Pro-legal hunting

Michael Falzon (May 9) claims that the replies by Mark Grima and myself to his "short", 648-word letter confirm that we are fundamentalists. This claim cannot be further from the truth.

My contention about Mr Falzon's letter of April 11 (which I did not send to The Times) is that "cutting and pasting" does not make an article false, and that although one might disagree with a boycott of Malta, a boycott is perfectly legitimate because no one has any duty to visit Malta. I personally do not call for Malta boycotts, but I understand that people have the right to boycott anything. After all, for a boycott to work, it must be accepted as justified. If a growing number of foreigners opposed to spring hunting see a boycott of Malta justified, the onus is on the government to recognise the signs of the times.

It is not Mr Falzon's article of April 11 that makes him pro-hunting but the fact that he is only opposed to illegal hunting. This makes him anti-illegal hunting and pro-legal hunting. Legal hunting is still hunting. Elementary, Mr Falzon. This has nothing to do with being a fundamentalist, and everything to do with the correct use of the English language. If I am mistaken, and Mr Falzon is opposed to all hunting, I would appreciate a statement to this effect.

Mr Falzon says that I "do not even accept the possibility of anyone being against hunting in spring but not against hunting in autumn". I never said that. What I always say is that to be anti-hunting is to be against all hunting. He also calls me a fundamentalist because I "persistently equalise human rights" with "so called animal rights". I do nothing of the sort. I only claim that sentient non-human animals have the right to life, and are not human property. They do not have rights to things which do not matter to them. But life and freedom from exploitation do matter to all animals.

This conclusion comes from several philosophical works (visit www.animalrightsmalta.com/books.html for a short list of some), books which I have read and probably Mr Falzon has never even heard of, let alone read.

Fundamentalism implies irrational beliefs not backed by evidence. I will let go of my convictions as soon as I am convinced of their falsity. Likewise, Mr Falzon could avoid the label of "fundamentalist" by showing that he has ample knowledge of the topic. Simply saying that non-humans have no "so called animal rights" just because this belief is convenient, does not make it true.

In the absence of providing any rational and morally justified reasons for excluding non-humans from having rights, I take it as just a prejudiced fundamentalist belief. Mr Falzon would do well to start ordering some books on the topic if he wants to debate animal rights and be taken seriously.

As for rational arguments for acknowledging animal rights, one may find a reasonable introduction at www.animalrightsmalta.com.