Greenpeace Supports* Killing Whales — But Do Detractors Support Something Similar?
In a move that perhaps shouldn’t be surprising from certain sellout environmental and “wildlife” groups, Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund are going defeatist — and giving their blessing to resumed commercial whaling as long as certain conditions are met.
It’s about as logical and consistent as advocates for domesticated land animals in essence promoting the products of, and giving their blessings and “humane” certifications to, the businesses that still mutilate, physically and emotionally torment, and brutally kill the animals who pay the price for cage-free and free-range eggs, local dairy, and “pasture-raised” flesh; as land-animal advocates pronouncing that the best way to advance nonviolence toward (and the rights of) currently farmed animals is to slightly change how and where we use, mutilate, torment, and kill them.
Is there a difference here? Sure. Far more people oppose whaling, just as far more people oppose killing seals and oppose sport hunting, than oppose killing pigs, chickens, goats, cattle, sheep, turkeys, and other animals en masse – because they’ve romanticized the former groups, while maintaining distance from and wrongheaded ideas about the latter animals. So we are further along in the fight against whaling than we are in the fight against exploitation and slaughter of domesticated animals. But among those of us who don’t distinguish (or who think we don’t or who want to make progress in not falsely distinguishing), I hope that all of us who are rightly disgusted by this defeatist, backward shift from Greenpeace with regard to killing whales stop to question whether we ought to apply that same expectation of consistency to how (and what) we advocate for farmed animals — and what we call “acceptable” and “progress.”
—
Edit: Okay, so “supports” is probably too strong a word. “Resigns to”? “Compromises on”? The bottom line is still crappy. And I meant to acknowledge last night that another difference between the two groups of animals is that as part of the further progress on the fight against the slaughter of whales, we do have an (unenforced) law against (commercial) whaling whereas we don’t yet have such laws against massacring domesticated land animals. But with regard to whaling, that makes the defeatist willingness to compromise only more disconcerting to me. Finally, see Amy Clare’s comment on this post if you want a more detailed, thoughtful look at the (flawed) reasoning behind Greenpeace’s strategy. Here’s part of that comment:
It gives power to the nations currently flouting the ban, and shows them that if they dig their heels in long enough, the IWC will cave in. As any parent knows, you do *not* reward bad behaviour! Not if you want the behaviour to stop. It’s basic stuff. Greenpeace’s anti-whaling stance and reputation has been severely weakened.
Of course people are always going to break rules, but that doesn’t mean you change the rules to suit these people – imagine if we changed our laws on murder or robbery because some people break them… how ridiculous! It’s only because the victims in this case are non-human that this type of compromise is even being considered. Because to many, non-humans are ‘a species’ or they are ‘biodiversity’, not individuals.
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
I am more than disgusted, Stephanie. I am tempted to be totally disheartened.
I’m counting on Sea Shepherd Conservation Society to NEVER be defeatist and back down in the face of the enemy: speciesism run rampant.
As to how this turncoat decision reminds you of the war over “food” land animals, your point is well taken. There IS no middle ground in this fight. One is either for or against killing. Period.
Some clarification from Greenpeace:
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/oceans/why-greenpeace-won%E2%80%99t-compromise-commercial-whaling-20100621
It seems to be that point 6 in the article above is the controversial one – Greenpeace seem to be trying to appease those countries who are currently flouting the ban. Their opinion seems to be that the best way to *reduce* the numbers of whales being killed is by introducing binding quotas in return for Japan, Norway and Iceland agreeing to their whaling being controlled by the IWC. This might well be true, especially seeing as currently, Japan, Norway and Iceland basically decide for themselves how many whales they’re going to kill.
However, I think this approach hugely misses the point, although it’s a typical approach from environmental groups where the priorities are preventing extinctions of species, and preserving biodiversity. It is *not* about individual animals, to many environmental campaigners. This is because sadly many environmental campaigners / wildlife charities do not take an animal rights approach to their work.
I also don’t agree with appeasement generally, as history has shown us it rarely works. It gives power to the nations currently flouting the ban, and shows them that if they dig their heels in long enough, the IWC will cave in. As any parent knows, you do *not* reward bad behaviour! Not if you want the behaviour to stop. It’s basic stuff. Greenpeace’s anti-whaling stance and reputation has been severely weakened.
