Sinking of Ady Gil a calamity Rudd could have prevented
Australian Greens Leader says the deliberate sinking of the Sea Shepherd vessel Ady Gil by Japanese whaling ship Shonan Maru was as irresponsible and callous as the failure of the Rudd government to be on the scene.
“The lawless Japanese whale killers are doing what they want in Australia’s Antarctic Territory waters. The Rudd government threw in the towel at the outset.”
“I again appeal to the government to send planes for immediate surveillance and to have an Australian maritime presence sent to Commonwealth Bay to reassert Australian law and authority,” said Senator Brown.
Senator Brown is available for further comment this afternoon.
Media contact: Peter Stahel 0433 005 727
social justice and sustainable living – new media
media social justice education mental health journalism
January 6, 2010
tony serve
Can you help? :o)
links to my networks
Items on; Health, IT, Science, Politics, Activism- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- tony’s rss feed
- Australian Government's mock "consultation" about opening Woomera to miners May 17, 2013
- Your Local Govt recognised in constitution? Local Communities Will be the Big Winners says @ChappleMLC May 17, 2013
- #Perth ER Conference & Free Training on DivERsity from @wacoss May 15, 2013
- Mining companies now fear activist shareholders May 15, 2013
- 60 top Indian scientists unhappy about safety issues in Kudankulam nuclear power plant May 15, 2013
12 responses to “SHAME ON JAPAN! Sinking of Ady Gil a calamity Rudd could have prevented”
Kim in Canada
January 13th, 2010 at 05:32
To Eric Carwardine,
Judging by your remarks, you believe that mankind should just allow species to go extinct if they provide no benefit to humans. I guess then we should just allow humans to run amok, destroying everything in their path, killing elephants for their ivory, gorillas for trophies, tigers for their skins?!!
The ocean is a very complex environment and the truth of the matter is no one knows what would happen to the planet if whales (or sharks) were taken out of the picture. Each species on earth affects many other species of plants & animals. Humans are playing russian roulette when they decide which species can be exterminated.
Eric Carwardine
January 13th, 2010 at 16:25
G’day to Kim in Canada
“Judging by your remarks, you believe that mankind should just allow species to go extinct if they provide no benefit to humans.”
Mankind ‘allowing’ anything implies an arrogance that I certainly don’t subscribe to. Perhaps it has something to do with the biblical direction that man should dominate the earth and all that dwells within and on it. My apologies for any misquoting of the bible.
“I guess then we should just allow humans to run amok, destroying everything in their path, killing elephants for their ivory, gorillas for trophies, tigers for their skins?!!”
Psychologists would say that was an example of projection, combined with the peculiarly-human ability to empathise. When humans attained the ability to stand on their hind legs, thus making an enlarged brain a worthwhile experiment, the human animal found itself with a lot of time in which to dream-up dark and horrible things to do to other animals. That is what makes torture possible, our ability to vicariously imagine ourselves in the role of the tortured. It also explains why showing gorey scenes of road fatalities is an ineffective tool in combatting the roadtoll. Thankfully, computer games will generally provide less harmful conduits for the fantasies which are an essential part of being human.
Recall how Australians, and probably others in the world, were more than willing to assume that children were being thrown overboard in the October 2001 affair. Out of all possible explanations why did we seize upon the one that featured children in distress? A real-life fairytale? Or was Peter Pierce really onto something when he wrote “The Country of Lost Children”?
“The ocean is a very complex environment and the truth of the matter is no one knows what would happen to the planet if whales (or sharks) were taken out of the picture.”
If no one knows, then why are we bothering? The answer, of course, is because we care. The trouble is that a utilitarian world long ago abandoned moral arguments in favour of cost-benefit analysis. How long ago? When we started practising euthanasia on problematic family members, and began committing our troublesome elders to an accelerated demise in nursing homes and retirement villages.
“Each species on earth affects many other species of plants & animals. Humans are playing russian roulette when they decide which species can be exterminated.”
To ‘decide which species can be exterminated’ brings us full-circle, back to human arrogance and perceived omnipotence. Maybe that’s the problem with so-called ‘climate change’; a human belief in our ability to change the climate back to what it used to be or what we think it should be.
The Ady Gil and the Shonan Maru 2 were locked in a quasi-naval encounter. I imagine the commander of the Japanese ship thinking along similar lines to Theodor Detmers, commander of the Kormoran in November 1941, when presented with HMAS Sydney broadside-on and at point-blank range. Then, as now, only one ship sailed away from the encounter, although it’s true that the Kormoran did not sail very far.
The point of my post was not about whales. I wrote as a person incensed at what I saw as irresponsible seamanship by the ‘commander’ of the Ady Gil. Up to his neck in the freezing ocean that commander might marvel at the whistles of the whales, but he’d be in no doubt about the anguished cries of the crew whose ship he’d just lost.
All that remains is for Bob Brown to re-direct to the commander of the Ady Gil the claim for payment for loss of a valuable craft.
