JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- Corporate Business English Trainers
- ACT Systems, Inc.（株式会社アクト・システムズ）, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥269,500 ~ ¥280,000 / Month
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- FT English Teachers for Kids - Osaka
- Kohgakusha Co., Ltd. （株式会社興学社）, Osaka
- Salary: ¥255,000 ~ ¥275,000 / Month Travel Expenses, Encouragement of Japanese learning*
2
davidattokyo
troy,
Well, even if that characterisation were the true, it'd still be legal. The whaling convention rules allow for this, and indeed recommended nations to gather such biological data, exactly as Japan does (I'd quote the convention text directly but these posts are long enough as it is - but it's a very short convention and if you haven't read it I encourage you to do so.)
Scientific research is also of benefit to the whaling industry as well. You've heard of fisheries research in general, right? They aren't doing that just for fun either, it does actually serve a purpose.
But to your point, sure, the whaling industry in Japan to survive and prosper (as well as research...) also needs whale meat products and indeed a good chunk of the products available are from the research whaling - no doubt about it. (Whale meat also comes from Iceland and Japan's other non-IWC cetacean fisheries, plus accidental by-catch - so there'll still be some whale in Japan even if they stopped research whaling).
And this is entirely within the whaling commission rules, so what's your issue?
I see where you are coming from, but I think you started out from the "wrong place". The whaling commission rules were never intended to be used to ban all whaling. Yet it seems to me that banning whaling is your starting point, and because Japan is able to use the whaling convention's research whaling rules, you feel they are "getting around the moratorium", have I got you right?
The reason I think thats starting from the wrong place is because without the whaling convention rules, there would BE no moratorium. The whaling convention rules were there first - in 1982 the anti-whalers exploited them to impose a "moratorium", which directly conflicts with the purpose of the rest of the whaling convention rules. Yet the anti-whalers now complain about the whalers using the whaling convention rules (which existed before the moratorium) to get around the moratorium. Uh, that's backwards, right? Clearly it is the moratorium that is the problem, not the whalers using the whaling convention rules to do as was envisaged in the first place.
Sure, be it through dirty tricks or whatever, the anti-whalers did get the moratorium imposed.
But now the anti-whalers are like Goldfinger saying, "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!".
But, do we seriously expect Mr. Bond to just die?
Of course not. The whalers have the whaling convention rules on their side, and a) would you expect them NOT to use them? and b) do you expect them to just end whaling because they have an enemy that wants them to?
It's a whaling convention with rules both encouraging and allowing for research whaling to further the goals of the convention. Please read the convention! The ulterior motive here was in the imposition of the moratorium - putting a "temporary" measure in the IWC's catch quota schedule that says "zero" whales can be taken, and then trying to keep it that way forever by recruiting (even land-locked) nations etc to the IWC to out-number the whaling nations.
You think that's all well and good, but Japan is naughty for a) using the rules and b) not just doing as Goldfinger expects? c) fighting back?
The IWC Scientific Committee, not the IWC. The IWC is the politicians, not the scientists who advise them.
Lots of reasons I can think of: 1) The moratorium precludes commercial exploitation at the moment, so why would you bother to do any research, unless you thought your research would help get the moratorium lifted? 2) Japan is conducting such research, so why duplicate their effort? 3) Research whaling (particularly in the Antarctic) is costly and requires technology. 4) Norway and Iceland currently conduct commercial whaling, so they can obtain biological data from their commercial catches. They are making do with that rather than spend extra money catching whales for the same purpose. They are killing two whales with one harpoon, you might say. Both have conducted research whaling in the past though and may do so again if their research needs requires it. Other countries too have issued research catch permits in the past. South Korea is reportedly looking at doing some research whaling itself.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
2
davidattokyo
Like Switzerland? :) Or Austria? Hungary maybe?
All 3 countries are land-locked members of the IWC, and none of them ever vote with Japan. Oh wait, there's more...
Luxembourg... San Marino... (Small nations with big voices... )
Would you believe it, all 5 of these land-locked countries had been recruited to the whaler's commission by the anti-whaling bloc back in the 1980's and 1990's....
Oh but wait there's still more!
The Czech Republic? Slovakia? They used to be a single country too, so because they split up instead of one vote they now get two - as well as being land-locked.
On the other side of the ledger there are 2 land-locked nations that vote with Japan at the IWC - Mali and Mongolia. They both joined in the 2000's, so if recruiting land-locked nations for votes is a trick, then it's one that they and Japan must have learned from the anti-whalers after all those land-locked European states joined back in the 80's and 90's...
