by Michael dEstries
Categories: Animals, Causes
Tags: .
Photo: Sea Shepherd

ss

It’s safe to say that Ady Gil, the entertainment industry exec that helped the Sea Shepherd purchase the Earthrace, has become much more well-known since his involvement with the organization. In light of the sinking of the ship named in his honor during this year’s campaign, he’s been sought after by media for comments and opinions on what’s currently happening down in the Southern Ocean. In a recent interview with the Australian Courier Mail, he broaches a topic generally sidestepped by the very organization he’s supporting: the use of guns in defending whales.

“In Africa, it’s OK to shoot poachers in Kenya,” he says. “They tell them not to kill the elephants and they still kill the elephants. They say if you continue to kill the elephants, we’re going to shoot you – and they do. Is the next step for someone to go down there and shoot the Japanese? Is that where it needs to get to in order to stop it?”

“If I pulled a knife here and demanded money,” he says, nodding at the crowd of James St. Latte lappers, “there would be police here with guns. Guns are how you enforce the law – with power.”

Gil’s comments come amidst frustration over the Australian government’s reluctance to become involved in the issue.

“If you feel responsible for these whale sanctuaries as a country, then be responsible. Send your navy and go there and enforce the law. Don’t talk and say you’re going to go and do it after the election.”

“It’s either your policy or it’s not. Why wait until November? Is March not a good month?” he asks.

Check out the full interview here.

[UPDATE: The Sea Shepherd have responded to Ady Gil's comments. “The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has never used firearms and has no intention of using firearms against illegal whalers,” said Captain Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd president and founder. “We are proud of our record of never causing an injury to any person in our entire history. We may be aggressive, obstructive, and we may damage harpoons, nets, and longlines used by poachers, but we have never, and will never, injure a human being.” Full release here.]

About Michael dEstries

Michael has been blogging since 2005 on issues such as sustainability, renewable energy, philanthropy, and healthy living. He regularly contributes to a slew of publications, as well as consulting with companies looking to make an impact using the web and social media. He lives in Ithaca, NY with his family on an apple farm.

View all posts by Michael dEstries →
  • ddpalmer

    “Guns are how you enforce the law – with power.”

    So Mr. Gil is saying that the Japanese should start shooting the SSCS when the break the law? I thought he was on their side.

    • don miguelo

      Yes exactly. Color me surprised that you agree with, of all people, Ady Gil! You didn’t know he is a double agent?

    • ddpalmer

      How can I go against someone who started with $200 and now spends tens of thousands of dollars on young pretty prostitutes?

      • sidewinder

        Another desperate pathetic attempt by dd to discredit someone by getting personal. When all else fails and you have nothing, go down the personal route… (common trait of an empty desperado)

    • Dgredy

      i dont think any you know what the hell you’re saying!

    • ddpalmer

      Oh I thought everybody had heard about Ady Gil and his prostitutes.

      ‘Ady Gil, a 50-year-old entrepreneur, claims he’s worth between $10 million and $50 million. He owns two large production companies in Los Angeles. He believes the arrangement site is a great way to meet women.

      “You can make a deal with the girl. You don’t have to worry about whether it’s going to be ‘yes’ or ‘no,’” he said. “You don’t have to take them to dinner and hope that maybe something will happen. The cards are on the table.” ‘

      http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=8364856

      That is what I was talking about. You can even whatch him say it right on video.

      So maybe I do know what the hell I am saying!

      • whiplash

        DD: What the heck are you on about? Talk about muddying up the waters and blending issues up.

        Is this some sort of ego trip for you? Im sure you get a kick out of it all you poyne dexter.

      • Dave Head

        and with $50 mil what would you ddpalmer?

      • ddpalmer

        I don’t know everything I would do DHead but I wouldn’t spend a bunch of it on prostitutes.

    • come si come sa

      I do not blame this man for those comments. Perhaps Japan will sit up and take notice and realise that they can’t do what they please (whales, dolphins, tuna etc)

      re: Peter Bethune

      If Japan prosecutes Pete Bethune, he will become the political prisoner of a tyrannical government that has even violated the basic human rights of its own citizens (remember the Tokyo Two?) in order to support the whaling industry. Not to mention the fact that the captain of the ship that Pete boarded, Shonan Maru 2, is the same man who rammed and destroyed his vessel, Ady Gil, nearly killing Bethune and 5 members of his crew. If anything, the captain and crew of the Shonan Maru 2 should be apprehended and charged by New Zealand authorities for attempted murder.

      As for the flawed concept that Japan is doing “legal” research in the Southern Ocean:

      The first time Japan used Article VIII to justify whaling was in 1976. The IWC had just set the catch quota for Bryde’s whales to zero for purposes of conservation. Japan responded by issuing itself a science permit and proceeded to kill over 200 Bryde’s whales that season. Afterwards the IWC passed resolutions requiring any future use of Article VIII to be first evaluated by the IWC scientific committee.

      In the mid 70s and 80s Japan and other embattled whaling nations (including the Soviet Union) fought the establishment of a global moratorium (despite the fact that the UN had passed a resolution in 1972 declaring a 10 year moratorium should be enacted). After a series of votes a moratorium was passed in 1982 and went into effect in the 85/86 season but Japan objected to it officially and continued to take whales under objection. This is normal under the rules of the ICRW (International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling).

      The United States threatened Japan with economic sanctions including loss of access to Alaskan fisheries worth over $400 million USD. In negotiations, Japan agreed that it would stop commercial whaling by 1988 for access to these fisheries. However, Japan was busy preparing and presenting plans for “scientific research” to the IWC scientific committee.

      The committee rejected the research proposals (submitted before 1988). And despite this, in the 87/88 season Japan started its research whaling program JARPA. Due to pressure from US fishermen and environmental groups Japan lost access to US Alaskan resources anyway in 1988. US President Ronald Reagan declared Japan was in violation of IWC regulations and officially sanctioned Japan under the Packwood-Magnuson Amendment in 1988 as well.

      Since then, the IWC has almost annually issued resolutions, passed by majority, against Japan’s lethal research methods. Unfortunately, due to the lack of political will to take on Japan over whales and the lack of any punitive mechanism in the ICRW there has been nothing more than talk out of world governments.

      Historically, Japan has violated whaling regulations such as size limits, species limits, gender limits, seasonal limits, sanctuary boundaries, and even supported “pirate whaling” (killing whales in secret around the world through front companies with foreign labor to smuggle meat back to Japan without reporting to the IWC).

      Does any of this look like important legal science? Does it really look like Japan is honoring international conventions in good faith? The Australian Federal Court didn’t think so and it recently ruled that Japanese whaling in the Australian Antarctic Territory EEZ is illegal. Pete Bethune should be free and exonerated of any charges. The Japanese whaling industry should be shut down and the Shonan Maru 2 captain, the real pirate, should be arrested and put on trial.

      • sidewinder

        Another good post that ddpalmer ‘overlooked’.

      • ddpalmer

        What is there to overlook?

        The history looks good followed by opinion. So what did you expect me do?

      • Dave Head

        ddpalmer has no answer to that post -mainly because he won’t win in that particular arguement.

      • ddpalmer

        What answers does that post need DHead?

        It is history and opinion. If he posted some current facts I would consider answering.

  • emancipator

    All whale sanctuarys on the earth should be cosidered as countrys and killing one of the whales should be considered murder and the killer should o to jail for a long period of time.

    • ddpalmer

      Well how you think things should be doesn’t matter. How things actually are is what counts.

      But if Australia gets it’s way the whole problem will be solved and Japan will be happily commercially whaling with Australia’s blessing.

      • Gavin MacQueen

        ddpalmer stated: “Well how you think things should be doesn’t matter. How things actually are is what counts.”

        Hmmm, sounds like something Hitler would say…

    • ddpalmer

      Hmmm.

      Sounds like something every judge, law enforcement officer and government official in the world would say.

      Gavin you might want to look at this link.

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

      • Gavin MacQueen

        I’m pretty sure I disqualify for the implication of “Reductio ad Hitlerum, since I did start my sentence with “Sounds like…”

        I’m sure most people will grasp my point.

        Nice try though.

      • Gavin MacQueen

        Also, I might suggest that you lose the bureaucratic over tones. Very unappealing.

  • ddpalmer

    So it is back to the semantics game. Unless of course you really believe anarchy would be better than having laws.

    And no starting you statement with ‘Sounds like..’ doesn’t disqualify you. You implied that the statement was Hitler-like that is what you meant and that is what most people will grasp, exaclt as you intended. It is a classic ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum’.

    Nice try though.

    • Gavin MacQueen

      lol, so that means that if I said you sound like a duck, then that means that I’m implying that you are actually a duck? Your reasoning is hilarious…if you can call that reasoning.

      But, for the sake of argument, I’ll rephrase my comment.

      Hmmm, sounds like something Glenn Inwood would say…

      I looked up Reductio ad Gleninwoodum, and couldn’t find it, so I think I’m cool :)

    • ddpalmer

      Gavin are you one of those people that Ady Gil was talking about?

      • Gavin MacQueen

        Glad you brough that up.

        Ady was grossly taken out of context. Ady merely trys to throw a little perspective light on an issue, and walla, you have a bunch of pseudo intellects all over it, taking his statement completely out of context.

        Did it ever occur to you knuckleheads that he wasn’t suggesting using guns, but was merely expressing the degree of action it would probably take to stop the tenacious japanese poachers?

    • agent orange

      dpalmer, what is your purpose of posting rubbish around the clock?

  • emancipator

    ddpalmer what if you were a whale would you be working for the IWC.

    • Gavin MacQueen

      Nice!

      If ddpalmer was a whale, ddpalmer, ironically, would be a big fan of Paul Watson. Relativity can sometimes be a bitch…

    • ddpalmer

      Is that supposed to make some kind of sense?

      If I was a whale I expect i would be swimming around doing whale things and since as far as I know the IWC doesn’t have whales working for them I guess if I was a whale I wouldn’t be working for them. I also doubt that a single whale is a fan of Paul Watson or even knows he exists.

      Basic relativity is actually pretty easy. But when you get deeper into it does get really difficult.

      • georgina0912

        ddpalmer, you make less and less sense as time goes on. Me thinks you are running low on arguments, and also that it is time for you to go change yoru name again (hey, what happened to the Toyotomi character?) and load up on new material provided by the IWC to come here and leave your comments.

        Now, about your comment, Gavin asked, what if you were a whale? Simple question that deserves a simple answer. If you were a whale you would be yes, swimming around doing whale things and probably would want to hang with your pod, find a nice lady whale and have baby whales to make sure your beautiful and intellingent species continues to live. If you encounter a human (Paul Watson or not) you would probably be very curious and come up and say “hey” because whales are curious, but never expect to be harpooned in the head or thrash about for an hour until you finally die, right? Nobody wants that. However, you said “as far as I know the IWC doesn’t have whales working for them I guess if I was a whale I wouldn’t be working for them. I also doubt that a single whale is a fan of Paul Watson or even knows he exists,” so my question is, who asked what that you would give such an answer? Sounds that Gavin instead asked you “if you were a whale and you were working for the IWC….?”

        I am telling you, you crack me up.

      • Gavin MacQueen

        What’s even funnier, is that I made that comment in jest, merely to make a point, and what does ddpalmer do, he takes me literally. Just like he and his cronies did with Ady Gil.

        I wonder if anyone has ever responded to ddpalmer with, “What, you think I’m made of money?”

        I would expect ddpalmer’s response to go something like this;

        “Why would you think that I think your made of money. It’s a known fact that we are made up of about 70 percent water, with the rest of our body consisting of Oxygen, Rubidium & Vanadium.”

        Sounds like a SNL sketch, doesn’t it?

      • emancipator

        So you admit you secretly work for the IWC.

      • ddpalmer

        Why would I keep it secret if I worked for the IWC?

        And where do you see me admitting I work for them?

    • Gavin MacQueen

      And just for the record, it was “emancipator” who posed the question about ddpalmer being a whale.

      I just made a sarcastic remark towards it…lol

    • ddpalmer

      georgina0912

      Did you read the question I was asked? Obviously not because it wasn’t from Gavin. I will post it here so you can read it this time.

      “emancipator, February 23, 2010 at 2:13 pm
      ddpalmer what if you were a whale would you be working for the IWC.”

      Oh look I was specifically asked if I was a whale would I be working for the IWC. Pretty stupid question but I answered it.

      And here is Gavins comment “If ddpalmer was a whale, ddpalmer, ironically, would be a big fan of Paul Watson.” So although it wasn’t a question Gavin did give his opinion that if I was I whale I would be Paul’s fan and I responded to his comment. Just like you responded to mine, except I read the comments involved before answering.

      And from you post and emancipator it seems many of you can’t keep you thoughts straight. I think both of you meant ICR, the whale hunters, rather than IWC, the whaling commission.

      Of course it is all moot since Australia and New Zealand alongwith the IWC seem ready to give Japan permission to hunt commercially again. You see they really didn’t have a problem with whaling they just didn’t want the whaling to be near them. If the whaling is somewhere else they will be happy.

      http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-23/whaling-negotiators-propose-end-to-ban-on-commercial-hunts.html

      • Gavin MacQueen

        Easy Frances(ddpalmer)…you’re taking this entirely too serious. Now sit down, put on your favorite comfy whale slippers(make in japan…of course) and take a chill pill.

      • ddpalmer

        Oh I thought whaling was serious.

      • Gavin MacQueen

        No, whaling is cruel and unnecessary.

      • Dave Head

        I guess through all the years [from 1987] all the anti-whaling governments have tried to use reason with Japan. That is clearly something that does not work. I doubt the new proposal will get far becasue it means Japans lawlessness will be rewarded. Japans performance is akin to a child not getting its way – kicking up stink until its parents give in. A lot of people in NZ & Aussie will be putting the heat on their MP’s to take legal action and enforce every convention, treaty etc Japan has broken.
        If you expect ddpalmer to use facts in this debate you will be disappointed -he has tried that on other posts and keeps getting hammered.

      • ddpalmer

        What has Japan been doing that is illegal?

        You might want to try using facts DHead.

  • georgina0912

    Gaviiiiin!!!!
    You just made me chuckle, here in my cubicle, but i can see that happening, no, allow me to correct myself, it has happened! No need to wait until Saturday!!!!

    • Gavin MacQueen

      Glad you enjoyed that. How about this one…

      Someone says this to ddpalmer, “talking about the pot calling the kettle black”

      ddpalmer’s response: First of all, if I was a pot, I would probably be hanging around the kitchen doing potty things. And why would I call the kettle black? If I was a pot, I wouldn’t have eyes, therefore I couldn’t tell what color the kettle was, and even if I could see, I would never call the kettle black due to the fact that I’m not a racist.

      This is just too much fun!!!

      • Harald

        Hehe…To the Point…Gavin! Hilarious!!! Right on….! hehehe!

      • sidewinder

        Shows the mentality of this dd person doesnt it? And the sort of crap one has to deal with. Unfortunately, there is more than one dd in this world. Slows progress down when these sort of people end up making decisions for other people…

      • Bucky Goldstein

        Holly crap! That is hilarious!!! That accurately depicts ddpalmer’s reasoning to a tee!

