Environmentalists pursue Japan's whalers

[matsuki]

Wow...arrogance to the max while they try apply Japanese law stretch theory to international law.

I just hope one of the judges actually asks what "scientific information" this "whale research" has yielded.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

Harpoon vs Harpoontang

[Samurai_Jerk]

The best part about that pic is the look on the whale's face.

[sublight]

How they go on and on about being a modern country and protecting human rights but then want human rights on their own terms? (lack of human rights)

I hear this line time and again, and I always have to ask: compared to whom, exactly? The US? The UK? France? Which western nation demands to conduct themselves on someone else's terms?

[Samurai_Jerk]

How they go on and on about being a modern country and protecting human rights but then want human rights on their own terms? (lack of human rights)

I hear this line time and again, and I always have to ask: compared to whom, exactly? The US? The UK? France? Which western nation demands to conduct themselves on someone else's terms?

And the US is one of the worst when it comes to not going along with the international community.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

How they go on and on about being a modern country and protecting human rights but then want human rights on their own terms? (lack of human rights)

I hear this line time and again, and I always have to ask: compared to whom, exactly? The US? The UK? France? Which western nation demands to conduct themselves on someone else's terms?

Choko, as a Merkin, it's probably not such a good idea to be too critical of other cuntries' human rights records...

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

How they go on and on about being a modern country and protecting human rights but then want human rights on their own terms? (lack of human rights)

I hear this line time and again, and I always have to ask: compared to whom, exactly? The US? The UK? France? Which western nation demands to conduct themselves on someone else's terms?

And the US is one of the worst when it comes to not going along with the international community.

Sorry, I didn't notice....

Thank you...I'm glad an American posted this.

[matsuki]

How they go on and on about being a modern country and protecting human rights but then want human rights on their own terms? (lack of human rights)

I hear this line time and again, and I always have to ask: compared to whom, exactly? The US? The UK? France? Which western nation demands to conduct themselves on someone else's terms?

And the US is one of the worst when it comes to not going along with the international community.

Sorry, I didn't notice....

Thank you...I'm glad an American posted this.

LOL, as a NATIVE American, I'm no stranger to the US's shitty human rights history nor am I trying to ignore it...but we're not talking about history here, we're talking about now (2013~) and we have pretty widely accepted (among modern countries) international standards when it comes to human rights. As to how other modern countries conduct themselves in this regard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ ... man_Rights

Try searching for Japan on there...or even better, try finding Japanese enforceable laws that back up the J-gov's "findings" on human rights.

(Once again, not saying the US, or any other country is perfect but comparatively, Japan is waaaaay below the bar here.)

Then there's this guy...

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

How they go on and on about being a modern country and protecting human rights but then want human rights on their own terms? (lack of human rights)

I hear this line time and again, and I always have to ask: compared to whom, exactly? The US? The UK? France? Which western nation demands to conduct themselves on someone else's terms?

And the US is one of the worst when it comes to not going along with the international community.

Sorry, I didn't notice....

Thank you...I'm glad an American posted this.

LOL, as a NATIVE American, I'm no stranger to the US's shitty human rights history nor am I trying to ignore it...but we're not talking about history here, we're talking about now (2013~) and we have pretty widely accepted (among modern countries) international standards when it comes to human rights. As to how other modern countries conduct themselves in this regard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ ... man_Rights

Try searching for Japan on there...or even better, try finding Japanese enforceable laws that back up the J-gov's "findings" on human rights.

(Once again, not saying the US, or any other country is perfect but comparatively, Japan is waaaaay below the bar here.)

Then there's this guy...

Jeezus Choko, let's all just pretend that post didn't exist, mate...

[Samurai_Jerk]

How they go on and on about being a modern country and protecting human rights but then want human rights on their own terms? (lack of human rights)

I hear this line time and again, and I always have to ask: compared to whom, exactly? The US? The UK? France? Which western nation demands to conduct themselves on someone else's terms?

And the US is one of the worst when it comes to not going along with the international community.

Sorry, I didn't notice....

Thank you...I'm glad an American posted this.

LOL, as a NATIVE American, I'm no stranger to the US's shitty human rights history nor am I trying to ignore it...but we're not talking about history here, we're talking about now (2013~) and we have pretty widely accepted (among modern countries) international standards when it comes to human rights. As to how other modern countries conduct themselves in this regard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ ... man_Rights

Try searching for Japan on there...or even better, try finding Japanese enforceable laws that back up the J-gov's "findings" on human rights.

(Once again, not saying the US, or any other country is perfect but comparatively, Japan is waaaaay below the bar here.)

Then there's this guy...

