Anti-whaling activists back in Australia; PM blasts their 'irresponsible' behavior

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 1

    calm down

    they were a little bit sick and tired of fish soup though

    Take a note and get on it Captain 'better food needed for captured rat bag terrorists.'

  • 2

    some14some

    “The truth is, it has been a costly venture to go and retrieve these three men,” Gillard told

    wish she could have elaborated about the cost...!

  • 13

    Tamarama

    Well, they DID speak to the media because I saw them on the national evening news last night and I was disgusted by what I saw. I saw 2 guys who showed absolutely no remorse for what they had done and absolutely no gratitude for having the Australian taxpayer bail them out of a situation entirely fabricated by their own stupidity. When asked where they comfortable about the taxpayer bailing them out, their responses were; "That's only $1 per Australian. Surely people can afford that" and "Hey, I pay my taxes too". Their stupidity is only topped by their selfishness. The Sea Shepherd crew do not have the right to determine how Australian tax dollars are spent and I wish now that the Government had not become involved and left them to their fate. And I haven't even mentioned that the 3rd crew member was actually arrested on the customs ship and taken directly to jail in Albany for a series of unresolved offenses, not just one. So, I'm afraid that the Sea Shepherd is losing my support at a very rapid rate at present. Many of the crew seem like foolish amateurs who are not up to the task they have taken on and I don't feel comfortable supporting such a bunch of people.

  • -12

    cleo

    The Sea Shepherd crew do not have the right to determine how Australian tax dollars are spent

    The Sea Shepherd crew did not determine how Aussie tax dollars are spent. It was the Aussie PM who decided to go chasing the SM2 way down south, instead of insisting it stay in Aussie waters until the men (none of whom are SS crew members) were released. Or the men could have been transferred to the nearby Steve Irwin at no cost at all to the Aussie taxpayer.

  • 5

    Elvensilvan

    Or the men could have been transferred to the nearby Steve Irwin at no cost at all to the Aussie taxpayer.

    My hypothesis on this one is that the reason the Steve Irwin did not volunteer to accomodate the 3 men was that the SSCS was hoping the tactic to temporarily "ground" the SM2 while the Japanese government and whalers decide on what to with the 3 stooges.

  • 4

    OssanAmerica

    Cleo, we all know that Watson/Sea Shepherd put these 3 FRA fools onboard the SM2 in he first place so let's not play with words. And obivously the Australian government acted in the most prudent, legally and diplomatically correct way possible. And they certainly aren't foolish enough to seek the assistance of the very same people or ship that put them on the SM2 in the first place and created this unnecessary headache for them.

    .

  • 6

    The Munya Times

    Frankly, while understanding SSCS 's endeavor to halt the Japanese whaling fleet, I can't see any advantage or usefulness of their boarding the Japanese ships.

  • 1

    JapanGal

    That is the same picture as last week.

    3dumb stooges. They should pay the Aussie govt. back at hard labor.

  • -1

    tchanglee

    One of them is a criminal & was taken into custody on arrival at Perth.

    The Australian gov't should get them to foot the bill.

  • 2

    atadoi

    I don't quite get understand why "Forest Rescue Australia" is involved in protecting whales. Have they expanded their activities beyond protecting forests? Are they "environmental activists" for hire? Were they traded to the SSCS for cash and some SSCS activists to be named at a later date?

  • 5

    vinnyfav

    Political Activism treads a fine line between being useless and being idiotic. Too mild a protest and nothing gets through to the masses who need to be galvanised to democratic action, and violent behavior does nothing but waste lives and detract from the actual goal of saving the environment.

    Even putting aside the Sea Shepherds' history of criminal violence and donation scams, this incident was pretty much an idiotic flop and a waste of time and money. If they intended to discredit the Japanese government or whalers by forcing a diplomatic catch-22, they failed miserably: the incident was resolved at the expense of the Australian government.

    All this has done is lower their (already poor) credibility in international media, and distract from the real goal of saving the whales from pointless harvesting and inhumane deaths. The PM was well within his rights to be angry, I feel. A democracy needs activists to counter-balance abuses of power and preserve the environment, not waste money and disillusion the masses who have the power to effect real change.

  • -5

    anglootaku

    Nice show PM bravo.. after using tax money, 'blasts their behavior' is a mere act..

  • 0

    Elvensilvan

    @anglootaku

    If you were in the PM's shoes, would you have done it differently? Publicly announcing that their behavior is unacceptable would inflict a great wound on the offender's pride, as well as playing it safe in terms of the possible protest actions of activists if they are jailed for merely boarding the Japanese ship.

    As for the expenses, if the stooges are billed, I doubt they could pay up the expenses for the fuel and manhours used for their "rescue".

    If Tamarama's post is accurate, then 1 dollar per Australian would mean about 22,805,154 Australian dollars ... wow!