  • georgina0912

    Thank you for correcting me ddpalmer!!!!
    You are certainly earning your salary.

  • don miguelo

    Um, ANYWAY…

    I hear the concern Ady Gil has for whales. I get the trick of making extreme statements to prod politicians into trying to save their image in the media. However in this instance I don’t agree with the violence advocated. Once starting down that path, it becomes a slippery slope where everyone loses: as in SSCS brings handguns, japanese whalers bring machine guns, SSCS brings torpedoes, japanese bring airstrikes and so on until we’ve all become revenge crazed murderers that justify our actions because to do otherwise would mean it was all in vain. THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS, and just because it’s a passionate cause and there’s all this resistance doesn’t mean it won’t change without violence. Frustration is understandable but acting violently and impulsively with lethal force is only going to backfire that is a twisted definition of Direct Action. The world is not going to be on the side of some people who kill other people over some whales, and we’re gonna need the world to care rather than just ragtag activists (with or without guns).

    I believe in Life before ideology.

    I’m not just going to agree with someone just because they happen to want the same result. First, where’s the “rebel” in that, and Second that means I can’t think for myself. So in that vein, let’s call this what it is, a scare tactic intended for the powers that be, not a plan.

    • Gavin MacQueen

      I’m amazed with how some are reading into Ady Gil’s statements.

  • agni

    Kenya shoots poachers because their laws allow such actions.

    The Japanese are whaling in international waters under a legal permit issued under an international treaty. The Japanese are breaking no law.

    • OFFICE of the REGISTRAR

      TO WIT:
      PRESS RELEASE:
      “US State Department Forcibly Opposes Japanese Whaling”

      “The US has forcefully expressed opposition to Japans scientific whaling program. The US supports the moratorium banning commercial whaling adopted by the IWC in effect since 1986 and opposes Japanese whaling”

      -Richard Boucher
      Spokesperson
      Undersecretary for Public Affairs
      WASHINGTON DC
      UNITED STATES DEPT of STATE

      – What this means, is that the United States of America is *AGAINST* the Japanese Whalers. And ANY U.S. citizen caught sympathising with the Japanese Whaling Fleet is going against his own nation and against the will of the American people (Pro-Whaler = ANTI-AMERICAN). Obtaining whale meat, and possession of whale meat is criminalized in the United States:

      WHALING RULED AS A FEDERAL CRIME:

      U.S. GPO Access [CITATION: 50CF-R230.3]
      CHAPTER II–NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMS), NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA), DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (DOC)

      “It is unlawful for a person to: engage in whaling in violation of the US Convention, IWC regulations, commit an Act or breach US Commerce regulations; to ship, transport, purchase, sell, offer for sale, import, export or possess a whale or whale meat products.”

      What this means, is, that any U.S. citizen caught posting in favor of Whale killers, is cheering an act in another locale, by a tiny pack of foreign extremist killers, that is considered a FEDERAL CRIME in the U.S.

      In addition, Sea Shepherd staff includes United States military service personnel. This includes U.S. Navy personnel, and honored Iraq War veterans. These are U.S. citizens. Thus, any pro-whaler, by cheering a tiny subgroup of fanatical Japanese whale killers which put U.S. citizens in harms way, this and any other commenter who is from the U.S. and attempts to back a FOREIGN ENTITY’s attacks on American citizens aboard Sea Shepherd vessels is cheering a foreign faction to attack U.S citizens, including said pro-whaler cheering harm to U.S. Military service personnel.

      SEA SHEPHERD is LAW ENFORCEMENT. – Sea Shepherd is AUTHORIZED under Article 24, sections (a), (c), and (e) of the U.N.W.C.f.N. for ENFORCEMENT against the Japanese Criminal Whale killers. The Japanese are in violation of the Antarctic Treaty, Article I, the Japanese Whalers have already been convicted in court in 2008, and are wanted fugitives.

      Sea Shepherd staff contains U.S Federal Agents. In addition, Sea Shepherd staff contains U.S. Law Enforcement officers.

      The user “AGNI”, by cheering a small hoarde of less than 100 foreign whalers which even most of the 128 Million good Japanese people do not agree with., is thus also coming down AGAINST U.S. Law enforcement officers and against U.S. Federal Agents. Pro Whalers are ANTI-AMERICAN. Not to mention Pro Whalers are also ANTI-JAPANESE.

      WHALE MEAT CONTAINS METHYL MERCURIC POISON

      Whale meat contains (MeHg). Methyl Mercuric poison. Ingesting whale meat causes birth defects. It causes brain tissue damage if eaten. Ingesting whale meat babies to be born deformed, and with brain abnormalities. Ingestion by of whale meat by children results in cognitive damage. Ingestion by human males may cause male sperm damage, lowered IQ, liver and organ damage, and death. Thus, any person advocating the Japanese Whaling Fleet is cheering the mass-poisoning of hundreds of thousands of Japanese people, including children.

      The person caught advocating Japanese Whaling is thus promoting the chemical poisoning of children and human death. Pro-Whalers cheer an act which is poisoning hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens. Thus, any and all pro-whalers are AGAINST Japan and pro-whalers are ANTI-JAPANESE.

      96% of Japanese people DO NOT EAT WHALE MEAT

      What this means, is, that anyone who is FOR whaling, is AGAINST 96% of Japan. And Pro-Whalers are only FOR less than 4% of the population. In addition, the Japanese Whaling Fleet has attempted to push mounds of un-eaten whale meat into Japan’s childrens SCHOOL LUNCH program. In other words, most of the tiny 4% minority that ate whale meat are children! And in addition, many of those children did not CHOOSE it, they ingested it merely due to the Japanese whalers attempting to entice children to eat the Mercuric poison tainted whale meat through the child’s school lunches. They either eat what is contained in it, or go hungry that day. Whalers are poisoning thousands of children. Any person who backs the Japanese whalers is thus complicit in the act of facilitating the poisoning of human children.

      Whalers are NOT the entire population of Japan. Whalers do not even number 4% of that portion of the Japanese populace that has eaten it. Whalers comprise merely a tiny group of less than a few hundred extremists, often with ties to the criminal Yakuza orgainized crime sect, and a minority of corrupt officials, and rogues. Whalers are essentially a foreign faction of eco-terrorist extremist criminal killers.

      Anyone siding WITH Sea Shepherd is helping the majority of good Japanese people, and anyone siding WITH Sea Shepherd is a patriot who is WITH the U.S. and its allies.

      Any person caught posting FOR a sect of criminal whale killers, is against Japan and against the United States, and is ANTI-JAPANESE, ANTI-AMERICAN.

      Any pro-whalekiller is cheering harm to U.S. citizens and any pro-whaler is backing simply a tiny pack of criminal whale killers poisoning human children.

      • Mick

        I gotta give you credit. You spout more *hit than Bill Clinton.

        “WHALING RULED AS A FEDERAL CRIME” only if another country is doing it. The United States hunts and kills an average of 50 ENDANGERED Bowhead whales a year. That’s right folks! America is killing ENDANGERED whales! The United States government supports and oversees this whale hunting, as well.

        “Whale meat contains (MeHg).”

        Really? The horror! You need to arrest the U.S. government then. As stated earlier, the U.S. government supports and manages the hunting of whales. The U.S. government also condones and oversees the consumption of whale meat by it’s citizens.

        “96% of Japanese people DO NOT EAT WHALE MEAT”

        You are just flat out wrong, here. From my personal experience I can say that there are many people in Japan who do eat whale meat and who want to eat whale meat.

        Thanks again for another pompous, pretentious, mis-leading and incorrect post.

    • OFFICE of the REGISTRAR

      Individual identified as “agni” has posted FALSIFIED Comments: agni, February 24, 2010 at 9:45 am falsely attempted to write: “They are whaling, legally, in international waters.”-DOCUMENTED AS FALSIFIED.

      There exist multitudes of breaches of sovereign territory by the Japanese illegal whalers. This has not only been already documented, but even admitted and confirmed by the Japanese. As well as New Zealand, French and Australian authorities.

      Here are just 3 of the myriad documented instances, which in entirety include observations by the U.S. Coast Guard, GPS, SSCS, the Australian Navy, the Oceanic Viking, the U.S. Cutter Polaris, and New Zealand maritime authorities.

      (EVIDENCE #1.) “07/03/2008 at 0800 Hours (1900 G.M.T.) the Steve Irwin ordered the Nisshin Maru to leave French Territorial waters. The Japanese whaler complied and turned around and headed back west into Australian waters.”

      (EVIDENCE #2.) “The confrontation [by the Japanese Whalers] on 07/03/2008 occurred inside the Australian Territorial Zone at the position of 63 Degrees, 41 Minutes South and 133 Degrees 27 Minutes East.”

      (EVIDENCE #3) “Sea Shepherd crew in a Zodiac inflatable boat pursued the Japanese factory whaling ship, the Nisshin Maru, through New Zealand territorial waters north of the Ross Sea off Antarctica on Monday, Feb. 2. 2009.”

      The “They are whaling in international waters” false comment is a favorite of mal-informed pro-whaler militants and eco-terrorist whaler zealots.

      This type of mal-informed post is usually often quickly followed by “antarctica” and boasts of assertions merely attempting to talk about Australian territory.

      In actuality, the Japanese Whaling Fleet has breached the sovereign territorial waters of multiple government states, including, but not limited to illegally entering French territorial waters, AND the Australian Exclusive Economic Zone, EEZ, (not to be confused with the pro-whalers usual claim of disputed Australian Antarctic Sanctuary areas, this is different, the whalers invaded the EEZ), and in addition violated New Zealand’s sovereign territory.

      Therefore, to all readers, if you EVER see any extremist pro-whaler user attempt to post anywhere, that the Japanese Whalers are “simply” whaling in “international” waters, that is summarily debunked as non-factual, and the user can be dismissed as either un-informed on the entire subject, or, if the user claims they are informed, and posts this, it can be taken as evidence that said is engaging in deliberate attempts to put forth falsified information.

      The user identified as “agni” may at this point either be mal-informed on the topic of whaling, or, if the user “agni” makes such a claim as that he IS in fact “informed” on the subject, and posts anything asserting that the Japanese are simply in “international” waters 1 more time, then it will implicate that the user “agni” knows it is False and is committing an intentional attempt to deceive YOU and others.

      The “they are operating in international waters” argument is hereby debunked and no pro-whaler can use it again. If they do, (watch him) they will be committing an act of willful malicious falsification.

  • ddpalmer

    Apparently the Japanese are just playing with the SSCS waiting for the IWC to approve the commercial whalin proposal from the US and New Zealand.

    “Australian, American, Icelandic, and Japanese negotiators declined to reveal their position on the proposal. A number of news organizations, including the Sydney Morning Herald and Japan Today, point to sources that indicate that New Zealand and the United States both support lifting the whaling ban. Repealing the ban would invalidate the argument used by activists of the Sea Shepherd organization to justify the sabotage of whaling efforts in the Antarctic Ocean. Former Japanese Whaling Commissioner Masayuki Komatsu is declaring a preemptive victory against Sea Shepherd, going as far as to say that their presence in the Antarctic at this point is primarily to make Sea Shepherd’s “final” season at sea as costly as possible, and that whaling has become secondary.”

    http://www.ecofactory.com/news/international-whaling-commission-moves-end-ban-022310

    That would also explain why the SSCS hasn’t seen the harpoon ships. They have probably already started home while the Nisshin Maru captain gets to play with Paul.

    • OFFICE of the REGISTRAR

      DDPALMER HAS ATTEMPTED TO POST FALSIFIED INFORMATION:
      “ddpalmer, February 23, 2010 at 3:59 pm erroneously wrote: “it is all moot since Australia and New Zealand along with the IWC seem ready to give Japan permission to hunt commercially again.” = FALSE.

      (1.)
      NEWS: Australia issues November deadline for Japan to end its whaling activities

      Friday 19th February, 11:17 AM JST
      Photo / Associated Press

      AP: “Australia warns it will invoke action bringing Japan before the International Court of Justice if Japan does not stop whaling by November.

      Rudd told Channel Seven ”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. ‘If we don’t get that as a diplomatic agreement, let me tell you, we’ll be going to the International Court of Justice,” he said. ”I’m saying this very bluntly and very clearly…if that fails, then we will initiate that court action before the commencement of the whaling season in November 2010.’

      ###

      (2.)

      New Zealand considering lawsuit against Japanese Whalers
      Monday Feb 22, 2010

      HERALD — New Zealand Minister Murray McCully says New Zealand is considering joining legal action to force Japan to Stop whaling in the Southern Ocean

      Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last week put a deadline of November on his warnings to Japan that if Japan does not cease its whaling, Australia would invoke action against Japanese Whalers and arraign them in International Court.

      ###

      (3.)

      NEWS: IWC ISSUES SWEEPING CONDEMNATION OF JAPANESE WHALING OPERATION

      The International Whaling Commission (IWC) has now issued FORMAL CONDEMNATIONS against the Japanese Whaling Fleet. The International Whaling Commission issued a sweeping 40 to 2 condemnation of the Japanese Whalers in an Official Resolution exposing breaches and flaws in Japan’s JARPA II whaling programme document. 40 countries, including the United States voted to condemn Japan’s egregious breaches and violations.

      ###

      In other words, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, and the IWC are all against the Japanese Whalers. Rendering the entire post by user “ddpalmer” as falsified.

      In fact, the Japanese Whalers, if they set foot in in Australia will immediately be arrested. The Japanese Whalers are already convicted on Federal crimes.

      (Sea Shepherd on the other hand may freely operate in Australia and enter Australian ports.)

      The Japanese are also barred from New Zealand’s ports. If a Japanese Whaling vessel attempted to enter port in New Zealand, the vessel would be boarded and apprehended.

      (Sea Shepherd on the other hand, is free to enter New Zealand waters, New Zealand ports, and operate in New Zealand. In fact, the captain of the Sea Shepherd vessel is a citizen of New Zealand.)

      If the Japanese Whalers attempted to conduct their activities in the U.S., they would immediately be taken into custody by U.S. Military and Coast Guard. Whaling, what the Japanese are doing, is criminalized in the United States. It is considered a FELONY.

      (Sea Shepherd on the other hand is not only freely able to operate, enter, and conduct operations in the United States, SSCS offices are in WASHINGTON. Sea Shepherd has U.S Federal Agents on staff, and Sea Shepherd crew includes U.S. military service personnel, and honored Iraq War veterans, and U.S. trained police officers.)

      In addition to the IWC condemning Japan as well, and in addition to Sea Shepherd being free to travel throughout all the above countries without opposition, Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd staff are also able to enter and travel to and from JAPAN too. Thus, Sea Shepherd is the entity which is free and clear, and welcomed in all of the above countries, however the Japanese Whalers are convicted on Federal Crimes in Australia, they will be arrested, detained if they attempt to enter New Zealand port, and taken into custody if the whalers were to attempt to conduct their activities in the dominion of the U.S.

      In addition to this, the Japanese Whaling Fleet is barred from Panama, which means they are barred from passing through the Panama Canal (Sea Shepherd is Not and is welcome to pass through the panama canal). And the Japanese Whaling Fleet was booted out of Indonesia in a failed docking attempt where the Japanese Whalers attempted to disguise and hide their harpoon weapon on their vessels and is now forbidden to enter Indonesia.

