Greens flag legislation to ban whaling in Australia's Antarctic waters


THE Australian Greens have flagged legislation that aims to prohibit whaling in Australia's Antarctic waters.

The Greens also require the government to seek an injunction in the International Court of Justice against this year's whaling hunt.

The move came after two Sea Shepherd vessels were involved in a confrontation with the Japanese whaling fleet at the weekend, with protesters being hosed with high-pressure water cannon as they harassed the whalers.

Greens leader Bob Brown reiterated his party's call for naval or aerial surveillance of the whaling slaughter, with filmed evidence released to the world's media to shame the Japanese fleet.

"Surveillance by Australia could also prevent human lives being lost during the whale-killing season," he said.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/greens-flag-legislation-to-ban-whaling-in-austr...


Good to see at least one political party is out to defend against the slaughter of whales.

AUSTRALIA was secretly prepared to cut a deal with Japan to accept a continued whale hunt despite publicly moving to haul Tokyo before an international court over its ''scientific'' whaling program.

US diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks reveal Australia was willing to compromise with Japan as late as February last year - but that any deal must result in a much lower level of whaling and exclude the hunt from waters near Antarctica.

A compromise under which Japan would kill 5000 fewer whales over 10 years - provided larger varieties such as humpback and fin whales were not taken and loopholes to allow so-called ''scientific whaling'' were closed - was discussed.
Advertisement: Story continues below

The disclosures come as pressure mounts on the Gillard government to send its new Southern Ocean patrol ship to watch over the latest confrontation between anti-whaling group Sea Shepherd and the Japanese fleet off the Antarctic coast. Yesterday the fleet and its opponents were navigating along the Antarctic pack ice edge near the Ross Sea, having steamed about 600 nautical miles since Sea Shepherd pounced on the whalers on New Year's Eve, potentially before any whales were killed.

The leaked US diplomatic cables also show that then environment minister Peter Garrett warned the US ambassador in Canberra on February 5 last year that Labor felt boxed in by moves by the Greens in Parliament to examine Japanese ''spy flights'' over anti-whaling ships. Mr Garrett said the flights had strengthened the anti-whaling mood in Australia and made it difficult for the govern- ment to compromise with Japan.

A fortnight later and just ahead of a visit by the Japanese foreign minister to Australia, then prime minister Kevin Rudd went on television to say the hunt must be abandoned. ''What we're putting to the Japanese is to take where they are now, which is the slaughter of some hundreds of whales each year, and reduce that to zero,'' Mr Rudd said on February 19.

He added that Australia would take Japan to the International Court of Justice over the hunt - which the government has done.

WikiLeaks yesterday released a selection of the cables on its website and others were provided exclusively to The Age.

They show the US involvement in the increasingly bitter dispute between Japan and anti-whaling nations, including European countries and Australia. A 2009 cable details how US diplomats urged Japan to take ''symbolic action'' to cut the number of whales killed while promising to ''work hard to make sure the EU and Australia do not block a compromise''.

The US suggested that Japan stop hunting fin whales, but Japan told the US that Australia's proposal to phase out research whaling was ''a non-starter''.

At home, Australian diplomats were also urging their political masters to strike a deal to move past the gridlock at the International Whaling Commission, the key global forum for whaling negotiations.

Paula Watt, of the marine environment section of the Foreign Affairs Department, told the US in January last year that Japan was using tough tactics in the negotiations, but that for any deal to be acceptable to Australia it must include a minimum number of whales saved, suggesting 5000 over 10 years.

But a month later she complained to US diplomats that efforts to strike a deal had ''bounced off'' Mr Garrett and his staff - at the same time as Mr Garrett's chief of staff, David Williams, was telling the US that Australia could accept a compromise.

According to a cable from December 2009, Mr Garrett told the US ''he was personally more committed to ending whaling that the Foreign Affairs experts negotiating with Japan''.

He said he did not support negotiating a deal with Japan to allow coastal whaling, especially if it did not stop whaling in the Southern Ocean.

And in October that year Mr Garrett challenged the Americans over what he saw as unilateral moves in whaling negotiations and attempts to influence internal deliberations in Australia following a letter from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to then foreign minister Stephen Smith.

Mr Smith's deputy chief of staff, Andrew Dempster, told the US the week before that Australia could accept Japan continuing the hunt if it cut the whales killed in the Southern Ocean.

Australia's dispute with Japan has grown over the past year, but in its joint announcement with New Zealand last month over pursing Japan in the international court, the prospect of further negotiations appeared to remain. New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully said there would be a ''focus on new diplomatic and communications strategies to try to persuade Japan to end whaling in the Southern Ocean''.