  • -3

    Cletus

    So our glorious PM (sarcasm intended) has blasted the protestors for the cost of retrieving them. As a taxpayer hence on of the people that actually will end up paying for this l am not angry at the protestors but at our weak government and at the Japanese for their actions. Why the Japanese well lets see the SM2 was 30 km from Fremantle when these guys bored it. It had been sitting there for days, yet when these guys board the ship it takes off away from Australia. Even when the Japanese said they would hand them over the ship continued away from Australia increasing the time and costs in retrieving them. So the Japanese are happy to slink around off our coast but they cant hang around to hand these guys off. Oh no they couldnt stop their chase now could they.

  • -5

    Heda_Madness

    What about surprise the SS supporters come on here to bleat away at the Japanese... Of course what Japan could have done to save the Australian tax payer was refuse to return them (as was their legal right) and when they returned to Japan they could have prosecuted them for trespass etc. Instead they chose to returnt hem to the Australians at convenient time.

    The SS have lost the PR battle on this one.

  • -4

    Heda_Madness

    What a surprise that the SS supporters come on here to bleat away at the Japanese... Of course what Japan could have done to save the Australian tax payer was refuse to return them (as was their legal right) and when they returned to Japan they could have prosecuted them for trespass etc. Instead they chose to returnt hem to the Australians at convenient time.

    The SS have lost the PR battle on this one.

  • -3

    Scrote

    I doubt the cost of sending out the customs boat is as high as some claim. For example the crew would be getting paid anyway so that cost can be discounted. The boat would normally be sailing around somewhere else, so some fuel costs can be discounted. If the customs boat would otherwise have been sitting idle then maybe the government should think about getting rid of it entirely and saving some money that way.

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    Cletus - It had been sitting there for days, yet when these guys board the ship it takes off away from Australia. Even when the Japanese said they would hand them over the ship continued away from Australia increasing the time and costs in retrieving them. So the Japanese are happy to slink around off our coast but they cant hang around to hand these guys off. Oh no they couldnt stop their chase now could they.

    Why would they? The 3 fools conspired with the eco-terrorist Watson for them to be delivered to the SM2 where they would ILLEGALLY board the SM2 while the eco-terrorists would speed away from the area. The SM2 left the area because the eco-terrorist SI left the area.

    The 3 fools were under Japanese jurisdiction. Japan and Australia negotiated a compromise that would return the 3 fools to Australia. (Thank you Japan.) Isn't the eco-terrorist Waston also claiming that Australian authorities did not contact him to reclaim his abandoned morons? Apparently, the Aussies didn't want the eco-terrorists throwing more glass bottles of acid at the security vessel and risk negating the agreement.

  • 0

    pointofview

    If the majority continue to be brainwashed sheeple, activism in small numbers will not stop.

  • -1

    BurakuminDes

    If any of these three end up going on a book tour like Peter Bethune did in his native NZ - the Aussie govt. must collect all of their profits to pay off their debt to the taxpayer. Watson should be banned from any revenue made from (any possible) book...

    As an aside, let's all hope the whalers are staying outside the Aussie territories of World-Heritage listed Macquarie Island.

  • -2

    ebisen

    I'm sure they got the same food as the rest of the Japanese crew. Complaining about it is utterly asinine..

  • -1

    Elvensilvan

    @Scrote:

    In your argument that the costs should not be counted against the 3 stooges, I humbly disagree.

    First and foremost, even though it is the job of the coast guard to patrol the seas, they have been out there for about 10 days straight. For me, this is not part of a regular work shift, but an assignment to get these 3 home. The fuel and manhours spent for the 10 days is not part of the regular paycheck, but an overtime calculation.

    Next would be considering the families of the coast guard personnel have missed their loved ones for the entire 10 days. Even though voice communication may be available, it could not replace physical presence.

    As for being idle, I agree, but to say that a boat and it's crew assinged to a specific assignment should not be paid accordingly is just unreasonable.

  • -2

    anglootaku

    @Elvensilvan Firstly they did a federal offense considered terrorism, if I was the PM would of considered a prisoner exchange and have them serve their sentence in a prison in Sydney then Japan. Why should they be let free when they have done a terrorist act? they aren't heroes or nothing and have put Australians to shame. They broke the law, supporting a cause is fine and I support that but I do not support criminal activities which they have done.

  • -1

    cleo

    they have done a terrorist act.

    Climbing unarmed onto a boat manned by armed security guards is terrorism? No. At the most, it's trespassing.

    Killing people and blowing things up is terrorism.

    The 3 fools were under Japanese jurisdiction.

    In Aussie waters.

  • 0

    Nessie

    I don't quite get understand why "Forest Rescue Australia" is involved in protecting whales

    Something to do with the kelp forests, no doubt.

  • 0

    Nessie

    @Cleo

    Or the men could have been transferred to the nearby Steve Irwin at no cost at all to the Aussie taxpayer.

    I'm not sure why you keep repeating this absurdity.

    When you rob a bank, the cops don't put you back in the getaway car.

  • -2

    cleo

    When you rob a bank...

    No one robbed a bank.

    Unless you mean the whalers who are plundering the seas.

  • -3

    Heda_Madness

    According to the Australian Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the Australian media they commited a crime in International waters and are therefore subject to Japanese laws.

    According to Cleo they were in Australian waters.

