Court order demands end to Japan whale hunt (Humane Society delivers)

Source: ABC Radio Australia




Read more: http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/s2145042.htm

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Whales are indeed special cased but not merely because they are mammals:
1) As slow-moving air breathers they are more vulnerable than fish.
2) In sheer numbers they are 6-7 orders of magnitude rarer than tuna, hence more likely to become extinct.
3) What's wrong with exceptionalism? There's nothing to distinguish it from our abhorrence for cannibalism (most people would agree that an awareness of impending doom is the source of more suffering than mere pain).

As to your post:

1. That is a distinction without a difference. Slow-moving air breathers making them more "vulnerable"? What kind of nonsense is that? It means nothing. So what?

2. 6-7 orders of magnitude rarer. Okay, fine, but at least the Japanese have set a number of what is a sustainable amount using scientific data and are agreeing to stick with it. The rest of the world is fishing with little or no regulation at all. They are the ones who will literally fish until none are left. Kind of like the US did all those years as whalers. Yes, it was us. Not the Japanese who has hunted whales so much that their numbers are so low.

3. I am not even sure how to address that one. It really didn't even deserve a number frankly.

You accused OP of "actively working to elicit" posts like the Japanese "should be a-bombed again". Pray tell, specifically how can OP be blamed for that?

1) Because they must surface, are individually more valuable, and move slowly whales can be individually targeted, and thus are more vulnerable. (Try. It's not that hard to understand).
2) Japan professes to be a member of the IWC, and yet ignores the IWC ban on whaling. So much for your faith in Japan and their claim that they "have set a number of what is a sustainable amount using scientific data and are agreeing to stick with it".
3) You are, I believe, not so obtuse as to not be able to understand why more intelligent animals are capable of more suffering. Correct me if I'm wrong.

First question: Why did I say the OP has some blame to share for inciting ill-thought out anger?
He is using this same tiny source, this little online australian newspaper, and posting almost every day on this issue. The bloodier and more exciting the better.

The net effect, as seen yesterday, has been to make a group of easily-swayed people (amongst those of you who are not so, and who may be excluded from this characterization) who have no ability to see this in context, advocate that Japanese people should be killed or the entire country nuked.

I am NOT saying it is not an issue that should be discussed. But I am saying that by allowing this to be presented in LBN, it is allowing this poster to build up a level of urgency surrounding the issue that does not exist. This whipped up sense of urgency is fueling a very serious hatred and anger towards a country that does not deserve it.

1. Okay, so they can be individually targeted. But that means they are also individually hunted. So the ratio is no different and I just don't see the relevance. When one fishes with a fishing rod, one is targeting individually as opposed to trawling with a net 1 mile long. Just not getting the point. I think it is a distinction, but I am unclear on the real relevance of the difference.

2. This is because the IWF was "infiltrated" by anti-whaling extremists who would not let them hunt ANY whales so they were given no choice. My point is that it was a complex negotiation SNAFU that requires further examination to understand.

3. I am not obtuse. I recognize there is suffering involved the more intelligent a species is. However, according to that argument, you would be willing to accept it if they could make the killing one which involved no suffering -clearly that is not true. You would be as adamantly opposed to it if it was done painlessly I suspect. And it is that kind of adamant exceptionalistic attitude that made the IWF's negotiations done in "poor faith'.

In sum, more grey, more grey.

to hunt anywhere in the world in violation of treaties and international law.

It appears that Bonobo believes it is a waste of time to protect whales from useless hunting.

I made a good decision with that one. :D

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Wow. I honestly didn't see that coming. You really got me there.

You make it sound like I'm the Pontifex Maximus of the World Church of the Creator, with some new Benjamin Nathaniel Smith keen to rampage against Japanese people after reading my posts.

Were that the case, I'm sure the redoubtable DU mods would yank my threads.

Honestly, it is all out of proportion to reality and it is not achieving the ends you desire either.

