Being the Continuing Adventures of a Woman and her Trusty Kayak in New York Harbor, the Hudson River, and Beyond.
(with occasional political rants just to keep things lively!)
Monday, January 11, 2010
Another interesting link re Paul Watson/Sea Shepherd -
Here's something really interesting about Paul Watson, the man behind Sea Shepherd & the Ady Gil - Greenpeace's take.
What was the claim that to which that was equally dubious?
Greenpeace's page is a straightforward denouncement of his techniques.
A few minutes on the internet does confirm the dubiousness of his claim, though - there doesn't seem to be anything inherently illegal about the whaling that's being done.
That doesn't mean I'm in favor of that, but as a non-vegetarian, when I start arguing that a certain species should be exempt from hunting, I'm getting into claims that I can't come up with a rational backup for.
Which brings me back to one of the issues Greenpeace mentioned with eloquence - Sea Shepherd's polarization of the environmentally-aware community (look at yesterday's post, I'm arguing with people with whom I'm normally in complete agreement...)
Note to the anonymous author of the 2 posts which I have just removed:
I have deleted your comments not because I disagree with them completely (although that is indeed the case), but because I won't have racist language on this blog.
Rewrite your comments without using derogatory racial terms and I'll probably let them stay.
I have to agree with Greenpeace. Paul Watson is a loose cannon who is reducing the credibility of legitimate environmentalists by doing terrorist acts and pretending that what he's doing is what all of the environmentalists want.
There's a difference between civil disobedience and terrorism. Greenpeace does the former; Watson does the latter.
7 comments:
The Sea Shepherds, making an equally dubious legal claim, say they have the authority to enforce international conservation laws by attacking whalers.
"making an equally dubious legal claim"?
What was the claim that to which that was equally dubious?
Greenpeace's page is a straightforward denouncement of his techniques.
A few minutes on the internet does confirm the dubiousness of his claim, though - there doesn't seem to be anything inherently illegal about the whaling that's being done.
That doesn't mean I'm in favor of that, but as a non-vegetarian, when I start arguing that a certain species should be exempt from hunting, I'm getting into claims that I can't come up with a rational backup for.
Which brings me back to one of the issues Greenpeace mentioned with eloquence - Sea Shepherd's polarization of the environmentally-aware community (look at yesterday's post, I'm arguing with people with whom I'm normally in complete agreement...)
Note to the anonymous author of the 2 posts which I have just removed:
I have deleted your comments not because I disagree with them completely (although that is indeed the case), but because I won't have racist language on this blog.
Rewrite your comments without using derogatory racial terms and I'll probably let them stay.
And...WOW. I think that's the first time in the history of this blog that I actually deleted a non-spam comment!
I have to agree with Greenpeace. Paul Watson is a loose cannon who is reducing the credibility of legitimate environmentalists by doing terrorist acts and pretending that what he's doing is what all of the environmentalists want.
There's a difference between civil disobedience and terrorism. Greenpeace does the former; Watson does the latter.
Post a Comment