Straight talk on whaling
Posted by ampontan on Friday, November 30, 2007
IF YOU THINK everyone in the West is bashing Japan for whaling, think again: Brendon O’Neill in the Comment is Free section of the Guardian newspaper in Great Britain does not beat around the bush in his attacks on what he calls Ecoimperialism. And that’s not all he calls it:
Under the cover of concern for marine life, Australia and New Zealand are throwing their white weight around in the Pacific, to demonstrate their cultural superiority over the “yellow” nations. They may not be able to touch Japan in economic terms, but they can use the issue of whaling to show the world that they’re morally better than the Japs. It took a contributor to an online discussion forum to spell out openly what everyone else has only said in code. The person posting said “They don’t kill whales for scientific purposes, that is utter bullshit, they kill them because they are fucking evil bloodthirsty amoral wankers”.
His statement of policy?
Demands that the Japanese stop whaling call into question Japan’s status as an independent, sovereign nation. It should be for Japan’s democratically elected leaders alone to decide what to do with the resources in their own seas, as well as in seas to which they have legal access.
He also notes that some African countries are quite sympathetic with the Japanese position:
It is telling that Japan is being supported by developing countries that know a thing or two about western meddling dressed up as animal rights activism. The Los Angeles Times says some developing countries now look to Japan as a “rebel” voice against “interference by Western activists eager to protect [various] creatures”.
He concludes:
“What could be more barbaric than whaling?”, activists and officials ask. I can think of one thing: the depiction of foreign peoples as uncivilised, and the curtailment of their sovereign rights by white nations and green campaigners who think they know better than the Japs and blacks.
The column has more jolt than a mug of espresso. Another fascinating aspect is its appearance in the Guardian, whose political stance is similar to that of the Asahi.
The article to which Mr. O’Neill links in the Los Angeles Times presents yet another side to the story. The author of that article, Bruce Wallace, claims the Japanese government has a problem with double standards:
Yet despite contending that tradition justifies the whale hunt, the Japanese government balks at accepting similar arguments from the Ainu people on the northern island of Hokkaido who want to fish for wild salmon. The Japanese government has long prevented the indigenous Ainu people from exercising their traditional hunting and fishing rights, including the right to catch salmon as they return to Hokkaido’s rivers to spawn.
Salmon have always been a food staple for the Ainu, such a fundamental element of their culture that they annually perform ceremonies to give thanks for the fish. Only in recent years has the government bent to Ainu lobbying and agreed to permit a small salmon haul that allows a few fish to be caught for ceremonial purposes.
This year’s allowance is 1,700 salmon, up from the 20 approved in previous years.
He seems to be stretching the point somewhat: The Japanese allow salmon catching within limits, and they maintain limits on their own whale hunting.
Mr. Wallace also contradicts his own reporting:
Japan has not yet found a way to extend that principle (support for the traditional way of life in small communities) to its own Ainu community.
Sorry, didn’t he just say that the Ainu are allowed to catch salmon?
Since the number of people in Japan whose ancestry is half Ainu or greater is estimated to range from only 150,000 to 300,000, it’s not as if the amount of salmon caught is insufficient for Ainu ceremonies. And since few, if any, of them live off the land in the way their ancestors did, the Ainu aren’t being deprived of their food supply. There are plenty of salmon in the supermarket, which is where the Ainu find their food these days.
Hasn’t the Japanese government listened to the Ainu appeals and increased the amount of salmon they are permitted to catch? That cannot be said of other governments in their dealings with the Japanese. Nor do the Ainu have to deal with the dangerous mouth-foamers of Sea Shepherd.
Mike said
“They don’t kill whales for scientific purposes, that is utter bullshit, they kill them because they are fucking evil bloodthirsty amoral wankers”…
That statement alone is enough to show that he is an idiot.
Haafu said
Why is it that no one even bats an eye when the Norwegians hunt whales but everyone screams bloody murder when the Japanese do? And shouldn’t people be allowed to eat what they damn well please without being persecuted? I only wonder what would happen if India decided to launch a campaign blasting the United States and Australia for eating beef. Just imagine that for a moment.
kappa said
Why they don’t accuse Norway nor Irland which hunts whales now ! but do Japan ?
The ecologistes even say that Japan bought the votes of the small countries. They say that there is less thon because of Japanese who eat sashimi, less fish because of Japanese who eat sushi…
If they, the white don’t eat any more the beef, porc, rabit…neither foie-gras, well, I will listen to their opinions.
