Stunned animal rights activists protest arrests

[CHIMO]

Source: THE CANADIAN PRESS

SYDNEY, N.S.–Stunned and angry crew from the anti-sealing vessel Farley Mowat emerged from a Cape Breton jail Sunday, maintaining the dramatic seizure of their ship by a black-clad RCMP squad brandishing submachine-guns violated international law.

The Mounties' elite marine team was called in Saturday by federal Fisheries Minister Loyola Hearn two weeks after a group of seal hunters complained that the Mowat came dangerously close to them in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

The flat-black, 54-metre ship, operated by the U.S.-based Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, was towed Sunday to a secure jetty in Sydney, where a few dozen curious but quiet onlookers snapped souvenir photos.

David Nickarz, the Mowat's engineer, said Canada had no right to board the ship and arrest the 17 crew members because the Dutch-registered vessel was in international waters, where Canadian rules don't apply.



Read more: http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/414094

---

After killing four sealers, now they are trying to be Mr. Bush of the area!

A video of the ramming two weeks ago at the link should throw the whole thing out of court. Never mind the argument about being in international waters.

[kristopher]

1. The crime didn't occur in international waters

And there is nothing in the Law of the Sea Convention that provides an accused criminal safe haven in international waters. Each country has a legitimate right to enforce on the high seas violations that occurred in their waters.

The Watson fundamentalists need a dose of reality.

[CHIMO]

2. What

Is the crime?

[kristopher]

3. No wonder you support Watson

The one specified in the article you linked to in the OP.

[CHIMO]

4. Maybe

You could answer a question rather than making an accusation.

What is the crime?

[kristopher]

6. I didn't make an "accusation"

AND I did answer your question. The charges are EXPLICITLY stated in the article you linked to.

[CHIMO]

7. KISS

What are the criminal charges? Or what is the charge?

Again what is the charge? It is your statement.
Put up!

[kristopher]

13. Are you totally daft? 11th paragraph of YOUR link.

[CHIMO]

31. FTR

Paragraph eleven from the article.

Captain Alexander Cornelissen – who hails from the Netherlands – and First Officer Peter Hammarstedt are accused of steering the Mowat to within 900 metres of the hunt. That's an offence under federal regulations unless an observer's permit has been granted. The Mowat does not have one.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/414094

Paraphrasing what Farley said this morning: Hearn can screw himself.

[nankerphelge]

8. errr?

No they weren't.

[kristopher]

17. errr?

Yes they were.

[petronius]

15. Assuming that the SS did come within 900 m of a sealing vessel,

is it stated anywhere that this violation occurred within Canadian territorial waters? If not, Canada is attempting to extend its own laws to a part of the ocean were national laws don't apply (exactly what Australia tried to do with the whale sanctuary).

It seems to me that a lot of coastal countries will look askance at this arrest - and if a less unpopular ship had been boarded there would already be some strongly worded objections...

[kristopher]

16. The article did not specifically state it, but there is no one even questioning it AFAIK.

The claims regarding international waters are being made in reference to the boarding and arrests. It is self evident - the hunt itself is sanctioned by the Canadian government because it is taking a Canadian resource in Canadian territory.

[petronius]

22. I think it's very much in doubt

According to the Canadian DFO site, the collision with the icebreaker occurred "28 miles east of Ingonish," which puts it well offshore in the Cabot Strait. They mention an "incursion" inside the 12 mile limit on another date, which implies that Canada agrees the infraction the SS was boarded for (approaching too close to a sealer) occurred outside that limit.

So, two questions will need to be addressed: does Canadian federal law (the Fisheries Act) apply to non-fishermen outside the 12 mile limit as Hearn claims, and where exactly is the 12-mile limit across the Cabot Strait? (Is the Gulf of Newfoundland truly territorial water? How much if any of the Cabot Strait is included in Canadian territorial water?)

Caveat: if the SS apprached a sealer on the ice wihin <10 m as claimed, and if the SS ship actually broke up ice under a sealer, then the SS is in the wrong morally, IMO. The legal question of the CCG's activities is another issue...

[kristopher]

25. Why didn't you just post the chronology? + two points on Law of Sea

There are two types of "waters" under Canada'a control that we are concerned with here. The 12 mile limit (it might actually be 24 miles some places in Canada according to my reference text) usually referred to as 'territorial' waters and the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) Canada has the right to make laws related to resource extraction (including protecting the safety of persons engaging in approved economic activity) within both those zones. There are significant differences regarding right of free passage in the two zones ships in normal transit.
So the answer to your question is yes, Hearn is correct.