Hey, I said I can accept that 25% "seem" to be against whaling. I see no evidence that the rest are. The onus is not on me to show that only 25% are against - the onus is on those who make the reaching claim that the rest / majority of the world was against Japan, to back it up themselves.
What I think is that anti-whaling people often forget that the rest of the world includes places such as the continents of Africa and Asia... The world is larger that the cultural relm of the west.
Sure, but that doesn't provide any proof that they are all closet anti-whalers. I think most people don't give a hoot about it, from what I've seen. I remember a story a while ago about a dead whale washing ashore in coastal Ghana. Now, when this happens in Australia, they give the whale a burial as if it were one of their own (!!).
Can you guess what they did with the dead whale in coastal Ghana?
(I've been to coastal Ghana by the way - fascinating place and I recommend it)
I suspect people don't have places like Ghana in mind when they make sweeping claims about what the world thinks.
Yeah, they probably don't care or know what IWC stands for in the first place, and if they did would perhaps wonder why a whaling commission currently doesn't regulate whaling? (Oh the enlightened western world...)
I never claimed a majority supports the whalers.
If I were to make a claim, it'd be that the majority of the world doesn't care about Japanese, Russian, Inuit, Greenlanders, Caribbean islanders, Norwegians, Icelanders (and tourists to Iceland) eating whales.
Hell I only support them because I believe in the principle of individual freedom for each and every human to the extent that it does not infringe upon the recognised rights of their fellow human beings. And with respect to whaling, to the extent that the whaling is sustainable, that's why I want the IWC to do it's job, or things might turn to custard one day.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
2
davidattokyo
Spidapig24,
I don't expect you to do anything, indeed I believe you have an inflexible, pre-determined position against whaling because of your cultural programming, and no amount of fact reason logic (or even torture probably!) could make you think anything other than What You Want To Believe.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
0
davidattokyo
troy,
My apologies, it looks like a comment I thought posted yesterday wasn't posted correctly, so you're right I haven't told you much about the research.
So let me do so :)
In "proving" that the research whaling is "commercial whaling in disguise", you said, "I have seen many cases where the so-called whale meant was suddenly on the shelves the next day after the ship came in."
This is not a robust proof. The fact is that not every single gram of the meat on a whale is utilised for scientific research. If you take a look at the list of biological samples that the ICR extracts from each whale, you'll see that it includes a whole load of stuff which isn't generally edible.
For example - ear-plugs. These are used for the purpose of aging the sampled whales, and this age data is then subsequently used in population modelling by the IWC's scientific committee. This research is regarded very highly by the IWC's scientific committee.
However, besides extracting biological samples such as these, the whaling convention requires that the other parts of the whales taken be used to the extent possible. Obviously with regard to edible parts, in Japan that means that the meat is used as food. And that's why you can find fresh whale on the menu after research whale catch is brought in and processed.
This is also why there is whale products kept in storage as well.
As I said - "... the provisions of the whaling convention that require whales that are caught for research purposes be utilised to the extent possible, because it is a whaling convention that is supposed to make for optimum utilisation of whale resources, rather than waste them."
You asked "Why is it that other countries do research without KILLING ONE WHALE?", and the answer to that is that other countries are not providing the same type of data as Japan. There are many types of research, and just because whales are sampled (like in other fisheries assessments) doesn't mean that it isn't research.
As for the 25% statement I made, that is very straightforward. There are around 190 nations in the world. Only around half (50%) of those have made the effort of joining the IWC. Of those, around half of them (25%) are against whaling.
Therefore as I said, "only around 25% of the world's nations seem to be against whaling. That's a minority."
I don't think you are able to show me statements from a majority of nations of the world that illustrates they are in fact against whaling. I think the best you could do is probably less than 50.
As for the ICJ case, it's very relevant. Australia is claiming at the ICJ that Japan's research is "commercial whaling in disguise". I am certain that the ICJ will not find in favour of Australia, e.g. Japan will win the case.
The whaling convention requires whales to be used to the extent possible, so unless Australia can prove that no research is being conducted - which they can't, since Japan can provide convincing evidence to the contrary - Australia will lose the case and Japan will win.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
-2
davidattokyo
troy,
The News Limited story (not a great source, all considered...) is full of innuendo and shows no real evidence of bribery.
"The governments of St Kitts and Nevis, the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Grenada, Republic of Guinea and Ivory Coast all entered negotiations to sell their votes in return for aid", claims the article, without any specific information to support the claim.
As noted elsewhere, other nations that receive aid vote against Japan at the IWC.
