A clear anti-hunting vote

The June 12 European Parliament elections have come and gone and it would be worth studying the result from an animal rights perspective.

During the month preceding the elections, Animal Rights Malta.com had campaigned extensively on behalf of the Greens candidate Arnold Cassola for his animal rights credentials and his anti-hunting stance, particularly since he was the only EP candidate who stated in clear terms that he would work to abolish spring hunting in Malta. Worth of notice was also his direct assistance to animal rights NGOs, particularly in the case of the vetoing of a law in Poland which would have allowed experiments to be performed on wildlife and stray animals.

This particular election was unique for several reasons. First of all, it was an election where no government was at stake and, so, people could vote freely without any fear of the election of a party they dislike. Secondly, it was the first election where one of the candidates was no other than the secretary of the hunters' federation, Lino Farrugia. Thirdly, a candidate from the Nationalist Party ranks, Michael Falzon, was quoted as saying more than once that "hunters can only get what they want through the election of PN MEPs".

Considering the above, it would be worth looking into the first count votes of these three candidates and to give our interpretation of the result.

The "anti-hunting" candidate, Prof. Cassola, obtained no fewer than 22,938 first count votes. Mr Falzon, who tried to lure hunters' votes by the above statement, got a dismal 2,989 first count votes, while the hunters' secretary, Mr Farrugia, obtained only 3,119 first count votes. This leaves Prof. Cassola with 19,949 more first count votes than Mr Falzon and 19,819 more first count votes than Mr Farrugia.

Now, let us add Mr Falzon's and Mr Farrugia's first count votes to cater for the possibility that some pro-hunting voters might have voted for one and some for the other. These add up to 6,108 first count votes, leaving Prof. Cassola with 16,830 votes more than both of them put together. If this is not a clear anti-hunting vote I do not know what could be!

After these elections it has become crystal clear that the hunting lobby, loud though it may be, is not as powerful as it seemed in the past. The government should take note that there is a growing silent animal rights lobby that is willing to use its vote to send a clear pro-animals message and that will vote only for candidates who are pro-animal rights, like many did in the EP elections. And this, along with other issues, may swing an election result.