      It is Sea Shepherd who is free and clear and welcome to travel freely, and it is the Japanese Whaling Fleet which is subject to Federal charges and will be apprehended and taken into custody on Federal charges.

      (And keep in mind, any person whom you see rooting for the Japanese Whalers, is facilitating the procurement and ingestion of whale meat which is poisoned with methyl mercuric toxin. So any pro-whaler is essentially siding with a group of criminals whose acts are mass-poisoning hundreds and thousands of Japanese citizens, and families, including children.)

      • agni

        >>”If the Japanese Whalers attempted to conduct their activities in the U.S., they would immediately be taken into custody by U.S. Military and Coast Guard. Whaling, what the Japanese are doing, is criminalized in the United States. It is considered a FELONY.”

        It would also be illegal for US whalers to hunt in Japanese waters.
        The US whalers would be taken into custody by JCG and JMSDF forces.

        The US government permit for whaling allows whaling only in coastal waters and only by traditional (native) whalers.

        The Japanese are not whaling in US waters. They are whaling, legally, in international waters.

  • Jim Wyatt

    So Ady Gil wants to murder people that are whaling legally under the IWC rules? He needs to lay off the kool-aid for awhile and re-think this one!

    How else are you to take his statement? Guns are not required to interpret the law and that is the first thing that Ady and Watson need to figure out. No matter how much they find it to be detestable, whaling is not illegal! It is allowed under several forms by the IWC and if the two of them want that situation to change, they need to get the votes to modify the rules of the IWC. Guns are no answer and Ady is talking through his hat just like Watson. Besides, Ady; poachers will shoot back at you!

    • agni

      It isn’t a matter of votes.
      No vote at the IWC can alter the 1946 ICRW convention. To change the treaty requires a formal diplomatic conference at which ALL signatories vote to alter the treaty.
      In short, Japan, Denmark and Iceland would have to vote in favor.
      Anything else is in violation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and may be legally disregarded by Japan, Iceland and Denmark.

    • Gavin MacQueen

      Again,

      Ady was grossly taken out of context. Ady merely trys to throw a little perspective light on an issue, and walla, you have a bunch of pseudo intellects all over it, taking his statement completely out of context.

      Did it ever occur to you knuckleheads that he wasn’t suggesting using guns, but was merely expressing the degree of action it would probably take to stop the tenacious japanese poachers?

      • agni

        The Japanese are not poaching. They are whaling legally, under international treaty, in international waters.

      • ddpalmer

        Unless you are psychic, your opinion of what he meant is just that your opinion. Did it ever occur to you that he was saying exactly what he meant?

      • Gavin MacQueen

        ddpalmer: “Did it ever occur to you that he was saying exactly what he meant?”

        ddpalmer, are you listening to yourself? Of course he was saying exactly what he meant. That’s not where the problem lies. The problem is that you and others are putting the wrong spin on what he meant. And what he meant was clear as a bell.

        It would be the same as if a parent of a unruly child was to say, “Now I know why some animals eat their offspring.” Then some mental midget with your level of intellect responds, “Oh my god, this guy is going to eat his child, alert the media” Now, doesn’t that sound ridiculous? Well, that’s how you and your fellow japanese whale poacher supporters sound.

        All he did was talk about how another culture would act in a similar situation.

        So, if I’m wrong, then you tell me what exactly did he mean, ddpalmer, she who so arrogantly knows all.

        Give me one quote from Ady that states that he intends, plans or is suggesting that they use lethal means to stop japanese whale poachers.

      • ddpalmer

        OK so you are claiming to be psychic and you know what he meant.

        “So, if I’m wrong, then you tell me what exactly did he mean, ddpalmer, she who so arrogantly knows all.”

        I don’t know what he meant and neither do you. The difference is that I said what my opinion of his statement was but you claim to know what he meant as a fact.

        “Give me one quote from Ady that states that he intends, plans or is suggesting that they use lethal means to stop japanese whale poachers.”

        ‘”there would be police here with guns. Guns are how you enforce the law – with power.”‘

      • Gavin MacQueen

        That quote was in context of an example expressing what would happen if he pulled a knife and demanded money.

        “If I pulled a knife here and demanded money”

        Then in you next quote, he clearly is referring to the police.

        From that, you get that he’s planning on using guns against the japanese whalers? Too funny!

      • Gavin MacQueen

        Yeah! Thought so!

  • Ari

    “She (Sharyn Bethune) worries about an outstanding payment for the Ady Gil – which the couple mortgaged their house to build. “Whether the money will come through now the boat is sunk I don’t know.”

    So where did ady’s money go?

  • OFFICE of the REGISTRAR

    LEGAL NOTICE: INTL LAW EXPERTS & FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NOW RULED JAPANESE WHALING ILLEGAL

    QUOTE “Japans assertion that its whaling activities are legal is incorrect and misleading. Scientific whaling as conducted by Japan violates international law”
    Alberto Szekely, Expert in International Law
    -Intl Law Professor
    -Center for Intl Law
    -Legal Advisor to the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
    -Mbr Intl Court of Arbitration at THE HAGUE
    -Member of the UN International Law Commission

    Thus, the entirety of the premist of the post by the User “AGNI” on February 23, 2010 at 8:48 pm is false. Any posts now seen claiming that what the Japanese Whalers are doing is legal (false) by anyone, including by the username “agni” can thus be thrown out.

    If you EVER see any comment, post, article, or pro-whaler attempting to assert that the activities of the Japanese Whaling Fleet are “legal” you can now regard that individual, like the user AGNI, as unqualified on the topic.

    NOTICE:
    Also, if the user attempts to assert that the “IWC” says Japanese Whalers are legal, this is also FALSE. The IWC has actually *CONDEMNED* the activities of the Japanese Whaling Fleet. In fact, the International Whaling Commission IWC’s prestigious SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE actually issued a Formal edict AGAINST the Japanese Whaling Fleet, and the IWC’s scientists found gaping flaws in Japan’s JARPA II program. Page after page of the IWC report showed blatant flaws in nearly all of the Japanese documents, and the IWC is AGAINST Japan’s Whaling program. Not only that, the IWC members voted over 40 to 2 *AGAINST* Japan and there are formal motions of condemnation against Japan for Whalers violations. So anyone attempting to falsely post that Japan is whaling legally can not only be dismissed outright, but they also reveal lack of proper qualifications to talk about the subject.

    Also, all of you can be on the alert for the improper invocation of the word “loop hole”. Watch out for this. This is a common pro-whaler ruse wherein an individual will attempt to trick the public into believing something is “ok” because of a “loophole”. This is essentially commission of an act of FRAUD. The ruse goes as follows. An individual will attempt to state that Illegal criminal whale killers are somehow “allowed” to legally kill whales under the guise of fraudulent “scientific research” and then sell it for human consumption (FALSE). Then they will claim that this is “allowed because of a loop hole” in the IWC moratorium (FALSE). This is not a loophole, what the individual (pro-whaler) just did, is advocate an act of Fraud.

    Here is an example, let’s say a Charitable Foundation says that they will offer grant money to an individual for “educational research”. Then, a surreptitious individual applies for and obtains the money, under the aegis of the foundation, under the criteria that the individual will use it for “educational research”. However, this criminal individual obtains the money and uses it to obtain illegal narcotics and DRUGS and uses the money to purchase equipment for a methamphetamine lab and begins conducting a drug business. — The Foundation finds out, and the individual then attempts to state: “Oh, well, I AM using it for educational research. I am “researching” the chemistry of methamphetamine (crystal meth), and educating myself on the illegal drug business.” — This is not a loop hole. Under the Law, this is a case of Fraud. The individual is acting under false pretenses, concocting a false premise to embezzle money. This is akin to what the pro-whalers attempt to do any time you see the improper use of the word “loop hole” in reference to the IWC.

    Here is the test of Fraud: In order to be “legal” (not “right”, simply “legal under the law”, the entirety of the Japanese Whaling activities must be “Scientific Research”. This means that any and all consumption of whale meat product is ancillary and expendable. Commercial whaling is ILLEGAL! This means that the primary purpose of the Japanese Whaling Fleet CANNOT be to obtain whale meat. If this is determined to be the case (which it has), then the activities of the Japanese Fleet are illegal under international law, even under the *weakest* rulings, much less all the other laws the Japanese are breaking. What this means, is, that ANY and ALL procurement of whale meat cannot be the impetus for any Whaling activities. Not that this has Nothing to do with the *secondary* disposition in the act stating that the whale meat must be “utilized”. So if any user brings that up, they can be dismissed at the outset. This is regarding the primary purpose, which MUST be scientific research, therefore this is a Truth-Test: IF anyone attempts to contend that the Japanese are whaling “legally” (at least as far as the IWC goes), then eradicating the selling, ingestion, consumption, and sales of all whale meat should be able to be cut. With NO effect. In other words, anyone who attempts to contend that the whaling is legal, is essentially holding the position that what the Japanese are doing, is ENTIRELY for “Scientific Research”. If the user (pro-whaler) acknowledges even 1 scintilla that the selling, consumption, and marketing of whale meat is even a factor in the impetus, then that immediately flips the switch on that user and the activity is deemed ILLEGAL under international law. And, that also means, that the component of “Scientific Research” must stand alone, meaning that the entire operation of procuring, processing, and selling whale meat to children if eliminated would NOT change, attenuate, or affect the impetus or operations of the Japanese Whaling Fleet. IF the Japanese Fleet were to alter at all, the current Whaling Activity when & if the provision for selling it (commercial activity!) were to be removed, that would again clamp the activities of the Japanese Fleet as FRAUD.

    Therefore, ANY user attempting to assert that the Japanese Whalers are operating “legally” under the IWC (the Japanese are already breaking International Law under UNCLOS, the AT, EPBRC, etc) then that pro-whaler is FORCED into the position of asserting that the activities by the Japanese consist SOLELY of scientific research. AND, that if the provision for selling the meat were stricken, that the Japanese Whaling Fleet would continue with no change in said activity.

    Thus, any pro-whaler trying to convince anyone that the whalers’ activities are genuine is now forced into the position of having to defend the Japanese Whalers’ dubious “scientific papers”. Mind you, this is tantamount to anyone attempting to pull the ploy assterting that Whaling is legal. They must assume the position that it is NOT for “food” (illegal) and is for “scientific research”. This is a position that NO pro-whaler will want to be in, legally, or argumentatively, or otherwise. Defending Japanese “Whale science” papers. Especially after said pro-whaler has a look at them. Because indeed, the IWC itself, including the prestigious IWC Scientific Committee has ruled AGAINST Japan in regard to irrevocable flaws, insubstantiated claims, concocted reports, withheld information, and improper techniques and methodology contained in the sparse Japanese Whaling “Research” papers. This position will then thrust the pro-whaler claiming its legal into a quickly dissolving position that is indefensible.

    -

    NOTE also, that if the user “AGNI” happens to be from the U.S., the user AGNI is siding with foreign eco-terrorist whalers is in direct contention with his own U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT. In other words, “AGNI” is siding with a small sect of foreign extremists, against his own country, and against the United States of America:

    • sidewinder

      Good points there.

      I wonder what the Pro-whaling puppets will respond with?

    • http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin

      thanks, good post !! that should end the discussion about ilegal or not, right ?
      everybody, anti whalers as well as pro whalers know that whaling is illegal. thats why the japanese whalers dont call it whaling but scientific research. the paid forum wreckers on Ecorazzi all know whaling is ilegal and come just with silly arguments, even with nonsense that bananas due to potassium content can be deadly, as our forum wrecker friend DD P. stated earlier. this is the most boring topic and discussion here on The ER…

      • Gavin MacQueen

        lol, don’t count on it. These propagandist don’t know when to quit. They remind me of those “Flat earth society” Go to their website( http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm ) and read their reasoning to why they don’t believe the earth is round. It will ring very familiar and I’m sure ddpalmer, mick and agni will come to mind. They know how to sound intelligent, but nothing they spew is of intelligence.

        and how about those losers that think that the moon landing was a hoax. You can knock them over with the truth and it would make any difference. I Think were talking about individuals with childhood or father issues.

      • http://vegan--japan.blogspot.com/ herwin

        actually, i dont have nothing against disciples of the Flat Earth religion, nor people questioning the moonlanding. i mean, yeah, its stupid :-P but they are sincere in their arguments and really believe it. stupid but interesting.
        Diference with the forum wreckers here is that they just know whaling is ilegal (because whaling IS ilegal, everybody knows that, even the japanese whalers thats why they call it “research”, and as has been posted before, whalers face arrest when entering other countries, japanese whaling boats are not allowed in many harbors, etc, unlike the SS boats who are welcome in all harbors, says enough, eh) but it simply is their paid job to post propaganda and inteligent sounding stupid things that just arent true. in short, they dont post their opinion (which would be interesting and should be respected) but simply they r forum wreckers.
        anyway, my bet is next year they dont have a job anymore. (or maybe back to making propaganda for Coca Cola :-P ) too much heat to take much longer for the japanese governement..

    • agni

      >>The IWC has actually *CONDEMNED* the activities of the Japanese Whaling Fleet.

      Majority resolutions at IWC meetings cannot abrogate the 1946 ICRW treaty.

      They cannot change international law.

      This is what the IWC actually says

      “A major area of discussion in recent years has been the issuing of permits by member states for the killing of whales for scientific purposes. The use of such permits is not new. The right to issue them is enshrined in Article VIII of the 1946 Convention. Whilst member nations must submit proposals for review, in accordance with the Convention, it is the member nation that ultimately decides whether or not to issue a permit, and this right overrides any other Commission regulations including the moratorium and sanctuaries. Article VIII also requires that the animals be utilised once the scientific data have been collected.”

      Note the “requires that the animals be utilised”

      That is international law.

      This is also the position of the Government of the United Kingdom.
      This is what the Minister told the House of Lords (UK Parliament Hansard of 4 Mar 2009)

      “Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Under the terms of Article VIII of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, Japan’s lethal research takes of minke whales in the Southern Ocean and of minke, Bryde’s, sei and sperm whales in the North Pacific are, regrettably, quite legal.”

      BTW, the US Government itself issues whaling permits.

      As for the silly Australian Federal Court order you refer to, well that territory is not Australian so their courts have no jurisdiction.

      “Diplomatic Note – 3 December 2004
      United States Mission to the United Nations

      “The Deputy Representative of the United States of Americas presents her compliments to the Secretary General of the United Nations and refers to recent Australian submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf…

      The United States wishes to inform you that, recalling Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty, the United States does not recognize any state’s claim to territory in Antarctica”"

      Under both customary international law and UNCLOS, it is legal to hunt whales in international waters.

      Under the 1946 ICRW treaty, whaling under objection, reservation and special permit are all legal even with the commercial moratorium and even inside the IWC declared sanctuaries.

