" Activists " or " Terrorists " ?

In all probability, if the killing of whales was put to a referendum vote in Australia the result would be an overwhelming rejection.   If that same referendum canvassed the option of declaring war on Japan to stop that whale hunt - that would also be rejected as a vast over-reaction.

There seems to be a fine line between what we tolerate by those who have strong feelings on a range of subjects, from animal welfare to that old perennial - religion.   Just where does an " activist " cross that line and become a " terrorist " ?

Three Australian men went to the trouble of putting to sea off the West Australian coast to stage a night raid on the Japanese whaling escort ship - Shonan Maru 2.    They managed to get aboard, despite barbed wire protection at entry points and were promptly discovered and locked away by the ship's crew.

This led to diplomatic dialogue between Australia and Japan.  Legally, the Japanese had every right to hold these men until the ship eventually ended it's voyage and returned to Japan.   They could have been charged with a variety of offences - and would probably have faced at least some time in a Japanese prison.      Instead, the Japanese agreed to hand them over to Australian authorities and the customs ship " Ocean Protector " sailed into the southern ocean and collected them.    This cost the Australian taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Once back on Australian soil, two of these men were released without charge while the third was sent to prison because he had broken bail conditions on repaying fines for previous " activist " activities.   If he manages to settle these fines, he will also be released without further penalty.

This affair tends to highlight the separation that the law makes between " activism "and " terrorism. "   Had these men taken a bomb aboard with the intention of  damaging the ships engine to stop it taking part in the whale hunt they could have been held on charges of piracy or terrorism.

What they did seems to be just one act in a long series of " activist incidents " designed to create publicity for the causes they hold dear.   They skirt the edge of the lawful definitions - which crossed - could see them face very serious gaol time in either Australia or in a foreign gaol.

At best, they could be described as a "nuisance factor ".   They rely on their activism getting mild public support because they choose popular issues as their targets, but this is at cost to the Australian taxpayer to the tune of huge sums of money.

Surely willingly and knowingly taking an action that will end up costing the public purse should be unlawful - and should attract an automatic penalty ?

If we do not have such a law on the books - then perhaps it is time the lawmaker's framed and passed one !