Monday, 16th June 2008
Hunters call for end to 'hate' campaign
The hunters' federation (FKNK) has accused BirdLife Malta of fomenting "social hatred" over the last two years with its anti-hunting campaign.
"The morally superior attitude adopted by the anti-hunters has resulted in a clearly hostile stance against hunters and trappers from which not even schoolchildren have remained immune," the federation said in a statement.
It called for an end to the "hate campaigns" which it said consisted of half-truths, exaggerations and downright fabrications.
BirdLife's campaigns had not merely resulted in a public attitude of "looking down" at hunters, but an atmosphere of clear-cut hatred, the federation complained.
Notwithstanding that the 22nd edition of (the EU) Press Watch highlighted "the continuing dangers of believing what you read in the newspapers", BirdLife and its supporters had succeeded mostly by using a media biased in its favour.
The constant mudslinging had harmed Malta's image. The campaigns were backed in no small manner by the press - the English-language papers in particular and several media personalities, the federation claimed. Whereas the freedom of the press was paramount, the stark reality was that the press abused its freedom.
The federation said the authorities and the public had a moral duty to put a stop to these "social hate" campaigns.
Contacted yesterday, Temuge Tolga, BirdLife executive director denied the accusations, saying that, over the past two years, BirdLife has been regularly targeted with messages on the FKNK website inciting violence and with xenophobic messages issued by the FKNK council.
BirdLife members had also been the victims of vandalism and arson attacks, he said.
RSS
Comments
work wonders both for the dog and his guardian.
Again I tell you that dogs are NOT born hunters but are made so. The breeds you mention are the result of humans experimenting withe the breeding of dogs to satisfy the obscure demand of your "so called" breeding dogs.
First of all, I did not "rope in" the help of Ms Peresso Fiorentino. However, this being a free country, people are free to voice their opinions (you would of course call that intolerance - the new buzz-word, apparently), especially if the correspondents are intelligent people who make intelligent posts, like Ms Peresso Fiorentino does.
Regarding ignoring me, I think it is the sensible thing for you to do, seeing that you fail to understand half of what I write in simple English.
Regarding me being a "nosy parker", you'll be surprised to learn that when people voice their opinions in the public media, other people are fully entitled to reply to their contributions. Of course, again, you would call that "intolerance".
Of course, I fully understand why you don't see an iota of sense in my contributions, but of course, I won't tell you, otherwise you will say that I am insulting you.
You have a lot of learning to do.
As for your suggestion to offer my help in animal sanctuaries, sorry to disappoint you but I prefer spending my free time spoiling my two dear dogs and defending the cause of hunters and their hunting dogs!!
Let me put you in the true picture: Before you start writing with some sense and with due respect to other individuals, I will just ignore you. As you had confirmed, your first contribution in local newspapers was when you were a ‘nosy parker’ during correspondence exchange between Dr. ABC and myself. Since then, I haven’t read an iota of sense in your contributions. It is only when one treats others well that one will receive respect from others.
only mean having a dog or two at home ( which is a good thing) but goes far far beyond that. For your info, I too have two dogs at home who happen to be dogs rescued from two local sanctuaries and I am also aware of the daily neglect and cruelty inflicted on dogs, since I am a volunteer in one of these sanctuaries, so yes I do know a thing or two about the love of animals, especially dogs, and if you do too, why don't you offer some of your time to help out in one of our local sanctuaries who desperately need help. Lastly, please don't try to patronize us about 'dogs who are hurt when people try to deprive them of their favourite inbred and recreational activity'. Dogs are not born 'hunting dogs' but are made so by humans. So when a hunter takes his dog with him hunting the dog is simply playing fetch.
If you take a few minutes to let someone who is better than you in logic to read your posts before sending them, you would spare yourself some gross blunders.
Do you realise what you're saying here?
To paraphrase, you said that out of tolerance towards people who do injustice, you would do nothing about injustices.