Why anyone thinks ODA would be linked specifically to voting at a specific organization such as the IWC is beyond me. Furthermore, in recent years the IWC has not even been conducting any votes, anyway.
But for people looking for excuses to justify their preconceived ideas against whaling, it makes for a good story I guess.
Also note that Australia's case against Japan at the ICJ has nothing to do with these nations receiving aid, if you care.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
-5
davidattokyo
troyinjapan,
You don't appear to have a clue about the research, and I guess you couldn't understand what I already told you about it.
You also seem to not understand the difference between the IWC and the ICJ.
Read more carefully, I'm talking about the ICJ, and I have no idea what you are talking about when you talk of a "JWC".
I already responded to your "bribery" at the IWC stuff before - did you miss it?
I gave you more credit yesterday than I do now :)
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
-1
davidattokyo
You are free to be personally against whaling, but really you're just using excuses to try to justify your pre-conceived position, ignoring international law, and illustrating misunderstandings / lack of knowledge of the research that Japan is conducting.
That you reckon the ICJ will be bribed by Japan so as to ensure a favourable outcome in the case also illustrates that you are unprepared to entertain the possibility that you may have been misled on this issue. In your circumstances, there is little I can say.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
-3
davidattokyo
troyinjapan,
The Scientific Committee takes bribes? That's a new one... on the other hand, I guess you are confused about the difference between the politicians of the IWC (who are alleged to take bribes, because they have no problem with whaling - like myself and Ossan), and the scientists of the IWC's scientific committee.
Besides, like Ossan says, Australia needs to prove at the ICJ that the research is in fact not research, but commercial whaling in disguise. This despite the provisions of the whaling convention that require whales that are caught for research purposes be utilised to the extent possible, because it is a whaling convention that is supposed to make for optimum utilisation of whale resources, rather than waste them.
The silence of the anti-whalers after the ICJ releases it's judgement is going to either be very very silent, or very very noisy. My guess? The anti-whalers will ignore the ICJ's decision, or claim that the Japanese bribed all the judges :)
Anything but consider the possibility that it might be the anti-whalers themselves who are W.R.O.N.G...
Under the UN convention on the Law of the Sea and the Whaling convention, nations have the right to harvest whales from these waters, so I don't know what you are complaining about...
Maybe you don't like the law, that's fine, but the law is what it is, even if you don't like it. Wanting to believe the law suits all your whims is just wishful thinking, I'm afraid...
Democracy is not about denying rights of the minority. In modern times, minorities have their rights respected, it's barbaric to deny rights of minorities.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
-4
davidattokyo
lordmanji,
No. Only around 25% of the world's nations seem to be against whaling. That's a minority.
Besides, if a majority wished to deny a minority their rights, would that make it OK, anyway?
The majority have an interest in eating whale to varying degrees, as revealed in the recent AP poll.
The research is subsidized because there is a temporary pause in commercial whaling, thanks to the anti-whaling nations that have infested the international whaling commission.
Once the IWC starts to fulfill it's purpose and commercial whaling starts up again there will be no need to subsidise any longer.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
-4
davidattokyo
choiwaruoyaj / imacat,
Everyone is not being asked to eat whales, only to respect the freedoms of their fellow human beings to make their own decisions.
You seem to be against the principle of respect and reverence for individual freedoms.
You are free to leave "beautiful animals" alone, that's your right.
But it's not your "right" to be able to veto the rights of others to use select bounties of this earth unto which we were born.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
-3
davidattokyo
Bluebris,
I assume that you who have insufficient understanding of Japan's activities.
Japan's research is of an ongoing nature, and the data is constantly provided to the IWC. They are no more moronic than the researchers who repeatedly conduct opinion polls, for example. Other relevant examples include a good body of research related to management of other fisheries. It's is never-ending.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
-5
davidattokyo
NetNinja,
Japan's activities are legal under the terms of the UN Law of the Sea and the whaling convention.
Activities such as those conducted by Japan on the high seas are covered under international law, Australia and New Zealand have no basis for complaining.
Australia's ICJ case was confirmed by Wikileaks to be a total sham to try to save former Prime Minister Rudd's ailing popularity, few in even the Australian government itself seriously think the case stands a snowball's chance in hell.
You might as well get used to the reality that although you make not like people exercising their legal rights, there's little you can do to prevent this unless you want to resort to illegal activity or outright war.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
-3
davidattokyo
NetSamurai,
Currently the Japanese whalers ARE left unchecked. There is no regulation of Japan's research whaling activities.
Japan's government has been campaigning for the IWC to once again start regulating commercial whaling operations, but nations like Australia have kept knocking them back.
Australia evidently cares more about appearing to have zero-tolerance for whaling to appease it's domestic fringe constituency than it does for sound management and regulation of whaling industry.
Reality: There are whalers. We either accept it and regulate, or we don't accept it and have unregulated whaling.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
-2
davidattokyo
New Zealand's politicians (in election year, and the Labour party in particular who are incidentally miles behind in opinion polls) should stop pretending that the Southern Ocean belongs to New Zealand any more than any other sovereign nation in the world.
It is New Zealand's politicians who are being entirely disrespectful - disrespectful of the sovereign rights of nations under long established international law.
Rather than posture about it, McCully should just wait for the outcome of the ICJ case that Australia has brought. Let's hear what he has to say once the ICJ has reached it's decision.
And it is none of New Zealand's business that a sovereign nation has determined that security measures to protect the legal activity's of it's nationals against interference from illegal acts is necessary. What's more - Japan wouldn't need to deploy such measures were New Zealand (and Australia) fulfilling their international obligations to suppress the illegal acts of the eco-terrorists under SUA.
Japan isn't doing it for New Zealand's benefit, but for the long-term benefit of whaling industry and consumers of whale products.
New Zealand isn't even interested in the whaling industry and consumers of whale products so what they pretend to think is irrelevant.
New Zealand's foreign minister is hardly a market expert. The recent AFP poll reported here on JT showed that in fact a majority of Japanese people (more than 60 million people) have interest in eating whale to varying degrees.
Posted in: NZ, Australia condemn Japan's plan to go ahead with whaling
2
davidattokyo
sourpuss,
The IRB rule goes both ways, it's not special treatment. The All Blacks too are supposed to keep within their 10-metre line.
Honestly, it is what it is. International Rugby and New Zealand performing a Haka are inseparable.
Posted in: 'Over-used' haka losing potency, says Boks coach
3
davidattokyo
hoserfella, Not every New Zealander who looks "white" is absent of Maori blood and culture...
Patrick Smash, Not your best comments ever.
Posted in: 'Over-used' haka losing potency, says Boks coach
0
davidattokyo
BlueWitch,
If you read my comments you will see that I am explicitly in favour of sustainable harvests, not harvests that cause over-depletion even let alone extinction. We noted above that it's not Blue whales that Japan is catching.
Calm down and assess what I have said in view of the facts please.
Posted in: Japan says it has caught 195 whales in northwest Pacific
0
davidattokyo
beangry,
That confuses me. Do you mean you think the "sample sizes" are too high?
For the sort of research they are doing mortality is pretty much required. It's very similar to research in other fisheries.
I think you need to consider the primary aims of the research, rather than criticise on the basis of opportunistic research that they are able to perform as a corollary to the primary research objectives.
Which other nations have an interest in harvesting whales in the western north pacific on an optimal and sustainable basis in future? (South Korea maybe, and interestingly enough they have talked about research whaling programmes themselves)
A clause in a treaty by definition is not a loophole. You may not like that the clause does not exist, but if it does exist it is not a loophole.
Oh I agree. I was talking about the scientific committee of the IWC, as I noted.
That's besides the point. The research isn't being performed on the basis of your personal view about the need for consumption of whales or not.
At least you accept that sustainability isn't an issue.
Yeah, it seems people in your camp think that way. But I don't understand how you can have a "principle" that says a specific type of animal is not for hunting. That's by definition not a principle, but just a special case, or a "double standard". (And there is no basis for it to the mind of many people.)
Posted in: Japan says it has caught 195 whales in northwest Pacific
3
davidattokyo
beangry,
The issue of independent science is why we need an International Whaling organization to review the research from individual nations.
The IWC's scientific committee fills that role.
The conclusions are that there are whale stocks that can support commercial harvests of whales, and Japan's research has contributed to that in no trivial part.
I disagree, as someone who supports the objective of sustainable and optimal utilisation of whales on a consumptive basis, and as someone who has followed the research over the years (e.g. by reading the actual research on the IWC homepage, as opposed to watching a TV show about an Aussie scientist that doesn't like whaling).
It's not high at all...
It's not blue whales they are catching.
Yeah, and people like me too though...
Posted in: Japan says it has caught 195 whales in northwest Pacific
2
davidattokyo
cleo,
An almost perfect translation, although sustainable management does not result in the resource becoming endangered or extinct.
No one supports harvesting whales to the point of endangerment or extinction - only sustainable harvests.
But one can't determine such optimal and sustainable harvest levels without research.
Those who are against the objective needn't bother to complain about the science that seeks to enable it.
Posted in: Japan says it has caught 195 whales in northwest Pacific