Greenpeace activist harpooned as tuna Fishermen turn violent

A Greenpeace protest against tuna fishing in the Mediterranean turned violent yesterday when an activist was harpooned in the leg by a French fisherman. Armed with sandbags, Greenpeace members planned to weigh down fishing nets attached to the boat to the point where the trapped tuna could escape. The fishermen did not take the attack lightly, however, striking the protesters with poles and sinking one of their boats. The encounter came to a head when Frank Huston, a British Greenpeace member, was struck in the leg by either a boat hook. (He is expected to recover.) A video of the encounter was released by Greenpeace France, though it offers no clues as to how the situation turned violent.

Source

What's really strange about this is how the tuna fishers got away with their return action. I think it is only legal to fish for tuna in waters around Japan. In the end, it seems the government supported the fisherman's attack on greenpeace.

I guess there is no government that has upheld the decision to make tuna completely illegal to net. This is very odd on the legal situation besides the attack.

At a glance of a few reports, it appears one member got it with the boat hook while another got it with the lance. Maybe somebody could translate the french greenpeace site to get more exact details.

Here is the video:





[edit on 5-6-2010 by dzonatas]

Originally posted by dzonatas

What's really strange about this is how the tuna fishers got away with their return action. I think it is only legal to fish for tuna in waters around Japan. In the end, it seems the government supported the fisherman's attack on greenpeace.

" Greenpeace activist harpooned as illegal tuna Fishermen turn violent "

Misleading !

No where in the source story does it say these fisherman were doing anything illegal - as your title claims..

In fact it is said that Greenpeace tried to get the bluefin tuna declared as an endangered species due to, " an erroneous reading of the scientific facts regarding the stock of bluefin tuna."

It is Greenpeace who were in the wrong here. They were hurting these fisherman's livelihoods.

Greenpeace attacked the fishermen first.. the fishermen were only defending themselves.

I applaud these fishermen. They should have harpooned more Greenpeace meddlers.. perhaps they would learn to go through legal channels and not engage in illegal activity such as destroying the fisherman's nets and hurting their livelihood.

Haha wow. I harpooned a fish once, felt bad enough. A human? Crazy people.

Can't say I feel sorry for the Greenpeace activist, or anyone else in Greenpeace for that matter, they bring it on themselves.

Well done on the fishermen for defending their business.

I know a lot of people feel very strongly about the issues Greenpeace try to tackle, I just feel that riding around in boats and bullying people is the wrong way to go about it.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by Pixus]

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


I corrected the title because I found it is the trade of tuna that is maybe illegal, so the act to fish from the waters is not enough to say they did an illegal trade.

[edit on 5-6-2010 by dzonatas]

This is going to get ugly. Sea Shepherd is also on their way - they're filming a new TV series, so they'll be out to provoke as much as possible (ratings booster).

I won't be surprised if there's a body count.

Originally posted by dzonatas

I corrected the title because I found it is the trade of tuna that is maybe illegal, so the act to fish from the waters is not enough to say they did an illegal trade.

"Maybe" illegal?

Try again.

I'm glad to see the fisherman fighting back. Greenpeace has no right to disrupt the livelihoods of the fisherman. I really do hate organizations like Greenpeace. They have no right to force their views and opinions on other people.

I'm sure there's two sides to this story, so it's difficult to try to decide who was right. I will assume the boats with the yellow flags were the Greenpeace boats? If so, I found them overly aggressive, and they put the fisherman's boats in self -defense mode.

Don't get me wrong...I support any group who supports our planet and wildlife. But I don't like this kind of physical aggression. Save the Tuna...kill the fishermen. It doesn't speak well to what they want to accomplish, methinks.

If I'm mistaken about the yellow-flag boats, then please do a mental gymnastic and reverse my comments.

Originally posted by vox2442

Originally posted by dzonatas

I corrected the title because I found it is the trade of tuna that is maybe illegal, so the act to fish from the waters is not enough to say they did an illegal trade.

"Maybe" illegal?

Try again.

I simply don't understand it.

If there is a ban there is it illegal, or is it not illegal because governments don't uphold the ban. They can fish in some waters, but not in all waters.

Even if the got the fish there, does that mean they could only trade it to Japan to make a legal trade? If they trade in or around another nation is it then illegal if the government ban the trade? This is odd to figure this part out.

Did greenpeace try to stop illegal activity, and did the government just turn a blind eye because there was no trade found? Maybe greenpeace did something right. Maybe they were out of there league and the fishermen were completely legit.