What I gather is that, to "prove" a point that I should keep silent about what I consider to be injustice, out of supposed tolerance (which is a virtue only when injustice is not involved), you say that people should just tolerate injustice! I'm sure that people who do injustices would be delighted upon reading your posts. After all, injustices happen because people do nothing about them. And remember, in your case, we are talking about injustices to humans.
So think again, Ms Zarb Darmanin. You may believe I am insulting you when I say that doing nothing about what one believes to be an injustice is moral cowardice, but your claim that we should tolerate people who do injustices is a gross insult to all the people suffering from injustice.
The 'hate' campaign has become so ingrained in the anti-hunting group that they do not realise, let alone admit it.
"if everyone respected everyone else"!! Mr. Cassar, that is exactly what the anti-hunting lobby lacks? Respect towards hunters is non-existent!
Ms. Peresso Fiorentino, you are definitely not the one to preach to me regarding love for animals. My love towards my two dear dogs will teach you how to love and care for one's pets. If you think that hunting represents only the killing of birds, then I urge you to acquaint yourself about this pastime. In the process of defending birds, you just do not realise your lack of respect towards hunters and, yes, their hunting-dogs who have profound feelings and are hurt when people try to deprive them of their favourite and inbred recreational activity.
Finally, Ms. P.F. what exactly are you referring to in the 2nd paragraph of your comments? Wherever did I mention the eating or not of meat?!! This is the problem with the anti-hunting lobby - misquoting and not being factual.
You also wrote that people who don't eat meat for the respect of animals should not impose on others who do so and that humans eat meat for survival. Come on ,are we living in the days of Neanderthals here or what ? We eat meat only because its tasty and nothing else. .
Mr Cassar has a right to defend the animals since many like yourself simply do not understand that all creatures have a right to live and nobody ever gave the human race the right over any other living creature.
1. I didn't insult anyone. It is you who said you will do nothing about injustice. To moral people, doing nothing about injustice is moral cowardice. That's not an insult, its a description.
2. I do not hate you. But if you want to believe I do, suit yourself. I do not even hate people who have done me personal harm in the past. But if you want to believe that I see you as worse than such people, again, suit yourself.
3. I checked your previous comment, and found that you didn't mention priorities. But perhaps you refer to when you said "I find it rather hard to understand how you harbour such love towards birds, yet show such hatred and disrespect towards fellow human-beings". Your confusion stems from two misconceptions: I do not harbour any special love of birds. I just see them as individuals with an equal right to life. I also do not hate human beings. I just believe they have no right to murder non-humans for pleasure or convenience. If everyone respected everyone else (including non-human animals), there would be no need for priorities.
Not doing anything about certain injustices is definitely not cowardice BUT respect and tolerance towards others. Incidentally I hold the human-being above all others.
As for your not harbouring hate against anyone but only harbouring hate against unjust practices, you seem to harbour quite an amount of hatred against me, even though I am not a hunter (an unjust practice in YOUR opinion).
An explanation as to the mix-up in your priorities (as requested in my previous comment) would definitely have been more appropriate than rude insults.
It is true that consuming non-human animals may be termed "natural", but it is good to remember that what's natural is not necessarily moral, and also that one should not necessarily rule one's conduct on what's natural or not - otherwise, no one would make use of medicines, for instance. Only naked cave-dwellers live naturally, after all.
What matters, for the point I'm trying to make, is that one can live a perfectly healthy life on a vegan diet. Therefore we are faced with two possible natural choices: to be vegans (or vegetarians) or to be omnivores.
Since both are naturally possible, it is usually ethics that sway some people to the side of veganism, in the sense that, considering veganism is a healthy option, not choosing veganism means killing non-human animals (who value their own lives) unnecessarily.
As for the rest, I very much appreciate your contribution and explanations. It makes a refreshing change from the usual illogical and prejudiced comments dumped my way.
