Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd and co-founder of Greenpeace, has been arrested on an international warrant and is facing charges including accomplice to assault and ship trespass
  • foxymulder@lemmy.mlEnglish
    73·
    4 months ago

    doesnt japan have a near 100% conviction rate too? they dont prosecute offences if theres a chance of not winning?

    • tiredofsametab@kbin.run
      61·
      4 months ago

      It’s not 100% but it’s super high and, yeah, they usually don’t prosecute unless they think they have a really solid case. That said, some of that also includes confessions that some have argued are under duress (and, in the case of foreigners, people who aren’t exactly sure what they’re signing, though I have no idea how that’s legal).

    • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.worldEnglish
      50·
      4 months ago

      i mean “don’t prosecute until they have a solid case” is one way of looking at it, the other is “the courts always side with the police”

    • Blackmist@feddit.ukEnglish
      18·
      4 months ago

      Not sure what sort of sentence he’s looking at here though.

      The guy who actually boarded the ship and tried to assault the captain only got a suspended sentence. And this guy is being tried as an accomplice for that.

      It doesn’t sound terribly serious, tbh.

        • Aniki 🌱🌿@lemmy.zipEnglish
          20·
          4 months ago

          Why do you care more about one person than your culture of murdering whales? Why do you speak up about him but not your tradition that you apparently don’t participate in??

          • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.eeEnglish
            29·
            4 months ago

            So the person who said this rhetoric breeds racism and xenophobia is now being demanded to renounce their culture and apologize for the actions of other people (just because they’re the same ethnicity)…

            Sounds like they were right.

              • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
                7·
                4 months ago

                Long-finned pilot whale, Atlantic white-sided dolphin. Neither are endangered, on the contrary: Both are listed as Least Concern.

            • proleEnglish
              9·
              4 months ago

              Gross. Whales are intelligent, social creatures. That’s like eating chimpanzee.

                • Warl0k3@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  3·
                  4 months ago

                  Maybe they also don’t eat pigs? I eat meat (FUCK chickens), but I haven’t eaten pork for years after getting to know my neighbors pet pigs. Sure, they’re more socialized and a whole different breed from factory farm pigs, but still they’re too smart for me to be comfortable eating them. But my point here is that you’re accusing them of hypocrisy or inconsistency, without ever establishing that they actually are being hypocritical or inconsistent.

              • Emerald@lemmy.worldEnglish
                4·
                4 months ago

                That’s not really a good take though. You don’t need to be intelligent or social to be worthy of the moral consideration to not be eaten. Otherwise we’d be eating babies.

                • proleEnglish
                  2·
                  4 months ago

                  Yeah, that doesn’t logically follow. Nobody said it’s the one, singular consideration.

                  You’re comparing a species of animal (whale) to the age of an animal (baby). Two completely different things…

      • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
        24·
        4 months ago

        Faroese have hunted whales since time basically immemorial as people with more land have hunted deer. They are also allowed to, under international law, to hunt whales just as say Inuit are. Their hunting is sustainable, always has been.

        The anti-whaling convention was instituted to stop commercial exploitation of the seas, to stop the great whaling ships, it was not instituted to stop people feeding themselves.

        So kindly fuck off and I have a song for you.

        • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.caEnglish
          8·
          4 months ago

          If there were a nation that still practiced cannibalism, should everyone be fine with it because they’ve been doing it a long time and it’s part of their culture? Even if sustainable because they only ate the criminals?

          Just because something has been done for a long time doesn’t mean it should still be acceptable, especially as we learn more such as the intelligence and importance to the food chain that whales have. It’s not like there are no other options.

          • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
            11·
            4 months ago

            Let me guess yet another vegan.

            The Faroer don’t have enough arable land for everyone to switch to a vegan diet. They could import the rest of what they need, yes, but their only notable export product is fish so that wouldn’t make much sense would it.

            And with “only notable export product” I mean “stamps are on place number two”. You know, the kind you glue onto envelopes.

            • Spacenut@lemmy.worldEnglish
              3·
              4 months ago

              Just to be clear, you’re no longer saying it’s ok to kill whales because it’s cultural and they’ve been doing it a long time? You’re now saying that it’s ok because they would be economically ruined if they didn’t kill whales?

              I’m not trying to be combative, just trying to clarify.

              • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
                2·
                4 months ago

                Both are things that make killing whales ok. It’s just that when arguing with vegans “they’d literally starve” is a way more productive argument.

                • Spacenut@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  4 months ago

                  Got it, thanks for clarifying. I think both lines of reasoning have problems though:

                  1. X is ok because it’s cultural and we’ve been doing X for a long time.
                  2. Y is ok because we would be economically ruined if we didn’t do Y.

