Three activists 'prisoners' after slipping aboard Japanese ship

[Little Tich]

Source: The Australian
THREE Australian activists have been detained by authorities accompanying the Japanese whaling fleet after slipping aboard their vessel.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society said it helped the three West Australian men from the Forest Rescue group in the "complex and daring" operation to board the Japanese vessel Shonan Maru No 2 in waters off Bunbury.

A statement released on the Sea Shepherd website says the men took a boat from shore to intercept the security ship about 25km off the WA coast, as it tailed the Sea Shepherd ship Steve Irwin.

"They were met by two small boats from the Steve Irwin," the statement reads.

Read more:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/three-activists-prisoners-after-slipping-aboard-japanese-ship/story-e6frg6nf-1226239220637

[Bodhi BloodWave]

1. Are we supposed to be shocked or concerned about this?

Its fairly obvious that people who board a ship without the permission of the captain or crew of the ship should end up in the brig since its considered illegal

Nor do i think the Japanese are required to return to shore with them(as the boarders requested) due to the sovereignty of the ship even if it was within Australian waters(until they have finished whatever they plan anyhow, and even then they likely could bring em back to Japan for trial if they wanted)

Now if the coast guard were to ask for them to be handed over I'm fairly sure they would oblige since it saves em a lot of hassle.

[boppers]

2. They're protest-business.

They commit crimes, break convention, or otherwise offend society, to get publicity and money for their cause.

Sometimes (such as PETA, Scientology, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Catholic Church), it becomes a form of industry, and the cause becomes secondary, with fundraising at the front.

[Kolesar]

3. You are slandering the Sierra Club

Go read their policies about protest before putting your bizarre RW tinged opinions on the internet. www.sierraclub.org

[boppers]

4. Ohh, nice website, wonder what it cost?

Any chance you can tell me where to find the BOD salaries on that site? Employee salaries?

They don't need PR stunts anymore. Muir built one hell of an idea, and now.... well, yeah.

[boppers]

6. By which you mean "collecting a six figure salary"?

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?keyword_list=Sierra%20Club&Submit2=GO&bay=search.results

...and an adversarial (RW) link:
http://www.undueinfluence.com/sierra.htm

(yes, I browse creepy RW sites, because "our shit don't stink" doesn't wash with me)

They're a for-profit, industrial, corporate, eco-scam, IMO.

Give elsewhere, preferably to those who are pure non-profit (unlike Sierra), and not paying their officers six figures (93.55% of the US makes less than that).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

To prevent future pain at having sponsored total corporate bullshit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing

[hack89]

11. + 1 nt

[DirkGently]

14. Heavens. Six whole figures? Nearly 2% spent on admin costs? The horror.

89% spent on programming. A four-star rated charity. Bit ludicrous suggesting Sierra is some kind of scam.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5838

[boppers]

37. Well, the other 1% CEOs making millions to run fortune 500 companies agree with you!

How does that feel?

[DirkGently]

40. Find one that makes six figures instead 7-9 & try again.

Ridiculous.

[DirkGently]

25. Wow. They're not allowed to have a website? How about cell phones. Can they have cellphones?

Shoes? Air conditioning? Why is it there's no point at which people in business strictly to make money are considered "greedy," but people who are in business to help people are hypocrites if they have even the slightest resources?

[boppers]

38. "people who are in business"

Your words.

Twice, even.

[DirkGently]

41. Yes Non-profits. In the business of doing good, not screwing everyone else. You do

see the difference?

[boppers]

45. Yes, non-profits(!?) who make millions. By "caring".

FWIW, Sierra Club is not entirely a non-profit.

[LanternWaste]

52. We perceive a thing in such a way as to better validate our own presumptions.

We perceive a thing in such a way as to better validate our own presumptions.

I imagine that's part of the human condition-- that our our own personal biases prevent us from seeing a thing for what it is, and instead see it for what we accuse it of being...

[DirkGently]

62. Sierra does exactly what it claims to do. Sorry, no way to spin that.

Sierra gets the highest ratings possible for a charity. If that's not good enough for you, that's your prerogative. But your insinuation groups like Sierra are some kind of cynical money-making scheme is baseless.

[Civilization2]

9. direct actions are not done for money,.

Yes some of these big groups are taken over by exploitative money grubbers, however direct action to stop injustice is very welcome.

