Mark A. Sammut, Żebbuġ.
Hunting and morality (2)
Kenneth Cassar's It's Right To Teach That Hunting Is Wrong (January 16) cannot be accepted as stated at face value.
The question concerning the practice of hunting in Malta has, most unfortunately, become an undeniably loaded one. To invade state and Church schools for the direct purpose of enlisting their manifest assistance to bolster the anti-hunting lobby surely runs against the correct interpretation of the curriculum as agreed upon by the Education Division and Education Minister Louis Galea.
To seek unquestioning patronage from members of the teaching profession entails also the indirect selective assistance of the Malta Union of Teachers.
For surely here we are up against a baleful select manner of interpreting the meaning of ethics when and where violence is intrinsically involved.
Much ado is made of Maltese hunters, their ways and interests, their failings, true or perceived. It is not my intention to break a lance in their favour but the whole hullabaloo deserves a more rational approach. Instead of crying for hell's fire to fall upon their heads, why don't we seek and have more factual information?
To have Malta's name blackened to such a dire degree by people living in European northern latitudes calls more for unbiased factual data resulting from properly conducted research rather than selective use of an act of violence enshrined in a perceived ethical context.
Indeed, let birds of song enrich the land with their warbles. Let the migratory birds follow their chosen paths; but why single out the comparatively small hunting group in Malta but turn more of a blind eye as to what happens from Sicily northward? That is not the end of it all.
Toying with violence in the context of calling upon the sustenance of ethics should lead us to also consider that this perspective involves much, much more than migratory birds and hunting, and that means in Europe and beyond its limited confines.
The deaths of the unborn in their mother's womb, the wailing of dying non-combatants as a result of sophisticated modern weaponry, the bloated stomachs of people plagued by hunger, and man's perennial inhumanity to man on a global scale, all breathe violence regardless of all accepted norms of ethics. These aspects of contemporary "globalisation" also deserve the attention of school teachers and those responsible for drawing up the respective syllabi.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
5 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 28th 2008, 13:29
Dear Mr Bonello,
Perhaps you should have done some homework before commenting.
1. I do not kill or eat any animal.
2. That something is legal does not necessarily mean that it is moral. In some countries, men kill women for the "offence" of being raped. They call it "honour killing".
3. To me, to unnecessarily kill anyone is deliberate cruelty. I'm sure Mr Bonello would object if someone were to tell him he wanted to kill him, even if painlessly.
3. The EU never acknowledged that Malta had no alternative to spring hunting. If you were decieved by any political party, that is your problem. Part of the reason I voted yes in the EU referendum was precisely to end spring hunting. It's only question of time until spring hunting is abolished. Get over it.
Mark Grixiti
Jan 26th 2008, 17:08
As much as hunters want everyone to understand their passion for killing birds (even if legal) so much so they NEED to understand that there is an unstoppable growing awareness both locally and and worldwide to respect wild life whether it is birds, mammals or the creatures that live in the seas.
One has to get used to the sweeping change in world culture on the issue through more knowledge and understanding.
We are in a day and age where the world is over populated and wild life is more threatened by loss of habitat (and so much so for Malta that is so unfortunately consumed by development)- meaning that hunting would be associated with an added threat and generally speaking not sympatised with. – this it the truth.
Daniel Bonello
Jan 26th 2008, 02:17
I would like to write with regards the digusting comment given by Mr Kenneth Cassar.
In Malta all huntable (legal) species are shot for sport, however in the end all game birds are traditionally cooked and eaten!!! That is the best part of the sport - you eat your catch!!!
Why all the fuss on hunting?? Does fishing not also involve the killing of animals? Why is it that the Education Ministry does not preach against fishing in the same way it does with hunting???
As long as hunting is practised within the parameters of the law then I see no reason to condemn such members of our Maltese society which after all are an asset to the Maltese countryside in order to safeguard what is left of our rural environment!!!!
You mention deliberate animal cruelty, hitting and beating in your comment. To what do these stupid words relate??? they have nothing to do with hunting!!
