With the recent ruling in favour of animal activists putting shredded ham in a sheep feedlot and disrupting a billion-dollar trade, we may now face all manner of unacceptable activity in the name of "the environment".
Ralph Hahnheuser broke into a Portland feedlot and fed ham to sheep destined for the live export trade. There's no dispute over whether or not he did it because he filmed the activity and then made it public.
But Federal Court Justice Peter Gray said the delay caused by Mr Hahnheuser's actions did not amount to preventing or substantially hindering trade under the definition of the Trade Practices Act.
Justice Gray found in favour of Mr Hahnheuser because he had committed the act for the "protection of the environment" as sheep are part of the environment.
I wonder if the law sees the thousands of farmers that rely on the live sheep trade as part of the environment as well?
According to Justice Gray, Mr Hahnheuser did not mean to harm the legitimate and lawful live export trade.
Not only were 70,000 sheep set for export delayed by two weeks but another 1800 were reportedly not exported as result. Lawyers for the exporters involved put the cost at close to $500,000.
And Mr Hahnheuser was wearing a T-shirt at the time and for the many weeks after that had "Ban Live Exports" emblazoned across the front.
Many people don't like the live sheep trade, but for the law not to find fault with an act that could have seriously harmed the sheep themselves would seem incongruous.
There are better ways of voicing your disapproval of something than this cowardly and juvenile act.
What other acts of "environmental protectionism" are we likely to see now?
Hopefully industry will not be seriously hurt from these acts of "environmental protectionism" before people in power wake up to the real world and protect the law-abiding citizens that helped put them there.
What do you think?
Email a friend