Meanwhile, the 4500-tonne Ocean Protector was tied up in Fremantle yesterday and is not due to leave port for a fortnight.

from The Age Newspaper

aussiefree2ride wrote on Jan 4^th, 2011 at 7:47am:



I now have a suspicion you are void of any potential of entering into any rational discussion.

Perhaps, and I hope you do, perhaps in time you will prove me wrong on this.

For now I will not hold my baited breath.

Sounds good in theory, but I dont see this happening unfortunatley.

The ALP will do nothing, and nothing will change sadly.

Criss crossing bows and deliberately trying to entangle another vessel's rudder is both dangerous and irresponsible woody.

No matter what the Japanese are doing.

I am simply pointing out that even Greenpeace (hardly pro-whalers) have criticised Sea Shepherd's methods.

Rubbish, the video shows it all ... the illegal butchers purposely rammed a stationary boat.

That is why the Japanese sent out a spy plane to find sea shepherd and then hunt them down and ram them.

Why else would you use a spy plane from an Australian Port?

Why are whales more important than tuna? or lambs?

Is management not an option?

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Jan 4^th, 2011 at 10:55pm:


What about the big lump of cow i just had for dinner? Why are whales any different?

I like cows, i have met a few and they were cool. I like how they give you that big dumb stare, i also like how they taste.
If the Japanese want to eat whale blubber, why can't that be managed? Peacefully and frankly influenced over time till the practice ceases.  

Whats amazing is that its the greeny whale hugging humanists up in arms about this yet they fail to be touched by the HUMANS at the other end.

Arrogant, militant totalitarianism should not be tolerated.

Why we should allow whaling:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/sustainability-party/why-allow-whaling.html

freediver wrote on Jan 5^th, 2011 at 9:49am:


Darn tootin, exactly what i was thinking and more.

Australia backed whalers in sinking


AUSTRALIAN diplomats were quick to absolve Japanese whalers of blame for the collision that sank the anti-whaling vessel Ady Gil a year ago, telling the US embassy in Canberra the Japanese would ''come away clean'' from any investigation.

Leaked US embassy cables reveal the Foreign Affairs Department did not hesitate to blame anti-whaling protesters for the collision on January 6 last year between the Ady Gil and the Japanese whaler Shonan Maru No 2 .

An initial report by the US embassy on the day of the collision noted that while there were no reported casualties, the incident was ''a major escalation of the confrontation over whaling in the Southern Ocean'' that would ''increase public and opposition pressure on the [Australian] government to more actively confront Japan''.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Against the backdrop of the Rudd government's efforts to reach a settlement with Japan that would allow a limited continuation of whaling, the embassy said that ''if Japan is at fault, [the incident] will further chill Australia's diplomatic engagement on whaling''. The embassy cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and provided exclusively to The Age, also show that New Zealand was at odds with Australia in its initial assessment of the collision.

New Zealand Foreign Ministry officials told the US embassy in Wellington that it was not clear which vessel was to blame for the incident that resulted in the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society's Ady Gil being scuttled.

The officials said the New Zealand government was ''not making any judgment as to who was at fault for the collision, regardless of the public accusations and finger-pointing in the press that both sides in the incident are currently engaged in''.

As the Ady Gil was a New Zealand-flagged vessel, the NZ government conducted a preliminary investigation but the initial assessment was that ''it is not clear which party is at fault''.

However, in Canberra, on the day after the collision, the Foreign Affairs Department did not hesitate to attribute blame.

Following discussions with Australian diplomats, the US embassy in Canberra reported to Washington: ''The initial video evidence of the collision between a Japanese whaling ship and the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society vessel Ady Gil strongly suggests that the Ady Gil stopped or slowed significantly in the path of the Japanese whaling vessel Shonan Maru at close range and that the Japanese vessel's actions could be consistent with trying to avoid a collision.''

Paula Watt, director of Foreign Affairs' marine environment section, told the US embassy that while a final determination of fault would be made by maritime safety authorities, she was confident the Japanese would ''come away clean''.

The US embassy suggested that the Australian public would find such a result ''hard to swallow''.

"Already frustrated with the inability of the Rudd government to stop or reduce whaling in the Southern Ocean, public outcry over the incident has been heavily one-sided and stoked by the opposition,'' it said.

The embassy did not doubt that Australian authorities would conduct a careful inquiry into the collision and any potential violations of international or Australian law.

''Given the pressure they are already under on this issue in an election year, any determination of the facts by Australian authorities will be scrutinised by all sides,'' the embassy's cable said.

