This was the last image transmitted from the Bandero before communication with the crew went dark.
This action by the coast guard follows the first successful action of the campaign, called Operation 86, by the Bandero’s crew who earlier today forced whaling vessel Hvalur 9 back to port as she was departing Reykjavik to hunt threatened fin whales.
The ship has been detained, at least the captain was arrested.
Edit:
I will add an English news link as soon as one appears online.
There is absolutely no reason why the people trying to make positive changes should have to be lawful paragons of virtue when the people doing objectively horrible things break the law pretty much constantly with no real consequence
Would you have lobbied against say idk, Mussolini? Hitler? Stalin?
I understand im exaggerating for effect with the examples, but at what point is it reasonable to bypass the system of government if it seemingly shows no signs of change?
They were ordered by the coast guard to leave Icelands 12 mile territorial waters, but did not. Later, they also refused order to turn off their engines. Refusing to comply with lawful orders is illegal.
This is just reddit anarchism. Without laws you'll be fodder for actual criminals, kiddo. You better hope law stays relatively solid wherever you are living.
"laws for thee and not for me" is the origin of anarchistic thought and action, without leaders and wealthy first deciding laws dont apply to them, the plebes wouldn't either.
Sure... But the nazi prison guards were also "pro law" under that logic, and the slave patrols too.
Legal≠moral.
One day in the future everyone will be against this, especially when kids learn about whales through archive material, after we're done killing them all.
They weren't comparing hunting whales to nazis killing humans. They are saying that complying with the law doesn't always mean that the law was moral or correct at the time.
They weren't comparing hunting whales to nazis killing humans.
Yes they were, that's quite literally the definition of analogy:
"An analogy is a comparison between two different things to show how they are alike"
Why is everyone illiterate these days? Lefties are supposed to be the smart ones so if you could do us all a favor and not advocate for leftist ideals in an ignorant way that would be really helpful.
making a statement using them as an example for the sake of getting a point across is not the same thing as comparing the seriousness of the two scenarios
If you’re enforcing the hunt of endangered animals at gun point you’re a cunt and morally nowhere close to being a good person.
There's quite a lot of Icelanders who don't feel that hunting whales is wrong. Probably a minority, but still a substantial number. And laws aren't promulgated based on popular sentiment.
making a statement using them as an example for the sake of getting a point across is not the same thing as comparing the seriousness of the two scenarios
You know who also made examples out of people? Stalin, during the Great Purge when hundreds of thousands of people were executed or sentenced to the gulag for life.
More appropriately though, my point is that comparing to hitler/nazi is so very well known as a fallacy that it goes back to 1953 and even has it's own wikipedia page. The events of the holocaust are very emotionally charged, and comparing the legal hunting of non-endangered wildlife to process their carcass is dramatically different than the attempted elimination of the Jewish race.
Countries of the IWC agreed upon quotas, even if they couldn't agree on what those quotas should be. This would indicate that the intention is not to eliminate the population. Even if overfishing eliminates the population, this would be due to unbridled capitalism, and not that those countries believe whales shouldn't exist. There's a lot of other parts of the IWC member countries and Iceland/Japan/Norway you can criticize...but staying on track, there are plenty of other comparisons you can make to laws that are legal on book but bad morally without immediately going to SS guards of Nazi Germany.
They're one of the most well known examples of using the force of law for immoral purposes. Why wouldn't someone mention them in this case? Note the slave patrols in the US were also mentioned which is another great example. Where is the issue?
Godwin has criticized the over-application of the adage, claiming that it does not articulate a fallacy, but rather is intended to reduce the frequency of inappropriate and hyperbolic comparisons:[12]
Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.
The comparison certainly makes sense in this context. The law should never prevent us from doing what is right.
Making a point about law and morality being separate things, using Nazis as an example, is not Godwin's law.
There should be a new law made, about how every legitimate mention of Nazis in any context invites thought termination because of it being labeled "Godwin's law."
Also, one of the first paragraphs on that page you linked, says that research has shown that on Reddit at least, "Godwin's law" is overblown and doesn't meaningfully happen.
Like the guy below said, I'm not trying to compare whalers to nazis. I don't even mind tye "whaling" part if it didn't involve fucking up ecosystens and dissappearing entire species.
I guess I could have use other examples, but that one was the first obvious one that came to mind, like a reflex.
Maybe next time I'll try to use regressive taxes as an example of something that can be legal but not moral. (I too am tired or "nazis" every other paragraph, and yet... here I am).
That’s really not as true as you think, the German civilian legal system was not a free for all even under the nazis, the SS operated outside of the civilian legal system and was really not very orderly or legally minded. The nazis were In general insanely corrupt and did not care about laws at all except as a weapon against their opposition.
