MANY people regard whaling as a barbaric activity that has no place in the modern world. This is hardly surprising, given that the activity involves the slaughter of intelligent mammals by cruel means that include the use of explosive harpoons.

Matters are made worse by the fact that whale products, such as the oil extracted from their carcasses, are no longer the essential resources that they were in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Against the background of the revulsion which commercial whaling elicits, it might appear both strange and reprehensible that Jersey is to host a major international whaling conference later this year. Islanders and the outside world are all too likely to interpret the decision to welcome the conference as an official vote of support for an abhorrent and unacceptable practice.

However, before anyone runs away with that idea, it is important to understand the present-day nature of the International Whaling Commission. When it was set up in 1946, it was intended to be a regulatory body, but its members – representatives of the world’s whaling nations – will have seen whales as legitimate commercial objects. Since the 1970s the balance has shifted dramatically towards conservation, and the commission is now dominated by jurisdictions opposed to commercial whaling. Indeed, in 1986 the commission declared a whaling moratorium, though some members, notably Japan, Norway and Iceland, constitute a small but vociferous pro-whaling faction.

It is unlikely that nuances concerning the current position of the majority of the commission, or the nature of the conference sessions, will discourage anti-whaling protesters from voicing their opinions. There is, in fact, logic in the conference becoming a focus of dissent – which must, of course, be peaceful – because Japanese, Norwegian and Icelandic representatives will be present.

Meanwhile, Economic Development Minister Alan Maclean is adamant that the conference will be good for Jersey. That is certainly likely to be the case as far as money spent in Island businesses is concerned, but unfortunately, there may be more to the matter than this.

For example, balanced media coverage of the event would be one thing, but the images of protest that are likely to accompany press reports and broadcasts could well convey impressions that reflect unfairly not only on the conservationists among the commission delegates, but also on this Island.