''The truth about the collision is unlikely to emerge quickly, and the inquiry could be hard pressed to avoid influence by foreign policy or domestic political calculus.''

A subsequent investigation into the collision by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority was inconclusive and unable to assign blame.

AMSA could not verify claims made by Sea Shepherd that the Shonan Maru had steered deliberately into the Ady Gil, while the Japanese government declined to participate in the investigation, saying any information it had might be needed for an inquiry by its own authorities.

New Zealand maritime authorities eventually found both vessels were at fault.

Maritime New Zealand found that the Shonan Maru should have kept clear of the Ady Gil under international collision regulations, and had ample opportunity to avoid hitting it.

It also found that the Ady Gil had failed to take evasive action, and its helmsman had not seen the Japanese ship bearing down until a few moments before the impact.


http://www.theage.com.au/national/australia-backed-whalers-in-sinking-20110107-1...

____ wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 10:19am:


Who would believe the helmsman had not seen the Japanese ship bearing down until a few moments before the impact.....Do Maritime New Zealand expect people to believe this crap???

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 11:31am:



The Adi Gill could have done bog laps around the Japanese ship, as it was a high powered speed boat.....to claim the Adi Gil was just sitting in the ocean oblivious to the approaching Japanese ship is ludicrous......Do you honestly believe they could not see the Japanese ship until the last minute and were taken by surprise.....rubbish???

Fish are food......I can see no reason why the Japanese should not eat whales that are not endangered......I eat steak and would be a hypocrite to deny the Japanese the right to eat Whale.....all meat comes from dead animals......ok!!!

My favorite animal is steak.
Fran Lebowitz (1950 - )

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 11:50am:



Fact is that if you watch the extended film from the Ady Gill you see it sitting in position under no power with the Maru not even in sight.

The Maru approaches clearly on a path which will miss by 50 to 100 mtrs with still nobody at the helm or concerned.

In the last 100 mtrs or so the Maru drastically changes direction at high speed turning straight towards the Ady Gill which is stationary with no power up and no driver in position.

By the time someone got into position it was too late.

Yes they could have done laps around the Maru had they been under power with a helmsman in position.

The way I would see it the fault lays with the party who deliberatly put his ship on a collision course and not the party who could not get out of the way.

(Newser) – Verbal harpoons are flying in a public feud between the leader of the Sea Shepherd conservation group and the former skipper of the group's high-tech "Batmobile" boat the Ady Gil, which sank after a collision with a Japanese ship earlier this year. Skipper Peter Bethune says the boat was salvageable after the collision but he was ordered to scuttle it by Sea Shepherd head Paul Watson, AP reports.


Watson wanted the boat sunk to "garner sympathy with the public and to create better TV," Bethune said. "Paul Watson was my admiral. He gave me an order and I carried it out. I was ashamed of it at the time and I'm ashamed of it now." Watson gives a very different version of events, saying the sinking was Bethune's decision. The skipper spent 5 months in a Japanese jail this year for boarding a whaling ship, and Watson says he was expelled from the group for giving Japanese authorities false information in exchange for leniency.


http://www.newser.com/story/102451/skipper-whaling-protesters-deliberately-sank-own-boat.html

The Sea Shepherd head Paul Watson ordered Bethune to scuttle the Adi Gil despite the fact it could be salvaged.....this is a dispute of the facts between two of the conservationists not the Japanese......either way the Sea Shepherd organization has lost all credibility.....lying bastards!!!

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 12:22pm:



Illegal, as in slaughtering whales when it is against the law.

So you now oppose violence Hicks.

Gee, are those real crocodile tears?


Next, you will be anti the Afghanistan War

____ wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 12:39pm:



Answer this woody - do you agree or disagree with Greenpeace's public statement?

Greenpeace Eats Whales to "Save" Them

http://www.seashepherd.org/news-and-media/news-070216-1.html


In promoting their theme that Japanese whale eating culture must be respected, a video distributed by Greenpeace depicts a Greenpeacer visiting a Japanese grandmother in her home. He sits down and eats whale with her, and politely tells her that is was delicious.


A little like murdering someone so they don't die in a car accident.

Disabling a ship at sea in the Antarctic, regardless of how much one may object to its activities, is not only a callous act of disregard for human life -- it's courting an environmental disaster in one of the most fragile environments in the world.

Such tactics are not only dangerous to the whalers, they are dangerous to the cause of stopping Japanese whaling.

+++++++++++++++++

That is possibly the best way to put my position as well.

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 1:07pm:






"Illegal" Japanese Whalers

JAPAN and the US held talks about attacking the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society as Tokyo warned it would not compromise in international negotiations on cutting whale hunting while its fishermen were being harassed.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/japan-us-plot-to-sink-activists/story-fn6bfkm6-...


There is no other logical reason for Japan and Australia to work together with Japan's spy plane other than to find the location of the Sea Shepherd Boat, other than to attack it.


If there is another logical reason, can any of you supply it.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Jan 8^th, 2011 at 2:37pm:





http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1294140381

Quote:


What about all the fish they eat? Does that make the ocean more productive?

Quote:


Hmm. So they filter the iron out of the ecosystem and send it to the bottom of the ocean? Great.

jame-e wrote on Jan 4^th, 2011 at 11:36pm:


Good point, would we change anything if the Hindu's took issue with us eating their sacred animal, the cow?
Would we change anything if the Japanese took issue with our slaughter of the Kangaroo, an animal which is represented on our Nations Coat of Arms?
What nation eats the animal on their Coat of Arms.
I've never heard of the Yanks having Bald Eagle Pie, or the Poms having Lion Stew.
What if the Japanese took issue with 'Pigging', a ritual where drunken young Aussie males go bush with their mates and their savage dogs to see these wild pigs being ripped apart, or the dogs mangled by the boars tusks fighting for it's life.
These Greenies are a bit too selective and hypocritical for my liking.
And if it's 'our' Antartic Waters, how come it's still not been recognised by a few countries including Japan.

And a sensible, rational view -



GREENPEACE STATEMENT, DEC 17 2008

Paul Watson has made many public requests for Greenpeace to reveal the location of the whaling fleet or otherwise cooperate with Sea Shepherd in the Southern Ocean when the ships of both organizations have been there simultaneously.

We passionately want to stop whaling, and will do so peacefully. That's why we won't help Sea Shepherd. Greenpeace is committed to non-violence and we'll never, ever, change that; not for anything.

If we helped Sea Shepherd to find the whaling fleet we'd be responsible for anything they did having got that information, and history shows that they've used violence in the past, in the most dangerous seas on Earth. For us, non-violence is a non-negotiable, precious principle. Greenpeace will continue to act to defend the whales, but will never attack or endanger the whalers.

We differ with Paul Watson on what constitutes violence. He states that nobody has ever been harmed by a Sea Shepherd action.  But the test of non-violence is the nature of your action, not whether harm results or not.  There are many acts of violence -- for example, holding a gun to someone's head -- which result in no harm.  That doesn't change their nature. We believe that throwing butryic acid at the whalers, dropping cables to foul their props, and threatening to ram them in the freezing waters of the Antarctic constitutes violence because of the potential consequences. The fact that the consequences have not been realized is irrelevant.

In addition to being morally wrong, we believe the use of violence in protection of whales to be a tactical error. If there's one way to harden Japanese public opinion and ensure whaling continues, it's to use violent tactics against their fleet. It's wrong because it puts human lives at risk, and it's wrong because it makes the whalers stronger in Japan.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 11^th, 2011 at 10:57am:


"Iceland will not be taking lectures on our historical and cultural fishing from a country that shoots kangaroos from helicopters"

Einar K Gudfinnsson
Minister of Fisheries

main courses?

Ah, 'meat' pies.

If they are Australian waters, why are we powerless to stop people from killing them?

I wouldnt let the local Chinese cook come into my back yard to get my cat for this weeks dim sim mix.

Australia has as much claim to those waters as Chile basically.

International waters is dictated not by Australia's domestic law or what they claim....

Argentina claims the Falklands, Spain claims Gibraltar.
Doesn't make it their just cos they say does it.

In reality, Japan does not recognize this sanctuary and you can't just pick an area and decide what it is, when you dont own it!!

Quote:


In other words - not our territory.

freediver wrote on Jan 11^th, 2011 at 1:10pm:


THe Antarctic treaty has no impact on other claims and does not cover the EEZ at all.

For the area not covered by the Antarctic treaty the claim is probably valid and has been in place since around 1930 when we commenced continuous habitation of the area.

The treaty allows all nations to engage in research in Antarctica, protects wild life (on the land mass and ice shelf) and the environment. It neither supports or nullifies any claims.

I think your comparison is a poor one: With about 80 continuous years of habitation I would think more in common with the ratified claim over the Coral Sea Islands.  

I.E

In the case of the Coral Sea Islands because the Australian Bureau of Meterology has operated a manned weather station on Willis Island since 1921.

In the Antartic case we have inhabited a manned station since about 1930.