The authorities in Costa Rica now have three months to send the necessary extradition papers to Germany.

Paul Watson has nothing to worry about then. I tried (and failed) for 12 months in Costa Rica to get permission to change the number plates on my car as a preliminary to sell it. Eventually I had to let it go for scrap. Costa Rica...beautiful country, lovely people, but the worst bureaucracy in the world.

"Watson successfully defended his actions on the basis of the United Nations World Charter for Nature, which says that an organisation or individual has the authority to intervene to uphold international conservation rules."

This claim by the Guardian is blatantly wrong.

Watson was convicted of one of the three felony charges.

And his defense was that he had a MISTAKEN belief that the United Nations World Charter for Nature gave him authority. Those are his own words; he admits he was MISTAKEN in his belief that the UNWCfN gives him any authority. And in its jury instructions, the court reiterated the fact that the UNWCfN doesn't give him any authority.

Sharks in the sea, like eagles in the sky and lions on the land, are predators on the top of the food chain. However, unlike eagles and lions, sharks are still being vilified (and caught only for their fins to make shark fin soup). As a result the shark population in the oceans has been decimated by 90% (!!!). Decapitating the head of the maritime food chain can only have disastrous consequences and MUST be stopped.

The documentary Sharkwater (refered to in this article) is a jaw dropping testimony about the demise of sharks and the practice of finning. Incidentally, the confrontation with shark poachers is part of the documentary, which has won many awards. Highly recommended!

Germany simply cannot send him to Costa Rica. The Taiwanese Mafia have put a bounty on Paul Watson, and they will kill him once he gets there. The mafia have ties within the government of Costa Rica. I'm Taiwanese and I know how their mafia operates. I am actually going to risk my life by doing a Taiwan Sea Shepherd awareness campaign this summer.

I remember the bit in Sharkwater when they chased the fishing boat.

The boat had been slicing off the fins of sharks when they were still alive and throwing the writhing useless bodies back into the water to die. All of this was illegal in any case, not to mention fairly horrifying.

That is goes on on such scale is something else. Watson may not be to everyone's tastes but people involved in the shark fin industry, whether mafia or corrupt Costa Rican officals etc, have no care for ecosystems or anyone else, the lowest of the low.

Great news, compare what mr watson trying to do, saving whales. Oil companies trying it seems to destroy their living habitat. Big fishing fleet fishing out world stocks fish stocks. Plastic is taking continetsize areas in the great oceans.

250,000 Euro bail, paid on Monday - the protest business must be doing well these days.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Justice needs to be seen and done. This is a plot against Captain Paul who fights to stop slaughter of sea creatures.
The world has sunk to an all time low and honesty and integrity is fast fading.
So many animals are suffering when Captain Paul has dedicated his life to help creatures of the sea who often cannot defend themselves.
All about greed and cruelty.

This is a plot against Captain Paul

He doesn't have a Captains ticket either....

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Captain Paul Watson is one of the greatest living environmentalists of our times. Because of his sheer tenacity the world has learnt and reacted to atrocities against sea life in our oceans. I`m surprised that Germany would even detain him on such flimsy evidence that even Interpol wouldn`t accept. It is a testament to his dedication that thousands of people all over the world are petitioning the German justice system to block this highly dubious extradition.

Thorson is right. Watson was convicted on one of the charges he faced from his 1993 arrest. The UN World Charter for Nature played no role in the charges he was acquitted of. The sentencing decision by the judge in the case is can be obtained by sending an email to inquiries@supreme.court.nl.ca. A pdf copy has been posted here http://www.endecoterrorism.com/components/com_agora/img/members/22/KMBT35020100309160156%20ocr2.pdf

Watson appealed the verdict and lost. The decision in that case is available here http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlca/doc/1999/1999canlii18935/1999canlii18935.html
Lots of legalese in there but note in the last sentence: "Appeal dismissed".

The Guardian should correct the inaccurate information in the story. I would humbly suggest that in the future the Guardian not take Paul Watson or Sea Shepherds word for anything.

If you have a look at the judge's decision in the original case you will find this:

"Inasmuch as Mr. Watson's defence to this charge was that he acted under colour of right in that he himself believed that he was authorized to do what he did by the UN Declaration (1982) known as the World Charter for Nature, his conviction also carries with it the conclusion that the jury were satisfied that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not have such an honest belief."

