rawls:
Doesn't that apply to any ship on the ocean, whaling or not?
Japanese Whaling Ship Catches Fire
- Thread starter H2Andy
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
Doesn't that apply to any ship on the ocean, whaling or not?
wardric:
Yeah...And I guess all of us who were simply glad a whaling ship was not going to be able to harvest whales anymore are also happy about every ecological disaster that occurs....whaling or not.
Here you go tedtim,
The World Charter for Nature
U.N. Doc. A/37/51 (1982)
While I am not an expert on international law, I believe that Sea Shepherd derives their mandate in part from the following:
21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall: (e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction.
If the United Nations specifically reviewed Sea Shepherd's activities and their legal claims I suppose it is possible that they might issue a resolution that approves/disapproves of Sea Shepherd's interpretation of The World Charter for Nature and/or revise the charter to clarify issues of legal authority in international waters. However, that hasn't happened yet and so I don't think there is a firm basis from which to affirm or deny the legality of their interpretation of the charter.
If anyone on ScubaBoard has any legal training/experience that could illuminate this murky subject matter, your input would be much appreciated.
However, even if Sea Shepherd's pretensions of legality are repudiated and their activities thus categorized as anarchist, there's nothing inherently bad about being anarchistic. On the contrary, there are many intelligent and moral people that recognize and espouse the virtues anarchism. As a label, 'anarchist' is not synonymous with 'bad guy'.
Sadamune
And you tell me that I'm stretching the meanings???Sadamune:
How does "Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction." translate into entering harbours and sinking boats? You can call them whatever you like.....to me they are quite obviously engaged in criminal activities that could easily lead to loss of life. That's terrorism. They've just been lucky so far but does it really have to go on until someone gets killed before you say stop?
Let's put this into another hypothetical perspective. Suppose someone got fed up because they considered that Americans drive cars that are far too big, and bad for the environment. Suppose they then formed an organization that went around the country destroying SUVs they found parked in people's driveways. Would you describe this as "anarchist"? Would you seek to justify such actions as somehow being laudable?
Nope, I never said that.
It doesn't, and I never asserted it did. As I stated before, destroying property in such a way that avoids injury to human beings does not constitute a terrorist act. Such an act is probably considered criminal when committed within the jurisdiction of a nation, but is not inherently a terrorist act. Destruction of property and terrorism are two very different things.
No, I would not describe it as 'anarchistic'. I would describe it as arson.
No, I wouldn't.
I recall a local incident where a dealership parking lot full of SUVs was set on fire in the middle of the night. Militant environmentalists claimed responsibility. No one was injured. Millions of dollars of damage was inflicted. That act of arson was criminal, but was not and should not be considered terrorism. You seek to condemn Sea Shepherd for some of their actions that have been destructive. Fine. However, I find it totally absurd to label an organization with benevolent goals and reverence for all life to be included in the same category as those who have murdered thousands of people. I hope that makes sense.
Sadamune
This is simply because since 9/11 people have sought to restrict the meaning of the word "terrorism". Terrorism isn't dependant on the numbers of people killed in order to qualify. If you are asking me if I consider Sea Shepherd to be up there with the WTC attack....of course not. However, in the same way that not all murderers are Ted Bundy, they can still be murderers under the true definition.Sadamune:
You yourself posted a definition of terrorism earlier...read it yourself again....:
"violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals."
Does that mention murder? Doesn't it even say that even simply the THREAT is enough to qualify inside the definition? Sea Shepherd has gone WAY beyond threats. They have most certainly committed "violence or other harmful acts" against fishermen who weren't breaking any laws themselves.......in fact they weren't doing ANYTHING at the time....they were at anchor in harbours!!!!! Wouldn't you be scared if you thought some nutcase was going to try and sink your boat while you were asleep on it?
Anyway...enough. You obviously think these guys are OK. I think that they're going to kill someone one of these days. I wouldn't want that to happen whatever....but especially not if I'd supported them.
I don't think that's true. Scuttling a boat in port and attacking a human being are completely different things. Sea Shepherd has never injured or killed anyone. They may be considered criminal in some jurisdictions, but terrorists they are not.
I agree. 'Terrorism' is dependent on spreading fear by hurting people, something Sea Shepherd has never done. Thus, I think the label 'terrorist' is being grossly misapplied here. Kim, I think our exchange has identified a crucial difference in how we each understand the meaning of the word 'terrorism'. If I may venture, you perceive that the potential for injury to humans associated with destructive acts is inclusive in the meaning of 'terrorism'. Personally, I think that demonstrable intent to inflict harm upon humans is necessary for such an appellation to be justified. I don't think anything more can be said about this particular matter.
Regardless of whatever socio-political labels are appropriate for them, let us hope no one comes to harm from their activities.
Sadamune
Yes you are correct........that's exactly how I view it, and I also understand how you are viewing it. As you say....there's nothing more that can be said as these are simply differing points of view. We could continue to belabor the point here, but dead horses get boring. I think we have both been lucid enough that others can read, and draw their own conclusions from the arguments.Sadamune:
- Messages
- 1,372
- Reaction score
- 4
- # of dives
- 500 - 999
OK, we can swap links. Try this one, especially the section that defines adoption of treaties and definition of chartersSadamune:
http://untreaty.un.org/ENGLISH/guide.asp
I do not believe that Sea Shepard is a signatory to any treaty. The charter flows from the treaty. Otherwise, any two people from two countries could declare themselves an international organization and seek to take action under any charter.
Two bads do not equal one good.
rawls:
That is like saying it's her fault if a woman gets raped while walking at night in a dark alley. While not wise, she is not doing anything illegal and blaming her instead of the rapist is seriously wrong.
Similar threads
