Comments

Posts

Greenpeace Activists Found Guilty of Theft

In 2008, two members of Greenpeace stole a package from a shipping company’ warehouse in Aomori. Their organization subsequently held a press conference announcing that its members had committed an illegal act of theft. The men were subsequently arrested and charged with theft and trespassing. A few minutes ago, a Japanese court ruled they were guilty, but that they would not be going to jail: they were given suspended sentences.

The package they stole was the property of a Japan whaling ship crew member. It contained whale meat. Greenpeace said it stole the package to expose that the meat was “stolen” and “smuggled” by the man, while the Japanese whaling program said that it is common for crew members to receive whale meat as a gift for their hard work. The Japanese authorities accepted the gift explanation, and deemed that the whalers had committed no illegal act. Greenpeace, on the other hand, had broken the law.

Given the fact that the two Greenpeace members freely admitted that they had entered a private building without permission and committed theft, a “not guilty” verdict was completely out of the question. A suspended sentence as probably the best result they could hope for, yet Greenpeace is already denouncing the court decision:

Greenpeace continues to assert its right to act as an extralegal police force, committing crimes in the name of what it perceives to be justice. It’s quite possible that the lenient sentence handed down today could encourage other acts of vigilante “activism.”

Side note: It’s kind of funny that Greenpeace has encouraged the international media to call the two men “the Tokyo Two” when their crime and trial are actually took place in Aomori, quite far from Tokyo.

—

Akihabara News – Gadgetry from Japan (Subscribe)
Dannychoo.com – Your portal to Japan (Subscribe)

30 comments - What do you think? Posted by James - September 6, 2010 at 2:38 pm

Categories: Japanese Food Tags:

Hamachiman

Truly, truly unreal.

These green freaks are getting away with bloody murder and laughing at the J-authorities. And the anti-Japan crowd are only further emboldened.

flowby

I thought these 2 are Japanese.

Are they anti-Japanese?

Damien

Actually, they have exposed a huge embesselment within the government subsidized business. Each crew member had sent 100′s of kilos of meat to different addresses, and got paid for the meat they were given. The part of the meat is the most valued, most expensive part of the whale. If you ask me, they are heroes for doing something most Japanese would be scared to do.

http://tepido.org/ LB

Click me.

nate

Somewhere, years back, Greenpeace and others convinced people that whales are special, and that they do all sorts of fascinating stuff that pigs and cows don’t do.

That was dishonest for two reasons: 1) it’s not especially true, and 2) it doesn’t serve the greater purpose of greenpeace in any way other than attracting attention to themselves (though, perhaps that is their highest goal).

The hunting, killing, slicing, selling, plating, chewing and swallowing of non-endangered whales has a much smaller environmental impacts that most other commercial fishing, and a much much smaller impact than factory farming. But the lies that the public believes make for some low hanging fruit for camera-happy leftists.

I don’t believe that GP are total idiots, so they must be making more money pushing whale love than they waste publicizing it and going on inane “missions” like this. Otherwise, they’d be misdirecting donated funds that were probably intended to serve environmental causes.

Bear in mind, I consider myself largely an environmentalist. I just view greenpeace’s tactics against Japan as cynical and racially motivated.

(resubmitted, guessing it got blocked for using “the S word”)

WA

nate,

What exactly are the ‘non-endangered whales’ that you refer to? Would they be the Fin, Sei and Sperm whales that Japan hunts? These are all endangered species.

http://www.earthsendangered.com/search-groups2_sM.html

Or are you referring to the Humpback that Japan is proposing for it’s 2011 quota? Also endangered.

http://tepido.org/ LB

In the 2008-2009 season, Japan took ONE Finback whale.

Japan takes 50 Sei Whales a year out of a population of over 10,000 – how much over is the subject of much debate, granted, but 50 out of 10,000 is hardly a threatening number.

The US lists Sperm Whales as “endangered”, the IUCN lists them in the lower status of “critical”. In either case, most respected population estimates run into the tens of thousands, of which Japan takes, brace yourself, SIX.

