In an update on our previous post, we now have more information on the two Greenpeace activists who were arrested in Japan following a four-month investigation into activities onboard the Japanese factory whaling ship and what happens to the whale meat that is processed following their ’scientific’ research.
Greenpeace intercepted one of many boxes of whale meat smuggled off the Nisshin Maru disguised as personal baggage, exposing the fact that choice pieces of whale meat were being given to certain crew members for personal gain and that Japanese taxpayers were footing the bill. Once the Greenpeace investigation had been finalised, all the evidence - including the box of whale meat, was handed to the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor, who began a formal investigation.
The Australian Greens are extremely concerned that these activists are being held without charge by Japanese police; it would appear these actions are politically motivated to shut down the successful Greenpeace campaign. It is hard to think otherwise when the Japanese Authorities sent in forty police to raid the Greenpeace offices and seize all computers and financial records. This is a disproportionate reaction to this matter.
Human rights groups from inside and outside of Japan have commented on the arrests. The Japanese Lawyers’ Network for Human Rights Observation around the G8 Summit (WATCH) issued a statement on June 28th in which they write:
“The arrest of the two activists is not only a human rights violation with regard to the unjustifiable arrest, detention and investigation, but also a challenge against the freedom of expression. Police repression against the activists’ denunciation obstructs the legitimate activities of both Japanese civil society and international society and is therefore internationally unacceptable and subject to global criticism as an affront to humanity.”
On July 9th, 2008 Transparency International posted a statement on their website which reads:
“Transparency International (TI) expresses its solidarity with two Greenpeace activists detained after publishing a report alleging corruption within the Japanese sponsored South Ocean whaling programme, and asks for clarity about the motives of these arrests. The two detained Greenpeace activists Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki had investigated and documented activities onboard a Japanese whaling ship and the resulting sale of whale meat processed during the scientific research undertaken on board. TI requests to release the two at once because it is unnecessary to bind them any longer. TI denounces attempts - even unintentional ones - to intimidate or silence NGOs and nonviolent civil society actors. TI expresses its concern about the drop by the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor of its investigation into the Greenpeace allegations of assumed corruption published in the above mentioned report. The authorities in charge should take the necessary steps to either reintroduce the investigations or clarify the reasons for abandoning the case.”
Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director of Oxfam International, wrote in a letter to Greenpeace on July 4th;
“Oxfam International supports calls to the Japanese authorities to release the Greenpeace protestors Junichi Sato and Tori Suzuki, who have been detained for several days without charge. We believe that this lengthy detention is unnecessary and excessive, given the fact that they are protesting about an issue of public interest rather than pursuing personal gain.”
The Australian Greens respectfully request the Japanese Government investigate these allegations and consider whether procedural fairness and due legal process has been pursued in this instance under Japanese law.
We are concerned that evidence was presented to Japanese Authorities showing that whale meat had been used as ‘gifts’, that a significant amount of meat had been thrown overboard and that meat from diseased whales was being processed.
Further, the Greens want to express concern that the people who brought these allegations to the attention of the international community are currently being held without charge. Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki have cooperated with police in Aomori and with the Tokyo District Public Prosecutor, giving written statements and offered to present themselves to the police at any time. Their arrests therefore appear to be arbitrary.
The Working Group on the modernisation of the IWC will convene in September to begin the discussions surrounding the future direction of the commission. At this time, there has been no commitment from Japan to stop its ’scientific’ whaling operations. Good faith and trust building has been asked for by all sides, but it is difficult to believe that the Japanese government is acting in good faith given that it has not yet agreed to end its Southern Ocean whaling program. Rather, it continues to hold two of its own citizens without charge for questioning the activities of this tax-payer funded program and has chosen to investigate the whistleblowers rather than the activity itself.
The Greens will be writing to the Japanese Prime Minister, requesting that Japan investigate these allegations, as well as putting forward a motion in the Australian Senate expressing concern over the issue, and urging immediate action.
You can read the full Greenpeace report on the evidence collected and sign the petition to the Japanese Prime Minister and Foreign Minister to demand the activists’ immediate release.
Being held without charge for nearly a month, possibly more, will bring great shame on Japan. It is behaviour we expected of a third world dictatorship, not a modern first world democracy.
“We are concerned that evidence was presented to Japanese Authorities showing that whale meat had been used as ‘gifts’ …”
It WAS used as gifts.
The whaling company which purchases the whale meat from the ICR is charged with handling sales of the meat to the general markets and for public purposes, and of the meat they purchase they gift some to their hard-working employees, who are the pride of Japan.
“… it continues to hold two of its own citizens without charge for questioning the activities of this tax-payer funded program …”
They HAVE been charged, and it’s for theft and trespass, and they are going to be standing trial as well.
