Last week, we considered how we might temper our level of criticism towards patrons of a dolphin show.  How to hit the right tone and tenor, to maximize the likelihood of your message getting through.  Let’s move on now to an issue in which determining one’s proper moral stand is perhaps more complicated.

Is it appropriate to advocate for a boycott of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics because of the Japanese government’s stance on commercial whaling and the drive hunting of dolphins?

I think the case can be argued both ways, but here is the path I’ve chosen for myself.  Since I first viewed The Cove a few years ago, I have not knowingly purchased a Japanese made product, nor do I plan to view, or in any way endorse the 2020 games which will take place in Japan.  I do not criticize others who’ve made a different choice, though I will sometimes suggest that such a position ought to be considered, usually in the face of the latest atrocity in Taiji.  Actions should have consequences.

That said, the Japanese people are not the enemy.  A large number of Japanese citizens are among the most  forceful and passionate allies we have in this fight.  And there are many aspects of Japanese culture and tradition which are truly beautiful (genuine traditions, not phony ones like the slaughter of dolphins, which started fairly recently).  So a boycott of Japanese goods and services, or of events like the Olympics, can’t really be stated as a moral imperative, rather more of a personal choice.

Clearly, the position being held by the Japanese government (not the citizenry as a whole) is without question highly immoral.  But that is true of governments around the world, who not only permit, but encourage via subsidies, industries that couldn’t exist otherwise because the support of the public, or of the market, simply  isn’t there.  My own government, in Canada, is certainly guilty of this.

So the fact that I still buy Canadian goods and services, obviously, makes my position arguably inconsistent.  After all, I suspect that most of the people who own or work for Japanese businesses don’t actively support what goes on in Taiji.  

On the other hand, what happens there is so egregious, one might argue that it is unconscionable that more people don’t speak up and tell their government representatives that this needs to change, and immediately.

Same goes for the people of Denmark.  How they can accept the horror that takes place on the beaches of the Faroe Islands (in contravention of E.U. regulations) is baffling to activists everywhere.  In fact, the few remaining countries which practice commercial whaling – Japan, Norway, Iceland and Denmark (Faroe, if you count the grindadráp as a legal, commercial hunt) – are among the most peaceful, humane (towards people, anyway), and benevolent societies on Earth.  

So what position do you take with regards to doing business with them?  I can’t tell you that.  You’ll need to decide for yourself.  And be consistent.  Be clear about why you take the position you do, and stick to it.

A further example – Whether or not to cooperate with SeaWorld in the development of whale and dolphin sanctuaries.  

The Whale Sanctuary Project (WSP) is very good and important work being done by subject matter experts from a variety of fields, with the goal of providing a humane alternative for formerly-captive cetaceans who can’t be rehabilitated back into the wild.  SeaWorld, by contrast, is a corporate entity that rightly comes in for withering criticism from advocates for cetacean rights.  But over the years they’ve acquired a great deal of knowledge which is relevant and helpful in the development of sanctuaries.  So, do you involve them, and accept their help?

WSP made the decision to work with SeaWorld, although it (WSP) in no way endorses the continuation of captivity.  So you choose to further this most noble objective by enlisting the help of some of the very people who’ve earned enormous profits over the years by creating the very problem you hope to solve.  So is this a way for SeaWorld to give back after all the damage they’ve caused?  Or is it more akin to using Nazi scientists for your rocket program because they happen to have the skills you desperately need?

What I would say is this.  I personally would have preferred if WSP had chosen not to associate itself with SeaWorld in any way, and I respect the stand that some high profile activists have taken – to no longer associate themselves with the Project, because of this. 

However, I don’t fully know the details of SeaWorld’s motivation in providing this help.  Are they potentially positioning themselves for a complete rebranding in preparation for the not-too-distant future, when whale and dolphin captivity has come to an end?  Or is this all about PR, and simply a means to counteract some of the Blackfish effects that have so hurt their business?  We simply don’t know.

I will continue to endorse the vitally important work of the Project, and will continue to be highly critical of all organizations that hold captives, SeaWorld most definitely included.  And it would be fair comment if you were to say to me that my position is inconsistent.  Basically, I’m still struggling with this one.

I simply have to acknowledge that whether it is appropriate for these two entities to work together is a complex question.  But know that as your understanding grows, your ability to define a more clearly-moral position also increases.  Until then, I encourage all of you to keep the dialogue going, and let’s try to learn what we can about the real facts on the ground.  The 3000 or so beings we’ve deprived of their liberty (currently living) are counting on us.

So, after considering these few examples, try this mental exercise… When whale watching from a boat (as opposed to watching from land), how do you determine how close the boats should be allowed to approach?  Is a 100-meter limit appropriate, or is 200 preferable?  Or do you forget the limits, and propose an outright ban, as some activists do?  There is obvious benefit in having the public see whales in their natural environment, exhibiting actual normal behaviour.  But is any distance too close, too disruptive to the whales? 

How will you decide where to land on this?  And how much anger will you choose to  direct at people who decide otherwise?  

Anna, Canadian Cetacean Alliance