Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/446030
maltatoday, WEDNESDAY, 14 JANUARY 2015 6 News A hunter's choice: A IN 1990 92% of the Italians who turned out to cast their vote, voted in favour of the abolition of a law granting hunters free access to open private fields and for a repeal of hunting laws deemed to be too favourable to hunters. But the referendum did not ob- tain the required 50% quorum (on- ly 43% turned out to vote), and was declared null and void. A repeat of the Italian debacle is probably the worst fear of the Coalition Against Spring Hunting. Hunters in Malta are faced with a dilemma: whether to participate and thus legitimise the referendum or to boycott the referendum, in- sisting that it violates their rights as a minority. On Monday. asked about the pos- sibility that the FKNK could direct its members to boycott the referen- dum, FKNK general secretary Lino Farrugia said the options were to vote or not to vote and directions and directives would be issued in due time. If the FKNK opts for a boycott it would be banking on an alliance between hunters, their families and a critical mass of people who would not vote because this issue is not a priority for them. The reasoning behind a boycott would be that the sum of those who would not vote because they could not care less and those who would not vote to defend their hobby would sink the referendum. The council factor One serious obstacle against suc- cess for this strategy is that half of Malta will be voting anyway in lo- cal elections, which normally draw a turnout of over 50%. The 2012 election held in half of Malta had a 59% turnout. In fact it was hunters who lob- bied the government to postpone local elec- tions to 2019, to secure a stand- alone referen- dum. But after being f loated, this proposal was aborted by the gov- ernment. It is ex- tremely likely that people voting for their council will also vote in the referendum. Moreover political parties will be busy mobilising voters to vote for their candidates in local elections. Yet in localities where local elec- tions are not held there may be less motivation to vote. Hunters may still be able to exercise pressure on voters. This is because if hunters were to issue a boycott directive, anyone seen to be voting would be defying their directive. A tactic based on peer pres- sure may be effective in small rural villages where hunters can exercise peer pressure on their next of kin and friends, but would be less effective in large urban centres. Moreover such a tactic, espe- cially if enforced by veiled threats, may well backfire, as voters tend to shun any attempt to curtail their right to express themselves freely. A clear choice Moreover since the result is le- gally binding and the legal notice allowing spring hunting would be immediately revoked, hunters can- not resort to fantastical calcula- tions (like those made by Alfred Sant after the 2003 referendum on EU membership, adding non-vot- ers, the deceased and pro-hunting votes together). Any split be- tween the A referendum is only valid if more than 50% of voters turn up to vote. Will this legal hurdle tempt hunters to boycott the referendum or will they try to mobilise more voters than the opposing lobby, JAMES DEBONO asks?