It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could illegal whale meat make Japanese whaling illegal?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Out of concern for dwindling whale numbers, even fearing extinctions, the International Whaling Commission implemented a permanent moratorium banning commercial whaling in 1986. Under immense international pressure, especially from the US to comply, it seemed the end of the whaling story for the Japanese, traditional whale hunters since the Jomon Period (5000 Before Present) and devout Buddhist Emperor Jimmu, 7th century BC, who banned meat and promoted fishery and whaling.

The International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) left a loophole in the whaling ban, the size of, well…call it a whale or two. Article VIII of the ICRW allows for a member nation to grant quotas for killing a number of whales to do ‘research’. It should come as no surprise that since ‘ending’ commercial whaling in 1986, Japan’s whale hunting fleet in 1987 left harbor (so did Norway and Iceland!), now on a new scientific mission. The ‘study’ somehow involved killing up to 540 Minke Whales every year since! Japanese Scientific Whaling expanded in the year 2000 into the North Pacific, targeting further sperm and Bryde's whales. Of course the whales in this study end up as many a finer restaurant’s perfectly served Kujira Sashimi dish, thin slices of raw whale its centerpiece, to be enjoyed with deftly handled chop sticks.

Now from within the Japanese whaling profession a whistleblower (one of several) has come forward to Greenpeace, warning of serious irregularities, and crimes against the Japanese taxpayer:


- Once out at sea, the fleet engages in opportunistic spotting/taking whales, in disregard of the JARPA research directives calling for random, dispersed sampling.


- Diseased whales do get sampled, with tumors/lesions excised, yet no report to the International Whaling Commission made, and (suspicious) meats approved for human consumption.


- Increased catching quota since 2005 exceeded the processing capacity of whaling vessels, causing 7 tonnes/day of cheap meats getting dumped overboard.


- Prime cuts get embezzled, salt-preserved in crew cabins (boxes labeled ‘personal belongings’) to be distributed to the black market or selected government officials.




Seeing that Japan itself made the legitimacy of continued whaling hinge on the Research Whaling loophole, the new information received by Greenpeace could indicate that Japanese Whaling is allegedly supplying a criminal enterprise, poaching protected Cetacean sea mammals in pursuit of profit. Simply: they’re engaged in commercial whaling, not research.

Questions for debate:

1. If it can be confirmed that Japanese whaling supplies meat for a black market (defrauding taxpayers subsidizing hunts), can this country’s whaling be considered illegal, and in breach of the IWC 1986 ban on commercial whaling?


2. If indeed illegal, does this give anybody the right and duty to stop/interfere with hunts, even arrest whalers in order to protect whales?


3. You be the judge: based on this topic, offered links and any other source available, do you think Japanese Whaling is illegal, or a legitimate research activity?




smilodon


SOURCES:


Taking a new look at the 1986 ban on whaling

Greenpeace UK site linking to investigators (so called Tokyo Two) and the Whaling on Trial source document for this topic

BBC News: Whaling moratorium under review

Thread first posted at americasdebate.com

[edit on 7/6/10 by smilodon]




posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   
Over the past week I've had a nightmare about this and and the amazon rainforest , no more whales and no more rainforest. I mean what is wrong with these people and the fact that they deceive , just shows they know what they are doing is wrong , they just don't care. S and f



posted on Jun, 7 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Japan's side of the story.


Products from species of large whale other than minke whale in the market could have originated from several sources including meat stored frozen from before the moratorium on commercial whaling, by-products from past scientific catches by Iceland and Norway, stranding, or by-catch.

Illegal catches or trade are unlikely sources since the Government of Japan has strict regulations that prohibits whaling for species regulated by the IWC in compliance with the moratorium on commercial whaling and because the import of whale meat from non-IWC member countries is prohibited by regulation.

DNA analyses of samples of whale products currently distributed in the Japanese markets conducted by the Fisheries Agency of Japan and Traffic-Japan have not substantiated any illegal catches or trade.


