Ocean activist Paul Watson, a 73-year-old environmental icon, faces up to 15 years in prison in Japan if Denmark approves his extradition. The decision, expected on Wednesday, September 4, has sparked an international debate and mobilized supporters who argue that the possible indictment against Watson is politically motivated, aimed at silencing one of the most prominent voices against whaling.
Arrest and charges
Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, co-founder of Greenpeace and star of the reality TV show Whale Warswas arrested in Nuuk, Greenland, on July 21, 2024. He was arrested on the basis of an international arrest warrant issued in 2012 by Japan, which accuses him of damaging a Japanese whaling ship during one of its anti-whaling campaigns. whales in Antarctica in 2010. Japan also alleges that Watson and his team injured a crew member with a “stink bomb” intended to disrupt the whaling operation. However, Watson has denied these allegations and his team presented video evidence to prove that no one was on deck at the time of the incident.
The charges against Watson include complicity in assault and invasion of a ship, with penalties in Japan ranging from fines (up to 3,000 euros) to a maximum of 15 years in prison. Watson’s arrest came as he was en route to intercept Japan’s new whaling factory ship, the Kangei MaruIn the North Pacific, a ship that activists fear signals Japan’s intention to resume large-scale whaling operations far from its shores.
Watson’s legal team claims the charges are part of a broader vendetta by Japan, which aims to punish the activist for his decades of efforts to stop whaling. They argue that the extradition is politically motivated and intended to make an example of Watson in order to discourage future acts of activism. International concern over his possible extradition is palpable, with support from various governments and figures, as well as a campaign that has successfully collected more than 100,000 signatures in support of his release.
Ethical Implications: “Whaling, whether for commercial or supposedly scientific purposes, is cruel and immoral”
The case also reignited ethical debates about whaling. Whales are highly intelligent and social beings with complex behaviors. They live in family groups with close relationships, display emotional depth, and sophisticated methods of communication. Many species are endangered, and their survival is essential to maintaining healthy ecosystems, not just marine ones. In a letter of support for Watson, zoologist Jane Goodall noted: “Whales (and other cetaceans) are long-lived, sentient beings. They have complex social bonds and are extremely intelligent. Whaling, whether for commercial or supposedly scientific purposes, is cruel and immoral. “Each whale counts as an individual and should be respected accordingly.” Watson’s supporters argue that prosecuting someone for defending these sentient beings highlights the profound moral dilemma at the heart of the whaling debate.
International Whaling Law
The issue of whaling remains one of the most contentious in international conservation debates, with a patchwork of laws and practices in the current landscape. The International Whaling Commission (IWC), established under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, imposed a global moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986 in an attempt to address the rapid decline in whale populations and promote their recovery.
One of the main exceptions to this ban is subsistence whaling among indigenous communities in places like Alaska and Greenland, who are allowed to hunt whales for traditional and nutritional purposes, provided they adhere to certain quotas and regulations designed to try to ensure sustainability and minimal impact on whale populations.
However, in recent years, the issue of whaling has been marked by controversy. Japan, which was a leading proponent of “scientific” whaling, officially withdrew from the IWC in 2019. The country subsequently resumed commercial whaling, arguing that its activities are conducted for scientific purposes and within its exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Iceland, despite global pressure, continues to hunt whales under its own regulations. Similarly, Norway has completely disassociated itself from the IWC moratorium, setting its own quotas and continuing whaling in its waters.
Despite these current practices, many countries and organizations are actively working to protect whale populations and their habitats through various treaties and conservation programs.
Denmark’s challenge: a controversial decision
Denmark now finds itself at the centre of a heated international conflict. The decision to extradite Watson has implications not only for the fate of the activist himself, but also for Denmark’s relations with Japan and its standing in the international community. The case has already caused tensions in Denmark, particularly with the Faroe Islands, where whaling continues.
The Danish Justice Ministry is under intense pressure from both sides. On the one hand, Watson’s extradition could damage Denmark’s image among its European allies, environmental activists and animal rights advocates. On the other hand, refusing to extradite him could strain relations with Japan, an important international partner.
Global reaction and protest
On Tuesday, September 3, a rally of activists was called in front of the Ministry of Justice in Copenhagen and then began a march to the Japanese embassy, demanding Watson’s release. People from around the world are expected to gather in front of the Danish and Japanese embassies in the coming days.
As the international community awaits a decision on Watson’s extradition, he remains determined. From his prison cell overlooking the sea, he says he can see whales and icebergs passing by: “It’s almost like being on the deck of my ship,” he said, joking that it was “the best prison I’ve ever been in.” In an interview with the AFP news agency, Watson said: “If you think this is going to hamper our opposition, I’ve just changed ships. My ship is now Nuuk prison.”
Paul Watson’s fate is currently uncertain, but one thing is certain: the decision by the Danish court will have far-reaching consequences, not only for the activist, but also for the fight against whaling and the protection of the oceans in general.
