Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Ethical questions » The use of deadly force by a ship under attack from pirates

The use of deadly force by a ship under attack from pirates

Torn apart ... wreckage of the Ady Gil.

When I heard the new about the anti-whaling boat having  “catastrophic damage” I could not help thinking that they had brought it upon themselves  and once it was clear that there was no loss of life I actually thought that the protestations from “Sea Shepard “, Bob Brown and Peter Garrett were actually like something form a high farce .

Sea Shepherd leader Paul Watson, en route to the area aboard the Steve Irwin last night, said the Ady Gil was worth $2 million. “We now have a real whale war on our hands and we have no intention of retreating,” Mr Watson said.

Another activist on the Steve Irwin, Laura Dakin, said the Australian government must send a naval vessel to the area to protect the whales and its citizens on board the protest vessels.

“This is Australian Antarctic territorial waters and I see the Japanese whalers doing whatever they want with impunity down here without a single Australian government vessel anywhere to be found,” Ms Dakin said.


The government respects the right of peaceful protest, including on the high seas, and it condemns any dangerous or any other violent activity that takes place on the high seas,” Mr Garrett said.The Tokyo-based Institute of Cetacean Research described the Sea Shepherd activists as violent extremists, insisting the Ady Gil was attempting to foul the Shonan Maru No 2’s propeller with ropes.Earlier yesterday the activists claimed the Japanese had chartered aircraft to spy on the movement of their vessels and report back the the whaling fleet. The Australian Greens pledged to propose legislation banning the whaling fleet from using Australian resources for air and sea surveillance and communications.

This from the Brisbane Times suggest that the activists are applying a great deal of spin to the story:

The crash came after a day of harassment of the whaling fleet in Australian Antarctic waters by Ady Gil and another Sea Shepherd ship, Bob Barker.

In the skirmishes, the Ady Gil’s crew tried to entangle the propeller of the factory ship Nisshin Maru but were pursued by Shonan Maru 2, which was there to protect the whaling fleet from the activists.


An Ady Gil crew member, Laurens de Groot, said the crash was no accident.

”They have no mercy those guys. They were trying to kill us, ramming us like that in one of the most hostile environments in the world. The only way to describe it is attempted murder.”

However, video footage released by Japan’s Institute of Cetacean Research last night showed the Ady Gil gradually increasing speed into the path of the Shonan Maru 2, countering the Sea Shepherd account that the ship was not moving.
The six aboard were uninjured and left the floating rear section for the Bob Barker without trouble in the icy conditions

Of course once the nutters from Sea Shepard began to do more than peacefully protest as the sentence in bold above suggests then they must lose the protections usually expected to be given to “peaceful protesters” and really their actions then move in to the realms of piracy on the high seas and as I understand it the law of the sea authorises the use of deadly force by any ship under attack by pirates.

As for the aircraft being chartered to”spy” on them, oh come on! They themselves have a helicopter that they use to find the Japanese whalers so it seems like horses for courses to me.

That said, I am no fan of whaling but I am even less enamoured by militant vegetarians who think that when they play cat and mouse with the Japanese whalers that they should be immune from being smited by the cat that they have so consistently been provoking.

Cheers Comrades



  1. Pkd says:

    Pirates by definition are trying to steal something.
    The activists are not trying to steal, therefore are not pirates like you claim.
    Secondly the law of the sea is more that all non military vessels must be unarmed. Therefore the law of the sea cannot possibly authorize the use of deadly force for the whalers as you seem to suggest.

    Really it’s harder to imagine a bigger apology piece for the whalers from Someone who is supposedly against it.
    So what are you doing to stop the whaling Iain hmm?

  2. Rossini says:

    My “ABC” reported the row boat as being persued and cut in half by the Japanese PT109. Shock, horror outrage……that is until you look at footage of the incident on the internet. Is it any wonder that I now no longer turn to My “ABC” for the facts

  3. Rossini says:

    Pkd, Good morning.