Unfortunately the whales, dolphins, turtles, etc. do not have the abilities to fight industrial fishing ships, so some brave humans do this, more power to them, they have my support.

Why paint all activists with the same brush as those corrupted greedy corporate scam artists that take peoples money to make them feel like they have done something to stop these crimes against nature. Real direct action has nothing to do with placating the guilty conscience of silly yuppies.

[DirkGently]

20. And god-forbid an activist make as much as a school superintendent

They must all live in mud huts, or can't be taken seriously.

[roody]

13. They have saved many whales' lives.

[TheWraith]

7. Agreed. This is the sort of thing that annoys me.

When people decide that because they're "activists," suddenly the rules no longer apply to them. Case in point, this, where if this were whalers illegally boarding a Sea Shepherd vessel there would be immediate demands that they be tried for war crimes. Or the flap the other day whining that the police arrested some Occupy people--even though those people were openly trespassing in an abandoned building and had been previously told to leave both by the landlord and the police.

Don't trespass. Don't board other people's boats. Don't obstruct traffic. These are hardly difficult or overbearing rules of conduct.

[Civilization2]

10. Yes don't do anything that is against the law, ever!

Don't occupy, don't protest, don't take any direct action to stop the slaughter of endangered animals for decadent foodstuffs. Just let the corporate greedy kill the entire eco-system and replace it with a factory farm. Stay in line, don't look the "officers" in the eyes, keep your head down, and go to your slave-job every day, don't protest when they cut your pension, your salary, and add to your work load. Why be upset that the retirement age just move 5 years into the future, just be a good corporate lemming.

[ProgressoDem]

17. Well if our side gets to break the law because we think we're doing something that's right...

...then the other side does too. And I thought we didn't like it when the right-wingers take the law into their own hands / disregard norms of society and civil discourse.

[DirkGently]

22. We don't like when Rwingers stomp people's heads on curbs.

The nonviolent interference with the illegal act of whaling is not in the same category.

[ProgressoDem]

23. Well you've got to accept the results of your actions.

In this case, stowing away aboard a ship means you get thrown in the brig and suffer the legal consequences.

[DirkGently]

24. Obviously they are accepting the consequences of their actions. They knew exactly what would happen.

I thank them for that. I don't always agree with the specific tactics of the Sea Shepherds either, particularly in their more radical days. But I also don't think you can lump in the kind of monkey wrenching they do these days with general lawlessness.

There are times and places when nonviolent lawlessness and civil disobedience are effective and ethical. In this case, the Japanese fleet relies on the fact that, as a state actor, it can gloss over its completely blatant disregard for anti-whaling laws it claims to abide by, through the use of a defiantly transparent excuse ("scientific research&quot and the fact that there is no enforcement of anti-whaling laws.

Asking nicely, over and over and over again, as the Sea Shepherds do before they take their other direct actions, doesn't seem to work.

[ProgressoDem]

27. I do see what you're saying.

And I think civil disobedience obviously has a place... I just dislike the feigned surprise and outrage when people who break the law find out there are consequences for what they're doing. But I'd say that a situation would have to be a little more extreme (i.e. 1960s south, 1940s India) to warrant use of the tactic.

[DirkGently]

42. Yes, Watson plays things up for maximum effect. That's one of

the areas where I don't completely agree. I assume his rationale is that where the whalers use explosive rhetoric, such as"Eco-terrorists" and the like, he can be hyperbolic as well. I think SS could do a little less of that, and let the superiority of their position on whaling do more of the talking.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

46. In my eyes its not so much playing things up to maximum effect as its lying and twisting the truth

While this is wiki and as such not exactly the most truthworthy of sites for facts, it does refer to some things in his book Earthforce as well.

Watson's public relations savvy is shown in an episode of Whale Wars when he creates an international "media storm"[48] after two crewmembers are detained on a Japanese whaling vessel. In his book, Earthforce!, Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently.[7] He also states that the "truth is irrelevant" due to the nature of mass media.[49] In response to criticism that he manipulates the media, Watson has stated: "What we do is provide the media with the kind of stories they can't resist... and this is how we bring attention to what's happening to the whales, the seals, the sharks and the other marine conservation campaigns we're involved in."[11]

I mean, why should I trust the words of somebody who advices people to make up facts and states that the "truth is irrelevant"

[DirkGently]

60. An example of an actual lie would be more convincing.

The fact is SS is in the right. Nothing about Watson's rhetoric changes that.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

65. so in your opinion

its acceptable to lie and make up 'facts' to advance an agenda if you think its 'in the right'?