Jeezus Choko, let's all just pretend that post didn't exist, mate...

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. The biggest problem in The US is that far too many Americans are drinking the Kool-Aid like choko. All you have to do is look at the US's stance on most treaties designed to curb arms proliferation and all the horrible dictatorships we continue to support.

[matsuki]

Sooo enlighten me, what human rights violations are occurring in the US right now?

[Yokohammer]

Lessee ... does "NSA" ring a bell?
It has been in the news quite a bit lately.

[matsuki]

Lessee ... does "NSA" ring a bell?
It has been in the news quite a bit lately.

Privacy and spying weren't exactly the human rights violations I had in mind but point taken.

[Samurai_Jerk]

Sooo enlighten me, what human rights violations are occurring in the US right now?

Sentencing minors, the mentally disabled, and the innocent to death; giving black men more severe sentences than others for the same type of crime; stop-and-frisk policies that target minorities in NYC for "looking suspicious"; doing everything possible to take away women's reproductive rights in a number of states; keeping men locked away without trial or formal charges based on top secret evidence for a decade in Guantanamo; executing US citizens abroad by drone without trial or judicial review ....

I could go on.

[wagyl]

It is veering off human rights to be more property rights, but I found this article most interesting, detailing the funding of the law enforcement and justice functions through what amounts to buccaneering actions by those bodies.

[Russell]

It is veering off human rights to be more property rights, but I found this article most interesting, detailing the funding of the law enforcement and justice functions through what amounts to buccaneering actions by those bodies.

Hmm. I would rather say that the right to have your property protected is closely related to human rights.

And it is the intellectual foundation of capitalism (if one can still associate "capitalism" with "intellectual", that is).

[Samurai_Jerk]

It is veering off human rights to be more property rights, but I found this article most interesting, detailing the funding of the law enforcement and justice functions through what amounts to buccaneering actions by those bodies.

Hmm. I would rather say that the right to have your property protected is closely related to human rights.

And it is the intellectual foundation of capitalism (if one can still associate "capitalism" with "intellectual", that is).

Exactly. There has also been serious abuse of eminent domain in the name of development in a lot of places.

[Coligny]

Amerika... The worst communist dictatorship on earth...
All the wrongs without any of the rights....

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

Amerika... The worst communist dictatorship on earth...
All the wrongs without any of the rights....

But they do give out nice, shiny beads....

[matsuki]

Sooooo back on topic....

The public hearings are over, now the judges get loads of time (months) to deliberate and make a decision over the issue. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

[Russell]

In science terms, Japan has no need at all to kill whales

Final arguments from the defence and prosecution were heard in mid-July, and the world court is now considering its judgment. At issue is Japan’s right to conduct its seasonal “scientific” whaling program in Antarctic waters. But the case has involved arguments about how to define science itself.

The legal challenge to Japan has been brought to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague by Australia, which has asked the Netherlands-based court to find that Japan’s whaling program is illegal because it is actually commercial whaling — not scientific research that is permissable under the 1982 moratorium on commercial whaling declared by the International Whaling Commission (IWC), which went into effect in the 1985/86 coastal and pelagic hunting seasons.

On June 1, 2010, Australia initiated proceedings at the ICJ against Japan, alleging breach of international obligations concerning whaling.

Japan contends that Australia has embarked on an “alarmist crusade” against whaling.

The stakes are high. Political relations between Japan and Australia have been strained during the trial, with Japan accusing Australia of “an affront to the dignity of a nation” in bringing charges of lying about its whaling program.

But in the Southern Ocean the stakes for thousands of Minke whales, in particular, are higher. If Japan wins the case — and some commentators suggest it is in a strong position — the legal status of its whaling program could be strengthened.

Masayuki Komatsu, Japan’s chief whaling negotiator from 1999 to 2004, told The Australian newspaper that the international court could rule that Japan’s “scientific” whaling program — which many countries as well as Australia believe is a masquerade for a commercial whaling operation — is legitimate.

The worst-case scenario, for opponents of whaling, is that the court overturns the IWC’s 1985/86 moratorium on commercial whaling, known as Article 10E in the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. That outcome would be disastrous for whales worldwide — and it is precisely why the legal challenge to Japan, which at first glance many people opposed to whaling would probably support, is highly risky.

Komatsu told the Sydney-based The Australian newspaper that he had been privately told by United States government sources that it was unfortunate Australia had brought the case.

“Even your government’s bureaucrats were not enthusiastic about bringing this case to the ICJ because, in the most negative case, Article 10E of the schedule may be negated,” he said.

