Denmark meets with history

Paris, November 2024 in Writing

A bold campaigner has put the Danish authorities in a bind. The situation compels them to take unilateral action, leaving no room for the consensus to which we are so culturally inclined as a nation.

On 21 July, the John Paul DeJoria made a bunkering stop at the Greenland port of Nuuk. Paul Watson, founder of the Sea Shepherd NGO, was on his way with his crew to the Pacific ocean for the start of the Japanese whale hunting season. Watson, an environmental activist, had been on Interpol’s most wanted list since a Japanese arrest warrant was issued against him in 2012. Although a wanted person, Watson was still able to travel unimpeded across several countries, notably France where he lived with his family. His bunkering stop in Greenland put an end to that.

His bunkering stop in Greenland put an end to that.

On that July Sunday – the height of summer in mainland Denmark – the police on the remote Danish outpost of Nuuk watched as Watson sailed in out of nowhere, then proceeded to arrest him.

While a series of laws have granted Greenland increasing autonomy over the years, acting on Japan’s extradition request was not within their purview. That decision should have been left to the Danish Ministry of Justice in Copenhagen.

That decision should have been left to the Danish Ministry of Justice in Copenhagen.

The Danish people trust in the rule of law. On 16 August, Daglabet Information, a Danish newspaper widely seen as progressive, published an editorial on the Paul Watson case. The journalist argued that the anti-whaling activist should bear the full brunt of the law if his arrest and extradition to Japan were warranted. His feeling was that, green activists or not, those who choose not to abide by the law have to face the consequences of their actions. In other words, he took position against the idea that acts of civil disobedience can sometimes override the strict application of extradition law. This idea, I believe, is what is really at stake in this case.

He took position against the idea that acts of civil disobedience can sometimes override the strict application of extradition law. This idea, I believe, is what is really at stake in this case.

Watson was remanded in custody where he will remain until the Danish Ministry of Justice rules on the facts of the case, which go back to 2010. Press reports suggest that the Japanese authorities accuse Watson of wounding a whale hunter aboard a Japanese whaler. Apparently, the Sea Shepherd crew fired stink bombs at the ship to disrupt the hunt, lightly wounding a Japanese crewman and inflicting damage to the whaling vessel. Sea Shepherd deny these allegations and claim to have video evidence that the seaman was in fact hit by friendly fire as the whalers tried to trap the whale.

The Danish government has been drawn into a case with serious political implications: if no procedural loophole can be found, they will have to decide whether to extradite Watson to Japan, or grant him freedom and allow him to resume his activism. The five hearings that have taken place in Greenland since Watson was remanded in custody suggest that this is no easy decision.

The Danish government has been drawn into a case with serious political implications.

On 3 September, François Zimeray, a French solicitor for the accused, published an article in Le Monde claiming that “Japan is the opposite of Denmark: it does not uphold the right to a fair trial, regularly disregards the rights of the defence and the presumption of innocence, and its prisons are not worthy of a modern country”.

The website of his law practice also states that: “In Japan, there is a presumption of guilt and public prosecutors like to boast of their 99.6% conviction rate”. The Danish authorities would therefore be hard pressed to come to a decision based on their confidence that Japan will uphold the rule of law.

The Danish authorities would therefore be hard pressed to come to a decision based on their confidence that Japan will uphold the rule of law.

The historically colonial relationship between the Danish authorities and Greenland adds another layer to the problem. How could we ignore the contradiction between Watson’s fight and Greenland’s long whaling tradition? This practice was once necessary to the survival of Greenlanders, an isolated people facing extreme climate conditions. In their ancient culture, it was a badge of honour to take on the elements and hunt whales and polar bears. While Greenland – unlike Japan – no longer practices commercial whaling today, the local population stills enjoys a “subsistence whaling quota”. In other words, the whaling status of contemporary Greenland is at odds with Sea Shepherd’s “biocentric” priorities.

In other words, the whaling status of contemporary Greenland is at odds with Sea Shepherd’s “biocentric” priorities.

As an intercultural observer of France and Denmark, I am struck by the different resonance this case has had my two countries. It has barely caused a ripple in Denmark: a few public demonstrations did take place outside Christiansborg Palace in Copenhagen, but they were largely organised by French environmental activists. In France, mobilisation has been strong, and “Free Paul Watson” banners hang outside city halls across the country. The city of Paris even made Watson an honorary citizen. However, I also note that France is yet to ban bull-fighting, another tradition that is a blot on humankind.

The different reception of this case in my two countries moved me to write this piece. The sociologist and philosopher Bruno Latour can once again help to clarify the issues. The world has changed so much over the last twenty-odd years. The divide between the right and the left is not always clear anymore, and political parties can no longer offer a sufficient or judicious perspective on the world. As citizens, it is not enough for us to position ourselves on the political map: what is more important is the role we choose to play in today’s green and social transition.

The different reception of this case in my two countries moved me to write this piece.

In a book translated into English in 2018 as Down to earth: Politics in the new Climatic Regime, Latour writes: “There are those who continue to look at things from the vantage point of Sirius and simply do not see that the earth system reacts to human action, or do not believe it possible; they still hope that the Earth will mysteriously be beamed to Sirius and become one planet among others”. In other words, do we really think that technology is the answer? That it will allow us to carry on as before? Or do we want to join forces with those who consider that the systemic crisis that we are facing is a historical moment of reckoning for human civilisation? Are we capable of changing our outlook on the other species with whom we share this earth? Can we live together with the whales without feeling the need to hunt them down?

Can we live together with the whales without feeling the need to hunt them down?

Watson seems to be a problematic character – not everything that is said about him is positive. Some accuse him of being a zealot who will stop at nothing, others claim that he is a political extremist. These allegations bring to mind another prominent green activist, Nicolas Hulot, who lost his place in the hearts of the French following accusations of rape. Or, more recently, the Abbé Pierre, founder of Emmaus, who fell off his pedestal when his history of sexual abuse came to light.

The fact that the behaviour of these men may not have always been beyond reproach should not tarnish the causes of the NGOs they represent: these causes are bigger than any individual and they remain just. I would rather focus on the actions of Sea Shepherd France than on Watson’s personality.

The fact that the behaviour of these men may not have always been beyond reproach should not tarnish the causes of the NGOs they represent: these causes are bigger than any individual and they remain just.

What seems more important to me, is whether I want to side with those who delegitimise all forms of civil disobedience with words like “ecoterrorism”, or with those who understand that cheerful demonstrations alone will not achieve the major social and societal changes needed to save the planet. With life on earth in the balance, will we agree to stand with those who – however flawed they may be – work for whale conservation, or will we choose to support those whose outdated commercial whaling practices flout the moratorium of the 1986 International Whaling Commission? Can we not agree that the law can sometimes fall short? What signal do we wish to send to the citizens of the world?

Acts of civil disobedience, when they are in the public interest, are surely a good thing. And so it is not without trepidation that I await the decision of the Danish Ministry of justice. In the meantime, I know whose side I am on: the whales.