Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/490723
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 5 APRIL 2015 13 Spring hunting referendum TIM DIACONO WITH six days to go until the holding of a historic abrogative referendum to abolish spring hunting, 31,647 voting docu- ments remain uncollected, equat- ing to 9% of the electorate. However, the high number of uncollected votes also includes those of eligible Maltese voters living abroad. And electors still have a few days more during which they can collect their vot- ing paper. For the referendum's result to be valid, voter turnout must sur- pass the 50% mark, which it has done in all of Malta's four previ- ous national referenda. The latest statistics from the Electoral Commission also show that around 15,477 people have personally collected their votes from the police after they were not delivered to their residences. How does the coming referen- dum's vote take-up figures com- pare with the ones that came be- fore it? Despite the heavy political and social undertones of the most recent referendum – the divorce referendum of 2011 – 20,700 vot- ing documents remained uncol- lected by voting day, equating to 6% of the eligible voters. Moreover, a further 71,711 vot- ing documents were collected or delivered but not cast, while 2,173 votes were deemed invalid. In total, almost three-quarters (72%) of the voting population turned out to vote that day, with divorce passing the hurdle by 53% of the total vote. The six-point margin of victory made the di- vorce result the closest in Malta's history. Voter apathy was certainly not a feature of the first Maltese ref- erendum of the millennium – the EU membership referendum of 2003. Only 4,200 voting docu- ments remained uncollected on voting day, a mere 1.41% of the eligible voters. A further 23,031 voting docu- ments were collected or delivered but not cast, while 3,911 votes were deemed invalid. The 91% voter turnout was both the high- est turnout in Malta's referendum history, as well as the most engag- ing referendum out of the nine countries that voted on EU mem- bership that year. In the end, EU membership passed with around 54% of the total vote. Malta may be witnessing some- thing of a referendum glut, but one would have to go back to 1973 for the next most-recent referen- dum, a local referendum among Gozitans to decide whether to abolish the Gozo Civic Council, back then a Gozitan civic local government. A boycott ordered by the Gozo Civic Council resulted in an ex- ceptionally low voter turnout of just 195 people – fewer than 2% of the total Gozitan population. Nevertheless, 77% of the valid votes cast were in favour of the Council's abolition and Gozitan administration became central- ised in Valletta. The 2-4 May 1964 referendum has gone down in history as the day Malta voted for independ- ence. Yet, independence was a choice that 20% of the electorate was seemingly apathetic to. 5,899 voting documents remained un- collected, while 27,195 were de- livered or received but not cast. Moreover, a whopping 9,016 votes (5.5%) were deemed invalid, the highest percentage of invalid votes in Malta's referendum his- tory. Malta's first open national refer- endum, the 1956 United Kingdom Integration referendum, was also the one that witnessed the lowest electoral turnout. Spurred on by a boycott by the Nationalist Op- position, 3,287 voting documents remained uncollected, while a further 59,153 votes were deliv- ered or received but not used. In the end, 59% of the electorate cast their votes, with 2,559 of the votes cast being deemed invalid. Although 77% of the valid votes were in favour of integration, the high boycott level meant that only 44% of the population voted for integration, and it was not imple- mented. you Uncollected votes: how does the spring hunting referendum compare? tion Facebook page 10 March, 2015, SHout and KSU RTK interview, 19 March, 2015). The lawyers' very profession is rooted in the fact that they and judg- es disagree among themselves all the time. SHout need not be rude about this. The lawyers' interpretation was not incorrect. It was, however, cer- tainly incomplete. What the lawyers did not point to is Article 3 of the Act which states that voters can use a referendum to ap- prove Parliamentary proposals to in- troduce a law (including a ban). The difference is that by way of Article 14, calling for a referendum to abolish a law requires 10% of electors. This is not the case with regard to Article 3. Calling upon the government to hold a referendum to approve proposals simply requires convincing. To suggest we cannot petition the government to introduce bans and laws is to do a great disservice to all those who fought to implement the cornerstones of democracy. I don't want to promote scaremongering. I say this to promote the protection of all of Malta's traditions. Hunting will not be the only targeted activity since it is possible for referenda to be intro- duced to ban other activities. This referendum may have set a precedent. Indeed, it was AD's own Cassola who said that "it is quite pos- sible that the same could be done in the future on other important issues" (Malta Independent, 12 January, 2014). Cacopardo too said that this was the first of a number of referenda (MaltaToday, 22 November, 2013, comment now deleted). Both camps hate poachers; the yes camp because it condemns any form of illegality and because it is tired of being tarnished by the wrong- doings of a handful of criminals. The no camp have largely exploited the criminal acts of a tiny few to ex- tents that are both misleading and irresponsible. SHout have rightfully called upon the yes camp to have a public debate to discuss facts. Yet, they encourage the suppression of legal interpretations and the distri- bution of misleading sensationalist pictures and propaganda, mostly re- garding birds this referendum is not even about. They insist the majority of hunters are criminal when statis- tics show otherwise. Without a doubt, wildlife crime should be