Interesting that World War II is continuing in a limited way in Antarctic waters. They should never have bombed Pearl Harbour. They must have been in debt but was it as large as $16 trillion?

What a total scandal that the Australian Government does want to provoke an incident by sending a naval ship to Australian waters, when the Japanese have violated international law on whaling, Australia’s own territorial water, have wilfully attacked and adamaged an Australian ship in Australian watrers ... What utter cowardice by Burke and Gillard. Upsetting Japanese business relation is obviously more important than justice.

As I was driving this morning listening to the ABC and to the increasingly strident harangues of former Greens Senator Dr Bob Brown.  Dr Brown was demanding that the Australian government send a naval vessel down to Antarctica to police the “illegal” activities of the Japanese whaling fleet. 

Dr Brown was alleging that the Sea Shepherd anti whaling ships had been attacked overnight and were at risk from further attacks which could endanger the ships and were putting the lives of their crews at risk.

I thought that Dr Brown made an excellent case but in the interest of balance I wonder why didn’t Dr Brown, who was at the time a Senator, sound equally loud warnings when the Sea Shepherd group rammed and disabled well over a dozen whaling and illegal fishing vessels on the high seas. 

...

Again in the name of balance, fairness and justice will Dr Brown assist in the arrest of the Sea Shepherd Captain Paul Watson who jumped bail following his arrest by the German Police and if not why not? 

The German Police had arrested Mr Watson on a warrant from Costa Rica where is is alleged that his behaviour threatened the safety of a Costa Rican fishing vessel.

I write this as someone who has worked at sea and opposes whaling but has over time become extremely worried about the dangerous not to mention possibly criminal behaviour of Paul Watson and his mostly young untrained crews who I believe he knowingly and recklessly places in great danger each year in the Southern Ocean. The fact that they are volunteers does not excuse the behaviour of a ships captain for the safety of those on board a ship he has care and control over.

Opposition to a just cause does not justify illegal behaviour anymore than a sickening practice is justifiable on fallacious scientific grounds or culturally dubious practices. Two wrongs do not make a right.

(Edited: Anonymous unsubstantiated claims deteleted)

Bazzabee, you must allow for the law to be bent for powerful special interests. The arrest by the German police was on a warrant issued in another jurisdiction, not for an offence in Germany. Watson trod on the toes of powerful illegal fishing interests in South America. Where is your mention of the Norwegain governments actions in setting off explosives under a Sea Shepherd vessel. All Watson has done is challenge powerful interests that don’t follow international law or behave morally, sometimes both. I don’t believe Brown has anything to answer for regarding balance in a world so topsy turvy where money provides the weight and the moral arguement is treated indifferently.

I’m amazed that anyone who has lived in Tasmania for any length of time,  as Bazzabee has, would confuse the law with either justice or morality.

If you can make a buck by destroying some other living thing, be it a whale or a tree, you need use only part of the profit to ensure that your business is legal .

John Hayward

Does patsy Lala allow the Japs to refuel or dock in Tasmania..anywhere..even if they were sinking or dying?

What’s the phone number for the French spies who did the wharf job in Auckland a few years back?

What’s stopping a full on side ram by SS?

Should make Tony Burke hiccup and the Jap PM fart.

Well well my auld sparring partner, you seem to want everybody to obey the ‘Bazzabee Law’ which doth apparently claim, ‘that at all times when opposing or warring factions meet, then they must behave as gentleman.
This sort of gentleman business was considered as the model for people to conduct themselves, as in ancient times past when knights were engaged in aiming their stout wooden lances into the opposing person bravely galloping forward to meet or engage in this same action of either rider hoicking his opposite as he charged forward with that same intent.

‘Bravo’ the people would call to the brave knight that had been hoicked from his horse, then another ‘Bravo’ would ring out for the still mounted victor.
I believe that this was the very same gentleman’s code claimed to be held extant when opposing war-ships had sailed within range to attack each other, whereupon each would fire their cannons to hurl their cannon-balls and or their red-hot grape-shot toward each other with the single intent of slaying or sinking thy enemy.
However if the opposing ship’s Captain were to be physically apprehended by the other, he was to be accorded the ritual conducts befitting a ship’s Captain.

