Good sample, no one points out astonishing misunderstanding.
Allow me, for ABC, Sea Shepherd and law scholors there remain silent strangely.

EEZ
These extend from the edge of the territorial sea out to 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres; 230 miles) from the baseline. Within this area, the coastal nation has sole exploitation rights over all natural resources.

Territorial waters
Out to 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres; 14 miles) from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

ABC, Quite Unique Understanding of International Law (I mean, stupid)
[youtube]b4bvKed2f9E[/youtube]

Edited by Viper 0: 5/2/2013 03:35:05 午前

Annoying political propaganda not being welcome on this forum, never understood by Viper_0

You do not speak for the entire forum. Why don't you understand this?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

That was hardly necessary.

When was the last time I made sweeping statements on the unwanted behalf of the entire forum, again?

my first viper thread i've actually bothered to look inside of.

do all of them start out with a notor v afro war?

Viper_0 trolls this forum regularly in regard to whaling. He shouldn't be banned - it's free speech, but trolling is not nice behaviour and it's fair that he's called out on it.

Last time I checked, he's not a mod. His opinion carries no more weight than yours or mine. If Vipers opinions were truly unwelcome he would be permanently banned.

I actually like Vipers posts. They shine a huge spotlight on an issue that is far too often myopic in scope.

Afro has also been warned & suspended in the past. Would it be fair to say that I can tell him that he's not welcome here based on that? (It's a rhetorical question, but the answer is "no, that wouldn't be fair")

Fine, call him out on the basis of his argument. Don't infer that you hold the monopoly on popular opinion, though.

i'm cool for viper to dribble about all this bs whenever he wants, but can he be stopped from creating new threads, and forced into posting it all in one thread? i think that's the big issue. that way if you really want to ignore his bs you don't go in that one thread, he's not spamming up the sub-forum, and if he does continue his bs in other threads then deleting/banning takes place?

sound reasonable at all?

Do yourself a favour and stop putting words in my mouth, lest you look like an idiot again. I never said Viper's opinions weren't welcome. I said this political propaganda isn't welcome. Clearly I'm not alone with this belief.

Sounds reasonable.

Another episode of you redefining thet meaning of words to sure up the shaky ground on which you constantly tread is not welcome on this forum.

- Earlier in the thread you state that I do not speak for the forum.
- You then go on to say that my opinions carry no more weight than yours or anyone else's.
- You now say that my expression of these opinions are not welcome on this forum. Apparently thinking you're speaking for the forum.

Fuck you're a cockhead.

Conflicting statements.

Shablagoooooo

[youtube]E39WWj_RpBc[/youtube]

It's quite simple, EEZ is not equal to teritorial water.
Seemingly, ABC and Sea Shepherd don't understand.
That makes the footage of this kind coming out from Australia look quite comical abroad.

Japanese media annoys me too, thanks to too much influence beauracratic machine possess.
It's not propaganda, but argument and ridicule to those who succumed to power and pressure group without shame.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/05/world/asia/china-japan-disputed-islands/

Please just stop carrying on with bullshit.

I don't understnd your point.
Are you saying you can claim anywhere on this earth as yours unilaterally?

http://www.nankingatrocities.net/

No. IWC set up the Southern Ocean Sanctuary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Ocean_Whale_Sanctuary
Japan has argued that the establishment of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary was in contravention of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) on which the IWC is based and is therefore illegal.

This view received strong support from Professor W. T. Burke of the University of Washington in his paper circulated as IWC Document Number IWC/48/33. He refers to Article V(2) of the ICRW, which states that the creation of any sanctuary must "be based on scientific findings" and "take into consideration the interests of the consumers of whale products and the whaling industry".[12][13]

As there is no settlement procedure in the IWC for this type of dispute, Japan has asked the IWC to submit its case to a relevant legal body for analysis. The IWC has refused to do so

I personally believe Australian, Canadian and Japanese media should have joint live public debate program over these issues. It could be quite intense, but it will be beneficial for both. Adding scientific and legal experts to the program would be beneficial to further understanding of the issues.

Ok, so food for thought:
Japan's whale hunting quota is up, but their national consumption is down and they have more Whale meat stockpiled than ever before.

Your interpretation of 'international law' aside, how is this defensible?

Japan makes all sorts of claims to promote its whale poaching operations.

For example, Japan claims minke whales were eating too many fish and stunting the recovery of other whales -- debunked by science.

Japan also claims that using modern industrial whaling methods adopted from Norway (including Norwegian made ships and actual Norwegian whalers) -- in order to mass produce whale oil for sale to western countries for lamp fuel and margarine -- is actually a 'Japanese tradition' -- debunked by history.

But when it comes to the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary Japan claims there was no scientific basis for its creation -- while simultaneously abusing Article VIII of the ICRW (the research loophole) in order to purposely defy restrictions established under Article V of the ICRW. Part of Japan's argument against the sanctuary was the fact that just about every species of whale was already protected by previous IWC decisions -- including the 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling and a ban on using factory ships.

By the way, Japan was the only nation in the IWC to vote against the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary in 1994...

Since this is merely a platform for 'opinion' I'd like to contribute a scientific opinion from an expert on the subject.

Dr. Sidney Holt, renowned marine biologist and member of the IWC scientific committee for many years, helped bring about the moratorium and the whale sanctuaries established by the IWC.

This is what he had to say about the IWC and the Southern Ocean in a public statement:



The species that Japan primarily kills in the Southern Ocean is the Antarctic minke whale.

This species is listed as "data deficient" by the IUCN. However, the IUCN also has data that suggest the Antarctic minke whale population may have declined by as much as 60% in the last three generations -- which would classify the species as 'endangered' if confirmed.

Think there is no scientific basis for a whale sanctuary in the Southern Ocean?

Please tell me again what happened to whales around Antarctica in the 20th century...

=d>

This is a legitimate round of applause for Viper.
I don't like whaling, I don't like the justification for it. But I loathe Sea Shepard, I loathe the approach towards them in the media. Both Paul Watson and half of Australia lack even a basic grasp of International law, and above all, a failure to grasp the Japanese mentality. I would wager that without Sea Shepard, Japanese whaling would have ceased years ago. Even with a full quota, the operation is bleeding money, it is government subsidised after all. The only thing that is keeping Japan in it is pride. No one in Japan even likes whale meat, there is no demand, sale of it is limited to a view specialist markets in Tokyo, that is it.

But if a Japanese government of the day is seen to be ceasing operations not because it is a waste of public funds, but because they are bowing down to some poncy western nations because their feelings have been hurt, they would be ridiculed across the nation. Greenpeace for one realised this years ago and switched its efforts to educating the Japanese on the wasting of public funds that is occurring in the name of whaling, but I fear this support is constantly being counteracted by Sea Sheppard's operations that constantly provoke Japanese nationalism and pride on the issue.