Aug 15, 2012 at 15:37:47
“The Senator claims the only reason the Government doesn't end the seal hunt is political. It is more correct to say that certain animal rights groups have succeeded in applying political pressure to end the hunt.
Why did the EU end the importation of seal pelts? Because its multiparty Parliamentary Committee on Animal Rights succeeded in finding something to appear positive in the eyes of its mislead public. Animal Rights groups have spent millions to manipulate Europeans to declaim the Canadian seal hunt. This was easy with no real contrary views being reported in their press.
In response to this manufactured pressure the parliamentarians found it easy to unite on an issue of popular concern. The facts were irrelevant as the issue didn't really affect any EU Member State. The politicians claim tremendous success for something that cost them nothing. What politician wouldn't like every thing to be this easy?”
Jul 22, 2012 at 13:13:33
“Ms Fink please help me understand how much IFAW makes on the seal hunt. If you can afford multimillion dollar ad campaigns how much has IFAW received in contributions over the past 30 plus years of declaiming the seal hunt.
You demand honesty in Government for providing data on the hunt now please just reciprocate.
airshow on Jul 22, 2012 at 17:21:04
“Well, they are not the enemy or the problem. But if you want them to go away, stop the seal pup slaughter.”
Jul 22, 2012 at 12:54:00
“I like the way the Government is claiming it is only doing its due diligence in evaluating Khadr before his return to Canada. The reports of both doctors were available during his trial. The Government did not think it required due diligence to sign a deal 2 years ago to agree Khadr could return to Canada after serving one more year in GITMO. It did not think it needed to consider its due diligence last October when the one year was up. Only on July 8 did the Minister deem it time to consider this.
Would a legal challenge have anything to do with the Minister's sudden interest in requiring more info? If Khadr was returned to a Canadian penitentiary the Minister could have all the experts he wants examine him to make our own determination of his mental state.
This government has a hard time understanding its legal obligations and fails to demonstrate an understanding of the timeliness of due diligence.”
MJinCanada on Jul 22, 2012 at 21:51:44
“I really think that the delay is because of his future potential as a speaker on the subject of torture and war crimes. Kind of like William Sampson.”
Jun 4, 2012 at 13:17:35
“The Canadian Citizenship Oath states "I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen." Where is there any reference to the Queen of England. The Oath is 100% Canadian.
Sadly too many people don't realize her separate roles.”
“Here is an incident with violence committed against others who were NOT breaking any law. Watson once wanted to clear the Northwest Atlantic of foreign fleets "raping" the famed northern cod stock in the 1990's.
So he set to sea in an unseaworthy vessel and because the boat could not reach the area where the northern cod were found he confronted the closest vessel he could find.
It was a Cuban vessel fishing redfish in an area hundreds of miles away from the northern cod on the southern Grand Banks. His ship rammed the vessel and it sprayed a toxic substance on the vessel. All of the Cuban ship's catch had to be destroyed due to the toxicity of the poison. In order to avoid any future problems, the Cuban vessel left a perfectly legitimate and sustainable fishery at the time.
Watson quickly took to the airways claiming that he alone was doing something to protect the endangered northern cod stock from the voracious foreigners only this time he didn't protect one northern cod from harm and cost the Cubans a legitimate fishery.
By the way there are other examples of this kind of behaviour.”
“Check your history on his Iceland fable. He was detained and questioned In Iceland but DENIED he had anything to do with the sinkings. As there was no physical proof he had any involvement in the incidents, the Icelandic authorities ordered his deportation.
He immediately announced when he was off Icelandic territory that his organization was responsible and would do it again. He did run and he did hide the facts from those in authority.
Further, the Icelandic vessels were not illegal under International Law, but his activities can be defined as piracy under International Law.”
Embla2010 on May 14, 2012 at 14:44:47
“Thaaaank you !!!
You have the story exactly right.
The only thing missing is the fact that they almost killed a few ppl.
They ruined two ships that were legally and with full agreements from other nations taking in a few whales per yr, not hundreds, but I love how Watson the idiot has completely changed how he tells the truth of what happened in Iceland.
The man is an attempted murderer and a pirate.”