  • -1

    ObviousDemon

    " vinnyfavJan. 17, 2012 - 11:30AM JST

    Political Activism treads a fine line between being useless and being idiotic. Too mild a protest and nothing gets through to the masses who need to be galvanised to democratic action, and violent behavior does nothing but waste lives and detract from the actual goal of saving the environment.

    Even putting aside the Sea Shepherds' history of criminal violence and donation scams, this incident was pretty much an idiotic flop and a waste of time and money. If they intended to discredit the Japanese government or whalers by forcing a diplomatic catch-22, they failed miserably: the incident was resolved at the expense of the Australian government.

    All this has done is lower their (already poor) credibility in international media, and distract from the real goal of saving the whales from pointless harvesting and inhumane deaths. The PM was well within** his **rights to be angry, I feel. A democracy needs activists to counter-balance abuses of power and preserve the environment, not waste money and disillusion the masses who have the power to effect real change."

    I appreciate your knowledgable viewpoint on this discussion, but your credibility as an expert on World Affairs is undermined when you don't know that the Australian PM wears a skirt, and it' never in the Tabloids....

  • -1

    Cletus

    arrestpaul

    Why would they? The 3 fools conspired with the eco-terrorist Watson for them to be delivered to the SM2 where they would ILLEGALLY board the SM2 while the eco-terrorists would speed away from the area. The SM2 left the area because the eco-terrorist SI left the area.

    Ah l see so its ok for the environmental terrorists (the ICR sponsored Japanese whalers) to slink around for several days off the coast but as soon as the SS vessel leaves they are off like a shot after it. So what the environmental terrorists are really saying is that their priority was to follow the SS vessel rather than hang around and hand over these 3 men as had been agreed between the government of Japan and Australia. So if anyone is ultimately responsible for the increased costs of retrieving these men its the environmental terrorists in Tokyo. Maybe they can use some more of their tsunami relief money to pay the bill for causing the Australian government all the added expense.

    Japan and Australia negotiated a compromise that would return the 3 fools to Australia. (Thank you Japan.)

    Yes they did, then the environmental terrorist vessel took off chasing the SS vessel and moving away from the mainland rather than hanging around so in reality the Australian taxpayer should pay for the customs vessel to go out 30 km and anything over that should be borne by the Japanese.

  • -2

    ObviousDemon

    "Heda_MadnessJan. 17, 2012 - 04:03PM JST

    According to the Australian Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the Australian media they commited a crime in International waters and are therefore subject to Japanese laws.

    According to Cleo they were in Australian waters."

    There have been plenty of quotes by PM Gillard stating "IN Australian Waters".......quotes with Links to full transcripts.

    Neither the PM, AG, or Aus Media mentione that they had committed ANY crime......hence that they have NOT BEEN CHARGED with anything.....suggesting that you are knowledgably quoting something is irresponsible at a minimum.

    These people DID say that they MAY be under the spotlight of Japanese Courts......They said it was Inappropriate, but at NO POINT did they give ANY impression that they thought Japanese laws were right or just in this case.

    They said that they would advise their Japanese counterparts clearly, then 2 hours later, The Japanese decided to release them.

  • -2

    anglootaku

    @cleo It is Japanese government property, breaking and entering, damage to their property..

  • 1

    ObviousDemon

    Let me ask this.........How Many times have Australian Coast Guard vessels (In groups of 6 or more) conducted Search & Rescue operations in the Southern Oceans for International Adventurers and thrillseekers?

    When did any of THESE folks repay the Australian Taxpayer for the Millions of dollars spent rescuing them?

    How are these thrillseekers any better than the Forest trio?

    Another Question......if Japanese Whalers go overboard, which Taxpayers will be required to pay to fish them out????

  • -2

    anglootaku

    Terrorism does not fall under massacres only, it is also breaking into foreign government property, vandalism and other acts.

  • -1

    Cletus

    anglootaku

    @cleo It is Japanese government property, breaking and entering, damage to their property..

    A couple of points here, since when is breaking and entering and damaging property a terrorist offence? Afterall you did say this a couple of posts ago "Firstly they did a federal offense considered terrorism". So now in Australia B&E and criminal damage is also considered terrorism hey? I think not! even IF they where charged with this in Oz they would get most likely a suspended sentence a fine or at worse 12 months in prison. This makes a mockery of your earlier statement, whats even funnier is they didnt B&E and they didnt damage anything which is why the Japanese let them go. At worse they trespassed which is a fine and warning at worse. Sorry but if your going to make wide sweeping statements please stick to the facts. Terrorism wow thats a ripper...... Quote of the day

  • -2

    anglootaku

    Trespassing onto foreign government property falls under terrorism.

  • 0

    Heda_Madness

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/protesterswanttaxpayer_funds/

    Tuxworth and his colleagues Glen Pendlebury and Simon Peterffy illegally boarded the foreign vessel and broke a number of Australian and international laws

    There are a number of other articles which also suggest that the media have claimed that they have broken the law. A lot of commentaries from anti-whalers who have condemned the action of these three. Some call them pirates. Some called for them to be sent to Japan to face chargers. Lots of I'm anti-whaling but what these three did was... etc.