Click for more info



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by smilodon
1. If it can be confirmed that Japanese whaling supplies meat for a black market (defrauding taxpayers subsidizing hunts), can this country’s whaling be considered illegal, and in breach of the IWC 1986 ban on commercial whaling?


2. If indeed illegal, does this give anybody the right and duty to stop/interfere with hunts, even arrest whalers in order to protect whales?


3. You be the judge: based on this topic, offered links and any other source available, do you think Japanese Whaling is illegal, or a legitimate research activity?


1) The claim of "embezzlement" of whale meat was brought up over a year ago by Greenpeace. Acting on a tip, they broke into a courier company and stole several boxes being shipped to the alleged fraudsters. Police investigated. The result was that evidence of wrongdoing was found on the whaler's part, and the Greenpeace accusers were arrested on charges of theft and illegal entry. Their case, coincidentally, should close this week. Odd how this story surfaced just in time for that. In any case, as a Japanese taxpayer, it's been dealt with to my satisfaction.

So the question is kind of theoretical, really. An investigation has occurred. It was found to be without merit. However, IF - somehow - it were proven that there WAS under the table sales going on, that would surely be a managerial matter to be dealt with by human resources, and the police if necessary.

2) If it were illegal, I'd say no. There is an international body to deal with legal issues surrounding whaling - the IWC. As long as that body exists, it should be the body to deal with the issue, as all nations that have signed the convention have agreed. (Australia seems to have forgotten that, though)

3) Legal. This is the law.
Regardless of what the media and political commentators have to say, the law is contained on those pages. Japan's research has been accepted as valid by the scientific committee - and that's the final say, really. Comments from environmental groups about the validity of the research are really just opinions - and everyone is entitled to those.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by smilodon
Questions for debate:

1. If it can be confirmed that Japanese whaling supplies meat for a black market (defrauding taxpayers subsidizing hunts), can this country’s whaling be considered illegal, and in breach of the IWC 1986 ban on commercial whaling?


YES



2. If indeed illegal, does this give anybody the right and duty to stop/interfere with hunts, even arrest whalers in order to protect whales?


sticky point
i'd say yes, in the event that no one (meaning agency or what-have-you) cowboys up to put a stop to the illegal killing.



3. You be the judge: based on this topic, offered links and any other source available, do you think Japanese Whaling is illegal, or a legitimate research activity?


it is a 100% premeditated ILLEGAL activity that was NEVER intended or actualized to be *research.*

it is plain old outright POACHING behind an intentional wall of delusion/deceit.

and i despise the whole she-bang.
there is no reason to kill these animals.
none whatsoever.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
Japan's side of the story.


Products from species of large whale other than minke whale in the market could have originated from several sources including meat stored frozen from before the moratorium on commercial whaling, by-products from past scientific catches by Iceland and Norway, stranding, or by-catch.

Illegal catches or trade are unlikely sources since the Government of Japan has strict regulations that prohibits whaling for species regulated by the IWC in compliance with the moratorium on commercial whaling and because the import of whale meat from non-IWC member countries is prohibited by regulation.

DNA analyses of samples of whale products currently distributed in the Japanese markets conducted by the Fisheries Agency of Japan and Traffic-Japan have not substantiated any illegal catches or trade.


Click for more info


Thanks for your response, jam321, I agree it is good to be fair.

First I have to remove a misconception, that the current whale meat scandal is a 'foreign' attack, needing a Japanese side in defense. Both sides are Japanese, the whalers defending their trade, and dissenting members from within the whaling community exposing alleged tax fraud, embezzlement and hunting practices in breach of Japan's AND the IWC's research parameters. (Both are Japanese citizens, neither represent all of Japan!)

Greenpeace is of course a global organization, fighting for wildlife and nature conservation everywhere, so their efforts for whales are not an attack on Japan (bearing the whales no malice!!), although Greenpeace action may affect all whaler's business interests.

To your quote: the present contention is that Japanese whalers have come forward as witnesses to (low-value) meats being dumped at sea, efficient (=commercial) hunting practice, and criminal embezzlement of prime cut meats. These need to be investigated, since such claims (if accurate) threaten to render Japanese whaling entirely illegal, due to the 1986 ban on commercial whaling. ONLY research (including lethal) is permitted.


smilodon



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Absolutely none of this matters.

