Activists ‘may put lives at risk’
I don’t have much time for whaling but I have a whole lot less time for Greenpeace as in a target of Greanpeace is a friend of mine.
The actions of the US anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd could easily sink the Japanese factory ship Nisshin Maru in the freezing waters of the Southern Ocean and put the lives of the crew at risk, the head of Australia’s master mariners association warned yesterday.
Captain John Carroll, the federal master of the Company of Master Mariners of Australia, said Sea Shepherd’s stated aim of dragging a hawser under the Japanese ship to disable its propellers could rip the drive shafts from the ship and leave a gaping hole under its waterline.“There is always a weak point built into a ship’s drive shafts for safety reasons and you can actually pull the propeller shaft, or shafts, right off,” Captain Carroll said. “If that happened, it is probable the ship would sink.”Surely endangering lives and ships at sea is a crime in someones books…Australia’s maybe? UPDATE: Yobbo has a good piece on whom rammed who
Facebook
Twitter
I approve of your disapproval of whaling…. yet without action, how do you propose to stop this ?
I draw an analogy with those do-gooders in Iraq who end up getting kidnapped. The likes of this government complain that they should not put themselves in danger…. likewise, if the Japs weren’t halfway around the world killing these whales, there would be no need for this action by Greenpeace….
Surprising that you would place Japanese whalers above the Greenpeace in the moral hierachy. I never thought those who seek to preserve the environment for future generations (like my and your grandchildren) could be considered WORSE than whalers…. ILLUMINATING
Surprising that you would place Japanese whalers above the Greenpeace in the moral hierachy.
I place activists, particularly dangerous ones, well down the moral hierachy…probably near the bottom just above terrorists. You see, I don’t believe that Greenpeace are protecting the environment. The Japs aren’t going to stop whaling because of some idiots in an inflatable the same way Australia isn’t going to close Pine Gap because people like Bryan Law and co storm the barricades. Same category…ain’t going to happen.
One thing to consider in this situation is if Sea Shepherd is operating in international waters. There is no law enforcement that can touch them if they are. So if they want to raid a whaling vessel and murder the crew with AK-47’s it’s perfectly ok in my book. But turn about is fair play, if a Japanese navy vessel wants to shoot one of Sea Shepherd’s ships in intl’ waters that’s fair as well.
I think the Jap whalers lost the moral high ground on matters related to safety at sea in the freezing waters of the southern ocean when they deliberately rammed the Arctic Sunrise a few days ago.
They can’t have it both ways, they either obey the laws of the sea and expect others to do so, or accept that both sides can play as rough as they please.
I don’t think the law of the sea is quite how you perceive it Harry. There are mechanisms available to force the Japanese into responsible whaling. The fact that their diplomatic efforts have been successful in thwarting that outcome, doesn’t give anyone (least of all a nonstate actor) the right to launch offensive action to prevent it.
Straightforward reading on the subject of fishing and international law here:
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/sustdev/fishery.htm
The Japanese did not deliberately ram the arctic sunrise. At best, it was an accidental collision. At worst, it was Greenpeace who actually rammed them. See here. http://www.gravett.org/yobbo/?p=1496
The sea shepherds are pirates. They have sunk many boats in their activities. The Japanese government would be quite justified in sending warships to protect their fleet.
We think separate the Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd in our minds; Greenpeace is a peaceful organisation with ideological reasons against Sea Shepherds tactics.
The founder of Sea Shepherd (Paul Watson) left Greenpeace due to disputes about tactics. He in fact described Greenpeace as “The Avon ladies of the environmental movement”.
I have no doubt that Greenpeace were not to blame for the incident. The Greenpeace ship in fact tried to avoid it. Even this conservative logger says so: http://dontgointothelight.com/2006/01/a_greenpeace_member_responds.php
As to if it was deliberately caused by the whalers, I can’t say, but Greenpeace say that it turned right around to do this and that does not sound unintentional. Also Greenpeace did have the right of way.
Actually Yobbo, it was a deliberate ramming by the Japanese, you can see it from the video, the Arctic sunrise was moving slowly, had right of way and maintained a constant speed and course (as required by law), until going full reverse just before the Japs hit them.
Under maritime law, the overtaking vessel is required to stay clear of the slower vessel.
Actually if Greenpeace wants to get to sink the Japanese whalers- I’m all for it. Better yet, if Greenpeace commits a suicide bomber to sink them- even better!! One less greenie and one less illegal Japanese whaling vessel.
Moderator….???
So interesting what gets through…. I’m considered too emotive, a troll (though I always get a chuckle and deal with the idea, not the person, and admittedly, deliberately to the extreme) yet you shoulder arms to this…..???
Where’s a guideline so I can continue to engadge….?
The comment you quote was, in my interpretation, flippant and posted with a mild degree of humour. Most of your comments seem to be confrontational, designed to create angst and result in emails to me complaining about my allowing trolls on site.
If your comment is confrontational without any debating merit I will disallow it.
I was a member of the SASR and your two attempts to comment calling them killers was simply not on from my viewpoint and it is my site. I won’t accept anything that just puts down on the ADF…I will accept debate about their role or deployments but not with any underlying abuse.
If our comment insults the ADF I will disallow it.
Your comments need to be generally on-topic, you need a verifiable email address…ie no anonymous comments and if I go to the trouble of forming a reply then you need to address that reply; not just ignore it and comment on something equally confrontational but from a different perspective.
…you need a verifiable email address. Strange isn’t it? I have tried to email both you and John Dosan on commenting policy and have had them both rejected.