Loophole is illegal, that is what Australia has been saying.
Unless huge boost of furious public opinion, this sounds self defeating argument to me.
Interesting case to follow anyway, and Australia is not claiming their "territorial water" off-coast Antarctica at ICJ.(Australia knows it is not)

Canberra on Friday welcomed the International Court of Justice’s decision Thursday to schedule three weeks of public hearings in The Hague from June 26 on Australia’s case against Japan’s so-called research whaling.
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/04/13/national/australia-welcomes-icj-hearings-in-case-to-halt-japanese-whaling/

LDP has started legal preparation in order to assault 'pirates' by modifying set of law prepared for operation in/around off-coast Somalia.
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20130412-00000102-san-pol

Animal fancy pants, while having a big bite on beef.
I don't understand this horrible incosistency.
Be reminded, minke whales are more than abundant.

[youtube]5K0CBGCfXHQ[/youtube]

Not arguing the fucking numbers, arguing the fact that it's being done under the guise of "research" and then they're ending up in Tokyo on someones plate.

-PB

Last time I checked we don't call our beef industry 'research'.

Well hey at least their protein lives a wild life before being hunted...our dead cow industry leaves straya nothing to be complaining about...if anything what japan is doing is probably better than feed lots and kill floors!

Only about a third of the Australian beef industry is factory farmed. Cows for the most part have it pretty good here.

Still more than the whaling industry ....And still have those kill floors...if only slaughterhouses had glass walls eh? ;)

If i were a non human being, id rather live my life as a whale and die from a japanese ship...than live a (factory or field farmed) cow's life fattend up purely for the consumption of lazy, plump westerners. Something to be said for the honesty of a life lived in the wild.


Edited by blacka: 13/4/2013 01:27:07 PM

Far from ideal, sure. Consumer education is key.

That said, are there any horror stories from abattoirs in Australia recently? All the ones I know of locally are happy to tour people around their facilities (I have toured a couple, meat matters to me...).

Depends how u define horror i guess. They are a lot neater with the job than Indo and the US thats for sure.

Any form of killing is going to be messy.

Pretty sure it's the law that any slaughter in Australia be carried out in a "humane" way (ie: shocked or brain dead so death is painless), isn't it?

Could blindfold OP with dental floss.

You're small sized friends are in our waters.

Taste pretty good here too.

Would still rather eat whale ...on an ethical level anyway....they are part of the circle of nature and all. :P

Not nice slaughtering herbivores! Bad karma biarches!

Whales eat other fish so are fairer game then captive cows, raised purely for our choice of protein.

I'm not giving up my steak.

Minkes come in steaks

http://thecookingfrog.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/2011france-039.jpg


Edited by blacka: 13/4/2013 08:59:33 PM

Eating something that is flayed alive is ethically better than something that feels no pain?

On some level maybe...live by the sword, die by the sword...whales eat other living creatures to survive, cows dont.

Pain wise, u have a point though....is a life of freedom in the wild worth a slower death?

Cows are pulled into the food chain by our protein choices, whales are already part of it via their own diet.

Being herbivores do cows earn a certain respect? Are they off limits? :-k

Interesting case, isn't it?
Can't wait for final verdict.(probably several years away from now)

Please be noted international law is 'agreement between sovereign states', not animal fancy pants fantasy.

This. Give me a Prime Rib 300g any fucking day of the week ending in Y. If someone offered me whale as an alternative, I'd pick it up and throw it at them.


Unless it's Halal.

Crazy obsession for banning whaling, although whaling is sustainable and environmental.
Green light on hunting Dugong and sea turtle, although they are endangered.
No willingness in reducing beef consumption, although it is main culprit of global warming.
All general Australian believe there is Australian territorial water off coast Antarctica, while Australian government has no willingness what so ever to contend its territorial claim at International Court of Justice.

Saying this, doing that, denying that and everything is disastrously inconsistent.
You should blame retards working for Australian media.(except for The Australian, probably)


Edited by Viper 0: 14/4/2013 09:10:04 午前

Not quite true, it's not for research, but they don't sell it because no one wants to buy it. Almost all of it goes into storage because there is no demand. The only thing keeping them in it is pride.