The only question that does matter is: does legal status have any bearing at all on the action committed?

Unless the nations of the world place destroyers in the oceans to sink whaling ships the answer is a sound no.

Legal or illegal they don't care. What are you going to do about it? Send them some angry letters?



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by De La Valletta
Over the past week I've had a nightmare about this and and the amazon rainforest , no more whales and no more rainforest. I mean what is wrong with these people and the fact that they deceive , just shows they know what they are doing is wrong , they just don't care. S and f


Hi De La Valletta,

I hope your nightmare does not come true, and I share your worry over the tremendous pressure our eco-system is pur under by commercial interests and plain greed. May the whales survive, they have suffered enough at human (including European) hands over centuries.

As to whalers, they are trying to protect their business (and their business is taking whales).


smilodon



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Absolutely none of this matters.

The only question that does matter is: does legal status have any bearing at all on the action committed?

Unless the nations of the world place destroyers in the oceans to sink whaling ships the answer is a sound no.

Legal or illegal they don't care. What are you going to do about it? Send them some angry letters?


Good points, and important ones. If any nation (Australia?) has the guts to aggressively stop illegal whaling, they would not 'sink' Japanese ships. A customs inspection (for protected wildlife meats) and subsequent ship seizure would suffice to totally disrupt whaling operation imo.


smilodon



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by smilodon
Questions for debate:

1. If it can be confirmed that Japanese whaling supplies meat for a black market (defrauding taxpayers subsidizing hunts), can this country’s whaling be considered illegal, and in breach of the IWC 1986 ban on commercial whaling?


YES



2. If indeed illegal, does this give anybody the right and duty to stop/interfere with hunts, even arrest whalers in order to protect whales?


sticky point
i'd say yes, in the event that no one (meaning agency or what-have-you) cowboys up to put a stop to the illegal killing.



3. You be the judge: based on this topic, offered links and any other source available, do you think Japanese Whaling is illegal, or a legitimate research activity?


it is a 100% premeditated ILLEGAL activity that was NEVER intended or actualized to be *research.*

it is plain old outright POACHING behind an intentional wall of delusion/deceit.

and i despise the whole she-bang.
there is no reason to kill these animals.
none whatsoever.


I love your heartfelt comments, queenannie38. Proving it legally, in the eyes of the world, and the Japanese public, is the great challenge...


smilodon



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by smilodon
 


How many imprisoned crews and seized ship before Japan gets really ticked off that some other country is taking Japanese property and dictating a way of life to them?

Depending on how the Japanese popularly view whaling this dispute could easily lead to a shooting war.



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by smilodon
 


How many imprisoned crews and seized ship before Japan gets really ticked off that some other country is taking Japanese property and dictating a way of life to them?

Depending on how the Japanese popularly view whaling this dispute could easily lead to a shooting war.


Rationally, I 100% agree with you. I did use the word 'guts' in my statement, daunting notion to really anger Japan, vital ally to the United States by the way.

I do entertain the occasional wild fantasy though lol.

Back in the real world: all friends of the whale, some of them Japanese citizens, must fight to work this out through the International Whaling Commission. Protect whales. And reaching some fair and hononable compromise with whaling nations Iceland, Norway and Japan is fine with me too. (Somebody at the IWC PLEAZZE cross out that nonsensical 'lethal whale research' loophole!!!)


smilodon



posted on Jun, 9 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by smilodon
I love your heartfelt comments, queenannie38. Proving it legally, in the eyes of the world, and the Japanese public, is the great challenge...

smilodon


thank you

another challenge:
wait til dark and sink that itchy-maru (or whatever)...rescuing or helping the people on the ship, of course - i'm not looking to kill in order to save from killing.

but i'd be glad to see their harpoons at the bottom of the sea. the whales might, too

without equipment, they'd have to miss a lot of the season and get another whaler.

and so another challenge would present itself.

