.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

David @ Tokyo

Perspective from Japan on whaling and whale meat, a spot of gourmet news, and monthly updates of whale meat stockpile statistics



IWC 2006: Sea Shepherd extremism (2)

Unfortunately it appears that my letter was overlooked for publishing, but it's all fair enough considering what did get published - a letter from an anti-whaling organization in South Africa that criticises Sea Shepherd quite heavily. The author makes some noteworthy admissions, and well as criticism of Sea Shepherd:
Sea Shepherd has told lies about its whaling activities

May 22, 2006

Over the past months supporters of the Canadian-based organisation Sea Shepherd, now with a presence in South Africa, have criticised government departments and the media, and have fed people with misinformation.

The latest false statement was made by their newly-appointed South African director, Horst Kleinschmidt, who said in the Cape Argus of May 12: "At the moment there's nobody else making this (anti-whaling) their business" (in South Africa).

One wonders what my organisation has been doing for the past 28 years. In reply to Dr Herbert Henrich ("Give Sea Shepherd due", Brief Points, May 17), I regret to inform him that Sea Shepherd is considered internationally to be radical and violent.

It was for this reason that it lost its status as an observer at the International Whaling Commission in 1986.

In 1994 all the commission's member countries condemned Sea Shepherd's acts of "terrorism".

No whale conservation society approves of Japan's lethal research programme in Antarctica and the North East Pacific. However, it is essential that the facts be given.

Sea Shepherd has claimed it went to Antarctica to stop Japan's "illegal" research whaling.

What Japan is doing is not inconsistent with the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, and Japan has a special permit to carry out research.

In relation to Sea Shepherd's vessel, Farley Mowat, Henrich and others insist that the vessel is detained in Cape Town harbour at the bidding of nations who rape our seas.

We have it on good authority that the vessel can sail at any time provided it conforms with South Africa's safety regulations. Why then is it still there?

Nan Rice
Save the Whales Campaign Fish Hoek
Well, that sure is a breath of fresh air. A anti-whaling group that displays at least some semblance of honesty!

Nan Rice hasn't always been so critical of Kleinschmidt - she expressed disappointment last year when he resigned suddenly from his position last year, before taking up his role with the Sea Shepherd terrorist organization.



>In1994 allthecommission's member >countries condemned Sea >Shepherd's acts of "terrorism".

Thank you for your nice information.

Obviously, a large number of countries thinks the terrorist group insane.
In real, Australian Environment Minister Ian Campbell, criticized Watson was a "lunatic" and a "rogue pirate on the seas."

Still it is also the fact that some people support the terrorists.Incredible indeed.

In any time,in any age,Criminals are to be punished.
Next year, if the terrorist group did the same thing in South pole,
Japan would have sent them to jail,
after looking at their dirty vessel sunk in the deep sea.

They should look back on the Japanese machine guns fired to North Korea's spy vessel two years ago.

Japan is no longer the tamed sheep.

Many thanks.
Mmmm, yes well I don't agree that it would be in Japan's interests to take retaliate against the terrorist acts of these groups, as we have already seen that Greenpeace and co. will quickly come out with a fancy news story to blame Japan for everything (like the Arctic Sunrise's ramming of the Nisshin Maru this year).

North Korea is one thing, but I think the anti-use NGOs are better handled differently. While misguided, western people will believe what Greenpeace tells them.

I understand that the Japanese delegation to the IWC has requested the secretariat of the IWC to include a item on the agenda of IWC 58 next month, which will address the terrorist acts of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd. I am assuming that the letter of protest that the ICR was asking visitors to it's website to sign will be produced then.

While most anti-whaling nations are a bit nutty when it comes to whales, I think they do have their heads screwed on the right way with regard to dangerous terrorist acts in international waters.

If Japan requests the IWC to pass a resolution condemning the terrorist actions of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd, considering that, like it or not, the ICR's research programmes are quite legal, I believe it should find more than enough support. I would hope that such a resolution does not even need to go to a vote - it should really be passed by consensus. As you mentioned, even Ian Campbell from Australia has criticised these terrorist actions, so I think such a resolution would have wide support.

I wonder whether the IWC might consider Greenpeace's observer status at the IWC in light of it's recent actions.

I'm also looking forward to hearing what the working group on humane killing has to say about the effect of obstruction tactics on the time-to-death and instantaneous death ratio.
Thank you for your reply,David-san.

>North Korea is one thing, but I think
>the anti-use NGOs are better
>handled differently.

Yes,I know that.:-)

The point is that Japan tends to take
more positive action than before.
In the case of Korea ,it was beyond our imagination that
the Japan Marine Police fired to the spy vessel.

Japan would have no choice but to
take any action to SSCS if they
did not change the attitudes.

>I think they do have their heads screwed
> on the right way with regard to dangerous
>terrorist acts in international waters.

I think that is the comonsense of the world.

Otherwise, many people would come to
believe the anti-whaleing countries
promote the terrorist behaviour-
that is very dangerous to them.

>it should really be passed by consensus

I also believe a large number of scientists
& members of IWC are smart enough to understand it.
Otherwise, they would lose thier prides.

>I wonder whether the IWC might consider
> Greenpeace's observer status at the IWC
>in light of it's recent actions.

Let us wait and see how the normal
people judge the insane actions !

>humane killing has to say about the
>effect of obstruction tactics on the
>time-to-death and instantaneous death ratio.

As you point out, GP tormented the whales
so terribly.On TV show in Australia,
Mr.Jouji Morishita said with much regret,
"It sould have been much shorter."
He would have wanted to say"Without the
obstruction of GP, whalers would have lessen
the time of pain."

Many thanks.

Post a Comment

<< Home


June 2004   July 2004   August 2004   September 2004   October 2004   November 2004   December 2004   January 2005   March 2005   April 2005   May 2005   June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   September 2005   October 2005   November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   January 2010   February 2010   April 2010   May 2010   June 2010   July 2010   August 2010   September 2010   February 2011   March 2011   May 2013   June 2013  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?