As for one of Watson's lies, lets use the most recent incident of the 3 Aussies.

By one of SS's own releases they speak of how they helped the 3 people under the cover of darkness to board the Japanese ship:

A later statement by Watson goes like this:
"I think the Australian Government would be very embarrassed if an armed Japanese vessel can just pick up Australian citizens in Australia and then take them away to Japan," Capt. Watson said.

A statement that in my opinion is a bald faced lie since the Japanese didn't just 'pick up Australian citizens' nor was it in Australia(economic zone yes, but not territorial).

The fact that SS themselves was kind enough to release a media reel showing the night time boarding proves his 'pick up' claim as a lie, the additional fact that by boarding the ship and as such subjecting themselves to Japanese sovereignty(the ship is flying Japanese colors ) gave the Japanese the authority needed to bring them to japan if they wished to charge them with the trespass.

[DirkGently]

68. Which fact is not true? You're disagreeing with his spin. The Japanese claim they're terrorists.

So WHO'S the liars, again?

[Bodhi BloodWave]

69. i think i pointed it out quite well

Watson's statement about the Japanese supposedly 'picking up Australians in Australia', i mean for crying out loud, his own groups video reel shows it to be a blatant lie.

His group assisted the 3 Australians to board the Japanese ship in Australia's economic zone(not territorial zone) which put the 3 aussies under Japanese jurisdiction and law once they boarded it, they should praise themselves lucky that the Japanese didn't want to press charges on them and that they will be let go whenever the Australian authorities can pick em up.

I would disagree with the claim that the SS are terrorists but they are not innocent by any meaning of that word

[LanternWaste]

53. Rosa Parks broke the law...

"Well if our side gets to break the law because we think we're doing something that's right..."

Rosa Parks broke the law. You may want to add additional qualifiers to your statement.

[ProgressoDem]

55. See reply 27.

[Doremus]

67. Except their side (usually) gets to make the rules.

Whereas activists have few ways to influence outcome other than civil disobedience.


And, yes, most activists are aware of the consequences. They are also willing to accept same ... which is, after all, what makes them activists in the first place.

[Ikonoklast]

18. What if 'activists' from a right-wing, say Ron Paul organization decided to occupy a building

*you* owned?

Would you extend to them the same courtesies?

They are American citizens, they have the same right to protest even if you don't agree with them.

[ProgressoDem]

28. Occupying isn't protesting, it's trespassing.

What if a bunch of asinine Ron Paulites upset that their taxes were going to help low-income communities started occupying poor people's houses because they thought their hard earned money was going to help lazy people?

[raindaddy]

15. Japan's Illegal Slaughter of Whales Annoys Me

What about continuing to try and profit off what's left of the world's amazing sea mammals cynically using scientific research as an excuse? Does that annoy you as well? I don't feel a whole lot of sympathy for the Japanese whaling industry still slaughtering whales using $$$ donated towards the nuclear disaster in Fukushima.... If these guy's efforts save the life of one whale they're heroes in my book. If it's an inconvenience for Japanese whaling industry which doesn't play by the rules, boo f-ing hoo.. The whales don't have the ability to create "rules" to protect themselves.. They're stuck with humanity's inability to figure out that we can't continue along the current path of self destruction based on greed and corruption..

[DirkGently]

19. Oh, but Japan's crimes are committed by a state. So they don't count.

Just like trillions in government fraud by defense contractors for wars that help no one is okay, but social programs are "theft."

[raindaddy]

26. Yep, we're such good peeps, playing by the rules and all..

Laws aren't always based in wisdom... Jesus shattered the rules of his time....There was a time Jim Crow was the "law". Think where we'd be if we didn't break the rules now and again..

[Downtown Hound]

35. How about, don't break international law and illegally slaughter 1000 whales

per year and then lie about it being scientific research? You want to include that one on your list, do you?

And when somebody does decide to break international law and slaughter 1000 whales per year and lie and say that it's all scientific research, I guess we should all just stand politely by and do nothing but hold up signs saying that we strongly disagree with this and not do anything forceful to stop it.

