Japanese Whalers vs. SSCS Protesters

[TheLastMohican]

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Glob...lodges-piracy-charge-against-Japanese-whalers

Were the Japanese sailors justified in clipping off the bow of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's new boat? From the article:

Supporters of Watson's Sea Shepherds say the collision was a result of deliberate action by the Maru. Critics of the group have charged that the Gil's actions made a collision unavoidable.

But the consensus of experienced mariners and sea captains who have e-mailed me is that, while it's the responsibility of all vessels at sea to take every precaution to avoid a collision, and so to a certain extent there is blame to be spread around, that smaller, more maneuverable boats like the Gil are generally expected to have more responsibility for avoiding collisions, since they can turn faster.
"Under the long established international rules of maritime navigation, the smaller, more agile vessel is expected to remain clear of and not impede the operations or navigation of the larger, less nimble vessel," is how one former mariner put it.

The Collision Regulations of the International Maritime Organization, issued in 1972 and still in force, would seem to back up the stance that more of the fault lies with the Gil, since it had spent days deliberately approaching and interfering with the operations of the Maru, by darting across its bow, aiming lasers designed to temporarily blind the Japanese mariners, and seeking to foul its propeller with cables.

The video clearly shows the Maru turning toward the Gil in the moments before the collision. The Japanese sailors were also spraying the crew of the Gil with a water cannon at the time, very probably impeding the crew's ability to tell that the Maru was heading straight for them.
But on the other hand, I think the sailors may have been justified in intentionally ramming the protesters anyway. The SSCS brags about all the ships it has sunk, and in this case it was clearly trying to damage the Maru, possible to the point of endangering its crew.

Thoughts?

 

[Shai Gar]

I think the whale protesters are pussies. If they had the courage of their convictions they'd TORPEDO the Japanese.

 

[ec3khrl]

Environmental extremists got what they deserve.

They are environmental terrorists who terrorize and bring harms to the others for their own little cause, and everyone is right to get rid of terrorists.

How can they justify their own illegal sabotage by saying there is no effective law enforcement against illegal hunting, and who is going to stop them on the other hand?

Do they consider themselves THE law now?

 

[smiffy]

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Glob...lodges-piracy-charge-against-Japanese-whalers

Were the Japanese sailors justified in clipping off the bow of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's new boat? From the article:


The video clearly shows the Maru turning toward the Gil in the moments before the collision. The Japanese sailors were also spraying the crew of the Gil with a water cannon at the time, very probably impeding the crew's ability to tell that the Maru was heading straight for them.
But on the other hand, I think the sailors may have been justified in intentionally ramming the protesters anyway. The SSCS brags about all the ships it has sunk, and in this case it was clearly trying to damage the Maru, possible to the point of endangering its crew.

Thoughts?

I dont think the sunk any ships! and did the head extremist not fake been shot for the camera to gain support against the whalers?

 

[Kavalan]

Good intentions, Bad execution.

The SSCS are a bunch of attention whores whom the only way for their organization to function is off of sensationalized media reports as was the case with the alleged shooting on the Steve Irwin ship. The fact that they feel whales should not be hunted is a noble cause in lieu of the repercussions of unregulated whale hunting. The means they used are half assed and I reaffirm Shai's position: Put up or shut up and honestly I'm leaning towards the shut up

 

[TheLastMohican]

I dont think the sunk any ships!

I don't know if they really did, but they keep count on one of their ships. From the Wiki page:

 

[smiffy]

I don't know if they really did, but they keep count on one of their ships. From the Wiki page:

if they did they would be jailed and there ship would be taken away from them. If you have the time check this out http://www.xepisodes.com/southpark/episodes/1311/Whale-Whores.html

ive seen the real whale wars! something is just a bit weird about it,

 

[Shai Gar]

Nope, there are no laws on the high seas. That's why Japanese and Norwiegen Whalers are able to operate. You can kill as many Whalers as you like out there. No Jailtime.

 

[smiffy]

Nope, there are no laws on the high seas. That's why Japanese and Norwiegen Whalers are able to operate. You can kill as many Whalers as you like out there. No Jailtime.

what? so you can kill people? anything to back that up? but surely once you return you can be prosecuted?

plus if they took on the japanese they have a bigger ship and could kill them easily

 

[TheLastMohican]

Nope, there are no laws on the high seas. That's why Japanese and Norwiegen Whalers are able to operate. You can kill as many Whalers as you like out there. No Jailtime.

The featured incident occurred in Australian waters. As for the sinking of whaling ships, we don't know if they were sunk out on the seas while in action, or just scuttled while docked.

 

[smiffy]

On ships in international waters, the laws of the flag state apply.

As for the sea in general, there ARE international conventions (such as the anti-whaling convention, the UNCLOS II convention, etc.) that limit what kinds of activities you can engage in on the high seas.

But in your example, a murder that took place on a ship would be covered by the murder laws of the flag state. The trial would theoretically take place in a court of the flag state, although the captain could port and ask the authorities to help him deal with the crime if it wasn't possible to return to the flag state.

got this on yahoo answers, and I looked up the UNCLOS convention, seems to add up
http://wapedia.mob/en/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea#4.


to have a place of no law that people could access would make no sense! think about the loop holes

 

[Shai Gar]

you need not fly a flag. Do it at night with no transponders, and take out their radios first
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Lucifer]

It sounds like a pretty idiotic way to stop whaling.

This is probably just pissing everyone involved off. If you take the enemies stance with a person or organization you are a lot less likely to get anything done, though you shouldn't be a total pussy either. Making war with the enemy at least in this case is just gonna lead to a lot of unnecessary anger.

I do support species protection though more than I support the rights of business.

 

[Quinlan]

I think the Sea Shepherds need to take a step up a level and arm the Whales with torpedos and lasers, like this picture but with whales instead of dinosaurs:

 

[Shai Gar]

I've been saying that for years.

 

[Reon]

Environmental extremists got what they deserve.

They are environmental terrorists who terrorize and bring harms to the others for their own little cause, and everyone is right to get rid of terrorists.

How can they justify their own illegal sabotage by saying there is no effective law enforcement against illegal hunting, and who is going to stop them on the other hand?

Do they consider themselves THE law now?

+1. This pretty much sums it up for me. What ec3khrl said, plus "Dumb ass move"