Of course people are always going to break rules, but that doesn’t mean you change the rules to suit these people – imagine if we changed our laws on murder or robbery because some people break them… how ridiculous! It’s only because the victims in this case are non-human that this type of compromise is even being considered. Because to many, non-humans are ‘a species’ or they are ‘biodiversity’, not individuals.
Needless to say I don’t agree with their approach – despite being a Greenpeace member for over 15 years, I’m wondering whether I should now switch my donations to another charity. Other members are also showing their discontent and I’ve no doubt that they will lose members over this.
But yes, I agree that anyone who takes issue with Greenpeace’s stance and still eats meat or dairy should have a little think. Or a large one.
another difference between the two groups of animals is that as part of the further progress on the fight against the slaughter of whales, we do have an (unenforced) law against (commercial) whaling whereas we don’t yet have such laws against massacring domesticated land animals. But with regard to whaling, that makes the defeatist willingness to compromise only more disconcerting to me.
I can’t help but compare Greenpeace’s position to the AAP’s recent endorsement (and subsequent rejection) of ritual clitoral “nicks,” performed by licensed physicians, to the genitals of female babies and children as a way to reduce the demand for more drastic forms of female genital mutilation. (See, e.g. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/05/whatever_happened_to_first_do.php) Given the overwhelming opposition to such procedures in the U.S., coupled with legislation prohibiting it, the AAP’s proposal – while perhaps well-intentioned – would have represented a huge step backwards in public policy.
This might seem wholly unrelated, but ask yourself: if you reject the AAP’s reasoning re: FGM (as most Americans do), how can you justify a similar line of argument when employed by Greenpeace? (Probably a moot point, as I’m guessing that most readers don’t.)
Thanks for highlighting my comment! :o)
I’d just like to emphasise one more thing about Greenpeace’s proposals, and that’s their naivety. Currently, Japan, Norway and Iceland are showing their complete lack of respect for the whaling ban by continuing whaling – what, I wonder, makes Greenpeace and the WWF think that they will have any respect for new rules and quotas? When someone’s psychology is that they don’t give a [insert expletive of choice here] about rules and laws and are going to do what they like regardless, then what’s the point of approaching them with new rules and laws? They’ll only break those too. Because, they don’t give a [insert same expletive].
If Japan, Norway and Iceland each want to kill 1,000 whales a year they’ll do it so long as they *can* do it, whether the agreed ‘quota’ is zero or 100 or 500. Plus, the proposals would leave the door *wide* open for other currently non-whaling countries to *start* whaling.
The only way round the current situation is to give the laws some teeth.
Amy Clare, I couldn’t stop nodding my head in agreement from the beginning to the end of your first comment, and now I’m becoming a bobble-head after reading your second comment. Thank you so much for your sound reasoning.
I only wish your posts could be read by Greenpeace (and all the IWC member nations) and found to be so indisputable that they would all reverse course as a result and ban whaling (even for “scientific” purposes) forever.
Killing a single whale (or cow or chicken) in this day and age is immoral, so quotas on killing, whether followed or ignored, is equally immoral.
Friend of whales, it sounds like you are ready to send your money to a different charity.
HEY HEY HEY — IFAW JUST REPORTED THE “STUNNING” NEWS THAT THE WHALES HAVE WON THIS ROUND!!!! The proposal to legalize whaling failed. So Greenpeace showed its “sell-out” stripes in vain.
What a perfect opportunity to take this further and work toward a true and total ban on all whaling — that is, on the deceptively described “scientific” research conducted by the three scofflaw countries.
Prop 2 mentality.
This is as insane, ludicrous and disgusting as western doctors resigning to do female genital mutilation (circumcision) in hospitals w/anesthesia here in USA rather than have the practice done at home on peoples kitchen tables. It’s starting to happen according to Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Why do we appease such reprehensible behavior? Both religion and non human animal murder just gets a free pass in this world. It is completely taboo to attack either belief systems and…. appeasing them only will make it much worse in the long run.
Yes, but the Japanese seem to have a different story….
http://newsviewsmuse.wordpress.com/