Funny thing here is that “Septuagenarian American anti-whaling activist who left Greenpeace to form a more extremist group arrested yet again for his actions” would also be an accurate headline.
If his approach was more effective I might support him, but he seems to give whaling supporters as much fodder to escalate things as he gives whale supporters visibility. I’m not sure how many whales his actions have actually saved.
I don’t usually consider people who have been intentionally breaking the law for over forty years to be victims, even if they’re doing it for a worthwhile cause. He knew exactly what he was doing and what the consequences would be. Hopefully he saved some whales while doing it.
Otherwise, he’d still be doing peaceful protests with Greenpeace. And would be getting arrested for that, instead, which would make a bigger difference in international law.
Watson left Greenpeace because he believed whalers could only be stopped through “direct action” - meaning, violence and sabotage. Eventually, the new organization he founded realized that you had to win hearts and minds, not be a thorn in the side of whalers. So he left the group he had founded as well, still certain that only through direct action could the whales be saved.
He evaded arrest for 14 years; the other person involved was arrested on site, stood trial in Japan, and was released with a suspended sentence, all back in 2012.
But I also don’t care for people who turn to violence to get their way when the empirical evidence already shows that other legal and semi-legal actions are more effective at achieving the intended goal.
Save the violence for when it will make a difference.
The goal is to stop violence to marine mammals, especially whales.
We have over fifty years of evidence showing that being violent to whalers doesn’t accomplish this goal, while blockades, media coverage and international pressure, along with helping people identify with whales and encouraging boycotts of whale-derived products does.
That’s the reason Greenpeace believes in peaceful protest, and it’s the reason why over the decades, the Sea Shepherd Society has also come around to that position.
What we SHOULD be doing is applying more pressure to Japan; they’ve reneged on the International agreement, and there should be international financial and political consequences for this.
It’s also worth noting that this arrest warrant was made before Japan broke the treaty.
Funny thing here is that “Septuagenarian American anti-whaling activist who left Greenpeace to form a more extremist group arrested yet again for his actions” would also be an accurate headline.
If his approach was more effective I might support him, but he seems to give whaling supporters as much fodder to escalate things as he gives whale supporters visibility. I’m not sure how many whales his actions have actually saved.
Sounds like victim blaming to me.
I don’t usually consider people who have been intentionally breaking the law for over forty years to be victims, even if they’re doing it for a worthwhile cause. He knew exactly what he was doing and what the consequences would be. Hopefully he saved some whales while doing it.
Otherwise, he’d still be doing peaceful protests with Greenpeace. And would be getting arrested for that, instead, which would make a bigger difference in international law.
Watson left Greenpeace because he believed whalers could only be stopped through “direct action” - meaning, violence and sabotage. Eventually, the new organization he founded realized that you had to win hearts and minds, not be a thorn in the side of whalers. So he left the group he had founded as well, still certain that only through direct action could the whales be saved.
He evaded arrest for 14 years; the other person involved was arrested on site, stood trial in Japan, and was released with a suspended sentence, all back in 2012.
Another well balanced article on what’s happening here is available at https://theconversation.com/former-sea-shepherd-captain-paul-watson-arrested-on-a-japanese-warrant-from-2012-what-next-235965
The law is not always morally correct why should people be allowed to use the bodies and secretions of animals when they don’t need to.
I don’t care at all for people who murder whales just because the law is on their side.
Neither do I.
But I also don’t care for people who turn to violence to get their way when the empirical evidence already shows that other legal and semi-legal actions are more effective at achieving the intended goal.
Save the violence for when it will make a difference.
You’re not mentioning the violence the whales are facing.
No, I’m not. That’s beside the point.
The goal is to stop violence to marine mammals, especially whales.
We have over fifty years of evidence showing that being violent to whalers doesn’t accomplish this goal, while blockades, media coverage and international pressure, along with helping people identify with whales and encouraging boycotts of whale-derived products does.
That’s the reason Greenpeace believes in peaceful protest, and it’s the reason why over the decades, the Sea Shepherd Society has also come around to that position.
What we SHOULD be doing is applying more pressure to Japan; they’ve reneged on the International agreement, and there should be international financial and political consequences for this.
It’s also worth noting that this arrest warrant was made before Japan broke the treaty.
“Whaling supporters?”
Crazily, there still are some. There were a lot more in the 1970s, and Greenpeace has been a huge part of the reason why that changed.