Japanese Whaling made the front pages in Australia this week (see The Australian, below) and has made news across the world as media covered the holding of two Sea Shepherd activists (www.SeaShepherd.org) on a Japanese Whaling ship. You may have seen the story in your local paper or on your local station. I am going to look, below, at the story in today's Los Angeles Times, and also Peter Singer's commentary piece in The Guardian.

The Saturday, January 19, Los Angeles Times article, by Bruce Wallace, is headed, "Whaling showdown strains partnerships." (Pg A5)

It tells us that "two anti-whaling activists who drew global attention this week by forcibly boarding a Japanese harpoon ship in Antarctic waters have demonstrated how the emotional clash over Japan's annual whale hunt can disrupt even the best international friendships."

Wallace continues:

"The high seas showdown sent shudders through the Japanese and Australian governments, which have a close partnership on trade and security issues but find themselves on opposing sides of a whaling dispute in which middle ground is evaporating.

"Alarmed officials in Tokyo and Canberra, the capitals, watched as this year's whale kill in the Southern Ocean near Australian waters took a nasty turn, with mutual accusations of racism and hypocrisy followed by the dangerous boarding of the Japanese whaler by eco-vigilantes."

We read differing accounts of the event itself:

"The sides disagree on why the activists remained on board the Yushin Maru No. 2. The activists said they were restrained by the angry Japanese crew and that crewmen initially tried to throw them overboard.

"The Japanese government complained that the two men, an Australian and a Briton, refused to be repatriated to their protest ship."

Finally, "an Australian coast guard ship acting as a go-between transferred the two Sea Shepherd Conservation Society protesters back to their own vessel."

The article tells us that both sides agree that "this year's clash has been animated by more fevered emotion than usual" and that "some Japanese officials have been privately horrified by how the financially insignificant whaling industry has cast a pall over Japan's relations with some of its closest partners, Australia and the U.S."

We read that the public mood has turned ugly, and that John Singleton, owner of an Australian beer company and an anti-whaling activist, produced an ad that "shows a Japanese businessman sitting down to lunch and ordering 'the full whale experience.' He is then harpooned and electrocuted, drowning in his own blood."

We read:
"The ad received prominent attention in the Japanese news media, which said it was whipping up anti-Japanese racism. It also was countered with an anonymously posted video on the Internet accusing Australians of hypocrisy in condemning the whale hunt while slaughtering kangaroos and endangered dingoes."

The prominent philosopher, Professor Peter Singer, who is now based both in Melbourne and at Princeton in the USA, has a piece in the January 19 edition of the UK's Guardian newspaper, in which he makes a similar point. His op-ed is headed, "Harpooned by hypocrisy: Until western states treat all animals ethically, the case against the whalers will always be weakened (P 39)

Singer points out:
"Whales cannot be humanely killed: they are too large - even with explosive harpoons it is difficult to hit the right spot. And because whalers are reluctant to use large amounts of explosive, which would destroy valuable oil or flesh, harpooned whales typically die slowly and painfully. If there were some life-or-death need that humans could meet only by killing whales, perhaps the ethical case could be countered. But everything we get from whales can be obtained without cruelty elsewhere. Thus, whaling is unethical."

But Singer writes of the Japanese:
"They have one argument that is not easily dismissed. They claim that western countries are just trying to impose their cultural beliefs on the Japanese." He notes that the idea that it is wrong to cause needless suffering to sentient beings is not cultural, and is in fact a precept of Japanese Buddhism.
He comments, however:

"But western nations are in a weak position to make this response, because they inflict so much unnecessary suffering on animals - through culling (the Australian slaughter of kangaroos), hunting and factory farms. The west will have little defence against the charge of cultural bias until it addresses needless animal suffering in its own back yard."

It is an important to point. To many of us it is obvious that we should stop suffering wherever we can, and we are thankful that Sea Shepherd and public opinion are on the side of the whales and could turn the tide in their favor. Yet the points that Singer makes should temper the tone in which we write on the whales' behalf.

You'll find Singer's full commentary piece on line at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2243453,00.html
You can post a comment at the bottom of that page, or send a letter to the editor at letters@guardian.co.uk

The full Los Angeles Times article cited above is on line at
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-whaling19jan19,1,6526304.story
The Los Angeles Times takes letters at letters@latimes.com

Today's, January 19, national newspaper The Australian, has a front page story about Captain Paul Watson the Sea Shepherd conservation society, who are fighting the whalers. You'll find it on line at
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23075055-601,00.html
You can send a letter to The Australian at letters@theaustralian.com.au

Or if you see the story in your local news media, please write on behalf of the whales, or on behalf of all animals abused by human society.

Always include your full name, address and phone number when sending a letter to the editor.

Yours and the animals',
Karen Dawn