Hi Jennifer,
Since 1999 Greenpeace has not conducted an anti-whaling campaign at sea against Norwegian whalers.
According to Greenpeace, such campaigns are now considered “counter productive”.
One has to wonder then, why Greenpeace considers actions against Japanese whaling in the Southern Ocean “productive”?
With this season’s Greenpeace anti-whaling campaign in the Southern Ocean almost upon us, I thought I´d look at a couple of the previous actions against Norweigan whalers.
In 1994 Greenpeace activists boarded Norweigan whaling ship the Senet and obstructed the vessel. Here’s a photograph of the Senet and Greenpeace’s Solo.
A Greenpeace activist cut loose a dying minke whale, before the whaling crew could deliver the coup de grace. Eva Egeberg, a veterinary surgeon and state inspector on board, commented, “What the activists actually achieved was to prolong the animal’s suffering”.
Greenpeace said that the cutting of the line to the minke whale was an individual action by one of the demonstrators and “not in accordance with the principles by which Greenpeace carry out their demonstrations”.
Greenpeace was sentenced in 1995 to pay 17,000 UK pounds (UKP) in damages and 11,000 UKP to cover the legal expenses of the whaling vessel skipper. The Senet continued whaling during the 1994 season and eventually took their full quota.
Whales saved = 0.
In 1999 Greenpeace conducts actions against the whaling vessels Vilduen and Kato.
During a coast guard chase of the Greenpeace rubber duckies, Greenpeace activist Mark Hardingham is seriously injured during a collision, resulting in serious breaks to one arm, a fractured pelvis and serious back injuries.
The Greenpeace ship MV Sirius is arrested by the Norwegian coast guard and towed into Stavanger harbour. A Norwegian court imposes a fine of US$35,000 dollars and a US$2000 fine for each of the activists in a rubber ducky attempting to cut loose a not yet dead minke whale next to the Kato. The whaler attempting to deliver a coup de grace to the dying Minke fires a number of shots into the head of the Minke, and a Greenpeace rubber ducky is struck by at least one of the shots.
Total value of fines and confiscations (three rubber duckies) was US$130,000. Greenpeace contest the judgements.
Kato skipper Ole Mindor Myklebust commented, “The Greenpeace inflatable then placed itself right into the side of our boat, with its bow close to the whale.
“Putting human safety first, I confirmed that nobody was close to the whale’s head. Nobody was sitting in the bow of the inflatable. I was only a few metres away from the animal when I fired three shots at it with the rifle. One bullet apparently made a hole in the bow of the Greenpeace boat because it was so close to the whale.
There is a very good reason for having a safety zone.
“This is a killing zone, not a playing zone. We are killing big animals, using heavy weaponry like explosive penthrite grenades and high-calibre rifles intended to kill Minke whales weighing up to 10 tonnes as quickly as possible.”
Whales saved = 0.
Will it take someone to be seriously injured or even worse killed in the Southern Ocean this winter before Greenpeace re-evaluates it position on battling the Japanese at sea?
Cheers, George McCallum
Greenpeace Ship Esperanza at dock in Tromso, Norway
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation.