they are. - Me Reality can't be debunked. That's the beauty of it. - Capeo If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants. - Sir Isaac Newton Let me repeat the lesson learned from the Sturrock scientific review panel: Pack up your old data and forget it. Ufology needs new data, new cases, new rigorous and scientific methodologies if it hopes ever to get out of its pit. - Ed Stewart Youtube is the last refuge of the ignorant and is more often used for disinformation than genuine research.  There is a REASON for PEER REVIEW... - Chrlzs Nothing is inexplicable, just unexplained. - Dr Who




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users