i have a great power of stamina!


from the reading of the whaling laws, the only group i could see that had legal right to harvest whales from the sea was the Inuit ( think )

natives from northern north america, anyway.
for them it is all about culture and heritage

with the Japanese, i can only see it as coming from greed.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442

1) The claim of "embezzlement" of whale meat was brought up over a year ago by Greenpeace. Acting on a tip, they broke into a courier company and stole several boxes being shipped to the alleged fraudsters. Police investigated. The result was that evidence of wrongdoing was found on the whaler's part, and the Greenpeace accusers were arrested on charges of theft and illegal entry. Their case, coincidentally, should close this week. Odd how this story surfaced just in time for that. In any case, as a Japanese taxpayer, it's been dealt with to my satisfaction.

So the question is kind of theoretical, really. An investigation has occurred. It was found to be without merit. However, IF - somehow - it were proven that there WAS under the table sales going on, that would surely be a managerial matter to be dealt with by human resources, and the police if necessary.


Since Greenpeace was tipped regarding a possible taxcrime AND possible breaches of ICRW (rules of whaling), they were uncovering evidence of crime, not stealing. The box of 'enesu', 23.5 kilos est. value $1.100 to $3.500 high grade meat for whale bacon, was one of 47 labeled as crew belongings, getting shipped to their addresses. The merit of Greenpeace's claim: obvious these were crew belongings. Kyodo Senpaku (whaling company) too claimed to own it (bought at sea at previous year's rate). The captain as well, supposedly gifting 9.5 to each crewmemer under 'Captain's Privilege'! Most of all, the entire catch is owned by the taxpayer, its price to be officially set only when back in port. Any investigation should have unearthed records for how these meats were taken from stock, can you link to any media reports in the Japanese media showing how this was investigated. Without demonstrable scrutinity, especially by the Japanese Tax Agency, this starts looking like a cover-up.



Originally posted by vox24422) If it were illegal, I'd say no. There is an international body to deal with legal issues surrounding whaling - the IWC. As long as that body exists, it should be the body to deal with the issue, as all nations that have signed the convention have agreed. (Australia seems to have forgotten that, though)


Indeed the rules are set:

ICWR IX.2. No bonus or other remuneration calculated with relation to the results of their work shall be paid to the gunners and crews of whale catchers in respect of any whales the taking of which is forbidden by this Convention.

Kenryodo Senpaku has admitted gifts to crew, which may be in breach, since the catch is funded/owned by the Japanese Taxpayer AND (allegedly) whalers flout their own research rules (JARPA), taking whales opportunistically (forbidden=commercial).

ICWR VIII.1 ...any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit,...

Witnesses from within the whaling community have come forward with claims the fleet does NOT ADHERE to its own research protocol. If not whale research, it's commercial and forbidden! Greenpeace has passed on the testimony (with meat evidence) to the Tokyo District Prosecutor, who seems unresponsive.


Originally posted by vox24423) Legal. This is the law.
Regardless of what the media and political commentators have to say, the law is contained on those pages. Japan's research has been accepted as valid by the scientific committee - and that's the final say, really. Comments from environmental groups about the validity of the research are really just opinions - and everyone is entitled to those



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
As I hope I made clear above, vox, Greenpeace comments are not at issue, but a legal complaint against irregular whaling practices, made to the Tokyo District Prosecutor. I don't see Japanese reports on an investigation, do you?

Following the good example of vox2442, here's the text of the ICRW (International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling), source for Articles quoted.


smilodon

[edit on 10/6/10 by smilodon]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by smilodon

Indeed the rules are set:

ICWR IX.2. No bonus or other remuneration calculated with relation to the results of their work shall be paid to the gunners and crews of whale catchers in respect of any whales the taking of which is forbidden by this Convention.



Read it again.

No bonus / remuneration may be given for taking whales that are prohibited by the convention.

Article 8 allows the Japanese take under the convention, thus bonuses are legal as far as that argument goes.