Japan’s legal team in the Hague also feels that the law is on its side. Noriyuki Shikata, a spokesman for the Japanese delegation, was critical about Australia’s legal arguments in court. In the closing submissions last month, Shikata said: “We have not really heard effective legal rebuttal based on evidence and reasoning and we have an impression that many of the allegations are driven by emotions, not science.”

Several international legal experts gave evidence for Japan.

Allan Boyle, a professor of public international law at the University of Edinburgh, made the claim that if Japan’s current whaling program was not scientific, then neither were the research activities of numerous institutions worldwide that use fisheries data to assess sustainable catch levels.

Another British legal expert, Vaughn Lowe, an emeritus law professor from the University of Oxford, said that “there is no uniquely correct formula” for what qualifies as scientific research. He said Japan’s view of its whaling program was that it is “an absurd exaggeration to say that it is not scientific research at all.”

Let’s look at what we know about what Japan has learned from its whaling program.

Its stated objective is that it needs to kill whales in order to understand the feeding ecology and population makeup of various whale species. It needs to understand this, it says, so it can “manage” whale numbers through hunting.

Now, it is true that by catching and killing whales, and analyzing their stomach contents, a lot can be learned about cetacean biology. In the past, it was the only real method available to investigate these animals. But for many years now, it has been entirely unnecessary to kill whales in order to get the information that Japan’s Institute for Cetacean Research says it needs.

That institute, by the way, operates under the auspices of the Japan Fisheries Agency, a division of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, which issues annual catch quotas.

In line with those quotas, between 1988 through the first half of 2011, 13,663 whales were caught under Japan’s moratorium exemption for scientific research. Of those, 3,573 whales were taken in the North Pacific Ocean and 10,090 in the Southern Ocean, including from a large area designated by the IWC in 1994 as the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

But it’s better to collect poop than to kill whales. Collecting their feces may not be the most pleasant job in the world, but analyzing the DNA found in great dollops of whale poop floating in the open sea can tell scientists — without cutting open its stomach — what animals a whale has been eating.

Meanwhile, DNA samples can be taken with relative ease from these mighty marine mammals by removing a small plug of skin from them. And a lot can be learned from their nasal mucus (snot).

Researchers can sample a whale’s breath — including its snot — by catching the gunk that spurts from its blowhole. (If you can’t imagine how you could possibly get close enough to a whale’s nose to do this, think creatively: Karina Acevedo-Whitehouse, of the Zoological Society of London, flies remote-controlled helicopters over breaching whales, catching flying snot on Petri dishes strapped to the sides of the choppers.)

From these samples, scientists can determine the viruses, fungi and bacteria that live in whales’ lungs.

Killing whales provides negligible data to science. Less than 1 percent of the papers published on cetacean biology come from studies that required the killing of a whale.

In fact, tagging live whales tells you far more. GPS tags allow biologists to track whales and learn migration routes as well as daily routines. And acoustic tags record marine noise, so we can get an aural picture of the undersea soundscape — and an idea of the amount of noise pollution from boats that whales are having to tolerate.

So despite what the legal experts — not biologists — may argue, Japan’s claims that it requires lethal whaling to conduct scientific research just do not stand up.

The worry is that the ICJ will only be able to rule on the legal arguments, which may favor Japan.

It may be true that Australia’s case has in part been driven by emotions, as Shikata says. But Japan’s case is driven by national pride.

In summing up the legal case for Japan, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs Koji Tsuruoka said: “We have been able to present to the world the truth about Japanese scientific whaling.”

Unfortunately, this just did not happen.

Now the court must decide what to do. There is a lot of information to process, and the ruling won’t come for four to six months.

[Coligny]

In science terms, Japan has no need at all to kill whales

So that Captain Obvious is getting more and more famous these days...

[fireroads]

Personally, if Japan is whaling in a manner that makes it sustainable (which I'm skeptical about considering it's record in fishing), then let them do it, but let's stop the charade of it being "for scientific research" and funding it -- and the hyper-bloated bureaucracy sustained by it -- with donations people gave to help those victimized by the Tohoku disasters. .

THIS

I dunno about you guys but I personally told my friends/family NOT to donate anything to the disaster recover effort UNLESS it was directly people they knew in the area. The was the donations were used pissed off everyone I know that donated but like everything, Japan is going to take even donations on their own terms....along with loophole and BS a bunch to embezzle as much of the funds as they can.

private charitable donations were not/ never were given to the japanese government or to the whaling program or in support of the whaling industry. private donations are redistributed by the charities directly.

government money funded by the taxpayers of japan was given to the japanese whaling industry. this has absolutely nothing to do with how charitable donations were spent.