      So whaling is legal. To change it requires amending the treaty. This is the British Government position (UK Parliament Hansard of 4 Mar 2009)

      “Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The right of any contracting Government to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to issue special permits and to conduct lethal research whaling is enshrined in Article VIII of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). The chairs’ suggestions do not include any proposal to amend Article VIII. The extent to which current so-called scientific whaling may or may not be curtailed as a result of pursuing any of the options advanced in the chairs’ paper will depend on the willingness of those Governments currently pursuing such operations to scale them back voluntarily, in exchange for other possible concessions. There would be no legal recourse for the IWC if such voluntary action were ever discontinued.”

    • ddpalmer

      Yes thanks for explaining how whaling is illegal in US waters. What that has to do with international waters around Antarctica is exactly zero.

    • ddpalmer

      Posting in the wrong place. this was meant to go with his other useless diatribe.

      This one tries to use one persons legal opinion to be the only one that matters. We can just ignore the other legal opinions that say otherwise.

      He also ignores the plain wording of Article VIII that says to use the excess materials as far as practical. He also seems to think that he can define words however he likes and ignore there usual meaning.

      • Gavin MacQueen

        “This one tries to use one persons legal opinion to be the only one that matters. We can just ignore the other legal opinions that say otherwise.”

        “He also seems to think that he can define words however he likes and ignore there usual meaning.”

        lol, ddpalmer, you just described yourself. It’s interesting how you imagine these claims onto others, but yet, you are unable to recognize them in yourself. Simply mind boggling.

      • ddpalmer

        Oh boy you sure got me Gavin.

        Of course when those legal opinions are issued by judges in the course of a trial, then yes there opinion does carry more weight.

        Care to give an example of me redefining a word?

      • Gavin MacQueen

        ddpalmer asked: “Care to give an example of me redefining a word?”

        Certainty, since there are many, but let’s start with your usage of the word “terrorist”. This word is commonly misused by the pro japanese poacher supporters. Frankly, I find their use of the word “terrorist” to describe the SSCS so “DRAMA QUEEN”.

        When a word is misused like that, it’s very unfortunate since it greatly diminishes the value or strength of the word. When people use words that are clearly an exaggeration in reference to what they are describing, it merely demonstrates a desperate overtone to their argument and reveals that their rants lacks proof to back up their point. If you’ve watched Jerry Springer, you know what I’m talking about.

        Now, if you were to consider all of the actions committed by the “japanese whale poachers” and the “Sea Shepherd”, the only group that committed an act of violence, that stands out and appropriately deserves the “terrorist” label,…And the winner is…the “japanese whale poachers”…for their deliberate act of colliding and sinking the Ady Gil vessel. This was indeed a violent act.

        So my point is simply this; If the word “terrorist” continues to be used to describe a group of people that are merely non-lethally trying to prevent another groups actions, soon anyone who eggs and/or tee-pees a home, or a sports fan who throws a bottle or a can onto a playing field, will be considered a terrorist…and when that happens…we will have to come up with a better word to describe Al-Qaeda.

        Another thing I would like to point out; Where there’s a comedian, there is laughter, where there’s a teacher, there is learning…and where there are terrorists, there is terror. Please show me one example of a japanese whale poacher who has expressed or has shown signs of being terrorized by the Sea Shepherd’s actions. I’m sure you could find many that have been annoyed or frustrated, but terrorized, I don’t think so.

        I look forward to your rebuttal of rationalizations…

    • Mick

      OFFICE of the REGISTRAR,

      Ahem…..Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      “LEGAL NOTICE: INTL LAW EXPERTS & FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NOW RULED JAPANESE WHALING ILLEGAL

      QUOTE “Japans assertion that its whaling activities are legal is incorrect and misleading. Scientific whaling as conducted by Japan violates international law”
      Alberto Szekely, Expert in International Law
      -Intl Law Professor
      -Center for Intl Law
      -Legal Advisor to the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
      -Mbr Intl Court of Arbitration at THE HAGUE
      -Member of the UN International Law Commission”

      A “international law expert” does not have the authority to declare something legal or illegal. Only a INTERNATIONAL COURT has that authority. This fellow can say that, in his OPINION, it is illegal, however only a COURT RULING makes it a fact. There has been no international court ruling declaring the ICR’s scientific whaling program illegal, therefore, it is legal. Regardless of the opinions of Mr. Szekely.

      “Federal courts”, you say? Would you be refering to the AUSTRALIAN federal court? If so, AUSTRALIAN federal court is not INTERNATIONAL court and any rulings by the AUSTRALIAN federal court only applies to AUSTRALIANS.

      Thank you so much for your pompous and pretentious post. It was highly amusing.

      • OFFICE of the REGISTRAR

        Mick burped: “INTERNATIONAL COURT has that authority.”

        The LAW officer previously quoted is a JUDGE in INTERNATIONAL COURT.

        Andrew Szekely is a member of the U.N. international Law Commission.
        He is a member of the permanent Court of International Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands.
        Szekely is the LEGAL ADVISOR for UNCLOS. This means out-ranks and supercedes YOUR opinion, that of the other lone pro-whaler agni, and including all of his cited sources which were overruled.

        Szekely is also a Judge, for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. This is the ITLS. The entity which determines Maritime Law. And here is a REMINDER: There is inded NO RULING IN INTERNATIONAL COURT stating that Japanese Whalers ARE legal.

        Once again, there is NO ruling, on behalf of International Court, supporting the position of the zealot Mick or the extremist pro-whaler “agni” stating that the Japanese Whaling operation IS legal. None. There is no ICJ case-ruling supporting their statement. And the Szekely determination, coming from a Judge in International Court, and one of the actual Authors of the UNCLOS document out-ranks and overrules any statement by not only these 2 amateur “pundits”, but overrules and outranks each and every discredited source they have attempted to bring up.

        To give you an idea of the ranking of Andrew Szekely, Szekely actually *AUTHORED* segments of the UNCLOS LAW document.

        This means that he not only out-ranks you, and any and shut down any and all attempts by “agni”, but Szekely out-ranks each of the sources that any other pro-whaler has attempted to post, some of which included simple “student papers”.

        Thus, since YOU “Mick” do not have a qualified degree in International Law, and you are Not a Judge in International Court, and you are not accredited in the subject of International Law of the Sea, YOU are not in the position to say anything about Szekely’s ruling. And it still stands.

        YOU are unqualified to denounce it one way or the other. Thus, in order for you, to say anything at all regarding the determination, you must find a ruling from an individual who out-ranks Szekely, who is not only accredited in International Law, but also is a sitting Judge in International Court, and is an actual member of the delegation to UNCLOS (which Szekely is), has degrees from HARVARD or above (which Szekely has), and who actually presides at the ITLS, and also had a hand in AUTHORING UNCLOS.

        There is NO ruling nor any precedent in international court that has determined a ruling that the Japanese Whalers ARE legal. NONE. And in lieu of that, the Szekely determination stands.

        NO PRO-WHALER has cited ANY source that has superceded Szekely’s qualifications or the ruling.

        No source cited on the pro-whaling side outranks the qualifications of Szekely, including the debunked ones cited by “agni” and including most certainly not the amateur pundit “Mick”.

        No amateur extremist whale-killer chat poster, whether it be “Mick” or “agni” or the previously discredited “ddpalmer” is qualified to say anything about Szekely.

        The Szekely determination stands.

        -

        RE: ““LEGAL NOTICE: INTL LAW EXPERTS & FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NOW RULED JAPANESE WHALING ILLEGAL”

        Here is a typical “Mick-response”: …..Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        (The “age” of this Mick-person is unknown, but this person’s age (or mentality) may be determined by the number of exclamation points he employs.) Nevertheless, the whale killer supporter “Mick” goes on to post this:

        ““Federal courts”, you say? Would you be refering to the AUSTRALIAN federal court? If so, AUSTRALIAN federal court is not INTERNATIONAL court and any rulings by the AUSTRALIAN federal court only applies to AUSTRALIANS.”

        - This is important to note, because it exemplifies a proto-typical pro-whaler knee-jerk response. What pro-whaler pundits (such as Mick) do, is fail to actually understand the material, but what they do is simply PULL canned responses from a limited repertoire of limited arguments.

        For instance, without even understanding the material, a standard (stale) post often bleated out by whaler extremists is their failed “international waters” and “international law” bit. All persons reading this take note, because all of you actual good people out there, who are pro-japan, and american patriots and against the criminal anti-japanese whale killers, can watch for this and easily defeat any pro-whaler with it. They are predictable. So you can use all of the data presented in all of these posts and thereby defeat any and all pro-whaler arguments. Most all of them are already debunked and obsolete. However, they are not very educated on the subject, so as soon as one gets himself debunked and shown the door, another curmudgeon will inevitably pop up and attempt the same thing again because they “read” it on some chat board they were on or something.

        This is the case with Mick here.

        You can see he obviously failed to read and/or understand what was actually written, and simply sprung up with something from his canned list of pro-whaler responses.

        HERE IS AN ANALOGOUS EXAMPLE, TO SHOW YOU WHAT MICK JUST DID:

        Ok, he sees: “LEGAL NOTICE: INTL LAW EXPERTS & FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NOW RULED JAPANESE WHALING ILLEGAL” and without understanding the word “and” denoted by the symbol “&” he blurts out this: “AUSTRALIAN federal court is not INTERNATIONAL court”

        Here is an example of Mick’s reasoning:

        If one were to state a simple “AND” sentence:

        “Men usually have 2 feet and women usually have 2 feet”

        This is essentially what Mick’s response is analogous to:

        Mick’s analogous response: “Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!! MEN AREN’T WOMEN!!!!!!!!!”

        This is an example of the reasoning ability of the pro-whaler faction.

        By this, you can see, that this pro-whaler zealot was so quick to knee-jerk himself to fall back on his sparse list of debunked pro-whaling arguments, what he did is take an “AND” statement, describing 2 different things, and then without thinking, blurt out one of his few remaining whale killer defense lines into his post.

        So whereas the original post stated 2 items: That the whalers have been determined to be illegal under BOTH International Law AND Federal Law, (which is true), note that what your typical pro-whaler will do, is erroneously EQUATE them. Which is of course false, but it’s just about all they can do, considering the dwindling and scarce amount of arguments they have left remaining that haven’t already been rendered useless.

        All of the rest of you out there easily know, that if you said: A table has 4 legs, and a dog has 4 legs, but what a pro-whaler will essentially do is go: “Ahahahahaha!!!!! That’s wrong, because a table is not the same as a dog! So that means tables and dogs don’t have 4 legs, ahahahahah!!!! (add Micksclamation points on the end of it as needed.)

        In any case, Mick’s retort has been obviated, and the data remains standing:

        INTL LAW EXPERTS & FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NOW RULED JAPANESE WHALING ILLEGAL.

        Correct as stated. And despite pro-whaler “windmill” arm-flailing, it still stands.

        [Oh, by the way, IF ANY Japanese Whaler ever touches foot on land in Australia, he will face Federal charges. Whereas Paul Watson, for example, of Sea Shepherd, is free to properly travel through Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Canada, the USA, even Japan, the same is NOT true for the Japanese Whalers: Japanese Whalers will be arrested on Federal Charges if they travel to Australia, the Japanese Whalers are also DENIED from entering port by the officials of New Zealand, the Japanese Whalers are BANNED from entering INDONESIA, it's the Whalers, not Sea Shepherd who are banned from entering Panama, and including passing through the Panama Canal. This should give you an idea of whose activities are considered criminalized: The tiny sect of illicit Japanese Whalers.]

  • Gavin MacQueen

    ddpalmer,

    As they say, “be careful what you ask for, you just might get it”

    And I believe on several occasions, you asked to hear the facts. Enjoy!

    @OFFICE of the REGISTRAR, just in case, you can find ddpalmer spewing his pro-whaling propaganda over at Japan Today’s blog as well:

    http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/sea-shepherd-activist-boards-whaling-ship-to-arrest-captain#show_all_comments

  • ddpalmer

    So your fact is that I post in other places?

    Oh boy that sure is scary.

    Well I guess you stalking me around the internet is a little scary but I think I will survive.

    • Gavin MacQueen

      Boy your slow. I was referring to the facts that OFFICE of the REGISTRAR Posted. Again, I have to spell everything out for you.

    • Dave Head

      Is Gllenn keeping up with the payments ddpalmer? Or did he use up the ICR money on hiring planes to spy on SSCS?

      • ddpalmer

        You would have to ask him DHead. I have never had any dealings with him.

  • agni

    >>”Alberto Szekely, Expert in International Law”

    See
    Whaling and international law
    http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Publications/Iceland/wh-an-in.htm
    William T. Burke Professor, School of Law, University of Washington, Seattle

    “The first and overriding consideration in responding to this question is simply what is the international law for whaling. In my view, under general or customary international law the nationals of all states are entitled to harvest whales on the high seas unless the state of registry or flag has agreed otherwise; each coastal state has control over whales within its national jurisdiction, subject to its international agreements, and it has sole authority over the activities of its nationals on the high seas. I think these propositions accurately state current international law on whaling.”

    and
    Antarctic Whaling: Australia’s Attempt to Protect Whales in the Southern Ocean – Donald K. Anton
    Australian National University – ANU College of Law; University of Michigan – Law School
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1380122

    • Gavin MacQueen

      Agni, how about some credible sources? The OFFICE of the REGISTRAR posts is more convincing.

    • OFFICE of the REGISTRAR

      Source material of Whale killer zealot “agni” found tainted

      In response to International Law Experts findings that Japanese Whalers activities have been found to be ILLEGAL:

      User identified as “agni” attempted to write: See Whaling and international law http://www.highnorth.no

      WARNING! The web site that the individual “agni” has attempted to drive you to is tainted. This is a known site containing biased pro-killer extremists. Notice the 2 letters at the end of the site which “agni” is pushing all of you to: .no This stands for Norway, one of the known pro-killer nation-states. This site is a haven of extremist pro-killer material, tainted and biased.

      Note that this individual attempted to post this NOT in the context that any user on here might post a non-whaling or pro-whaling reference, as in the definite pro-whaling ICR Whale, or the definite anti-whaling SSCS, but this individual attempted to post this in the context of being a reference to open and non-prejudicial judgements on un-biased international law. Instead, this is a site on a known list of extremist websites.

      In addition, the specific article this user “agni” cited is not from a person who is a Judge in International Law of the Sea, but instead, this William Burke citation is taken from the Proceedings of a conference held in Reykjavik ICELAND (another known illicit whaling nation!) on March 1st, 1997, and was organized by the Fisheries Institute and the High North Alliance!

      This is tainted and thrown out.

      First of all, the site “agni” attempted to lead you to, is known biased, including material cheering baby Seal Beating, Whale killing, and comes from the known skewed pro-Norwegian whale killing faction. Next, the specific article itself is sourced from yet another pro-whale killer nation ICELAND! Another known self-violator of the whaling moratorium.

      Thus, the material attempted by the individual “agni” is hereby dismissed as an attempt to purport material sourced from skewed pro-killer sites into the context of vetted International Law.

      In addition, the author of the article in question, Burke, is NOT a sitting Judge, as are the qualifications of Andrew Szekely. Burke is a professor Emeritus, which means he is retired from professorship, and no longer even actively in the position. And the article itself is from 1997, which means it is further removed and fails to include modern changes and developments. The user “agni” even attempts to quote material in which this author even states that it only applies to what was current in 1997. So these facts, as well as lack of qualification as a sitting International Judge, and its tainted source, mean that this material disqualifies itself, and is out-ranked and superceded by the higher certified Andrew Szekely, who is actually an appointed Judge.