    It seems that the SS decide to post on here because they've lost the battle in Australia.

  • -3

    anglootaku

    Sorry are you a lawyer? I didn't think so.. they themselves didnt, but previous acts in 2011 may justify something.. obviously the Japanese are fed up with Greenpeace in general.

  • -3

    anglootaku

    At worse they trespassed which is a fine and warning at worse.

    Quote of the day yeah its fine to trespass into foreign government property hey?

  • -3

    anglootaku

    'Warning' so anyone can invade foreign government property at anytime with a slap to the wrist? interesting...

  • 1

    Cletus

    anglootaku

    Trespassing onto foreign government property falls under terrorism.

    Wrong, under section 9 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 the offender will be charged with the offence of trespassing on the premises of foreign missions. And if they resist then it become aggravated trespass. And this ONLY applies to foreign missions. In the case of a vessel it is classed as trespass or aggravated trespass. No where in the Act is it classed as terrorism as you claim. Sorry but your wrong.

  • -1

    anglootaku

    Ok continue googling away... but which law act are you googling?

  • 1

    lucabrasi

    Trespassing onto foreign government property falls under terrorism.

    If by this essentially meaningless statement you mean "Trespassing can be classified as a form of terrorism under certain circumstances", then you're talking nonsense. Terrorism, by definition, involves spreading fear (the hint's in the "terror" part of the word) in order to achieve a particular aim. Where's the fear here?

  • -2

    anglootaku

    Any foreign government can claim it is a terrorist act, as you may not have read Japanese newspapers, they were close to being put on trial, it stalled due to diplomatic issues..

  • 1

    Cletus

    anglootaku

    'Warning' so anyone can invade foreign government property at anytime with a slap to the wrist? interesting...

    I think you need to do some research as the maximum penalty for trespass in Australia is 12 months confinement. And that is the maximum not the average. So as it was a first offence without B&E or damage then they would get a warning. A bit of research on law in Australia would show you that, but you chose to run with the terrorism claim instead. How embarrassing

  • -2

    anglootaku

    Please read above, Japanese were going to sentence them with terrorism also.. any foreign government can claim a certain act whether it is invasion of private property or damage (hypothetically speaking) can be brought to trial AS a terrorist act. There can be many categories as to what falls under the act itself.

  • -2

    Heda_Madness

    The maximum sentence for trespass in Australia is not relevant to the illegal boarding of a Japanese vessell in international waters. In other words the three could have been subjected to Japanese laws not Australian.

    But keep spinning the party line, someone might believe it.

  • -2

    anglootaku

    I was referring to Japan here, before you continue googling away.. consider thinking first prior to posting.. lets talk hypothetical here so you understand, if someone was to invade your house, steal items etc, if the police found the theif. You then bring him/her to trial, you can press charges for theft, invasion of privacy and in (rare cases) other law acts, which can fall under sub categories. Whether that ever gets trialed or not is another matter.. Hence why I reiterated to you, in some Japanese media the Jgov were considering to press charges under the revised terrorism law act..

  • 1

    ObviousDemon

    Heda Madness......where is the quote from the PM? what crime did she claim? what are the charges laid?

    Do you have any quotes from an actual News Source?

  • -2

    anglootaku

    The law is not black and white all the time.. there is a grey section which can be exploited.. if you had studied law, you may know..

  • -2

    anglootaku

    Australian law and Japanese law is completely different..

  • -2

    anglootaku

    Japanese law is slightly similar to US law post WW2.

  • -3

    anglootaku

    Those hicks are lucky for Gillard to pay tax money to get them out, if she hadn't they could face a lot of charges under Japanese law. They are very lucky.. :P

  • 0

    ObviousDemon

    "Heda_MadnessJan. 17, 2012 - 04:03PM JST

    According to the Australian Prime Minister, the Attorney General and the Australian media

    AND

    Heda_MadnessJan. 17, 2012 - 04:39PM JST

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/protesterswanttaxpayer_funds/ There are a number of other articles which also suggest that **the media have claimed **that they have broken the law.

    According to the PM & AG........sorry......you need a direct quote, with the Actual words spoken, if you are going to tell the world what the official Position of the Australian Government is.....

  • 0

    Cletus

    anglootaku

    I was referring to Japan here, before you continue googling away.. consider thinking first prior to posting..

    Really, so when you said "Firstly they did a federal offense considered terrorism, if I was the PM would of considered a prisoner exchange and have them serve their sentence in a prison in Sydney then Japan." you where refering to Japan where you. I think not.

    lets talk hypothetical here so you understand, if someone was to invade your house, steal items etc, if the police found the theif. You then bring him/her to trial, you can press charges for theft, invasion of privacy and in (rare cases) other law acts, which can fall under sub categories. Whether that ever gets trialed or not is another matter.. Hence why I reiterated to you, in some Japanese media the Jgov were considering to press charges under the revised terrorism law act..

