Discussing :: National supports whaling

Over the weekend the International Whaling Commission had an informal meeting in Florida to discuss a proposed deal which would see the Japanese allowed to resume commercial whaling. Australia opposed the deal. New Zealand supported it. The government is desperately trying to spin this and downplay it, but the fact remains: under National, we are now officially a pro-whaling country, which supports the commercial, for-profit slaughter of whales. You can see National's logic: they have a hard-=on for an FTA with Japan, and they don't want a "silly" issue like whaling to interfere with the chance for their big business mates to make more money. But the... read full article

#1

National supports whaling

I reckon on the surface we should agree with National and say that we support the Whaling. But wait there's more... Since we are quite a small country, going to war with Japan would ruin any chance of a trade agreement and greenpeace's boats are a waste of time being that they just engage in lage scale water fights with the whalers and get themselves captured. NZ it's time we go covert. NZ's SAS is the perfect means for a black opp against the whaling boats. They have amphibious assault capabilities, explosive experitise and to top all this off the resently dubbed "James Bond" on New Zealand. Cpl. Willie Apiata. That's right... we need to do what the French did to Greenpeace right under our noses and sink a Japanese Whaling boat. But why stop at one? All going well the assault team could board Jap vessel, neutralise the crew and blow a bloody great hole in the side sending those wildlife murderers straight to Davie Jone's Locker. Is it not ironic that we ourselve's would become killers??? Not at all because we would catagorically deny all alegations. We could pass it off as an "unfortunate shipping incident" in rough antartic seas where the chances of hitting an iceberg are far higher than an encounter with 00 - Apiata.

#2

National supports whaling

When reading opinion pieces like this I tend to like to find that balance between fact and conjecture or hearsay. Unfortunately in this case, there really isn't much of this balance at all and in some areas borders on the imaginative. Let's start with the first so called 'fact' – "under National, we are now officially a pro-whaling country, which supports the commercial, for-profit slaughter of whales." Hmm, a touch too much misdirected left wing/liberal exuberance? Did Idiot Savant even read the proposal presented to the IWC? Is he/she aware of what the meeting's objectives were? I think it is overstating to say 'we are now officially a pro-whaling country'. One of the key objectives of the IWC Florida meeting was to open up discussions to find some common ground on what has over the years become a stalled, divisive, and in some quarters a very uncompromising environment. Additionally there is a huge loop hole in the 1986 Moratorium which desperately needs closing (more on this later). The IWC dates back to 1946 and part of its original mandate being "provide for the proper conservation of whale stocks..." has pretty much from that first day come under pressure from various groups within their own agendas – both pro and anti whaling. Additionally, one of the major impacts on the current situation has been the IWC's adoption of a moratorium on commercial whaling (in 1986). What I'm trying to spell out is that there are some who believe whaling should be abolished, those that believe it should be the right of indigenous peoples to carry out whaling, and some that see it as purely another commercial/harvesting endeavour. So regardless of your point of view, without talking, negotiation, regulation, etc within a structure (in this case a governing body) it is highly unlikely aims of any parties will be met. Does Idiot Savant really believe actions by countries that have rejected participation in IWC and now do whatever they please such as Canada (who left the IWC in 2002) and Norway (left then rejoined then resumed commercial whaling in 2006) is the way forward? Do people really want Japan to dig in any deeper with its resolve carry out "lethal research" on whales? Do people really want further maritime incidents which risks lives, endangers political and/or economic relations? Would people rather see those with agendas dig in even deeper and we all watch on in the meantime as even more whales are killed, rather than each side giving an inch to gain a mile e.g. like closing the research loop hole in the moratorium and put in sanctions and quotas on whaling nations? Maybe some (or a lot) do, but it seems to me that there are few winners and likely no end to that type of game. So to sum up my view of point one – surely working hard using diplomacy to resolve nuances and differences of cultural needs, interpretation of regulations, conservation impacts, etc is the way forward rather than a one dimensional – 'you're either with us or you're not' attitude? Point two – "You can see National's logic: they have a hard-=on for an FTA with Japan." Both Labour and National have had (for many, many terms in power) a so-called 'hard= on" (as Idiot Savant so eloquently put it) to having a FTA with Japan. And why not – Japan is after all our third largest export destination and fourth largest trading partner. It likely benefits all if negotiated and managed properly. To say that is the 'logical' reason why National 'supports' Japan is potentially bordering on nonsensical. A slight stretching of two unrelated topics one could argue. "But the fact they regard it as a minor and dispensable issue shows how out of touch they are with New Zealanders." Now that's interesting, how did Idiot Savant stretch the 'malleable fact' to now mean the government sees commercial whaling as 'minor and dispensable'? I wonder if Idiot Savant has ever listened to, or read anything by or about Sir Geoffrey Palmer's (an ex Labour Prime Minister I might add) involvement as New Zealand IWC representative? If he or she had then Idiot Savant would recognise the huge amount of work behind (and square in front of) the scenes he has done and is doing to maintain dialogue, and move things forward. To sum up my second point. It's a difficult balancing act trying to keep everyone happy in a family or neighbourhood environment little alone a diverse multi cultural, multi government and political global stage. To suggest National is 'selling out' for the bucks is oversimplifying things to an extremely dangerous level. By the way, and in conclusion, nothing is more irritating to me than seeing in print someone speaking on my (or any other New Zealander's) behalf and assuming we are in agreement. Talk about yourself, talk about a group you lead, talk about a minority, heck even talk about a majority, but don't ever assume you speak for all New Zealanders. Thanks for reading.

Features

Endorsed Events

  • SpringBreak FIJI SpringBreak FIJI

    Surrounded by nothing but tranquil water, SpringBreak Fiji brings together the best of everything

  • The Fijian Cup The Fijian Cup

    The Pacific Touch Rugby festival (Fijian Cup and Kava Cup) is underway on November 2, 2017 and with support from Touch Fiji and...

  • Rock Island VANUATU Rock Island VANUATU

    Rock Island is an all inclusive fully immersive travel experience which was brought into the music festival scene by The Rock and...

  • TourismHQ TourismHQ

    With seven years and growing under their belt; TourismHQ has established and continues to deliver on their extensive wealth of...

  • SPRING BREAK FIJI