Activist Boards Japanese Whaler

[Savonarola]

http://activist 'boards' Japan whaler 


Pete Bethune boarded the Japanese whaling ship on Tuesday night [AFP]

Anti-whaling activists claim one of their group has boarded a Japanese whaling ship in the waters of Antarctica to attempt a citizen's arrest of crewmembers.

According to the Sea Shepherd group, New Zealander Pete Bethune, who previously captained a vessel that was sunk in clashes with Japanese whalers last month, boarded the ship under cover of darkness on Tuesday night.

A statement from the group, which has been pursuing the Japanese fleet, said Bethune had boarded the ship after jumping from a jet ski in the freezing Antarctic waters.



"This was an impossible mission," Paul Watson, a spokesman for Sea Shepherd, said in the statement.

"Captain Bethune boarded a Japanese whaling fleet security ship at high speed in total darkness, breached the spikes and anti-boarding nets and is presently onboard," he said.

In Japan, a spokesman for the fisheries agency later confirmed that an activist had boarded the ship.

"He is now in Japanese custody. It is not an arrest. Under existing laws, the captain can take measures as he considers necessary," the spokesman said.

"Nothing is really happening. The man is not being belligerent."

Ady Gill sinking

Sea Shepherd said Bethune had been planning to arrest the Shonan Maru No. 2's captain for "the destruction of the Ady Gil and attempted murder of the six Ady Gil crewmembers".

Last month, the Japanese vessel struck the Ady Gil, a high-tech speed boat run by Sea Shepherd, sinking it in Antarctic waters.

Sea Shepherd said that Bethune would also attempt to hand over a $3m bill for the destruction of the Ady Gil.

"Sea Shepherd anticipates that the Japanese will hold Captain Bethune as prisoner onboard the Shonan Maru 2," the group's statement added.

The Sea Shepherd activists claim to have saved the lives of hundreds of whales by harassing the annual hunt, which kills the animals using a loophole in an international moratorium which allows "lethal research".

Australia and New Zealand have called for restraint from both sides in their Antarctic clashes, with the activists deploying laser-like devices and stink bombs and the Japanese fleet operating military-style acoustic weapons.

[Agelastus]

So, why on Earth have the local authorities not arrested these punks of the "Sea Shepherd" group for multiple counts of attempted piracy?

[grumbler]

So, why on Earth have the local authorities not arrested these punks of the "Sea Shepherd" group for multiple counts of attempted piracy?

Because they haven't actually attempted to commit piracy?

Just a guess.

[Savonarola]

What a day it has been for whale activism:

Whale activists plead not guilty
BY TAKASHI ARICHIKA AND JIN NISHIKAWA, THE ASAHI SHIMBUN

     
AOMORI--Two Greenpeace activists pleaded not guilty Monday to stealing whale meat during an investigation by the environmental group into alleged embezzlement in Japan's whaling operations.

In the first hearing at the Aomori District Court, Junichi Sato, 33, and Toru Suzuki, 43, admitted they snatched a box of whale meat from a transport company branch office in April 2008, but said the theft was orchestrated to expose embezzlement by crew members of a research whaling ship.

They argued that their actions were not illegal as they were intended to prove wrongdoing.

The box taken from the Seino Transportation Co.'s Aomori branch contained 23.1 kilograms of whale meat that a crew member sent home as a "souvenir" from a whaling mission.

"It was a rightful action to expose problems in (Japan's) research whaling," a defense lawyer for the activists argued.

Sato and Suzuki held a news conference a month after the theft, presenting the meat as evidence of embezzlement.

They told reporters they acted on a tip-off in tracing a truck to the branch.

Greenpeace Japan filed a criminal complaint against 12 crew members of the Nisshin Maru for alleged professional embezzlement.

But after questioning the crew and others, Tokyo prosecutors dropped the case in June 2008. They said the ship's operator, which was entitled to the meat, allowed them to take some home.

Police then arrested the two Greenpeace Japan members, acting on a complaint from the transport company.

Prosecutors told the court Monday the two members' activities caused damage and harmed public trust in the company. Prosecutors did not, however, discuss the actions of the crew members, which the defendants had sought to highlight.

Defense lawyers say they will call crew members to testify at hearings in March so that the legality of the defendants' actions can be examined in connection with the actions of the crew.

The key points of contention include whether the defendants intended to keep the meat for their own use and whether their actions can escape censure because of their purpose of revealing alleged wrongdoing.

As the case highlighted problems involved in Japan's whaling activities, eight Greenpeace members from as many countries attended Monday's hearing to observe the proceedings.

Among them was Kumi Naidoo, executive director of Greenpeace International in Amsterdam. Naidoo said beforehand that he hoped the court would try the two men fairly as they had acted to expose illegal behavior.

But Greenpeace members held no banners, nor chanted slogans Monday to avoid giving the impression they were seeking to apply pressure on the court.

They were wary of their own cause and actions being associated with the U.S.-based Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, which has had a number of clashes with Japanese whaling vessels.

"(Greenpeace) is completely different from Sea Shepherd, which resorts to violence," said a source with ties to Greenpeace in Japan. "Even though we share the anti-whaling cause, we aim at resolving problems by peaceful means."

Meanwhile, the Fisheries Agency said it received a report Monday that a Sea Shepherd member had broken into the No. 2 Shonan Maru, one of the vessels in Japan's research whaling fleet in the Antarctic, around 9 a.m.

The intruder, the skipper of the Ady Gil, a Sea Shepherd boat that collided with the Shonan Maru on Jan. 6, handed a letter to its captain.

Sea Shepherd's flagship Steve Irwin also approached the Shonan Maru, and blared out a message demanding it pay 300 million yen ($3.33 million) in collision damages to Ady Gil.

Fisheries minister Hirotaka Akamatsu said the skipper will be handed over to the Japan Coast Guard for questioning in Japan.

Vigilante justice for dead whales; it's like a Japanese Christmas Story.   

[Caliga]

Japan's attitude toward whaling regulation has been kind of lame.  While being a whale activist is still a mark of insanity, I can sort of understand their position.

[The Brain]

Nice touch to drag Steve Irwin in the dirt. Classy.

[Agelastus]

So, why on Earth have the local authorities not arrested these punks of the "Sea Shepherd" group for multiple counts of attempted piracy?

Because they haven't actually attempted to commit piracy?

Just a guess.

The man comitted physical damage to a vessel while illegally boarding a ship at sea. Had he been grabbed then and not allowed to meet the captain to present his petition, that sounds like a slam-dunk case of attempted piracy.

Moreover, I can't see how there would be a legal difference between a Somali shooting at a ship and damaging it and a member of the "Sea Shepherd" group attempting to damage a ship using acid, which has happened prior to this incident. The first guy is going to be shot dead, the second is going to be allowed to do it again and again until he does cause serious damage or seriously injures or kills someone? Why should that be? It's not as if bottles of acid can't cause serious injury the same way bullets can. Why should we live by an effective double standard just because they are "environmentalists"?

[Agelastus]

And Grumbler (with apologies for the source being Wikipedia. I was in a hurry.) -

Maritime piracy, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, consists of any criminal acts of violence, detention, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or aircraft that is directed on the high seas against another ship, aircraft, or against persons or property on board a ship or aircraft. Piracy can also be committed against a ship, aircraft, persons, or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state, in fact piracy has been the first example of universal jurisdiction.

"Sea Shepherd" are committing "criminal acts of violence".

They are not a public body, so the acts are being committed for "private ends".

They should be arrested and put on trial for piracy.

[DisturbedPervert]

Nice touch to drag Steve Irwin in the dirt. Classy.

He was planning on joining them before he died.  Presumably he would have tore the harpoons out of the whales with his bare hands.

[grumbler]

"Sea Shepherd" are committing "criminal acts of violence."

Agreed.

They are not a public body, so the acts are being committed for "private ends".

They are a public body, so their acts are not being committed for private ends.

They should be arrested and put on trial for piracy.

No, because they are not committing acts for private ends.

[Viking]

So, why on Earth have the local authorities not arrested these punks of the "Sea Shepherd" group for multiple counts of attempted piracy?

The local authorities in Iceland and Norway will, if they get the chance.

[Agelastus]

They are a public body, so their acts are not being committed for private ends.

OK.

This one has me beat. 

They are a private group, not a public body - which government or supranational agency has empowered them to do what they are doing? You are on a hiding to nothing here if you are trying to redefine what the term "public body" means.

Macmillan Dictionary definition of public body.

"an organization whose work is part of the process of government, but is not a government department"

No, because they are not committing acts for private ends.

They have not been authorised to perform the actions they are performing by any government or supranational agency such as the UN. Therefore, they are committing acts for private, not public, ends. And are hence, pirates.

[Martinus]

There is a body of case law according to which you do not need to be acting on behalf of a state in order to act "not for private ends", Agelastus. In general, any political goal that is not associated with personal interest or enrichment has been considered not to constitute piracy. This is similar to a concept of "public interest", which applies to private individuals as well (e.g. journalists acting out of public interest can do more when it comes to violating privacy laws).

Furthermore, based on general rules of legal interpretation, it would be fallacious, imo, to consider "private ends" to encompass anything that is not "done on a public authority". The law on piracy is part of the criminal law, and one of the fundamental rules of criminal law is that it must be interpreted narrowly - any grey areas and ambiguities must be interpreted in favour of the potential perpetrator. So rather than proving the activist was not acting for "public ends", you will have to prove that he was acting for "private ends" - something that is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, imo.

[jimmy olsen]

I'm bored with these guys. If they're serious they should buy some rocket launchers on the black market and sink the ship. Otherwise stop wasting my time!

[grumbler]

They are a public body, so their acts are not being committed for private ends.

OK.

This one has me beat. 

They are a private group, not a public body - which government or supranational agency has empowered them to do what they are doing? You are on a hiding to nothing here if you are trying to redefine what the term "public body" means.

Okay.    Let us not debate the issue of "public bodies" because, of course, the definition you have proposed for piracy, which I won't at this point debate, doesn't use the term.  It is not relevant, so we will not need to debate its meaning, and dismiss your entry of it as relevant.

Instead, let us address the actually relevant term, which is "private ends."

According to Halls' International Law,

Besides, though the absence of competent authority is the test of piracy, its essence consists in the pursuit of private, as contrasted with public,
ends. Primarily the pirate in a man who satisfies his personal greed or his personal vengeance by robbery or murder in places beyond the
jurisdiction of a state. The man who acts with a public object may do like acts to a certain extent, but his moral attitude is different, and the acts
themselves will be kept within well-marked bounds. He is not only not the enemy of the human race, but he is the enemy solely of a particular
state.

In fact, the McMillan dictionary (your own preferred source) defines piracy as "the crime of stealing things from ships while they are sailing."  Since nothing is being stolen, the actions of these people does not fall into the definition of piracy according to your chosen source.

They have not been authorised to perform the actions they are performing by any government or supranational agency such as the UN. Therefore, they are committing acts for private, not public, ends. And are hence, pirates.

The opposite of "authorised to perform the actions they are performing by any government or supranational agency" is not private ends, as this would make any acts of civil disobedience acts for private ends. Hence, your conclusion fails.

These people are not pirates.  Fools, maybe, but not pirates.

If you cannot distinguish the difference between the motives of the Sea Shepherds and Somali pirates, this says much about your ability to distinguish motives and nothing about the motives of the Sea Shepherds.