So bazzabee, how do you suggest that this code be introduced to those invading Japanese Whaling Ships, meanwhile floating nearby and within hailing distance they have at their disposal a well armed Japanese Navy Ship, (in fact a Warship) to call upon if the Captains’s opposing the invading Japanese whaling fleet should cause those invading Whalers some degree of torment or nuisance?
Meanwhile yon bazzabee you sit back at your desk and hurl your gentleman’s drivel upon the former leader of the Greens Party.
Bravo bazzabee.

Coming between two vessels whilst they are transferring fuel and then complaining about being rammed seems petty. But, regardless of who was at fault in this incident I’m surprised that an organisation (Sea Shepherd) that prides itself on a history of purposefully ramming other vessels cries foul when the tables are turned.

On their website are colourful statements like “Sea Shepherd hunted down and rammed the notorious prolific pirate whaler”  and in 2006 “On January 9, the Farley Mowat intercepts and rams the whaling fleet supply vessel Oriental Bluebird”.

A United States court has published a severely critical opinion of tactics used by Sea Shepherd against the Japanese whaling fleet, describing the group as the embodiment of piracy.

The group’s founder, Paul Watson, is called “eccentric” in the judgment led by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals chief judge Alex Kozinski.

“You don’t need a peg leg or an eye patch,” Judge Kozinski said.

“When you ram ships; hurl glass containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate, no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be.”

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/no-peg-leg-but-sea-shepherd-pirates-court-says-20130227-2f5ic.html#ixzz2M59ceai6

Not good news for Sea Shepherd. The UNCLOS definition has, since its inception, held that piracy was for ‘private ends’ and that has always been taken to mean for personal financial enrichment, such as the Somalian pirates who take and hold ships for ransom.

Now the US Court has broadened the definition to include protest and direct action: ‘We conclude that “private ends” include those pursued on personal, moral or philosophical grounds, such as Sea Shepherd’s professed environmental goals. That the perpetrators believe themselves to be serving the public good does not render their ends public.’
...
‘The UNCLOS defines “piracy” as “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 . . . and directed . . . on the high seas, against another ship . . . or against persons or property on board such ship.”.’

Even if this ruling is overturned, opponents of Sea Shepherd will always trumpet that a US Court declared Sea Shepherd to be pirates… Greenpeace could be classed as pirates as well.

See: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2013/02/25/1235266.pdf

Two observations, both regardless of any & every right or wrong about whaling:

(i) Comment 5’s jibe about “confus[ing] the law with either justice or morality” is true in a way probably unintended: the law, as in legal system, is about the law, about whether a law has / some laws have been broken; it is not the job of the legal & justice system to change laws -  that’s for the executive arm, as in the government;

(ii) about the Law of the Seas in Comments 10 & 11, if the Sea Shepherd and its captain & crew are acting in ways that fall under various laws against piracy, they must, whether heroically or self-righteously, accept that they could be legally treated as pirates, and should not whine & whinge about the consequences, particularly not making any claims for “moral / ethical” exemptions -  they can, and perhaps should, wear any legal punishments with pride;

To paraphrase that heroic Great War nurse Edith Cavell almost 100 years ago: passion is not enough.

I wonder if the Australian Government would act if Australians broke the law in Australia by deliberately damaging Japanese businesses or properties, or would they still turn a blind eye?

‎*** Campaign Update 28/2/13***:
The Sun Laurel and the Sam Simon are 140 miles way from the Nisshin Maru and two harpoon ships, which continue to be tailed by the Steve Irwin and the Bob Barker.

The three Yushins attempted to kill whales yesterday but our helicopter and small boat crews prevented them from taking any whales.

The 9th Circuit court has labelled Sea Shepherd USA as pirates, when in fact it is the whalers that are the real pirates, breaking Australian and International Laws.

Sea Shepherd is upholding Australian and International law with all campaigns guided by the United Nations World Charter for Nature, which provides authority to individuals to act on behalf of and enforce international conservation laws..

Japan has finally come out and completely labelled their poaching activities for what they are, commercial whaling in an established whale sanctuary.

it wouldnt be too hard for the jap govt to shop around for a sympathetic judge to do their bidding,japan has decimated americas car and electronic industries putting millions out of work and still the stupid usa bows to them.

No, no, a thousand times no, Comment 14, to “when in fact it is the whalers that are the real pirates”.