I consider the SS morally wrong based on the premise of their existence. They are declared terrorists. As I understand it, Watson has taken credit for sinking 10 ships and he makes his intentions clear regarding his current actions. In my opinion he is the ideological mirror of antiabortion protesters who resorts to clinic bombings. So far he hasn't directly caused loss of life; but neither do most clinic bombings.



Chronology of Events – The Government of Canada Takes Enforcement Action against the Farley Mowat

april 12, 2008

March 20, 2008 – Transport Canada directed the Farley Mowat not to enter Canadian waters until they comply with international marine safety conventions (Ministerial Order).

March 24, 2008 – The Farley Mowat left Bermuda.

March 28, 2008 – It reached the Canadian exclusive economic zone. Transport Canada (TC) attempted to communicate with the vessel, but it did not reply.

March 29, 2008 – Canadian authorities attempted to communicate with the Farley Mowat south of St. Paul’s Island. It did not reply. The Department of Foreign Affairs issued a Diplomatic Note to the Netherlands requesting their assistance to deter and prevent unlawful activities by the master and crew of the Farley Mowat as it is flying a Dutch flag.

March 30, 2008 – Farley Mowat engaged in illegal activities by allegedly approaching sealing vessels at a distance of approximately 20 feet. Complaints were received from Canadian vessels that the Farley Mowat was dangerously close and menacing them. The Farley Mowat crew was informed by fisheries officers onboard the Coast Guard ship Des Groseilliers that such actions were in contravention of Marine Mammal Regulations under the Fisheries Act. The Farley Mowat forced two collisions with the Coast Guard ship Des Groseilliers approximately 28 miles east of Ingonish, Cape Breton.

April 2, 2008 – The Farley Mowat docked in the French islands of Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon.

April 4, 2008 – The Farley Mowat left Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon after local fishermen cut its mooring lines and threw stones at the crew.

April 5, 2008 – The captain and first officer of the Farley Mowat were charged with violating the Marine Mammal Regulations under the Fisheries Act, as they had allegedly ventured too close to sealers on March 30. The captain is also charged with obstruction under the Fisheries Act.

April 9, 2008 – The Farley Mowat entered Canadian waters. Transport Canada directed the Farley Mowat to depart and remain outside Canadian waters based on security concerns (Ministerial Direction). The Farley Mowat approached hunters, but did not come closer than half a nautical mile when warned by Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

April 10, 2008 – Canadian authorities documented an incursion into the 12 nautical miles territorial limit by the Farley Mowat. A Transport Canada (TC) Ministerial Direction to proceed to Sydney, NS was delivered to the vessel Farley Mowat via the Canadian Coast Guard Marine Communications and Traffic Services. A hard copy was also faxed to the international headquarters of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society based in Washington D.C. The Farley Mowat did not verbally acknowledge receipt of the TC Ministerial Direction, nor did it proceed to Sydney.

April 11, 2008 – The Farley Mowat allegedly came within approximately 300 feet of a sealer, which is in contravention of the Marine Mammal Regulations.

April 12, 2008 – The Government of Canada took action to protect the safety and livelihoods of Canadian sealers by boarding and seizing the Farley Mowat to arrest its Captain and Chief Officer for alleged violations of Canada’s Marine Mammal Regulations (MMR). These actions were taken in accordance with Canadian fisheries legislation.

http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/2008/hq-ac01_e.htm

[petronius]

27. That's exactly what I tried to link to (I should have tested my link)

It appears from that chronology that the alleged infraction occurred in the EEZ. Canada has the right to make laws regarding resource extraction in the EEZ, but it is not clear that a coastal state has the right to regulate vessels which are not engaged in extraction. In this case, the SS is not doing so, and so the questions I posted will still need to be addressed...

[kristopher]

28. This isn't correct.

The sealers were engaged in legitimate activities under the protection of Canadian law. Canada has the authority they are claiming, it isn't even a debatable point outside of WatsonWorld.

I think this discussion is a real hoot. In the South Pacific, the Watsonites were touting the most bullshit claims about Watson's authority to act being legitimized by a spurious claim to authority that only a nation-state can claim, and that the Japanese were operating in Australian waters- a territorial claim no one in the world recognizes.