    Why stop with the wails shouldn’t we also cease jellyfish hunting, or do they offend too many by not looking cuddly.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    the militant vegetarians are firing projectiles , trying to disable the whaling ships (by entangling their propellers with rope) these are attacks upon sovereign vessels on the high seas and anyone can defend themselves from such things. But more importantly the vision suggests that the Ady Gil was under power when it was hit and not “dead in the water” as they claim.

    Really it’s harder to imagine a bigger apology piece for the whalers from Someone who is supposedly against it.

    Well I don’t eat whale meat for a start! But to my mind this is an issue about how to protest as much as it is about what to protest about.

  5. Pkd says:

    Sure – because there’s so much whale meat in coles for you to choose from. Well done on your boycott iain!
    In reality you’re doing nothing to even protest about whaling, even though you claim to be opposed to it.
    You sure are quick to side with the whalers though at any opportunity…

  6. Iain Hall says:

    I don’t shop at Coles
    I feel rather ambivalent about whaling. I do think that they are magnificent creatures and I am personally pleased that they have prospered since the decline of more wide spread whaling.
    However it is not a case of me siding with the whalers here but my thinking that the “protesters” are actaully going too far by firing projectiles and trying to disable the Japanese ships; getting in the way in zodiacs is one thing but trying to disable the ships invites a stronger response, strangely when they get such a response the militant vegetarians have the cheek to cry foul.

  7. bingbing says:

    Just look at what constitutes as the southern ocean vs Australian waters, be that fisheries, territorial zone, exclusive economic zone, or what have you, and, well, time to get bored already. And Julia’s calling even more lawyers. And bloody Hunt is just playing silly politics… but what else can he do? What can anyone do but make a buck off this?


  8. Meg says:

    Even if true, fouling propellors does nothing but stop a ship from moving with propulsion for a short period of time, until the crew can clear the prop. Intentionally ramming a smaller boat with a larger one, while firing water cannon, is a different story. It endangers lives and will cripple if not sink the smaller vessel.

    So you’re not only an apologist for whaling, you’re also an apologist for those who commit criminal acts and place lives at risk on the high seas. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  9. Pkd says:

    Having now seen the videos from both sides and not just the whalers side as you’ve linked to iain, the whalers have a lot of answering to do.

    The video shot from Bob Barker clearly shows the japs turning right to collide with the protesters vessel while attacking with their LRAD and water cannons. The protesters just seem to be standing on deck watching in horror. Charges should clearly be laid.

    So iain given you claim to be no fan of whaling, what are you actively doing to try and help get it stopped?
    Least you could do is do some anti whaling posts, and perhaps you like to back up your opposition to whaling with a donation to greenpeace?

  10. Iain Hall says:

    Firstly welcome to my blog,
    I am always happy to see a new face here.
    In the southern ocean (or any ocean for that matter) to unfoul a propeller would require putting divers into the water and that is a life threatening proposition in those frigid seas. So it is a bit more than an inconvenience as you would like to suggest.
    As I said before I am rather ambivalent about whaling. I detest the pretence from the Japanese that their efforts are about research but I also don’t think that the number of whales that they kill is going to be in any way unsustainable if the numbers of they take remain at the current levels. I think that once you take the emotion out of the issue it is much the same for as my attitude to cutting down trees; if it is done indiscriminately to make, say dunny paper then I think that it is unsupportable but if some people want to take out just a few trees for high value saw logs then that makes sense.
    Do you get where I’m coming from?
    PS if you have links to other video footage please post them.

  11. Pkd says:

    just jump on the Ages website and you’ll find both videos there. The Australian too.

    Hear hear Meg, iain is being a pro whaling apologist. Still at least iain is now admitting being pro whaling instead of pretending to be ‘no fan of whaling’ as in his post!

  12. Iain Hall says:

    Being ambivalent is by definition neither Pro or anti whaling.
    So I will invite you to make the case against hunting whales rather than just assuming that it does not need to be made.

  13. Don’t you guys ever wonder what whale meat tastes like?

    If I ever go to Japan, I’ll be sure to get a traditional Japanese Whale Steak or Whale sushi.

  14. kae says:

    Fouling the propellers means that there is no way for the ship to turn into waves and it could capsize, endangering all on board.