Eric Carwardine, in Perth, Western Australia
Kim in Canada
January 13th, 2010 at 04:03
Before anyone tries to decide who was at fault, perhaps you should watch the video taken from the Ady Gil. It clearly shows them sitting idle and the Shonan Maru 2 abruptly changing course and deliberately ramming them.
What the Shonan Maru 2 did should be considered attempted murder. It’s a miracle the crew of the Ady Gil weren’t killed! Whether the Ady Gil was harassing them beforehand is immaterial. If someone cuts you off on the highway, are you allowed to follow them & ram them off the road?!! This collision has nothing to do with whaling and whether you agree with it or not. Everyone should look at the videos and the facts and not make up your minds based on whether you like Sea Shepherd or not!
jjoshuajj21
January 8th, 2010 at 04:48
These guys are on their own out there, and they must use their own resources; however, the sinking of a multi-million dollar high tech speed boat will get the worlds attention. My research has revealed that the Ady Gil was shielding the Fin Whale that was being hunted by that Japan Whaling ship >>> http://realhumanheros.wordpress.com/ <<<
Eric Carwardine
January 8th, 2010 at 00:05
G’day, folks
“They [the Japanese] said it [Ady Gil] cut across its [Shonan Maru 2] bow and then slowed suddenly.” ~ “The West Australian”, page 1, Thursday, January 7, 2010.
In a Radio National News item on Wednesday, January 6, an anti-whaling spokesman said the Ady Gil was “absolutely stationary” when it was struck.
Now we don’t know for certain why the Ady Gil allegedly “slowed”, or why it was allegedly “stationary”. Perhaps it had hit a whale. But a loss of momentum in such an intensely adversarial situation would definitely attract the attention of a Naval Board of Inquiry. Such a Board may even recall how the HMAS Sydney was lost through the allegedly inferior tactics of its captain.
But you don’t have to be a Naval Board of Inquiry to have experienced the belligerent individual, either on foot or motorised, who accelerates to get ahead of you then slows or stops directly in your path. Seems to me that if anybody wants to play “chicken” on the high seas they better be prepared to get well-and-truly plucked.
Eric Carwardine, in Perth, Western Australia
jjoshuajj21
January 8th, 2010 at 04:51
I believe I have discovered why the Ady Gil was idle, My reseach leads me to believe that the Ady Gil was shielding the Fin-Whale that was being hunted by that Japan Whaling Ship >> http://realhumanheros.wordpress.com/ <<
Eric Carwardine
January 8th, 2010 at 10:38
How many human beings were aboard the Ady Gil? If its commander really did incapacitate his ship in order to, as is alleged, “shield” one non-human entity then that commander deserves the equivalent of a court martial. To endanger crew and vessel by such misplaced sentiment is totally reckless and irresponsible behaviour warranting the strongest condemnation. In my opinion that commander should never again be given responsibility for a vessel, let alone its human occupants.
Eric Carwardine, in Perth, Western Australia
R.A.R. Clouston
January 7th, 2010 at 06:10
Regardless of your opinion on the motives and behavior of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Agency, the issue here is whaling not harassment. The Japanese Fisheries Agency claims that these whale hunts are in the name of research, but that is a lie and the world knows it; and what is more, they know it. The truth is that the meat from the thousands of whales that are slaughtered each year in the name of research ends up in the fish markets of Japan. Quite apart from the danger this presents to the Japanese people due to the potentially deadly levels of mercury in the meat, there is another reason to stop this killing, which is that it is wrong. Unlike cattle or chickens, for all practical purposes whales are not a renewable resource, once they are gone from the oceans we will never see their kind again. In the name of all that is good and decent, the people of Japan must demand that their government stops the whaling. Now is the time, humanity is the reason, and they are the only people on this planet who can put an end to this brutal and archaic practice forever. Please read my blog
http://whaleanddolphintalk.blogspot.com/
Eric Carwardine
January 8th, 2010 at 00:23
Whales are at the very top of the food chain. If whales were to vanish there would be sadness amongst humans but the surviving species would not be threatened.
Plankton and other micro flora and fauna are at the opposite end, the very bottom, of the food chain. Apart from producing most of the world’s oxygen through the process of photosynthesis they determine the well-being of everything above them in the food chain. “Sadness” would be an extreme understatement if such tiny fundamental life-forms were seriously depleted.
If us humans are going to get macho about what is in the oceans, then please let us do so over something that matters and can ultimately affect the well-being of us all.
Eric Carwardine, in Perth, Western Australia
jjoshuajj21
January 8th, 2010 at 04:53
You Are Right, that is what my research has revealed >>> http://realhumanheros.wordpress.com/ <<<<
Stephen Barwick
January 6th, 2010 at 23:32
When will the government stop these Japanese whaling thugs? Thanks to Bob Brown for his support. I would vote for you mate, but the preferences go to labor. Send the preferences to hell then I will vote green.
jjoshuajj21
January 8th, 2010 at 04:55
Bob Barker, and Sea Shepherd are due for a reward, and their effort is not in vain >>>> http://realhumanheros.wordpress.com/ <<<<