      The 2nd source touted by “agni” is even worse.

      This is simply a working-paper from a lecturer at a law school. ANU College. And once again, just like the previous article this ANTON guy has conflict-of-interest ties to the FISHERIES DEPARTMENT (Biased interest connected to an entire entity whose sole purpose is to justify the commercial exploitation in the interests of commercial fishermen killing fish in the Oceans.) This is not even in the same calibre or league as Andrew Szekely, or anyone presiding as a Judge in any of the International Courts.

      Therefore again, this material is supplanted and disqualified due to biased conflict-of-interest.

      The material by Andrew Szekely still stands.

      It out-ranks and supercedes any and all of this disqualified pro-killer site material and sub-qualified working-paper material sourced from a non-Judge with conflict-of-interest.

      In order for said material to be qualified, the material must be from an entity which out-ranks or supercedes the qualifications of Andrew Szekely.

      This is an idea of what the illicit pro-whalers are up-against. Here stand just part of the credentials of Andrew Szekely:

      Alberto Székely is Legal Advisor to the Delegation to the Third U.N. Conference on the Law of the Sea. Representative to the 6th Committee of the U.N. General Assembly, He served as Advisor to the Foreign Minister, Representative of to the U.N. in Geneva Switzerland, was officiary Representative to the OAS in Washington D.C., the Legal Adviser to the Foreign Ministry, a Member of the Permanent Court of International Arbitration at The Hague, Netherlands, and Member of the U.N. International Law Commission (1992-1996).

      Szekely now holds the credentials of Ambassador, he has recently been appointed Judge for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.

      He is a guest lecturer on International Law at Johns Hopkins, Arizona University, The University of New Mexico, consults in International Law, the Law of the Sea, and Transboundary Resolution issues (disputed territorial waters), including environmental zoning,land use planning, sustainable coastal developmet, defense, water law, forestry, protected area law. Legislative Proposals on The Rule of Law and Administration of Justice, has an LL.B, an M.A. and M.A.L.D degrees including from the School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts and HARVARD.

      Andrew Szekely has a Ph.D. from the University of London, College of Law, has published documents for the Law of the Sea Institute, Member of the United Nations International Law Commission, and has recently been appointed Judge for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLS).

      And thus the status that the Japanese Whaling Fleet has been determined to be illegal under international law remains standing.

  • Gavin MacQueen

    For those who like to desperately read into things:

    “Sea Shepherd Does Not Condone the Use of Firearms

    Reports that Sea Shepherd supports shooting Japanese whale poachers are inaccurate.

    “The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has never used firearms and has no intention of using firearms against illegal whalers,” said Captain Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd president and founder. “We are proud of our record of never causing an injury to any person in our entire history. We may be aggressive, obstructive, and we may damage harpoons, nets, and longlines used by poachers, but we have never, and will never, injure a human being.”

    The reports originated from statements made by Mr. Ady Gil, who said that elephant poachers are shot in East Africa for illegally killing elephants and speculated that whale poachers deserved to be shot also.

    Mr. Gil is a supporter of Sea Shepherd, and as an individual, he is free to express any viewpoint he so wishes. However, Mr. Gil does not speak for Sea Shepherd or serve as a representative or spokesperson in any official capacity. Therefore, any opinions expressed by Mr. Gil are his own personal opinions and not the opinions of Sea Shepherd.

    The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is an anti-poaching organization specializing in opposition to illegal activities that exploit marine wildlife species. The organization has a policy of nonviolence and working within the boundaries of international conservation law. In its 33-year history, Sea Shepherd has never inflicted any injuries to any person nor has any Sea Shepherd activist ever been convicted of a felony crime.”

    • ddpalmer

      So the Sea Shepherds also thought Mr. Gil was condoning violence and felt they had to distance themselves from his comments.

      But someone said that isn’t what Mr. Gil meant. “Did it ever occur to you knuckleheads that he wasn’t suggesting using guns…” So I guess Sea Shepherds is run by a bunch of knuckleheads.

      • Gavin MacQueen

        …and you called me a mind reader.

        How about this, the SS realizes that there are spin doctors, such as yourself, that continuelly take things way out of context, so they’ve decided to eliminate as much potential for this as possible by making a statement addressing the issue with clarification.

        What’s really hilarious is that you are now spinning their statement which was intended to prevent any further spinning.

        You know, the Flat Earth Society is looking for people like you.

      • ddpalmer

        If you are correct then why didn’t they give an answer just like the one you did rather than disavow Mr. Gil?

      • Gavin MacQueen

        Simply because no one really knows how people are going to read into things or spin the truth until it’s actually made public.

        Remember, hindsight is 20/20.

  • Gavin MacQueen

    ddpalmreader,

    Please address this:

    “SEA SHEPHERD is LAW ENFORCEMENT. – Sea Shepherd is AUTHORIZED under Article 24, sections (a), (c), and (e) of the U.N.W.C.f.N. for ENFORCEMENT against the Japanese Criminal Whale killers. The Japanese are in violation of the Antarctic Treaty, Article I, the Japanese Whalers have already been convicted in court in 2008, and are wanted fugitives.

    Sea Shepherd staff contains U.S Federal Agents. In addition, Sea Shepherd staff contains U.S. Law Enforcement officers.”

    • sidewinder

      He/she cant/wont. They cherry pick and only reply to bits they want to… usual futile tripe from these narrow minds.

    • ddpalmer

      Most of this is easy.

      “SEA SHEPHERD is LAW ENFORCEMENT. – Sea Shepherd is AUTHORIZED under Article 24, sections (a), (c), and (e) of the U.N.W.C.f.N.”

      From Watson’s conviction in Canada, he avoided 2 of the 3 charges by ‘colour of right’;

      “Now, “colour of right” as a defence cannot apply unless a mistake is honestly held by the accused. Thus, the first step you must consider [is] whether there is evidence indicating that the accused believed that he was authorized to do what he did by the World Charter and that that belief was honestly held. Now, it is important for you to realize as well, that it does not matter whether the belief was reasonable; so long as it was honest. Nevertheless, when you are deciding whether the accused honestly believed that he had a legal justification or excuse, you should consider whether there were any reasonable grounds for that belief.”

      So the court held that he had no enforcement powers under the UN WCfN although he believed he did.

      “The Japanese are in violation of the Antarctic Treaty, Article I”

      “Article I
      1. Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. There shall be prohibited, inter alia, any measure of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military maneuvers, as well as the testing of any type of weapon.
      2. The present Treaty shall not prevent the use of military personnel or equipment for scientific research or for any other peaceful purpose.”

      Japan hasn’t established a military base or fortification, they haven’t carried out military maneuvers and they haven’t tested any weapons, so no violation.

      “The Japanese Whalers have already been convicted in court in 2008, and are wanted fugitives.”

      I assume he means the Australian Federal Court case. That was a civil case so they can’t be fugitives from justice. As to the conviction, you can’t be convicted in civil court. Did they lose, technically yes, but even the Judge said before the trial and in his final ruling that the ruling has no effect because the Japanese aren’t in Australian Territory.

      “Sea Shepherd staff contains U.S Federal Agents. In addition, Sea Shepherd staff contains U.S. Law Enforcement officers.”

      I have no idea what he is talking about here. I have heard there are ‘former’ law enforcement people in the crew and there could be former federal agents. But unless someone has proof that there are current agents or officers in an official status then they are just civilians like anybody else.

    • ddpalmer

      Sorry to disappoint you sidewinder.

      Maybe you’ll have better luck next time.

      • billy jean is my lover

        You disappeared for hours ‘researching’ to come up with that?

        You do realise you make zero sense, and have not addressed anything. I’ll ignore the stench of someone desperate.

      • sidewinder

        No need to give me one of your empty sarcastic apologies ddpalmer. Getting lonely out there isnt it?

  • agni

    >>Sea Shepherd is AUTHORIZED under Article 24, sections (a), (c), and (e) of the U.N.W.C.f.N. for ENFORCEMENT

    (a) The world charter for nature is not an international treaty. No states have signed it. It is simply a resolution of the UN General Assembly. Under the UN Charter, the General Assembly has no rights of enforcement. That is reserved to the UN Security Council. The General Assembly cannot delegate authority it does possess.

    (b) The World Charter says nothing about whaling. It does however say living creatures and “resources” “should be used”.

    (c) Watson has tried the World Charter nonsense before (his conviction for criminal mischief)

    Supreme Court of Newfoundland — Court of Appeal
    R. v. Watson
    Date: 19990723

    http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlca/doc/1999/1999canlii13906/1999canlii13906.html

    “the trial judge also instructed the jury — as a matter of law — that the World Charter for Nature, did not consti­tute legal justification or excuse under s. 429(2). That instruction is not challenged in this appeal. A legal justification or excuse makes legal what would otherwise be a crime.

    The most commonly used definition of colour of right is “an honest belief in a state of facts which, if it existed, would be a legal justification or excuse. (See: R. v. Johnson (1904), 8 C.C.C. 123 (Ont. H.C.J.).) As will be seen, this definition of colour of right, while accurate as far as it goes, does not really address whether colour of right extends to mistake of law which is at the heart of this appeal. However, certain characteristics of colour of right are well established and are not disputed by the parties. Those aspects are:

    (1) that the defence is based on the honest belief of the accused that, at the time the offence was committed, he had a colour of right (Creaghan).”

    Having used “Colour of Right” once, Watson cannot claim ignorance of the law again. The World Charter (as the original trial judge noted) does not provide legal justification for his actions.

    • agni

      that should be
      “it does NOT possess.”

      • sidewinder

        agni, maybe you should slow down your rants a bit, and gather your thoughts properly instead of the en mass assualt and corrections / re-posts etc. You just end up looking like a lamer. BTW, what is your point? Whaling is illegal. The Japanese are poachers in breach of dozens of laws, treaties and agreements. Not to mention just down right disrespectful and provoking. They are egging on a fight. Not since WW2 have they taken prisoners aboard their ships for transport back to Japan to a POW camp, I mean a fair trial (In Japans eyes modern day) with a 99.1% conviction rate regardless of the crime and who is at fault. Nice, fair, modern and democratic legal system there.

  • agni

    BTW
    http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlca/doc/1999/1999canlii18935/1999canlii18935.html

    Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Court of Appeal
    R. v. Watson
    Date: 1999-11-17
    Gushue, J.A.

    “(1) The appellant already had a criminal record;”

    Remember this statement of fact from the Canadian Judge of Appeal

  • agni

    >>Agni, how about some credible sources?”

    How about the legal opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom, which opposes whaling?

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90304w0004.htm
    Reply of the Minister to the House of Lords

    “Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Under the terms of Article VIII of the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, Japan’s lethal research takes of minke whales in the Southern Ocean and of minke, Bryde’s, sei and sperm whales in the North Pacific are, regrettably, quite legal.”

    Note the reply of the Minister, the opinion of the British Government legal experts.

    “regrettably, quite legal.”

    Now do you understand why not one nation has taken Japan to court?

    Do you now understand why Australia has not approached either the ICJ in the Hague or the UNCLOS Tribunal for a remedy?

    If whaling were illegal, Japan would have been taken to the International Court of Justice or a Tribunal of the Convention of the Law of the Sea. It has not been.

    There is only one international law that is concerned with whaling. That is the 1946 ICRW treaty.
    Under that treaty, the Japanese “whaling under permit” is legal, even inside the IWC sanctuary.

    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.”

    That not one member of the IWC has seen fit to challenge Japan in an International tribunal is self explanatory with respect to legality.

  • agni

    I challenge anyone here to state any international law that outlaws the whaling conducted by Japan, Denmark and Iceland.
    Please provide the treaty name and quote the article that bans whaling.

    If you can do this, I will donate $1000 to the Sea Shepherds.

  • agni

    Regarding the Australian civil court case

    “as far as Japan is concerned, the Australian Antarctic EEZ is the high seas which is not subject to any legitimate control by Australia under UNCLOS and domestic legislation provided for thereby (such as the EPBC Act).”

    - Justice James Allsop of the Federal Court of Australia, in his original ruling.

  • no maru is a good maru

    Is that you Glenn / ddpalmer / Toyotomi / Kimitake?

  • agni

    >>”“Sea Shepherd staff contains U.S Federal Agents. In addition, Sea Shepherd staff contains U.S. Law Enforcement officers.”

    Testimony of James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, FBI
    Before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
    February 12, 2002
    “The Threat of Eco-Terrorism”
    http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm

    “Since 1977, when disaffected members of the ecological preservation group Greenpeace formed the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and attacked commercial fishing operations by cutting drift nets, acts of “eco-terrorism” have occurred around the globe. The FBI defines eco-terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature.”

    • whiplash

      The whalers are poachers and should be sent to prison for poaching whales and attempted murder and deliberately ramming & sinking another vessel, leaving the scene of an accident and various other environmental atrocities (pollution etc).

    • OFFICE of the REGISTRAR

      WARNING: user by the name of “agni” has just attempted another pro-whaler ploy. “The F-B-I ruse”. This is misinformation and a known extremist whaler snafu. – It has already been debunked for quite some time now.

      What the user “agni” just did, is he pulled a quotation out of context which is already documented as a well-known pro-whaler ploy. This item purporting to be the F-B-I was originally inked on the internet by a known spammer and Japanese pro-whaling extremist on a chat board in 2007.

      What that Japanese national extremist whaler did, was he attempted to do a document search of the F-B-I site, for mentions of Sea Shepherd, then found one, NOT anything consisting of official F-B-I policy, but simply the opinion testimony of then Section Chief Jim Jarboe merely giving it in a speech referring to acts since 1977 in front of the Forest Health subcommittee! – This Japanese extremist then took that item, created a fake blog post, and then spammed it as a “news” item falsely insinuating that the F-B-I was now “after” Sea Shepherd and had categorized them as eco-terorists==FALSE.

      The user “agni” has just gotten sucked in by it. This is already well known, documented, and debunked. However, the user “agni” probably doesn’t know that since he is very un-informed on the subject.

      Jim Jarboe, the reputed F-B-I individual who is reputed for this is NO LONGER WITH the F-B-I. He has been replaced. The testimony of one individual does not constitute a POLICY statement by the entire F-B-I. Thus, the insinuation pushed by the original Japanese national extremist spammer, and picked up on by the user identified as “agni” that the F-B-I (itself) considered or considers SSCS such a group is False. In addition, the item by the sole individual Jarboe at 1 subcommittee speech also states nothing at all about ANY such action against Sea Shepherd. You’ll notice the wording simply states that Sea Shepherd “formed” (sure. of course it formed, everyone knows this) and Sea Shepherd cut drift nets (absolutely! The Drift Nets were illegal, and SSCS was enforcing the law against it. The fishermen acted upon were found to be operating ILLegally. Sure they acted as enforcement and cut the drift nets of the criminal fishing operants, absolutely, and Sea Shepherd even said so, and is quite clear and upfront with everything.) And you’ll notice that even in this 1 individual Jarboe’s opinion testimony, his next sentence does NOT say SSCS is such an organization at all, the next sentence merely says “acts of “eco-terrorism” have occurred around the globe.” So not only does it not state that SSCS is such, merely stating that “it happens around the globe”, but this 1 item by 1 individual who is no longer with the Department is not Department-wide policy. And guess what, this was years and years and years ago, and NO F-B-I action has EVER been taken against Sea Shepherd for anything mentioned in that testimony. EVER! Despite the fact that Sea Shepherd is open and forthcoming right in front of the division.

      In fact, SEA SHEPHERD IS BASED IN THE US! IN WASHINGTON!

      OK, SO NOW WE KNOW “agni”‘s ATTEMPT WAS A KNOWN PLOY AND THE USER CAN’T BE TRUSTED, SO WHAT’S THE REAL STORY?

      Ok, here is the kicker. This is where the ilk of “agni” are going to truly have their world turned upside-down, the extremist militant pro-whalers will shrink down with their tail between their legs, and have their day ruined because they will be henceforth unable to post their little F-B-I wanted argument ever again:

      PAUL WATSON, of SEA SHEPHERD, works with the F-B-I

      I’ll say that one more time: Not only is the above ploy by pro-whalers and “agni” exposed, but Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society works WITH the F-B-I and TAUGHT F-B-I agents at the F-B-I Academy in Quantico, Virginia.

      Sorry to, figuratively, sink your boat “agni” and all extremist pro-whalers, but one more time because all know that it takes multiple times to soak through less-than-permiable heads: Paul Watson teaches F-B-I Agents at the F-B-I Academy.

      The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation works along with Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd. And including this past summer, August of 2009, the F-B-I invited Paul Watson, as the guest of the Department, to conduct seminar classes to teach U.S. Federal Agents including officials and recruits at the F-B-I Academy in Quantico.

      Look it up.

      To “agni” and any and all other pro-whaler extremist fanatics, not only is your “F-B-I SSCS is terror Oh no!” spam ruse now completely rendered useless and Un-Usable, it turns out that Paul and Sea Shepherd in fact work along with the F-B-I. And is an invited guest-speaker, instructing agents AGAINST eco-terrorist groups such as the Japanese Whalers.

      1. The U.S. is against the illegal Japanese Whalers.
      2. The F-B-I is not only against the eco-terrorist Whalers, the departement is working WITH Paul Watson and Sea Shepherd.

      A special “thank you” goes to extremist pro-whaler fanatic “agni”: for bringing up the subject, thinking that he had won something, but instead providing the opportunity to expose his argument, and watching his house-of-meat collapse on himself, not only rendering his entire Pro-Whaler argument unusable, but revealing that not only is Sea Shepherd not wanted, but that Paul Watson is indeed a guest-speaker at the F-B-I Academy.

      ~~~

  • agni

    You can attempt to spin the testimony to the American Congress all you want, the link is there for all to read and the opinion of the speaker is quite clear.

    BTW
    Do you think Watson asked them about their arrest of his (now ex-) wife ?

    “Case shines light on FBI’s efforts to dismantle liberation fronts

    By PAUL SHUKOVSKY
    SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

    An agent with the FBI’s domestic terrorism squad arrested an animal rights activist yesterday for allegedly lying to a Seattle federal grand jury investigating an arson attack on an Olympia forest-product company.

    The complaint against Allison Lance Watson provides a rare window into the FBI’s efforts to dismantle the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, which the bureau considers to be among the greatest domestic terrorism threats facing the nation.

    Watson faces a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine if she is convicted on the charge of making a false statement to the grand jury. Led into the courtroom in shackles, Watson was released without having to post a cash bond pending a preliminary hearing next month.

    She is the wife of Paul Watson, most well-known in Washington state for
    leading the protests in 1999 when the Makah Tribe resumed hunting gray
    whales.”

    • agni

      I’m still waiting for you to state the international law that bans what the Japanese are doing. Please quote the article in said treaty that bans whaling.

      If you can do this, I will donate $1000 to the Paul Watson and the SSCS

  • agni

    >>”And including this past summer, August of 2009, the F-B-I invited Paul Watson, as the guest of the Department, to conduct seminar classes to teach U.S. Federal Agents including officials and recruits at the F-B-I Academy in Quantico.
    Look it up.”

    Hmm…

    I can only find this statement from Paul Watson

    “If we have engaged in a single act of terrorism then we should be charged with a crime. The fact is that we have never been charged with a terrorist act let alone convicted. I was invited to give a lecture at the F.B.I. Academy in Quantico,”

    The first part is clearly false. Paul Watson has been convicted and sentenced to prison in Norway.

    We know from Canadian court records that he has a criminal record

    http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlca/doc/1999/1999canlii18935/1999canlii18935.html
    Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador, Court of Appeal
    R. v. Watson
    Date: 1999-11-17
    Gushue, J.A.

    “(1) The appellant already had a criminal record;”

    But is the second part false as well? I don’t see any independent corroboration of this claim. I recall a movie where a criminal (Frank Abagnale Jr) later worked with the FBI. Is this something similar? Or did this ‘lecture’ take place in a bar in Quantico? The only reference I can find with this comes from Watson, and we all know how reliable his statements are.

    Somebody help me out. Did some misguided FBI trainer really invite Watson over? Or is he blowing hot air?

    • OFFICE of the REGISTRAR

      Whaling extremist “agni” wrote:

      “statement from Paul Watson”

      “If we have engaged in a single act of terrorism then we should be charged with a crime. The fact is that we have never been charged with a terrorist act let alone convicted. I was invited to give a lecture at the F.B.I. Academy in Quantico,”

      “The first part is clearly false. Paul Watson has been convicted and sentenced to prison in Norway.”=FALSE.

      TO ALL on the GOOD side:

      Alert. This is another example of the the user “agni” attempting a typical pro-whaler extremist distortion.

      This is a good example, because it really exposes agni and what all good people can watch out for when encountering pro-killer extremists and their ilk.

      What he has done here, is attempt to construct a context distortion, and then use it within false pretense to concoct a sweeping generalisation to prove something that is not true.

      Take this statement:

      “we have never been charged with a terrorist act let alone convicted.”

      What this means, is, we have never been charged with a terrorist act let alone convicted [of a terrorist act.]

      Every person here knows, that in the course of conversational speech, all people converse within a certain situation, and wherein one engages with another person and speech is adjusted automatically to one’s level of familiarity, and context. Depending upon the familiarity level, certain things that are considered “understood” at the tail end of a sentence are left unsaid. In fact, if someone DID start enumerating every single iota of minutia while speaking to you, it would even be considered Annoying. Thus, in a more pleasant and engaging style, during conversation, things that are understood are left, well, understood! This is a typical instance of that.

      Here is an example:

      STORY:
      Person 1: “Hey, I left my notebook computer in the house on the couch today, and now the screen is cracked! Someone sat on it! Did you go in the house today? Was it you?”

      Person 2: “No. I went in the house but I never sat on the couch.”

      Ok, in the above, this little vignette gives you a view of the full story.

      Now, here’s what “agni” has done:

      First, obliterate the initial context, then cherry pick out the 2nd line:

      Example: “I went in the house but I never sat on the couch.”

      (what is understood here, is “I went in the house but I never sat on the couch. [TODAY! And did not TODAY sit on the couch. Or on your laptop.]”

      Then, what “agni” and such of his ilk do is now distort it like this…

      Example: “AHA! 8 months ago, in the year 2009, “person2″ sat on a couch, in someone elses house! — Therefore person2 lied, they claim they never sat on a couch, Person2 is a liar!”

      They may even go on to insist on showing you photos, videos, and other concocted “evidence” showing person2 indubitably sitting on “a” couch. To which they will point and cry “See! Liar!”

      This is a typical pro-whaler fanatic ploy. What “agni” and others like this have done, is falsely obliterated the actual statement within the situation, and then constructed a distortion around it, and then claimed victory.

      Naturally, this is easily seen, and “agni” is now exposed.

      The full story is: “we have never been charged with a terrorist act let alone convicted. [of a terrorist act.] -WHICH IS TRUE!

      So this is in fact Not a lie, and Paul Watson remains telling the truth, and “agni” is the one caught perpetrating a falsified distortion.

      By the way, pro-whalers have also tried this same context removal distortion ploy on statements such as “we have never been convicted. [OF A FELONY].” Wherein a pro-whaler will go around attempting to quote and post all kinds of misdemeanor (parking-ticket-like) court cases such as “photographing without a permit” or “getting too close to a seal” (to protect it) during the seal hunt”, etc etc and ranting incessantly about how it “proves” [NOT] SSCS or “paul” is a liar.

      There is probably few persons (at least at the age of an adult, not a child) on here who has NOT been “convicted”. Of something. Including getting a parking ticket. If any of you, have had so much as your meter run out of coins, you have “broken the law!”, or if you’ve ever had a ticket for parking in the wrong spot, or even going 1 kilometer or mile above the posted speed limit, then you’ve been “convicted.” However, it is highly unlikely, that any person, even having gotten a parking ticket long ago, goes to a party and introduces themselves as a “convicted criminal” or said “yes” on a job application in response to the question “have you ever been convicted of a crime”.

      The point being, the statement is in regard to FELONIES, which is the category assigned to real serious crimes, of which Paul Watson has NONE! Which is true.

      However, Be On the Look Out for surreptitious distortion-artists, like “agni” who will indubitably go around attempting to “prove” YOU and everyone else is a “liar” by spouting all kinds of citations of court cases and misdemeanor judgements and “walking without a permit” type violations and using that to Falsely assert that either Paul Watson or SSCS “is a liar”.

      The typical response to these pro-whaler extremists who do this is as follows:

      YOU ask THEM: “Hmm. You have just gone around decrying others, for “breaking the law”. Well, have YOU ever broken the law?”

      And if they say NO, it’s checkmate.

      Because then you ask them, hmm, do you drive? If you have EVER gone even 1 kilometer above the speed limit, then guess what, technically YOU BROKE the law! Even if you don’t drive, have you ever crossed the street and the light was not indicating WALK, or it was NOT at a crosswalk? Yes? Well, then YOU broke the law!

      So now not only did that pro-whaler Break the Law, if they said NO, they are also a LIAR!

      If they say they are NOT a liar, then you have checkmated them again. Because NO person in the entire world, above the age of a speaking infant, has NEVER LIED. [Example: Does this dress make me look fat?? -No.]

      So now, that pro-whaler is quite probably guilty of exactly what they are crying wolf about. They go around accusing others of being a liar and they themselves CANNOT claim they have never lied. They go around crying they are “holier-than-thou” decrying how they are all for obeying and not breaking the law and yet if they’ve driven a car, or even walked across the street, THEY are most likely guilty of breaking the law! And after spamming reams of material about how ‘activists’ have been ‘convicted’ of protesting something (gee, ya think? I mean, even Gandhi did.) And there is a high probability that open-mouthed pro-whaler who just got done espousing Oh the Horror, about getting nicked for something, has also been “convicted” of something, be it even a parking ticket. For which they may have needed to show up in court for it!

      But pro-whalers, including the individual “agni” are easily exposed and defeated on both their acts of distortion, as well as the fact that they also can make no claim to not being a liar, or claiming to have never broken the law, or being convicted.

      It is certain they are also a guilty liar, that they themselves have broken the law, and highly likely that they may have also been “convicted of a crime” as well.

      Yet another of “agni”‘s dwindling arguments is now discredited.

      And if he, or any other pro-whaler even attempts to claim the “liar” one one more time, they themselves are going to get boomeranged with it right back against them because NO pro-whaler can claim they have never in their life lied and are therefore a liar.

    • ddpalmer

      Hello from Hamburg.

      You do realize Deputy Dog that the term ‘felony’ doesn’t appear in many countries legal codes. So it is Paul Watson that is playing word games when he says ‘never convicted of a felony’.

      So as an example in many countries you could be conviceted of murdering in cold blood 50 people and sentenced to 1000 years in prison but you have not been convicetd of a ‘felony’ because that country doesn’t call serious crimes felonies. Just because the US uses the term felony for serious crimes does not mean that every country does.

      “A felony is the most serious form of crime in the United States; however, in other countries, the terminology is no longer used. For example, in 1967, the terms felony and its counterpart, misdemeanor, were abolished in England and the other countries of the Commonwealth. In Canada, the term indictable offense is used instead. In addition, those found guilty of the more serious crimes are prosecuted in Canada’s federal courts, rather than provincial courts, as well. The term felony is still used in Hungary, Turkey, Kenya, and Fiji. ”

      And Pauls conviction in Canada from the early 90′s was for an ‘indictable offense’. So he is right when he says no felony conviction but he was convicted of an offense that in the US would be called a felony.

  • agni

    A challenge:
    I’ve got $1000 I don’t know what to do with.
    I’m willing to donate it to the SSCS.

    However
    I’ll only do so if someone can show me that what the Japanese are doing
    is illegal under international law. That their “whaling under permit”
    is illegal.

    So… if anyone here can state the international treaty that bans wh…aling and can provide me with the actual article where it bans this, I will give the SSCS the $1000.

    Just
    show me where the Japanese are breaking international law. Either a
    treaty or a court judgment (ICJ, UNCLOS etc) that cites either treaty
    or customary international law.

  • Gavin MacQueen

    Re-posting here to insure that all will see:

    ddpalmer asked: “Care to give an example of me redefining a word?”

    Certainty, since there are many, but let’s start with your usage of the word “terrorist”. This word is commonly misused by the pro japanese poacher supporters. Frankly, I find their use of the word “terrorist” to describe the SSCS so “DRAMA QUEEN”.

    When a word is misused like that, it’s very unfortunate since it greatly diminishes the value or strength of the word. When people use words that are clearly an exaggeration in reference to what they are describing, it merely demonstrates a desperate overtone to their argument and reveals that their rants lacks proof to back up their point. If you’ve watched Jerry Springer, you know what I’m talking about.

    Now, if you were to consider all of the actions committed by the “japanese whale poachers” and the “Sea Shepherd”, the only group that committed an act of violence, that stands out and appropriately deserves the “terrorist” label,…And the winner is…the “japanese whale poachers”…for their deliberate act of colliding and sinking the Ady Gil vessel. This was indeed a violent act.

    So my point is simply this; If the word “terrorist” continues to be used to describe a group of people that are merely non-lethally trying to prevent another groups actions, soon anyone who eggs and/or tee-pees a home, or a sports fan who throws a bottle or a can onto a playing field, will be considered a terrorist…and when that happens…we will have to come up with a better word to describe Al-Qaeda.

    Another thing I would like to point out; Where there’s a comedian, there is laughter, where there’s a teacher, there is learning…and where there are terrorists, there is terror. Please show me one example of a japanese whale poacher who has expressed or has shown signs of being terrorized by the Sea Shepherd’s actions. I’m sure you could find many that have been annoyed or frustrated, but terrorized, I don’t think so.

    I look forward to your rebuttal of rationalizations…

    • ddpalmer

      I thought I asked for an example of me redefining a word, not pro-whalers in general.

      Now should we discuss your definition of poacher because it doesn’t ssem to match the common meaning. You aren’t redefining are you?

