Let me clarify your position: because a. it is not a subject you care about b. it "happens quite a bit" c. in this case it helps your position which is "good" (

Let me clarify your position: because a. it is not a subject you care about b. it "happens quite a bit" c. in this case it helps your position which is "good" (the ivory ban) you "don't care" that the rule of law is breached? I outright disagree with this position, which has been quite common in the US recently ("well, those CIA prisons have been happening quite a bit, and it helps the fight against terrorism anyway, plus, those are terrorists, they don't have any rights anymore. Not going to affect me anyway, I'm American, and I'm on the good side."). And you can go back to the lynch mobs of the Wild West for a more visual version. Not wishing to be overdramatic, I did not bring up Niemoller until now, but his point stands. And of course there is the issue of flavours of patriotism (or loyalty to a cause) which is split into "my country right or wrong" vs "do the right thing no matter what". Aside from moral considerations, being in the "right or wrong" camp often backfires by providing the opposition with intellectual ammo to slow it down with. To answer your question I care not one bit about what gets confiscated so long as it gets confiscated legally. It is good that you are fighting for the African elephants and I admire you for it. But I disagree that one has to behave above the law because of it.