Institute of Ady Gil Research

I’m not surprised at the Japanese media swallowing the whalers’ ridiculous claims about the Shonan Maru 2 being ruthlessly forced to collide with the Ady Gil – but it seems a bit bizarre that Australian polemicists have bought the line. Even if they are antipathetic towards Greenpeace or the Sea Shepherd crew or environmentalists in general, how could anyone seriously believe anything put out by a fishing organisation that unbelievably claims it kills whales for “research”?

Anyway, have a look at this footage of the incident:

Couldn’t be clearer, could it?

Maybe they thought the Ady Gil was a whale and they were ramming it for “research”.

27 responses to “Institute of Ady Gil Research

  1. It’s not just that, it’s not even that.

    The proof of ill intent was that they collided with and crippled another craft and then fired water cannons at the crew.

    That was a deliberate attack. If Sea Shepherd were a country, it would be an act of war. As it is, I think Sea Shepherd have a good case that it’s piracy. That the Shonan Maru 2 is flying under a national flag with the support of that government means exactly nothing: so were Francis Drake and Henry Morgan.

  2. Wow. They weren’t just in their path. They turned.

    And it’s not like they can claim they didn’t see them, they were pointing water canons right at them.

  3. So a fast light and manouverable craft, in the vicinity for the express purpose of harassing a larger, slower less manouverable ship got run over. Utterly hilarious.

    It will be even funnier if one of the dumbfuck shepherds gets killed through their own stupidity.

  4. Yeah, serves them right for having the guts to try to hold the whalers to account for their repeated and ongoing breaches of the ICW. Stupid principled people.

    If they’d just leave the whalers alone to hunt the creatures to extinction, the problem would solve itself.

  5. The Sea Shepherds are certainly are stupid! And their behaviour is entirely unprincipled. They have no right to harass and attack other boats and should be punished for their criminal actions. They had no business getting in the path of the larger ship. Sadly none of them drowned.

    It’s hypocritical that Inuit are given licences to hunt polar bears while the Japanese are denied the right to their traditional food. Obviously the theology of political correctness is disfigured by the exquisite consciences of its benighted practitioners .

  6. I doubt the Sea Shepherd folk approve of the hunting of polar bears, either, so there’s no hypocrisy there.

    And watch the video again. Can you not see the Shonan Maru 2 turn to drive straight at the Ady Gil?

  7. I know I always laugh when a family loses a loved one. Hil-arious!

    Oh, wait. I don’t. Because I’m not a heartless arsehole.

  8. Um, why didn’t the captain of a boat that was built originally to set a world record fire up the engines and get out of there? I’m not going to get into a debate about the rightness or wrongness of whaling, but if you spend any time in the sea, you know that a good rule to follow is thatcommerical vessels and bigger vessels have right-of-way.

    As well, the Sea Shepherd people had been following their own course of harassment, blinding sailors with lasers, etc, so it’s not like they’re innocent victims here.

  9. It seems to me that a ship the size of the Shonan Maru 2 could not have deliberately executed that manouvre. It is more likely the effect of the swell.

    It is clear from other footage that Ady Gil motored into the path of the Japanese ship, you can see the wake left by its propellers:

    This was just a publicity stunt. The cost of the Ady Gill is trivial compared to the value of the coverage these morons received.

  10. Keri,I always have a chuckle at the Darwin Awards, don’t you?

    I hope these turkeys keep playing chicken until they are well and truly plucked.

  11. SB, it’s clear from the above video, as well as from the one you provided that the Japanese ship turned.

    No-one is innocent in this, but lamenting the fact that nobody died? That’s just disgusting.

  12. “Keri,I always have a chuckle at the Darwin Awards, don’t you?”

    I don’t say “unfortunately no-one drowned”, SB

  13. It’s hypocritical that Inuit are given licences to hunt polar bears while the Japanese are denied the right to their traditional food. Obviously the theology of political correctness is disfigured by the exquisite consciences of its benighted practitioners .” – SB

    If the Inuit show up in Australia wanting to kill Koala bears for research (and them eat them) then we might have an analogous situation.

    AFAIK the Japanese can practice their traditional whale hunting all they like – in Japan’s territorial waters.

  14. If they drowned, I would feel some sadness for their families, but it would still seem like poetic justice. And it is for the good of humanity – these wankers are an evolutionary dead-end. The Sea Shepherd-in-Chief was too rabid for Greenpeace and got the boot due to his ego-maniacal insanity:

    ‘No one doubted his [Watson’s] courage for a moment. He was a great warrior brother. Yet in terms of the Greenpeace gestalt, he seemed possessed by too powerful a drive, too unrelenting a desire to push himself front and centre, shouldering everyone else aside… He had consistently gone around to other offices, acting out the role of mutineer. Everywhere he went, he created divisiveness… We all felt we’d got trapped in a web no one wanted to see develop, yet now that it had, there was nothing to do but bring down the axe, even if it meant bringing it down on the neck of our brother.

  15. These activists violate numerous safety regulations of the sea and actively try to disable seagoing ships by laying ropes across their paths to disable propellors and rudders. All smaller vessels have an obligation to get out of the way of larger vessels. These activists had plenty of opportunity to get out of the way in a much faster vessel – but that wasn’t their goal. The fact that they got hit was entirely their own fault. Unlike a road, there is a lot more space out in the open ocean. You don’t have to be pro-whaling to dislike what these idiots are getting up to. I dislike whaling intensely but I don’t have the arrogance to assume that I can dictate what other cultures and countries get up to. Fishing of the whale population can be a managed industry just like any other fishery. Unfortunantly our view on what is acceptable or not does not translate into a right to impose this belief onto other cultures. If you don’t like it, stop buying Japanese products – it’s a practical way to express your dissaproval.

  16. What is the proportion of the Japanese population that still eat whale meat? I think you’ll find it’s pretty low. The comparison with the Inuit is therefore flawed.

  17. “If you don’t like it, stop buying Japanese products – it’s a practical way to express your dissaproval.”

    Isn’t that racist? Punishing Japanese merchants because they share a race with the whalers?

    And why’s it arrogant to argue that hunting whales to extinction is wrong regardless of your “culture”?

  18. This is not about hunting whales to extinction. It is about harvesting a few for traditional Japanese meals.

    While exotic food doesn’t usually interest me, I plan to go to Japan to try some whale, and then North Korea for some tasty black dog!

  19. You’d better bone up on your Japanese whalers SB – they say it’s got nothing to do with providing meals, just scientific research.

  20. “Isn’t that racist? Punishing Japanese merchants because they share a race with the whalers?”

    As the hunt is allowed by the Japanese government, if their retailers get word that their products are being boycotted, the Japanese government might consider the issue. BTW – a nation is not a race, there are Japanese citizens who are of other races you know. Thats like assuming Australia is nothing but the anglo decendents of convicts – hang on, saw plenty of that from the comments on Indian media websites lately!

    Managed cull is the answer. Just like we manage fish resources.

  21. And you believe them, Michael?

  22. No, but you seem to.

  23. Because I ignored the stated reason and named the real reason?

  24. Because you believe the whalers version that they did not deliberately ram the boat.

  25. So are you saying that belief in one thing entails belief in the other?

  26. You raised the idea, probably quite reasonable, that they make deliberately false statements.

  27. I didn’t suggest that all their statements are false. To test which of them are false requires common sense. Hence your confusion.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s