“… it would appear these actions are politically motivated to shut down the successful Greenpeace campaign …”
Here in Japan, the Greenpeace campaign was not successful at all. It has been a public relations disaster for them, and they continue to receive large amounts of criticism from the general public.
Everyone accepts and tolerates Greenpeace’s mandate from it’s western donors to complain about whaling activities, but it is not acceptable to commit trespass or theft, as these are crimes.
Are trespass and theft not crimes in Australia?
mcfarm,
The shame is on you and the groups such as the Australian Greens who continue to spread lies and misinformation about Japan on this matter.
Also, the Greenpeace criminals have been let out on bail for 4 million yen each.
Matsumoto Kiyoshi, I am pleased that charges have been laid and they will stand trial.
Japan’s shame is that for minor crimes people have held without charge for so long. In any civilised society it is considered an injustice to be held without charge. Once charges have been laid the law will take it’s course, and justice may or may not be served.
The fact that you refer to these people as ‘criminals’ before they have been to trial proves the prejudices you hold. Perhaps in Japan those arrested are guilty until proven innocent? If not, perhaps you should reconsider where the shame belongs.
Matsumoto -
If Kyodo Senpaku, the company that operates the whaling ships, was legally giving out whale meat to the crew then…
Why did they change their story three times in almost as many days?
(The fisheries agency and Kyodo Senpaku first denied that staff were allowed to bring meat home as souvenirs, but
changed that after the evidence was released.)
Why did the label on the box full of whale meat say it contained “cardboard”?
Why, before the scandal was exposed, did an official of the Japanese Fisheries agency claim that whale meat was never given to crew?
Why has the government put so much effort into prosecuting two Greenpeace activists, and stopped investigating the crime we uncovered?
However we disagree about whaling, you should admit that this is a deliberate attempt by powerful forces to silence criticism of Japan’s whaling industry.
We have never met, but person to person, I hope we can at least agree that justice should be impartial. I hope we can also agree, that when we see injustice and corruption there is an obligation to act.
I look forward to your response, and an end to commercial whaling industry.
mcfarm,
The criminals themselves admit to having stolen the package, it hardly needs a trial to be proved.
In Japan, trespass and theft are not considered ”minor crimes”. Also consider that Greenpeace Japan claimed the goods they stole were worth 300,000 yen. This is not pocket money.
I wonder if the agrieved victims of this crime have been recompensated by Greenpeace Japan or not yet.
Andrew,
Greenpeace Japan’s report itself says that Kyodo Senpaku KK distributes whale meat to individuals as souvenirs. This is exactly what Kyodo Senpaku has said, and what the prosecutors office determined as well. So, the investigations were dropped, because it was not embezzlement. The crew members said so, and their employer, Kyodo Senpaku said so.
This is why the police stopped investigating Greenpeace’s allegations. Because what Greenpeace had found through their stalking activities and trespass and theft, was the fact that Kyodo Senpaku gives souvenirs to their crew.
Giving souvenirs to one’s employee’s is not a crime, here in Japan.
You say that Kyodo Senpaku denied that they distribute souvenirs to their workers, what is the basis upon which you make this claim? I have seen no such claim.
“Why did the label on the box full of whale meat say it contained “cardboard”?” –> It was written on the delivery slip that the package to be sent was a cardboard box, it did not say that the cardboard box contained cardboard.
“Why, before the scandal was exposed, did an official of the Japanese Fisheries agency claim that whale meat was never given to crew?” –> I understand that you have read Greenpeace’s English report about their fairy tale. However, if you could read original Japanese report you would understand that translation to English was inaccurate. This is the cause of your misunderstanding. I believe it was a deliberate manipulation of the information by Greenpeace. Or perhaps Chinese whispers at best.
“Why has the government put so much effort into prosecuting two Greenpeace activists” –> The Aomori police received a complaint about a stolen package, they investigated, and found that a crime had been committed. Nothing less is expected of the Japanese police.
“you should admit that this is a deliberate attempt by powerful forces to silence criticism of Japan’s whaling industry.
” –> Crazy talk. Greenpeace activists are tolerated. However, like all other citizens, Greenpeace activists should not commit crimes such as trespass and theft. If they do, they will be prosecuted as would anybody else.
“I hope we can also agree, that when we see injustice and corruption there is an obligation to act.” –> This is why the Greenpeace activists have been arrested and charged, and the people who received souvenirs from their employers have not.
The Greens don’t seem to be up to date with what’s happening in Japan about the Greenpeace activists who were arrested for theft and trespass.
As of july 15th, Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki were released on bail after Greenpeace Japan made a request to the Aomori court. The NGO paid 4 millions Yen (about 40,000 Australian dollars) for each of them.