People live in a bubble... they think that everything in the world is fine because Beyonce is number one in the music charts and McDonalds has a special offer on a Big Mac meal.

Life on Earth is in danger... our demands have outgrown the Earths ability to provide... We are seeing a level of extinction not seen since the mass extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It is ignored by people for the following reasons...

1) The truth is to scary so they pretend it isn’t happening.

2) It is not directly affecting them yet so they chose to ignore it!

3) They are too selfish and ignorant to care

4) The change required to help resolve the issue would impact their lives to a level they find unacceptable


There are some people who do realise the seriousness of this situation... and they have tried to warn us.

They have protested... but know one listens
They have gone on TV... but people switch channels
They have provided evidence... but people ignore it

When faced with an issue of this magnitude, and politics and diplomacy has failed, what do you expect people to do??

Seems like Greenpeace has been doing these acts of terrorism for 40 years. The whales and tuna are still hunted. Funny thing is , they aren't extinct. Every decade they say they will be extinct within the next decade.

Originally posted by dzonatas


I simply don't understand it.

If there is a ban there is it illegal, or is it not illegal because governments don't uphold the ban. They can fish in some waters, but not in all waters.

Even if the got the fish there, does that mean they could only trade it to Japan to make a legal trade? If they trade in or around another nation is it then illegal if the government ban the trade? This is odd to figure this part out.

Did greenpeace try to stop illegal activity, and did the government just turn a blind eye because there was no trade found? Maybe greenpeace did something right. Maybe they were out of there league and the fishermen were completely legit.

There is no "ban" on tuna fishing.

The season runs from May 15 to June 15.

Greenpeace tried to stop legal activity that they don't like.

Originally posted by gandhi
Haha wow. I harpooned a fish once, felt bad enough. A human? Crazy people.

Dont feel too bad. Its much better to harpoon a human than a fish, anyways.

reply to post by funkmob_starchild

I'm glad to see the fisherman fighting back. Greenpeace has no right to disrupt the livelihoods of the fisherman. I really do hate organizations like Greenpeace. They have no right to force their views and opinions on other people.

You do realise that fish are not in the ocean to provide a livelihood for people?

They are actually there because they are part of a delicate balance... multiple organisms all helping to keep this balance that sustains life.

The fact that we can take fish from the sea should be viewed as a gift... NOT a right!!!




[edit on 5-6-2010 by Muckster]

Originally posted by vox2442
There is no "ban" on tuna fishing.

The season runs from May 15 to June 15.

Greenpeace tried to stop legal activity that they don't like.

Discover mag reports the effort to ban the international trade failed.

A google search of various sources seem to suggest there still is a leftover proposal to get the specifc bluefin tuna species on the endangered list. This is supported in the shadow from the temporary ban that was in place.

It look like it was around March 18th, 2010, the temporary ban was lifted.

I love these stories of greenpeace people getting injured for their stupidity...

Greenpeace is a scam operation anyway..

Good.

I hope more greenpeace activists get harpooned.

Why do I say this?

Because I like tunafish sammiches.

And I think fishing is an ok way to make a living.

Sorry greenies, but fishing is acceptable, and if you get in the way, you get what you deserve.

reply to post by Muckster

You said:
"The fact that we can take fish from the sea should be viewed as a gift... NOT a right!!! "

What a beautiful sentiment. Thanks for the reminder.

Originally posted by Muckster
reply to post by funkmob_starchild

 

I'm glad to see the fisherman fighting back. Greenpeace has no right to disrupt the livelihoods of the fisherman. I really do hate organizations like Greenpeace. They have no right to force their views and opinions on other people.

You do realise that fish are not in the ocean to provide a livelihood for people?

They are actually there because they are part of a delicate balance... multiple organisms all helping to keep this balance that sustains life.

The fact that we can take fish from the sea should be viewed as a gift... NOT a right!!!




[edit on 5-6-2010 by Muckster]

This is so idiotic I'm honestly surprised to be reading it. Fish aren't in the ocean to provide livelihood for people? Really. How many cultures survive on eating fish and other seafood? How many cultures base their entire economy around fishing? You're right, fish are part of a delicate balance in the ecosystem, as are human beings. We are all part of the same balance. People eat fish as food and for vital nutrients, and for sustaining good health. Your pretty little idealism doesn't have any grounding in reality. Are trees also not for human livelihood? Cows? Pigs? Are humans just supposed to die off and not take advantage of what earth has provided us?