Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/490723
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 5 APRIL 2015 12 "THE world will not be destroyed by those who do harm, but by those who watch them without doing any- thing" – Albert Einstein We are all fascinated and thrilled at the sight of an unusual migrant bird which pops in our garden come Spring. Children get excited and dream of a day when more of these birds will come to feed from their hands. Well, such a dream could soon become a reality, but only if we are resolute about this. The forthcoming 11th April ab- rogative Spring hunting referendum reminds me of Rachel Carson's en- vironmental science book 'Silent Spring' published way back in 1962. The book documented the detri- mental effects on the environment – particularly on birds – of the in- discriminate use of synthetic pesti- cides. In the local context it's about the wanton killing of birds, especial- ly in Spring, but in a different way: Maltese hunters ably taking the role played by pesticides then. Our No vote should be first and foremost a vote for the sustainability of bird species. It has nothing to do with Saviour, Kathleen, Moira, Joe, Mark or even worse with Joseph and Simon. Sustainability dictates that a species is left to breed and multiply so that hunting does not lead to ex- tinction. In modern civilised society the senseless killing of birds just for the thrill of it is both morally and ethi- cally unacceptable. Birds have a right to live as well. Had hunting been inevitable for survival for a good number of us then it would be a to- tally different question. Our No vote should also send a strong message to the major political parties that back- room pre-election agreements with hunters are no longer acceptable. We should also keep in mind that no matter what the Yes camp says this referendum is about the abolition of spring hunting not all-year hunting, so as to achieve this sustainability. And sustainability takes precedence over anybody's presumed hunting rights, or rather privileges. One bone of contention between the Yes and No camps is the inter- pretation of data and sustainable numbers with respect to specific bird species. In such a scenario when scientists cannot agree on one inter- pretation of data the precautionary principle comes into play as is the case with global warming and the curbing of greenhouse gases. I would have expected a firm une- quivocal stand against spring hunting especially by both our environment and tourism ministers and their op- position counterparts. Remaining mum or neutral, or even worse, beat- ing around the bush are the most "politically" convenient ways to act. No matter which camp prevails af- ter the vote, our politicians' past talk about biodiversity, sustainability, fu- ture generations and what not, is all waffle… just buzz words and clichés and nothing more! Unfortunately those who make it to parliament be- come some sort of know it all while the role for unelected candidates is that of glorified telephone opera- tors in party fundraising marathons. Only one of our MPs had the guts to say that she is voting Le! This referendum is a civil society initiative and seeing that almost eve- rything in our country is politicised I humbly think that it would have been more prudent if the two party leaders had not taken a public stand on this issue. Let alone give more than just a push to one camp or the other if it consistently trails the other in media and party polls. Don't get me wrong. Party leaders have a right to their personal opin- ion on the matter and I respect their choice but it should have remained just that – personal. Had this referen- dum been a parliamentary initiative or a private member's bill (as was the case with divorce) then yes I would have expected them to go by their party electoral manifesto if the party commitment on this issue is clearly stated therein. The leaders' position is putting undue pressure on the electorate. Prior to the last election our Prime Minister was visionary when stating that the time for politi- cal parties was over. Movements are taking the lead from political parties and that's precisely what we are wit- nessing – a movement arising from a civil society initiative. I am of the humble opinion that by taking such a repeated strong pub- lic stand for the Yes vote our Prime Minister may have unwittingly shot himself in the foot in achieving that elusive mid-term majority in votes and/or seats, no matter how small, in the 11 April local council elections, especially when one considers the country's positive economic achieve- ments since he took over. I think that he would do well to remember that man does not live by cash alone. For many PL voters who are against spring hunting this may be a déjà vu. We all remember the EU referendum when thousands of PL voters who voted for EU entry felt ostracised from the party because they did not toe the party line. Since I have publicly declared my support for the No vote and started attending SHout activities because I am consistent with what I teach, practise and believe I have been called a traitor and hypocrite by a number of PL supporters, including councillors, who do not know any better and who do this out a false sense of loyalty to the party leader. I expect the PL administration to publicly condemn such behaviour. What surprises me is that a number of these have good professional qual- ifications from prestigious universi- ties, but apparently this is no guar- antee for free thought. In a personal communication the Prime Minister has assured me that I am no traitor and this is to his credit. The same goes for our 69 MPs. Of those interviewed only one (to my knowledge) plucked up enough courage to declare her support for the No vote. All the others have ei- ther agreed with the party leader's stand fearing a backlash or conven- iently said that they were still unde- cided. No wonder that according to the latest Eurobarometer survey the people's trust in our politicians is so low. The campaign by the Yes front is as deceitful as it can be. They are trying their best to shift the focus from the birds and confuse issues by demon- ising the No camp exponents and picturing all this as an Alternattiva Demokratika ploy. But their own very billboards have