Your Opinion on the Sea Shepherds

[Sight Unseen]

I was just reading the thread about Trudy joining them...

So, what is you opinion on the Sea Shepherds?

I really like what they're doing. Someone has to go down there and do something to stop whaling, and the Sea Shepherds are doing their best, with passion and determination. One of the things on my "to do before I die" list is to crew for a season. Direct action to stop the illegal killing of endangered (and in my opinion) sentient animals, I think, is a very worthy cause to fight for.

I'm not saying they're perfect. Far from it. Paul Watson has made a few decisions I don't agree with, and their ships are too outdated to really be effective. After the Shonan Maru #2 sunk the Ady Gil, the Shepherds really lost their only big advantage. But they have something the Japanese fleet doesn't: something to fight for, not just to get paid for.

[Empty Glass]

I will admit I'm not an expert on them and have not seen the associated TV show (I'd like to, though).

But based on what I know, I do admire them for taking a strong initiative on this issue and for not taking a more passive approach to protecting whales. Passivity could be counterproductive in the long run. I think a lot of environmental issues could stand to have more people tackling them head-on like this.

[Human No More]

They're terrorists. I mostly oppose whale hunting but those idiots just endanger lives and turn other people against opposing whale hunting with their methods, and I do think that banning all whale hunting is a form of cultural imperialism. I know they are endangered and I think they should be protected, but does saying 'no, you can't do it at all' make other people any better?
If they actually took the time and effort to get an actual message across, they would accomplish a lot more.

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Human No More

They're terrorists. I mostly oppose whale hunting but those idiots just endanger lives and turn other people against opposing whale hunting with their methods, and I do think that banning all whale hunting is a form of cultural imperialism. I know they are endangered and I think they should be protected, but does saying 'no, you can't do it at all' make other people any better?
If they actually took the time and effort to get an actual message across, they would accomplish a lot more.

Agreeing with HNM for once.

[Sight Unseen]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

Agreeing with HNM for once.

Interesting, Aihwa agreeing with HNM, and me not agreeing.

It's a sign of the apocalypse!

[Isard]

Originally Posted by Sight Unseen

Interesting, Aihwa agreeing with HNM, and me not agreeing.

It's a sign of the apocalypse!

How do you feel that terrorism has helped stop whaling? All its done is escalate the whalers protection.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

How do you feel that terrorism has helped stop whaling? All its done is escalate the whalers protection.

Interesting that it is the members of Sea Shepard who are called the terrorists. It ought to be the whalers who are called terroists, killing and destroying rare and threatened animals.
It seems that something is wrong with our terminology.

[Sight Unseen]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

How do you feel that terrorism has helped stop whaling? All its done is escalate the whalers protection.

First off, the whalers are hunting endangered whales in a whale sanctuary. So I don't believe that Sea Shepherds are the terrorists. Quite the opposite, in fact. The Sea Shepherds are taking matters into their own hands to stop something that is not only illegal, but wrong.

Yes, the whalers have acquired more protection, both physical and in the court, but Sea Shepherd's actions have made the issue get into the news more than anything else recently. They also sometimes cause the whalers to fall massively short of their quotas, therefore, they help stop the killing of whales.

[Isard]

Actually, its along a disputed boarder of a sanctuary. They engage in downright illegal actions against other vessels. (Back in the day, those would be considered acts of war)

And yes, they're very good at getting attention. Its a massive publicity stunt, one that's going to cost somebody their life soon enough.

[Isard]

Yes, like Al-quida, and the Weather underground (is that the right weather?) And Haamas, the IRA, and ALF. Hell, start your own terror group, you could call it the Na'vi Front. Go fight oppression.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

Yes, like Al-quida, and the Weather underground (is that the right weather?) And Haamas, the IRA, and ALF. Hell, start your own terror group, you could call it the Na'vi Front. Go fight oppression.