Apart from laws a hunter also need to abide with a number of ethical considerations gained from experience. That is why a true hunter only shoots within range in order to ensure a clean shot! A true hunter ensures that all the game shot is picked and consumed. A true hunter is also a true conservationist. Personally we have planted hundreds of indigenous trees in our 18-tumoli of private land such as vines, figs, berries, carobs, peach, apricots, citrus trees, pine trees!!!!! All these complement to the Maltese ecosystem, and all help benefit to ensure a means of food not only for us growers and also to indigenous birds and fauna such as weasels, hedgehogs, wild rabbits, etc!!!
The minority that breach the law are not hunters however they are poachers and that is why the hunters' federation (FKNK) is taking a tough stand against the latter. This includes the permanent withdrawel of hunting licence.
If you consider my above description of hunting as deliberate animal cruelty, then you should also consider the slaughter of cattle for food and the fish & poultry industry as being so!!!!!!!
I agree with Ms Zarb Darmanin in stating that in the past 3 years a lot of hatred has been expressed to Maltese hunters/trappers who after all have a right to practise their passions freely as permitted by law!!!!
Mentioning the law, a lot is being said by Birdlife Malta about illegal spring hunting! Everybody knew that during Malta's negotiations with the EU prior the referendum, the EU acknowledged the fact that Malta does not have an alternative to spring hunting/trapping and hence has a right to obtain a derogation to maintain this tradition!!!
Since the majority of the Maltese population voted 'Yes' including hunters & trappers in the referendum, the same people have voted in favour of spring hunting/trapping!!!!!!
All complaints regarding the above should have been done prior Malta's accession in the EU rather than 3 years after!!!! It is quite clear now that environmental NGO's never complained against this agreement in order to receive funds allotted from the EU!!!!!!
Kenneth Cassar
Jan 25th 2008, 12:34
Mr Mark A. Sammut unfortunately fails to address the points I raised in my letter of January 16, and instead rests his “reply†on incorrect assumptions about both me and the Education Department.
Mr Sammut wrongly assumes that any teaching against hunting is done unilaterally by individual teachers out of personal choice (or worse, individual teachers are forced to teach against hunting). He would perhaps be interested to note that the Ministry of Education has long ago appointed an Animal Awareness committee, which in turn has appointed teachers in most or all public schools to act as Animal Awareness teachers.
One of the instructions given to these teachers (as stated in the website http://schoolnet.gov.mt/democracyandvalues/) is to “Ask the pupils to think about cruelty to animals. What types of things do they think are cruel? Pupils often focus on deliberate cruelty – hitting and beating. Once they have been given a range of examples, ask them to think about the difference between; neglect – failing to look after an animal properly, deliberate cruelty – intending to do something that hurts the animal.
Do the pupils think one type of cruelty is worse than the other? Ask the pupils to think from an animal’s point of view. Both neglect and deliberate animal cruelty make animals suffer".
It is beyond question that hunting involves "intent to do something that hurts animals", apart from killing them. Also, considering that the Animal Awareness committee, that is appointed by the Education Division, itself selects the teachers who are to act as Animal Awareness teachers, and who, it is to be assumed, have the right to refuse the appointment, consultation or approval of the Malta Union of Teachers (MUT) is both unnecessary and beyond the MUT's powers or concern.
Mr Sammut also makes the following wrong assumptions about me. He assumes that the number of birds killed (whether sustainable or not) matter to me. They don’t. Each bird has the right to life. He also assumes that where a bird is killed matters to me. It doesn’t. I care much the same irrespective of whether a bird is killed in Malta or Sicily or wherever.
But since I live in Malta, I think globally and act locally. Mr Sammut also wrongly assumes that human rights issues do not concern me. Of course they do. Humans are animals. This makes human rights an animal rights issue.
Of course, the topic has now become too complex, partly due to false assumptions made that merit a longer reply. Whoever is interested, may find such a reply at www.animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com in the entry under the heading “Hunting and moralityâ€. And dear Sylvana...where is the hatred? I see more hatred in killing sentient beings than in someone saying that's wrong.
Sylvana Zarb Darmanin
Jan 25th 2008, 11:00
You hit the nail on the head Mr. Sammut. Nice to read common sense instead of hatred towards a section of the population!!