Amongst other interesting remarks in the judges decision:
- the boat Watson attacked, the Rio Las Casas, was an innocent victim. It was not in violation of any law when Watson attacked it.
- "The appeal to a higher motive carries with it a high standard of responsibility with respect to the manner of achieving one's goal. One cannot hide behind a good motive as justification for any intrusive, indiscriminate or deliberate act."
- "This is not, as was suggested by counsel for Mr. Watson, a minor or "nuisance" offence."

The Sea Shepherd spokesman quoted in that story, Peter Hammarstedt, was convicted of crimes in Canada in 2009 following aggressive Sea Shepherd actions at the Canadian seal hunt in 2008. The judge in that case said this at the sentencing:

"Their behaviour was so egregious it caused seasoned veterans of the sea to fear for their lives. No one is saying that the Sea Shepherd Society and its members cannot lawfully protest the seal hunt - they have every right to do that - but they do not have the right to flagrantly ignore the laws of this sovereign nation or endanger the lives of its citizens who are lawfully engaged in earning a living."

http://www.capebretonpost.com/News/Justice/2009-09-10/article-778642/Sea-Shepherd-crew-sentenced-to-over-$40,000-in-fines/1

The animals Hammarstaedt was intervening for, and endangering people's lives for, have never been considered endangered and their population has increased 4 fold from the 1970's. It's the focus of groups like Sea Shepherd because it's considered cute and is easy to exploit for fundraising.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_gTBDFTXE0

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

The bigger the environmental crime you fight, the larger the enemies your gain.
I had the honour to meet Paul one last year in the Netherlands at a fundraiser.
So, I'd like to refute some of the anti-Paul lies in these comments:

[quote]He doesn't have a Captains ticket either....[/quote]
Of course he does? Before his environmental crusade, 40 years ago, he captained an international cargo ship as a profession. Furthermore, whithout is, you're not allowed to captain a ship - he would have been arrested for that - so I really don't get this claim...

[quote]And his defense was that he had a MISTAKEN belief that the United Nations World Charter for Nature gave him authority. Those are his own words; he admits he was MISTAKEN in his belief that the UNWCfN gives him any authority.[/quote]
I read the charter, and confirm your statement is a incorrect.
The UNWCfN states the following under 'III. Implementation':
" 21. States and, to the extent they are able, other public authorities, international organizations, individuals, groups and corporations shall: (...) (c) Implement the applicable international legal provisions for the conservation of nature and the protection of the environment; (...) (e) Safeguard and conserve nature in areas beyond national jurisdiction. (...) 24. Each person has a duty to act in accordance with the provisions of the present Charter; acting individually, in association with others or through participation in the political process, each person shall strive to ensure that the objectives and requirements of the present Charter are met."

And this is exactly what Paul claims.

[quote]The Sea Shepherd spokesman quoted in that story, Peter Hammarstedt, was convicted of crimes in Canada in 2009 following aggressive Sea Shepherd actions at the Canadian seal hunt in 2008[/quote]
I invite you to watch the footage (taking footage was the only aim during that campaign) and judge for yourself, instead of quoting a canadian politician who once bit on a seal heart on tv to show his support for the hunt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HEqc2398iQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmCFKnBaTBw

And if you'd be interested in learning some ecology (regarding seals), I invite you to read this:
http://www.fisherycrisis.com/seals/sealsncod.htm

Furthermore, the trawlers mentioned in the article were foreign cod fishing vessels, who contributed to the collapse of that fish off Newfoundland.

People after me will probably comment on his actions agains the Japanese Whaling Fleet, so I'd like to share this:

1. Fin, Sei, Sperm and Byrde's Whales are endangered. Also, Minke Whales are far from their healthy numbers.
2. Cetaceans play a vital role in the marine ecosystem, and therefore very important for the regulation of our climate (see: http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/49491-whale-poo-saves-world-from-global-warming)
3. Cetaceans are intelligent and sentient; Their large brains contain (like human brains) spindle cells, which are the neurons which create complex social behaviour, speech and empathy. (see: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10661-whales-boast-the-brain-cells-that-make-us-human.html)
4. Whaling costs Japan tourism money. Also, whale watching is way more lucrative for Japan.
5. Whaling is illegal and condemned. The trade in whale meat is in direct violation with IUCN law, and commercial whaling is banned by the ICRW.

