Environmentalists and Anti-Whalers: 'Pirates', or Protectors? BEIJING - The battle between Japan's "whale researchers" and anti-whaling groups has long been a furious one, often fought, precariously, between vessels heaving in icy seas. But who here is the protector, who the pirate? This week a federal judge in the United States ruled that Sea Shepherd, the anti-whaling group, was a "pirate," in a suit brought by the whale researchers, the Institute of Cetacean Research in Japan. The institute, set up in 1987, a year after an international moratorium on whaling took effect to protect fast-dwindling species, says it is a "whale research program" but environmentalists say it is involved in commercial whaling and its Web site says it engages in "whaling." "You don't need a peg leg or an eye patch" to be a pirate, ruled Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit, in an opinion dated Feb. 25 in Seattle. The 9th Circuit is an appeals court that is one level below the Supreme Court, the highest court in the nation. "When you ram ships; hurl glass containers of acid; drag metal-reinforced ropes in the water to damage propellers and rudders; launch smoke bombs and flares with hooks; and point high-powered lasers at other ships, you are, without a doubt, a pirate, no matter how high-minded you believe your purpose to be," the judge ruled, finding in favor of the Institute, which he described as "Japanese researchers who hunt whales in the Southern Ocean." The judge defined a pirate as someone involved in acts of violence on the high seas and, importantly, driven by "private" ends. Here's how the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea defines piracy, as cited by the judge: "illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship . . . and directed . . . on the high seas, against another ship . . . or against persons or property on board such ship." The argument is of course more complicated than that (legal judgments usually are) but it does seem to raise the following important question: can environmentalists, who are working to protect their surroundings, be considered to be motivated merely by "private" ends? Or is it a larger, "public" ends that drive them? The judge said in his ruling the issue had not been much studied. "Belgian courts, perhaps the only ones to have previously considered the issue, have held that environmental activism qualifies as a private end," he wrote. Unsurprisingly, the verdict is roiling environmentalists, with Sea Shepherd's founder, Paul Watson, saying: "They are entitled to their opinion, but the Australian Federal Court deemed the Japanese (whalers) to be pirates." Can environmentalists fighting to protect our natural surroundings be considered pirates driven by private ends? Are Sea Shepherd's tactics too extreme? As our environment degrades, might one day the degraders be the ones who find themselves branded "pirates" drive by "private ends"?