Readers will remember that the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society distanced itself from Bethune whilst he was on trial in Japan earlier in the year. At the time it was seen as a ploy to help Bethune evade a hefty sentence for his involvement in Sea Shepherd's eco-terrorism against Japanese whalers in the Southern Ocean. But now the REAL story is starting to emerge - the Herald reports:
A bitter feud has broken out between anti-whaling activist Pete Bethune and the conservation group Sea Shepherd, which broke ties with him yesterday.
Mr Bethune, 45, says he has resigned from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, citing the alleged dishonesty of its senior members as his reason.
The Hamilton-born activist has been embroiled in a war of words with Sea Shepherd founder and captain Paul Watson over his trial in Japan in June and incidents leading up to it.
There's been a real clash of wills between Bethune and Watson. That's hardly surprising, as both men hold very strong opinions, and neither is likely to admit that he is wrong. It really is a clash of wills.
At the centre of the falling-out is an allegation from Bethune that Watson ordered him to scuttle the vessel Ady Gil after the collision with the Japanese whaling ship Shonan Maru No 2. The Ady Gil received significant damage in the collision (for which blame can be attributed to BOTH parties, in our humble opinion; another clash of wills). Bethune believed that the Ady Gil was salvageable, but claims that Watson over-ruled him, later claiming that the Ady Gil sunk whilst under tow.
We're not surprised at this development. Bethune had made a huge financial and emotional investment in the Ady Gil (formerly Earthrace), and to have to sink it must have been heartbreaking. But in our opinion, this is further proof of the lengths to which Paul Watson will go in his crusade against the Japanese.
A visit to Sea Shepherd's website in revealing; there are two anti-Bethune stories on the front page. The first confirms that Sea Shepherd has cut its ties with Bethune, and accuses him of giving false testimony to the Japanese authorities which has led to an arrest warrant being issued against Watson.
The second story is even more revealing. Watson has gone on the attack, and released correspondence between himself and Bethune in an effort to justify his actions. The allegations, denials and counter-allegations make interesting reading, to say the least!
FWIW, we'd accept Bethune's version of events over that of Watson. After all, Paul Watson is on record as saying "There's nothing wrong with being a terrorist, as long as you win. Then you write the history." It will be interesting to see how this story plays out, who wins, and what history eventually writes; Watson's version, or that of Pete Bethune.
7 comments:
You accept the word of someone you called a pirate and a criminal?
How trusting you are?
I accept Bethune's word ahead of Watson's; read into that what you will Robert!
If Bethune has had a "road to Damascus" experience and now realises that he was used by Sea Shepherd and Paul Watson, then so much the better.
You use the term 'eco-terrorism' in your post Invent.
Can you define what it means (please).
Follow the hyperlink on the word Robert; I anticipated that you would again pose this question. The Wikipedia entry begins:
"Eco-terrorism usually refers to acts of terrorism, violence or sabotage committed in support of ecological, environmental, or animal rights causes against persons or their property."
Given that Sea Shepherd's mission is to stop whaling using whatever means it takes (including the sinking of one of its own craft so as to engender sympathy), I reckon SSCS fits that definition.
I fully expect you to disagree of course, and will be happy to debate it this eveing, as I have a very pressing deadline today; a non-negotiable!
Nah, I didn't want to debate the issue Invent, just wanted to read your definition but you gave me Wikipedia's instead.
They're just like ACT!
"They're just like ACT?" Huh?
Public bickering or terrorists? haha
I love Sea Shepard! They fucking rock like a blockbuster movie! And I love how Greenpeace street-walkers choke when I tell them they're a bunch of soft-cocks and I'd give my money to Watson any day. Nothing like results eh?!!
Fucking 'terrorist' definitions are just laughable and you make a fool of yourself Invention by toeing the line! All 'they' (governments) care about is maintaining control and the protection of property. The body count of 'terrorists' is of no significance which is why those nasty animal and environmentalist activists top the list (despite no deaths as a result of any actions) while the USA (labeled a terrorist state by the UN) doesn't even make the list...
The winners write history and define the terms. In Aotearoa the anti-terrorist laws catch any form of disruption against the state or the smooth operation of capitalism.
It's fucking hilarious that you can claim in all seriousness that saving whales (wrecking private property) amounts to terrorism.
Calm down man. Don't you like whales or something?
And I'll repeat what I mentioned yesterday... your position on law-breaking is hyporcritical considering your support of Slater.
Santa Claus (is coming)
Post a Comment