Ghandi might be an appropriate guide. Greenpeace’s practice of forcing themselves on board the whalers’ boats even when met with physical resistance would never have satisfied Ghandi’s criteria. Neither would the cutting of a harpoon line and the attempt to steal a harpoon gun. Their latest action may just have been a slip up, but in that case they should have admitted the fact, so the whalers know where they stand in future confrontations.
The whalers should realise that what Greenpeace want are pictures of violent whalers beating peaceful demonstrators. Ghandi wanted communication with his opposition and one of his main principles was openness. Greenpeace actions are characterised by secretiveness. They do not want their opposition to know what they are up to, nor do they feel any need to speak to them and convince them by arguments. Meetings with whalers are only set up for the media - and to convey the Greenpeace message.
Yesterday’s Daily Mail reports that knives are out on the high seas in confrontations between Greenpeace and Danish fishermen. Greenpeace should critically scrutinize their non-violence policy before it’s too late.
The UK government says that its stance is now unconditional. Even if the sustainablity of whale catches can be guaranteed and satisfactory humane killing methods developed, they would still be opposed to commercial whaling. The only argument put forward to support this new stance is public opinion.
But it is certainly not good morals to blindly follow the majority. In modern Western culture moral rules are required, such as “Thou shalt not kill whales for commercial purposes”, which are developed through reasoned arguments based on ethical principles. One of these principles is that humans are allowed to kill animals for food as long as this is sustainable and the animal welfare aspects of the killing are in order. One of the essential requirements in a discussion of ethics is consistency. There would then have to be a good reason to explain why it should be forbidden to eat whales but perfectly acceptable to enjoy pork.
The British have forbidden the export of live horses to France. They would rather see them end up as pet food than have the French eat them. And most Britains would certainly not eat horses themselves. The live export of sheep and cattle is not forbidden. But this difference has nothing to do with morals. As with whales, we are talking about cultural preferences.
A cow is regarded as a not-so-beautiful creature when alive, although some of them can be quite charming. But once it’s dead it isn’t more than a few hundred kilos of meat. This would indicate that the unfortunate appearance of the cow, rather than its contribution to the meat supply, appears to be the deciding factor for British meat eaters.
But perhaps we have totally misinterpreted Tony Baldry’s statement - perhaps the UK fisheries minister has joined the Vegans.