Dec 14, 2011 at 16:38:31
“It is interesting to see when one sees your view of when history begin. Perhaps Ms. Jennings can be accused "as the person who imported American-style politics of personal destruction into the Canadian political ecology" in the early 21st century.
However, I remember an opposition in the late 1990's that wanted to call in the cops for a range of perceived scandals. The current Prime Minister was a leader is much of the smears. Just as he continues to use partisan, personnel levers to attack the opposition.
Shortly before the 21st century began there was even the unusual circumstance of the RCMP announcing, during an election campaign, that Ralph Goodale was under investigation as the result of an opposition complaint. After the election he was cleared, no evidence of any offense was found.
Ms. Jennings was not responsible for the Americanization of Canadian politics. If one objectively looks at the origin of the current highly partisan, mudslinging political behavior I think you will see neo-cons reflecting their Republican friends.”
“Excellent article. I applaud the detailed research.
Another clear example of subsidies being used to destroy fish stocks can be found in the 1980's. The well subsidized Spanish and Portuguese fleets that had devastated the resources of several African countries crossed to the northwest Atlantic just beyond Canada's 200-mile zone.
The Spanish fleet was heavily subsidized to "discover" new fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization's (NAFO) waters. There had been a traditional Spanish cod fishery by smaller pair trawlers. These new large factory freezer trawlers, about 100, were left by Spain and the EU to massively overfish any stock that was available. These stocks had been traditionally fished legitimately by others. The EU, under its agreement with Spain and Portugal when they acceded to the EU in 1986 to find them new fishing possibilities, used its objection to NAFO measures to allow this overfishing. When virtually all of the NAFO stocks were closed due to overfishing, the Spanish and EU authorities provided new funds to develop another "new" fishery for these large factory ships. The massive overfishing of Greenland Halibut began. This stock, which had been staple for Canadian fishermen inside Canada's 200 mile zone was quickly reduced by more than 90%. The EU sanctioned overfishing seriously harmed the fisheries of about 8 other countries that had historic rights in the area.
All the while, the EU and Spain preached conservation and fisheries based on scientific advice. They still do today but has much really changed?”
floodberg on Oct 9, 2011 at 16:42:34
“Just want you to know that I read through your comments (I actually do that when I fan); well reasoned, well supported, very impressive. I'm very pleased you're on HP; we need more like you!”
floodberg on Oct 9, 2011 at 15:50:33
“Excellent comment, Earlwiseman: Kudus, faved and I'm pleased to be your No. 1 Fan!”
“I think you may need to brush up on your knowledge of Canadian governance. Thanks for your service but it is sad you didn't fully understand who you were serving.
I'm no monarchist, but the facts are that the Queen is, "Queen of Canada" as well as Queen of some other parts of the commonwealth. She resides in the UK but is still our Queen. She is the head of the Government of Canada and has her representative present, the Governor-General. You may want this to change but it is the system today. You swore your loyalty to Canada in swearing your allegiance to the Queen when you served.
Having "Royal"in the title does not make those enlisted as serving a "foreign power", nor "disloyal and traitorous". In fact, technically, being disloyal to the Queen is traitorous "to this great nation".”
nete peedham on Aug 16, 2011 at 12:47:32
“And if he wanted to serve, but didn't want to swear allegiance to the Queen, what do you think would have happened to his service?
Monarchists, like wannabe Americans(most conservatives) and their cheerleaders(you) are a disgrace to this country.”
“"Memos show the U.S. government tapped the CIA's cartographic expertise to provide evidence in a 1983 maritime boundary dispute with Canada heard by the International Court of Justice."
I wonder if this was the ingenious strategy that proposed that the geographic projection of the Province of Nova Scotia was an anomaly and should not be considered by a panel of the International Court of Justice in its judgement as to where to draw the international boundary between Canada and the US over Georges Bank?
Fortunately the majority of the Judges agreed that Nova Scotia does in fact exist and that it was not just an irrelevant accident.
Canada came much closer to its claim than the US in the final judgement.”