Politeness has never changed anything. If people like you were in charge of the civil rights movement, we'd still have whites only water fountains.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

44. you mean except for the fact that its consider legal research by most

Now i support some whale hunting, but even I will admit that they are exploiting the 'research' loophole to have a very very small fig leaf hiding the true purpose, that however does not change the fact that the IWC has accepted that claim(with some grumbling from its anti-whaling countries who i think would love to close the loophole)

Of course if the IWC where to return to its real purpose and not try to basically stop whaling then they wouldn't be forced to use the said loophole. Besides, I do not think the IWC has the power or authority to actually pass binding international law, its more like regulations that the member countries tends to abide by(considering the fact that if a country were to leave the IWC then the regulations wouldn't be binding to them any longer)

[Downtown Hound]

47. Really? Just who are "most?"

[Bodhi BloodWave]

51. most countries involved with the IWC since Japan is abiding by article VIII

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Convention any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit, and the killing, taking, and treating of whales in accordance with the provisions of this Article shall be exempt from the operation of this Convention. Each Contracting Government shall report at once to the Commission all such authorizations which it has granted. Each Contracting Government may at any time revoke any such special permit which it has granted.

2. Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted.

***

Now is their great use of this article condemned by the anti-whaling members of the IWC? You bet
Is the 'scientific research' the japanese do unnecessary at its core? You bet
Is the 'scientific research' legal? You bet

Now if the IWC would return to its roots then the Japanese wouldn't need to use Article VIII, the fact that the memorandum has lasted for 24 years now and a number of countries are trying to make it permanent shows how far its been twisted from its original purpose

[Downtown Hound]

54. Oh you mean governments?

The same world governments that stood by while the U.S. invaded Iraq? The same world governments that did nothing to stop the genocide in Rwanda? And actually, Australia has been actively trying to get Japan to stop its whaling practices, so not all governments agree.

By your own admission, you admit the scientific research thing is bullshit. So if you realize it, I'm willing to bet they do as well. Just because the world governements are too weak to stand up to Japan doesn't mean that they're not in violation of the law. What kind of research are they doing that requires 1000 whales a year to be slaughtered? How many corpses do you really need to learn what it is you need to learn?

Governments are weak and corrupt and easily bought. If they don't have the guts to enforce the law, then I'm more than happy to support Sea Shepard in doing it.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

58. As i said

Most the anti-whaling countries in the IWC condemn their use of the article and I understand their position to some degree, but Japan is *not* breaking the 'law' since they are abiding by the regulations of the IWC(I'm not saying laws since the IWC don't actually have the authority to pass laws, if Japan were to leave the IWC tomorrow then they would no longer be bound by its regulations).

so exactly what law should be enforced? if you are refering the the Australian Whale Sanctuary they are hunting in that is a very dicy argument since i think only 4 countries recognize it(with my country of Norway being one of them interestingly enough).

As a last section in regards to the research I came across just now as I was looking up the whale sanctuary info and followed the link to whaling controversy there seems that it has had 'some' use after all .

Although lethal sampling is a heavily debated issue, the IWC Scientific Committee acknowledges the usefulness of the data from JARPA.[63] In a November 2008 review of Japan's first 18 years of its scientific whaling program, the IWC stated that the panel was "very pleased" with the data that Japan collected, though there was some advice on how these data could be further or better analyzed.[64]

[Downtown Hound]

64. Please

You sound like a spokesperson for the Japanese whaling industry. Yes, Japan is breaking the law. They are taking way more whales than is needed for scientific research. They are exploiting a loophole and using it to make a profit. You are never going to convince me that it takes 1000 dead whales a year for scientific research, and I don't care who was "very pleased" with the results (could you be just a tad more vague there?).

The law that SHOULD be enforced is the international ban on whaling. Period. I'm even against killing them for scientific research, but even within that loophole, it's pure bullshit to say that any kind of research requires 1000 whales per year to be killed.

And I'll ask you again, since you don't seem to be able to answer the question, what is this "research" that needs so many whales to be killed? All you can say is that somewhere, sometime, some person said they were "very pleased" with what they were seeing. Oh, well shit. I'm super satisfied. Gee, in no way would the whaling industry try and pump whatever limited information they've come up with in an effort to justify their slaughter of whales for profit.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

66. you know what the IWC is yes?

if not then its The International Whaling Commission, supposedly the group who set up the ban or memorandum as its more commonly refereed to. You know, the 'law' the Japanese are 'breaking'

As for who was "very pleased" that would be the Scientific Committee of the IWC, so not just 'some person'.