Have a nice day.

I believe that DnrMark's reply to your measured and fact-based comment must be intended as irony.

They first accuse you of writing a comment that is "twisted hate filled".
They then go on to write such enraged things as "shrieking from the mafia", "raping" and "pure evil", demonstrating that their own accusations against you apply clearly to themselves.

Incidentally, JTOordenaar's claims appear to be incorrect.
According to wikipedia, Watson was just another deckhand on those boats, not a captain. And even his bio on the SS website does not claim that he captained boats during that part of his career. So in lieu of actual evidence of him being a captain at that time, the simple answer to why he was never arrested for actually captaining a boat then was because he never did so.

@ JTOordenaar

"Of course he does? Before his environmental crusade, 40 years ago, he captained an international cargo ship as a profession."

Umm no, he was a seaman in the Norwegian merchant marine, as well as in the canadian coastguard.
His ships are classed as private yachts - you don't need a captains ticket for a private yacht.
However, if you care to state when and where he got his supposed Captains ticket, I'll happily check that for you. :)

Regarding :

"5. Whaling is illegal and condemned. The trade in whale meat is in direct violation with IUCN law, and commercial whaling is banned by the ICRW."

Wrong again , Japan, Iceland and Norway's whaling is all legal according to their international obligations and treaties. Same with the US whaling, Greenland whaling etc etc etc.
The trade in whale meat between Norway, Iceland and Japan is perfectly legal according to CITES, as all of them have reservations to species traded.
Commercial whaling is indeed banned by the IWC under the current moratorium ( the ICRW is the actual treaty by the way and nothing is banned in it) However, if a country has an objection to the so called moratorium, they are legally not bound by it. All perfectly legal, despite what those clowns tell you.

This is how international treaties and obligations work - if you don't like it, then change the IWC, alas, Watson and his clowns are banned from the IWC funnily enough, I wonder why? :op

re: the UNWCFN giving Watson law enforcement authority, JTOordenaar wrote "And this is exactly what Paul claims."

The UN World Charter for Nature does not give Watson any law enforcement authority or any immunity from the consequences of his actions. He was told so by the judge in his trial in Canada for attacking a fishing vessel in 1993.

"Parenthetically, the trial judge also instructed the jury - as a matter of law - that the World Charter for Nature, did not constitute legal justification or excuse under s. 429(2). That instruction is not challenged in this appeal. A legal justification or excuse makes legal what would otherwise be a crime."

http://www.canlii.org/en/nl/nlca/doc/1999/1999canlii13906/1999canlii13906.html

As further confirmation that the UNWCFN does not give any special law enforcement authority or immunity from prosecution, these are the words of international law expert Dr. David Caron, posted at the Whale Wars website:

"Now it's my understanding that this World Charter for Nature has been cited by Sea Shepherds as a basis for their authority, to undertake their actions. And that is simply not at all in that charter. The charter talks about duties on states. It does not say anything about who may enforce them. [...] That is the classic taking the law into your own hands. And there is no basis - no basis at all - in the World Charter for Nature for their doing so."

http://animal.discovery.com/tv/whale-wars/legal-debate/sea-shepherd-legal-authority.html

--------------------------------------------

JTOordenaar wrote: "I invite you to watch the footage (taking footage was the only aim during that campaign) and judge for yourself, instead of quoting a canadian politician who once bit on a seal heart on tv to show his support for the hunt."

I did not quote a Canadian politician. I quoted the judge at the trial where Hammarstedt was convicted, Judge Jean Whalen. She has not to my knowledge bit any seal hearts on tv.

---------------------------------------------

JTOordenaar wrote: "Furthermore, the trawlers mentioned in the article were foreign cod fishing vessels, who contributed to the collapse of that fish off Newfoundland."

The trawler was not fishing for cod, it was legally fishing for redfish when Watson attacked it.

http://www.endecoterrorism.com/components/com_agora/img/members/22/KMBT35020100309160156%20ocr2.pdf

Frequently those who haven't a moral or ethical leg to stand on, fall back on 'certificates' or human composed 'rules' all the while ignoring the possibility that the certification has no merit in a given situation or that the rules were made in order to protect a bias, an inconsistency that suits the maker or come out of ignorance.