    You are comparing apples and oranges. They trespassed yes, they didnt B&E, they didnt assualt, they didnt resist, and they did no damage. All of which HAS been reported by both Japanese and Australian media. So your argument is irrelevant. Seriously trespassers convicted as terrorists HA! Maybe in Japan but in Australia we are a democracy governed by little things called laws. And these have been quoted for you.

  • -2

    Heda_Madness

    Neither the PM, AG, or Aus Media mentione that they had committed ANY crime.

    The blog I posted clearly shows that at least one area of the media had claimed a crime had been carried out. Perhaps you would like to adjust your claim to 'the media I want you to believe hasn't suggested they committed a crime.'

    Here's another quote. But I guess that this isn't Australian media either:

    To do so, they acted in the full knowledge that they were operating outside the law, would be committing an act of trespass and were beyond Australian territory.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/eco-pirates-deserve-a-long-haul-not-a-free-trip-home-20120111-1pv7h.html#ixzz1jhV02k00

  • 0

    anglootaku

    I was referring to Japanese laws not Australian law, why would I mention Australian law if they weren't in Australia? they are disputing they were within Australian waters, but that is obviously not the case..

    In Japan or any country, any law act can be maniupulated? I know its not easy to understand, but thats how the system can work at times, in an unfair advantage to some, but Japanese law is very strict. Australian law is relaxed, no death penalty, shorter sentence on manslaughter etc, when you compare it to Japan, of course Australian law work better for the perpetrator and victim.

    Some systems are not fair, your correct, but thats what divides international law I'm afraid.

  • 0

    Cletus

    anglootaku

    I was referring to Japanese laws not Australian law, why would I mention Australian law if they weren't in Australia? they are disputing they were within Australian waters, but that is obviously not the case..

    So if you where talking Japanese law then why would you mention "Firstly they did a federal offense considered terrorism, if I was the PM would of considered a prisoner exchange and have them serve their sentence in a prison in Sydney then Japan." Where in that statement is Japanese law mentioned, l see reference to Australian Federal law, and the Australian PM and Australian prison. Just face it you made a gaff by calling trespass terrorism. And now you are backtracking as fast as you can. The fact is you made a mistake by comparing terrorism to trespass. Oh and what is the sentence for trespass in Japan? It isnt that much more than in Australia. And you think they would get away with adding false charges to a foreign national and their home country would not cry foul. Seriously!!!

  • -2

    Heda_Madness

    The Gillard government has slammed the actions of three anti-whaling protesters as "unacceptable" and warned that others who carry out similar protests will be "charged and convicted"

    The video at the top starts with 'illegally boarded the Japanese vessel'.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/gillard-slams-whaling-activists-as-japanese-agree-to-release-20120110-1ps7v.html

    "If people take the law into their own hands there are consequences for doing that and I think we're seeing some of those playing out," Ms Roxon

    Again from the SMH.

  • 1

    anglootaku

    I said if I was the PM I still would see them put on trial in Australia and face any sentence the court gives to them, cause they haven't been put on trial in any country, they are practically scott free.

    And you think they would get away with adding false charges to a foreign national and their home country would not cry foul. Seriously!!!

    These things happen, regardless if they are from bogansville.. point being, yes it may harm diplomatic relations, but Japan in general is fed up with Greenpeace since the 80s till now.. So they are tempted to press charges in any way, even though Australia is against any claimed science research, you can not expect rosy talks and pats on the back forever..

    The only thing both sides worry about is trade between both countries, Australia actually has more clout due to commodities being traded to Japan.

  • -2

    Cletus

    anglootaku

    I said if I was the PM I still would see them put on trial in Australia and face any sentence the court gives to them, cause they haven't been put on trial in any country, they are practically scott free.

    Ah so now your talking Australian law, a minute ago you said you where talking Japanese law, please make up your mind.

    Nuff said your making me dizzy

  • 2

    cleo

    It is Japanese government property, breaking and entering, damage to their property..

    The Shonan Maru 2 is the property of Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha, for all that it has GOVERNMENT OF JAPAN painted on the side.

    The three men slipped in under the razor wire. They did not break anything, damage any property, hurt, injure or threaten anybody.

    Seriously trespassers convicted as terrorists HA! Maybe in Japan

    Seriously, in Japan there was no way that was ever going to happen. When the Japanese realised the most they could clobber the men for was trespass, taking them back to Japan for trial and prosecution was off the table. They wanted the story out of the media as quickly and as quietly as possible.

  • 1

    cleo

    Japan in general is fed up with Greenpeace since the 80s till now.. So they are tempted to press charges in any way

    Obviously they are not tempted to press charges in any way, since the men were set free. And what has Greenpeace got to do with any of this? Greenpeace is not in the Antarctic trying to save whales.

  • 0

    ObviousDemon

    "Heda_MadnessJan. 17, 2012 - 05:10PM JST

    The Gillard government has slammed the actions of three anti-whaling protesters as "unacceptable" and warned that others who carry out similar protests* will be *"charged and convicted""

    Another Missquote?????

    She said MAY BE charged & convicted.....by OTHER countries Governments.