Humpback whale populations have dramatically rebounded, and there is an estimated population of over 80,000, of which 50,000 live in the southern hemisphere, where Japan would be doing most of its hunting. The US lists the species as “endangered”, but has started the process of removing the Humpback from the US Endangered list (doubt it will happen, but if it fails it will be for political reasons not scientific). The standard international conservation designation of the type is “of least concern”.

helical

Well, at least they set things straight about themselves. I was slipping under the illusion that maybe the Greenpeace folks weren’t so bad just on the merit of being at least better than Sea Shepherd clowns.
But basically getting a judicial slap on the wrist for their illegal stunt, and then whining about how unfair it is on Twitter … maybe I should thank them for dispelling my misconceptions about them.
bob

I view GP as a whistle blower organization. The actions they take, don’t really do anything, other than say “Look at this, you at what they are doing.”

What authority do they have and who gave/excepted it as authority? No one really, and doubt any entity with REAL authority will do anything about it.

Pretty sure most of the people that are like me, are going to look at GP in a negative light after this. Of course, it depends on which media outlet you go to and how they put a spin on it. I rather media give me FACTs and then I come up with my own conclusions, unlike media now-a-days where the inference and everything and then bury the story when they find out that what they say was wrong, or just apologize. By then people have already made up their opinions/views of it.

flowby

Yes Bob – I agree with your comment that in this instance the action of these particular GP members was in an essentially whistle blowing role. Doesn’t mean you have to agree with their beliefs, but they were set on proving an illegal act had occured by the only means available to them – an illegal act.

In fact he world of whistle blowing is full of actions that are technically (or blatantly) against the law. Security breaches, binding contract breaking, illegal transfers of documents, taping, illegal copying/photographing etc. I vaguely recall the case a few years back, where an American co operating in Japan was spilled on and they tried to counter attack the whistle blowers for stealing. Needless to say they didn’t get a look in in the legal process here.

Perhaps someone with a better memory than mine can recall that incident and give more details.

Anyway, it seems the court indirectly acknowledged a non-malicious intent by serving suspended sentences, thereby saving face for all to a somewhat limited extent – the defendants, the prosecutors, the shipping co and the whaling industry. A bit like a $10 damages win.

ponta

“in this instance the action of these particular GP members was in an essentially whistle blowing role. Doesn’t mean you have to agree with their beliefs, but they were set on proving an illegal act had occured by the only means available to them – an illegal act.”

Whistle blowing is okay, but it is not true that it was the only means available to them;for instance, they could have filmed the spot. There are appropriate measures depending on the situation, to reveal the truth. You should not break into the private house of SS or its supporters and film the members eating pork to show how hypocritical they are;that is not an appropriate measures.

In this case it is obvious that they just wanted to get attentions and they wanted to smear the whaling business in order to stop it; it was carried out not because they wanted the whale industry to run the business fairly. It is rather like an attempt to attack the character in order to attack the argument.
”
it seems the court indirectly acknowledged a non-malicious intent by serving suspended sentences,”

The could acknowledged the malicious intent to steal, but considering that the business practice improved due to this incident, the sentence was suspended.
Note also that the court didn’t say there was embezzlement by crew members.

船員による鯨肉の持ち出しについて「一部不明朗な点があったのは確か」だと認めた上で、「今回の行為でその点が見直された」と執行猶予をつけた理由を説明した。(asahi 2010年9月6日16時57分)

flowby

Ponta – thank you for yo7ur comments.

Re whistle blowing – I’m extremely doubtful filming of the transport of “boxes” would have proved much at all, so they acted as they best saw fit. As I have stated, whistle blowers the world over have had to resort to illegal/quasi-illegal methods. This is nothing new.
Whether or not their heartfelt intentions were to smear or expose is pure supposition on our behalf and is irrelevant to their claims of illegal procurement and distribution of goods. In the real world I’m sure many whistle blowers have done it “just for the money”, which doesn’t change the fact that a crime has occured.