As far as the greenpeace question - I know I've read some stories on that, but I'm at a loss for dates. This hit the news about a year ago, and searching for "greenpeace" and "japanese whaling" produces ...less than useful results in this case. Can you give me a date or two to narrow things down?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by vox2442

Originally posted by smilodon

Indeed the rules are set:

ICWR IX.2. No bonus or other remuneration calculated with relation to the results of their work shall be paid to the gunners and crews of whale catchers in respect of any whales the taking of which is forbidden by this Convention.



Read it again.

No bonus / remuneration may be given for taking whales that are prohibited by the convention.

Article 8 allows the Japanese take under the convention, thus bonuses are legal as far as that argument goes.

As far as the greenpeace question - I know I've read some stories on that, but I'm at a loss for dates. This hit the news about a year ago, and searching for "greenpeace" and "japanese whaling" produces ...less than useful results in this case. Can you give me a date or two to narrow things down?





I did read it, maybe I ought to apologize for subjecting you to the legalese, but this IS effectively law of the sea. Please remember (starting post) the whaler/whistleblowers providing Greenpeace with testimony of commercial whaling practices by the Japanese whaling fleet at sea! If true, whales taken are 'forbidden', and so are bonuses given. (This needs to be investigated by the Tokyo District Prosecutor and the JTA.)

Timeline: Greenpeace was receiving the whalers' tip off from January 2008 onwards, investigated for four months, leading to the interception of a box of embezzled 'enesu' prime whale meat. Greenpeace held a press conference afterward, calling on authorities to investigate. The Tokyo District Prosecutor received the testimony/evidence and initiated an investigation. June 20th the investigation into whaling irregularities was dropped, and the Greenpeace organization itself became the target of a new investigation, with Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki arrested for tresspass and theft of whale meat. These two were held and intensively interrogated for 26 days by police, and then released on bail 15 July 2008. I believe their case is being decided by the Japanese courts presently. (Info in second link threadstarter.)

For a complete overview of the Greenpeace investigation (beware: big read!) click here, scroll down and click Download document. Actually fascinating info...


smilodon



[edit on 10/6/10 by smilodon]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by smilodon

I did read it, maybe I ought to apologize for subjecting you to the legalese, but this IS effectively law of the sea. Please remember (starting post) the whaler/whistleblowers providing Greenpeace with testimony of commercial whaling practices by the Japanese whaling fleet at sea! If true, whales taken are 'forbidden', and so are bonuses given. (This needs to be investigated by the Tokyo District Prosecutor and the JTA.)



That's a bit of a leap. If whale meat is being taken by the crew above and beyond what they're entitled to, it doesn't invalidate the entire program - which seems to be what you're saying. If, as WB2 in your doc alleges, whales are being taken "opportunistically" rather than "randomly", it *might* be cause for a review of procedures by the IWC Scientific Committee - and in the end, they're the only ones who can make the call on wether or not it invalidates the program.

As for the police investigation, as noted in your doc, it concluded that there was no wrongdoing. Permission was given or implied. Additionally, action was taken internally, as noted on page 31 (two managers forced to retire).




Timeline: Greenpeace was receiving the whalers' tip off from January 2008 onwards, investigated for four months, leading to the interception of a box of embezzled 'enesu' prime whale meat. Greenpeace held a press conference afterward, calling on authorities to investigate. The Tokyo District Prosecutor received the testimony/evidence and initiated an investigation. June 20th the investigation into whaling irregularities was dropped, and the Greenpeace organization itself became the target of a new investigation, with Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki arrested for tresspass and theft of whale meat. These two were held and intensively interrogated for 26 days by police, and then released on bail 15 July 2008. I believe their case is being decided by the Japanese courts presently. (Info in second link threadstarter.)


unesu, not enesu.

Frankly, this thing is playing out exactly how greenpeace wanted it to. It's press, it's media attention, and that's what they do. Theft from a courier company (a massive deal here) was SURE to result in their arrest. They would have known that going in. They got what they wanted. Read through that doc again with an eye for things designed to stir up foreign media attention and donations (the defendents being bustled about like "mafia kingpins" - what exactly does that mean, anyway? I saw a similar story when they arrested that Kiwi sea shep guy a few months back. In that case, he was treated like anyone else - shielded from the media and public view, but the completely common news image of the cops holding up tarps to block the cameras and a guy with his face covered (as is the law) was reported in a negative manner in Australia and NZ. Go figure).

