Justice in renegade Makah whale hunt trial
I wouldn't call myself a huge animal rights activist, but one can't help but smile after reading yesterday afternoon's late-breaking news:Two Makah tribal members who led an unsanctioned gray whale hunt last September have been convicted of federal misdemeanor charges.This is a case I've been watching with a passive interest since it emerged last September, curious as to whether federal officials would be stupid enough to buy into the hunters' claim that such a hunt is within their rights.
U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Kelley Arnold today found Wayne Johnson and Andy Noel guilty after the pair waived their right to a jury trial and admitted their roles.
The two were convicted of conspiracy to violate the Marine Mammal Protection Act and unlawfully taking a marine mammal.
Let's break it down more clearly: the treaty that the Makah say allows them to slaughter whales is one from 1855. That's more than 150 years ago. As if any relic of a political document authored so long ago still deserves to hold any bearing without considerate adjustment for modern times (even the Constitution has seen various amendments as society has become more civilized). There are plenty of acts that were acceptable in the 19th century but that society has matured beyond by the time of the 21st. Tribal whaling is among them.
Of course, don't tell that to these two fellows, whose defense - namely, that their whale hunt is a religious activity protected by the First Amendment - was shot down by the judge last week. From the P-I:
"There is no reason to go through a jury trial when we won't be allowed to present our defense," said Noel's attorney, Jack Fiander.You can forget about the obvious discrepancies that arise from these individuals relying on the Constitution - a document that only exists because Europeans came and settled this country so many years ago - to help prove why they're outside of the American legal system.
[...]
Fiander had been prepared to take the case to a trial in which he would have argued that the government's glacial pace in permitting a whale hunt violates their religious liberty until Arnold ruled he could not present First Amendment defense.
Not allowing the men to whale since 1999 is "like someone telling you that you can't go to church for 10 years," Fiander said recently.
What is of real note here is the attorney's ridiculous allusion to a civil rights violation: he compares an unnecessary, unsanctioned act of violence to the peaceful churchgoing of everyday folk. He fails to note that in weekly church services, there's no killing of animals whose worldwide population is less than 25,000. (I don't know what church Fiander has been going to, but it seems like most congregational experiences don't involve anything more than a little bit of reading, a little bit of singing and a whole lot of guilt...and rarely killing of any kind).
It isn't so much that we oppose hunting; people have established themselves on top of the animal kingdom for a reason, and should reap the benefits of such an accomplishment. But if whaling is illegal for certain people, it should be illegal for everyone. Giving special privileges to folks who nowadays aren't much different than the rest of the local community is unacceptable.
And lets not forget the icing on the cake. Even if the Makah DO have rights under a 150 year old treaty...this hunt was still illegal:
[Fiander] said the case could be a good vehicle for challenging previous federal appeals court rulings that said the Makah have treaty rights to hunt whales, but must obtain a waiver under the Marine Mammal Protection Act before exercising that right.But they still didn't have the waiver? They may have been working for one...but evidently not hard enough. No waiver, no whale. Case closed. Sorry dudes.
The tribe has been working for several years to obtain such a waiver.