The charges stay though, and the two will have to go to court for their trial.
Funnily, Greenpeace doesn’t mention the bail in its press releases. I doesn’t fit with the image of victims, I suppose.
Matsumoto Kiyoshi, in Japan if something is taken/removed/stolen and then handed to police, is that a major crime? Is trespass really a major crime in Japan? In both cases and for the citizens of Japan’s sake, I sincerely hope not.
Robert Shimamura-Smith, thank you for that detail, are you able to say how long Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki were held without charge? Also how long was it after the box was handed over until their arrest? A simple time line would be most helpful. Thank you.
mcfarm, it was only handed to the police more than a month after it was originally stolen, and only after Greenpeace had received severe public criticism for having stolen the package without the consent of the transport company nor it’s rightful owner, as part of Greenpeace’s poor charade alleging crimes by whalers for the negative-publicity / slander purposes.
The vast majority of citizens of Japan have no problem in not taking/removing/stealing property belonging to others or pretending they have such investigative authority, and also no problem refraining from trespassing on private property. As this is no problem at all for normal people, your sincere concern for Japanese citizens is not required at all, thank you. Japan is a society where people must take responsibility for their own actions. It was not necessary for Greenpeace to stalk the whalers, and their subsequent crimes in engaging in this activity are solely their responsibility. Japan would be a strange place to live if crazy cult-like groups were able to make false accusations based on their warped imaginations every day of the week, and get away with commiting various crimes in the process of doing so.
Apparently, an Australian was involved in the crime as well. This person’s name has not yet been revealed in the media. But this explains why Australians are interested in defending criminals.
Matsumoto Kiyoshi, if you and your fellow citizens cannot see that being held without charge for extended periods is one of the hallmarks of a police state, then the rest of the world should fear for the future of Japan and her people.
If an Australian was involved, he or she should be arrested and charged forthwith.
mcfarm, I personally am more concerned about common criminals being protected for political purposes by foreigners. This is dangerous indeed. I doubt anyone would be held without charge for a long time if they were not eventually going to be charged, but sure, I take your point about that. At the end of the day, they were charged and deserved to be.
Matsumoto -
I have only ever been to Japan once, and I did find it a strange (though wonderful) place. :) So I am sure you will humor me when I ask….
Is it really normal (as you say) to label a box “cardboard” because it is made out of “cardboard” (rather than saying what is inside the box)?
Where I come from postal and customs official prefer boxes to be labeled with their contents.
FYI - A close up of the consignment label is here…
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/photosvideos/photos/consignment-sheet-detailing-i
Also, in a case where a single box was taken, then turned over to police by the same people that took it (who also provided detailed written statements)…
Is it normal for 40 police to then raid five different locations?
Somehow, I do not think this is normal, not even in Japan.
Robert - Do you mean this press release?
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/activists-released-time-to-in
It mentions “bail” in the first sentence.
Anyway, I don’t think it’s up to this blogs owner to keep this comment thread constantly up to date - no matter how spirited a discussion we’re having here. The Green party in Australia has quite a few more things on their plate than only a whale meat embezzlement scandal in Japan. I’m happy they’ve taken notice at all.
Andrew, the package was transported via domestic shipment, I do not believe there is reason to write the detailed contents.
If we use the common sense, if one is to attempt to conceal the shipment of 23 kgs of whale meat and make out that these heavy items are something else, I think it is certain that one would not write the contents as “cardboard”, which is very light, certainly no where near 23 kgs.
I suppose the Greenpeace people would say they believed the whaler must be very stupid. Perhaps, the opposite is more likely true?
Matsumoto Kiyoshi @ 14, “I personally am more concerned about common criminals being protected for political purposes by foreigners. This is dangerous indeed.”
I see that xenophobia remains alive and well in Japan. It is support for detention without charge coupled with xenophobia that is ‘dangerous indeed’.
Please can everyone be civil or I will have to close comments on this thread.
As has already been established, the criminals have been charged with crimes and will appear in court.
My problem is not with foreigners generally, my problem is with foreigners seeking to protect criminals from facing justice. To be fair, a small number of Japanese citizens too (Greenpeace supporters) have also been complaining about the criminals being treated like criminals.
Tim, I apologize to Greenpeace supporters if any were offended by my suggestion that Greenpeace activists are more stupid than whaling ship crew.
An important fact seems to be overlooked in all the furor on this issue. The criminal complaint against these two men was filed by the private shipping company from where the package was stolen. The complaint was not filed by the whaling company or the crewmember shipping the package. A crime was committed against this private company. I think they have every right to expect the police to investigate and arrest the perpetrators.