In regards to the research, I don't really know all that well, supposedly tho it has to do with number of whales and what they eat and some other stuff like that, and while I will openly admit that for research purposes it has likely outlived its purposes I will remain supportive of Japan's continued use of it since the IWC has for most intents and purposes been twisted away from its original task which was:
**
The IWC was created by voluntary agreement among the member nations to function as the sole governing body with authority to act under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling which is an international environmental agreement signed in 1946 in order to "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks and thus make possible the orderly development of the whaling industry" and to implement its economic and environmental goals. The role of the Commission is to periodically review and revise the Schedule to the Convention,[5] controlling the conduct of whaling by setting the protection of certain species; designating areas as whale sanctuaries; setting limits on the numbers and size of catches; prescribing open and closed seasons and areas for whaling; methods and intensity of whaling, types of gear to be used, methods of measurement and maximum catch returns. Under its constitutive document, the IWC is given the task of adopting regulations "to provide for the conservation, development, and optimum utilization of the whale resources" with the condition that such regulations "shall be based on scientific findings."[6]
**

Since the Memorandum the anti-whaling nations involved have refused to partially lift it on those species of whale that has been deemed to be at safe levels which breaks with its purpose(mind you, the memorandum itself was not based on advice from the Scientific Committee).

You said i sounded like a spokesperson for the Japanese Whaling industry, i would make the statement that i am *not* a spokesperson for them, i'm simply somebody who accepts whaling to some degree(as long as the species is not endangered and considered safe in regards to numbers), I also advocate for the IWC to return to its proper purpose of decisions being based on science rather then trying having it politicized

[PatrynXX]

48. yeah well they did this in australian waters

so it's a major PR fuckup on the part of the Japanese. However since the stupid boat was taling the Steve Irwin who was trying to get the Bridget Bardott back to port without sinking... I'd say it was necessary...

[Bodhi BloodWave]

50. So its ok for the sea shepards to tail the japanese but the japanese shouldn't be following sea

shepard? isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Also the location is somewhat under debate as even the Australian Attorney-General Roxon seems to disagree with you.

"We have had a number of interactions with the Japanese government, particularly through our embassy in Tokyo," she told ABC radio.

She said it was difficult because the incident didn't happen in Australia's territorial waters.

"Because it was only in our exclusive economic zone, that doesn't give us automatic rights to assert Australian law.

"In fact, the clearest advice that we have is that Japanese law would be likely to apply."

[melm00se]

8. or you can go to their audited financial statements

http://www.sierraclub.org/foundation/downloads/2009-audited-financials.pdf

[DirkGently]

16. Yep. Sierra's an outstanding organization. Only RW propaganda says otherwise.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5838

Sea Shepherds are doing great work as well.

[hack89]

12. I see another South Park episode coming up. nt

[rocktivity]

21. They slipped while on board?

Last edited Mon Jan 9, 2012, 02:36 AM - Edit history (3)

Well, they COULD file a lawsuit. But seeing as it's a boat, I don't think they have the strongest case!


rocktivity

[hughee99]

29. They're really not very good at "playing the victim"

Their M.O. is to put their own people in bad situations and then try to play the victim when bad things happen as a result. Though I agree with their goals, I question how effective their methods really are.

[baldguy]

30. Seems to me the Japanese whalers are "playing the victim".

[hughee99]

31. The press release is from the Sea Shepherd

and says they snuck a few guys on a whaler and now they're "prisoners" because they whalers won't return to port to drop them off. Not a single thing in the article comes from the whalers, so I can't see how they're "playing" anything.

[DirkGently]

61. You think the Japanese offered to return them to their ship?

Because they never have in the past. So, yeah, "prisoners" is the correct word, without the scare quotes.

[hughee99]

63. If you sneak abord someone else's ship

I don't think they're under the obligation to drop everything and return you. As I understand it, they did return them though and did not press charges.

[PatrynXX]

49. Um the whalers are bankrupt.

not sure how much more effective one can get.

