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*
0
davidattokyo
KeikoTokyo,
No nation is doing such a thing.
Posted in: IWC opens meeting with focus on commercial whaling ban
0
davidattokyo
... due to illegal activities by eco-terrorists... which will be dealt with one way or another, sooner or later. Of course the impact of this illegal eco-terrorists are not taken into consideration.
Posted in: IWC opens meeting with focus on commercial whaling ban
0
davidattokyo
That's what they may do if the compromise isn't agreed to.
Posted in: IWC opens meeting with focus on commercial whaling ban
0
davidattokyo
KeikoTokyo,
Of course. There is no need for a whaling nations adhered to the whaling convention to agree to end it's whaling activities.
The proposal is not for "commercial" hunts.
The proposal is for catch limits. It doesn't matter why the whales are caught, under the proposal. But under the proposal, Japan won't be able to unilaterally decide how many to catch anymore, it will be subject to agreement by the IWC.
Gee, sounds like a really bad idea!! No more unilateral quotas, but IWC agreed quotas instead!! Mmm yes, a big disaster isn't it!
Posted in: IWC opens meeting with focus on commercial whaling ban
0
davidattokyo
... And Japan has no objections to RMFO management measures relating to tuna quotas, that I am aware of. I guess you are talking about the CITES decision, which has nothing to do with quotas, though. Come on please, let's be more careful before posting comments.
Posted in: IWC opens meeting with focus on commercial whaling ban
0
davidattokyo
cleo,
OK, let's go back a step for beginners.
Do you know the difference between an agreement (e.g. conventions / treaties / agreements) versus management measures proposed / enacted under those agreements?
Posted in: IWC opens meeting with focus on commercial whaling ban
0
davidattokyo
KeikoTokyo,
The vice-chair doesn't get a vote. He just chairs the meeting. So how you can refer to the vice-chair as being bribed (by having a room provided for him, alledgedly) when he doesn't have a vote in the first place, is beyond me. Come on, think about your comments before typing them in.
Additionally, the vice-chair is from Antigua and Barbuba, one of the nations that had their vote abused by anti-whalers in 1982: http://luna.pos.to/whale/gen_ume_yado.html The anti-whalers are looking for revenge because these small nations stood up to them.
As yes. Anti-whalers only ever want to "uncover the truth". I guess you believe that?
Where is this tape? Does the tape actually show what has been claimed in the articles? Have you checked this? Or did you just decide to believe it without... "critical analysis", as I mentioned?
Ummm, I said nothing of WWF, but it's obvious that the guys who were sent to represent the nations were not their own citizens, but anti-whaling activists from abroad. Check it for yourself.
"People who did not have either the nationality of the country nor any relationship to it began to attend the IWC as delegates. They were F. Palacio of St Lucia, C. Davey of St Vincent & the Grenadines, R.S. Payne of Antigua & Barbuda."
I'll give you a hand. R.S. Payne - famous anti-whaler - born where? NYC baby!
"Roger Searle Payne (born January 29, 1935 in New York, New York, United States) is a biologist and environmentalist famous for the 1967 discovery (with Scott McVay) of Whale song among Humpback whales. Payne later became an important figure in the worldwide campaign to end commercial whaling." (Wikipedia)
Geeeeeee.... and somehow he ended up "representing" Antigua and Barbuda in 1982 for the moratorium vote? Can you explain that?
I don't know if it was WWF, I never said that, but do you not realise that NGO groups use anti-whaling propaganda to generate huge volumes of donations from gullible people, such as yourself?
Aid priority? Japan gives aid to anti-whaling nations as well as nations that have no problem with whaling, so how you get to this is beyond me. Looks like you are just believing any old story without verifying the facts for yourself first, once again.
Posted in: IWC opens meeting with focus on commercial whaling ban
0
davidattokyo
... therefore, anti-whaling is equivalent to North Korean blustering and threats.
Funny the similarities.
Posted in: IWC opens meeting with focus on commercial whaling ban
0
davidattokyo
Just a note - like the anti-whaling nations at the IWC, North Korea is the first state that springs to mind that signs an agreement and then ignores what they signed.
Japan and the other whaling nations are all acting 100% consistently with the terms of the whaling convetion.
Posted in: IWC opens meeting with focus on commercial whaling ban
0
davidattokyo
KeikoTokyo,
If they wanted to do as they wish, they need not adhere to the conventions in the first place, or leave them as Canada and other nations have done, and operate either outside them or as a non-contracting government.
Seriously - do you also believe in Tinkerbell?
Japan is doing exactly as written in the Article VIII of the convention. How can you call this a lie?
It's a WHALING convention. It was not purpose-built for anti-whaling purposes. What don't you understand about that?
The majority of Icelanders oppose joining the crumbling Eurozone, so make of the German threats what you will, but honestly... geee you see to blindly believe anything that anyone says if it suits your purposes. That should be setting off alarm bells in your mind. "Perhaps I believe simply what I want to believe without any critical analysis at all?" This is a question you might like to ask yourself.
It's the 21st century already don't you know.... and in the 21st century, when a sovereign state is adhered to an international agreement, they should act in good faith and with respect to the agreement's object and purpose... and the ICRW is a WHALING convention. In the 21st century, whether they ICJ has to force them or whether they grow up by themselves, the anti-whaling nations are going to come to respect this.
Posted in: IWC opens meeting with focus on commercial whaling ban
0
davidattokyo
KeikoTokyo,
New Zealand will never do that because our politicians and their advisors have more brains than Australia's politicians and theirs. MUCH more brains.
But the more nations that join Australia's court action the better. The anti-whaling movement will be thoroughly destroyed because there is no way that a court is going to rule that the whaling convention favours the case of the anti-whalers rather than the whalers.
Posted in: IWC opens meeting with focus on commercial whaling ban
0
davidattokyo
yelspal,
Here's a quote from IWC Scientific Committee Chair, Arne Bjorge.
"The Japanese input into cetacean research in Antarctica is significant, and I would say crucial for the (IWC) scientific committee"
If you had ever read the IWC Scientific Committee reports for yourself (without blinkers on) you'd know as well as I do that Japan's research certainly does not have "zero credibility".
So given your comments to the contrary, and your claims that anyone who disagrees is "extremely gullible, or paid", I wonder what we can conclude about you?
Japan's research isn't aiming to "preserve whale populations for future generations". You don't even have a basic understanding of what it's about - no wonder you said such silly things (although you'd think people who don't know anything about something will tend not to say anything... unless ... )
I suggest you read the whaling convention carefully in full and then consider Japan's aims and how they relate to the whaling convention. Then perhaps you will be better able to post relevant comments.
Posted in: Future of commercial whaling ban rests with Japan
0
davidattokyo
OssanAmerica
Correction. The "moratorium" does not have any "loophole" as is so often falsely suggested.
Here is what the IWC Schedule says in paragraph 10 (e) (what is commonly refered to as "the moratorium"):
http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/schedule.htm
"(e) Notwithstanding the other provisions of paragraph 10, catch limits for the killing for commercial purposes of whales from all stocks for the 1986 coastal and the 1985/86 pelagic seasons and thereafter shall be zero. This provision will be kept under review, based upon the best scientific advice, and by 1990 at the latest the Commission will undertake a comprehensive assessment of the effects of this decision on whale stocks and consider modification of this provision and the establishment of other catch limits."
This is the text of the sham that is known as the "moratorium", and the only loophole here is that despite the text of this Schedule amendment clearly stating that "by 1990 at the latest" the IWC should reconsider the moratorium and set catch limits other than zero, this has never been done, despite scientific advice to the effect that non-zero catch limits can be set for some stocks of whales. It's 2010 - 20 years later, and there is no valid reason for the moratorium not having been lifted already, long ago. Japan may well argue to the ICJ that the moratorium is now an illegal measure for the IWC to maintain, thanks to the opportunity given by the politically motivated Australian government.
The Schedule exists because the whaling convention itself created it, and the convention itself notes that nations can object to any Schedule amendments that they wish to, and additionally that nations can catch whales for scientific purposes outside the rules of the convention and it's schedule. The convention itself which created the Schedule is not a loophole to the Schedule amendments. That is a backwards argument and it needs to be pointed out to the anti-whalers more often until they "get it".
Posted in: IWC opens meeting with focus on commercial whaling ban
0
davidattokyo
Yeah, no point in establishing moratoriums and sanctuaries (in violation of the whaling convention too) if there is no way for the IWC to enforce these regulations, is there...
Gee cleo, you are so wise. Why does any sovereign nation ever adhere to any international agreement?
Posted in: IWC opens meeting with focus on commercial whaling ban
0
davidattokyo
Geee, or maybe the allegations of bribery etc that come out every year just before the IWC meeting are actually a big load of bull? If indeed you were bribing someone you'd probably learn to make sure they have the funds to pay their fees too or else your bribes are worthless?
Besides, as anyone who knows anything about the current situation at the IWC realises, votes are pointless at this stage, and they have been since the St Kitts and Nevis meeting some years back.
Only the gullible could believe these tall stories at face value. Prostitutes for votes? Ridiculous!!
Posted in: IWC opens meeting with focus on commercial whaling ban
0
davidattokyo
cleo, what don't you understand
As with the Moratorium, the Sanctuary is but a IWC Schedule amendment, and can be overturned whenever the IWC membership so decides. Given that the IWC was established primarily in order to manage whaling in the Antarctic which were the primary whaling grounds when the IWC was established, everyone who has adhered to the IWC's underlying convention should accept that eventually whaling will resume in the Antarctic one dya. You should be informed that the Sanctuary itself comes up for periodic review because of this, as as OssanAmerica kindly noted the grounds for the Sanctuary are non-existent, but politics prevents it from being overturned for the time being.
Japan is conducting the research so as to contribute to scientific knowledge that may have a role in contributing to conditions that will see the Sanctuary abolished.
See also the terms of the convention in Article V that provide for the establishment of open and closed areas, as well as sanctuaries, to bring yourself up to speed regarding the intent of IWC sanctuaries.
Posted in: Future of commercial whaling ban rests with Japan
0
davidattokyo
KeikoTokyo,
There is plenty of evidence that Japan's programme has been benefiting cetacean management research, you are clearly just not capable of recognising it.
How can you make such grand claims about something without knowing anything about it?
Australia is taking Japan to court. Your time to learn in great detail about the research will come at that time. I'm sure the Japanese will have a comprehensive and overwhelming amount of evidence to present, contrary to Australia's politically motivated claims.
Posted in: Japan may quit whaling commission if ban stays put
0
davidattokyo
arrestpaul,
Actually the whaling convention itself (from 1948 or thereabouts) is where the scientific research provision is written.
The moratorium, adopted in 1982, doesn't mention anything about it. The moratorium is a Schedule amendment to the convention - essentially it is subordinate to the convention because all Schedule amendments including the moratorium are only possible because the convention exists. And the convention itself recognises that research is necessary for it to properly fulfil it's purpose of conserving whale stocks to make for the development of whaling industry, providing us whale consumers with tasty and healthy food such as that which I consumed this evening :)
Posted in: Future of commercial whaling ban rests with Japan
0
davidattokyo
That's true ronaldk, they will want their money, but it seems that Japan's domestic savings pool will only be able to absorb the additional debt issued for another 3 or 4 years anyway, so perhaps things will go splat because of that first IMHO.
Posted in: Kan warns of Greece-like debt crisis
0
davidattokyo
In the trial today the defence introduced this thing about Bethune being expelled by SS as "evidence".
It's all inconsistent though, showing Bethune to be a big liar. In the court he already said he didn't think he'd be going to Antarctica again. Then yesterday when "told" of his "expulsion" from SS, he said he was "gutted".
If he wasn't planning to go again with SS then why would he be gutted. Correct answer Bethune, was "I don't care I regret my actions and wouldn't do it again anyway".
It's all fake.
Posted in: Sea Shepherd defends decision to expel activist