Overthinker said
He has not made the argument that Australia and NZ (etc) opposition to Japanese whaling is racist though. Not everything opposed to a nation of a (generally) different colour is automatic racism. How is the debate framed in Oz/NZ?
I do not hear much about Norwegian/Iceland whaling, but then I do not follow Norwegian or Icelandic news. What sort of opposition is there there?
Bern said
Next year’s Bocuse d’Or Europa will be held in Norway. Norwegian chefs are planning to make a whale dish for the next year’s contribution.
Here is Norway’s whale meat advertisement.
http://www.hvalbiff.no/hovedside.asp?fldr=1&id=0
What do Norwegians think of anti whaling countries?
“There is an extreme lack of consistency, a very unfair treatment of Japan’s reasonable and limited requests. The IWC is a breeding ground for hypocrisy and double standards where the anti-Japanese sentiments are running high,” says Rune Frovik, Secretary to the High North Alliance.
T.K said
From a purely ecological point of view, whaling within the quotas is actually more sustainable than tuna fishing. Of course, the near-religious opposition to whaling has little to do with ecology. Whales feel more worth saving than some stupid fish. You can’t feel a spiritual connection to tuna, after all.
John O said
Okay, let me give a few rebuttals:
O’Neil’s “statement of policy” works the same for issues like capital punishment, and therefore doesn’t work at all. Plenty of non-Americans campaign to stop the death penalty in the U.S., despite the fact that it is the policy of democratically elected representatives there. I can’t see how they are wrong to do so, much less are they having any affect whatsoever on U.S. sovereignty. The idea that sovereignty is involved is way over the top.
It’s an interesting question how implicit racism might play a part in the whaling debate. I wouldn’t want to deny that some vague feeling of cultural superiority colours the tone of the debate. But to say that basically that’s all it boils down to is just stupid. The “they’re a bunch of racists” accusation might work against an undergraduate who just learned about post-colonialism and is still wondering how to atone for the crusades, but for grown-ups you need to be a bit more specific.
It’s lazy rhetoric, to say the least, to pick an extreme comment on a blog and accuse everyone on the same side of the debate of agreeing with that comment “in code”. Guilt by association is pretty cheap in my book.
It is not at all telling that developing countries support Japan on the whaling issue. There are well documented reasons to believe that Japan pays well for that support.
Bern said
Forgot the link.
http://www.highnorth.no/IWC2006/read_nws.asp?which=377
Bern said
I am glad someone tells it how it is. Anti whaling does boil down to stupidity and is pretty damn racist. The big joke here is that countries become members of a whaling organisation. IWC stands for International Whaling Commission. The whole convention is geared to promote whaling. It is up to countries to decide if they want to become members or not. If they don’t agree with the convention then they don’t need to sign under the paper.
Thats the biggest loophole and joke. Countries like New Zeland, Australia are signing a document and they work against a declaration that they have signed on. They are simply lying.
Honest people and countries honour treaties. All international cooperation is totally dependent on pacta sunt servanda (the respect for treaties).
ken said
Wow…someone actually based their argument on what an idiot anonymous poster on a message board had to say about whaling? Talk about a strawman, just reducing opposition to whaling to one idiotic, racist statement.
Both sides are pretty guilty of misrepresenting what this issue is all about, though it seems to me that Brendon O’Neill is trotting out some false depictions of Australian and new Zealand opposition.
Japan is being supported by developing nations, especially in Africa, because they have tied development aid to such support. This is no secret, and it’s something that many, many governments do (look at Mr Bush’s conditions for AIDS relief funds for Africa, for example).
Kappa, many people who personally oppose whaling because it is unnecessary and inhumane (such as myself) equally oppose Iceland and Norway’s whaling. Oops…your argument is gone.
For Japan, this has become another PR issue that the powers-that-be have bungled. They could have stayed their course had they decided not to hunt the humpback. Doing so was clearly provocative. I believe it was intended to provoke indignation from other nations, and that those nations played straight into it. Then, that outside pressure will cause domestic public opinion to rally around whaling against the strawman “Anti-Japanese.”
