Save us from bad journalists

A small comment piece by Sam de Brito (of "All men are liars" column - Fairfax publications) and my response to him and the editor:

Save the blueys

Recently there were bazillions of bluebottles washed up on my local beach. But there was not one Greenpeace activist or chai-drinker trying to roll the stingers back into the ocean so they could be saved from death baking in the sun and popping like bubble wrap.

Where’s PETA when you need them?

Dear Sam,

So according to you, Greenpeace, chai drinkers and PETA are the only ones able to render assistance when an animal is in need.

If a person with a disability has fallen over, should we begrudge not-for-profit disability support groups for not instantaneously being there to help pull them up, and absolve ourselves of any requirement to help?

Why should the average person be exempt? We all have a responsibility to help those in need. It’s a typical shift the blame mentality.

Shame on those who stand idly by and criticise organisations that do not have the capacity to be in five million places simultaneously (by the way, the groups you mentioned aren’t even the relevant ones in this case).

YOUR local beach? The buck stops with you and the locals. And don’t tell me you all don’t have mobile phones and the capacity to request extra help. Oh, but you were probably all sitting on the sidelines, admiring the view and sipping your skim lattes.

**I realise that Sam's piece was likely to be tongue in cheek. Regardless, I object to this attempt to inflame prejudices and resentment towards certain groups.

POSTSCRIPT (October 2015): Check out my tribute to Sam: 
http://lilyswater.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/a-tribute-to-sam.html

WhaleLeaks

It was reported yesterday, via information from WikiLeaks, that the Australian government had been open to a concession deal with Japan regarding whaling.

The ABC states that this agreement “would have overturned the ban on commercial whaling, in return for Japan reducing its so-called scientific research program”.

This deal would have completely undermined decades of campaigning by conservation and environment groups to terminate Japan’s farcical scientific program, and their efforts to ensure the moratorium on commercial whaling continues.

Such a deal would effectively legitimise commercial whaling and remove any future bargaining power of the Australian government – and other groups - on the whaling issue. Any stipulations in an agreement with Japan forcing them to shrink their scientific program would not mitigate the vast numbers of whales killed under a sanctioned commercial arrangement. Furthermore, Sea Shepherd rightly argues that enacting a kill quota is illegal within the current framework: it would contravene the Antarctic Treaty, which bans commercial activity in Antarctic waters, plus violate the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary.

But it is crystal clear that Japan’s present whaling program is merely a commercial enterprise masquerading as a scientific one, and already tramples over the Treaty and the Sanctuary.

Whale meat is marketed as a luxury food item in Japan, and its high cost places it beyond the reach of many. Research indicates that the majority (95%) of Japanese people never, or rarely, consume whale meat. The same study determined that 69% of Japanese people do not support whaling.

The Japanese government are adamant that whales are killed for scientific purposes. But if this is actually the case, what is their inordinate obsession with whales?

Much marine research is conducted for the benefit of the species being studied; this is something that the Japanese cannot logically claim with their whale “research”. What can they demonstrate that their decades of “research” have actually achieved? It is apparent that this so-called “research” (read: whale massacre) is not carried out for whale conservation purposes, as its consequences have the extreme opposite effect. Add to that the commercial gain from the sale of whale meat, and you have an extremely tenuous “research” program.

Therefore the scientific research provision, granted to the Japanese in 1986 at the time the moratorium was instated, was built around a falsehood and should be stripped immediately. The International Whaling Commission, the Japanese government and the Institute of Cetacean Research should all be penalised accordingly. That these parties have long evaded decisive action from the international community is shameful.

In the absence of any concrete international action against the illegal Japanese whaling program, it has been left to Sea Shepherd to deter the fleet from killing whales. The conservation group and the whaling vessels recently clashed in the Southern Ocean, with the whalers accusing Sea Shepherd of “violent” tactics. In the past, they have referred to Sea Shepherd as “eco-terrorists”. This is a gross contamination of the word terrorist.

The Japanese whaling fleet are stalking and violently murdering animals in their natural, ostensibly protected, habitat. Now that’s what I call terrorism.