    Mz Gillard also said "IN Australian Waters"

    Again....if you must represent what the Asuatralian PM has to say...do it accurately, and with direct sources where people can follow it up for themselves.

  • -3

    Heda_Madness

    Did you follow the link? The link clearly said will.

    Is ABC Australian media? They clearly say 'illegally boarded'. They also said that they could still face charges in Australia. That was on ABC.

    Another quote

    "Activity of the nature undertaken by these three Australians is unacceptable and will ultimately be costly to the Australian taxpayer," she said through a spokesman today.

    "No one should assume that, because an agreement has been reached with the Japanese government in this instance, that individuals will not be charged and convicted in the future."

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/whale-watch/ocean-protector-to-pick-up-antiwhaling-protesters-20120110-1psis.html#ixzz1jhg9ZjVP

    The 3 broke the law. Your PM is mightily pissed off by them, not 'just' because of the cost in going to pick them up (see her press conference). Gillard's stance is so strong, it's even caused Paul Watson to go after her. Interestingly a number of posters on here are using the same logic in their defence of the SS.

  • -2

    anglootaku

    @Cletus Ive been speaking of Japanese law the whole time mate.. lol your a funny one ^_^

  • -1

    ObviousDemon

    Apologies, Heda.....it was SMH that Misquoted what the PM actually said.....I know this, because I saw the words come directly out of the PM's mouth on at least 5 seperate news programs in Australia.

    PM Gillard's wrds were clear, as were her inferences

  • 0

    anglootaku

    When you say

    At worse they trespassed which is a fine and warning at worse.

    it sounds ignorant and on cloud 9.. no one can be let off that easily especially under international laws..

  • 0

    anglootaku

    They are lucky to be home period... on the expense of others..

  • 0

    anglootaku

    It would of been interesting to see how the court case fairs if they werent rescued though :P

  • -1

    ObviousDemon

    Heda.....apologies.

    SMH misquoted the PM.

    What you posted ""No one should assume that, because an agreement has been reached with the Japanese government in this instance, that individuals will not be charged and convicted in the future." is the accurate quote, from the press conference that she spoke at, that was shown on every TV station in Australia repeatedly.

    she does NOT say they "Will be Charged"....she infers that the Australian Government nay not be bothered requesting release froom the Japanese Government next time.

    Now we have the accurate quotes, the discussion can be credible.

  • 1

    anglootaku

    You may have misunderstood and assumed different back tracking here, someone else on here asked if I was PM etc, I said I would of considered a prisoner transfer, but mentioned the law (regarding Japan, cause obviously they would of been tried there but the PM brought them home) Sorry for any confusion I guess..

  • -3

    ObviousDemon

    Granted, both PM & AG called the activity "illegal & irresponsible", however, she has opted not to press any charges...

    Tatemae diplomacy

  • 0

    anglootaku

    If this situation was reversed say a Japanese coming onto an Aussie ship, then that would fall under Australian law as they have been imprisoned in Australia.

  • -2

    Cletus

    anglootaku

    When you say "At worse they trespassed which is a fine and warning at worse." it sounds ignorant and on cloud 9.. no one can be let off that easily especially under international laws..

    Ok are you talking Australian law, Japanese law or another law? Under Australian law the MAXIMUM penalty for trespass (including on a foreign mission) is 12 months. Under international law there is no trespass laws and in Japan trespass will get you a MAXIMUM of 3 years.

    So ignorant and on cloud 9 nope just stating the facts. Afterall it was you that equated trespass to terrorism.

  • 0

    anglootaku

    Japanese law! desu yooo lol your funny please read carefully next time, would be cool to hang out in Tokyo if your around, you seem like a swell guy ^_^

  • -1

    anglootaku

    I also mentioned how Aussie law is relaxed didnt I, compared to Japanese law?? lol ^_^ Cletus san your a classic mate.

    • Moderator

      Readers, please stop going around in circles, repeating yourselves. From here on, repetitive posts will be removed.

  • 2

    ObviousDemon

    "anglootakuJan. 17, 2012 - 05:57PM JST

    If this situation was reversed say a Japanese coming onto an Aussie ship, then that would fall under Australian law as they have been imprisoned in Australia."

    let's see

    an Aussie ship sails past Okinawa, stalks outside the Cove at Taiji. When the locals protest, the Aussie boat takes off with them onboard, away from Japan as fast as possible, and threatens to return them to Australia to face charges.....

    Yep.....Japanese people would have no problem with that...

  • 0

    anglootaku

    Obviousdemon, please read carefully to the post you pasted ^

  • -2

    Cletus

    anglootaku

    There was another small issue with these guys being charged in Japan and that is they can only be held for so many days without charge, and then they have to face court. This would have required the SM2 returning to Japan promptly to abide by these rules. This was never going to happen after all the money the J Government spent on it.

  • -2

    ObviousDemon

    touche!

  • 0

    anglootaku

    Cletus

    Your right in that regard, though for them to get back to Australia without any external help would of been difficult on their behalf and may have likely have faced trial there. When it is an international issue and trade can be harmed between both countries, they then gave a blind eye. Commodities are of much higher interest to Japan then these hicks.

