photo: bixentro/Creative Commons via flickr
READ MORE ABOUT:
On Saturday the Dalai Lama, speaking during a tour of Japan, criticized Sea Shepherd's tactics in trying to prevent Japanese whalers. While he supported their goal of preventing the killing of whales, he urged them to adopt non-violent methods in doing so.
Which is pretty much what the Dalai Lama always urges. So what's the big deal? Well, Sea Shepherd prominently uses a letter the Dalai Lama once sent them expressing his support for their cause.
When I interviewed Sea Shepherd founder Paul Watson recently he talked up the fact that a small statue representing the wrathful form of Buddha on the bridge of the Steve Erwin was given to them by a representative of the Dalai Lama in support and said that "[the Dalai Lama] understood our approach: We intimidate but we don't hurt."
Which brings this all back to a question that dogs Sea Shepherd and for which frankly there really isn't a single authoritative interpretation, from the Dalai Lama or anyone else. Are the methods used by Sea Shepherd appropriate in the context of non-violence for stopping whaling?
WATCH VIDEO - Animal Planet: Why Paul Watson Protects Whales
Does the Dalai Lama Have All the Facts?
As a number of commenters on Tricycle and Waylon Lewis in Elephant Journal have pointed out, it's quite possible that the Dalai Lama hasn't gotten all the facts of the case, in terms of what's actually happening out in the Great Southern Ocean.
There's a lot of intimidation and interference occurring on the part of Sea Shepherd, and plenty of harassment via projectiles which are more or less stink bombs, but little in the way of harm to whalers has occurred. The whalers have responded, at minimum, in kind trying to stop Sea Shepherd. Collisions have occurred between Sea Shepherd and whaling vessels with fingers being pointed back and forth. Though by sheer virtue of difference in size, Sea Shepherd's ships have borne the brunt of the collisions.
Like Japan's actions themselves in objecting to the international ban on whaling and then conducting a hunt in the name of scientific research, illegally smuggling whale meat by whalers, and apparently buying off developing nations' support in trying to overturn the whaling ban, there is just grey area and interpretation of principle here.
Is Violence Ever Permissible For Adherents of Non-Violence?
Where is the line separating violence, non-violence, and those times when even adherents of non-violence may regrettably use violence? (My interpretation of that last part: in self-defense, to prevent a much greater incidence of violence towards beings which are incapable of defending themselves, in preventing a violent crime you are witnessing; never in aggression.)
All that said it's quite possible that His Holiness does have all the facts when it comes to Sea Shepherd's activities and thinks they have stepped over the line — even in defense one more act of violence perpetuating the notion that violence in permissible.
This is always a passionate discussion. So what do Planet Green readers think? 1) Are the actions of Sea Shepherd violent? 2) Whether you think they are or not, are they justified; and if not, what should they be doing to prevent whaling?
Like this? Follow me on Twitter and Facebook.
More on Whaling:
Interpol, Blue Rage, The Mafia & Non-Violence at Sea: Sea Shepherd's Paul Watson Talks With TreeHugger
Sea Shepherd's Bob Barker Collides With Japanese Whaler (Video)
Sea Shepherd Harassment Cuts Japanese Whale Catch in Half
Japan Arrests Sea Shepherd Activist After Boarding Ship, Trying to Deliver Bill for Sunken Ship