      • Gavin MacQueen

        Hmmm, let’s see. “Terrorist” is a word, correct? I have evidence that you and others have redefined this word. I then made very clear points addressing this in my post. Could we possibly be having a syntax issue here, or are you just that dense!

        ddpalmer’s MO: If your opponent is successful at proving you wrong, simply respond back to your opponent with mindless double talk or jibberish…this will hopefully cause confusion, increasing the chance that your opponent will begin to think that he is the one who is in fact wrong.

        I’m beginning to think you need to redefine your thinking.

      • Bucky Goldstein

        lol, I guess ddpalmer is not familiar with the term “Case and Point”

        Gavin, you made your point very clear and quite eloquently, I might add.

        ddpalmer’s rebuttals just get funnier and funnier!

    • ddpalmer

      Yes terrorist is a word but I don’t see where you have any proof that I have used it.

      But I will ignore your ability to read and comprehend English and discuss the definition of terrorist.

      terrorist
      a person who employs terror or terrorism, esp as a political weapon

      terrorism
      the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

      Does the SSCS use violence? Yes, one example throwing glass bottles.
      Does the SSCS try to intimidate the whalers? Yes.
      Do they try and coerce them to stop whaling? Yes.

      So violence, intimidation and coercion; meets the definition of terrorism and one who employs terrorism is a terrorist. Ergo the SSCS are terrorists.

      Is the word over used? Yes, which is why I try not to use it. Which is why you hadn’t found an example of me using it and got defensive when called on it.

      But no matter. The common definition of terrorist applies to the SSCS.

      • Bucky Goldstein

        I’m not going to comb through every blog to make my point, but I will give you one:

        “Since you support the whalers who are engaged in acts of violence (Ship ramming, firing LRAD etc) who are criminals, you also would be classed as a terrorist and a criminal.”
        Source: http://www.ecorazzi.com/2010/02/15/how-the-sea-shepherd-secretly-boarded-a-japanese-whaling-vessel-wvideo/

        And nothing you posted validates the SSCS at being terrorists. I believe you’re confusing violence with the act of simply making it more difficult to kill whales or sell whale meat. Labeling the SS as “mischievous” would be more appropriate.

      • ddpalmer

        So you want to redefine the word violence also?

        I don’t know anybody who can logically call throwing glass bottles at people anything but violence.

        But the example you found wasn’t even my post. It was a post by an anti-whaler who was calling me a terrorist. Just another example of the anti-whalers redefining a word.

        Thanks for the assist Bucky!

        Well this has been fun but I have a flight to Germany tonight for 2 weeks of evaluation of some new engines the company I work for is considering. Don’t know how much internet access I will have. I will check in when I can.

      • Bucky Goldstein

        “I don’t know anybody who can logically call throwing glass bottles at people anything but violence.”

        They through bottles at the ship, doing their best to avoid hitting people. See how you tweak the truth in order to win your arguments?

        By the way, have a safe trip to Germany. I love that country. Bring me back a beer stein :)

    • ddpalmer

      Bucky I guess you and Gavin need to learn the difference between a group and an individual.

      Gavin made a decent arguement that the term terroist is over used. And that it is used by many pro-whalers. But he completely failed to show that I had used it.

      And as my latest post shows in plain English, even if it is over used the common definition of terrorist does apply to the SSCS. Gavin and your attempts to change the question I posed are really pathetic. And both of you continue to try and redefine poacher which just makes it even funnier.

      poacher
      One who hunts or fishes illegally on the property of another.

      The Japanese are in international waters and within the regulations of the IWC. No poaching there, unless of course they ahve poached eggs for breakfast.

      • Bucky Goldstein

        I mis-posted, look above your post. I found a post where you used “terrorist”

      • Bucky Goldstein

        If the japanese whalers are in fact killing whales for research, then you are correct. But I think we all know that they are whaling for commercial purposes under the guise of research. Therefore, they are in fact whale poachers. It just depends on what reality you subscribe to.

      • Bucky Goldstein

        by the way, whales are not fishes.

      • Gavin MacQueen

        ddpalmer,

        When you show me one credible source that backs up your statement showing where an Australian and a New Zealand official stated that “they don’t really care about the whales, they just want peace and quiet.”

        …I’ll show you where you used the word “Terrorist”

      • ddpalmer

        So you admit that you can’t find where I used terrorist.

        We are taking the ferry to Norway today, doing the tourist thing for the weekend then out to sea Monday to look at the engines in action.

      • Gavin MacQueen

        So you admit that you can’t find where an Australian and a New Zealand official stated that ,b.“they don’t really care about the whales, they just want peace and quiet.”

        I know precisely where you used the word “terrorist”.

  • agni

    No takers? Think how many whales the SSCS can save with that $1000. I keep reading where whaling is illegal. Nobody can state the treaty or principle of customary international law that makes it illegal?
    Think about the whales! Somebody? Anybody?

  • OFFICE of the REGISTRAR

    JAPANESE WHALERS NOW RULED IN VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

    Pro-whaler extremist “agni” wrote: “Nobody can state the treaty or principle of customary international law that makes it illegal”=FALSE. This is a false statement by the extremist killer sympathiser identified as “agni”.

    The violations of international law are well-known, and have been published, again and again, and stand. What “agni” has done here is simply make a post, and then before allowing any time for responses, declared himself victor. Sorry, but violations of international law by Japanese Whalers do not go away simply because you post something and then a short time later without allowing time for respondants, go and self-declare yourself victor, or simply take examples of the violations and self-deny them using contrived excuses. Especially, when these items are already published and well-known.

    NOW, to debunk your latest, and destroy yet another of your attempts, rendering yet another of your so-called “arguments” defunct and unusable…

    1. CITES is INTERNATIONAL LAW.
    At this point you can no longer regurgitate any concocted excuse claiming federal or non-international jurisdiction. You are now forced to admit we are dealing with international law and any of your excuses regarding this are now rendered unusable.

    2. CITES is the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.

    3. CITES sets the rules regarding illegal destruction of, and sales of, illegal endangered species.

    4. Japan is a signatory to the CITES Treaty. This means they are bound by it.
    At this point, you can NO longer concoct any excuse that the Japanese Whalers can slip out of this. Japan signed it. This means they are contractually clamped to obeyance of the treaty. You now have no loop hole, excuse, objection, claim of non-jurisdiction, or false claim of exemption. Japan itself is now bound by this. By signing it on the dotted line, this overrules, and supercedes any other items. Including the ICRW, international waters, disputed territories, etc. All of those excuses are now rendered VOID.

    5. The CITES Treaty sets forth a list of species that are protected, and any violation of this is a violation of INTERNATIONAL LAW. In *ADDITION* to the IUCN RedList, the CITES treaty contains within its body the declarative that ANYTHING listed as a “Protection Stock” by the IWC is also covered by the CITES treaty.
    Note at this point you CANNOT attempt the use of non-listing on the IUCN RedList. So before you try it, sit back down. Because that element has already been defeated. One more time, IN ADDITION to the IUCN Redlist, the CITES treaty states that ANY species listed by the IWC is ALSO considered protected under international law. If you attempt the false RedList ploy you are already defeated.

    6. The CITES Treaty states, that ANY species listed as a “Protection Stock” by the IWC in Table 1 Paragraph 10(c) is declared protected. Paragraph 10(c) provides the definition of Protection Stocks and states that Protection Stocks are listed in the Tables of the Schedule. Observing said Tables of the Schedule document, Table 1 clearly lists the whales in contention, including minke, fin and humpback whales. And it states that all of them are Protection Stock. Keep in mind, that it does NOT declare anything about the location. It is known that whales migrate. Globally. Thus, this is NOT included in the language of CITES. Note that even Japan officially considers even the minke whale to be threatened. And Japan’s signature on the Treaty binds them to this. It does not matter where they are, if they are listed in the Table as a “Protection Stock” they are protected under the LAW!

    7. The Japanese are killing species that are listed as Protection Stocks, and therefore they are in violation of Internationl Law!

    Now, please mail your $1000 donation to The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, WASHINGTON, USA. Put it in your own name so that everyone can see your voluntary and willing support of SSCS.

    In addition, this will be required as proof of you committing to your word, otherwise you will be yet again revealed as farce who has reneged and without such you will be exposed in your failure to keep your word.

    (Note, not that anyone even expects you too. The expected result is that you will, as usual, attempt to concoct more debunked excuses, or “loop holes” in order to worm yourself out of it.)

    -

    Also note, Japan has expressly, in writing, also targeted endangered FIN whales (against the CITES Treaty, International Law), and humpback whales (also a protected stock, a violation of the CITES Treaty, International Law) and also received official CONDEMNATION of this via their JARPA II plan by the IWC, and including the IWC’s scientific committee.

    In addition to this, investigations have confirmed that endangered species meat has been found ON SALE for ingestion within Japan.

    Investigators from the EIA investigation agency conducted undercover operations wherein samples of “whale meat” were purchased from markets all across Japan. The samples were then scientifically analyzed using DNA analysis.

    The results of the DNA analysis not only showed that the DNA in the meat samples being sold by Japanese whalers and their sales outlets contained endangered and/or threatened whale species, it ALSO revealed highly endangered
    BLUE WHALE meat! Blue Whale meat has been declared illegal since the 1960′s! What this means, is that any and all claims of meat samples coming from previously harvested (pre-cites, pre-moratorium) sources are now declared False! It means that the meat cannot have been “frozen” and then thawed out, this would mean that they are claiming to have kept a Blue Whale in a warehouse since the last century, and selling meat to Japanese people unfit for human consumption that has been sitting around over 49 years! Since the actual refrigeration units and even said refrigeration technology were not even available at that time in the previous century, this means the Japanese Whalers have killed, disseminated, and poached illegal blue whale meat recently. And they are now caught, as the DNA analysis has now identified the species, even down to the specific whale line, and has caught the Japanese Whalers in yet more extreme violations of international law.

    Again:

    LEGAL NOTICE: INTL LAW EXPERTS & FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NOW RULED JAPANESE WHALING ILLEGAL

    QUOTE “Japans assertion that its whaling activities are legal is incorrect and misleading. Scientific whaling as conducted by Japan violates international law”
    Alberto Szekely, Expert in International Law
    -Intl Law Professor
    -Center for Intl Law
    -Legal Advisor to the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
    -Mbr Intl Court of Arbitration at THE HAGUE
    -Member of the UN International Law Commission

    THE JAPANESE WHALERS HAVE BEEN RULED IN BREACH OF INT’L LAW.

    • Mick

      OFFICE of the REGISTRAR,

      You are SO wrong, of course, you already know that. That’s why you keep posting the same nonsense.

      “LEGAL NOTICE: INTL LAW EXPERTS & FEDERAL COURTS HAVE NOW RULED JAPANESE WHALING ILLEGAL

      QUOTE “Japans assertion that its whaling activities are legal is incorrect and misleading. Scientific whaling as conducted by Japan violates international law”
      Alberto Szekely, Expert in International Law
      -Intl Law Professor
      -Center for Intl Law
      -Legal Advisor to the UN Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
      -Mbr Intl Court of Arbitration at THE HAGUE
      -Member of the UN International Law Commission”

      A “international law expert” does not have the authority to declare something legal or illegal. Only a INTERNATIONAL COURT has that authority. This fellow can say that, in his OPINION, it is illegal, however only a COURT RULING makes it a fact. There has been no international court ruling declaring the ICR’s scientific whaling program illegal, therefore, it is legal. Regardless of the opinions of Mr. Szekely.

      “Federal courts”, you say? Would you be refering to the AUSTRALIAN federal court? If so, AUSTRALIAN federal court is not INTERNATIONAL court and any rulings by the AUSTRALIAN federal court only applies to AUSTRALIANS.

      Thanks again for ANOTHER pointless, pompous and pretentious post.

    • agni

      The CITES convention of 1973 does not regulate or ban whaling. It regulates the trade in endangered species.

      From Article XXIII of the CITES treaty

      ” 2. Any State may, on depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, enter a specific reservation with regard to:
      (a) any species included in Appendix I, II or III; or
      (b) any parts or derivatives specified in relation to a species included in Appendix III.
      3. Until a Party withdraws its reservation entered under the provisions of this Article, it shall be treated as a State not a Party to the present Convention with respect to trade in the particular species or parts or derivatives specified in such reservation. ”

      Japan, Iceland and Denmark have all submitted reservations with respect to the whale species they hunt. So trade between themselves is actually quite legal under CITES.
      Under XXIII.3, all three nations are treated as not being governed by CITES with respect to whale meat.

  • OFFICE of the REGISTRAR

    User DDPALMER caught posting falsified information: “The Japanese are in international waters”=FALSE.

    It is now clearly documented that the Japanese Whaling Fleet has left international waters, and violated the sovereign territory of other nation states. Once again, there are multitudes of breaches of sovereign territory by the Japanese illegal whalers. This has not only been already documented New Zealand, French and Australian authorities, but also admitted to and confirmed by the Japanese.

    Here are just 3 documented instances, which in entirety include observations by the U.S. Coast Guard, GPS, SSCS, the Australian Navy, the Oceanic Viking, the U.S. Cutter Polaris, and New Zealand maritime authorities.

    (EVIDENCE #1.) “07/03/2008 at 0800 Hours (1900 G.M.T.) the Steve Irwin ordered the Nisshin Maru to leave French Territorial waters. The Japanese whaler complied and turned around and headed back west into Australian waters.”

    (EVIDENCE #2.) “The confrontation [by the Japanese Whalers] on 07/03/2008 occurred inside the Australian Territorial Zone at the position of 63 Degrees, 41 Minutes South and 133 Degrees 27 Minutes East.”

    (EVIDENCE #3) “Sea Shepherd crew in a Zodiac inflatable boat pursued the Japanese factory whaling ship, the Nisshin Maru, through New Zealand territorial waters north of the Ross Sea off Antarctica on Monday, Feb. 2. 2009.”

    Therefore, NO user may ever again state the claim that the Japanese Whalers are only in International Waters. If you do this, you will be perpetrating the dissemination of false information.

    It then becomes a matter of an un-witting offense, or a willful disregard and intentional attempt at falsification. DDPALMER has already been told that the line claiming that the Japanese are simply “in international waters” cannot be used. Thus, this user is now engaged in willful dissemination of false information.

    Any line attempting to state that the Japanese Whaling Fleet is simply in International Waters has now been proven false, and cannot be used. It is now exposed that the Japanese Whaling Fleet has been caught in not only the Australian EEZ (different from the disputed Antarctic areas), plus in New Zealand owned territory illegally, plus unlawfully entered French sovereign territory. The “they are in international waters” line is now rendered unusable.

    -

    DDPALMER wrote: “poacher..One who hunts or fishes illegally on the property of another.”

    The Japanese Whalers have now been caught violating the property of not only Australia, but also New Zealand, and France, as evidence clearly states above.

    Thank you to DDPALMER for affirming that the Japanese Whalers are now documented “Poachers”.

    • Mick

      Office of the registrar,

      (EVIDENCE #1.) “07/03/2008 at 0800 Hours (1900 G.M.T.) the Steve Irwin ordered the Nisshin Maru to leave French Territorial waters. The Japanese whaler complied and turned around and headed back west into Australian waters.”

