GREENPEACE FILES CHARGES AGAINST WHALING BOAT (fwd)

GREENPEACE FILES CHARGES AGAINST WHALING BOAT

Sydney, July 14 AAP - Greenpeace has filed criminal charges against the skipper of a Norwegian whaler which allegedly shot at a protest boat skippered by a New Zealander.

Under Norwegian law, individuals can file criminal charges against other individuals or organisations, Greenpeace spokesman Mats Holmberg said.

Seventeen activists from the vessel Sirius , including New Zealand captain Bob Graham and John Frost were arrested during an international protest in the North Sea against Norway's whaling.

Greenpeace accused the whaling vessel Kato of firing three shots at an inflatable dinghy launched from MV Sirius..

The activists would most likely be charged with stopping Norwegian whaling or approaching within 500m of a whaling vessel, Mr Holmberg said.

Norwegian authorities were facing stout criticism in the Norwegian media for failing to take the whaling boat Kato into custody.

''The coast guard arrested the wrong boat. First we get fired at and then the coast guard arrests us after we were shot at,'' another Greenpeace campaigner, Mats Abrahamsson, said in a statement.

Norway, which resumed commercial whale hunting in 1993 in defiance of the International Whaling Commission's worldwide moratorium, has a quota of 753 minke whales this year, up from 671 for 1998. So far in 1999, 553 whales have been caught.

Hunters in northern Norway ended the season 10 days ahead of schedule on July 1 after the catch exceeded production capacity. The season in the North Sea is due to close on August 1.

I want to know whether majority of Norwegian media criticized the government. Does anybody know?

No. Article V.3 of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling says:

3.Each of such amendments shall become effective with respect to the Contracting Governments ninety days following notification of the amendment by the Commission to each of the Contracting Governments except that (a) if any Government presents to the Commission objection to any amendment prior to the expiration of this ninety-day period, the amendment shall not become effective with respect to any of the Governments for an additional ninety days; (b) thereupon, any other Contracting Government may present objection to the amendment at any time prior to the expiration of the additional ninety-day period, or before the expiration of thirty days from the date of receipt of the last objection received during such additional ninety-day period, whichever date shall be the later; and (c) thereafter, the amendment shall become effective with respect to all Contracting Governments which have not presented objection but shall not become effective with respect to any Government which has so objected until such date as the objection is withdrawn. The Commission shall notify each Contracting Government immediately upon receipt of each objection and withdrawal and each Contracting Government shall acknowledge receipt of all notifications of amendments, objections, and withdrawals.

Norway objected the moratorium in accordance with the convention and is continuing the commercial whaling.

M. Ishida <http://luna.pos.to/whale/>

I live in Norway. I hardly heard about this incident. I think it ended up in the 'amuzing things Greenpeacers do' category. What was this Kato incident anyway? That thing with the shooting? Personally, I understand well the frustration and anger of the whalers as a result of the harrassment they face by a bunch of wild-eyed fanatics with no ground-contact at all, but I don't think shooting at the Greenpeacers is a good idea. The guilty party (assuming this even happened) should at least be fined.

well the frustration and anger of the whalers as a result of the harrassment they face by a bunch of wild-eyed fanatics with no ground-contact at all, but I don't think shooting at the Greenpeacers is a good idea. The guilty party (assuming this even happened) should at least be fined.<<<

On the other hand, perhaps the shooting was justified?

It seems that the looney tunes were in violation of the law, a direct and immediate threat to the property (whales) of the whalers, and an immediate infringement upon their civil rights. If you can't shoot a thief while in the act, who can you shoot?

You make as ass of yourself every time you make statements like this. YOU are the one without any contact with cetacea, not your 'wild-eyed fanatics'. You are the one with baseless beliefs.

Get grounded yourself.

Stop the Makah Whale Sacrifice <http://mindprod.com/whale.html>

I live in Norway. There has been no such thing as 'stout criticism' against the authorities in this case. There has been some discussion on the issue of the shooting but no criticism against the police that I have seen. Its commonly regarded as a correct decision to let the boat keep on with its hunt and interview the crew when the boat arrives in harbour. The police has several videotapes of the incident that they want to review and they say that there is no urgency to question the crew. It is established that the GP boat was inside the safety zone around the Kato, and was clearly aware that this was a dangerous place to be when a whale is beeing harpooned and shot (the regulations require that the whale been shot with a rifle as soon as possible after the harpooning). The GP freaks comming in the middle of this has only them selves to blame and are lucky that they didnt get shot themselves and only the boat they were in.

Well, let's put it like this: Do you want the Greenpeacers to have a bunch of martyrs they can parade around? Greenpeace/Sea Shephard couldn't possibly ask for better PR than the death of an anti-whaling activist in action. I fully understand the frustrated whaler who 'accidentally' looses a few shots in the general direction of that stupid rubber raft, but from a strategic point of view, it's a really, really, bad idea. I'd rather see a whaler assaulted by a Greenpeacer than the other way around (not that I like the idea of whalers getting hurt).

Pettle.bot.klack.

shots in the general direction of that stupid rubber raft, but from a strategic point of view, it's a really, really, bad idea. I'd rather see a whaler assaulted by a Greenpeacer than the other way around (not that I like the idea of whalers getting hurt).<<<<

I see your point regarding strategy from a PR perspective. I was viewing it strictly from an ethical framework and the Sea Shepards insistance upon interfering with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of property (as expounded by John Locke).

On the other hand, I can't imagine that there would be that much of a public outcry if a Greenpeacer were to get shot. Most people would understand.

Would the world be as simple as that... B/

I am quite confidant that a Greenpeacer getting shot would raise a major uproar in England, Germany, and most of the US. This wouldn't much affect Norway, but Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd would be raking in even more money from the deluded and easily led...