  • -3

    anglootaku

    It is also bad PR if Japan had trialed them and sentenced them (IF that had happened) as the Australian media would of went down the old Jbashing route of plastering negative images of Japan as what happened in the 60s-80s during Japans bubble period.

  • 3

    DJbooth

    What a lot of pro-whaling posters on here have failed to take into consideration is the 1999 Wildlife conservation & preservation act in Aus, passed after the Humane Society International took Senpaku to the High Court of Aus & won, NO Japanese whaling vessels, or support vessels, are NOT ALLOWED within Aus territorial waters. Not just 12 or 24nm limits, BUT NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED within Aus EEZ, 200nm. So the SM2 & the YM3 have both broken Aus laws & should have been boarded & impounded by Aus CG or Navy :)

  • -6

    anglootaku

    At the end of the day, laws broken should face trial and not the wimpy way out via diplomatic channels :P

  • 1

    DJbooth

    Sorry! Should have read; Japanese whaling vessels, or support vessels, are NOT ALLOWED, within Aus territorial waters. This is Aus law which concerns ALL vessels entering Aus EEZ, just as Japan has rules re vessels within it's territorial waters, eg Chinese fishing boats :)

  • 2

    DJbooth

    & yes you are right anglootaku, yes laws of a sovereign state have been broken, & yes the Aus gov should not have pussie footed around, they should have taken the same line as the Chilean gov last yr when Nishan Maru wanted to enter their EEZ, & they clearly stated to the J gov, "if the NM enters our EEZ we have 2 naval vessel ready & monitoring it, if it crosses our EEZ by 1ft we will board it, arrest the Capt & crew & impound the vessel." NO GAMES!

  • -1

    Heda_Madness

    Interesting post DJ booth, but you forgot to include the word 'Antarctic'.

    The Federal Court has declared Japanese whaling in Australia’s **Antarctic **waters is unlawful under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) and granted an injunction restraining it.

  • -1

    SwissToni

    Anglootaku, youre not talking Australian law, international law or Japanese Law, youre blagging. The precedent for this issue is Pete Bethune who boarded a Japanese whaling vessel and did damage property when doing so. He did time in japan but wasnt charged or convicted of terrorism, or even trespass.

  • -4

    arrestpaul

    Cletus - Ah l see so its ok for the environmental terrorists (the ICR sponsored Japanese whalers) to slink around for several days off the coast but as soon as the SS vessel leaves they are off like a shot after it. So what the environmental terrorists are really saying is that their priority was to follow the SS vessel rather than hang around and hand over these 3 men as had been agreed between the government of Japan and Australia.

    BEFORE there was an agreement between Japan and Australia to return these 3 fools, there was no requirement for the SM2 to remain in the area. The 3 fools ILLEGALLY boarded a Japnaese flagged vessel in international water and Japanese laws apply - not Australian. Even after an agreement was reached, there was no requirement included in the agreement for the SM2 to return to Australian or to wait for an Australian vessel.

  • -2

    arrestpaul

    SwissToni - Anglootaku, youre not talking Australian law, international law or Japanese Law, youre blagging. The precedent for this issue is Pete Bethune who boarded a Japanese whaling vessel and did damage property when doing so. He did time in japan but wasnt charged or convicted of terrorism, or even trespass.

    Wrong. The "precedent" for this issue would be the first time eco-terrorist SS zealots ILLEGALLY boarded a Japanese flagged vessel in 2008. Those 2 fools were returned to an Australian vessel. Pete the pirate ILLEGALLY boarded a Japnaese flagged vessel in 2010 and demanded 3 million for his toy boat that had recently sold for 1.5 million. Pete the pirate got a free ride to Japan. This is the THIRD time the eco-terrorist SS has been involved in an ILLEGAL boarding of a Japanese flagged vessel. This time, Australian and Japan were again able to reach an agreement to return these fools to an Australian flagged vessel.

    The former whaling vessel, Steve Irwin, is a Dutch flagged vessel and the eco-terrorist Watson didn't want these 3 fools back on board anyway. He wanted the SM2 to stop following him.

  • -3

    arrestpaul

    DJbooth - What a lot of pro-whaling posters on here have failed to take into consideration is the 1999 Wildlife conservation & preservation act in Aus, passed after the Humane Society International took Senpaku to the High Court of Aus & won, NO Japanese whaling vessels, or support vessels, are NOT ALLOWED within Aus territorial waters. Not just 12 or 24nm limits, BUT NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED within Aus EEZ, 200nm. So the SM2 & the YM3 have both broken Aus laws & should have been boarded & impounded by Aus CG or Navy

    Only according to you and a few others who assume to know know more about Australian, international, and maritime law than Australian government law enforcement lawyers. The Australian government says that they had no jurisdiction over this incident. Hmmmm, whom should I believe, you or the governments authorities? I choose the Australian authorities.