  15. PKD says:

    there are enough whaling vessels that they could pull up other ships along side, tie them up and sail as one vessel.
    Course that would mean taking 3 boats out of killing whales, but thats what the protesters have in mind.

    Don’t be absurd – you can’t be neither pro or anti whaling. Its like the death penalty – you’re either for or against.

    And quite clearly with this post you are PRO whaling.

  16. Iain Hall says:


    there are enough whaling vessels that they could pull up other ships along side, tie them up and sail as one vessel.

    You are not much of a sailor now are you PKD? when you have seas as wild as there are in the southern ocean your plan would result in the sinking of all of the ships trying to do as you suggest. 😉

    Don’t be absurd – you can’t be neither pro or anti whaling. Its like the death penalty – you’re either for or against.

    You have got to be joking! I thought that I was the one who is supposed to be the “black and white ” thinker here! 🙄
    Realistically I expect that there are more whales that are killed in mass stranding events each year than there are whales taken by the Japanese, Like my stand on the death penalty I have a nuanced position on this issue precisely as I have enunciated in previous comments here.
    Now I’ll ask you again to explain why you think hunting whales is bad. I suspect you won’t because you simply oppose it fro emotional reasons rather than from any real consideration of the facts.

    And quite clearly with this post you are PRO whaling.

    No PKD, I am Anti militant vegetarian protesters acting like pirates on the high seas as much as I am anti protesters destroying property that they don’t own in our streets.
    after all vegetarians are by their very nature evil 😉

  17. Pkd says:

    I suppose you’ve never heard of towing a boat either?
    Have you at least seen the bob barker video?
    It clearly shows the japs swerving right to clean out the protesters, err sorry, pirates…

  18. Iain Hall says:

    I have actually seen the other footage now PKD and as the Bob barker is itself moving across the bows of the Japanese boat the turning that you think you are seeing is actaully an illusion.

    Oh and towing a ship in the southern ocean would also be very dangerous

  19. Pkd says:

    Ha – what you are seeing iain is not an illusion but a delusion!
    One for which no optician in the world can cure you of…sigh 😐

  20. Pkd says:

    By the way you realize it’s the Ady Gill that got run over, not the Bob Barker?
    You can’t tell what the course of the bob barker is from either video…

  21. Iain Hall says:

    Yes I know which boat got run over, and its clear from the video that the Bob Barker is moving

  22. Pkd says:

    …which would not create the delusion, sorry illusion you claim.
    Becuase only one of the boats can be seen veering right then back again – and it’s not the protesters!
    Apparently there is a high chance of charges being laid as I said earlier – should be interesting to see who is deemed to be at fault.
    You may be eating humble pie yet iain!

  23. Meg says:

    Iain is seeing what he wants to see. It’s pretty clear that the Ady Gill is not moving, since there is no wake from her stern.

    This post and Iain’s comments remind me of years back when certain bloggers were trying to convince the world that Rachel Corrie tried to bodyslam an Israeli bulldozer.

  24. Pkd says:

    Yeah I mean what would honestly be the point of trying to ram a large whaling ship with a tiny catermaran? It’s like a fly trying to stop a lorry by flying into the windshield.
    Nothing would be gained by doing so.

    Still this wouldn’t be the first time logic and Iain haven’t got on…

  25. Iain Hall says:

    if you look at the Vid that I posted at about 15 seconds in you can see that the wash behind the Ady Gil has the look of engines on and the boat appears to move forward. I saw some where else the suggestion that the collision was deliberately caused by the Sea Shepard people to make their boat a martyr for the cause and you know what? These people certainly are rather like the Jihadists and I would not put it past them.

  26. Pkd says:

    Riiiiiigjt – now they’re martyrs. They were trying to die to stop the whaling.
    You think in that case they’d of strapped explosives to the boat and tried to take the japs with in in this nautical equivalent of a mouse stepping in front of an elephant to stop it.