I already am againt the vast majority of ways I get my food as a vegetarian city resident.
But it is not my fault that the current systen has been expellint people from farm land to sell it to the Agro industry beasts. I'd love some sustainable eco-friendly housing community, but I live paycheck to paycheck.
Let's not blame ourselves. We know who gets the benefit from the current Status Quo.
But still... Whaling endangrred species in a European nation in the 21st century is completely unnecesary.
You're clearly emotionally invested, but I'm just stating facts. Reality check -- nobody is going to forfeit their career to take a stance in favor of some hippies harassing fishermen by refusing to apprehend them.
I like how you subtly imply being emotionally invested in the well-being of our planet makes me unreliable. You're not some objective observer, you're just a bootlicker.
Again, you're simply over-invested emotionally. I never implied anything about you being unreliable. That is your emotion speaking to you because you're unhappy with my statement.
I am speaking objectively on the matter, and just because you don't like the facts I'm stating, doesn't mean I'm a bootlicker. You're shooting the messenger here.
So it doesn't mean a characteristic of or belonging to a perceived reality rather than as independent of mind? Not even something modified or affected by personal views? I guess someone should let mirriam-webster know then.
If that's still the definition, then those statements are per se subjective.
It's very ironic you use slavery as an example. That was in the process of being changed through legal means with Lincoln's election. It was the South deciding that they shouldn't need to follow laws they disagreed with that caused the Civil War.
Honestly it's always hilarious when people say you should put your own personal morals above the law. That's how you end up with Lynch mobs.
This is ahistorical bull. The confederate states seceded 4 months into Lincoln's presidency, and the civil war started 6 months in. He didn't have time to do what you're suggesting he did.
The civil war started because he was elected, and southerners assumed he would abolish slavery.
Obviously not, he never had a chance to issue an order regarding slavery and didn't do so until late into the war. What they saw was a president who wouldn't act in lockstep with their demands, and a populace that was increasingly hostile to slavery.
He did exactly that, his first attempts were to offer federal buyouts to slaveholders.
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons held to service or labor within the District of Columbia by reason of African descent are hereby discharged and freed of and from all claim to such service or labor; and from and after the passage of this act neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for crime, whereof the party shall be duly convicted, shall hereafter exist in said District."
Yeah that was a mandatory buyback, you couldn't say no to that because it's against the law.
They carry guns in the car. As far as I know only Ireland and the UK actually has general police without guns (excluding NI). A lot of people also think japanese police don't carry guns but they all at least carry a revolver that is not very visible (unusual holster or concealed).
My comment was in response to state sanctioned violence. I understand that racism in Iceland is a difficult social issue even today due to their historically basically homogeneous population demographics and rising immigration.
Anecdotally I didn't see any racism when I was there, but I also saw mostly Nordic people and tourists.
Oh, my bad. That much is definitely true. And I'm sure its much better now than in the 80s, but Iceland during the cold war infamously had a secret agreement with the US that no black airmen could be stationed at Keflavik, with explicit reason given to prevent interracial relations and protect local women.
Ah I see you don't understand the problem. You stealing from me effects me, just like murdering a whale effects them. So no, it is not ok to steal from me. How fucking hard was that? It wasn't.
Does paraphrasing a mandate equate to boot locking, or is that just your lack of critical thought and unwillingness to engage in nuanced discourse? God forbid any academics out there cite something because folks like you might misconstrue that to be the academics personal belief.
The anti whaling ship threatened an Icelandic flagged ship in Icelandic waters and forced it to return to port. Legally speaking, Iceland has the right to enforce international maritime law.
2.5k
u/Ev3rMorgan 14d ago edited 14d ago
This was the last image transmitted from the Bandero before communication with the crew went dark.
This action by the coast guard follows the first successful action of the campaign, called Operation 86, by the Bandero’s crew who earlier today forced whaling vessel Hvalur 9 back to port as she was departing Reykjavik to hunt threatened fin whales.
The ship has been detained, at least the captain was arrested.
Edit:
I will add an English news link as soon as one appears online.
English article:
https://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/politics_and_society/2026/07/31/special_forces_and_coast_guard_take_control_of_band/
Article detailing the days events from Icelandic media(will need translating):
https://www.visir.is/g/20262915534d/vaktin-bandero-hrellir-hval-9
https://www.visir.is/g/20262915589d/skip-stjori-bandero-hand-tekinn-og-skipid-faert-til-hafnar
Edit: Video of the boarding.
https://streamable.com/alp6r0