Whale of a lesson for protesters

Paul Gray
February 19, 2007 12:00am
Herald Sun

THE Robert Hunter and the Farley Mowat are two ships that normally wouldn't attract much interest as they come into Melbourne this week to refuel.

But these two vessels are the protest ships of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and have been running a high-profile harassment operation against Japanese whalers in Antarctic waters.

Last week the Robert Hunter collided with the Japanese whaling ship Kaiko Maru, in circumstances in which each side has blamed the other.

Sea Shepherd activists also threw acid on to the deck of a Japanese whaler and made attempts to foul a ship's propeller.

In Antarctic seas, all such actions must be considered highly dangerous.

Ironically, in a separate incident nothing to do with the protesters, another Japanese whaling vessel, the Nisshin Maru, caught fire.

A 27-year-old sailer was reported missing.

Should the ship's loss cause the whaling exercise to be called off, it will be a major victory for the anti-whaling cause, one to which the protesters have not contributed.

Greenpeace -- another major player in high seas protests against whaling -- has said it condemns violence which puts lives at risk.

So why is Sea Shepherd prepared to possibly risk lives?

It renews the debate on proper limits that should be applied to activism on behalf of the environment or other causes.

There's little doubt the environmental consciousness of most Australians has risen in recent years.

But this is not the result of repeated high-profile activism, a mixed blessing for the green cause.

Where the rise in consciousness has occurred is through the exposure of millions of suburbanites, particularly young ones, to effective education about the marvellous complexity of life on earth in its many forms.

TV series like Sir David Attenborough's Life on Earth and the talents of the late
Steve Irwin combine with zoos and nature parks to make hands-on environmentalism part of growing up.

By contrast, extreme green protesters, like the violent G20 activists who have broken the law during several international summit meetings, are often excoriated in just this way by the community's loudest voices.

But I believe a large proportion of the community takes a gentler view of protest groups.

WHILE unequivocally condemning law-breaking -- particularly when it draws near to violence -- most people have little objection to activists trying to change the way society thinks.

The West today is a fractured place with many different ethical and belief systems.

We cannot expect to have unanimity here about what does and does not constitute a moral action. Does ramming a whaling ship to save the life of a whale become justified?

Not if the action endangers human lives, like those of the whalers, many would argue.

There will be a small minority of greens who will see little difference between the taking of a human life and the taking of a whale's.

There is no way of enforcing one view of the morality of this situation over the other.

What society can do, through a simple appeal to reason, is point out that protesters who endanger the lives of whalers while trying to save the whales are not going to win widespread support.

Many people of my father's generation praised the late Queensland Premier, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, when he banned street marches in Brisbane in the 1970s.

There was a "run the bastards over" mentality (NSW Premier Robert Askin's comment about anti-Vietnam war protesters), an enthusiasm for cracking down on long-hairs and street marchers.

Australia has moved on and I don't believe there is still such strong opposition to protest.

Rather, the focus is on what demonstrators and protesters actually do in the course of making their calls for change.

The ire of the public can still easily be ignited against lobbying that goes too far.

Activists who really do want to change the world, not just get their names on TV, should bear this in mind.
paulgray@sprint.net.au