People have asked me, “Why are you so against the Grind Law ” (pilot whale law)? Isn’t it more important to consider the Faroese themselves, instead of focusing so much on tourists and foreigners? Do you have a problem with the Faroese people killing pilot whales or what?” No, I have nothing against the Grind Law as a whole. This is not about being for or against the pilot whale hunt. It is not a question of tourists versus Faroese either. It is solely about §3 in the Grind Law – whether §3 is a sensible and useful provision or not.
Law is law, and it must be followed, of course. But that doesn’t mean we should stop thinking critically and blindly accept everything the Løgting passes. The stringent notification requirement was passed without any real scrutiny. Subsequently, it has become very dubious whether the provision in §3 of the Grind Law is of any use at all. On the contrary, we see that the law amendment has already had very unfortunate consequences. It is reasonable to revise certain provisions that have no beneficial effect.
Firstly, we do not lose a single pilot whale by not having this heightened notification requirement in the Grind Law. It is entirely unnecessary to impose this duty on EVERYONE, as undoubtedly there are enough people willing to notify the authorities that they have seen a pod of pilot whales in order to secure the prize, which is a whole whale. Those who previously did not bother to report seeing pilot whales will not report it now, even though this provision has come into force, because they know well that it cannot be proven they saw a whale.
Secondly, the provision does not hit hard enough where it is intended to hit. If it is Sea Shepherd that one aims to target with this provision, there are other much more effective ways to target Sea Shepherd, as several lawyers have pointed out.
In the third place, §3 has so far done nothing but harm the reputation of the Faroe Islands and created division among the Faroese people. The wording in §3 should therefore be changed as soon as possible when the parliament convenes after the election.
A matter of principle concerning freedom of thought and expression
But this is not just about the lack of utility in §3. It is also a matter of principle. One of the main reasons I believe it is important to change the wording in §3 of the pilot whale law is NOT because I am so concerned about the consequences for tourism – although it certainly also matters, especially economically.
No, what is most important to me is that everyone should have the right to freedom of expression and thought in the Faroe Islands. Freedom of expression and thought are fundamental human rights, enshrined in the constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, which the Faroe Islands have signed. This also includes the freedom not to say anything.
It is one thing to disagree with those who do not wish to communicate when they see a pod of pilot whales because they have a different belief. But is it right or fair to threaten people – foreigners and/or Faroese – with hefty fines and imprisonment just for wanting to stay out?
When we thus force people with severe penalties to act against their personal beliefs and conscience, I would argue that we are not a bit better than Sea Shepherd, who would compel all Faroese to be vegetarians against their will.
Freedom of thought is the foundation of democracy.
It is said that the French philosopher and writer Voltaire, who lived in the 18th century, once said: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
This fundamental belief in freedom of speech, which gradually gained traction in Europe, has helped lay the groundwork for the democratic systems we benefit from today. This notion of freedom has been a significant factor in the progress the West has experienced over the past 200 years. Having the rights to freedom of thought and expression is therefore crucial for those who wish to uphold democracy and the personal freedoms it guarantees.
Hopefully, we live in a democracy – not a dictatorship – so we certainly have no right to force everyone residing, or incidentally present, in the Faroe Islands to hold a specific belief. Yet Jacob Vestergaard and other politicians are behaving as if we live in a dictatorship by imposing stricter notification requirements, obligating everyone in the Faroe Islands – both residents and visitors – a duty that goes against the beliefs of some – including some Faroese individuals. What purpose does this ultimately serve?
Consideration of the individual or the collective
One of my Facebook friends posed this very relevant question, which I believe encapsulates well what the debate about the heightened disclosure obligation in the Grind Law is about: What is more important, my personal right to a specific belief or my personal responsibility towards the collective (i.e., my solidarity with the Faroese community)? To this, another of my sensible Facebook friends noted: If my conviction is that I do not want to harm people’s health and follow the national doctor’s recommendations regarding pilot whales, am I not then responsible towards the collective?