unmasked them! Ironically they too imagine a world where families are happy but only if there are no hunt- ers or shotguns around! Was this a lapsus? Their slogan – IVA bħala Maltin u Ewropej – is more appro- priate for a campaign celebrating Malta's EU entry – a flashback to SHOUT'S campaign has attempted to convince electors that 'Yes' voters are evolutionary challenged and sup- port the acts of "bullies who think they are above the law" (Ramona Depares, Times of Malta, March 16, 2015) and "gun-toting primitives" (Daphne Caruana Galizia, 1 March, 2015). Online comments to numerous hunting articles have depicted hunt- ers as criminal chavs. The hunt- ers who went to Ethiopia to build a school were mocked on social media for being fat, despite their generous efforts! Moira Delia said a success for the pro-hunters would be a loss for democracy (Malta Independent, 27 March, 2015) and that citizens are worried that a "pandemonium" would ensue if the yes camp wins (Xarabank, 20 March, 2015). They have also tried to say that no one should criticize their eminent law- yers. I believe that generalized judg- ments lead to malicious sentiments; on a deep public scale this becomes the incitement of hatred. No one's expression should be gagged. The freedom of expression should be used prudently; using it in a deceiv- ing way insults the value it stands for and the intelligence of the audience. Mark Sultana explained that not every hunter hunts illegally, rather "the majority do" (TVM2, 25 March, 2015). No evidence substantiates this. Instead, the Wild Birds Regu- lation Unit's report on last year's spring hunting season shows that there were 69 suspected offences of which only 15 amounted to a serious infringement. That's 0.15%; hardly a majority of all 9,754 hunters, is it? Misinformation tarnishes voters' understanding as to what they are really voting about. Take Ramona Depares's recent article in which she explains that since the ECJ Judgment found Malta in violation of the dero- gation, there existed no derogation at all (Times of Malta, 1 April, 2015). She must have read the last part of the judgment in isolation. True, Malta was found in violation of the derogation, but for adminis- trative reasons – the season was too long, the bag limit too big and Malta was not fulfilling its reporting duties (clauses 65-66). That said, the ECJ made it amply clear that autumn is not a suitable alternative, and since the birds in question are categorised as being of the 'least concern', Malta can open the spring hunting season under strict conditions (See clauses 48 & 60-64). Both camps 'won' in this instance. The aim of the court was to reach a balance and remain proportion- ate, in line with the same aims of the Birds Directive (clause 56). (To access the judgment simply google Case C-76/08 Commission v Malta, I promise it's easy reading! You can even read it in Maltese.) Democracy balances majority rules with minority rights. On numerous occasions SHout expressed that at law, there exists no right to hunt. This is true at Human Rights Law, just like there is no right to bird watch. Rather, the right the IVA movement speaks of in terms of the derogation belongs to Malta as a State. Mark Sultana thus says hunters have a privilege, not a right. When the European Court of Justice con- firmed that autumn is not a suit- able alternative to spring hunting, effectively it confirmed the right to open the season under supervised conditions. The rights I am more concerned with are those to privacy, property and the freedom from prej- udice and discrimination, enjoyed by all. Minority rights form part of a legal framework designed to ensure that groups that are smaller than a majority group, so too enjoy these rights. Some assume hunters hold some great political power (Depares, Times of Malta, March 16, 2015). I don't see this. I see the power of 40,000 signa- tures collected to call a referendum, and in doing so allowing an unneces- sary list of insults and untrue infor- mation to become public. Sadly, the 104,000 signatures collected to pro- tect the rights of minorities weren't as effective as the 40,000. I am truly surprised to see people, whom I know are wholly against in- tolerance and discrimination, judge an entire group of individuals based on the actions of a few. It is this very prejudice that has led to the hatred targeting hunters and their support- ers. According to an anti-hunter I once criticized, the end justified the means: "anything to promote a no vote" he said. Anything indeed, even at the expense of misinforming the public and offending the integrity and dignity of law-abiders. Unfortunately, the idea that dis- crimination is acceptable in this case has also been portrayed by the lawyers who announced that other hobbies will remain safe, albeit I am sure (or at least hope) that this was not their intention. SHout's eminent lawyers declared that, through Ar- ticle 14 of the Referenda Act, elec- tors can use the collection of 40,000 signatures to demand a referendum only in cases where the intention is to abrogate (i.e. delete) an already existing law. This is misleading. An underly- ing message is that it is acceptable to pick on hunters, while others will remain safe. Also, the argument is akin to saying that you cannot peti- tion the government, which is non- sense, because the right to petition the government is foundational to democracy. SHout do not like me saying that. After expressing my views on a doc- umentary about hunting, the Gaia Foundation and Mark Sultana have publicly claimed that daring to chal- lenge this interpretation is presump- tuous, especially given that one of the eminent lawyers was the ex Euro- pean Court of Human Rights judge, Giovanni Bonnello (Gaia Founda- Spring hunting referendum Silent springs… no thank you Let's talk about rights and democracy This referendum is a civil society initiative and seeing that almost everything in our country is politicised I humbly think that it would have been more prudent if the two party leaders had not taken a public stand on this issue The ECJ made it amply clear that autumn is not a suitable alternative, and since the birds in question are categorised as being of the 'least concern', Malta can open the spring hunting season under strict conditions Carmel Hili Ylenia Rosso