[Coligny]

[
private charitable donations were not/ never were given to the japanese government or to the whaling program or in support of the whaling industry. private donations are redistributed by the charities directly.

government money funded by the taxpayers of japan was given to the japanese whaling industry. this has absolutely nothing to do with how charitable donations were spent.

...

Ehm....

More like "kept by the red cross to pay for whatever the fuck they felt like doing no matter how unrelated to Tohoku it was"

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

this has absolutely nothing to do with how charitable donations were spent.

You are correct in pointing out that using donations given in good faith with the intent of helping disaster recovery but instead used to fund commercial whaling has nothing to do with the court case.

It does, however, have a lot to do with the dark pall of deceit that surrounds Japan's whaling industry (your employer, perhaps?), which includes disguising commercial activities as scientific research.

As stated above, if the whaling is truly sustainable (and Japan's fishing industry doesn't really have a great record regarding either sustainability or honesty), I couldn't give a fuck if commercial whaling continued...as long as it's called commercial whaling and not scientific research.

Japan's argument about whaling is akin to the Creationist cultists using Intelligent Design as a ruse for shoving religion down people's throats.

* BTW, if your employer wants articulate, intelligent quislings to voice it's views across the world, I'm for sale.

[fireroads]

this has absolutely nothing to do with how charitable donations were spent.

You are correct in pointing out that using donations given in good faith with the intent of helping disaster recovery but instead used to fund commercial whaling has nothing to do with the court case.

sorry, you are completely mistaken. absolutely no money that was given to charity went to the whaling industry. it is a total misnomer.

[Coligny]

private charitable donations were not/ never were given to the japanese government or to the whaling program or in support of the whaling industry. private donations are redistributed by the charities directly.

You know guys... I'm not sure he's wrong at all...

Governement money budgeted for Tohoku disaster recovery going to whaling industry yes...
Money given to private charity, I didn't find any line aboot this on my interweb...

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

this has absolutely nothing to do with how charitable donations were spent.

You are correct in pointing out that using donations given in good faith with the intent of helping disaster recovery but instead used to fund commercial whaling has nothing to do with the court case.

sorry, you are completely mistaken. absolutely no money that was given to charity went to the whaling industry. it is a total misnomer.

I'd love to concede and apologize, but Japanese credibility in this issue is non-existent, so I can't easily concede without proof. Either way, this is an issue of semantics as I already conceded that funneling disaster recovery funds into whaling has nothing to do with the court case.

What I see on trial at the ICJ is Japanese credibility.

[fireroads]

this has absolutely nothing to do with how charitable donations were spent.

You are correct in pointing out that using donations given in good faith with the intent of helping disaster recovery but instead used to fund commercial whaling has nothing to do with the court case.

sorry, you are completely mistaken. absolutely no money that was given to charity went to the whaling industry. it is a total misnomer.

I'd love to concede and apologize, but Japanese credibility in this issue is non-existent, so I can't easily concede without proof. Either way, this is an issue of semantics as I already conceded that funneling disaster recovery funds into whaling has nothing to do with the court case.

What I see on trial at the ICJ is Japanese credibility.

it is not an issue of the credibility or lack thereof of the japanese government. it is an issue of ignorant people believing and spreading a misnomer with absolutely no basis in fact.

the japanese GOVERNMENT included money for extra security for the whaling fleet as part of a big tohoku reconstruction and relief spending package. from that, the anti-whaling camp developed and spread the misnomer that charitable donations were funneled into the whaling industry.

if you believe/believed this misnomer, you need to seriously take more care in checking your facts and sources as there is probably a lot more total BS that you have bought into.

[Yokohammer]

it is not an issue of the credibility or lack thereof of the japanese government. it is an issue of ignorant people believing and spreading a misnomer with absolutely no basis in fact.

the japanese GOVERNMENT included money for extra security for the whaling fleet as part of a big tohoku reconstruction and relief spending package. from that, the anti-whaling camp developed and spread the misnomer that charitable donations were funneled into the whaling industry.

if you believe/believed this misnomer, you need to seriously take more care in checking your facts and sources as there is probably a lot more total BS that you have bought into.

Horseshit.

Funds from the Tohoku reconstruction budget were diverted to the whaling expedition after the fact. It was a blatant misappropriation of funds, and no amount of twisted logic and posturing can make it anything else. It wasn't just whaling though. There were roadworks in Okinawa, a contact lens production facility somewhere in southern Japan, and several other places the money was spent that have nothing to do with rebuilding Tohoku. "Security for whaling" was one of them.

There are no "misnomers" anywhere. You can try to rewrite the facts as much as you like, but on this issue you are wrong.