I can put you in touch with Japanese websites or media if you want to call, write letters. I will even consider translating them for free for you, but I cannot see why you post this much on the subject after seeing the kind of viciousness that is out there and that you may or may not be contributing to (Do you REALLY think you are having no effect on people's emotions with these nearly daily posts to LBN? If so, why post them?)
As much as you feel for whales, I feel for a nation that I see as being painted with a very unfair brush. And yes, I do think it borders on the issues of inciting hatred.


Please post something on this thread that I started.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2753272&mesg_id=2753272

Coke may join anti-whaling bout
Julian Lee
January 24, 2008

WHOEVER said large corporations such as Coca-Cola don't engage in risky marketing might have to swallow their words. The company's Australian bottler, Coca-Cola Amatil, has not ruled out sponsoring, of all things, anti-whaling activism.

Fresh back from a holiday in Africa, CCA's nature-loving boss, Terry Davis, has equated the killing of whales to that of poaching elephants and has said he might reactivate Bluetongue's sponsorship of the anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd after it finished last year.

Pacific Beverages - a joint venture between CCA and SABMiller - paid $30 million late last year for Bluetongue Brewery.

This time last year Bluetongue's previous owner, John Singleton, handed the Sea Shepherd activists - who are battling Japanese whalers in the Antarctic - a large cheque and promised an extra $1 for every case sold. A graphic internet ad showing a harpooned Japanese diner proclaimed Bluetongue as the whale-safe beer.

More:
http://business.smh.com.au/coke-may-join-antiwhaling-bout/20080123-1nq6.html

State wants sonar-use exemptions nullified
Waivers would let Navy sidestep laws
By Terry Rodgers
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

January 23, 2008

The state attorney general yesterday filed a fresh legal challenge against Navy sonar training that could harm whales and dolphins off the San Diego County coast and other parts of Southern California.

Acting on behalf of the California Coastal Commission, Jerry Brown urged a federal judge to nullify a pair of Jan. 16 exemptions by President Bush and the White House. Those waivers, if approved by the court, would allow the Navy to sidestep two federal environmental laws for its drills.
The latest sonar exercises are scheduled to take place this week off San Diego. Other similar training is expected to take place nine more times during the coming year.

California officials say Bush's waiver violates the separation-of-powers doctrine of the U.S. Constitution.

“In issuing the exemption, the president has effectively overruled the judicial (branch),” Brown said in a court briefing filed yesterday.

The Coastal Commission has been involved in the sonar controversy since January 2007, when it ruled that Navy commanders needed to provide more safeguards for marine mammals during its training.

More:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20080123-9999-1m23sonar.html

Smith to push whaling stance in Tokyo talks
Andrew Darby
January 24, 2008

AUSTRALIA'S opposition to whaling will be stressed in Tokyo by the Foreign Affairs Minister, Stephen Smith, at a sensitive time in the Government's campaign against the Antarctic hunt.

Mr Smith is to meet senior Japanese ministers next week as the Australian Customs patrol ship Oceanic Viking monitors the whalers and activists try to stop them.

The Tokyo trip, the first by Mr Smith as minister, has a broad agenda and demonstrated the priority that Australia gives to the bilateral relationship, he said.

It will include enhancing economic links and expanding strategic co-operation. Mr Smith would also raise Australian opposition to the Japanese scientific whaling program, his spokesman said yesterday.

More:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/whale-watch/smith-to-push-whaling-stance-in-tokyo-talks/2008/01/23/1201024992552.html

Government joins fleet to collect evidence
By Lauren Williams
January 24, 2008 03:00am

THE Australian Government rubbed shoulders with Greenpeace protesters in the Southern Ocean yesterday morning.

Crews aboard the Australian Customs vessel, Oceanic Viking and Greenpeace's Esperanza guided inflatable boats alongside the Japanese Nisshin Maru and their refuelling tanker Oriental Bluebird, during refuel and whale meat transfer operations.

Greenpeace reported sighting the Oceanic Viking shortly after 6pm on Tuesday night.

It was the first data collection operation by the Australian Government since a December 20 promise to monitor the Japanese hunt and marks the first time government resources have been deployed to monitor foreign whaling.

The Government ship launched inflatable boats to collect photographic evidence that may be used in possible legal action to stop future whaling. No whaling has taken place for 13 days now

More:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23096964-421,00.html