    Like the japenese themselves you’re just sounding nuttier in your attempts to justify japans own acts of piracy…

  27. Iain Hall says:

    we both know that the battle to “save the whales” is going to be won or lost in the court of public opinion and in that cause sinking their own boat has merit, especially if they can paint the Japanese as the villains of the incident.v So your mouse and Elephant analogy just does not work.

  28. Pkd says:

    It’s sounds perfectly sane compared to your martydom for jihadist pirates theory…

  29. Len says:

    Look at how much PR mileage they got out of the French sinking of the Rainbow Warrior ?

    It’s all about perception.

  30. MK says:

    The cries of ‘murder most foul’ from the sea wankers are most amusing, what they did with their adi gay is like walking into a biker bar, loudly proclaiming that all who drink beer and ride bikes are faggots and then crying foul when they lose most of their teeth.

    On the whaling issue, i really couldn’t care less either way, i’m not angling to head out there to spear one of the fat-asses myself. But i wouldn’t seek to impose my moral values on others, especially those conducting important scientific research. And since it’s white leftists seeking to violently impose their particular beliefs on the poor Japanese, it also smacks of racism. The way i see it, if you don’t believe in whaling, then don’t kill one.

  31. JM says:

    Iain: “…sinking their own boat …”

    OMG, you’re outdoing yourself now. What did they do? Scuttle it?

    Oh that much larger Japanese whaler in the picture? The thing that did all the damage? Don’t pay any attention to that, it was behind the curtain.

  32. JM says:

    Leon: “If I ever go to Japan, I’ll be sure to get a traditional Japanese Whale Steak or Whale sushi.”

    Lotsa luck Leon. There is no such thing.

    Whale is hardly consumed at all in Japan, you won’t find it in sushi restaurants and it is regarded as the food of the poor and old – like tripe in the west. Most of it apparently goes into pet food.

    Also, it is not traditional. It was very important to the Japanese food supply during the late war years and immediately afterwards when they built large whaling fleets. Before then, you just had a few villages on the north west coast that used to hunt.

    Prior to the 19thC Japan didn’t bother with whales.

  33. JM says:

    Iain: “as the Bob barker is itself moving across the bows of the Japanese boat the turning that you think you are seeing is actaully an illusion.”

    Hogwash. You’re either deluding yourself or you’ve never been at sea.

    The Japanese ran them down. It’s obvious in both videos, even the Japanese one.

  34. Pkd says:

    I see iain’s friend from the far right is back with his balanced right-eousness… 😐

    quite right. – iain has gone into full denial mode -the protesters are jihadist martyrs now. And the optical illusion bit? Pure Hall comedy gold!

  35. Iain Hall says:

    PKD and JM
    I think that both of you are letting your obvious Anti whaling bias cloud your judgement here and falling into the same sort of assumptions that make cycling enthusiasts claim that bike/car crashes are all the fault of the car drivers because a car is bigger and the bike rider more vulnerable.
    That assumption is very often entirely wrong because being smaller does not impart any virtue upon those involved in a road crash and it and it does not work for this collision either.
    Oh and JM one does not have to be a genius to see that the point and angle of view changes in the video taken from the bob Barker as that ship goes across the line of travel of the Japanese ship

    You both accept that the Ady gil was trying to harass the whalers and its clear to me and to many others that they just ended up reaping what they were sowing.
    What do you expect from militant vegetarians?

  36. PKD says:

    See what I men about full denial mode?
    Neither of us is assuming anything based on the sort of generalisms you yourself are famous for.

    We’ve looked at the evidence, found the whaling vessel veering right to clean out the catamaran and drawn our conclusions. I’ll be suprised if the AMSA conclude anything differently…

    What do you expect from militant vegetarians?

    In this case the whalers were being militant. Did you see from their video that even with the protesters just sitting their taking no action, they failed to blow any warning whistles (as required by maritime rules if a bigger vessel wants to send a warning to a small boat.) Even if they had the Sea Sehpherd wouldn’t have heard it thanks to the LRAD being on. Militant whalers indeed.

  37. PKD says:

    …but of course the veering right was just an ‘optical illusion’…mustn’t forget that! 🙂

  38. Iain Hall says:

    PKD your level of precision in describing the “action” is neatly summed up by your describing the Ady gil as a catamaran, It was a three hulled vessel so that makes it a trimaran!

