Under which charges was he arrested on?
Enjoying a meal, a succulent Japanese meal.
Japan issued an international warrant for his arrest more than a decade ago, seeking him on charges of breaking into a Japanese vessel in the Antarctic Ocean in 2010, obstructing its business and causing injury as well as property damage.
That business involves murdering whales which violates international law.
I’m not taking a stance here. He asked why he was arrested, I simply told him what was written in the article as the basis for the arrest
It does not violate international law. It’s specifically regulated by an international treaty that some countries are part to. Don’t go around spreading disinformation, it’s a bad look.
Whales are endangered animals and Japan and Denmark are killing them for their taste buds.
Doesn’t change the fact that you’re spreading misinformation.
No they’re not. Go read the actual article classifying them.
Also stop moving the goalposts. Fin whale catching has been heavily regulated, even in countries that still permit whaling (go read the source you linked in your other comment). You can’t start with “Whales [in general] are endangered, and are being hunted for food” and jump to “This specific specific whale that is very heavily regulated, also by countries that permit whaling, is not quite endangered but vulnerable”, and act like you have a counter argument to anything.
What you’re running here is a masterclass in bad faith arguing: Moving goalposts, mis-citing sources, and jumping from bastion to bastion. All while nobody has even disagreed with your major opinion (whales shouldn’t be hunted) but just pointed out that what you’re saying is factually wrong.
Let’s take a look at what the actual facts say about the conservation status of some of most commonly hunted species that are regulated under international whaling conventions:
Go on, back-track some more, I can’t wait to watch.
Or, you know, make your argument that you don’t think people should eat whales without relying on either being uninformed or knowingly spreading disinformation. You don’t really have an excuse here: You’re very clearly just stating falsehoods as if they were fact and building your non-existent argument on that. You can do better.
You’re cherry picking the evidence to suit your argument as Japan and Greenland were hunting fin whales.
Come on… you’re even linking the sources yourself at this point, just take some time to read them.
First of all, you explicitly stated “endangered”, while the source you’re linking says “vulnerable”, which is a category specifically made for species that are threatened but not endangered.
Secondly, the source states that Japan has no reported fin whale catchings since 2019.
Finally: You can’t accuse me of cherry-picking when you’ve stated that “Whales [in general] are endangered”, and I respond with sources stating that seven of the most commonly hunted species are “least concern”, when you then cherry pick an example of one species that is heavily regulated, even by the countries that permit any catch at all, and that species isn’t even endangered but vulnerable. What you’re doing is pretty much the definition of cherry picking: Finding a single example that almost supports the claim you’re making.
You’re free to argue that you don’t like the idea of people eating whales. I’ll leave it to you to explain why. What I won’t let stand unopposed is when you’re basing your argument on disinformation, and back-tracking or moving the goalposts when confronted.
Just yell “save the whales” and be done with it. And stop acting like it’s based on some objective fact that doesn’t apply to every other animal that’s hunted for food. It’s not- it’s a sentimental thing, and that’s completely fine, just be honest about it.
Note that I have not once in this thread defended whaling, or the hunting of endangered species. All I’ve done is point out that you’re spreading falsehoods to make it seem like what is in essence a sentimentally based opinion has backing in facts.
Hot take, whaling is no different than hunting.
Right, that’s the grounds for the extradition request. But what were the grounds for his arrest in Danish soil? Don’t the Danish need it or are they just operating as Japanese agents here?
The Interpol red notice is the single reason for detaining him.
That sucks. Thanks for clarifying.
It’s may still be a bit of hope. The red notice doesn’t have much backing as I can tell. It also seems like they (Watson and co.) didn’t actually have an idea of what was going on, causing a retrial. However, presenting material from a TV show isn’t a reason to call off a red notice. The actual happenings are basically what the intention of the Japanese trial is supposed to figure out, so convincing the Greenlandic court of his innocence in that is useless.
His reluctantacy to stand trial is also concerning. He dodged the same situation in New Zealand a while back. Personally I don’t know anything more, but at this point I would like to see any kind of evidence for or against him
I guess we’ll have to wait until September to keep up with the case. They’ll have to choose whether to extradit him or not, unless he can call off the red notice in the meantime.
Of course I have sympathy for him and his work but if he did injure others in the process then he must also stand trial for that. Hopefully they (Japan) can just fine him and let it go.
An official Japanese boat literally ran over one of his boats, causing it to sink in the cold Antarctic Ocean, without any legal repercussions. They were lucky no one got dismembered or died of hypothermia before being rescued - by another Sea Shepherd boat, because the Japanese didn’t provide assistance.
In Japan, it’d be a kangaroo court. The fact of the matter is that he upsets powerful people, and most justice systems don’t tend to favor the underdog. I wouldn’t want to face the courts either. Even if he wins, his organization loses money, leadership, and the whalers get a few seasons unhindered. It’s a losing proposition any way you slice it.
If you have an extradition treaty with someone, you can typically arrest people if they’ve been charged for something in the country you have a deal with, even if they haven’t violated your laws.
Regardless: What the person is charged with is unrelated to them being a whaling activist as far as I can tell, but to them causing harm while acting as an activist, which I suppose is also a crime in Denmark.
What about the endangered whales who were harmed. Forgot to mention that conveniently.
What whales? No whale of any kind had anything to do with Denmark signing an extradition treaty with Japan or with Denmark arresting someone who’s wanted for committing a crime, which is what the comment was about.
Did you respond to the wrong comment?
Reuters - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Reuters:
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
