Exactly! Some people seem to think they can trespass with impunity, or create a public nuisance to support a minority view.
Whatever happened to legitimate and massive street protest?
Arguably, for the Eco-fascists/ideological warriors, they simply don't have the numbers, any more than a nutter like a tree hugging vegan, Mr Hitler did or a law breaking Assange does now? With the few dozen protesters proving, you can fool some of the people all of the time!
And they are clearly not assisted by a closed, locked and bolted mindset, that simply refuses to countenance any other or vastly more credible alternative view.
We have an expression, do the crime do the time, and it's high time some of these high handed extremists and law breakers, did theirs!?
In any event, there are more effective ways to shut down oil rigs in the Arctic, and that is by finding and promoting much cheaper energy options!
Some of these Eco-fascist organizations, are collecting enough money to start up several dozen proof of concept pilot plants and or, plantations!?
Don't try to stop stuff, it's not working, people still need to live! Instead, try starting something!
Rhrosty.

"If lies are told by an NGOs then that should be the basis of prosecution, or legal action by the producer"

Luciferase, that's precisely the point. My understanding is that as the law currently stands, the NGOs are immune from any such prosecution or legal action.

Mark, I'm OK with eNGO's being prosecuted as long as the media is held to the same standard, but that's called an attack on the freedom of the press (to lie) isn't it? Otherwise it's all too ideologically unbalanced.

If someone is out telling lies about me as a citizen, my recourse is to sue. I don't believe anybody or any body is immune from being sued for slander. It has to be proven that lies were told publicly.

Luciferase, I'm not so sure about that. Though it's a slightly different issue from secondary boycotts; I believe there is legislation or at least a legal principle that says a company/corporation cannot be libelled or slandered as an individual can, so the former don't have that recourse open to them. And I don't think there's anything in criminal law that says you can't tell lies per se (perjury the obvious exception).

But I'm no lawyer.

Hi Mark, thank you very much for another well written and thoroughly researched article.
It amazes me, but they still don't get it. Some of the commentators might need to read your article aloud several times, but with some of them, even that might not work.
I am happy to report to you that some of the activists in the ENGO's in Tasmania are having trouble adjusting to the new reality, and still don't seem to have grasped the fact that not only did Labor lose the federal election, but the Greens lost the balance of power in the Senate! Contemplate what it will mean to them if Labor loses the state election in Tasmania next March, then some things really might change!
I note in an article on the Australian Geographic page they don't like the prospect of the WHA extension being undone, and they don't seem to realize that it can be undone by the same dodgy means that created it, a 'minor boundary modification'! Maybe they should re-think their strategy....