If the history behind this conflict is taken into account Australia has a good case and success is likely.

First, Japan has a long history of regulatory violations (like many other whaling nations). It is intellectually dishonest to pretend as if Japan is somehow an innocent party conducting its annual 'research whaling' programs in good faith with the International Whaling Commission.

The violations include ignoring species protections, killing undersized whales, hunting in off-limits areas, hunting out of season, exceeding quotas, and more. Some of this is explained by Isao Kondo, a former whaling executive of 30 years experience, who wrote "The Rise and Fall of Japan's Coastal Whaling" in which some of the methods used to dodge regulations are described.

However, in a much more sinister and blatantly illegal practice Japan financed poaching operations called 'pirate whaling' all over the world. Foreign whalers, at times with direct guidance from Japanese representatives, killed whales with no regard for IWC established restrictions. The meat from these illicit hunts was smuggled to Japan disguised as other products. Investigator Nick Carter spent a great deal of time researching and exposing this illegal trade and was praised later by the UNEP for his efforts.

Even the abuse of Article VIII of the ICRW (sometimes called the 'research loophole') is nothing new. 10 years before the moratorium on commercial whaling went into effect -- and 6 years before the final vote to establish it -- in 1976 the IWC set Bryde's whale quotas to zero in order to protect the species from over exploitation. Japan responded by issuing itself a 'special permit' and killing over 200 animals from the protected stock.

These actions do not exhibit good faith adherence to decisions of the IWC or the content of the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.

Nor is good faith exhibited by Japan's use of development aid money and bribery for the purpose of vote manipulation in the IWC -- ranging from cutting off aid to countries like Seychelles as punishment -- to building fisheries infrastructure in certain Caribbean countries as a reward -- to a more recent scandal uncovered by the UK Sunday Times revealing the exchange of cash filled envelopes and employment of prostitutes (this led the IWC to introduce new rules regarding participation fees).

The IWC set all commercial whaling quotas to zero in 1986. Since then, in a repeated unilateral act of defiance, Japan continues to issue itself 'special permits' to hunt whales for 'research'.

In 2002, in an open letter published in the New York Times, twenty-one scientists (including three Nobel laureates) stated emphatically, “We, the undersigned scientists, believe Japan’s whale research program fails to meet minimum standards for credible science.” The letter specifically states there is no compelling reason to kill whales in order to obtain data from them.

In a 2003 response, published in BioScience, IWC scientific committee members supported the 2002 rebuke of Japan’s whaling programs. The scientists stated, “Japan's scientific whaling program is so poor that it would not survive review by any major independent funding agency,” and when it comes to misrepresenting commercial activities as science, “there has rarely been a more egregious example of this misrepresentation than Japan's scientific whaling program.” They also explained that the vast majority of publications resulting from these programs have absolutely no value for the management of whale stocks.

As a signatory to the ICRW Japan is expected to honor its international obligations.

From the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:

Article 26
“Pacta sunt servanda”

Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.

The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea sums it up nicely:

Article 300
Good faith and abuse of rights

States Parties shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed under this Convention and shall exercise the rights, jurisdiction and freedoms recognized in this Convention in a manner which would not constitute an abuse of right.

Article 65
Marine mammals

States shall cooperate with a view to the conservation of marine mammals and in the case of cetaceans shall in particular work through the appropriate international organizations for their conservation, management and study.

From the text of IWC Resolution 2007-1:

"CONVINCED that the aims of JARPA II do not address critically important research needs;

NOW THEREFORE THE COMMISSION

FURTHER CALLS UPON the Government of Japan to suspend indefinitely the lethal aspects of JARPA II conducted within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary."

You should subscribe the Australian at least.
While guys working for Australian meeia have been running away from international forum, ordinally Australian have been toyed and labeled as retarded on oversea TV program from time to time.

Someone has to correct or keep on being embarrased ovesea.
It is quite sad to see ordinally innocent Australiant believed Australian media has been mocked on public forum one after another.