Nodding heads and wordplay

So the hunters' tactics paid off! I smelt it coming when I read that the chairman of the Ornis committee had resigned, and the odour got stronger when I read that someone I knew would not rock any boats had replaced him.

Louis Cilia, the impromptu chairman, made it clear that the decision had already been taken by the government and all the committee was asked to do was to recommend to the minister the dates and conditions for spring hunting. But why do people take on the chair of committees when it is clear that all they are required to do is rubber-stamp government decisions?

Despite all the problems we seem to encounter through nodding heads on government-appointed boards, there still seems to be no shortage of them. However, at least one head is complaining despite the nod.

A letter from Mario Vassallo, an Ornis committee member, to The Times on Wednesday, clarified that despite the reported quotes - "the government agrees with the recommendation of the Ornis committee for the spring hunting and trapping seasons to open" attributed to the Environment Ministry (sic), and "Ornis chairman Louis Cilia clearly stated that the decision to open the spring hunting season had already been taken by the government and all the committee was asked to do was to recommend to the minister the dates and conditions" - only the second statement (the chairman's) is the correct one.

"The members of Ornis, of which I am one, were never asked to give advice on whether spring hunting was to open or not. The Ornis chairman categorically informed Ornis that the minister had already taken that decision and no recommendation was required," Professor Vassallo said.

Why does Government create such committees? People are certainly not taken in when all they (the committee members) do is their master's bidding. The Ornis committee has lost all credibility and although I have had no communication with the chairman who resigned, he obviously took the right decision. The best thing the Environment Minister can do now is scrap it, since its function as a smokescreen is not working.

On Thursday, Mr Cilia reiterated that the government had taken the decision and not the Ornis Committee. In his letter to The Times, he explained that he had sought agreement on the agenda, from the committee, at the beginning of the meeting and nobody had objected. Item 3 on the agenda stated: "Decisions on the conditions and the periods under which the derogation for hunting and trapping of turtle dove and quail during the spring period is to be recommended to the minister... From the text of this agenda item it is clear that we were to discuss the 'conditions and the periods' with regard to spring hunting and trapping and not the decision itself as to whether there was going to be spring hunting or not," Mr Cilia wrote.

An interesting point emerges from this, namely: who sets the Ornis committee's agenda? Obviously the committee had no input, why otherwise would the agenda have to be agreed before the meeting started.

Mr Cilia then explains that he pointed out to the committee that the government was committed to defend its position on derogation on spring hunting and is "prepared to defend its position even in front of the European Court of justice".

Mr Cilia implies that the committee members could have argued about the wording of item 3 on the agenda, which spelled out what was expected of the committee, if they disagreed.

But that seems like it would have been pointless since the decision was already taken. The only option open to the committee members if they disagreed with the item was to resign.

Environmental NGOs have to understand that you cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. The NGOs are further angered that the Environment Minister, George Pullicino, echoing the Prime Minister, defended the government's position of challenging the European Commission over the derogation on bird hunting by saying that it was merely abiding by the mandate given to it in the EU referendum.

So we are being told that all of us who voted to join the EU voted to retain hunting and trapping.

The minister repeated this in Friday's Times: "This government has a political mandate twice confirmed by universal suffrage to safeguard traditional hunting and trapping, including in the spring".

What a politically dishonest statement, and a dangerous one for the party in government, when it is gearing up to rally public support to return to office in the next election! The hunting lobby may garner many votes but it is now the time for the unarmed silent majority to register its dissent on this issue.

As Claire Bonello rightly said in her poignant letter to The Times on Wednesday, on the contrary, "many of the people who voted for EU accession did so because they were convinced that it would bring about improved environmental and conservation standards".

To assert, as the government is doing, that all who voted in favour of EU membership were aware and assented to every punto e virgola is absurd. Besides, the argument for the derogation was that the level of species was maintained at a satisfactory level. That has not been sustained.

The amount of sickening photos of shot protected birds which we see in the papers is enough documentation to back this.

The Commission had said that "following an assessment of the information provided by the Maltese authorities, including figures for the amount of birds shot in spring and autumn 2004, the Commission has concluded that a satisfactory solution to spring hunting existed during the autumn hunting season, a less vulnerable period of the birds' annual cycle, and, therefore, no derogation from the Birds Directive was justifiable.

"Spring hunting is not permitted under EU law if there is an existing alternative to it. We maintain that there is and thus Malta is breaching EU law. This will lead Malta to the European Court of Justice... By permitting the hunting of birds in spring, Malta was therefore in breach of its obligations under the Birds Directive" says the European Commission.

Our government has decided to take the risk of having to pay heavy fines, on our behalf, and fight the Commission in the European Court of Justice.

In 2005, France was fined a lump sum of €57.8 million plus a periodic penalty of €57.8 million for every six months for infringements related to fisheries legislation.

How will the government account for any fines Malta might have to pay if it loses its case at the European Court? More surcharges?

Mr Pullicino wrote in The Times on Friday that "unfortunately, the extent of the important decisions taken by Cabinet to adopt a much tougher policy against those who abuse was either overlooked or not given importance".

It is not only too late, but also ill-timed for the Cabinet to say they are showing muscle after the serious threats posted on the Internet by some hunters. Frankly, in this land of "might is right", the Cabinet 'getting tough' rings hollow. The perception is that the government has shown weakness, not strength, in relation to the spring hunting issue and that its capitulation to spring hunting might be connected to the recent serious threats posted on the Internet.

Yes, it is good that the fines will in future be hefty and that the courts will be given the power, through legislation, to permanently revoke hunting and firearm licences for relapsing offenders.

But will the proposed amended laws be enforced, and will the courts be effective? And if they are will the hunters protest and give yet more ultimatums when one, or more of them lose their licences or even get sent to jail?

Anyway, it has gone beyond whether one agrees with hunting and trapping or not and striking a balance. The issue now is whether we agree that serious bullying tactics should carry the day or not.

phansen@timesofmalta.com