I stand by my comments assuming the court didn’t throw the book at them, because it knew it was on a fine cutting edge. Probably it wished the prosecutors had not been swayed so strongly in their intial hunt, and had left this all to flow under the bridge and avoid all this “silliness”.
ponta

flowby

Thanks.

“Re whistle blowing – I’m extremely doubtful filming of the transport of “boxes” would have proved much at all”

It is quite easy, you open the box and film the content and show the film in public, keeping the author’s name secret.

“Whether or not their heartfelt intentions were to smear or expose is pure supposition”

From the context it is obvious. What do you think they were doing for? They wanted to stop the whole business of the whale hunting by showing something fishy was going on, right?　

It is like breaking into the house of SS or its supporters to see if they are eating pork. You find the pork in the refrigerator and steal it. Of course, you will be arrested and you are guilty. Doing for public interest is no excuse. And note incidentally the fact there are pork in their refrigerator does not prove that SS members were eating it.

” In the real world I’m sure many whistle blowers have done it “just for the money”, which doesn’t change the fact that a crime has occured.”

In the real world you don’t always have to break the law, often all you need to do is to tell the media what the company is (illegally) doing.

And keep in mind in this case, they couldn’t prove that a crime occurred.

“I stand by my comments assuming the court didn’t throw the book at them, because it knew it was on a fine cutting edge”

A crime basically consists of an intention and actions.
Basically you need an intention to commit a crime. If you have no malice intention to steal another’s property, you are not guilty of theft. Sentencing is another matter. For instance, you stole 1 dollar, you are guilty,but the sentence would be much lighter than if you steal millions dollars or perhaps your sentence will be suspended.
flowby

Ponta – I understand your points.

re filming the boxes – I’m afraid such a film would have attracted extreme ridicule and attacked as pure fabrication. They belived they needed “hard evidence”

re smear OR expose – I tried to make a clear difference between the two words. That’s why
I said we don’t know their real intent. We can suppose. Exposing an action and Smearing the proponents of such an action are not necessarily one and the same.

And I take your point about criminal intent & action. However there are numerous cases where no malicious intent was meant – unauthorized disribution of pamphlets, unconciously shoplifting to name 2 simple examples – but the people involved were found guilty. A more severe example could be the case where a man unwittingly reversed his car over a child, sadly killing him. The charge – Guilty of death caused by negligence/undue care. No intent.

Just to get back to one key point for me in this case – the act of whistle blowing is a valuable tool in deciphering/exposing situations that could have otherwise been extremely difficult or nigh on impossible to uncover. I’m not saying I agree/disagree with the acts on discussion – just it’s understandable. I only wish we had more people willing to take risks and expose criminality and corruption in our daily lives. I for one have been guilty of wringing my hands and sitting on the fence.
ponta

flowby

thanks

” I’m afraid such ….”
It might, it might not. In either case, it is not true stealing it is the only way.
For instance they could have brought their allegations to authorities before taking the meat

”
However there are numerous cases where no malicious intent was meant …”

I know. That is why I said “basically” But in this case, note the court acknowledged that “It is obvious the defendants had the intention of illegally obtaining the whale meat”

“the act of whistle blowing is a valuable tool in deciphering/exposing situations that could have otherwise been extremely difficult or nigh on impossible to uncover. I”

As a general theory, I agree. But you can’t expect to be exempt from a crime unless you are sure with a certain amount of objective evidences that the bigger and more serious crime is taking place and unless you have no other legal means to expose it. Otherwise lots of crimes will be dropped by just saying that they were done for the public interest. And in practice you need to be aware you are taking a risk. Unless you can prove 100% you are right about the allegation, you are just committing a crime.
In this case they had only one inside informer and based on his information they committed the crime and couldn’t prove the allegations. Their method and preparations were immature and their hasty actions make more sense if we assume their motivation is not what they say but for a part of smear campaign.

