The frothing and posturing of the anti-whaling hysterics
Currently there is much nonsense being written, often in a highly emotive fashion, about whaling.
One such writer of nonsense is Chris Carter , who seems to think emotive outbursts with no constructive arguments constitutes debate and that referencing statements by Peter Garrett, Australia’s embattled Environment Minister, somehow help his cause. The fact that Carter seeks to politicize the issue with misleading statements such as:-
John Key’s grand initiative to end the global moratorium on commercial whaling
is symptomatic of the rubbish being peddled by many of the hysterics on this issue. As Claire Browning points out in her excellent Pundit piece it is highly unlikely that Sir Geoffrey Palmer, NZ IWC Whaling Commissioner since 2002, is acting as National’s patsy on this issue.
Garrett who has signally failed to perform in his role is poking at NZ, primarily because during the Rudd government term in office has achieved absolutely nothing, zilch, nada regarding Japanese whaling and Garrett needs to take the media spotlight off his own appalling record. Furthermore it is election year in Australia. Garrett and Rudd’s mouthing off about taking Japan to court should be taken with a very hefty pinch of salt. They have had 3 years to do this. They are still talking about it.
Geoffrey Palmer has pointed out, amongst other matters, in several media interviews:-
- there is no guarantee that court action will succeed
- the IWC could well collapse as a result of court action leaving whales in an even worse position
- negotiation is consequently the most appropriate course of action
However, never let it be said that Carter and his fellow hysterics let facts and reality get in the way of emotion, disinformation and outright obfuscation.
Claire Browning at Pundit recently wrote an excellent and factually based post on this issue. In addition she has taken the time to respond constructively and with additional information to comments made in the thread. It is an article which should be read by anyone interested in looking rationally at this issue.
Ms Browning deplores the politicization and cheap rhetoric indulged in by the anti-whaling lobby. She is correct. Carter and his ilk do the overall cause harm by their grandstanding for personal aggrandisement in Adam’s humble opinion.
Comments are closed.
Judging by the hysterical reactionof some to this post all I can say is Adam looks, he shoots, he scores!
And Garrett, Carter and Bethune what a trio … of losers.
Oh Brother a Jerk with his jaws flapping in the wind
Who is emotional here? Dave even itemized the record
for you. Another case of blind leading the blind.
I see as usual, the Head is full of it again. The head needs to be flushed! I am surprised he didn’t call for help again to his dimwits at the comedy site FOJLTWA!
Yet your head is empty. But my, aren’t you passionate. You seem to be carrying a grudge?
The Inquiring mind? I suppose you are safe from false advertising legal action on here!
Actually my post was about the way people wrote and commented on the issue. I pointed out that much of the ‘debate’ if it can be dignified with that is carried on with megaphones and full of mis-information and hyperbole.
I did not in fact say I was in favour of whaling. As it happens I am not, but equally I find the tactics and behaviour of many against whaling repugnant and in many ways as abhorrent as whaling.
My post was over the need for some rationality and recognition that this issue at the end of the day is essentially a political one which will require a political, that is diplomatic settlement.
Any court case even if successful is unlikely to lead to a satisfactory outcome, especially as the probability of any form of sanction by the ICJ against the Japanese being effective, even if enforced or acknowledged is extremely remote in my humble view.
My goodness me dimmocrazy one could be excused thinking you are a rabid dog. I don’t know where you got the anti-racist racist comments from -but not from anything i said.
I would have expected that a Government [Japan] who had ratified conventions, treaties and MEA’s to actually honour them. I have read a lot of their information -which seems in the main to consist of making excuses for their whaling position. If you are up to speed on the history of whaling, in particular that of japan you will find that the culture excuse does not stand up well. The scientific whaling excuse does not stand up well. Nor in fact any others ; like whales eat a lot of fish. Now i know you are probably well aware what baleen whales eat. Nor that they kill minkie whales so that blue whales can increase their population. If any of this sounds racist then it is not meant to be at all. But i suppose when you can’t defend you attack. But I got to say of any responses to many comments i have left on a lot of sites yours is the most astoundingly morose by far.