Much has been made over the fact that Greenpeace offered to cooperate with the police. In the U.S. the police,normally, do not allow people accused of crimes to determine the nature or course of their investigation.
Macfarm, in post #10, you stated “…if something is taken/removed/stolen and then handed to police, is that a major crime? Is tresspass really a major crime in Japan?”. Are you suggesting that only MAJOR crimes should be investigated and prosecuted? Conversely, are you suggesting that private citizens should be allowed to commit crimes at their discretion? The police are required to obtain a search warrant before seizing potential evidence. Are you suggesting that private citizens should be allowed to ‘intercept’ and ‘obtain’ potential evidence at their leisure?
Tim Hollo @ 19, I assume the ‘be civil’ comment is directed, in part, at my xenophobia comments, and I apologise for the sarcastic nature of my comment to Matsumoto Kiyoshi.
That said, xenophobia has been recognised by the UN as being systemic and all pervasive in Japanese society. After a fact finding mission, Doudou Diene, the special investigator for the U.N. Commission on Human Rights, stated that discrimination in Japan is “deep and profound” and that the problem is a public with a “strong xenophobic drive.” So when Matsumoto Kiyoshi linked: criminals, political manipulation, foreigners, dangerous, and fear in two short sentences, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) “the strong xenophobic drive” of the Japanese was on display.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-07/2005-07-11-voa9.cfm?CFID=14469696&CFTOKEN=77673498
Mark, the point I was trying to make is about the appropriate use of force and procedure. I assume there is a difference between a major and minor crime in Japan? Or are ‘jay walkers’ held without charge for extended periods too? And no, I am not saying that anyone is or should be above the law - period.
Matsumato Kiyoshi and mcfarm, neither calling those who have not yet been tried “criminals” nor calling an entire nation xenophobic is appropriate to this blog.
We have open moderation that lets through comments for anyone who has already had a comment accepted. This can be reversed for individuals who do not comply with our comments policy.
Mcfarm,
I don’t have any specific knowledge about what the Japanese consider to be major or minor crimes. However, they DO seem to take a dim view of ANY crime,even crimes that others consider to be minor. I also don’t know if ‘jay walkers’ are held for extended periods of time. I suppose it is possible for that to happen. Japanese law allows the police to hold people for up to 23 days.
I believe it is safe to say that we both agree that no one should be above the law. You said, “…..the point I was trying to make is about the appropriate use of force and procedure.”
This case involves Japanese citizens, breaking Japanese law, in Japan. Are you suggesting that the Japanese police should consult other countries governments and/or people on the ‘appropriate use of force’ before acting in accordance with Japanese law? Do you think that Japanese lawmakers should consider other countries views and opinions when enacting laws for Japan? I do not always agree with other peoples laws or customs. However, I respect their right to determine those things for themselves, in their country.
FYI, the reason given for the two alleged criminals was because the judge was concerned that the two men would cover-up evidence of the alleged crime, such as details of Greenpeace’s organizational backing of the alleged crime, the planned nature of the alleged crime, and the roles of the alleged perpetrators of the crime.
I suppose the same would not be the case where jay walking were concerned.
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/trial/080701/trl0807011447002-n1.htm
Excuse me, the reason — for the two being held for questioning before they were finally charged.
Very strange reasoning.
Junichi and Toru voluntarily gave the police the box of whale meat (and asked nicely for an investigation of it).
They also presented written statements about exactly what they did and why.
A correction for Matsumoto:
Actually, the box of whale meat was not reported stolen to the police until AFTER Greenpeace held a press conference with it, and turned it over to the police. (A month after it was stolen.
Maybe the shipping company didn’t notice that it went missing. But why didn’t the crew member who’s house it was sent to report it?
Today the whalers announced they’ve investigated the whole thing and declared themselves innocent…
http://www.icrwhale.org/pdf/080718KyodoSenpakuRelease.pdf
The whistle blowers (inside the whaling industry) that tipped Greenpeace off originally, have said all along that it’s very likely ICR and Kyodo Senpaku officials know about the whale meat smuggling. Here’s a video interview with one of them…
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/whale-meat-scandal-150408
The ICR has zero credibility in my book anyway, and today’s press release sure doesn’t change my opinion.
Response from Greenpeace is here:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/whale-meat-scandal-questions180708
Ok, last post before the weekend (promise). I’ve been busy lately and feel the need to catch up.
There’s a new page on the whale meat scandal…
http://greenpeace.org/whale-meat-scandal
It’s got timelines, background, info about the activists and latest updates.
Andrew,
The meat was only presented to the authorities one month after it was stolen without notification, and after Greenpeace held a press conference using it for publicity purposes, where they displayed the meat they stole. It was only after the criticism from the media that Greenpeace handed it over to police. Greenpeace’s excuses might seem to have a little credibility if there was not such a long time lag between the theft and the press conference and subsequent submission of the stolen property.