But here is a clear cut case of Watson running into legitimate instances of those exact legalities, and there is nothing but denial...

[petronius]

29. It's quite debatable

Canada has the right to regulate the activities of the sealers; it is far from clear that they can regulate the non-economic activities of private vessels in the EEZ. Your analogy with the whaling situation is apt, but you've got it backward: Canada is trying to do what Australia tried to do, and they're both wrong (IMO).

It seems to me that the relevant parts of UNCLOS are articles 56, 58, and 97 (pasted below). Article 56 makes clear that the coastal state has jurisdiction over economic activities, and 58 indicates that the rules of the open sea (88-115) apply otherwise. Article 97 states that only the flag nation may arrest or impound a vessel for collision or navigational incidents. (One question may be whether the activities of the SS fall under 56-1-b-ii or 56-1-b-iii.) So it seems to me that Hearn is wrong, and Canada has screwed the pooch. At the very least there will be significant debate (even outside of WatsonWorld)...

Article 56

Rights, jurisdiction and duties of the coastal State in the exclusive economic zone

1. In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has:

(a) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing the natural resources, whether living or non-living, of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil, and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from the water, currents and winds;

(b) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to:

(i) the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures;

(ii) marine scientific research;

(iii) the protection and preservation of the marine environment;

(c) other rights and duties provided for in this Convention.

2. In exercising its rights and performing its duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State shall have due regard to the rights and duties of other States and shall act in a manner compatible with the provisions of this Convention.


Article 58

Rights and duties of other States in the exclusive economic zone

1. In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.

2. Articles 88 to 115 and other pertinent rules of international law apply to the exclusive economic zone in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.

3. In exercising their rights and performing their duties under this Convention in the exclusive economic zone, States shall have due regard to the rights and duties of the coastal State and shall comply with the laws and regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of this Convention and other rules of international law in so far as they are not incompatible with this Part.


Article 97

Penal jurisdiction in matters of collision or any other incident of navigation

1. In the event of a collision or any other incident of navigation concerning a ship on the high seas, involving the penal or disciplinary responsibility of the master or of any other person in the service of the ship, no penal or disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against such person except before the judicial or administrative authorities either of the flag State or of the State of which such person is a national.

2. In disciplinary matters, the State which has issued a master's certificate or a certificate of competence or licence shall alone be competent, after due legal process, to pronounce the withdrawal of such certificates, even if the holder is not a national of the State which issued them.

3. No arrest or detention of the ship, even as a measure of investigation, shall be ordered by any authorities other than those of the flag State.

[Shoelace]

30. Petronius, I think you might find this blog discussion interesting

I came across this blog last night but too tired to post then. The blogger addresses some of the very same issues re; UNCLOS, EEZ, etc., replete with maps of the areas in question. The comments that follow are somewhat enlightening as well. Give it a read and perhaps share your thoughts.

http://hughstimson.org/2008/04/13/was-the-farley-mowat-in-international-waters/#comment-6695

[kristopher]

32. Your reading of enforcement authority is incomplete.

The regulations that were violated were legitimate.(Article 56 para 1(a))

You can't say that they only vessels that are affected by such regulations are those actually engaged in the extraction, since the regulation in question was specifically meant to protect the seal hunters from exactly the type of threat that the FM presented itself to be. That simply doesn't pass the smell test. (Article 58 para 3)

I don't see how 97 is relevant.

Also the associated post by shoelace is correct. This is confirmed on page 106 of "The Law of the Sea" 3rd edition, Meland Shill Studies in International Law, by R.R. Churchill and A.V. Lowe, 1999

It confirms this information in bold posted on the page shoelace links to:

The politics of the seal hunt notwithstanding, the fundiamental issue here is whether the Canadian government has jurisdiction over the waters where the Sea Shephard was arrested or put another way, was the Sea Shephard subject to Canadian law. The answer is Yes, and probably Yes. This position will be supportetd by virtually every other country, as ,under international law, and more specifically the United NAtions COnvention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) the rules are pretty clear.
1) No question, the Sea Shephard was within Canada’s 200 nautical mile EEZ. On that basis alone, since seals are marine mammals and hence a marine resource, Canada is within its rights to pass laws and enforce them against any vessel within the zone.
2) What’s a bit more controversial is whether the Sea Shephard was within CAnada’s Internal Waters. Internal Waters are the waters inside the straight baselines which a state is allowed to draw along its coast for the purposes of establishing maritime zones. If you read the appropriate sections of UNCLOS rules are quite clear. What Canada (and many other countries) have done is to apply the rules rather generously in thier favour, and also to recognize the right of other states to do the same. Canada (or the UK on our behalf) has been drawing baselines (or closing lines) since 1763. The situation now is that Canada has proclaimed straight baselines which enclose all of Canada, from the Maine/New Brunswick border completely around the entire country (we’ll ignore Alaska for a minute). This effectively puts the bay of fundy, gulf of st lawrence , and the entire Canadian Arctic inside the baseline, and hence ALL these waters are Canadian INTERNAL waters and not subject to the rules of innocent passage. The United States has continuously objected to these baselines and it is virtually the only country to do so. The Sea Shepherd is a Netherlands registered vessel, and thus it is the position of the Dutch goverment which counts, not Paul Watson’s . Since the Dutch are a party to UNCLOS, and have established a number of straight baselines of their own, I suspect that they will support CAnada’s claims for jurisdiction.
About the only support you might get for a contrary position would come from the United States, but for a number of reasons you might not want to go there.

The issue between the US - Canada in the final part of this quote was basically settled according to Churchill in 1988 with what I'll call an agreement of tolerance titled "Agreement on Arctic Co-Operation".

[petronius]

34. The particular regulations in question are not legitimate, IMO

Even if we grant that Canada is allowed to regulate non-extracting vessels (which you are probably correct about), it seems clear from UNCLOS that that regulation would need to have a clear connection to the extractive activity. Otherwise, Canada is obligated to respect the rights of other nations. The specific regulation - a 900 m buffer around sealers - can not be justified on any basis of safety or efficiency. It is purely political/public-relations and hence (again, IMO) lacks legitimacy.

I think Article 97 would be relevant because the alleged infraction seems to be a navigational incident, and 97 states that only the flag state has powers to arrest the vessel in such cases.

As to the question of jurisdiction (internal water vs. EEZ) it sounds like we agree - I said that the extent of Canada's jurisdiction is debatable, and it will be debated at the international level. Canada is clearly claiming control over a large swath of ocean, and it will be up to other nations to decide whether or not that will stand.

[rusty quoin]

5. There was some good news in the article.

"Under federal rules, seal hunters can take up to 275,000 harp seals this season, but low pelt prices and steep fuel costs have made the hunt a money-loser for many hunters. As a result, far fewer seals are expected to be slaughtered this year."

Seals are such beautiful animals. It's an awful shame they are still slaughtered.

[kristopher]

33. More than that!

They arrested two Watsonites. That's good news.

[Shoelace]

35. nobody could ever accuse you of being a bleeding heart liberal

that is for damned sure! The hunt is cruel, barbaric and needs to be ended.
How do I know that? I AM a bleeding heart Liberal, that's how! :spank:

[nankerphelge]

9. Time to donate to Sea Shepherd

n/t

[Myoho]

10. My $600 tax rebate

will be going to supporting Captain Watson and the Sea Shepherd Society. Time for the human race to stop this mass slaughter of the most innocent among us.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

11. Welcome to DU!

I love the idea of taking this rebate and using it to try to fix some of the mess that Dumbyass and his cronies have made!

Hugs for you! :hug::hug::hug:

[Myoho]

12. Thank you GoddessOfGuinness

I have read this board for several years now and have finally decided to join.

I do believe that providing my tax rebate is an excellent way to support this noble cause.

[Shoelace]

14. welcome Myoho!

it took me a long time to finally get posting here but it's the best forum on the internet imho! So glad to see you here.
What a wonderful thing to do and Sea Shepherd could probably use the money now to fend off the big guns (literally) Conservative idiot govt. officials of Newfoundland.

These Newfies have lost their humanity, sold their souls for a pittance whilst slaughtering defenseless creatures en masse.
Long live the Farley Mowat and her crew. I'm donating what I can which isn't alot but every bit helps.

The US Humane Society has live updates a couple times per day from the massacre site. Their helicopter is flying over these areas and providing videos.
That is about all we are going to be able to see since the Farley Mowat is pretty much out of commission for now until somebody can figure out this monster legal mess.
Here's their link:

http://www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/marine_mammals_news/live_from_ice_032408.html

I've been studying international law of the sea for hours, still can't figure out what "innocent passage" constitutes.