condemned; but never at the expense of condemning a non- criminal. I am proud to say that no picture of a blood-covered bird or catchy song have affected my firm belief that it is fundamentally wrong to judge an entire group as criminal because of the criminal actions of a few. It despicably promotes malice. The sentiments I hold against any form of prejudice, are the reason I became a lawyer in the first place. A success for the Iva movement would not be a loss for democracy. It would be a sign that citizens favour the use of democracy to maintain the traditions, hobbies, and integrity of all honest law-abid- ers. Ylenia Rosso practises law in the UK. May 2004. Moreover, judging from their exponents and attendance at their activities one would imagine that there is a sizeable number of fe- male hunters on these islands. It is true that hunters are a minor- ity. But a very small minority within this minority has given them such a bad reputation along the years. The illegalities and criminal behaviour of the former, but especially their bul- lying antics, is making a mockery of our democratic credentials. Not only has the majority of our population put up with them for so long but now we have come to a stage where they are so arrogant that whenever people go in the countryside (which belongs to all of us) many a time they feel threatened if this small minority does not have their way. This is a bullying situation which our authorities have always conveniently ignored. I have never shied from stating what I believe in, no matter the con- sequences. Once again I am standing up to be counted because I believe that principles, not votes, should guide politicians. As in the previous two referenda I want to strive for the common good. I want what is best for my country and I want Malta to be truly a leader in Europe even in the environment sector. My No vote is not because I have some grudge against hunters. Nor do I want to deny hunters some pre- sumed "rights" or wish them to be any lesser than their European coun- terparts but because for a start I want Malta to take the lead and set higher environmental standards in the EU, with others following suit. What convinced me to join the 'Malta Tagħna Lkoll' movement more than five years ago was precisely be- cause I saw in Joseph Muscat a leader with vision, who wants to do away with past amateurism. This frame of mind is epitomised in his famous saying: Malta the best in Europe. So if one is imbibed with this spirit it is only natural for 'Malta Tagħna Lkoll' supporters to vote No. For those who have already decided to vote No this reaffirms their conviction to do so. Our environmental record in the EU leaves much to be desired and this is an area where we could truly be lead- ers. When individuals neglect the well- being of society in the pursuit of personal gain often a tragedy of the commons results. A victory for the Yes camp will perpetuate the cur- rent tragedy. We have a once-in-a- lifetime opportunity to bring an end to this absurd state of affairs. Complacency will retain the status quo. Let us all be on the right side of history once again! It really is an easy choice…either you are for the sus- tainability of birds, so that there are enough for all, to be enjoyed by all (alive by nature lovers and ironically as a target practice by hunters) or you prefer them dead, rotting away or stuffed in some showcase or even worse because you don't give a hoot. We owe it to future generations to pass on to them what we have bor- rowed from our forefathers. As the renowned environmentalist Sir Rob- ert Swan aptly put it: "The greatest threat to our planet is the belief that someone else will save it." So do your part, grab this once-in-a-lifetime op- portunity and vote No come April 11! 'L-għażla f'idejk...' Carmel Hili is an Environmental Sci- ence lecturer at Gian Frangisk Abela Junior College and a PL candidate on the 11th and 12th electoral divisions democracy IVA field athlete found guilty of possessing illegally hunted owl MICHAEL Cutajar, one of the athletes being pushed by the Yes campaign for his endorsement of spring hunting, was convicted in 2006 of being in possession of a protected species of owl, it has emerged. In a statement released on Thursday morning, the Yes campaign had named a number of sports persons hailing from a variety of disciplines including water- polo, football, snooker, boxing, shooting, kick-boxing and body building, who had "declared their position in favour of spring hunting." The athletes are encouraging the Maltese public to vote 'Yes' in order to "send a message in favour of tolerance," arguing that nothing would be solved by "radical measures such as the abolition of a legitimate pastime." The Yes campaign has argued that it was "simply not fair to eliminate a legal practice just because it may not necessarily match the likes of a group of a people. Re- spect is a fundamental principle in every sports disci- pline" and are on the record as taking a zero-tolerance stance against illegalities and that it would not tolerate lawbreakers. But MaltaToday can reveal that one of the sports- men mentioned, former Birkirkara and Marsaxlokk player Michael Cutajar, had been found guilty of being in possession of an illegally-hunted short-eared owl in October 2006. The same court also found Cutajar guilty of relapsing and had suspended his hunting li- cence for a year, a sentence confirmed on appeal. Cutajar similarly lost a subsequent Constitutional case which he had filed, in which he alleged that his right to a fair trial had been breached in the course of the criminal proceedings against him. The finding is expected to further undermine the credibility of the Yes campaign. In spite of MaltaToday's several attempts to ask FKNK president Joe Perici Calascione for clarification as to how the Cutajar's inclusion fitted in with the fed- eration's stated intolerance of lawbreakers within its ranks, no reply had been received at the time of going to print. Michael Cutajar (left) from IVA promotional material