Day-Bee-Toe

The judges are really stupid. They don’t remember what the Sea Shepherd captain did only a few months ago. He had once said that he regretted to have injured the fishermen, whom he had believed were “like devils” for him, in the court. But on the very day he came back to New Zealand after receiving a suspended sentence, he exposed that he had been lying: his apology was only a fake to deceive Japanese judges.

I don’t know such a shameless liar except for them. Anti-whaling zealots can do this only because they regard the whalers and their supporters as subhumans. If they respected them even a bit, why could they have behaved like that? For them, to lie is virtue.

The two traitors should have been imprisoned and should not be given any food but whale meat until they eat it.

flowby

DBT – Traitors to whom?

What exactly was their “traitorous” act?

http://www.chirimotsumoreba.net Jordan

Although I’m not a huge supporter of groups like Sea Shepard and other more radical groups, I do have some respect for Greenpeace. Civil disobedience, in my view, is certainly at times necessary and justifiable. Though Greenpeace has been involved in some boardings at sea, I’d hate to see people throwing them in the same lot with Paul Watson and co. Realistically, as James says, this is the best sentence they could have received. However, I’m a bit surprised by the tone of this article.

I hope we aren’t all under the illusion that whaling in Japan is really for scientific purposes. While many claims from the eco-side of the argument have often been exaggerated to a laughable extent at times, we shouldn’t turn a blind eye to the realities of Japanese whaling.

While the current program of Japanese whaling isn’t necessarily a return to the heyday of commercial whaling as practice by Western powers, it certainly can’t be called legitimate scientific research.

http://www.japanprobe.com James

To a certain degree I agree with you, Jordan. I think that civil disobedience and whistle breaking are important methods of activist groups. However, if an activist organization is prepared to steal property so it can provide evidence in favor of its cause, it should be prepared to deal with the legal consequences. Greenpeace has argued that their members committed no crime whatsoever because they acted in the “public interest,” so they should have been found not guilty.

The problem is: who gets to define the public interest? Who gets to decide if committing a crime really was the only option available? In this case, Greenpeace argues that it had to right to decide both. I don’t think that citizen groups should have the right to illegal searches and seizures of private property if doing so helps advance their own view of the public good. If they want to commit a crime to expose a crime, they can do so, but they should face the full legal consequences of their actions.

It doesn’t look like this action by Greenpeace actually achieved towards their goal of banning all killing of whales. It may have even hurt their overall image in Japan.

There is one good thing from this episode: whalers are now probably under more scrutiny about alleged wastefulness. If whalers are actually throwing tons of whale meat overboard, something needs to be done to stop that.

I hope we aren’t all under the illusion that whaling in Japan is really for scientific purposes.

I would phrase the current situation as: Japan is whaling for scientific purposes and for the purpose harvesting whale meat. The so-called “loophole” in the IWC rules was left there so that whaling countries such as Japan could engage in whale hunts with very small quotas, just as long as they also conduct research in the process. It saves face by showing that the anti-whaling countries banned commercial whaling and it allows countries like Japan to remain subject to the rules of the IWC. The resulting hunt is so small that it doesn’t actually threaten the existence of any whale species.

WA

The whole whaling issue is a farce. Greenpeace have broken the law here and the sentence is porbably just. However, Japan and Japanese whalers have also broken the law on numnerous occasions.

Anyone who’s Youtubed the Ady Gil – Shonan Maru crash can see that international maritime law was breached by the Japanese security ship that deliberately turned to ram the Ady Gil. Result = no penalty for Japan.

Japan has recently been filmed bribing other IWC members to support its campaign to lift the ban on commercial whaling. Result = no penalty for Japan. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7149091.ece

I think the two Greenpeace activists are heroes.

http://tepido.org/ LB

The Shonan Maru was traveling in a straight line, the Ady Gil parked in front of it. Under the laws of maritime navigation powered smaller ships are obliged to yield to larger ships (larger ships must yield right of way to sailing vessels, however I didn’t see any sails on the Ady Gil). The skipper and crew of the Ady Gil sat there and watched the ship coming right at them, and did nothing until the last minute when Peter Bethune opened the throttles and drove right into the side of the Shonan Maru’s bow. This is indisputable, both the Sea Shepherd and Japanese videos show this.

