DISQUS

paul the pirate · 1 year ago

Oh, God, I hope the whaling crew puts those trust fund kids to work mopping up the processing floor.

bob · 1 year ago

Um, isn't it an act of piracy to board another ship without authorization? Why weren't the Japanese fending them off with fire hoses?

Tim Flanagan · 1 year ago

It may or may not represent piracy in the legal sense. So it could make sense to hold them until a clarification can be obtained from a real lawyer.

What rights do criminal suspects retain in international waters? Those of the nations of which they are citizens? Those of the nation that registered the vessel aboard which they are detained? Some other set of rights stipulated by treaty? None at all?

Fred Fry · 1 year ago

The Japanese should hold them until they dock back in Japan, and then charge them. Or, hand them over to the nearest Japanese Defense vessel and let the Government worry about litigation.

Really, it makes no sense to let them go. What if they drown while returning to their pirate ship? Then who is responsible? It is no longer their choice to leave. They lost that right the moment they boarded the Japanese ship at sea. They need the Captain's permission. Kind of like finding a stowaway. You don't let them go because they promise to leave. You release them to the nearest authorities. It is not their fault that the nearest authorities might be thousands of miles away.

Yes, where were the fire hoses? Hell, where were the paintball guns?

Robert Hart · 1 year ago

Hostages? Yeah right these guys should be considered pirates.

Debby · 1 year ago

Fred, you should be ashamed of yourself. How could it possibly be human to keep a man on a ship against his will for days on end. These guys are trying to do GOOD

Fred Fry · 1 year ago

"How could it possibly be human to keep a man on a ship against his will for days on end."

Debby, These two risked the lives of the crew of that vessel, not to mention their own lives. Can you gaurantee the safety of the transer of these two from the vessel? Do you remember that last year one of the protest boats got lost down there?

It's not like these two are being kept from going home. They have to be on a ship for a while no matter what, so I don't get your point.

Days? These guys are likely to be detained for a month or two. You underestimate how pissed off these protesters have gotten the Japanese.

(For the record, I am against the whaling. However, this is the wrong way to protest it.)

Fred Fry · 1 year ago

This is from today's Fairplay Daily News email:

-------------------------------------------------
"Protestor action could be ‘piracy’

CANBERRA - 16 January – An incident involving whaling protestors is threatening Australia's relationship with Japan and has thrown up some intriguing questions of maritime law. Two crew members, one British and one Australian, from the Netherlands-registered ship Steve Irwin have been detained on the Japanese whaling ship Yushin Maru No 2. The men, members of the environmentalist group Sea Shepherd, reportedly boarded the Japanese vessel in the Southern Ocean to hand over a "letter of intent". However, questions of security have been raised – notably whether the incident counts as an "unauthorised boarding" or something more serious such as piracy or terrorism. The clash came about as anti-whaling protesters sought to prevent the annual Japanese whaling activities in the Southern Ocean which Japan insists is in the name of research. According to Australian media reports, the Japanese vessel sent an e-mail to the Steve Irwin to arrange the handover but had not received a response. The message reportedly demanded that the men's release was conditional on Sea Shepherd not interfering with the whaling operation."
-------------------------------------------------

Brendan · 1 year ago

Tim, I think that Fred is right about the duty of care owed to these guys - it is the same as the duty owed to a stowaway. I don't think that there is one set of laws that will govern their rights, but if there is, then the flag state's laws are the most persuasive. If the flag state has ratified a treaty that addresses their rights, then that would certainly be binding as well.
UK and Aussi laws probably won't play a part in determining their rights, especially if the vessel doesn't ever call to a port in or have connections with either country.