    As for the whaler “veering right” I think that you are mistaken because you ignore the fact that this is the southern ocean and there is a significant swell, secondly you assume that there is a deliberate change of heading by the whaling ship when none of the video is taken from a fixed location. Quite simply when all footage is from a moving view point of objects that are themselves moving it is very difficult indeed to decide with any accuracy what is moving in which direction. Add to that the fact that the sea itself is acting upon all elements of this drama and attributing blame is a task that is beyond both of us.

    However maritime conventions suggest that in such circumstances it is beholden upon the captains of all vessels to maintain adequate separation to avoid collision and guess which boat was deliberately flouting that convention?

  39. PKD says:

    pure comedy there iain – thanks!

  40. Len says:

    The vision shows that the larger vessel made absolutely NO attempt to avoid the collision, but then again, the Ady Gil didn’t attempt to avoid the collision either ?

    The vision also shows that as stated above, there is no sign that engines on the Ady Gil were engaged in gear, in any direction.

    Simple rules of the sea state that if there is a possibility of a collision, BOTH vessels have to alter course to avoid the collision. In this case, one to starboard, and one to port. This is pretty obviously not happening in this case is it ? The larger ship was purely provoked, as shown by the use of the water cannon.

    We are all missing one particular, but important point here ?

    For the whaling ship to begin filming the episode, what did the Ady Gil do, to warrant the larger ship to get it’s dander up, and begin filming in the first place ?

    What are we missing here ?
    If it is indeed in Australian territorial waters, should send a frigate down there to sink the bastards full stop. It is piracy.

    Seriously people, leaving the emotive issue of whale hunting aside, what is the difference here, between this, and the many Taiwanese and other Asian fishing boats, caught fishing in our territorial waters annually ? What happens to them ? They get escorted to port, the ship seized, and the crew put in the slammer, with the ship being pumbled.

    Just because it is Greenpeace (or whatever organisation), doesn’t matter. The video is pretty cut and dried ?

    As for the fishing boats in our waters, torpedo the mongrels. Would only take that to occur a couple of times, and perhaps that would slow the problem ?

  41. JM says:

    Iain, forget about the Bob Barker video. (But if you want to maintain this nonsense just consider that the BB is a far distance off and would have had to have been moving at speed boat speeds to achieve your “optical illusion”)

    If you’re so keen to base your views on angles, look at the angles in the Japanese video.

    It’s obvious that the SM turns towards the AD, and it’s also obvious that the AD are not moving until right at the end when they suddenly start up to try to get some steerage. They weren’t moving, they had no practical means of avoiding collision, and no obligation – you have to be under way before you get that obligation.

    The Japanese ran them down.

    Your argument that the motives of the AD absolve the Japanese is either moral relativism or situational ethics. I’m surprised to hear that coming from you.

  42. JM says:

    Len: “what did the Ady Gil do, to warrant the larger ship to get it’s dander up, ”

    I doubt if provocation is a defense. It isn’t in road rage cases.

  43. PKD says:

    I doubt if provocation is a defense. It isn’t in road rage cases.

    Oh I am sure Len can come up with some outrage by the trimaran (well spotted there Iain – you’ve got one thing right on the video finally) that would mean they deserved to be deliberately run down by the Japs.

    And lets not let forget the ‘important scientific research’ that justifies the Japs to be there in the 1st place. Research like, “do they die faster or slower if we shoot them with this type of explosive?”. Very important research that, and prefectly moral research too…

  44. Len says:

    As I suggested in my comment, we are missing something.

    History tells us, that Greenpeace (or whatever), are experienced in harassing larger vessels. What is missing, is the footage BEFORE the you tube clip ? We all know that the standard procedure for protest vessels, is to cut across the bows of the whalers, forcing them to change course, thereby interrupting their whaling ? What we are missing, is the actual “hit”. The whaling vessel captain obviously has his dander up, as he ordered the water canon to be used ? That’s what we are missing, what was the vision, before the cannon was turned on, to totally piss the captain off, to warrant the “hit and run” ?