Skookum1 on Aug 8, 2011 at 15:12:58
“It may interest you to know that the A-B Line boundary between BC and Alaskan waters is held by the US to apply only to the surface of the water, and the submarine/ocean-bottom boundary is supposed to be the mid-line of the Dixon Entrance. Their argument? That the 1825 treaty between Britain and Russia made no specific mention of the ocean floor and so it wasn't covered, that the treaty was only supposed to apply to naval rights....which doesn't explain at all why the US Coast Guard has regularly picked up Canadian vessels in the Entrance, even though they're south of the A-B Line.....the 1825 treaty's wording was also conspiciously ignored in the Alaska Boundary Settlement of 1903; both by Ottawa and London and most of all by Washington. If it had been respected, the boundary would have gone up Clarence Strait to the mouth of the Stikine, meaning that Wrangell and Ketchikan et al would have been part of British Columbia; the 54-40 line (i.e. the A-B Line) was only insisted upon by the Russians such that they would retain ALL of Prince of Wales Island, not just part of it. Similarly if the original treaty had been followed properly, Skagway and Haines etc would be Canadian ports and in British Columbia. They were overrun by bandits who hoisted the US flag, just as San Juan Island was claimed for the US by a rogue settler.”
“Does the European Parliament fear that their political credibility may be endangered by a valid review of their discriminatory and unfounded policy? Why are they not proudly defending the policy some Parliamentarians have sought for over 30 years?
True the hunt has a minimal economic impact on the economy, even Newfoundland's, but it is sustainable and humane contrary to the animal welfare zealots myopia.
Studies by teams of international veterinarians have found the hunt more humane than most abattoirs where most or our meat comes from. True the animal activists can find some random acts that they can negatively spin to their objectives but when it comes to scientific analysis they have none. Neither do they for the sustainability of the seal stocks. Scientific fact is that there are more seals today than there were 10-20-30 years ago. If only our fish stocks could grow so well.
So what should Canada do? Abandon its historic policy of sustainable utilization of its resources to satisfy blackmail by those who have unfairly and deliberately mislead the public against Canada?
Canada is a proud country that does not give into blackmail, especially from those who continue to overfish not only their resources but those of developing countries who do not have the ability to protect theirs.
Let's get on with the trade agreement, it has benefits for the EU as well or it would not be negotiating for one, and let the WTO decide if the EU policy is legitimate.”
“davx and friends - I assume you are all vegetarians or just plain hypocrites.
Your God may not want you to eat or use animal products but most peoples' do.
As for cruelty - have you been to an abattoir or a factory farm? Veterinarians, from several countries including the US, have deemed the Canadian seal hunt on the ice more humane than the3 slaughter in most abattoirs.
I'm sure anyone with a camera could find examples of what appears to be inhumane treatment in any farm or abattoir situation. There is just no money in that. The IFAW has become wealthy in its fake war against the seal hunt.
The Euro MPs that promoted the ban are part an a large group in the European Parliament that can't agree on much that affects the farmers and fishers of Europe but are proud to be seen to take action against the small fishers and native peoples of Canada in their arrogance.”
valar84 on Jun 14, 2011 at 13:50:17
“I agree, but I have to point out that the EU didn't take action against "small fishers and native peoples"... they took action only against the small fishers, they made an exception for "traditional hunting" done by native people.
Yeah, it turns out that this terrible, horrible, inhumane hunt is a-okay as long as the guys doing it are from First Nations.
So not only was this decision of theirs quite arrogant and absurd, but it was also completely incoherent and inconsistent.”
“romika3 is one of the few who understand the reality of the activities of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Just who's laws are they enforcing and with who's authority? Watson can make all kinds of claims to justify his organizations actions but he has no legal authority. His organizations actions to sabotage vessels on the high seas are the real infringements of international law.
I am not an apologist for Japan or the whaling industry but I do know something about the Law of the Sea and multilateral conservation organizations. We may not like the loopholes in International Conventions but they are there and have been used by countries in the IWC and other organizations. Some of these are now hypocrits when they condem Japan for its similar use.
Just because the organization claims to be nobler than the rest of the population and knows what is right for the world does it make its actions legal and justifiable?
We supposedly live in society of laws. There are processes to deal with disagreements. While the Japanese may have been shamed by the attention brought on it by public negative reation it will not lose face and surrender to what it regards as pirates. It may, however, agree to changes if the heat was reduced and the Sea Sheperd disappeared. If science, rational conservation objectives and international law could replace myths and emotion perhaps a solution could be found.”