This shows, among other things, that we can understand solidarity in many different ways. Reality is complex, so why make the question of what considerations we should take into an either-or question? Is it really about EITHER considering the individual OR the collective? No, it is certainly not so black and white. We can easily protect both the individual and the collective. This is what laws are made for. However, a law must not violate fundamental human rights. My right and your right to remain silent are constitutionally protected and therefore weigh heavier than any thoughtless provision in a recently enacted law.
The right to remain silent can only be overridden if there is a real danger to life and health by me saying nothing. But there is no direct danger to anyone here. There will be no famine in the Faroe Islands, even if certain individuals do not disclose that they have seen a whale. As mentioned, there are plenty of people who are more than willing to disclose that they have seen a pod of pilot whales. Therefore, the duty to disclose can indeed be voluntary. There is no reason to force anyone to disclose what they have seen if they do not wish to. Imposing coercion on people will only increase resistance – even among the Faroese – towards pilot whale hunting. So if one wants to foster growing resistance, one simply needs to cling to §3.
No convincing arguments for §3
I have yet to see or hear any sensible argument in favour of §3 that cannot be improved with a different wording. I’ve only witnessed criticism towards those who have opposed this paragraph. For instance, Jacob Vestergaard wrote on his Facebook profile that those against §3 are “ignorant” individuals who “just want attention”. This, to me, seems like a very condescending way to avoid engaging with the arguments against §3. Jacob Vestergaard apparently lacks convincing arguments himself and therefore sees no other option but to belittle his opponents, simply because he stubbornly refuses to admit that §3 is a mistake.
Stubbornness may be reasonable in certain cases, but not in all. In this case, it’s definitely not reasonable. We’re just tripping ourselves up, because Sea Shepherd loves §3. It’s an excellent weapon we’ve handed to them. It’s unfortunate, when we could have stopped Sea Shepherd in much more elegant and effective ways. But Vestergaard and others like him choose to, like stubborn ostriches, bury their heads in the sand.
By stubbornly holding on to §3 with its current wording, we have only loaded Sea Shepherd’s cannons even more. Watson LOVES it when Faroese people panic and misstep. Such unreasonable legal provisions only pour more fuel on the fire, leading even serious international media to now jump on Watson’s bandwagon, which they didn’t do before, because we can never get ordinary people to understand the fairness in this. This is a gift to Sea Shepherd’s hate campaign against the Faroese. We have handed them an excellent opportunity on a silver platter to further damage our reputation in international media.
This time the difference is simply that we cannot refute the criticism against us for violating human rights – not as effectively as we can refute so much other criticism that is based on lies and misunderstandings – because we indeed violate human rights with §3.
Should not let ourselves be used as “useful idiots”
Paul Watson’s tactic of creating as much uproar as possible, so Sea Shepherd gains greater international media coverage, seems to be working well. His strategy is to provoke the Faroese and agitate them so much that they react thoughtlessly, for example, in a panic over all the commotion, to create laws that violate what is considered fundamental human rights in the Western world.
In this way, Watson has succeeded in scaring and agitating people so much that they have unconsciously allowed themselves to be used as his “useful idiots” to hastily pass a law that – instead of specifically targeting Sea Shepherd – affects everyone – Faroese as well as foreigners in the country – with the result that now some of the world’s largest and most serious media, which have always ignored whaling, have shed light on the Faroe Islands – not just for whaling per se, as there is nothing new in that, but directly because we violate human rights.
This negative media coverage immediately had other consequences. People in the tourism industry reported that travel agencies dropped the Faroe Islands as a destination, and several cruise ships cancelled their trips to the Faroe Islands because they want to protect their tourists from getting involved in whaling and possibly being punished for not reporting when they see a pod of pilot whales.
This has thus become an international media sensation, which of course is a gift to Watson, who has now gained more attention than ever before, where he is seen as the hero and the Faroese as primitive idiots. We can then sit here feeling offended and self-righteous, muttering to ourselves, “I don’t care, whatever!” without anyone bothering to listen, because we have lost the credibility we were otherwise well on the way to building. But the politicians have now thwarted that with §3.
The Faroese – or rather our politicians – are so blind that they do not see they have fallen right into the trap, and Watson can laugh all the way to the bank, as donations pour in for Sea Shepherd – even from people who were previously indifferent, but now believe that the Faroese have crossed all reasonable boundaries, and so support Watson, allowing him to cause more unrest and agitate us even more.
Who needs to cool off the most?
Some think I am exaggerating and have asked me to cool off. But I believe that those who need to cool off the most are Jacob Vestergaard and others who are so fixated on getting revenge on Sea Shepherd that they have lost their heads and are acting blindly. The reality is that we are not targeting Sea Shepherd with this paragraph – we are actually helping them! With the harsh penalties for breaking the notification obligation, the politicians – along with the war-hungry Watson – have taken the entire Faroese people hostage for no good reason, without any sensible grounds for doing so.
So, dear politicians, change §3 as quickly as possible. This is NOT about fundamentally changing the Grind Law. It would easily be possible to change the wording in §3 to something like this: “It is not allowed to start driving a pod of pilot whales or in any way disturb the pod, before this has been notified in the right place in advance”, as suggested by the lawyer Turið Debes Hentze. Then there would be no problems. It would also be possible to impose a reasonably harsh penalty for breaking this rule.
One could also look into how to prevent people who have clearly stated that they will do something illegal – namely prevent grindadráp – from getting anywhere near the grindadráp. They should probably have been turned away at the airport or the port, so they are not allowed to enter the country to cause “trouble”.
We do not bow to pressure by changing §3 – quite the opposite
Some argued that if we change §3, we would be yielding to external pressure. Should we submit to the whims of some random hysterical foreigners? Shouldn’t we instead hold onto who we are?
Of course, we should not pretend to be something we are not. But in my view, §3 is precisely an example of us adjusting to external pressure – unfortunately in the entirely wrong direction – to something that has been completely foreign to us Faroe Islanders: namely, by law limiting people’s freedom and preventing them – even Faroe Islanders themselves – from being themselves, doing, and thinking what they want. This paragraph is undemocratic – indeed, outright dictatorial – and ill-suits our otherwise freedom-loving culture.
By accepting such a paragraph that suppresses the freedom of all of us, and not just Sea Shepherd, we are precisely caving in to the pressure from Sea Shepherd, because if it wasn’t for this organisation, we would have never formulated such a freedom-inhibiting paragraph. Why should we change our laws in this manner, limiting our own freedom just because of Sea Shepherd? If we want to target Sea Shepherd, why not create a law that directly affects Sea Shepherd and not all sorts of other innocent people as well?
Signal that we do not tolerate other opinions
The only thing §3 does – simply by being there on paper – is to send a strong signal out into the world that Faroese people have a dictatorial mindset, where we do not allow freedom of thought. In doing so, we undermine our own reputation as a free country and needlessly bring upon ourselves a complete lack of trust that we do not tolerate other opinions than our own. The provision in §3 clearly violates human rights, so it does not benefit us to try to explain that we do not intend to punish tourists for what is stated in the law. We cannot explain ourselves out of this as long as §3 is formulated as it is.
If we stubbornly cling to the new, much stricter provisions in §3 of the law, which could potentially harm the innocent and which EVERYONE else (except for a few stubborn individuals in the Faroe Islands) naturally sees as a completely unreasonable and directly foolish violation of human rights, then we lose the hard-earned credibility we have built up over the years by always sticking to facts and rational information and argumentation.
We can much more easily stand firm and convince others of our right to exploit our marine resources if we keep a cool head and always have facts and well-argued viewpoints to refer to when the world’s media focus on the pilot whale hunts. That way, we play our cards right. But now, international media and ordinary people all over the world find it very hard to believe in us when we show such an undemocratic and dictatorial attitude, as we have by adopting this wording in §3. Thereby, we undermine our own well-founded and sympathetic arguments, which until now have been believed and ‘bought’ by the majority of the world when they have had the opportunity to hear the arguments.
The provisions in §3 can never be ‘sold’ as a good and valid argument anywhere else than among a few stubborn individuals in the Faroe Islands. This is a mistake made in the heat of the moment. Neither more nor less. No, dear members of the Løgting, rather create a law that more precisely and effectively prevents the members of the Sea Shepherd organization from coming to the Faroe Islands and breaking our laws, instead of holding onto this own goal.