Furthermore, if I commit a crime, then expose my crime to others one month later, then report myself to the police with a self-serving justification, should I expect to not be held responsible for my crime?
It is interesting that Greenpeace now criticizing even the transport company from which the stole the package from, in addition to the whalers. In Greenpeace’s minds, it seems that Kyodo Senpaku, the ICR, the Fisheries Agency, the whole government, and even the private transportation company (the victim of Greenpeace’s crime) are all now involved in this scandal…
I suppose, it is hard to find a person who believes Greenpeace’s report and who is also not of a mind to be against whaling.
Also Andrew, the crew member who suffered the loss probably was compensated by the transport company, prior to the discovery of Greenpeace’s theft.
Another update from Greenpeace:
We are happy to let you know that on the 15th July 2008, after 26 days in custody, Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki, were both released on bail. The two Greenpeace Japan activists were arrested and charged after intercepting a box of whale meat illegally smuggled off the Japanese whaling fleet.
This successful bail is remarkable, considering that only 10% of bail applications are successful in Japan and the prosecutor appealed against the judge’s initial bail ruling. Junichi and Toru have now been reunited with their families. However, their bail conditions are severe and no trial date has so far been set.
We are of course relieved, but this is by no means the end of the story. The biggest question in this case remains unanswered: why did the Tokyo Prosecutor drop his investigation into the compelling evidence of whale meat embezzlement by whaling crew members brought to him through Junichi Sato’s and Toru Suzuki’s investigation?
You will remember that earlier this year, working from information given by former and current employees of whaling fleet operator Kyodo Senpaku, Greenpeace tracked whale meat, which was being smuggled from the factory ship Nisshin Maru and sent to the homes of crew members. One of four boxes destined for a private address was intercepted and the contents checked. This box contained up to US$3000 worth of prime meat, but was labelled as containing “cardboard”. Greenpeace displayed the box at a press conference on May 15th and then turned the box over to the Tokyo District public prosecutor. On June 20th - just as the IWC was about to begin - the Prosecutor suddenly dropped his investigation and Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki were arrested, and held without charge for 23 days. As the Australian Senate expressed in its motion passed on 26 June 2008, there are serious concerns that this was politically motivated action.
We are asking that the Australian Government call for a full investigation into the whaling corruption scandal, both publicly and by writing to the Japanese government. This action would also accord with the Australian Senate’s motion. Our whale meat investigation file shows a clear breach of international rules concerning Japan’s so-called scientific whaling programme. Australia should not stand idly by when Japan fails to live up to its international obligations. As we wait to hear when Junichi Sato and Toru Suzuki will face a trial, we hope that you can support us to make sure that the real scandal is addressed.
Matsumoto -
I’m sure the month was spent wrapping up the Greenpeace investigation so it could be handed over to the police in good order.
You said, “It was only after the criticism from the media that Greenpeace handed it over to police.”
This is not correct. Junichi took the box of stolen whale meat to the police station on May 15th (the same day as the press conference).
Since then there has been a lot of debate in Japan’s media (including a fair amount of criticism). I find this fascinating. It probably means that the concepts like civil disobedience, whistleblowers and the necessity defense (that it is legitimate to break a law in order to prevent greater harm) are not common in Japan. Maybe this is because Japan is generally an orderly society.
By the way, the whalers have also received some criticism and questions in Japan’s media.
I have a couple off questions. Why does Greenpeace and Sea Shepard, for that matter, spend so much time, effort and money on ‘protecting’ whales that number in the hundreds of thousands but not ‘protecting’ the North Atlantic Right whale which only numbers in the hundreds and is in danger of going exticnt? Why no petitions to the U.S. government? Why no protest in front of the U.S. embassy? Many Right whales are killed by accidental ship strikes. Why don’t they escort pods of critically endangered whales thru dangerous shipping lanes? I would think that you would protect whales in danger of exticntion, first. Perhaps that isn’t as cool or profitable as harrassing the Japanese. Maybe Greenpeace and Sea Shepard could collaborate on a book: CHASING JAPANESE WHALERS FOR FUN AND PROFIT?
Second, I read a few news articles about allegations by the WSPA that Greenlands Aboriginal hunt was ‘Too commercial’.
Why no hue and cry against Denmark? Why no letters calling on the government of Denmark to investigate? Why no petitions? Why no protests? Why are there not hundreds of news articles? I would think this would be of equal concern for people whose goal is to ’save the whales’. Perhaps, that is not their true goal?
Mark @ 36, there is a law of politics that you may wish to heed in future, “never ask a question to which you don’t already know the answer”.