Anyway, the police investigation was concluded (rather than "dropped", which indicates that they abandoned it) on the grounds that the charges were without merit. And at the request of the courier company, the charges were laid. You don't steal the mail. That's a felony in most places.

There's a lot in that greenpeace doc that gave me a chuckle, or seemed oddly familiar. There's a culture of this kind of under the table benefits in Japan, and trying to blow the whistle on it is NOT going to earn you any fans. My company, for example, gives me quite a few perks every month in lieu of wages - because unlike wages, they're not taxable - and they're things I'd be spending my wages on, so it works out. I've been given all manner of produce, including meat and fish (no whale yet, though) from friends and clinets who have received it as perks from their employer. It's tough for me to get worked up over this alleged embezzlement when I've got a freezer full of steaks, especially when the freezer was a "gift" from my company. If you know what I mean. You'll find it extremely difficult to find anyone in Japan without a similar story.

The other one that sticks out is the image of the courier driver offering to pay out his own pocket for the loss. I've experienced that. I had a driver deliver a box that had been damaged in shipment - and he pulled out his wallet and offered to reimburse me for damages himself (thus keeping it off the books, and both his reputation and the reputation of the company intact). As the damage amounted to a couple of cracked CD cases, I told him not to worry. I get a card from him (personal) and another from his company at New Years every year since. Perhaps under the international microscope, these actions seem absurd, or somehow suspect, but here - that's just customer service.

There's quite a lot in that (largely source free) document, it'd take me quite a while to respond to all of it, and I don't think anyone's interested in a line by line critique. Anything specific you'd like to call my attention to?



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Unesu it is then! Thanks for correcting, vox2442, I was copying it off English language sites.

Also, it is not my place to critique the way Japanese businesses deal with their workers, if some gifts/perks are part of your traditions, that's fine with me.

Back to the nitty gritty of the Convention regulating whaling:


ICWR IX.2. No bonus or other remuneration calculated with relation to the results of their work shall be paid to the gunners and crews of whale catchers in respect of any whales the taking of which is forbidden by this Convention.


My position is that not the practice of crew bonuses persé puts the legality of a whale hunt in doubt, but the whistleblower's observation that once at sea whales are taken 'opportunistically' (=spot & kill, an efficient, commercial method).

Vox, my point is: whales taken commercially are forbidden. See below:


ICWR VIII.1 ...any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit,...


Only Research Whaling (codified in JARPA rules) keeps whaling company Kyodo Senpaku exempt from the Convention's ban on all commercial whaling. Perhaps you are right, this is a leap, but if the WHOLE whale taken is forbidden (using commercial method), doesn't this indeed moves the hunt out of Research and under prohibition by the International Whaling Commission, and (IWCR IX.2) disallows bonus giving to ship crew?

The shipment of such gifts/bonuses of 'unesu' and other prime cuts to 30 destinations (2008), with company Kyodo Senpaku's permission given/implied, needs a stronger response than firing two managers imo. Greenpeace's info indicates this is meat owned by the Japanese taxpayer. Removing it from recorded stock (as 'implied' gifts) may constitute embezzlement, a rip off of the Japanese citizens paying for the whale hunts (and who reasonably should be reimbursed!).

The (alleged) breaches of law above are serious enough to warrant Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki intercepting evidence (=box of unesu meat) of possible crimes, in the public interest. I believe they were acting from duty to Japanese law and society, behaving precisely as Japan expects from its citizens and guests alike. (They also hoped to protect whales, of course!!)


smilodon




[edit on 11/6/10 by smilodon]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by smilodon
 



Thanks for your response, jam321, I agree it is good to be fair.


Your welcome. I must apologize. I posted the source because it was relevant to this great thread you made, not as a Japanese defense.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join