    I understand that Green Brown has introduced a bill in Parliment that would force Australia to send an Australian government vessel to monitor the actions between the eco-terrorists and the Japanese vessels. It's being reported that Green Brown has little Parliment support for such a bill and the bill will never become law. Green Brown should stick to using his position to strong arm Australian authorities into ignoring visa requirements.

  • -3

    arrestpaul

    Cletus - There was another issue with these guys being charged in Japan and that is they can only be held for so many days without charge, and then they have to face court. This would have required the SM2 returning to Japan promptly to abide by these rules. This was never going to happen after all the money the J Government spent on it.

    It's only a "small issue" to you. It's a non-issue to maritime rules and regulations. No country requres that ships at sea immediately return to one of their ports to unload morons who ILLEGALLY board their nations vessels. These 3 fools didn't climb into a police car on the streets of Toyota and demand to be taken to home. There is only a maritime requirement to unload fools at the next port of call and there is no time requrement. A transfer to another nations vessel can be arranged provided an agreement between the 2 nations can be reached.

  • 1

    ObviousDemon

    Arrest Paul.....

    I have posted several links in the last week to Australian PM Gillard stating that the 3 boarded the SM 2 "IN Australian Territorial Waters". She gets her advice from the Australian Coast Guard & Naval Sattelite monitoring stations, among other sources.

    Your continuing to state as fact, that they were in International Waters suggests that YOU know better then the Australian PM.

    She doesn't need to show her proof, as she is THE PM of a sovereign country........for you to try to publicly dispute this fact, you NEED to show us all your proof.......and referring to an internet blog is not proof.

  • 0

    ObviousDemon

    Arrest Paul......

    Bob Brown, of the Greens party in the Australian Parliament, holds the "Balance of Power" in the Australian Government.

    This means, the ruling Government is only in charge, because BOB Brown's team have given their support.

    If Bob Brown sees something that he feels is reprehensible, he removes that support, and Australia's Government is KICKED OUT.

    So perhaps you should pay a little respect & attention to what he has to say?

  • -1

    arrestpaul

    ObviousDemon - Bob Brown, of the Greens party in the Australian Parliament, holds the "Balance of Power" in the Australian Government.

    This means, the ruling Government is only in charge, because BOB Brown's team have given their support.

    If Bob Brown sees something that he feels is reprehensible, he removes that support, and Australia's Government is KICKED OUT.

    The Greens party have only 9 Senators out of 76 and only 1 member out of 150 in the House. Only Greens Brown and you believe that he can collapse the Australian government. His bill still doesn't have anywhere near the support it would require to become law.

  • 0

    arrestpaul

    ObviousDemon - Your continuing to state as fact, that they were in International Waters suggests that YOU know better then the Australian PM.

    You're right. I should have repeated that it happened outside of Australian jurisdiction. According to Australian authorities.

  • -1

    anglootaku

    Swisstoni get your facts right prior to googling for information..

  • 0

    Heda_Madness

    I have posted several links in the last week to Australian PM Gillard stating that the 3 boarded the SM 2 "IN Australian Territorial Waters".

    You've posted a lot of claims. But I haven't seen a link. A direct link from Gillard saying 'the 3 boarded the SM2 in Australian Territorial Waters'. Perhaps you could post this link again.

  • -1

    SwissToni

    arrestpaul, "Wrong", or more accurately, time for spin!

    anglootaku, bearing in mind my facts came from memory, where are they wrong? The point I was trying to make was your insistance on the use of anti terror laws in Japan for an offence which at the most is trespass, is unrealistic. Bethune caused damage and still couldnt be charged with terrorism. Check your facts and stop blowing hotwinds.

  • -1

    anglootaku

    Swisstoni Sorry I did not know your a lawyer mate.. your the one blowing hot wind here.. if they are supporting the cause to save the whales, why didnt they support that cause in a stronger stance in court instead of running away? I think they would of had more dignity had they face the court fighting for the cause they are fighting to begin with..

  • -2

    anglootaku

    Laws can change, be amended or be used when its not directly in line with that law act.. post 911 a lot of things can fall under the terrorist law act, as its considered 'eco terrorism' you obviously do not read Japanese newspapers to know what they have been mentioning had these hicks been brought to trial and what they were being face with..

  • 0

    SwissToni

    anglootaku, I read the papers and watch the news every day, Im well aware of the rhetoric. You were the one quoting made up laws, its your blagging that made your posts weak. Had the activists been brought to japan they would have faced minimal charges only. For all peoples nonsense, Japan is still a country of reasonable laws.

    But youre right, laws can change. So far country has changed their laws to include Sea Shepherd as a terrorist organisation. So far all there is, is a label by the FBI in the US and some anti conservationist clap trap.

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Sales & Marketing Staff

    Sales & Marketing Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Social Media Manager

    Social Media Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥230,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Kitchen Staff

    Cafe Kitchen Staff
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥200,000 / Month Negotiable
  • Cafe Manager

    Cafe Manager
    Nicolai Bergmann (ニコライバーグマン株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥250,000 / Month Negotiable
  • SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST

    SERVICE AND SUPPORT SPECIALIST
    SCALA KK、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.5M / Year Negotiable

More in National

View all

View all