      (EVIDENCE #2.) “The confrontation [by the Japanese Whalers] on 07/03/2008 occurred inside the Australian Territorial Zone at the position of 63 Degrees, 41 Minutes South and 133 Degrees 27 Minutes East.”

      (EVIDENCE #3) “Sea Shepherd crew in a Zodiac inflatable boat pursued the Japanese factory whaling ship, the Nisshin Maru, through New Zealand territorial waters north of the Ross Sea off Antarctica on Monday, Feb. 2. 2009.”

      Evidence? You call THAT “evidence”?
      All of your “evidence” are statements made by SS. Their statements, based on their beliefs, hardly qualify as “evidence”.

      • whiplash

        Mick, why do you like wasting peoples time?

  • OFFICE of the REGISTRAR

    The unlawful breaches of other nation states’ sovereign territory has already been confirmed. The Japanese Whalers admitted it themselves, as did the Institute for Cetacean Research. This was all stated before, so User “Mick” doesn’t read/understand very well.

    In addition, the breaches have been recorded and documented by the New Zealand AIRFORCE.

    And the whalers are also caught on video and photographic plates by the Oceanic Viking, a security ship belonging to the NAVY that was deployed to shadow the Japanese Whaling Fleet.

    And in addition the transgressions of the Japanese Whaling Fleet have been documented by the United States Coast Guard cutter “Polar Sea”. And all of it has confirmed and corroborated via GPS.

    So, the user Mick, by supporting a tiny sect of extremist killers engaged in the Japanese Whaling fleet, over the New Zealand Airforce, means that “MICK” is now cheering a foreign faction of killers and AGAINST the people of New Zealand and the AirForce.

    Statement of the Prime Minister of New Zealand: “One would hope that the fact that this season has been so ghastly for the Japanese whaling fleet might give cause for some reflection on whether they ever come back here again.” -PRIME MINISTER OF NEW ZEALAND

    Mick has also now set himself against the military of the United States of America. In addition, recall that the U.S. State Department is AGAINST the Japanese Whaling Fleet, so by cheering a tiny sect of whalers over the United States, Mick has now positioned himself as an ANTI-AMERICAN.

    PRESS RELEASE:
    “United States State Department Forcibly Opposes Japanese Whaling”

    “The United States has forcefully expressed opposition to Japans scientific whaling program. The U.S. supports the moratorium banning commercial whaling adopted by the IWC in effect since 1986 and opposes Japanese whaling.”

    -Richard Boucher
    Spokesperson
    Undersecretary for Public Affairs
    WASHINGTON D.C.
    UNITED STATES DEPT of STATE

    Mick is also siding against the allied NAVY, and instead cheering a small sect of illicit slaughterers who attempt to get you to believe the tenuous and dubious position that their act of killing whales and selling its tainted whale meat for the intent of ingestion by human children in exchange for money equals “scientific research”.

    Mick would rather believe and tout a tiny group of known whale poaching falsifiers than affirm the breaches documented by the official militaries of 3 allied nations. This sets Mick as an ANTI-AUSTRALIAN as well as a supporter of extremist fanatic killers.

    CABINET MINISTER Stephen Smith:
    “We sent the Oceanic Viking down there last season to get video and photographic evidence which will be available to us to use in an International Court..We’ve made the strongest representations over the last 12 months from Prime Ministerial level down.” – Statement of Foreign Cabinet Minister STEPHEN SMITH in Tokyo with Joel Fitzgibbon, the Defence Minister, at the meeting of international Foreign and Defence Ministers.

    Note: the Oceanic Viking is a security research vessel dispatched by the NAVY, which surveilled and took photographic and video evidence of the actions of the Japanese Whaling vessels, and gathered evidence against the Japanese Fleet for use against the Whalers in the International Court of Justice.

    Mick is also an ANTI-JAPANESE extremist.

    Recall that whale meat is laced with Methyl Mercuric toxin. It also contains chemicals of the DIOXIN group, and heavy metals such as cadmium. This comes from Japanese Researchers themselves, in Japan, and has also been affirmed by Japan’s Ministry of Health. These items, when ingested, cause organ damage, and ingestion of whale meat causes human families to give birth to children with birth defects.

    The Japanese Whalers are obtaining whale meat, which contains Methyl Mercury and have intentionally pushed it to be served for human ingestion into Japan’s childrens’ school lunch program.

    96% of Japan’s people DO NOT EAT or HAVE NEVER EATEN whale meat. So supporting whalers is NOT supporting Japan (the nation), nor is supporting whalers supporting Japan’s people, or children. A Pro-Whaler is only “FOR” merely the tiny little group of highly nationalist whale killers. Any and all pro-whalers are actually AGAINST the majority of the 128 million good people of Japan, and simply cheer a pack of killers whose actions have actually lead to the HUMAN DEATH of Japanese citizens.

    Any individual siding WITH the whalers is advocating the mass-human-poisoning of hundreds and thousands of Japanese children.

    The pro-whaling individual “Mick” is against the U.S., against the AIRFORCE, against the NAVY, against NZ, ANTI-JAPANESE, and a supporter of acts leading to the mass-poisoning of thousands of human children.

  • agni

    >>”(EVIDENCE #2.) “The confrontation [by the Japanese Whalers] on 07/03/2008 occurred inside the Australian Territorial Zone at the position of 63 Degrees, 41 Minutes South and 133 Degrees 27 Minutes East.””

    The Australian and New Zealand territorial claims to Antarctic waters are not recognized by the other nations in the world. They are null and void and have as much validity as Saddam Hussein’s claim that Kuwait is the 19th province of Iraq.

    See
    “Diplomatic Note – 3 December 2004
    United States Mission to the United Nations

    “The Deputy Representative of the United States of Americas presents her compliments to the Secretary General of the United Nations and refers to recent Australian submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf…

    The United States wishes to inform you that, recalling Article IV of the Antarctic Treaty, the United States does not recognize any state’s claim to territory in Antarctica”

    http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/aus04/clcs_03_2004_los_usatext.pdf

    The Japanese are not whaling in Australian, or New Zealand or US waters. They are whaling in International waters.

    This what Justice James Allsop of the Federal Court of Australia said in his ruling (HSI vs KSK):

    “as far as Japan is concerned, the Australian Antarctic EEZ is the high seas which is not subject to any legitimate control by Australia under UNCLOS and domestic legislation provided for thereby (such as the EPBC Act).”

  • agni

    http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.shtml#VII

    “2. Any State may, on depositing its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession, enter a specific reservation with regard to:
    (a) any species included in Appendix I, II or III; or
    (b) any parts or derivatives specified in relation to a species included in Appendix III.
    3. Until a Party withdraws its reservation entered under the provisions of this Article, it shall be treated as a State not a Party to the present Convention with respect to trade in the particular species or parts or derivatives specified in such reservation. ”

    http://www.cites.org/eng/app/reserve_index.shtml
    Reservations entered by Parties in effect from 13 September 2000

    So whaling is not illegal under CITES.
    Try again.
    Think how much that $1000 will benefit the SSCS.

  • Mick

    Office of the registrar posted,
    “There is inded NO RULING IN INTERNATIONAL COURT stating that Japanese Whalers ARE legal.”

    There is no international court ruling stating that it is ILLEGAL, either. The reason there is no international court ruling determining if it is legal or illegal is because the issue has not been brought before any international court. He contends that the OPINION of “Andrew Szekely” is the SAME as an INTERNATIONAL COURT “RULING”. So, Office of the registrar is stating that this person can arbitrarily declare something legal or illegal based SOLELY on his personal OPINION. Office of the registrar contends that this person his “qualified” to make that determination on his own WITHOUT the benifit of a trial.

    Office of the registrar also stated, “…IF ANY Japanese Whaler ever touches foot on land in Australia, he will face Federal charges.”

    This statement is incorrect. A few months ago Mr. Glen Inwood, the spokesman for the ICR, was in Melbourne Australia. Yet, he was not arrested or charged.

    Mr. Murray McCully, New Zealand Foreign Minister, had this to say about SS: “If people are determined to break the law and determined to kill other people on the high seas then it is not the responsibility of the New Zealand government or any other government to send armed vessels down there or something of that sort to stop them.”

    He also said, “We’ve got New Zealand citizens that have clearly been behaving in a manner that has put life at risk,” he said. “If they are going to go down there looking for trouble and determined to find it then there’s nothing we can do to stop them, except urge them to improve their conduct.”

    As you can see, the government of New Zealand has determined that SS is breaking the law.

    Office of the registrar failed to refute the fact that the U.S. government actually supports whaling. America kills an average of 50 ENDANGERED Bowhead whales a year. The hunting of ENDANGERED Bowhead whales is condoned and supported by the U.S. government. The U.S. government also supports and approves of the consumption of whale meat by it’s citizens.

    Office of the registrar has also stated that, “96% of Japan’s people DO NOT EAT or HAVE NEVER EATEN whale meat.”

    This is also incorrect. In my personal experience, about 70% of people in Japan have eaten and do eat whale meat. Whale meat is readily available in Japan and there is a steady demand for it.

    Office of the registrar likes to pontificate, yet all of his bluster merely serves to highlight the fact that he has no facts or proof to back up his wild allegations and opinions.

  • Dave Head

    http://www.naturalchoices.co.uk/International-legal-experts-urge?id_mot=10

    An international panel of independent legal experts convened in London has issued a detailed report challenging the legal status of Japan’s whaling operations, particularly the taking of endangered sei and humpback whales.
    The expert panel also recommends actions to be taken against the government of Japan for its violations of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

    Today’s report, dubbed the London Report on Illegal Whaling, comes as the government of Japan prepares to launch its whaling fleet into international waters later this week. Its dramatic findings add to a growing body of legal opinion sharply critical of Japan’s relentlessly expanding whaling operations. Since an international ban on commercial whaling was first imposed by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1986, Japan has argued its ongoing whaling is conducted for “scientific” purposes.

    The London Report finds Japan’s current and proposed takings of humpback and sei whales as well as other whale species “are for primarily commercial purposes” and “plainly constitute international trade”. Japan has previously announced it intends to kill more than 1,400 whales within the next year including 50 sei whales and 50 humpback whales, a species protected from commercial hunting for more than 40 years.

    http://www.stopwhaling.org/atf/cf/%7BC7E2199F-3FE3-487F-90AC-8FF4FBB61804%7D/UNLAWFULJAPANESESCIENTIFICWHALING.PDF

    In an effort to resolve the debate, an international panel of independent legal experts came together in 2006 to examine the issue as it relates to international law.

    The panel found that Japanese scientific whaling is in fact “unlawful” under international law, and contravenes key international conventions – a dramatic finding that opposes Japan’s long-held stance that it has the legal right to commercially hunt whales in the name of scientific research.

    In its final report, delivered in Paris on May 12, 2006, the panel concluded that:

    1. “Scientific whaling” does not meet the requirements of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) and does not therefore fall within the exemption laid down in its article VIII.

    2. There is strong evidence that “scientific whaling” is in violation of the moratorium on commercial whaling laid down in paragraph 10(e) of the schedule.

    3. Such whaling constitutes an abuse of rights afforded by article VIII of the ICRW.

    4. “Scientific whaling” raises serious questions of compliance with articles 64, 65, 87, 116, 117,119, 120, 240, 241 and 251 of the U. N. Convention on the Law of the Sea and/or may constitute an abuse of rights contrary to article 300 of that Convention.

    5. “Scientific whaling” raises serious questions of compliance with the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild flora and fauna,and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources.

    6. “Scientific whaling” as conducted in particular by the government of Japan, is not consistent with the requirements of paragraph 30 of the schedule to the ICRW, nor with requirements of article VIII of the convention.

    7. The following aspects provide strong evidence that such whaling by Japan is unlawful:

    • The recent adoption of its JARPA II program has not allowed the IWC Scientific Committee time to review and comment on the results of the earlier JARPA program, contrary to the requirements of paragraph 30 of the ICRW schedule;

    • As noted by a number of scientists participating in the work of the IWC Scientific Committee and others, the government of Japan is conducting “scientific whaling” on an increasingly commercial scale and for apparently economic and commercial purposes.

    Such whaling contravenes the prohibition on commercial whaling agreed by the parties at paragraph 10(e) of the schedule to the convention;

    • The government of Japan has not demonstrated to the satisfaction of the IWC Scientific Committee that its special permit whaling:

    • Has been authorized in special circumstances;

    • Meets critically important research needs;

    • Fulfils criteria set out in the guidelines for review of special permits established by that committee in relation to objectives, methodology and the effects of catches on stocks;

    • Takes adequate account of the development of alternative non-lethal research techniques;

    • Does not jeopardize the conservation of whales in sanctuaries, including those classified internationally as endangered and vulnerable.

    8. The government of Japan has failed to cooperate with the IWC by consistently refusing to withdraw or restructure its “scientific whaling” programs as requested by the Commission on numerous occasions, most recently by resolution 2005-1.

    9. A resolution adopted by the majority of the IWC that purported to determine that such “scientific whaling” is lawful, would not be capable of altering the legal obligations arising under the ICRW in relation to the prohibition on commercial whaling and the conditions under which scientific whaling may be conducted, nor would such a resolution be capable of altering the scope of legal obligations arising under other relevant international acts or instruments, and would therefore be
    without legal effect in altering the rights and obligations of the parties to the ICRW;

    10. Any party who considers that another party has breached its obligations under the ICRW would be entitled to bring claim of state responsibility under the conditions laid down in Article 48 of the
    (2001) International Law Commission´s draft on state responsibility.

    We just await the Government with the balls to take legal action against Japan.

    • Mick

      Dave Head,

      The article you posted only goes to prove that:

      1)The ICR’s research program MIGHT be illegal according to the opinions of various legal ‘experts’.

      2)There is NO international court ruling declaring that the ICR’s research program IS illegal.

      3)Until there is an international court ruling declaring the ICR’s research program illegal, it IS, in fact, LEGAL.

      As a reminder. The conclusions of an “international panel” DOES NOT constitute an international court ruling.

  • agni

    See
    Whaling and international law
    http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Publications/Iceland/wh-an-in.htm
    William T. Burke Professor, School of Law, University of Washington, Seattle

    “The first and overriding consideration in responding to this question is simply what is the international law for whaling. In my view, under general or customary international law the nationals of all states are entitled to harvest whales on the high seas unless the state of registry or flag has agreed otherwise; each coastal state has control over whales within its national jurisdiction, subject to its international agreements, and it has sole authority over the activities of its nationals on the high seas. I think these propositions accurately state current international law on whaling.”

  • agni

    >>”The ICR’s research program MIGHT be illegal according to the opinions of various legal ‘experts’.”

    And other experts say the opposite.

    No nation has taken Japan to either the ICJ or an UNLOS tribunal. This should tell you what their own legal experts say about the legality of whaling. Balls have nothing to do with it.

  • agni

    >>The expert panel also recommends actions to be taken against the government of Japan for its violations of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).”

    This is an expert panel?

    They are ignorant of the CITES treaty and the reservations taken by Japan, Iceland, Denmark and Norway?

    Expert in what?