When Graham says "the Australian Government supports Greenpeace via our taxes", that's a lie.

His defence on this point, saying "a tax deduction is support", is a joke. Perhaps the government supports me by NOT taxing my home!

Defending a lie is hideous in an article supposedly defending truth. A tax deduction is not "our taxes". Taxes are amounts demanded by government. Present an example and correct your minor but glaring error!

The main complaint seems to be that "media organisations have got the story so wrong". The ABC is cited as an example.

The linked ABC story was of the format: "Greenpeace has accused ..."; followed by "However, a statement from the Japan's Institute of Cetacean Research says ..."

What was the ABC meant to say? These are the claims of the two parties who witnessed the event. No other witnesses. The ABC video is even more neutral, saying one ship collided with the other.

On the other hand Jennifer Marohasy says "Photographs emailed to me ... appear to show the bow of the Arctic Sunrise approaching and then colliding with the starboard side of the Nisshin-Maru." (http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001097.html)

This is also a lie.

The photographs on the page show neither an approach nor a collision. They show two boats near each other. Judging from the lack of wake, the Artic Sunrise appears not to be moving, although it may be moving slowly.

Obviously this is a dangerous game for all concerned. Harassing whaling ships is contrary to the spirit of safe boating. This is something to debate: whether it’s worth the risk.

But for this particular incident, the Japanese ship appears to be the give-way vessel. It's on the port (left) side of the stand-on vessel. And the Greenpeace captain has recited the rules about "maintaining course and speed" correctly. (see http://www.bmarine.com/safe-nav.htm). Even the www.icrwhale.org video shows the Artic Sunrise acting according to the collision prevention rulebook. Note to all: boating rules are very different to motoring rules. No more silly posts please.

Sorry Graham, but your article has lost its bearings.

David, I'm not going to waste time on your diversionary tactics. Allowing an organisation tax-deductible status is quite clearly government support. There is wake on the photos on Jennifer's site indicating that the Sunrise was moving. Jennifer uses the word "appears" to indicate that it might be otherwise than a collision. The videos from all sides subsequently indicate she was too conservative. The ABC gave Greenpeace priority in the coverage that I cited and relegated the Japanese to a few pars at the bottom. As the Japanese were the truthful party, they shouldn't have been the ones put in the position of responding.The link you refer to doesn't support the captain of the Sunrise. It says that even if he has right of way he should take steps to avoid a collision.

I'd like you to withdraw your accusation that I have "lied".

As the story of Greenpeace and the Japanese whale fleet gathers momentum the importance of truth in media reporting becomes clear. Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd organizations may well have started with noble ideas. Save the whales is a catchy expression and nobody intends animals to suffer unnecessarily.

I have never heard anywhere a dissenting opinion from the proper treatment of animals either in an abattoir or in research. Every effort is made by civilised people to minimise suffering and maintain high ethical standards.

However, on the high seas a picture is emerging of progression into premeditated violence. From following the fleet and other nuisance actions the protestors are now showing a flagrant disregard for the law of the seas. Protest action designed to endanger life, and to damage property is not peaceful protesting. The violent behaviour that we are now seeing on our TV screens is criminal.

The French revolution of 1789 started with high ideals and rapidly deteriorated into terror. In precisely the same way Greenpeace is deteriorating into maritime thuggery.

I do not know how the media will react to the latest displays and threats from these organizations. For myself I have come to regard the whaling fleet according the adage: my enemy’s enemy is my friend.

Graham,
is your solicitation of money an attempt at humour or is it an implication of no cash, no comment ?

David, on the point of tax deduction, I must agree with Graham. If the government allows the suspension of x amount of tax then that must indeed be support. This means you get to keep the money at the bequest of the tax authorities. Charities work on the same principle and are supported by the taxation arm of the government in the same way.

Since there is obviously some confusion about charities and tax concession, let's look to what the government itself believes:

"Charities ... often provide essential services to the community such as looking after those in need. By assuming roles that have been Government responsibility, charities provide financial relief to governments. By providing various tax exemptions for charities as a form of subsidy, the Government has acknowledged this particular function charities assume." Footnote: "This so called 'subsidy theory' is not the only justification for the charities' eligibility for tax exemptions."
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/2003-04/04bd164.htm

A charitable organisation obtains its status from the common law, not from statutory law or, as implied by Graham's description, government decision-making. This is also outlined in the above paper.

Graham goes further than this if we look at the words "our taxes", which I still cannot connect with a concession.

The idea that the government supports charities through the tax concession is wrong and, the more I think about it, indirectly offensive.

Sadly, I feel compelled to maintain my position.

Taxpayers! If you want to contribute to a charity you must directly contribute to the charity.