So please enlighten and tell all what are the “true goals” of Green Peace and Sea Shepard? A humble opinion will not suffice for true goals btw, “true goals” will require a modicum of evidence in support of claims.
Now back to your questions @ 25, you have not read my earlier posts correctly, as I have consistently said in effect, “arrest law breakers and charge them without delay”. There was no suggestion that Japan consult ‘foreigners’ before applying it’s laws, but I am suggesting that by the standards of first world democracies, holding people without charge for 23 days is excessive. Particularly when trespass and taking and then returning a box of whale meat would be considered minor crimes in any society that interested in the truth and justice rather than civil norms of behaviour codified to laws. To be procedurally pedantic without reference to context is dictatorial and totalitarian.
Now before we all get excited and off track, I am not suggesting that Japan is a totalitarian society, however her legal and procedural responses in this case must be questioned - a bit like your questioning of the true motives of Green Peace and Sea Shepard. Only difference is, I am not suggesting I know the true motives of the Japanese institutions in question, but many would like to know what their motives are, and in a globally recognised democracy this is not unreasonable.
I do however suspect Japan does not want foreigners, or the Japanese people, to know what her true motivations are in this matter, or they would be investigating, with equal vigour, the whale meat scandal. This would be proof that Japan is serious about prosecuting all crimes equally before the law. As it stands her own actions in this matter prove that some crimes get attention and others do not.
So this begs the question, if Japan and her peoples are serious about prosecuting all law breakers as stated repeatedly by Matsumoto Kiyoshi, why has the prosecution dropped the investigation into the whale meat importation racket? Several crimes have been committed, but only some are being investigated, why is that? I do not know, but it implies strong political interference to divert attention away from the truth.
Andrew,
It is you who is not correct. The stolen package was not handed over to authorities until the 21st.
http://sankei.jp.msn.com/affairs/crime/080521/crm0805211131006-n1.htm
The reason why Greenpeace maintained possession of the stolen package for more than one month after stealing it is not clear.
(mcfarm, I hope you also read this carefully)
But the most important point is that the whale meat stolen by Greenpeace was not proof of any crime by whalers. It was determined that the whale meat produced by Greenpeace was the same as that distributed by Kyodo Senpaku to the whalers accused of embezzlement. So it is only evidence of Greenpeace’s crime.
There is one newspaper that is still questioning the whalers, even though their employers and police both cleared them of allegations by Greenpeace. This newspaper now like Greenpeace also has little credibility on this matter. They were the first newspaper to break Greenpeace’s scandal story in May, but did not even mention the criminal methods involved in Greenpeace’s “investigation”, it was journalists and reporters from other news organizations who revealed this to the public.
If “civil disobedience” means criminal behaviour, it is not acceptable in Japan, but you are wrong to compare this case with whistleblowing. The mysterious “whistleblower” who supposedly went to Greenpeace, rather than appropriate authorities made claims of crimes that were shown to be not true. And the Greenpeace activists stole a package from a transport company, which is a crime. The report of such a group can not be trusted at face value.
You mention, “it is legitimate to break a law in order to prevent greater harm”. It is interesting that you suggest it is OK to commit crimes if it is for the anti-whaling purpose. A popular newspaper journalist who covered this story on his blog coined a phrase to describe the Greenpeace idea that “it is OK to commit crime so long as it is out of love for whales”.
mcfarm,
“why has the prosecution dropped the investigation into the whale meat importation racket?”
Perhaps you have only the information you read from Greenpeace to go on.
For your information, the allegations were investigated. It took a whole month. But no evidence was found of any wrong-doing. The Tokyo Prosecutors Office found that the meat the whalers had obtained was legally obtained by the whalers from their employer. Their employer also confirmed this.
Under these circumstances, the handling of this matter is quite normal. It is not possible to continue an investigation of false allegations indefinitely, when there is no evidence of a crime and even the alleged victim of the crime has agreed there was no wrong-doing.
I believe Greenpeace are misleading the western media to attempt to turn this negative publicity in Japan into at least positive publicity in the western nations where Greenpeace receives much of it’s donations. If your statements are a reflection of that, then sadly this tactic by this organization seems to be working.
I hope they suffer heavy consequences in Japan at least. Whale-loving should not excuse one from abiding by the law.
With all due respect Matsumoto Kiyoshi, the employers of the whalers are hardly likely to incriminate themselves. It was too easy for those being investigated to claim “no money changed hands, the meat was all gifted to the whalers for services rendered”. Where was the prosecutor’s doubt, where were the 40+ police offices confiscating computers, phones, files and so on from the companies and people involved, and how many whalers were held without charge for 23 days? By now any evidence of wrong doing will be well hidden.
Perhaps a little too much respect for the Japanese businesses and their employees allowed a lot of face saving prior to the IWC meeting, and little respect (tolerated was your word for it) for the ‘foreign’ organisation interfering in Japanese affairs helped this along? It all seems very one sided and suspect to an outsider, and usually where there is smoke, there is fire.
And as for your spirited defense of Japanese legal due process, forgive me for misquoting Shakespeare, “me thinks you protest too much”, and I do hope the meaning of this quote is not lost in translation.
mcfarm,
“the employers of the whalers are hardly likely to incriminate themselves”.
The allegations of embezzlement by Greenpeace were made against 12 crew members of the Nisshin Maru. No allegations against the employers of the whalers were submitted to the authorities.
“It all seems very one sided and suspect to an outsider, and usually where there is smoke, there is fire.”
Your skepticism seems very one sided to me. You know, Greenpeace’s sole mission in Japan is to destroy Japan’s whaling activities, by any means it can. Usually until now it has chosen legal, even if distasteful means. With false propaganda they attacked the government, attacked the ICR and Kyodo Senpaku and Japan’s cultural history, but it has not worked. This is the context in which Greenpeace have this time attacked the innocent individual crew members, and commited crimes as well.
From the dossier Greenpeace delivered to the police on May 15th:
The same allegation is repeated by a whaling crew member on the video here. He says, “Everybody knows about it. But it is not talked about it in public.”
On the same video you can see the box of stolen whale meat being delivered to the police on May 16th. (I said 15th above, that’s when the press conference was.)
I would say that “the greater harm” in this case is the corruption - theft from Japanese tax payers.
Though of course I am against commercial whaling, and support direct peaceful action to stop it.
Andrew,
Greenpeace Japan’s press release below also shows that they did not hand the stolen goods over to the authorities until the 21st, after they were requested to do so.
http://www.greenpeace.or.jp/press/releases/pr20080521oc_html
I do not know what they would have done with the meat if they had not been requested by the authorities to provide the meat.
You say you feel “that “the greater harm” in this case is the corruption - theft from Japanese tax payers.”
Thank you for your generous and genuine concern. But at this point, it is established that there was no theft from Japanese tax payers. There only remains trespass and theft by members of the Greenpeace organization. These crimes are the only harm. It is not a “harm” for hard-working whaling crew members to receive whale meat as gifts from their employer.
“Though of course I am against commercial whaling, and support direct peaceful action to stop it.”
Commercial whaling does not have anything to do with this matter of trespass and theft… I think it is important that people look at this issue with a unbiased attitude. You may not like commercial whaling, or Japan’s research whaling, or any whaling. But I do not think that being a whale-lover should exempt such a believer from abiding by the laws. A well-known commentator who has written of the Aum cult group in Japan which committed terrorist acts has also made similar comments regarding this recent Greenpeace activity on her personal blog. Thankfully Greenpeace have not yet started killing people in pursuit of their ideology, but it is a dangerous precedent if any crimes were to be tolerated for such a reason. The law must be blind to such ideology.
Mcfarm,
Thanks for the advice! If I ever consider running for office, I will keep it in mind. I will get to your question, about the motives of Greenpeace and SS, later.
Now, on to your post. If I understand you correctly, your suspicians of a cover-up are based on the fact that the Greenpeace suspects were held for 23 days, without charge and because the investigation into the allegations made by Greenpeace, was dropped. Am I correct? The investigation was dropped because no evidence of a crime was discovered. There is nothing extraordinary about that. Investigations are dropped all the time when no evidence is found. That’s normal, even in ‘first world democracies’. It is not uncommon for suspects to be held without charge for up to 23 days, in Japan. It’s the law. So there is nothing unusual about that. Is it possible that there is a government cover-up? Sure. Is it equally possible that there is not? Sure. The same goes for Greenpeace. I believe that both groups should be viewed with an equal degree of skepticism. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Sometimes, but not always. Sometimes there is just smoke.
In post #5 you said, “In any civillised society it is an injustice to be held without charge.” You also said, in post #37, “but I am suggesting that by the standards of first world democracies, holding people without charge for 23 days is excessive.” So, you consider the Japanese to be uncivillised and not a first world democracy because their standards are slightly different than other countries?
On a side note. You quoted Skakespeare in post #40. The same could be said for you, “Methinks thou doth protest to much”.
Mcfarm,
To put it simply. I do not find Greenpeace to be more believable just because they are ‘Greenpeace’ and above reproach. Conversly, I do not find the Japanese to be less believable just because they do things differently than other countries.
As for Shakespeare, I think “Much ado about nothing” is more relevent to this disscussion.
Mark I stand by my comments: a) it is uncivilised to be held without charge and it is also a hallmark of a police state, and, b) 23 days detention without charge is excessive for any democracy. Why would any nation state arrest people without knowing which offences they had committed and what charges will apply as a result? Surely a few days is sufficient to lay charges, particularly for a nation that prides itself on efficiency?
Because the GP protesters were eventually charged, by my own definition Japan is not uncivilised in this regard. However the delay in charging the protesters still offends a sense of justice, admittedly British in origin, where the presumption of innocence is paramount.
Matsumoto Kiyoshi @ 44, please refrain from linking Green Peace’s ideology with terrorist acts and the killing of people. Godwin’s Law will not serve you well either.
mcfarm,
It is uncivilized to commit crimes such as trespass and theft, and it is also a hallmark of disrespect for the rule of law.
The offences were determined by the time the alleged criminals were taken into custody, however the level of organizational involvement behind the crimes was not, hence further questioning and investigations.
It seems you have heard that Japan is efficient. This is probably a stereotype you have, in this case “thorough” is a more appropriate word. But please continue to criticise Japan for investigating crimes, if it makes you feel better about the environment. I assure you that people here have many criticisms of Australia.
Finally, Greenpeace’s ideology that commiting crimes is OK so long as one loves whales is comparable to the thinking of cult groups such as Aum. In Japan, it is decided that crimes are crimes, and they are treated as such, irrespective of any self-serving justification that the crazy people may make for criminal actions. Aum cult, Greenpeace, crimes are crimes. Complaining is futile.
Mcfarm,
In response to your question @37. It appears that Greenpeace and SS actual goal, is money.
I do believe that they still have their ideological goal of saving the whales. However, I have come to believe that the practical goal of getting donations i.e. money, has eclipsed their ideological goal.
They need publicity in order to gain donations. Their quest for publicity has become the primary motive for their actions. The goal of saving whales has become secondary at best.
Their concentration of most of their resources in attacking the japanese whaling program too the exclusion of almost everything else is indicative of that. Both Greenpeace and SS have not made much or any effort to protect critically endangered North Pacific Right whales, while at the same time, spending much effort to protect Minke whales which are nowhere near extiction. They both have little or nothing to say about aboriginal hunts of endangered species of whales in the U.S. and Canada. Both Greenpeace’s BATTLESHIP ANTARCTICA and SS WHALE WARS are,also, evidence of their quest for publicity.
I believe the reason that they both spend the majority of their efforts harrassing the Japanese is for publicity. They have found that the Japanese make great ‘villains’ to their ‘heros’ and that many people in western countries will readily believe any propaganda they concoct against them and send donations.
Therefore, I believe both Greenpeace and SS primary goal is publicity in order to gain money.
Mcfarm,
In response to post #47. I see. Fair enough.
It appears to me that you cannot accept any criticism of Greenpeace. As evidenced by your reponse to post #36 and your comment to Matsumoto-san in #47. Are you a member of Greenpeace, by any chance?
It also appears to me that you are very biased against Japan and Japanese. As evidenced by your many comments critical of them. You have mentioned Nanking, said that you doubt their propensity to tell the truth, called them xenophobic and used words such as uncivillised, dictatorship and police state when talking about them.
No Mark, I am not a member of Greenpeace, however I do support many of their goals.
Anyone who denies bias lacks wisdom. That said: as an Aikidoka for over 30 years I have had the privilege of several Japanese Sensei, I have enjoyed my visits to Japan immensely, I also enjoy hosting my frequent Japanese guests, and I actually have several Japanese heroes. In short I don’t think I can be labelled very biased against the Japanese. In fact I generally find the Japanese people I met delightful, the Japanese state however is a different matter. I find some actions of many nation states distasteful, including those of Australia. So please stop trying simplify the issue to one of racism.
Matsumoto San, if a law is unjust or prevents justice being served, is it uncivil to break it?
Matsumoto -
I sought some clarity on when the box was delivered to the Tokyo district public prosecutor. Here’s what I got in response from Greenpeace staff in Japan:
It seems the prosecutor was not eager to take up the case.
Matsumoto - I find the comparison of Greenpeace with a homicidal cult extremely offensive. Greenpeace is known for being non-violent and peaceful.
If we’re going to have a civil discussion, please refrain from such unjust and offensive statements.
Mark - Your allegations are similarly offensive and ridiculous. If Greenpeace was in it for they money, why work on whaling in Japan? It would be much easier (and profitable) to only work on the issue outside the country.
The fact that Greenpeace tackles tough issues in tough places shows its integrety.
And, FYI, Greenpeace devotes vastly more resources to working on climate change than on whales.
Oh, and Battleship Antarctica was an independent documentary.
Comments on this thread are now closed. The discussion has deteriorated too far.