Comments by "Laurence Fraser" (@laurencefraser) on "The Greenpeace Boat Attacks" video.

Realistically, no one sane is ok with that. Willing to put themselves in a situation where it might happen, sure. Ok with it? no.
30
Well, to a point. there are reasons why there is 'international law' on the matter. Also, techically speaking, anything that happens on a ship flying a given country's flag is, at least for the most part, covered by the laws of that country. (and we're talking 'officially, according to the documentation' not 'physically has the relevant bit of cloth at the top of a mast at the time'.) So this is essentialy on the order of 'it's not a crime if there aren't any witnesses' ... which isn't entirely incorrect in some regards, but is also very likely to end poorly if acted on.
28
The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior is one of several reasons that a lot of Kiwis don't exactly have a positive opinion of France. Which is kind of amusing given that Technically (by way of integrating their former colonies that didn't get, well, decolonized, into France Proper) it's actually our Nearest Neighbour. Closer than Australia, in fact. Opinions on greenpeace are a bit more... mixed. Though I get the impression most people don't know or care much about what they do other than discouraging whaling (which we tend to take pretty seriously around here given that, among other things, the list of legal stuff Japanese whalers like to ignore includes New Zealand's Oceanic Borders. <_< )
13
It would be Antarctic waters south of Australia, probably.
3
Not That crazy when you consider that blowing up a ship in another country's port could quite easily be argued to be an act of war and the general public was, to my understanding, already not too pleased with the nuclear testing in the pacific being a thing in the first place. Moderately impressive though.
2
Actually reducing consumption wouldn't do a damn thing to harm anyone. Randomly cutting off the supply without doing the work to actually reduce consumption needs First, would, sure, but that's not the same thing at all.
1
They definitely do legitimately contribute to some legitimately sensible and helpful stuff in some places... and are apparently complete and utter nutters in others. such fun.
1
I'm lead to believe it varies by species. Some have bounced back well, others are still in rather significant trouble (including some of the ones Japanese whalers keep going after last I checked... though that was a while ago now.)
1
Unfortunately, the treaties about such things allow very limited scientific whaling... and also involve a lot of small pacific islands that are rather poorly off and thus VERY suseptable to bribes (of the 'we'll build this really important infrastructure for you at little or no additional cost if you vote against the latest attempt to get rid of the loopholes we use to hunt whales' sort.). And without getting that sort of things passed (and, frankly, if it did, Odds are good Japan would just withdraw form the agrement unless it involved a lot of other stuff that was very important to them) trying to deal with the whalers in any sensible way rappidly starts causing .... Problems.
1
Not to say they have anything close to a monopoly on the latter, mind you.
1
Blowing it up In Someone Else's Harbour could quite easily be considered a terrorist act, however... against the owner of the harbour. Heck, it wouldn't take much stretching to consider it an act of war. ... Fortunately for all concerned, the NZ government of the day was fairly well aware that a war with France wouldn't have gone terribly well. Consider, however, that the population of NZ wasn't terribly keen on the whole "Nuclear testing in the pacific" thing Either.
1
Last I had heard people were quite happy with American nuclear weapons staying the hell away (well, nuclear weapons in general. Enemy nukes in particular, for obvious reasons :P), but general opposition to the very idea of considering nuclear power plants as an Option had substantually reduced. Also amusing: The nuclear free policy becoming a Thing was mostly an accident of miscommunication... and even then it Initially only banned nuclear Weapons, and may have put some restrictions on precisely where nuclear powered ships could or could not dock (but, of course, the USA wasn't going to reveal which ships did and didn't have nuclear weapons and/or powerplants, so the result was just 'no American ships at all'.) Of course, events then proceeded as they did.
1
@momatotsosrorudodi That's... silly. Communisim in it's 'true' form is a vague utopia. Socialism in its 'true' form is just co-ops plus or minus various government safety nets (didn't even start out as an ideology, just solutions to specific issues that had come about as a result of capitalism and the industrial revolution). Communism as implemented by various 'Communist' states is ... authoritarianism with a side of central planning... And to be fair, the 'central planning' part has it's place in certain matters when implemented competently... but much like the free market it has Major Problems when applied to things it Really Shouldn't Be... and when you are ideologically incapable of actually using the right tool for the right job, well... it goes poorly. Like.... you can make a positive argument for most of the things 'communists' Claim to want to do... once you sanity check the specifics for compliance with reality... but... really. The one thing communist governments did well (when they managed to put competent people in charge of things) was speed run the industrial revolution stage of things while dodging some of its pitfalls (and falling even harder into others, in some cases, mind you).... and having done that they promptly.... stalled out until and unless they implemented reforms that amounted to decentralising control of most things. Which would be why China isn't actually communist in the slightest (beyond the various aesthetic trappings) anymore by has largely reverted to how the old Chinese Empire used to do things administratively and a mostly fairly western model for economic matters. That said, I'd give you good odds that if you actually analised most of the capitalist sides arguments they'd consist of little beyond bullshit propaganda that didn't hold up to reality Either. Because as ideologies go they're both pretty shit. Various subsystems advocated for by proponents of both are quite useful when properly applied to the correct things, but neither system is any way to run a government, a country... or even an economy, really. There's a reason why basically everyone actually runs what is termed a 'mixed' economy these days, and most of the more livable places run something that's a Lot closer to the middle than either end.
1
Well... if we're going to be honest, opposition to Very Careful implementation of nuclear Power has reduced a LOT. But you're right about the rest of it.
1
There's a rather distinct difference: Piracy explicitly involves killing people, stealing cargo, or hijacking vessels, to my understanding. Then there's various rules about navigation, safety, and such, the violation of which may be some sort of crime. Then there's just being an obstructive pain in the arse... and so long as you're not endangering anyone other than maybe yourself... well, your right to protest isn't exactly protected, but if the other ship starts taking potshots at you... technically, if anyone's engaging in piracy, it's probably Them (in reality they're probably doing something more along the lines of 'reckless endangerment' or something.). It gets even more fun when you consider that, in some places, the ships they're 'protesting' are technically poaching, or only dodging such a charge on a technicality. (seriously, the only reason Japanese whaling ships in NZ waters aren't just sunk out of hand is... well, ok, because the people making the decisions are sane and don't want a war with Japan. But the general public sentiment is (or at least certainly was last I heard) that if that weren't an issue then the navy patroling for and sinking whalers and other poachers on sight would be entirely right and correct. Not to say they don't patrol for them now, but short range boats with an MG or two and a loud hailer are rather less heavy on 'actually getting the message across' than something with an actual gun putting an acutal hole in ship getting up to such nonsense, ya know?).
1