For those who profit from whaling, this is a business success – they get subsidized to work in a sunset industry. Nevermind that there is pretty much no demand for the meat and it has to be forced on schoolchildren and people in hospitals. Whale meat is full of mercury and other toxins and should not be forced on people who have no other choice. If people want to eat it, fine; that is their choice. But when the government forces it on people in the name of ‘culture’ (as all governments are want to do with their various artificially constructed, false narratives of national identity), it just comes across as phony.
Bern said
It is true that anti whalers is driven much more by anti Japan sentiments than the love of whales. There is no where near any out cry on whaling in Norway. None. Zero. It is not an issue. Greenpeace do not have campaigns against Norwegian whaling and neither do they have campaigns against Inuits whaling in Alaska. Plus USA is about to wipe the first whale spicies off the face of the earth. The right whale. This is because large ships keep ramming these poor whales and the US government does not do anything to prevent this from happening. USA is the most hypocritical whaling country on this planet. They are a whaling anti whaling country and if that is not racism the word has no meaning.
Japan is getting votes because their argumant is sound. It is ecological and adhering to the principles of Agenda 21. Sustainable use of a natural renewable resources where as anti whaling people are driven by imperialistic mind set. Racism is always short sighted. Ignorance is a bliss.
ponta said
ken
I have a question. Are you a vegetarian? Do you oppose butchering cows and pigs because it is unnecessary and inhumane?
RYO said
I’m all for whaling and, especially, any sovereign country’s right to hunt whales in a responsible manner. That said, the blanket argument that racism underlies opposition to Japanese whaling make me a bit uncomfortable. I’ve no doubt that racism emerges in some opponents but I am also willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I believe that their opposition to whaling is essentially principled. Where the racism may be playing a part with respect to Japan is in terms of the tactics that opponents use using against Japan. (Examples include the violent tactics employed by the SSCS on the open seas.)
It does appear, however, that Norway is given a relatively free pass in the international media. (It’s hardly just about the humpbacks, is it?)
Another question: It’s hard enough to accurately gauge intelligence in human beings. How the heck does one figure that whales are so smart? (I mean, if they were so smart, why did they crawl back into the sea from whence they came?)
RT said
I’m anti-whaling. Most of the non-Japanese people I know are anti-whaling. None of them are racist concerning Japan or Japanese. They also oppose Norway doing it. The racist argument is a nice way to suppress debate on the issue. Like screaming “antisemitism” when someone tries to cricitize Israeli policy.
Most of the Japanese I know a) could care less about whaling (either for or against) and b) have absolutely no desire to eat whale meat. The only folks I know that will eat it are those who had to eat it in the immediate postwar for protein and those who live in and around the those few places that participate in the hunts. I’m sure there are more, but they’re not common in my experience.
I love (*sarcasm alert*) the fact that there is basically no domestic market for whale meat, so they’re trying to create one through including it in school lunches. Talk about government trying to manufacture behavior!
bender said
I think many Aussies and Kiwis are anti-Japan, it’s readily noticeable looking at their media and comments made on blogs and the sort. Seems like they’re ready to embrace authoritarian China instead of “unapologetic” Japan. I sometimes wonder if they have ever grown out of their WWII mindset- will they ever do? Quite different from Americans (exclude Asian Americans who hold on to their old-world spite and envy towards Japan).
bender said
I for one oppose Japan’s “research” whaling- it’s not worth it, given the FACT that Japan is vulnerable of being bashed around the world for whatever cra* that may be thrown at her. Why hold steady on this issue when acting like a chicken on other diplomatic issues? Just don’t get it.
But, I do think there is racism going on- it seems to be true that the Arian Norwegians and Icelanders are not bashed at all- good for them! Let’s cheer for the children of Wodan. Whatever.
ampontan said
“Wow…someone actually based their argument on what an idiot anonymous poster on a message board had to say about whaling?”
Not “based”…used as an example to typify.
“inhumane”
Really? Is that because the media insists on showing pictures of bloody whales with all the newspaper articles.
Wonder what would happen to burger sales if people were shown pictures of the killing shed in the newspaper. Or better yet, video on TV:
http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/shell/5/slaughter.htm
“Most of the Japanese I know…have absolutely no desire to eat whale meat.”
They would once they had it. I’ve had whale that’s better than steak. (They might not know how to prepare it.)
Perhaps it’s because I’m in Kyushu, but there are plenty of people here who eat it when the get the chance.
