Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/396532
maltatoday, Sunday, 12 OctOber 2014 13 issue." Why not? "Because it's part of a treaty, and we'll argue the rest in court. The referendum law precludes holding a referendum on part of a treaty Malta has entered into. It's written in black on white..." Is it? What's written in the referen- dum law is that it cannot be applied to "any legislation giving effect to any treaty obligation" - Chap. 237, V, 2(g). Spring hunting is not a treaty obligation. In fact's it's not even part of any treaty. It's a derogation – therefore, by definition, an exception to the treaty… Mifsud Bonnici disagrees. "A der- ogation is part of the treaty. You derogate because you have a right to derogate. It is a right we have as Eu- ropean citizens, please note…" Well, so is the right to hold a refer- endum. And in this case, the referen- dum calls on the government to say: we don't want this derogation to be applied. This is a right Maltese law allows its citizens. Who are the hunt- ers to try and deny people this right? "We are challenging that right in court. At the end of the day, we think we're right, the others say they're right… we'll let the court decide. But we have our points that we would like to submit as to our objections to holding this referendum, and we think they're quite valid…" Speaking of these efforts: hunters claim to have collected 100,000 sig- natures for a petition to block this referendum. At the same time, they are calling on the government to en- sure that the referendum is held on a standalone basis. There are a lot of contradictions here: do hunters want to block this referendum, or not? On a separate level they claim to represent over one third of the entire electorate. So why are hunters so scared of this referendum? If their own claims are correct, they should win it hands down. "Nobody said we're scared…" Why try to stop it, then? "Our point is that the referendum should not be held because it is ille- gal. It cannot be held on this issue. That is our point. The fact that we have so much support…" Does he really believe in the level of support? "Yes, I think we do. People who get trampled upon as we have will surely raise their eyebrows, es- pecially if they know how this issue has been handled over the past years. It was all exaggerated, built on media spin and exaggerations… on people like Chris Packham, who comes here and depicts Malta as a kind of hell on earth, but then doesn't manage to film a single bird getting shot…" Yet we've all seen plenty of footage of protected birds being shot… "So have I. But I've also seen plenty of hunters out there doing noth- ing wrong. There are 10,000 hunt- ers in Malta, and I can assure you if they were all hunting illegally you wouldn't be able to walk in the streets with all the dead birds. But that's not the case. It is all a spin, for financial reasons I would say. There are people benefitting from this. I will mention just one instance: when Chris Packham asked for help for BirdLife Malta, they raised 50,000 in two days..." But that's not the same as making money directly off the killing of birds. Last I looked it was hunters who shot protected birds to sell as trophies for thousands of euros a specimen… Mifsud Bonnici acknowledges there are rotten apples in all spheres. "But why do we only look at hunt- ing? What about illegal fishing? I fish myself, and I'm sick and tired of seeing nets thrown in. Sometimes I have to pull up my line because a net drifts over it. Why is nobody making a fuss about this? Because there's no money in it…" Well, as it happens I did raise the issue of illegal fishing in the press a few years ago. And there is plenty of money in it, mostly concerning the bluefin tuna trade. But let's not get too distracted… "My point is that this fuss is only being made about hunting. Take the merger between the three English language newspapers for instance. If you ask me, it was vile. Now we have three newspapers suddenly tak- ing an anti-hunting stand… so how am I to approach these newspapers, and get our side across to their read- ers, if they've all declared themselves against us? And has it ever happened before? On what other issue have these newspapers chosen to unite?" Offhand I can't think of any: but this only underscores an element that the hunters have so far refused to acknowledge. The merger was a reaction to what many perceive – not without good reason – to be a clear attack on democracy. The hunters are trying to block a referendum. It is not a laughing matter. There are implications that go beyond hunting. Our most basic rights may be taken away from us. This is what the merg- er is all about... "But what is the referendum about? Is it about spring hunting, or illegal hunting? This is the problem. The referendum addresses the deroga- tion, which is legal – upheld by the European court – and not the issue of illegal hunting. And that's where you're wrong in having a merger. Had you joined forces to stop illegal hunting, you'd have got the back- ing of all legal hunters. But you are against spring hunting, because you follow BirdLife's flawed reasoning which the European court has dis- missed…" This brings us round in a circle. Proponents of the referendum view spring hunting as illegal… "In that case, let the courts decide. If the referendum is legal it will hap- pen. If not, it won't…" Interview St Hubert's Hunters president MarK MIFSud bOnnIcI insists that a referendum on spring hunting would be illegal. Have hunters finally turned their guns onto the democratic process? democracy? PHOTO BY CHRIS MANGION