The arctic-based Nunatsiaq News, published in Iqaluit, Nunavut, pointed out that, according to another survey, 57 percent of Europeans believe that the WTO decision could have a negative impact on trade of other animal or natural products. They seem to assume that means support for the east coast commercial seal hunt. And yet, I would agree with that opinion, and I oppose the commercial east coast hunt. I think morality is important, and if it leads to limiting trade of animal products derived from any other cruel practices, I see that as a positive development. I think most Europeans would, as well.
The Telegram, published in St. John's, Newfoundland, quoted the National Post's John Ivison as ironically saying that facts don't matter to those of us opposed to the east coast commercial hunt. "They have been replaced by popular delusion and the madness of crowds."
I'm the last one to suggest that any trade policy will either satisfy all parties or display a consistency of intent, and it was pointed out in the WTO's decision that the EU erred by allowing trade from the Inuit hunt in Greenland even though it is as "commercial" as the east coast one. The whole idea of exempting "native," "aboriginal," or "first nations" from restrictions that apply to "hunting" by folks of a paler hue of skin, or whose ancestors arrived on the scene a shorter time ago (say hundreds, as opposed to thousands, of years), seems inherently biased to me-like caring if someone's ancestors arrived on the Mayflower, or by way of Ellis Island in the 1940s.