They eat dolphin in Nagasaki too, but not so much anymore. There was a big uproar about that about 15 years ago. The people don’t go out of their way to catch them; turns out that dolphines get parasites in the inner ear or brain that screws up their direction-finding capabilities. They get trapped in an inlet and can’t get out.
Bender: There are plenty of Japanese who can intelligently and persuasively argue Japanese positions. Why the powers that be don’t make more of an effort to present them is a mystery. I can understand the old-fashioned “don’t make waves” mindset, and the residual self-abnegation coming from the war defeat, but sometimes it’s necessary to make an exception.
Ken said
Ponta,
I have a question. Are you a vegetarian? Do you oppose butchering cows and pigs because it is unnecessary and inhumane?
Yes, of course. I’ve told you this before.
You’re argument is gone. And it’s not even relevant. This is about whales and whales only. It’s not about other animals.
But when you try to make it about other animals, guess what? I’ve got you beat on that red herring as well.
Overthinker said
Actually there is opposition to Norway whaling. A quick google suggests that it’s mostly UK-based, the UK being close to the hunting areas (like NZ and Oz for Japan). Also, I think one reason for the anger about Japanese whaling is the perception that they are not being honest: claiming scientific basis for it and then just using them for food. Norway registered an objection to the International Whaling Commission commercial whaling moratorium, and is thus not bound by it.A search for “opposition to Norway whaling” gives approx 63,000 results, for Iceland it’s 100,000 and for Japan 300,000.
I found this: “NZ delivers diplomatic protest to Norway over whaling
Date: 21 April 2006
Source: From the Office of the Minister of Conservation
“New Zealand is concerned that the Norwegian government has increased its quota to 1,052 minke whales for 2006, the highest whale take by Norway for two decades,” Conservation Minister Carter said.”
So NZ at least does oppose Aryan whaling….
When opposition to Japanese whaling is clearly couched in ethnic terms, or perhaps cultural terms (so long as it isn’t just counterpointing cultural claims by Japan that support whaling), then there might be racism at work. But aside from that, my reading of the opposition comments indicates that what people really get upset about is the appearance of deceit – “Japan is cheating” by calling it scientific.
camphortree said
RT says:
“Talk about government trying to manufacture behavior!”
That is what I have observed and felt on my daughter’s school lunches in Idaho. I suspect American school lunches, yikes! are the biggest contributing factors to the U.S. fast food industry.
ponta said
Ken
You didn’t tell me, but yes I saw somebody write he was a vegetarian and I thought it was Ken YN. Sorry.
You’re argument is gone.
Well actually I haven’t shown my argument. No argument is gone when no argument is posited. I just asked you a question.
And you haven’t shown us a vegetarian’s argument is valid, and no argument is gone when you haven’t shown the vegetarian’s argument is valid. In addition, supposing that a vegetarian’s argument is objective from your perspective, you haven’t shown that it follows you should intervene others as to what to eat. (Just because you regard some moral system wrong does not entail that you should intervene. A Hindu is tolerant of non-Hindu eating beef. For your reference, plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/ especially under the title “Tolerance”)
Bern said
There are many sound arguments for sustainable whaling. Here are some of them:
Eating whale meat is far more environmentally-friendly than eating beef, lamb or pork. Harvesting nature’s surplus means that biodiversity and habitat does not have to be destroyed and turned into agricultural land.
Whaling does not destroy the environment and is very energy efficient – producing beef requires much more energy than producing whale meat.
As free-range animals, whales are spared the prolonged suffering of factory-farm livestock.
Harpoon-cannons with explosive penthrite grenades ensure efficient and humane hunting methods.
The products from the hunt are used for human consumption, including meat, fins, blubber, etc. Whale meat is rich in protein (23.5%), lean and tasty. Whale products are rich in omega-3 fatty acids, selenium, vitamin E etc. These are beneficial to human health, helping prevent diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.
Sustainable whaling means putting into practice the principles of conservation and sustainable use as embodied by the world community in Agenda 21.
Whaling provides a livelihood in many ommunities around the world both for subsistence and for trade.
Susrainabale whaling is an excellent way to create ecological food.
The World Conservation Union’s action has placed a number of whales species into the Least Concern category for “widespread and abundant” species. Amongst the species transferred to this category is the main target for current whale hunts – the minke whale.
The Red List contains three threatened categories: Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable.
