this post was submitted on 19 Aug 2024

89 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39023 readers

2513 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

quinten@lemmy.world

NewsAutoMod@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

lemmyAtom@lemmy.world

FlyingSquid@lemmy.world

Anti-whaling activist Paul Watson to remain detained in Greenland (www.reuters.com)

submitted 3 months ago by Beaver@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 23 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 14 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Under which charges was he arrested on?

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 21 points 3 months ago

Enjoying a meal, a succulent Japanese meal.

[–] Alterforlett@lemmy.world 19 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

That business involves murdering whales which violates international law.

[–] Alterforlett@lemmy.world 28 points 3 months ago

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

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[+] Beaver@lemmy.ca -6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Whales are endangered animals and Japan and Denmark are killing them for their taste buds.

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Doesn't change the fact that you're spreading misinformation.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Fin Whales are endangered.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

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.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca -3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

You're cherry picking the evidence to suit your argument as Japan and Greenland were hunting fin whales.

threatened

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Hot take, whaling is no different than hunting.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

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?

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The Interpol red notice is the single reason for detaining him.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That sucks. Thanks for clarifying.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] acockworkorange@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca -4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What about the endangered whales who were harmed. Forgot to mention that conveniently.

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

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?