Rhetorically, this is a just a ‘feel good’ or ‘up theirs’ sound-bite for your followers, and for your “converted” more generally, but the reactions from most of the rest of us will range from “Uh?” through “Really?” via “WTF!?” to “BS!”

It falls into the same fallacy as re-branding animal slaughter as “murder”  -  the literal (and, in these cases, the legal) fact is they are not.

Ultimately, it may be a feel-good vibe for true believers (“That’ll show ‘em!!”), but for people more generally is more like a ‘shoot-self-in-foot’ argument.

‘UC Law Professor Karen Scott said characterising the activities of the Sea Shepherd group as ‘piracy’ had potentially far-reaching implications for international law.

I don’t agree with the court’s interpretation of piracy, which has the effect of substantially broadening the scope of this offence.

Piracy is a crime of universal jurisdiction and pirates can therefore be prosecuted by any state even where there is no connection between the prosecuting state and the pirates, pirate vessel or the victims. Moreover, any state can board and seize a pirate vessel on the high seas.

These rights do not generally apply to other offences committed at sea. One potential consequence of this decision, particularly if it were followed in other jurisdictions, would be to permit Sea Shepherd vessels to be boarded by any state on the high seas and for its crew to be prosecuted in any jurisdiction.

This arguably goes too far and cannot be supported under international law as it stands today,” Professor Scott said.

The US Court of Appeal went on to discuss the relevance of the fact that the whaling activities are taking place in Australian Antarctic Territory.

Unsurprisingly the court dismissed this as a consideration and confirmed the long-held position that the US does not recognise Australian sovereignty in, and consequently, jurisdiction over, the Antarctic.’ - http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10868490

I wonder what is happening on this string firstly I have comments removed I assume on the advice of Mr Crotty.  Secondly I rebut Mr Boeder but my good natured rebuttal does not appear. Thirdly when I produce evidence in support of my argument that Sea Shepherd supporters wear tee shirts showing the sea shepherd attacks and sinking of vessels this is rejected on the grounds that the picture could have been taken from Google pics a source that seems to be acceptable when the pictures are used by everybody else I apparently have to source my pictures and only use pictures I have taken. I wonder do I once again see my old foe Jimmy Crotty’s hand in this? 

And lastly #15 can use a racist descriptor ” jap govt” and this finds its way into print. Surely this pejorative term can not be allowed under the TT guidleines?

I fail to accept the manner and comments by those who are using this forum a a host to those who display a scathing indifference toward the Australian Territorial Waters invasion by the infamous false-purposed Japanese Whaling Fleet.
How our Australian society can allow such a motley of anti-conservation and slaughter-supporting individuals to vent their wholly ignorant and arcane opinions is something that will need quite serious examination, as these sorts of opinion are in defiance of the Australian and International Laws, also of the United Nations World Charter for Nature.

Whatever positives are there to be gained through the publication of such detrimental delirious rantings?

What in the world is pejorative or racist about the use of “Jap Government”?
Whilst I grant that use of the abbreviation ‘Jap’ as opposed to the correct Japanese is mildly distasteful, it is a reasonably accepted abbreviation in our lexicon.
Whilst it is usually employed in a pejorative, hateful sense, it use here in this context does not support this.
Lets all calm down and remember what racism is, which is slandering or basing prejudice towards an entire ‘race’ based on the acts of one individual from that race.
Using tasteless or incorrect abbreviations, certainly in this sense is not racist.

As Watson points out, the judge’s writ does not run to the group’s Australian branch or the Southern Ocean, so will make no immediate difference. And in any case, even if all the charges were true (and he says they are not) well, so it goes. Sea Shepherd’s logo is clearly based on the skull and crossbones of the Jolly Roger, so the association cannot have escaped keen observers.

But in any case what’s wrong with piracy? The great Elizabethan seamen Sir John Hawkins and Sir Francis Drake were unashamed pirates, harassing the Spaniards in the Atlantic to the secret delight of their Queen, although she had to disown them to the Spanish ambassador. The first Englishman to set foot in Australia in 1688, William Dampier, gloried in the name of pirate. Watson and his fellow campaigners are following a great and honourable tradition - one could even call it a culture.

So yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, me hearties - back to the bounding main. Gillard and Burke may shake their heads in public but one suspects that privately they, like the vast majority of Australians, are cheering you on.

See: http://www.echonews.com.au/news/cultural-wars-on-the-high-seas/1777445/