Humpback whales were also taken off the list, when transferred from Vulnerable to Least Concern. The Japanese plan to start hunting humpback whales next year, and the Greenlanders also wish to engage in such a hunt.
http://www.iucnredlist.org/
New Zelanand is an extreme ani whalng counties. The ancient Maori practice of utilising stranded whales endured throughout the colonial period, but was made illegal in 1978 with the introduction of the Marine Mammals Protection Act.
While seeking to protect marine mammals, including stranded whales, the Act is seen by Maori as another attempt to extinguish their customary and Treaty rights to whales, by making it illegal to utilise them.
http://teohu.maori.nz/
Nice peace of imperialism here by the NZ government.
Bern said
http://www.highnorth.no/IWC2007/default.htm?url=http://www.highnorth.no/IWC2007/whywhale.htm
Sorry, I forgot to put link again to my previous post.
If you want to eat whales please do, if you don´t want to then thats OK too. Due to the reasons I have given I think it is perfectly fine that some people eat whales.
Overthinker said
“The ancient Maori practice of utilising stranded whales endured throughout the colonial period, but was made illegal in 1978 with the introduction of the Marine Mammals Protection Act.
While seeking to protect marine mammals, including stranded whales, the Act is seen by Maori as another attempt to extinguish their customary and Treaty rights to whales, by making it illegal to utilise them.”
The New Zealand Government (which makes NZ laws) does not agree:
“At a stranding, DOC’s first priority is, and will remain, to attempt a rescue. If this is unsuccessful, or impossible, the focus of stranding management becomes (in order of priority) – animal welfare, species conservation, Mäori culture, science and education.
2.2 DOC and tangata whenua
The Conservation General Policy and DOC’s standard operating procedures guide how iwi and hapu can be involved in managing whale strandings. Conservation General Policy 4.4h requires tangata whenua to be immediately notified of strandings, and involved in the management of stranded marine mammals in accordance with agreed protocols. (Some of these arrangements are formally documented, others are more informal.)
When a whale strands, one of the first actions DOC takes is to notify tangata whenua of the event. From that point, tangata whenua, if they wish, are involved in many different aspects of managing a stranding.
For example, in the Bay of Plenty, DOC has developed informal protocols with coastal hapu and iwi covering key areas where strandings are common. Typically, kaumatua say karakia for dead whales before discussions are held between hapu or iwi and DOC to resolve issues such as bone extraction for cultural purposes and specimens for scientific research.
Ngati Wai and DOC have a formal agreement that sets out the procedures that should be followed at whale strandings. This includes specific guidelines for data collection and the provision of scientific samples by Ngati Wai, and a detailed health and safety plan for when Ngati Wai leads the recovery of cultural materials. In the last ten years, Ngati Wai has carried out resource recovery of more than one hundred and thirty whales.”
http://www.doc.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentPage.aspx?id=45164
Maori have very clear rights here to harvest from dead whales.
Your arguments would be better served by knocking of the “ism” stuff. You have an interesting list, though its main argument re ‘surplus’ only works in an extremely limited extent (the reason we farm animals is because there isn’t enough natural surplus to support us).
Aceface said
“Japan is being supported by developing nations, especially in Africa, because they have tied development aid to such support. This is no secret”
http://luna.pos.to/whale/iwc_vb.html
Bern said
Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978
Bottlenose dolphin showing severe
propeller marks. All seals, dolphins, whales and porpoises are fully protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978; it is an offence, amongst other things, to harass or disturb marine mammals.
Offences carry penalties of upto 6 months imprisonment or fines up to $250,000 and further fines of up to $10,000 for every marine mammal in respect of which the offence is committed. Refer to the Marine Mammals Protection Regulations 1992 for a complete list of conditions prescribing behaviour around marine mammals.
http://www.doc.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentPage.aspx?id=45054
Ofcource there is racism in anti whaling as it is driven more by the hate of whalers than the love of whales. The whole notion that whaling is “bad” and should only be done for “survival” is an imperialistic attitude.
How come Inuits in Alaska can hunt a far more endangered whales than Japan?
Overthinker said
That refers to live ones in the water, not the washed-up/beached ones the Maoris customarily harvested.
You have not demonstrated the hatred of whalers and shown that such hatred is racially motivated. Explain in what sense the notion that “whaling is bad” is imperialistic.
If anti-whaling was truly a racist ideology, then the Inuit, a non-white group, would be persecuted, and the Norwegians and Icelandics supported. This is not the case.
