- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Then the protesters should have notified the Australian authorities, and waited for the Aussie Navy and/or coast guard folks to show up and handle their business. They also could attempt to keep their boats between the whales and the whalers. And, they should have used their cameras and recorders to document the law violations that they observed for the use of the relevant government authorities. I do not consider vandals and vigilantes to be helpful to the cause of protecting vulnerable wildlife populations. When all is said and done, they're criminals like the criminals they're ostensibly fighting.
The end DOES NOT justify engaging in criminal tactics.
YesWhat do you define as passive?
Preventing access?
YesChaining yourself to property?
No. However, the term "intimidation" is subjective. I am not in favor, for instance, of the limits that have been put in place specifically on abortion protesters, because of the argument that their presence was "intimidating" to patients. I consider that bollocks.Intimidation?
....really?
No, the Japanese whalers refuse to take the hint that they aren't welcome in Australian waters, the Australian govt. are to intimidated to take action, and so the protestors try to run them out instead. Besides, wouldn't the coast guard also use "assault tactics" (i.e. force) to put a stop to it?
If the whaling ship deliberately rammed the protesters ship, then the whaling ship is at fault.
this is ridiculous. why they were hunting the whales, in this case, makes no difference.
You have no evidence that these people where hunting for food instead of research. The fact that whale meat wind up in a supermarket does not disprove that they were hunting for research. What? You think they are just going to toss thousands of pounds of meat into the trash bin after they are done dissecting and running tests on it?neither group is in the right here. we were not discussing the things should be, but the way they are.
forget it, james.So you are admitting that it doesn't matter if it is for research or for food?
You have no evidence that these people where hunting for food instead of research. The fact that whale meat wind up in a supermarket does not disprove that they were hunting for research. What? You think they are just going to toss thousands of pounds of meat into the trash bin after they are done dissecting and running tests on it?
the thing about that is whaling for food is illegal, and most whale species are endangered already
Yes
Yes
Does it depend where they chain themselves like for example to the doors of businesses?I am in favor, for instance, of the tactics that were utilized by civil rights protesters during the 1960s...lunch counter sit-ins, bus boycotts, refusing to move, and marches.
No. However, the term "intimidation" is subjective. I am not in favor, for instance, of the limits that have been put in place specifically on abortion protesters, because of the argument that their presence was "intimidating" to patients. I consider that bollocks.
So you are admitting that it doesn't matter if it is for research or for food?
You have no evidence that these people where hunting for food instead of research. The fact that whale meat wind up in a supermarket does not disprove that they were hunting for research. What? You think they are just going to toss thousands of pounds of meat into the trash bin after they are done dissecting and running tests on it?
The coast guard is the legally invested authority in the waters per the Australian people. Vigilantes are not. Surely you understand the difference?
That was me admitting I didn't pay attention to the qualifier.:dohWas I somehow unclear? I thought "prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law" was pretty specific.
:2wave:
Oh, I think it's pretty obvious that the Japs are killing whales for food, not research.
So what? That's a matter for the international courts and the law, not pirates.
Do you have any evidence or are you just going by the word animal rights wackos.
OMG, is everything an act of terrorism these days?
Do you have any evidence or are you just going by the word animal rights wackos.
I thought you did not support the UN or some other global organization telling countries what they can or can't door was that some one else?
Sounds like most violent crime. Should bank robbers and kidnappers be tried on charges of terrorism, since the penalties are stiffer?
Charges could be laid over whaling clash
who do you believe is in the wrong
and what is your opinion on whaling
So if Feminist blocked access to a strip joint or themed family restaurant such as Hooters you would think it was civil disobedience
Does it depend where they chain themselves like for example to the doors of businesses?
I think those limits have been struck down. I could be wrong.
Well it is not illegal in Australia to make a citizen's arrest if there are reasonable grounds of suspicion that someone is breaking the law. Why shouldn't it follow that citizen's can't enforce a law (which is presumably invested by them) that their government refuses to enforce?
so you would gladly eat Nothomyrmecia macrops?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?