    Don’t get me wrong here guys. I abhor whaling the same as the next “sane” person. The Japanese have been renown for this sort of crap for years, only this year they got caught.

    The issue again, is not whaling, it also includes all illegal fishing in our waters by these pirates. The Japs are only the latest, and most blatant ? Canberra is gutless when it comes to this sort of activity, save it may “injure” diplomatic/economic ties with these nations in the future. Who gives a FRA if they don’t buy our rice. They can’t get it from anywhere else, especially at the insanely cheap price they buy it at ? That, along with the torpedoing of a couple of these so called “research” vessels, would send the message back very quickly, don’t you think ?

  45. Iain Hall says:


    Iain, forget about the Bob Barker video. (But if you want to maintain this nonsense just consider that the BB is a far distance off and would have had to have been moving at speed boat speeds to achieve your “optical illusion”)

    How do you know that the BB was a “far distance off”? Using a wide angle lens gives that impression even when the camera operator and their subject actually relatively close. use the zoom function on any camera from wide to thele-photo and you will see precisely what I mean.

    If you’re so keen to base your views on angles, look at the angles in the Japanese video.

    It’s obvious that the SM turns towards the AD, and it’s also obvious that the AD are not moving until right at the end when they suddenly start up to try to get some steerage. They weren’t moving, they had no practical means of avoiding collision, and no obligation – you have to be under way before you get that obligation.

    No it isn’t the AG appears to be angled at about 40 degrees to the direction of travel of the SM and they do are moving at least from about 15 seconds into the video where there is clearly disturbance behind the stern drives. It is rediculious for you to suggest that they are not moving in those seas everything is moving.

    The Japanese ran them down.

    Your argument that the motives of the AD absolve the Japanese is either moral relativism or situational ethics. I’m surprised to hear that coming from you.

    I’m not suggesting that anyone is absolved of responsibility here JM all that I am doing is to suggest that you and PKD are falling for the fallacy that the more vulnerable player must be innocent, rather than being just lucky not have been killed by their own stupidity.

  46. JM says:

    Now it’s wide angle lenses! You don’t give up do you?

    Right at the start of the Japanese video a ship can be seen some distance off the starboard bow of the SM, behind the AD. It is the BB.

    How do I know? Because it is in exactly the position that the BB video is shot from.

    You can see how far away it is. And you can also see the direction it is travelling in from its wake – it’s on the same heading as the SM. ie. it is not crossing the bow of the SM. Rather it is travelling in the same general direction as the SM.

    If you want to see the whole thing from both viewpoints try this split-screen video where the two videos are shown in parallel. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXWD_BAkpII&feature=player_embedded

    You whole “optical illusion” story is a complete fantasy.

    It’s not me and PKD who are indulging in fallacies – it’s you Iain. You are yet again loudly chestbeating your support of a perspective that suits your own prejudices, facts be damned.

    You’ve really outdone yourself this time though.

  47. JM says:

    And Len, if you want to see what was happening beforehand, try this video which includes footage from the deck of the Ady Gil for about a minute prior to the incident.

    The AG crew are clearly relaxing on the deck, and see the SM approach them rapidly from astern.

    You can also clearly see the SM turn (twice) towards them, attack them with water cannon, and then run them over.

    There can be no doubt. The Japanese deliberately ran them over.

  48. PKD says:

    Yes Iain – the fallacy is you imagining that I or JM are assuming the vulnerable boat must be innocent. We don’t – we’ve looked at the video with open minds before hand and made our minds up based on the evidence.

    Try it yourself Iain – you’re the one who’s got the closed mind in asuming the guilt of the whalers, whatever the evidence…

  49. PKD says:

    Wow – thanks for the link JM – I hadn’t seen the onbaord footage yet.

    There you go Len – thats damning as far I can see – the boat was just idling and not being aggresive to the Japs. As per the BB video, they turned into the boat as they we’re sitting their watching. Thats attempted murder.