[hughee99]

56. They bankrupted the Japanese government! Holy shit.

Isn't that the entity that largely finances this "Research Project".

[MADem]

32. They're stowaways. They now have to answer to the skipper of the ship.

They've subordinated themselves to HIS schedule, like it, or not.

You play those kinds of bullshit games, you take your chances.

[raindaddy]

33. They understand the consequences.

This isn't the first time a Japanese whaling ship has been boarded.. Hopefully after another losing year the Japanese whalers will stop playing their bullshit games in Antarctic waters..

[MADem]

34. Playing the "prisoner" card when they've trespassed probably isn't helpful.

One has to surmise that their goal was sabotage. They didn't--from all reports anyway--achieve that aim.

[DRoseDARs]

43. They should be grateful the Japanese death penalty is only applied in cases of murder and treason.

Some countries execute pirates, and the whalers could certainly find a way (justified or not) to label the illegal boarders as such.

[MADem]

57. I (mistakenly) thought Japan got rid of the death penalty! Even for murder...?

You're right, though--I did the google and came up w/this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Japan

Funny, when people gripe about the death penalty in the US, they usually lump us in there with the odd despots...not Japan!

I learned something new today, and the day is only half done!

[The Traveler]

36. Political context is important to understanding these events

It is clear that many here do not understand the full political context of the action.

The SM2 was purchased by the Japanese government from the Institute of Cetacean Research (whalers). Their argument is that technically the vessel can operate in Australian waters, despite the ruling of the Australian federal court, because they are not specifically a whaling vessel any more. (The federal court basically upheld a ban on whaling vessels in the Australian economic zone and territorial waters.)

This position is quite controversial within the Australian government and before this action had provoked a lot of protest from opposition parties. The current government had made a fairly big deal during the elections of promising support for protection of the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary, and many voters feel betrayed by the government's recent choices on this issue.

In particular, the SM2 was allowed to operate in territorial waters without even so much as turning on its AIS. (AIS is a system that identifies ships, their locations, courses and speeds ... obviously useful information when charting a course through heavily trafficked waters. This should NOT be interpreted to suggest that the SM2 was a hazard to navigation! It is more of an add insult to injury kind of thing ... )

If you think the target of this operation was the crew of the SM2, I think you are mistaken. Enforcement of the Antarctic Treaty, and of Australia's sovereignty, is likely to become a very hot topic in Australian political life in the very near term and could even conceivably result in a change of government. This is difficult to gauge because while there is broad support for the anti-whaling position, it is by no means universal, nor does it automatically trump other considerations in Australian political life.

The activists are not victims and are not playing victims. They have aimed a stake directly at the heart of a government that has proven to be unwilling to enforce its stated anti-whaling policies and its sovereignty. If you will, they have tried (and in large part succeeded) in forcing the issue. It remains to be seen if this will prove to be an effective action in that sense, but it is clear it has already stimulated new energy in the discussion.

Trav

[BoulderBean]

39. Bad move

This is really a bad move, because it cost them $500,000 to get one guy out of prison, (and it cost him his 1.5 million dollar boat, but they learned thats what they need)


But apparently Paul knows this and has the funds.

They should be focusing on props, not boarding.

[onenote]

59. My wife and I have consistently provided Sea Shepherd with financial support but

this was a dumb move, probably oriented more towards making "good TV" for Whale Wars than for actually advancing the cause of stopping whaling.

First, there was no chance whatsoever that the Japanese would simply turn around and sail to Australia as the boarding party demanded. None.

Second, when the Japanese agree to release them into the hands of Australian authorities, the Japanese are the ones that end up looking reasonable.

Third, there is a significant expense for both the Australian government and for Sea Shepherd in terms of the "rescue" mission and that expenditure does little to advance the anti-whaling cause.

While I'm a firm believer in the value of civil disobedience as a means of drawing attention to and support for a cause, this is not a situation where any publicity is good publicity. This action, from what I understand, has cast Sea Shepherd in a bad light in Australia and that's not a good thing.

Harassing and disrupting the whalers? I'm all for it. But sticking three guys on a security ship (not a harpoon ship or the factory ship) which doesn't alter its course (and will probably insist that the transfer of the boarding party occur in such a manner that it doesn't lose touch with the Sea Shepherd vessel(s) is a poor decision.