The Institute for Cetacean Research has now uploaded two videos of the ramming by Greenpeace of their ship the Nisshin-Maru in the Antartic last Sunday, click here. The videos taken from the Nisshin-Maru show Greenpeace's Arctic Sunrise heading for, and ramming the Japanese boat.
There are now at least three videos and two photographs that contradict the Greenpeace media release and in particular the claim by Greenpeace Southern Ocean Expedition Leader Shane Rattenbury that
"...the Nisshin Mura suddenly disengaged from the supply vessel coming around a full 360 degrees before making for the Arctic Sunrise and striking it on the port side."
When will Greenpeace stand Rattenbury aside and relieve the captain of the Arctic Sunrise of his command?
Ian, for the 3rd time, no I do not work for Greenpeace, not that it would matter if i did(?). But perhaps you could put in a good word for me? I hear GP jobs are hard to get. Actually I don't even know anyone that works for Greenpeace or any other environmental or activist group. If I was working for GP or any other body on issues that I believed in strongly, I assure you that I would freely admit to that fact.
Laura O'Connell, (if that is your real name) aka think objectively, you have repeated the list of generalised threats that were outlined by Greenpeace Web Master Ms Major on another string on this blog. Again you have declined to offer any specific information as to the nature, scale and probable frequency of whale mortality from these "threats".
And I repeat my question;
Are you now, or have you ever been, a member or employee of Greenpeace or any related organisation. I will gladly list all my affiliations if you will provide readers of this blog with the same courtesy. They have a right to know.
"Is it ever acceptable to take the law into your own hands? Laws are constantly and belatedly adapting to changing circumstances and awareness."
The short answer is that you can do whatever you wish and are able to, provided you understand that you will cop the consequences. Thus many suffragettes were rightly (legally) imprisoned, as should be the skipper of the GP ship if the prima facie case against him is pursued and proven.
You might reasonably expect the legal system to be sympathetic to your transgression if (i) you were protecting yourself, close family, or even a stranger from mortal danger (i.e. killing in self-defense is understandable, and perhaps even fully justifiable); or (ii) you, whether as the member of a group or not, were being discriminated against in a demonstrably hurtful way (which many people would say applied to the suffragettes).
Conversely, you ought not expect the legal system to be sympathetic to your breaking the law if it is undertaken on behalf of vague moral concepts which (in a democracy) are not shared by the majority as reflected through the elected government.
Cathy
Sea Dog here's an abstract on suffragettes' political violence from an academic article (note: "violent campaign", "bombing and arson"):
An Examination of Suffragette Violence
C. J. Bearman
University of Hull
This article offers the first fully researched analysis of political violence on the part of the Women's Social and Political Union (WSPU) and its sympathisers in 1913–14. It shows that the number of incidents of bombing and arson was far greater than previously assumed, and that the economic cost was far higher. It examines the role of the leaders, officials and employees of the WSPU and shows that the violent campaign required a far greater degree of organisation, funding and participation by employees than has been accepted by historians. In these contexts, it examines the question of whether political violence can be said to have won the vote for women.
http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/120/486/365
But the point was made for Cathy seeing the thrust of her arguments have been to condemn the alleged illegal behaviour of Greenpeace. Like GP, the suffragettes those who sought to abolish slavery fought for their ethical beliefs. Is it ever acceptable to take the law into your own hands? Laws are constantly and belatedly adapting to changing circumstances and awareness.
If the illegal activities of a few individuals can lead to the creation of new laws, should we ignore those laws which resulted from rebellions?
Suffragettes carried out such minor offences as chaining themselves to railings, setting fire to the contents of mailboxes and window-smashing. One suffragette, Emily Davison, died after she stepped out in front of the King's horse at the Epsom Derby of 1913. Many of her fellow suffragettes were cruelly imprisoned and went on hunger strikes, during which they were restrained and forcibly fed lots of horrible foods such as garageroot - a poisonous herb.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffragettes
not unlike greenpeace tactics eh? actually more violent given that GP mostly just wave banners & zip around in boats & take pics
"Think objectively" (now there's a name that telegraphs insecurity) what violence did the sufragettes, or whoever "predecessor" refers to commit which led to an improvement in women's rights?
And Steve, I've looked at all of the videos, and without any prejudices. You obviously haven't. Would be a good thing for all if the Japanese had reconnaisance planes down there to give an aeriel view of what is happening. We wouldn't have the sort of nonsense that you're trying to peddle.
Ian you confidently conclude from your rough calc that there is minimal impact on the Minke whale population. Unlike you, the IWC which has 200 whale biologist in receipt of more detailed data than yourself, has concerns about current harvesting.
But assuming that your confidence is well-founded, then tell us, what is the minimum viable population for Minke whales?
Recent whaling drove many species of whales through a population bottleneck, meaning that they now have greatly reduced genetic variation and therefore a much larger population is required to maintain a healthy breeding stock. It also makes it especially important to protect genetically distinct populations, eg the Antartica minke v's the common minke.
there are additional pressures, such being struck by increased number of ships at sea, being stressed by ship radar and engine noises (that carry very long distances under water) and declines in plankton and fish abundance that further negatively impact on whale populations.
Therefore a minimum viable population needs to be much greater than it would be for cows fenced in safely on a farm. As you said gestation periods are unclear. therefore we can't assume they are just like cows, particularly when species' survival is at stake. Whales have more complex breeding behaviours than cows.
As for culling bull whales only - hasn't that been tried unsuccessfully? The problem is that the poor Japanese are forced to harpoon, then slice and refrigerate whales to peform basic research on them precisely because they cannot, from a safe harpooning distance, determine the gender or length or age of the whales!!! ie they can't visually determine bulls from cows from calves from greenpeace activists until they're peering at it in-between a pair of chopsticks!
Cathy - let's just remove your personal bias for a moment... so, you said:
"NG, a worldwide icon of environmentalism". No argument there.
"Last year, or was it 2004, the NG ran a special issue on climate change. Full of pleading, statements and judgement." Sounds serious - we should do something about this climate disruption issue.
Now if the NG is inflating matters as you say, then how about some *facts* that support that?
Hmmm. 6800 minke whales over 18 years is only 378 each year. So even if the actual population is only half (380,000) of the estimate of 760,000, it is still an annual cull of one tenth of one percent. Now the exact gestation period of minke whales is unclear but these smaller whales are likely to have a similar gestation period to cattle. And that means new progeny each year for each adult female. And that means 190,000 calves each year. Half of these would be male and, as in the cattle industry, most of them can be culled without any impact on the breading rate of the females who can be serviced by a relatively small number of dominant males.
We also don't know their lifespan or mortality from natural causes but if it is 20 years then 19,000 will die of old age each year, possibly 38,000 if the higher population estimate is true. I would welcome more detailed data but it is quite clear that current harvesting is of minimal impact on the Minke whale population.
O.K., let's just take the first one on the list.
Paul Heller works for the National Geographic, a worldwide icon of sanctimonious environmentalism.
Last year, or was it 2004, the NG ran a special issue on climate change. It was a travesty. Full of special pleading, specious statements and unbalanced judgement.
What reason is there to believe that their coverage of the whaling issue will be any better?
Cathy