  50. Iain Hall says:

    JM I actaully agree with this comment posted in response to the vid you link to:

    I hadn’t seen the third footage from the Ady Gil itself. Now I have, it clearly shows the ship about to pass. There is no way it could have turned in fast enough at the speed it was going to hit the Ady Gil therefore proves ( as the Japanese footage shows) that they accelerated the Ady Gil into the ships path.
    I thank the guys on the Ady Gil, as I’m sure Maritime NZ will, for providing the incriminating evidence needed to prove the Ady Gil in violation of passing in front of a moving ships bow

  51. Iain Hall says:

    First you can’t count the number of hulls on the Ady Gil and now you make this Faux pas:

    you’re the one who’s got the closed mind in assuming the guilt of the whalers, whatever the evidence…

    when it is You and JM who are doing this not I 🙄

  52. JM says:

    Iain, the commenter you quote is just as delusional as you.

    Far from there being “no way it [the SM] could have turned in fast enough”, it is clearly shown turning just that fast – two times.

    Once when it turns onto the the AG before the collision and second when it heels away to port after the collision.

    Stop living in a fantasy world.

    BTW – the commentator is also wrong about “in violation of passing in front of a moving ships bow”. Hogwash, that’s not how the rules work.

    There is no rule that prevents you from passing in front of someone else’s bow. There are priorities. The boat on the starboard side (the AG) has right of way. The boat on the starboard side (the AG) has the right to pass in front.

  53. PKD says:

    Sorry – that should be the innocense of the whalers.
    And I bet you still think they’re as pure as the driven snow even after the new footage, hey?
    Bad, bad, evil vegetarian militant jihadist martyrs!
    How dare you sit still and let those nice whalers run your ship down!!!
    Obviously those poor whalers could have done nothing more to prevent them from accidentally giving the evil protesters a slight kiss on the bow!!!

  54. Len says:

    I have to agree after seeing that last footage.
    The AG was stationary, and the jap boat is clearly seen turning towards the AG not away.
    Looked pretty bloody deliberate to me ?

  55. PKD says:

    Well it looks like your now on your own there Iain – keep on deluding yourself…I suppose the ship turning in the new video is also an optical delusion, hmm???

  56. Meg says:

    After viewing the Zapruder footage, Iain is sticking to his theory that JFK was actually shot by Jackie Kennedy.

  57. Iain Hall says:

    actaully Meg I think that the boys from the Dwarf have the answer to the conundrum that you allude to:

  58. MK says:

    Look folks, all those weeping hysterically over the loss of the adi gay and the sea wankers can do their part, instead of shrieking for someone else to do something!

    Give generously folks, think of the whales, maybe they’ll beach themselves at a beach near you and you can go down to say hello, i helped to save your fat-ass early in 2010.

    And if you’re really angry at the Japanese, you could always refuse to buy the Toyota Prius, that’ll really stick it to them, and i’m sure gaia won’t mind the extra emissions, it’s for the whales after all.

  59. Meg says:

    Mockery based on homophobic slurs (“Adi Gay”) masturbation (“sea wankers”) and weight (“fat-ass”) … we’re obviously dealing with a higher intellect here. Unfortunately rednecks aren’t quite as endangered as whales.

  60. Pkd says:

    What else do you expect from a far right nutcase Meg?
    Hatred and zeolotry are MK’s stock in trade…

    And hey, after viewing the Pearl Harbour footage, I’m sure Iain thinks the Japs suffered an unprovoked attack from the Americans as they were flying harmlessly overhead and were simply forced to defend themselves. The fact they were on their way to bomb a few
    whales for their cultural dinner table simply adds to the case against the yanks…

  61. PKD says:

    No – Tim can’t. He’s even more hopeleesly biased and one-eyed than Iain here.

    BTW Iain – can you release my other comment from moderation? I assume it got in there as I sent it from my phone…tx!

  62. Iain Hall says:

    firstly apologies for your phone based comments being moderated when you first began doing that I thought that you were in fact a Faux PKD I will remove the ISP address from the moderation filter eventually.
    Secondly some one else is making the same argument That I am here (apart from Tim Blair, thanks for the link Jimmy)

    Paint me cynical, but I’d reckon Captain Paul has managed to milk far more than $2 million in publicity out of the stunt in the past few days. In that respect the whales are just as much cows of the ocean ripe for exploitation for Sea Shepherd as they are to the Japanese.

