ALEXANDER Cornelissen and Peter Hammarstedt — master and first officer of Farley Mowat — stand charged with deliberately ramming a Canadian coastguard icebreaker in the name of animal rights.
The men claim they are the victims of the piece and it was their vessel that was rammed by the coastguard, while peacefully observing a seal cull in the Gulf of St Lawrence. The veracity or otherwise of their account is a matter for the Canadian courts to decide. But what is not in dispute is that Farley Mowat, owned by the controversial animal rights campaigner the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, has got form.
Two years ago, while fitted with a device it dubbed a ‘can opener’, the then-master of Farley Mowat informed the master of a Japanese whaling support ship that he was acting under the authority of the United World Charter for Nature to uphold international conservation regulations prohibiting the slaughter of whales in the Antarctic Whale Sanctuary.
“We backed up the message by slamming our starboard hull against their starboard hull,” the master said.
Conservation of marine species is an important issue. But deliberately engineering a collision, in a manner that could put human lives at risk, is not the way to do it.
With a track record of glorifying in dangerous behaviour, the suitability of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society to be a shipowner at all is open to question.
The eyes of the maritime world will be upon its latest brush with the law, and rightly so.
Comments (5)
Comment by
Captain (Rtd) Reg Kelso
- Wednesday 16 April 2008
Is this the same duo who rammed the Japanese whaling vessel two years ago ?
Undoubtedly (when the current trial proceedings are completed)their Certificates of Competency should be reviewed by the issuing authority and, if necessary, withdrawn.There is NO excuse for their behaviour -if they are found guilty by the Canadian courts.
Comment by
Mr Denis Brookes
- Wednesday 16 April 2008
Hard to decide which stories in todays media are true, but assuming a reasonable amount of truth then not only are they putting professional seamen at risk but are also putting at risk the lives of amateurs who should not be at sea. They have a duty of care to these people and as such appear to be guilty of breaching this.
Comment by
Mr Michael Jobson
- Tuesday 15 April 2008
The International Rules for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea are quite clear and whatever the moral rights of the actions of either party if these Rules are breached there is no argument as to who bears the blame.
Comment by
Captain Andrew Tinsley
- Tuesday 15 April 2008
Have this bunch of sea-going rubbish got any insurance ??? If so , who with = who funds them ?
Comment by
Captain Andrew Tinsley
- Tuesday 15 April 2008
A classic case for the IMO to actually DO something.
These people (Sea Shepherd) are Maritime Menaces.
Post your comment
Comments are limited to 2000 characters and will be approved before display.
Recent activity
- Waiting for bed time
- Crunch time for box lines
- Cancelled out
- Look who's talking
- Cosco lashes out at ore...
- Land of Lay-Up
- Onward to Rotterdam
- Leave FFAs to grow
- Right ambition
- Banks still not tested
- Too crowded
- Let in the light
- Piracy or war risk?
- Bigger could mean better
- Navios treads novel ground
- Philippines ferries
- Far-sighted myopia
- Flashing the cash
- Considering a new order
- Trade and Tehran
- Numbers game
- Follow the money
- Political risk and LNG
- Lloyd's leads by example
- Boxship bargains
- Yards at risk
- Wanted: fresh ideas
- Yards and owners to lock...
- Different outlooks
- Crucial week for Eastwind
- Keeping piracy in check