And the Inuits in Alaska obviously have a better lobby for their cause. I do not know what their supermarkets are like in terms of beef and pork however.
Bern said
Japan getting criticised for whaling is racist. Inuits in Alaska have been colonised by imperialists therefore it is harder to criticise them. USA is a good example of that. They make sure to vote for the Inuits in Alaska to hunt a far more endangered whale yet will vote against Japan hunting a less endangered whale spicies.
“That refers to live ones in the water, not the washed-up/beached ones the Maoris customarily harvested”
Maoris took stranded whales both dead and live ones. This is a perfect example of Anglo Saxon imperialism.
Overthinker said
Oh please.
Ken said
Not “based”…used as an example to typify.
But does it typify? I mean, one can be a super-pro Japan nationalist and be opposed to whaling on economic grounds.
Criticizing whaling is not racist by definition; the conflation of the two is a frightening example of fundamentalist dialogue. There are rational reasons both for and against whaling, and it is a healthy debate for us to have. Trying to be redactive or dismiss one side as simply ‘racist’ shows a huge degree of defensiveness and insecurity. There are far better arguments against the anti-whalers to make than to try to paint them with one brush and say they’re racist.
Hunting any animal has nothing to do with race. All humans have hunted all kinds of animals for centuries. Race plays no part in the issue other than to mislead.
Those who feel so threatened by the anti-whalers need to come up with something better if they truly hope to open eyes, ears and minds to their cause. This current ‘victim card’ approach is bankrupt.
RYO said
“Most of the Japanese I know…have absolutely no desire to eat whale meat.”
They would once they had it. I’ve had whale that’s better than steak. (They might not know how to prepare it.)
Perhaps it’s because I’m in Kyushu, but there are plenty of people here who eat it when the get the chance.
Thanks to the whaling controversy (without which such comments as the one I pasted here would never have passed before my eyes), I am now looking forward to trying some whale next time I visit Japan.
bender said
Ampontan:
I think Japan remains stiff on the whaling issue because of the strong domestic support for the protection of agriculture and the fishing industry. You see this with trade issues as well- like opening up the market for agricultural goods. It never happens, even to the detriment of other (better performing) Japanese industries that would fare better with free trade. And it’s probably true that free trade on agricultural products will help developing nations. Well, to be fair, this agriculture protectionism is prevalent throughout the developed nations, so Japan is not the exception.
It’s very interesting compared to other diplomatic issues that Japan faces. As for issues like allegations of Japan never coming to terms with its past, which I think is totally cra*, you really see few, if any voice from the Japanese government. Only some mutters from politicians that do more harm than good in fighting off the issue. I’m sure they get no advice whatsoever from diplomats. I think all this is probably because such issue has no domestic poll-harvesting grounds.
Ken said
Bender is very on to something. Well put in the first paragraph. When he speaks of policy being made to the detriment of better performing industries, we must also realize that these policies are at the detriment of taxpayers, who have to fund subsidized non-performing industries. Why should taxpayers be punished when their funds could be used to develop worker training for more potentially profitable and internationally competitive industries? Japan’s industrial output and GDP are rising on exports, not domestic demand. Where should the resources be allocated? Pro-Japan means pro-sensible use of economic resources.
RYO said
Is a whale’s life worth a lot more than the life of a cow, a pig, or a field rodent? If you rely on industrially grown and harvested food at all, you have to accept that animals are still being killed to help feed you. Animals are being killed as meat to be sold and fed to you and they are also being killed by the millions in farm combines around the world. (http://web.archive.org/web/20041107084521/http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html)
If whales were being killed for sport to be stuffed and hung on stadium walls or captured and kept in cruel captivity for the amusement of tourists, then opposition to whaling might be more relevant.
That said, I will acknowledge that Japan would be better off – as far as her integrity and self-respect is concerned – if she would just admit that the whaling is not really undertaken for scientific research purposes.
ponta said
Overthinker said
This article from the New Zealand Herald may be of interest:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/7/story.cfm?c_id=7&objectid=10478647&pnum=0
Not sure about the “Frighteningly scarce” part that opens the piece though…. There are a few comments to the effect of “ooh, isn’t this naughty?” but it’s not too strident.
bender said
Interesting article, but like I said, don’t eat the fat.
Bern said
NZ anti whaling is ridiculous.