• I still haven’t figured out how to post specifically in one of the links for the cases, so feel free to move this if you know how. Here are my notes on the whaling case, to be added to Emily’s.


• Main questions: 1) Whether or not acting is appropriate at all in this situation (if it’s any of their business what is happening in Japan) and 2) Whether or not the destructive nature of the action they’re taking is okay.


• We are arguing that it is important for people to stand up for what they believe in and that action is altogether appropriate, but that being destructive or even violent in that action is not okay.


• -They should inform people, take action, and use the media all they want, but we believe that damaging property is not a productive way to make the change that they’re looking for. (Two wrongs don’t make a right.)


• “The sea shepherd extremism is becoming more violent…their actions are nothing but felonious behavior.” –spokesman


• “We agree with the assessment by Martin Luther King that violence cannot be committed against a non sentient object.” But they do use minor forms of violence and they are destructive.


• United Nations world charter for Nature, sections 21-24 provide authority to individuals to “act on behalf of and enforce international conservation laws.”


• It is an international conservation law that you cannot kill whales.


• So they certainly have a right, even an obligation, if it’s something important to them, to act. They’re guaranteed that and it’s important. --Media a very effective way of doing that.


• I know this one’s not quite as cohesive yet… this is just what I had in my notes. I also took notes during the meeting in which we talked about this one, but they were in a different notebook that I left at home by accident. I’ll put them up as soon as I can.