[One_Life_To_Give]

19. Traveling a direct route

Innocent Passage in general is a vessel (typically merchant) sailing directly thru a foreign countries territorial waters but not stopping. Examples would be Gloucester fishing boat heading to/from the Flemmish Cap. Sailing from any port on the Black Sea to the Mediterranean.

The subtleties involved in this case will require Admiralty Lawyers to argue the details.

[Shoelace]

21. here's the UN definition of "innocent passage"

and from the sound of all of it at the link, yes it will take a damned good attorney to argue these various details. The actual crime however is more like a parking ticket as I see it. They didn't have an "observer permit" and got within 900 meters of a fishing boat 2 weeks ago. Sheese! Nobody was able to get observer permits - the Can. govt. didn't issue any for obvious reasons. Some crime eh?

Article 19
Meaning of Innocent Passage

1. Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State. Such passage shall take place in conformity with this Convention and with other rules of international law.

2. Passage of a foreign ship shall be considered to be prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State if in the territorial sea it engages in any of the following activities:

(a) any threat or use of force against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of the coastal State, or in any other manner in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations;

(b) any exercise or practice with weapons of any kind;

(c) any act aimed at collecting information to the prejudice of the defense or security of the coastal State;

(d) any act of propaganda aimed at affecting the defense or security of the coastal State;

(e) the launching, landing or taking on board of any aircraft;

(f) the launching, landing or taking on board of any military device;

(g) the loading or unloading of any commodity, currency or person contrary to the customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations of the coastal State;

(h) any act of willful and serious pollution contrary to this Convention;

(i) any fishing activities;

(j) the carrying out of research or survey activities;

(k) any act aimed at interfering with any systems of communication or any other facilities or installations of the coastal State;

(l) any other activity not having a direct bearing on passage.


http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part2.htm

[flvegan]

18. They had to be stopped, therefore the Coast Guard had to do something.

The EU is going to ban the import of seal pelts if Canada can't lie its way into making them believe the hunt is humane. They can't afford to have Sea Shepherd and HSUS getting ACTUAL video of the bludgeoning and live-skinning of baby seals. They grounded HSUS as much as they could, they've imposed idiotic rules about distances for viewing, etc the hunt, and now illegally boarded, arrested, detained and charged a Dutch motor yacht and her crew.

As I've said before, I'm glad this happened, and dollars to donuts I'll bet, Watson is too. Canada's Hearn just shot the whole industry right square in the ass. Fucking idiot. Hearn is Canada's more inept W.

[Shoelace]

20. Loyola Hearn: Translating the spin

I found this on a blog and thought it worth posting, thought you'd enjoy this guy's take on him.

Sunday, April 13, 2008
Translating the spin
Loyola Hearn: The Canadian government has shown fellow governments such as Japan, Norway and Iceland -- that have also faced direct actions by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society -- that "we're not putting up with it any more," he said.
Translation: We're making common cause with nations engaging in massive whaling operations in defiance of international law and opinion.

Watson has argued that his vessel, registered in the Netherlands, was in international waters and that Europe will be angered by Canada's actions.
Hearn said the vessel was in "Canadian territorial waters" but didn't say if it was within 12 nautical miles (19.2 kilometers) of the coastline. The minister has also said the Fisheries Act gave him the leeway to act outside the 12-mile limit.
Translation: Yeah, they were in international waters.

The arrests were necessary to prevent future danger to sealers, fisheries officers and observers, he said.
Translation: This was an act of preventative detention. Preventing what exactly?

Captain Alexander Cornelissen and First Officer Peter Hammarstedt are alleged to have broken rules that prohibit anyone from coming within 900 metres of the hunt unless they have an observer's permit.
Translation: They were getting close enough to take extremely gory photos of adorable baby seals being beaten to death with clubs.


Canada's fisheries minister denies he has handed anti-sealing forces a win with Saturday's storming and seizure of a militant conservation group's boat.
"No, we haven't handed them a gift at all," Loyola Hearn told CTV's Question Period on Sunday.
Translation: The Canadian people are about to pay in the courts, in the European parliament and in international public opinion for a short term propaganda boost for the Conservative Party in the Maritimes where they are desperate to improve their standing.
http://rustyidols.blogspot.com/2008/04/translating-spin.html

[flvegan]

23. Good find!

That is dead on.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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