Could it be that Paul Watson carries an honorary title of Captain, given by those who believe in what he practises and preaches and are willing to follow him? As long as he doesn't try to get a job as captain of a ship, owned by another company, so what if he goes by the title Captain? Is that really the worst thing in this story, or is it that so many would take him down instead of those who rape the oceans and mutilate the creatures of the sea?

Seasheep, the saddest thing about your comments is that you take such obvious pleasure in watching those who struggle against abuse and brutality, go down. Speaks volumes about what kind of humanity you support which in turn, speaks volumes about you as an individual. So whenever you read a headline that speaks of some kind of atrocity against people, just remember that the spirit that moved those abusers and/or murders is a step away from those who abuse the planet and all the creatures that move.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Wise words from the pro whaling astro turfer.

Sea Shepherd crews are ******* rock stars. The whale meat ends up on restaurant tables. The pretend research is a load of bollocks, and everyone knows it, including scientists.

* Institute of Cetacean Research : Claims of research.
* An open letter to the government of Japan on "scientific whaling" (PDF)

"The scientists who have considered carefully the material that has been put forward by Japanese scientists in the past, making some claim that their whaling is scientific, have found that it is without foundation. ... You do not have to kill a whale in the Southern Ocean to gain a deeper understanding of it." —The Hon Peter Garrett MP, Australia's Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts

Rock on Sea Shepherd and Paul Watson.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

@ jbowers

Below is from IWC scientific committee, not from some political numpty..

The IWC Scientific Committee acknowledges the usefulness of the data from JARPA.[62] In a November 2008 review of Japan's first 18 years of its scientific whaling program, the IWC stated that the panel was "very pleased" with the data that Japan collected, though there was some advice on how these data could be further or better analyzed..

Soooooo, who to listen to .. some lame politician who knows nothing and is pandering for votes or to the very scientists involved.

Tough choice for numpties huh?

Seasheep, if you go back to one of my links, you'll find why Sea Shepherd are fully vindicated in their actions...

"The International Whaling Commission's Scientific Committee has repeatedly expressed concern for the objectives and results obtained by the ICR. In a resolution in 2007, the IWC noted that "none of the goals of JARPA 1 had been reached, and that the results of the JARPA 1 [Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic] programme are not required for management under the RMP [Revised Management Procedure]" and called upon the Japanese government "to address the 31 recommendations listed in [the Scientific Committee's JARPA 1 report] to the satisfaction of the Scientific Committee" and "to suspend indefinitely the lethal aspects of JARPA II conducted within the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary"."

There you go. Will you accept that it is not necessary to kill whales to get the data? Alternatively, you could always detail why it's necessary to kill whales in order to get the data. Look forward to your response.

Soooooo, who to listen to .. some lame politician who knows nothing and is pandering for votes or to the very scientists involved.

How about a politician who's been listening to the scientists and putting their opinion ahead of Japanese politicians?

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Simply face it guys,

Whaling by Japan, Iceland, Norway,, USA, Greenland etc etc etc .. is all perfectly legal according to their international obligations to the ICRW.

Fell free to prove me wrong.. I await in suspense....

....not....

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Whaling by Japan, Iceland, Norway,, USA, Greenland etc etc etc .. is all perfectly legal according to their international obligations to the ICRW.

"Legal" is just a current technical state. The reality is that it is totally unacceptable.

As a query to The Guardian - can you please let us know where we can make donations to Paul's legal fight fund?

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

Try the sea shepherd homepage

Very committed to defening peoples righ to kill whales.

That should read defending and right

The speel you have prepaired to be a little more believable.

That should read Spiel and prepared

What a mangling of English.

Indeed .....

Shark finning.

Whaling

If you did that to a cow there would be a national outrage at animal cruelty. The shills on here are eagerly endorsing gross cruelty.

Seasheep, how old are you? 15? Because you're acting like it.

Regardless of the legal status of whaling, it is a disgusting, immoral activity, roughly on a par with catching chimpanzees and gorillas, except without the possible excuse that the people involved are too poor to eat otherwise (that isn't really the case for most bushmeat hunters either, but it certaintly isn't the case for the Japanese, and that's not the issue here anyway).