Well, historically we would still have slavery, nearly the whole of Africa and parts of Asia would perhaps have been European colonies without some extraparliamentiary methods. Also women would perhaps not have the right to vote and apartheid would have reigned in South Africa. Even more trees would have been felled in different parts of the world and the Amazon of Peru and Ecuador would even more than today have been turned into an oil infested, dead swamp.

And one can not talk about Hamas or Al-Quaida without talking about the history of Israel or the provocative US foreign policy that created Al quida and came to its logical consequense in 9/11. Also it is hard to talk about IRA without discussing the interactions between Ireland and England through the centuries.

But here we do not talk about IRA or Al quaida, we talk about an organisation that try to stop whalers from commiting theft on an international resource and destroy threatened animals.
This must also be seen in the light of Japans plundering of other marine resources as for example Tuna that they overfish and also buy from others in large quantities.

[Isard]

Utilizing methods that other illegal organizations employ. Terrorism is terrorism, and should not be tolerated in today's society. Saying "But they did it first!" (please add a whiny inflection to that statement) Is a piss poor excuse. We have rules, if you don't follow them, the privileges of society such as freedom will be restricted as well.

They're breaking the rules, they should forfeit the privileges.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Aihwa

Utilizing methods that other illegal organizations employ. Terrorism is terrorism, and should not be tolerated in today's society. Saying "But they did it first!" (please add a whiny inflection to that statement) Is a piss poor excuse. We have rules, if you don't follow them, the privileges of society such as freedom will be restricted as well. .

Well, sometimes we have to take action, because otherwise it can be to late before more or less corrupt politicians have reacted and dared to cross the will of capitalist enterprises or lobby groups that hold back all sort of progressive development. Extra parliamentary action is not terrorsm, instead it can be a way to protect life.

And by the way, who sets the rules? Often it is corporations, lobbyists and similar with the consent of weak politicians. One can just see how matters of marine fishing have been handled lately. No politician dare to cross the fishing industry, eventhough researchers have sound the alarm for years now. Still not much happens, instead marine resources are being depleted and the only ones to try to do anything about it is environmentalists like Sea Shephard, Greenpeace and some others.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by redpaintednavi

Well, sometimes we have to take action, because otherwise it can be to late before more or less corrupt politicians have reacted and dared to cross the will of capitalist enterprises or lobby groups that hold back all sort of progressive development. Extra parliamentary action is not terrorsm, instead it can be a way to protect life.

Yes... I've campaigned against things I oppose. I have not gone harming random people to gain publicity. That's the difference between 'extra-parliamentary action' and terrorism.

And by the way, who sets the rules? Often it is corporations, lobbyists and similar with the consent of weak politicians. One can just see how matters of marine fishing have been handled lately. No politician dare to cross the fishing industry, eventhough researchers have sound the alarm for years now. Still not much happens, instead marine resources are being depleted and the only ones to try to do anything about it is environmentalists like Sea Shephard, Greenpeace and some others.

If you ask many people, they will have a negative opinion of these groups for their ACTIONS... they are right in terms of idea, but they are doing it completely wrongly, they will never change anything.

Really, both sides are wrong. I oppose the overhunting just as I oppose other abuses, but I also think that the people who are concerned about it have much more of an impact (and be better respected) if they worked for legitimate change.

[redpaintednavi]

Originally Posted by Human No More

Yes... I've campaigned against things I oppose. I have not gone harming random people to gain publicity. That's the difference between 'extra-parliamentary action' and terrorism.


If you ask many people, they will have a negative opinion of these groups for their ACTIONS... they are right in terms of idea, but they are doing it completely wrongly, they will never change anything.

Unfortunately sometimes certain kinds of extra parliamentary methods are the only things that works if one want to see some change, before it is to late and we live in a world without wales, Tunas, Sharks and others. And mostly it is actually the fishermen that attacks Sea Shephards or Greenpeaces boats when they try to block the paths of these fishing vessels. And we shall not even mention how the french blew up a Greanpeace ship in a harbour in New Zealand.