                  I can think of many things to fill in for X and Y that satisfy the necessary conditions, but still aren’t ok. I do, however, think this line of reasoning is valid:

                  1. Z is ok because we would literally starve if we didn’t do Z.

                  I don’t think any vegan would take issue with #3, since in that case Z is necessary, and vegans are only concerned with unnecessary harm.

      • unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        59·
        4 months ago

        He doesnt like being called a disgusting freak for slaughtering whales, letting them slowly die after dragging them on land to maximize their suffering. Thats the only reason i can think of for why a faroe national would be mad at him.

        I dont like him either, but this level of hatred only comes from people who got caught in the act and dont want anyone to talk about it.

        • sandbox@lemmy.worldEnglish
          14·
          4 months ago

          As long as you’re vegan or happy with being called a disgusting freak for eating animal products I think that’s fine.

          • BestBouclettes@jlai.luEnglish
            40·
            4 months ago

            It’s not about being vegan or not in this case.

            The Faroe islands have a traditional whale/dolphin (I don’t remember which exactly) slaughter every year.
            They drag dozens of them on beaches and kill them. It used to be one of their main food sources for the year, which is respectable.
            But nowadays they don’t need to do it anymore, yet carry on with this super cruel tradition.

            It’s a bit like bull runs and bull fighting, I get the traditional side of it, but it’s something that should not be performed anymore because of the suffering and cruelty it causes.

            • sandbox@lemmy.worldEnglish
              11·
              4 months ago

              You are capable of subsisting without the consumption of animal products, and I assume you choose not to do so. You know that animal agriculture causes suffering. You choose your taste preferences instead of choosing to reduce suffering.

              You don’t need to do it anymore, yet carry on with this super cruel tradition.

              • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
                7·
                4 months ago

                Please, go ahead, tell us about your grand plan of growing enough food on the Faroer. And then go ahead and tell other native populations all over the world to stop living off the land sustainably, and instead go in debt to buy HFCS from Nestle.

                • sandbox@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  8·
                  4 months ago

                  Hey so there’s this crazy thing called a “boat”, and you may not believe this, but it’s like a big truck which can go over water. And you can basically put whatever you want on it, so you can grow fruits and vegetables in Scotland, and then move them to the Faroe Islands.

                  They actually worked this one out a little while ago, and they’ve got these big buildings now just full of food, just shelves upon shelves with all kinds of foodstuffs. I know it sounds unbelievable, but here’s a photo of a supermarket on the Faroe Islands!

                  A photo of a supermarket on the Faroe Islands

                  Now, I know you might be thinking, “well, hang on, doesn’t having a big boat like that cause climate change?” and the answer is “yes, but waaaaay less than animal agriculture.”

                  You also mentioned something about Nestlé HFCS, which I’m happy to reassure you about - It’s pretty rare over here, it’s really more of an American thing. We do have sugary foods as well, of course, but less so. But you can just choose not to eat those - it’s not like it is in the US where they put it in everything. And they’re not putting HFCS into the raw fruits and vegetables that you’d use to make a plant-based meal.

                  But you know what? Even if there are people living off the land sustainably - as in, fully providing for themselves and their families in whatever way they can without actively farming animals - and we’re okay with that, it doesn’t justify those of us who don’t live in that way to consume animal products.

                  Hope this helps!

              • BestBouclettes@jlai.luEnglish
                20·
                4 months ago

                What’s not accurate about my comment?

                Faroese whaling is a century old tradition that used to be about survival and used whale parts for food and other things like light, fishing material, clothing, etc.

                Nowadays, we have replacements for pretty much all these things right ? Whale meat doesn’t seem to be widely consumed much anymore, it’s also dangerous because of mercury levels in the whales.

                Yet the Faroese kill around 700 whales a year, and in a pretty cruel fashion. They force the whales to beach themselves, have their spinal cord and a few major arteries severed and left to bleed out and die over the course of minutes.

                I’m all in for traditions but not for cruel and pointless ones.

            • Saljid@lemmy.worldEnglish
              26·
              4 months ago

              Still nothing WHAT they allegedly lied about, only what the effects of said pictures were.

              • girlfreddy@lemmy.caEnglish
                11·
                4 months ago

                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whaling_in_the_Faroe_Islands

                • been going on since the 9th century
                • Faroese cuisine is generally dominated by the use of animal products, as only about 2% of the 1,393 km2 of land on the islands is at all suitable for arable crops
                • a 2008 paper in Australian Archaeology said conservationists find Faroese whaling particularly offensive because it does not conform to traditional Western perspectives on “primitive” tribes
                • ShinkanTrain@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  10·
                  4 months ago

                  But, you see, I think my culture is superior so they should stop.

                  Anyway, who’s up for an ethically* slaughtered cow that I’ve raised in a box?

            • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              18·
              4 months ago

              So if Sea Shepherd’s attacks were all honest, there would be less vitriol?

              Does he lie in a specific way that implicates innocent people? (vs. lying in a way that garners broader attention and the attention is what drives the additional hate) Curious for some examples as someone low-information on the subject.

            • proleEnglish
              6·
              4 months ago

              "how dare you call us out for the horrific things we’re doing ". Like you don’t even pretend it’s fake.

              Hey, you don’t like people shitting on your country? How about you make them stop slaughtering whales for no fucking reason.

              Like, I’m sorry, am I supposed to feel bad that people are rightfully calling you out for that shit? Is your country not a modern, functioning society? Are you really incapable of shedding these pointless barbaric traditions, and would rather just cry about it when someone dares to call you out?

              Let me guess, “I refuse to discuss this with you” or whatever. Like you response to the other person.

              I’m beginning to think you have more at stake in this than just being from the same country. I’m from the US, dude, my country is shit and there’s a million things to criticize it for… And you can’t even admit the one thing your home is known for is barbaric

              • barsoap@lemm.eeEnglish
                4·
                4 months ago

                Is your country not a modern, functioning society? Are you really incapable of shedding these pointless barbaric traditions, and would rather just cry about it when someone dares to call you out?

                Have you actually looked into the topic or are you simply assuming? The Faroese regulations on whaling are extensive, from what methods are allowed to beach the whales to how the killing is to be done so it’s quick.

                I’m from the US, dude

                Then you should really focus on the complete absence of any animal protection laws in the US, instead. The Faroese didn’t even blink when outlawing the traditional way to kill the whales in favour of spinal lancing, yes of course whales bleeding out in shallow bays is a gruesome sight. And they own that, while risking their lives driving the whales in small boats.

                Meanwhile, US consumers are safely isolated from the absolutely abhorrent conditions their food is produced under. The bloody bays aren’t avoidable, they come (literally) with the territory. Chicken rotting while still alive because they’re so tightly packed and hygiene isn’t an issue because you’re chlorinating them anyway is avoidable.

                It’s you, here, who’s alienated from how food is produced, not the Faroese.

            • LordGimp@lemm.eeEnglish
              5·
              4 months ago

              Paul isn’t out harassing inuit communities. Do you know why? Because inuit communities practice ACTUAL sustenance hunting, not a tradition of slaughter dressed up as “culture”. Do not disgrace actual caretakers of the land to cover up your barbarism

    • pelletbucket@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      4 months ago

      what has he done to garner hatred against the faroe people other than condemn their whaling?

    • jimbolauski@lemm.eeEnglish
      1·
      4 months ago

      He has done more harm for his cause by insisting on being front and center in wale wars. The Japonese wale hunters were more appealing than him.

  • octopus_ink@lemmy.mlEnglish
    27·
    4 months ago

    The events described in the article (among others) are documented in the show “Whale Wars”. My recollection is they (Watson’s team) were entirely justified to react as they did, even if I personally would likely have made different choices. This does not mean it was legal, and I have no opinion on that.

    I need to find a donation link for Watson…

    Edit: Bottom right of this page, under the petition. https://www.paulwatsonfoundation.org/freepaulwatson/

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldBEnglish
    8·
    4 months ago
    The Guardian Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [Medium] (Click to view Full Report)

    The Guardian is rated with Medium Creditability by Media Bias Fact Check.

    Bias: Left-Center
    Factual Reporting: Mixed
    Country: United Kingdom
    Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

    Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News

    Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
    Please consider supporting them by donating.

    Footer

    Media Bias Fact Check is a fact-checking website that rates the bias and credibility of news sources. They are known for their comprehensive and detailed reports.

    Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
    If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.

    • sandbox@lemmy.worldEnglish
      20·
      4 months ago

      I looked into why it’s rated mixed. The failed fact checks are total nonsense - there are five of them.

      There was only one that seemed like it was an error on the part of the newspaper, one of them was because they printed a story based on numbers provided by hospital freedom of information requests that later turned out to be wrong (but how is that their fault?) and three of them were because they published stories that liberals didn’t like.

      What a fucking joke of a fact check website. Get this right-wing shite fucking deleted.

      • brbposting@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        9·
        4 months ago

        Seems you’d want to understand # of errors/omissions/mistruths as a proportion of total news stories, and the impact of and reason for those issues.

        Get a sense Guardian is quite trustworthy but it would require a much more extensive look than the fact checker appears to have taken (and obviously than I’ve taken). Thanks for recommending caution here.

      • 🐍🩶🐢@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        4 months ago

        Due to Sync, it is always an eyesore of huge images due to the multiple links. I just blocked the bot so I can move on. I should dig through my settings again to find a happy medium.