My point? In violation of – tends to suggest ‘without legal standing” tends to suggest ‘illegal’. Japan is in violation of things from IWC whaling regulations [use of factory ships on all but minkie whales] the list I previously gave and other MEA’s. But perhaps the gentlemen in the following links [who are not renounded for emotion] can have the last word?
http://www.naturalchoices.co.uk/International-legal-experts-urge?id_mot=10
http://www.stopwhaling.org/atf/cf/%7BC7E2199F-3FE3-487F-90AC-8FF4FBB61804%7D/UNLAWFULJAPANESESCIENTIFICWHALING.PDF
For many of us it is an emotional issue. But it can be seen as a legal issue that no amount of talking to Japan will resolve. It may end up in the ICJ which Japan recognises.
So you are suggesting that Geoffrey Palmer has it all wrong then?
Sir Geoffrey Palmer -right or wrong. Yes & no. He is right that nothing has worked so far in getting Japan to agree to anything – even a revised mangement plan [cos they don't want independant observers etc] But if he [the NZ Govt.] thinks that you can saves whales by letting Japan kill less then that is like fucking for virginity – a nonsense , they will never do anything less than that which they want to do. They did agree to a blue fin tuna quota in the south pacific many years ago.In August 2006, investigations revealed that Japan had been illegally overfishing for Southern Bluefin tuna over a period of 20 years, taking 178,000 tons of tuna above what was allowed. Southern Bluefin tuna is now considered critically endangered by the IUCN.
What makes anyone think, given their history, that they will do anything else but continue the rape and pillage of the worlds oceans.
Japan’s continued and expanded program of scientific whaling is inconsistent with its obligations under the Law of the Sea Convention, the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling Convention, the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), and the
Convention on Biological Diversity to protect and preserve the marine environment, to protect rare and fragile ecosystems and endangered species, to prepare environmental impact assessments when changes to the marine environment are likely to be caused by its activities, and to refrain from
claiming resources under the guise of marine scientific research. This program is not legitimately “scientific” because it has not been peer-reviewed and does not have precise quantifiable goals. It is inconsistent with Japan’s obligations under the Convention on Biological
Diversity because reduces the sustainability of whale species and has “adverse impacts on biological diversity.” It is unquestionably an abuse of right because it invokes Article VIII of the Whaling Convention in a manner that certainly was unanticipated by the framers of the Convention and has
been repeatedly condemned by the majority of the other contracting parties to the Convention.
This is the issue that seems to have been lost from view.
And your point is?
Norway, iceland and Japan whale.
Japan may invoke the IWC article in a manner not anticipated, but it does not appear to actually contravene the IWC rules as such.
Realistically negotiation probably has a better chance of some success, rather than protesting and causing Japan to dig in
It seems Adam misses Dave’s point entirely. What Dave wants to say is that that nasty yellow slant eyes are simply not complying with the law that has been set upon them by the ‘majority’. In Dave’s view they should probably be punished and taught a lesson, how about nuking a few cities Dave?
Typical leftist, if they have the ‘law’ on their side there’s not an inch of flexibility to engage in debate, all opponents must be crushed, they go over dead bodies. If the law is not on their side there must be room for debate, time for other views and cultures etc.
No room for common sense or pragmatic consideration of effects and outcomes, no sir, dogma is all they want to recognize. Idiots.
Dim & Crazy,
The frothing and posturing of hysterics from you, your words – mighty ugly they are. Do calm down.
Adam is of course right, the left tend to turn all issues into moral ones, in order to make emotion and vilification the crux of the (non) argument. Continuously pointing out the failure of this approach to discuss the real issues rather than emotive responses, remains the only way to disarm the Alinskyite nonsense that they peddle.
Dim & Crazy,
Your language betrays your emotion. Perhaps you could unemotionally explain why you condone whaling. Please, do not confuse the request, it is simply a matter of whether or not you agree to risk or not risk the imminent demise of whales and the probably profound & far reaching knock-on effects the would result. Culture, tradition and other such unqualified ‘excuses’ are of course ‘emotional’ ones, so your response should be nothing more, unemotionally, why you condone whale slaughter. Thank you.