.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



JARPA II 2006/2007 Update #22 - Irony

Greenpeace's latest propaganda on the ICR fleet:

"The international community must now ensure that this sub-standard fleet never returns to place the Antarctic environment and marine life at such risk again."

That's right folks - this from the same organization whose Arctic Sunrise vessel has been caught on camera ramming it's bow into the starboard side of the Nisshin Maru.

For those who've never seen it, the photos are here and here, and a couple of videos of the incident can be found here and here. Greenpeace's own video itself shows them up in an exceedingly poor light.

The ramming incident was due to either the malicious intent of the Arctic Sunrise's sub-standard captain, or due to his negligence.

On their weblog, Greenpeace stated that:
We'll get some video footage of the incident up soon. It's possible this ramming was purposefully done in a way that makes us look bad if you don't have all the facts. Fortunately, the video record makes it obvious the whalers were at fault.
Greenpeace's activists also put their sanctimonious attitude on display here and here. Obviously concerned that the video evidence shows overwhelmingly that Greenpeace was in the wrong, they put another article together here for their willingfully gullible drones, concluding that:
It appears that the Nisshin Maru may have carried out this manoeuver deliberately, with pre-placed camera operators, to obtain footage which could fool a viewer into believing that the factory ship was an innocent victim, when the opposite is true.
After reviewing the videos and then reading this statement, it's hard to know whether to laugh or cry.

In a separate incident in the Caribbean, the same rogue Greenpeace vessel illegally entered the waters of St. Kitts and Nevis:
... the ministry reported that the infringement was also a threat to the marine environment.

Specifically, in this case, “jeopardizing the barrier reef which protects the Eastern Atlantic Coastline of St Kitts and Nevis and other fragile near-shore marine eco-systems.”
Now today, we see Greenpeace suggesting that it is the ICR fleet that puts the Antarctic environment and marine life at risk.

I can think of few organizations that are as sickeningly self-righteous as Greenpeace.

* * *

A further irony from Greenpeace's corporate head, Steve Shallhorn:

"The Japanese government does not file an environmental impact assessment when the whaling fleet operates in Antarctica," he said.

"While there is no legal obligation to do this, as a signatory to the Antarctic Treaty, the Japanese government does have an obligation to follow the spirit of the international agreement and their whaling operation shatters both the spirit and intent of the treaty."

Chris Carter's "irritatingly preachy sanctimoniousness" has found it's match.

Will Greenpeace's apparent new found respect for international agreements be extended to the ICRW?

After all, as signatories to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, the world's anti-whaling governments do have an obligation to follow the spirit of the international agreement, and their refusal to compromise on their extreme "no whaling" position shatters both the spirit and intent of the treaty.

Labels: ,

David, please put your glasses on and study what the images you have linked.

It is clear from the water movements that GP was taking evasive action to avoid a collision, also consider that if they had intended to ram the NM then it is unlikely that they would have been moving so slowly, hardly a ripple for a wake.

Before you suggest that I am echoing GP's account that was my opion when I watched and rewound many time the ICR video last year. Both parties are out to discredit the other, which comprimises any subjectivity to the incident.

GP has produced their own accunt from the ICR video and to see it in another light would question ones judgement, I've yet to see an ICR account that points out the situation differently accept and a video with no details, this relies on ignorance and lazyness to enquire and openness to see the events as they unfolded.

The fact that the whaling fleet is not iceclass in it's construction is a very valid point and one that you dismiss. Have you noted that all the ships of both GP and SS have some form of iceclass rating. Yet the whaling fleet does not have any from my research.


It is difficult to know whose horn is blowing, this is important as it is a signal devise and has a meaning. So folks know 3 blasts means going in reverse ( and that can be heard) 1 blast going to port (left) and 2 blasts going to starboard (right).

I am sure you are an excellent compter programer, sadly as I have commented before you seem to lack experience on the water, whether fishing or recreationally. The rules of the land are left on the shoreline in all regards, at least acknowledge this. I do not say it as a critism just an observation, because if you did appreciate this your generosity and interpretation of some events may differ from your current position.

It is a fact that the Oceans are in peril and the governments of the world seem not to get it, particularly Japan, no mater what they may say. a nation that has such a vociforious appetite for seafood will sidestep the issue.

Raising tuna in pens is not sustainable, something in the region of 4.5lbs of fish is needed to produce 1lb of tuna. That is not sustainable due to the effort directed to provide such, fuel, depletion of other ecological resources etc.

GP did not ram the NM and that is clear to anyone who veiws the footage with an open mind. If it is the case I am sure the ICR would have released any findings (Lloyds, perhaps) that would substantiate the fact, yet I do not see this, so I remain sceptical to the claims of ICR.

As to the illegal landing of GP in St. Kitts and Nevis, sadly a trap was laid for GP so the appropriate spin could take place and they fell for it.

As to endangering ecosystems in their landing please bear in mind that no mariner wants to hit anything due to the potential damage to their own craft firstly, secondly as you will see if you use Google earth

"Greenpeace Landing" lat=17.2926907737, lon=-62.6832130783

to veiw the area, it is clear that there is ample room and depth of channels to make a landing without coming into contact with the so called barrier reef. There are clearly two breakwaters constructed by the Marriot, no doubt to retain their beach, so who is messing with the ecology and endangering it. To place that material would have required either a very large crane or a barge to deliver the material, a barge operating in the area would have been very dodgy and any anchors used likely to damage corals in the area. Charts of the area would suggest that there is water enough for a vessel that draws less than a couple of feet. Depth in the region of ten plus feet in the channels.

Nice spin, but to those who may look a little deeper it does not wash, I saw them come in and noted their course, that appeared to take into consideration the reef in question.

Of course you and many others did not witness it and will only get digested information that is spun to gain a desired result.

Truth sets you free.


>you seem to lack experience on
>the water,


>GP did not ram the NM and that
>is clear to anyone who veiws the >footage with an open mind.



GP's "evasive action" came at a point in time that a collision was already imminent. The captain had a nasty bout of self-righteousness at a really bad time. Watching the video one could be forgiven for thinking that it was running in slow motion. Not so.

Step back. A ship engaged in truly "peaceful protest" against (legal) whaling activity would have taken care not to sail it's vessel on the course that the AS was on, heading right across the path of the vessel it was "peacefully protesting" against.

GP was attempting to make mischief of itself, or at very best, simply grossly negligent as far as "peaceful protesters" go.

The new IMO guidelines will hopefully be available for our perusal by August this year. I am fairly certain that a lot of the "peaceful protest" tactics we have seen in the Antarctic in recent times will fall outside of the bounds of the code of conduct that is eventually agreed. I believe that active obstruction of a legal activity on the high seas will be regarded as unacceptable by the international community.

Re the "Oceans are in peril" - many in Japan are fully aware of the (real) problems in fisheries management today. Perhaps if you were able to read Japanese this would be as obvious to you as it is to me - but I will take this comment in a positive way, and look to incorporate the topic into a future post.

Martin does appear to have a very soft spot for Greenpeace, which is unfortunate because people who associate themselves with or defend the immature behaviour of Greenpeace run the risk of being dismissed.

However, I'm always happy to hear from Martin, as he is a genuine voice from Antigua and Barbuda, as opposed to the urbanized trolls of the rich western nations who have been aggregating here recently with whaling being in the news. Martin has a true concern for the environment, and I respect him for that. While there is much on which I will disagree with Martin about, I have the impression that there is probably also a surprising amount on which we can agree.
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?