Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/513060
maltatoday, SUNDAY, 17 MAY 2015 24 Letters Send your letters to: The Editor, MaltaToday, MediaToday Ltd. Vjal ir-Rihan, San Gwann SGN 9016 | Fax: (356) 21 385075 E-mail: newsroom@mediatoday.com.mt. Letters to the Editor should be concise. No pen names are accepted. Tarnishing Malta's image I feel compelled to write about the letter by Sean Whyte of London (Malta Today, 10 May) entitled 'Blasting migrating birds from the sky is not a sport'. Mr Whyte makes reference to 'mass slaughter'. No doubt readers will be fully aware that there are strict quotas imposed upon Maltese hunters dur- ing the Spring hunting season, these quotas being minuscule compared to other EU countries such as Great Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Germany, etc where the number of birds shot runs into tens of millions, both reared and wild birds. Mr Whyte refers to hunters 'spraying the sky with lethal billets'. This shows the limited knowledge of hunting held by Mr Whyte as anyone with a modicum of knowledge of hunt- ing knows that shot, not bullets, are fired at birds. He refers to the birds being hunted as 'not even Maltese birds'. As the birds being hunted in Malta in Spring are migra- tory birds, their migratory life being spent in many countries in Africa and many in Europe the birds belong to the country in which they are in at any given time. Furthermore migratory birds such as many species of duck and goose, snipe, woodcock etc are hunted in almost every EU country. Mr Whyte states that he would 'never set foot on Malta' due to the hunting of birds. Presumably Mr Whyte will be leaving Great Britain as hunting is far more widespread in Great Britain, as it is in every other EU country than it is in Malta. Mr Whyte would be extremely hard pressed to find a country where hunting is not practised. Mr Whyte also refers to the 'image of Malta' and tourists having 'blood splattered all over them on holiday'. The image of Malta is being purposely tarnished by foolish people like Mr Whyte making ridiculous statements implying that tour- ists would be covered in blood as a result of hunting practices. Philip Sword Newcastle upon T yne The vote in the European parliament in favour of scrapping the opt-out clause in a proposed revision of the EU work- ing time directive has fuelled the con- troversy on people's work-life balance. The ever growing family expectations for a high quality of life and the increas- ing difficulties throughout Europe to keep one's standard of living has led to many of us working longer hours in or- der to meet our financial commitments. Malta is no exception. What is particu- lar to Malta is the propensity of Maltese workers to work even longer hours than the average European and an ingrained overtime culture which is viewed as an essential supplement to one's wage. To this extent the vote has serious conse- quences for the Maltese employee. The vote taken by the Maltese MEPs barring one who abstained fully recognises our sensitivities on this issue. Objections to the scrapping of the opt-out clause were various. From the belief that it would be bad for business as it affects flexible working conditions, that it is evidence of an ever grow- ing European nanny state, that it risks bringing about job losses rather than job creation. In short, it will not enhance business competition. The UK govern- ment particularly considered the vote to be wrong as flexible labour laws are considered vital for economic efficiency to compete with China and India. The European Commission too appears to have serious misgivings on the issue. It would therefore appear that the matter is far from decided. We believe that the arguments in favour of the opt-out clause however are not water-tight and that the spirit behind the scrapping of the opt-out clause should not be dismissed off hand. There are valid arguments for its scrapping too. Firstly the raison d'etre behind the European parliament proposal is based on improving our quality of life. Europe is not an economic block without a soul. Europe is also all about social policy. It values a life-work balance as an essential ingredient for having complete citizens who do not only work but also have the necessary time to enjoy hours of leisure dedicated to entertainment, culture, the arts and a wide variety of personal hobbies and leisure activities. This very culture indeed was the thrust of the progressive media marketing campaign conducted by Malta's social policy minister encouraging people to achieve a happy balance. Accordingly government may be sending out mixed messages in eulogizing the need for a balanced life and simultaneously favouring the reten- tion of the opt-out clause. This makes us ponder whether the Maltese vote in parliament was not driven by political exigency rather than out of a deep belief in totally flexible working conditions. After all there is ample evidence of extremely rigid working practices which remain fully ingrained in our labour laws. The conditions in our ports, public trans- port organisation and parastatals are cases in point, just to mention a few. The Maltese vote appears to be a reaction to the controversy prior to the referendum when Labour had attacked government claiming the opt-out change was on the cards. Government stated firmly that this would not be the case and true to its word is fighting the proposal tooth and nail. Labour too, out of political exigencies is bowing to the quality of life aspirations of its supporters, risking at the same time divergence with the socialist bloc. What is even more surprising is the attitude of all Maltese trade unions to be in favour of the opt-out clause. They are out of synch with the position taken by foreign trade unions. Perhaps the whole matter also needs to be put in its proper perspective. The ban applies to work exceeding 48 hours in the same employment. It does not apply to part-time work outside one's normal place of work. It is also worth noting that the average weekly hours of work in Malta is forty hours and not a forty-eight hour week as benchmarked. Our MEP's are right to voice Maltese dissent and to highlight Malta's working practices, but due appreciation should also be given to the European ethos behind the proposal namely that quality of life is important not just in style but also in substance. Not too many months ago this was the very battle cry of the pro-European lobby. The work-life balance Editorial • 15 May 2005 Poorly thought-out letters On reading "Blasting birds from the sky is not a sport" (May 10), I cannot but laugh and attribute such writing either to a fool or to a person who has been confined to liv- ing in a box since birth. What makes this and similar letters ever more pathetic is the fact that the editor pub- lishes them so readily. Perhaps the editor considers them entertaining and in keep- ing with his views on hunting but to all in the know they are nothing but an insult to his intelligence. Reader Sean Whyte from the UK states that "people like myself who respect and admire birds for what they are will never set foot in Malta until this barbaric practice is banned. Considering that "defence- less wild birds" are also shot in England to the tune that shooting generates £2 billion to UK economy, what exactly is he trying to prove other than his bigotry? By publishing such non- sensical letters the editor is advocating a warped reason for people to follow Sean Whyte's advice and example and boy- cott Malta. With 17 wild bird species (not mentioned below) shot all year round as pests, seven deer species, rabbit, hare and wild boar, the UK is considered as a shooter's paradise. Perhaps the editor's comparing the "genocide" in Malta to that in the UK might make him realise the stupidities he so readily backs and publishes. Accord- ing to statistics provided by the Committee Against Bird Slaughter, CABS, Malta's 397,690 shot birds pale into insignificance compared to the UK's 22,149,024. (http://tiny- url.com/l6ktxt5). Before fearing any "defence- less birds which could fall out of the sky and onto you at any moment" or "blood splattered all over them on holiday" Sean Whyte had better admit to re- ality and stop feeding garbage to certain obliging editors. Should anyone's counter argument centre around shoot- ing in the UK being limited to birds bred for the purpose, then it might be opportune to mention that, apart from bred pheasant and partridge, the UK shooting list consists of the following wild birds: Golden Plover, Common Snipe, Jack Snipe, Woodcock, nine duck species, four goose species, moorhen, coot, grey partridge, red grouse, black grouse and ptarmigan. Most of them are "birds migrating to other countries", no less than those shot in Malta. Mark Mifsud Bonnici President Kaccaturi San Ubertu