Anti-whaling countries and conservation groups have been bribing developing nations for years to try to stack the deck at the IWC. I am not saying bribery is right, but to criticize Japan for continuing a practice that was actually started by conservationists is disingenuous and hypocritical. Besides which, Japan gives large amounts of aid to non-whaling countries, often far more than they give countries which support them. If Japan were really able to buy votes at the IWC, don’t you think you’d see a hell of a lot more countries voting with Japan?

What is more, Japan has pushed for the use of the Australian ballot at the IWC. If that went through, Japan would have no way of knowing if its aid was having any effect or not. Horrible move if you are trying to buy votes – but guess who opposes using Australian balloting? Yup – the anti-whaling countries. The same countries who have no problem with secret ballots at other conservation bodies they vote on.

helical

Or how about not.
How about charging and sentencing them for what they actually did in reality, which would be theft, which carries a maximum of 10 years in prison or a 500k yen fine, and unlawful entry, which carries a maximum of 3 years in prison or a 100k yen fine.

I believe irrational and emotional overreactions to perceived injustices are supposed to be the ecoterrorists’ specialty.
Day-Bee-Toe

Morrissey: Chinese People Are A ‘Subspecies’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/06/morrissey-chinese-people-_n_706471.html

This is the real mind of the Talibanic animal right idiots, to whom the Greenpeace slaves are serving.

WAR IS PEACE! FREEDOM IS SLAVERY! IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!

flowby

DBT – I think you’re confusing this topic with another.

This is about a court case and whale meat.

tvgirl

On a different subject, I think the man riding the whale picture is really cute!

fh

Similarly, the more I read about whale-related stories on JapanProbe, the more I really want to give whale meat a try. :O~

Jerry

I would like to know, who is the “public” here and is it really their “interest” to save the whales?

Tony D

Well, the hundreds/thousands of people involved in whale-watching industries and the thousands/millions of tourists who flock to these industries to see whales, as one example. There are plenty of Japanese tourists who go whale-watching while in Australia.

http://tepido.org/ LB

Hunting whales and watching whales are not mutually exclusive. Anymore than hunting buffalo and driving out to the plains to see them, fishing tuna and keeping them on display in aquariums, or the beef industry and driving out to look at cows in the fields. The two can coexist just fine, as long as the numbers are properly managed.

flowby

LB – good point. Observing animals and eating the same are pre-occupations the world over.

Especially the case of visiting farms to look at all the nice animals and then procede to consuming them or their bretheren over the ensuing weeks.

Some people choose not to though and oppose the eating of animals. They only enjoy observing/understanding animals.

Greenpeace Activists Found Guilty of Theft

Recent Comments

Further Reading

South Korean Government Demands That International Hydrographic Organization Use “East Sea”

Japanese Documentary About Sea Shepherd’s Protest Activities in Taiji (English Subtitles)

Babies Born on March 11th Receive Special Present

Washington Times Freelancer Slams Former Employer, Fails to Ethically Disclose Relationship?

Christopher Johnson Attempts to Silence Criticism of His “Gaijin Gulag” Article (Legal Threats!!!)

Tabloid Reports About Yu Darvish’s Love Life: Kirara Asuka & Miho Koga?

Does K-Pop Group KARA Have Ties to North Korea?

Tokyo Gate Bridge

Sara Errani Admits She Avoided Tennis Tournament in Tokyo: Feared Radiation

Chinese Workers Who Survived March 11th Tsunami Return to Tohoku

Categories

Archives

Subscribe

Japan Blogs

Korea Blogs

Linkroll

Other Asia Blogs