    Nor do the eco-pirates have any right to claim the high moral ground in terms of maritime law here.

    This mob make a living out of harassing and interfering with such operations: cutting across the bows of whaling ships to mess up a harpoon shot, throwing missiles of rancid butter and stink bombs at the vessels and allegedly trying to foul their propulsion gear.

    A couple of years back, two Sea Shepherd activists boarded a Japanese whaler and were held captive for their troubles.

    Look, I’m not in favour of a lot of things, whaling included, but that doesn’t mean resorting to vandalism and piracy in a means-justifies-the-end crusade against my long list of pet hates (rabid greenies included).

    The Sea Shepherd approach is the same sort of fundamentalist extremism that makes anti-abortion activists in the US think it’s justifiable to firebomb fertility clinics, or that prompts those ratbags from PETA to embark on similarly destructive campaigns of intimidation.

    How would we as a nation feel if Japanese protesters took to using innovative direct action tactics to disrupt the kangaroo meat industry?

    We might have plague proportions of the things in some areas, and they can taste pretty good after a quick barbecue sear and then a stint in a slow oven with a red wine, garlic and rosemary jus and a side of julienne potatoes, but poor little Skippy.

    So how would we react if the Tokyo Marsupial Shepherds decided to embark on a campaign of harassment, vandalism and intimidation on our shores (and remember here that Sea Shepherd claims these waters are Australia’s responsibility)?

    I reckon the roo shooters would come out in front.

    There are cultural differences here for starters and just because, as a nation, we tend to disagree with the Japanese view of whaling, it does not mean we should support protest action that borders on guerilla tactics.

    So Captain Paul can bluster all he wants, but the more he blows and bombasts about the plight of the whales, the evil Japanese and his noble cause, the less sympathetic I am to Sea Shepherd’s ultimately worthy goal of protecting our marine wildlife.

    Maybe some of the millions of dollars and hours of human effort could be better served rescuing the thousands of beached and bewildered whales that wash up on our shores each year, rather than wasted on a self-serving publicity fest.

    For mine, they are just sea-going terrorists and blowhards with politically correct bumper stickers.

  63. Len says:

    Even though I still believe that it was not the Adi Gil’s fault here, you have touched on a valid point guys.

    That point ?

    It would seem to be worth more, in financial and more importantly publicity terms, to the Sea Shepherd organisation, than any charity drive could bring in ?
    Talking about a great vision or remake, of the “David & Goliath” showdown ?

    The “attack boat” would seem to be loaded “for bear”, when it comes to its ability to quickly attain speed. Even though the later vision purely shows that the japs turned towards her, there was plenty of time for the Ady Gil to put the dammed thing into gear, and vamoose ? That is probably what the japs thought she would do, and were probably surprised as hell when she didn’t. Funny, how there was an external camera, waiting at the ready, to film the whole episode ?

  64. JM says:

    Len, I think you’re stretching far too much re. publicity. The Ady Gil crew are clearly panicking at the end.

    Certainly not patiently waiting the blessed release of annihilation* that will justify their lives.

    * I believe it’s called “rapture” in certain circles.

  65. Len says:

    I think you are partially right JM to a certain degree, especially in the end ?

    I too, don’t think they saw, that they were actually going to be rammed. Probably a giant game of “chicken” was all they expected ? But, when the situation got out of hand, they just sat there.

    Bad and arrogant move wouldn’t you agree ?

    Their engines were idling, (you can see the wake), and it wouldn’t have taken much to just get out of the way, but in their wisdom (or maybe that should read arrogance ?), they just appeared to stay there (especially when they knew that the whole thing was being filmed ?), and probably designing to hit the throttle at the last minute, just stuffed up their calculations, then, the minties moment ?

    You are right though. A lot of organisations around the planet, that have suffered the wrath of these “protesters” would have cracked a tinnie in celebration ?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: