Animals, Criminal law, Environment

Icelandic Fishermen Under Fire After Posting Cruel Video of Mutilated Shark

Two crew members of an Icelandic fishing vessel have caused a global outrage after they filmed themselves hacking off the tail of a shark and then laughing as they threw it into the river. The disturbing video captures the utter cruelty of the men as they enjoy the scene of a suffering creature trying to swim without a tail.

 The Icelandic National Broadcasting Service (RUV) posted the video showing one man taunting “Good luck trying to swim, you punk.” They then film each other laughing at the suffering.

The men were later fired, according to the owners of the vessel, the Bíldsey SH 65.

This is one of those moments where one feels like you are watching a different species of person devoid of even a hint of humanity. The men are not simply unmoved by the obvious pain to an animal but they are thrilled by watching its suffering.

However, believe it or not, it is not clearly illegal to engage in such wanton cruelty in Iceland.

The videotape is available here.

37 thoughts on “Icelandic Fishermen Under Fire After Posting Cruel Video of Mutilated Shark”

  5. We are just Social Great Apes with delusions of Godhood.
    Progress past that is an ongoing challenge, keeping Our beast under control is our biggest challenge. Past the rouge individual, Tribalism is the root of all evil, money is just a tool of it.
    b.

    1. tribalism is the root of all evil? preposterous
      Tribalism is an extension of the family
      money is a tool. just a tool. like any other can be used for good or bad.
      families bring forth the new generation and use tools to survive
      no money, no family, no new generation
      then we fail to reproduce and the sharks, apes, toads, cockroaches and rats can have back the Earth and it will be an end to global warming.

      See how the Left thinks?

      1. “See how the Left thinks?” -Kurtz

        Ah, yes. The monolithic “Left”.

        1. I don’t really mean the Left in any sense other than common usage, which is, the gaggle of people on the internet whining about all sorts of normal human stuff day in and day out

          global warming for example. is it fair to call this a Left issue?

          I am convinced there is global warming.

          I am aware it can be advanced by greenhouse cases

          I am also aware it can be caused by sunspot activity which occurs in long cycles.

          Whatever the cause, only fools are happy to sit around whining about whatever the cause is and whether it is “anthropogenic” all the time.

          If it’s real and coming harder and faster, then devote the main effort to mitigation, and don’t put all your eggs in the futile basket of education and prevention

          because guess what? If it’s caused by sunspots? then there’s no preventing it– but we will stil have to deal with coastal flooding and tundra thaw and all that comes with it regardless of whether or not Republicans adhere to “Leftist” dogma

          This is why I find the usage of the word “left” useful, because it is a commonly recognized phenomena, of a bunch of crazy westerners who would often cut off their nose to spite their face

          the same group of nutters who applauds “diversity” for every human “population” except those with ancestral roots in Europe! that’s a clear “leftist” policy that speaks volumes for the foolishness of the “left” such as we all very well know it to be. including a lot of “leftists” who are just too afraid of the antifa and their rabid fellow travellers to take exception to anything which has currency at the moment

          it’s refreshing however that some “leftists” out there will party company on some crazy things. and yet then you see how the other segments of “the left” brutalize them for it!

          I won’t bother to put up more links that people will ignore, but it’s a very real thing, “The Left”

      2. I was once under the impression that Kurtz was somewhat intelligent.

        1. hey, glad you got that straightened out!

          i will try and offend everyone in this thread, just for good measure

    1. An even more insidious cruelty in Iceland is the fact that an estimated 98% of Down Syndrome fetuses are aborted every year….n Iceland. They don’t want those “retards” cluttering up the culture. The goal is to be “retard free” I guess?.

      2. Fact Check: No, Iceland is NOT systematically eradicating Down syndrome

        BY STAFF | AUG 17 2017

        Excerpt:

        https://icelandmag.is/article/fact-check-no-iceland-not-systematically-eradicating-down-syndrome

        Hulda Hjartardóttir, chief physician at the maternity ward of the National University Hospital told the local newspaper Morgunblaðið that it is plain wrong to claim, as CBS News does, that “close to 100%” of women who are told that the fetus has an increased likelihood of having Down syndrome.

        Women receive information and advice, are nut subjected to pressure

        Hulda explained to the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service that roughly 85% of women choose to have the optional pre-natal screening, while 15-20% choose not to have the screening. The screening reveals whether there is an increased likelihood of the fetus having Down syndrome. If the screening finds that there is an increased likelihood of the fetus having Down syndrome 15-20% of women or prospective parents choose not to undergo any further tests, and simply choose to carry the pregnancy to term.

        The other two thirds undergo further tests and follow up discussions with doctors and nurses where the findings of the tests are explained. If the tests conclude that the child will be born with down syndrome women are told they have two options: to end the pregnancy or carry it to term.

        Misleading presentation

        Hulda told the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service that the presentation of CBS News was “misleading”:

        “Yes they are a bit misleading. It is possible to use statistics to say different things, and I think this news program did that. It distorted the reality.”

        Hulda told Morgunblaðið that women and parents are then offered the opportunity to meet with doctors and nurses who work with people with Down syndrome. They are also offered the opportunity to meet parents who have children with Down syndrome. No effort is made to pressure the women to make a certain decision, she explains.

        Woman make the decision themselves

        In fact, Hulda stresses that every effort is made to ensure that the decision comes from the woman herself. She told Morgunblaðið that her experience is that no woman takes this decision lightly:

        “It is very difficult to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, whether or not it is for social or some other reasons. If we really support women’s right to choose it is extremely difficult to say that one thing is ok, but not another. But this is an extremely difficult decision which no woman makes lightly.”

        ______

        Anyone who is interested in the facts– as opposed to the spin — might want to read the entire article.

        https://www.globaldownsyndrome.org/prenatal-testing-pamphlet/

            1. Ok, sorry. Just pretend I’m not here…….Oh, the % of Down Syndrome fetuses aborted in U.S. is 80%.
              I know you are so proud to be a part of the people who endorse that practice.
              And I hope you enjoy the Special Olympics! (Obama mocked them on the Jay Leno show, March 2009)
              .

              1. Soapbox Sindy strikes again!

                “I know you are so proud to be a part of the people who endorse that practice.” -Soapbox Sindy

                You don’t “know”…

      3. Or maybe “they” dont want to change diapers on a 15 year old.

      4. I realize that as a Catholic my gut is telling me something sinful on the topic.

        But my gut is telling me that early term aborting of downs syndrome & anencephaly, is not a big problem, even if it’s being done.

        In Sparta they would toss a baby in the ravine for a lot less than that.

        I am not fast to denounce eugenics. I often wonder, should we wish for dysgenics?

        Let’s promote fetal health so that we don’t have to make these tough calls. specifically, i have heard that a lack of folic acid can lead to serious neural tube defects

        https://www.healthlinkbc.ca/healthlinkbc-files/folate-neural-tube-defects

        1. my gut actually tells me a lot of sinful stuff.

          but sometimes you go with your gut, anyways

      5. A far greater cruelty would be forcing fetuses that one knows are going to be mentally defective to be born to be a drain on their parents, and on society. Downs syndrome people are just smart enough to know that they are stupid and to suffer shame and guilt at their inferiority.

        Not all Hitler’s ideas were bad that of euthanasing defective children is one I support. What a pity all his idea became off limits because he discredited himself by killing 6 million fully functional humans. I support abortion or post birth euthanasia for all defective humans and also if this is not allowed a steep tax on right to lifer fetus fetishists to pay the life long costs of those inferior humans whose births they force.

  7. When will people understand that feelings of outrage over the suffering and abuse of humans and animals are not mutually exclusive? If humans cannot condemn abuse of animals and do all they can to stop it, do not think for one minute that the attitude will be different toward people. Jonathan Turley is absolutely correct in exposing this horror and should be praised for his article and certainly not criticized.

    1. yes because Love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind and your Animal as themselves well are the Golden Rule for life in the 21st Century

      Don’t let sense of priorities get in your way

      No wonder our culture is such rot

      1. Because people have compassion? Leave the non-existent creator entity out of it…

        1. Oh, He’s not non-existent, he just sits back and laughs at us, mostly, if He even notices

  8. have caused a global outrage

    Christians are being slaughtered globally at genocide levels.
    Nations in the Western Hemisphere are near collapse with their people starving (Venezuela), lacking basic medical resources, and dictators thrive unabated.
    Sudan is in near anarchy and Europe is so fragmented it ceases to add any worthwhile contributions to the world.

    Yet here we have Turley writing about global outrage about two men towards a shark while Governors Ralph Northam and Andrew Cuomo support the hacking off of a baby’s head after being delivered because it is the mother’s choice

    1. Slow down before you have a stroke. Compassion starts with the little things. Turley is right in writing about about this cruelty.

    2. “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

      ― Mahatma Gandhi

    3. “Christians are being slaughtered globally at genocide levels.” Utter used horse food. And unfathomably stupid. Unless there’s something to be gained from outright lies.

      1. I don’t know if it’s a lie or not. maybe not

        https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24864587

        maybe they slaughter a lot of them in Africa. apparently they do. this story from 2013
        ——— excerpt:

        “Credible research has reached the shocking conclusion that every year an estimate of more than 100,000 Christians are killed because of some relation to their faith,” Vatican spokesman Archbishop Silvano Maria Tomasi announced in a radio address to the United Nations Human Rights Council in May.

        On the internet, the statistic has taken on a life of its own, popping up all over the place, sometimes with an additional detail – that these 100,000 lives are taken by Muslims.

        More or Less: Behind the stats
        Listen to More or Less on BBC Radio 4 and the World Service, or download the free podcast

        The number comes originally from the Center for the Study of Global Christianity (CSGC) at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in the US state of Massachusetts, which publishes such a figure each year in its Status of Global Mission (see line 28).

        Its researchers started by estimating the number of Christians who died as martyrs between 2000 and 2010 – about one million by their reckoning – and divided that number by 10 to get an annual number, 100,000.

        But how do they reach that figure of one million?

        When you dig down, you see that the majority died in the civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

        More than four million are estimated to have been killed in that war between 2000 and 2010, and CSGC counts 900,000 of them – or 20% – as martyrs.

        Over 10 years, that averages out at 90,000 per year.

        So when you hear that 100,000 Christians are dying for their faith, you need to keep in mind that the vast majority – 90,000 – are people who were killed in DR Congo.

        This means we can say right away that the internet rumours of Muslims being behind the killing of 100,000 Christian martyrs are nonsense. The DRC is a Christian country. In the civil war, Christians were killing Christians.

        A broad definition
        Christian martyrs are defined as “believers in Christ who have lost their lives prematurely, in situations of witness, as a result of human hostility”…

        The largest martyrdom situation today is in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where atrocious acts of violence began in the late 1990s and have continued to the present…

        Although not all their circumstances would be considered “situations of witness,” we estimate that a substantial proportion of those who have died meet our definition of martyr.

        Todd Johnson: The case for higher numbers of Christian martyrs

        In earlier estimates of martyrs, CSGC included killings that occurred in the Rwandan genocide. Again this is puzzling. It was not a conflict about religion – it was a case of Hutus killing Tutsis, and both sides were Christian.

        “The genocide in Rwanda was based on the systematic killing of an ethnic group in an attempt to completely wipe them out and it had nothing to do with the beliefs or the worship or the people who were killed,” says Ian Linden, author of Church and Revolution in Rwanda, and associate professor in the study of religion at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London.

        “The civil wars in the DRC were the consequences of a failed state, disintegrated military force so that militias had almost full power because of the weapons they had. They were indiscriminately killing and raping and plundering and it’s very difficult to describe any of that killing as creating martyrdom.”

        But Vatican reporter and author of The Global War on Christians, John Allen, outlines an example of how someone caught up in the civil war in DR Congo could be martyred.

        “A female catechist in Congo, who is having success persuading young people in her area not to sign up with the militias, and she is killed by one of those forces because they don’t want to see the sources of recruits dry up. Now is that anti-Christian violence, or isn’t it?” he asks.

        Ian Linden also makes the point that there were Hutus in Rwanda who wouldn’t leave their Tutsi colleagues because of their Christian faith, and who were therefore killed and could be called martyrs.

        Religious harassment (2006-11)
        Number of countries where religious groups were harassed:

        Christians – 145
        Muslims – 129
        Jews – 90
        Others – 75
        Folk religionists – 47
        Hindus – 32
        Buddhists – 23
        Any of the above – 185
        Pew Research Center Religion & Public Life Project, June 2013

        So let’s agree that some people were killed because of their Christian faith in DR Congo. Is it plausible that 20% were?

        Todd Johnson, director of CSGC, told the BBC this figure was drawn from the 1982 edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia, which estimated that on average 20% of African nations were actively practising Christians.

        But surely it’s not the case that all actively practising Christians who are killed in a civil war, are killed because of their faith?………..

Comments are closed.