While the Norwegian hunt, and others, are conducted in a similar manner to the Japanese one, at least the Norwegians had the decency to formally object to the moratorium, rather than creating the legal fiction of a scientific hunt that takes hundreds of whales a year - a distinction that you, Seasheep, seem unwilling to acknowledge.

Let me ask you this, Seasheep: is there any activity you would condemn, no matter how depraved, if it were legally permissible in the country in which it took place?

While the Norwegian hunt, and others, are conducted in a similar manner to the Japanese one, at least the Norwegians had the decency to formally object to the moratorium, rather than creating the legal fiction of a scientific hunt that takes hundreds of whales a year - a distinction that you, Seasheep, seem unwilling to acknowledge.

So did the Japanese ( object to the moratorium ) they withdrew their objection based on promises / deals made with the USA, who later didn't hold up their side of the agreement.
The day after, Japan announced their Scientific whaling program. You reap what you sow.

You may object to whaling on ethical grounds and that is just fine. Legally, though, you don't have a leg to stand on. Sea shepherd continually harps on about the illegality of the various hunts ... they are wrong, plain and simple.

How old am I? oh pulease ... do try and be original at least....

Regarding the norwegian hunt, it has very little similarity to the Japanese hunt. It's a commercial hunt, mostly within their own EEZ. No factory ships, all meat is processed onboard each individual boat.

You may object to whaling on ethical grounds

Isnt it generous of the industry shill to give us permission to object to the practice.
Whaling.

Seasheep, you're avoiding my question. Perhaps you missed it, so I'll repeat it: is there any activity you would condemn if it were legally permissible in the country in which it took place?

Have the populations of all whale species returned to pre commercial whaling numbers? I don't think so, and until they do I cannot see a justifiable case for commercial/'scientific' whaling, chipping away at a depressed populations and keeping them artificially low.

The Southern Ocean doesn't belong to Japan, so what 'right' do they have to whale there? An historical right, at the most. That 'right' should be revoked. Times change.

If Japan's whaling is 'scientific' then why does the whale meat from it get traded commercially? All dressed up for what it isn't.

This is not a fight against him, it is a fight against protecting environment. He must win, or we all will loose.

Seasheep, you're avoiding my question. Perhaps you missed it, so I'll repeat it: is there any activity you would condemn if it were legally permissible in the country in which it took place?

No, didn't miss it, read back for this

Yes, i defend people's rights to utilise resources according to their international obligations.

Or were you hoping for something else completely off topic?

Whaling

If you did that to a cow there would be a national outrage at animal cruelty. The shills on here are eagerly endorsing gross cruelty.

Cattle slaughter doesn't look pretty either:
Cattle slaughter

Yet I don't see any of the national outrage you speak of. How about you learn to have some respect and tolerance for people in other countries and other cultures who utilise other species?

Cattle slaughter doesn't look pretty either:

What an interesting angle. Admitting it is a grotesque process. One that serves no real human purpose as it has

The animals are not left dying for half an hour. They are subjected to laws that say they are supposed to be stunned before the heart is cut so they feel no pain.

But it is an interesting effort to

How about you learn to have some respect and tolerance for people in other countries and other cultures who utilise other species?

If Japan's whaling is 'scientific' then why does the whale meat from it get traded commercially?

It's a requirement of their Permit under the ICRW to sell the meat etc to recoup costs

http://www.iwcoffice.org/commission/convention.htm

How about you learn to have some respect and tolerance for people in other countries and other cultures who utilise other species?

What a grotesque effort to insinuate racism of concern for animal welfare.

I am sure you will be the first to defend the rights of countries to continue with local traditions like dog fighting, cock fighting and bear dancing.

One has to wonder at the moral abyss some people live in. You can treat an animal however you want.... so long as it is 'cultural'. Next you will be defending fox hunting in the UK.

Hey you are yet to entertain us with your justification of shark finning. You wibble and waffle about laws but seem to be a moral vacuum.

Are you only paid to represent whaling?

The animals are not left dying for half an hour. They are subjected to laws that say they are supposed to be stunned before the heart is cut so they feel no pain.

Whaling is also subject to laws and the animals are not left dying for half an hour. In addition the animals are not held captive all their life before being killed.