Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1544603
THERE are moments that test not just our laws, but our will- ingness to use them. The recent killing of a protect- ed common kestrel—filmed, documented, and widely shared—was not just another wildlife crime. It was something far more disturbing. A bird, already illegally trapped, was then deliberately and repeated- ly crushed beneath the person's foot. It was not hidden. Not ac- cidental. Not ambiguous. It was brutal, visible, undeniable. And yet, the real question is this: Will justice also be crushed—this time under legal hesitation? At first glance, the case ap- pears straightforward. The ille- gal trapping and killing of a pro- tected species are a clear breach of the Conservation of Wild Birds Regulations. That alone should trigger prosecution. But stopping there would be a mistake. Because what hap- pened in that field was not just a crime against biodiversity—it was a crime against a living an- imal. And that distinction mat- ters. Malta's Animal Welfare Act is often misunderstood in this context. It does not "approve" hunting or trapping. It does not give blanket permission for cru- elty. What it does is far more precise. It provides an exemp- tion—but only when such activ- ities are carried out legally and within the framework of other regulations. And that condition is everything. The moment an activity falls outside the law—as in this case—the exemption disap- pears. It collapses entirely. What remains is the full force of the law: A prohibition against unnecessary suffering. And there is no credible argu- ment that repeatedly trampling a bird to death does not con- stitute unnecessary suffering. Even within the strictest and most controversial interpreta- tions of lawful hunting, such a method would be indefensible. So we are left with a clear le- gal reality: This was not one of- fence. It was two. One law protects species. The other protects the individual animal. One addresses con- servation. The other addresses cruelty. They are not duplicates. They are complementary—and they exist precisely for cases like this. Failing to apply both does more than weaken enforce- ment. It sends a message. It says that once a wildlife crime is es- tablished, the manner of suffer- ing becomes secondary. It sug- gests that cruelty is somehow absorbed into illegality, rather than standing on its own. And that is not what the law intends. The law is sharper than that. More deliberate. More capable. And yet, while political voices have largely remained silent— whether out of caution, conven- ience, or indifference—the re- sponsibility does not end there. It now rests squarely with the Malta Police Force and the prosecuting authorities. They are not tasked with reading the room, nor with measuring pub- lic or political appetite. Their duty is to apply the law in full— without hesitation, without di- lution, and without selective restraint. Where two laws have been broken, two laws must be enforced. Anything less risks turning clear legal principles into op- tional ones. This case is not just about one kestrel. It is about whether the institutions entrusted with up- holding the law are willing to use it to its full extent—even when others choose to look away. Because justice is not only about recognising wrongdoing. It is about having the resolve to act on it—completely. 4 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 26 APRIL 2026 OPINION Mark Sultana Killing a bird is more than a wildlife crime BirdLife Malta CEO Dawn Sammut Lesbian invisibility Moviment Graffitti activist "WHAT is a lesbian? A lesbian is the rage of all women condensed to the point of explosion." This opening line from The Woman Identified Woman, a manifesto published in 1970 by Radicalesbians, articulates the role and struggles of lesbians, especially within the women's liberation movement. In our heteronormative and patriarchal societies, the term lesbian holds significant mean- ing in and of itself. The term has been used and thrown around as a pejorative to any woman who dares to be in- dependent and challenge the power of men. Feminists, however, have claimed this resistance and even argued that lesbians fall outside of societies' hetero- sexual binary between men and women. Feminist theorist Monique Wittig, for exam- ple, argued that "lesbians are not women". The category of woman as we know it, she ex- plained, has a meaning only in relation to the category of man, within a het-erosexual system of thought and economy. Re- jecting heterosexuality reveals the ways that lesbianism exists as a form of resistance, not on- ly to male supremacy, but to the idea of men and women as distinct genders. Lesbianism becomes a resistant alternative that can allow us to push for the abolition of gender, by al- lowing women to organise out- side the het-erosexual model of society. This does not mean, unfor- tunately, that lesbians were always included in feminist move-ments. Whilst the first wave of feminism, mostly ac- tive in the UK and USA, fo- cused on voting rights for women, the second wave of feminism challenged gender inequality. Sec-ond-wave fem- inists fought to expand the definition of womanhood, en- sure reproductive rights, in- crease financial independence, improve workplace equality, and address domestic violence. Despite the movement having gained traction throughout the 60s and 70s, there were still many demographics of women that were being left behind by this second wave of feminism, including lesbians. For queer people in the 70s, especially queer women, achieving visibility as a means of chal-lenging social stigma was seen as a political priority. This was in contrast to previ- ous attitudes to gay and lesbian social life, which had accepted and even sometimes enjoyed the secrecy, separateness, and rel- ative anonymity from straight culture. During this period, there was also growing criticism of butch/femme dynamics from a femi-nist direction, for sup- posedly mimicking outdated heterosexual stereotypes. At the time lesbians had to choose between the feminist and LG- BT rights movement, where the concept of gender roles posed challenges. While some feminists argued for disman- tling rigid gender expectations, others believed that empha- sising femininity could be a source of empower-ment. This clashed with one of the goals of the LGBT rights movement that sought to chal-lenge tra- ditional notions of masculin- ity and femininity altogether. Despite these tensions, lesbian feminism provided a vital the- oretical framework, analysing the ways in which patri-archy oppressed women of all sexu- alities. The concept of "coming out," pioneered by the LGBT rights movement, influenced feminist calls for women to embrace their authentic selves. Lesbian feminism is necessary to en- rich our understanding of how heteropatriarchy oppresses all women. It allows us to think about resistance not simply as empowerment or choice, but as structural and militant opposi- tion to patriarchy. It allows us to understand how women lov- ing other women functions as a form of resistance, and testifies to the possibility of another world. A world without male domination. It allows us to understand how women loving other women functions as a form of resistance, and testifies to the possibility of another world