Thanks for keeping the discussion civil, despite our difference of reasoned opinions.
When saying that animal eats animal is the norm, I was meaning that it is a normal activity in nature, of which humans are a part. In fact I think you are very right when saying that most animals are herbivores or omnivores. Humans belong to the latter group.
I do not consider vegan dishes as tasteless and eat loads of fruit and veg but I also consume animals and animal products. Since humans are omnivores, consuming animals as part of our diet is natural. When eating a mixture of veg and meat of some sort I am simply feeding on what nature intended me to consume. I cannot understand how this could be wrong or immoral in any way.
I guess that at the end of the day we have to agree to disagree, since I think that the whole argument finally boils down to one's concept of what is moral or immoral, acceptable or unacceptable.
I never confirmed that I am an extremist. All that I said was that I am viewed by animal abusers as an extremist.
You insist I am tarnishing the reputation of law-abiding hunters. All I am saying is that all hunters needlessly kill animals. I never said that legal hunting is illegal. If you insist that I am tarnishing reputations by telling the truth, suit yourself.
You ask where is the injustice. It is in unnecessarily killing animals. That you do not see a problem with this does not make the practice just.
Regarding imposing opinions, if you understood basic science, you would know that opinions cannot be imposed. You cannot force beliefs or opinions into anyone's mind.
You say you also have your opinion on various injustices committed, but say you are not that "presumptuous" to expect that you get your way on such things. Being morally convinced of an injustice and doing nothing about it, is usually called moral cowardice.
I do not harbour hate against anyone. I only harbour hate against unjust practices.
Of course, you are perfectly correct in saying that hunting in itself is no worse than any other forms of exploitation of animals for food.
I also appreciate that you say that the term "extremist" may not be appropriate, since everybody has a right to his/her own view. I also obviously agree that our views are not yet held by a majority.
I must however correct your claim that in nature, animal feeding on animal is the norm. In actual fact, probably most animals are vegans or omnivores.
You ask: "In this context, why should human animals be expected to spend their life consuming food they may not enjoy by other members of the same species?".
Apart from the fact that you are assuming that vegan food is tasteless (I would suggest purchasing a good vegan recipe book for some good animal-free food), for those of us who subscribe to the animal rights view, we give more weight to freedom from exploitation and killing than to convenience.
Morality is not measured by personal taste.
Indeed you are tarnishing the reputation of the law-abiding hunters. As implied, these individuals practice something which is LEGAL whatever way you try to put it. You mention that you have a right to expose injustice - WHERE IS THIS INJUSTICE? Remember, there are laws regulating this activity which the law-abiding hunters respect. You have a right to your opinion, however you cannot consider yourself to be superior and impose your opinion on others. I also have my opinion on various injustices committed, however, I am not that presumptuous to expect that I get my way on such things and neither show hatred towards other human-beings.
Going through your various comments todate, I find it rather hard to understand how you harbour such love towards birds, yet show such hatred and disrespect towards fellow human-beings. Honestly, Mr. Cassar, I just cannot comprehend this!!!
I am inclined to agree that limiting hunting from public land to certain hours of the day may be called for (although to be fair to the hunters, if spring hunting is hopefully banned completely, hunting will be restricted to between September and January, giving other countryside users many months of the year to enjoy public countryside hunter-free if they are bothered by hunters or somewhat hesitant to venture outside during hunting season)
While the term extremist may not be appropriate, since everybody has a right to his/her own view, it remains a fact that the views held by animal rights campaigners are not shared by most people who feel that killing animals for food (including hunting) is legitimate and morally justified. Humans are part of nature where animal feeding on animal is the norm. In this context, why should human animals be expected to spend their life consuming food they may not enjoy by other members of the same species?
I agree with you that there is no difference in the killing of birds, fish, cows, pigs, rabbits, chickens, snails and many other animals.
However, BirdLife Malta is not an abolitionist animal rights organization. That is why it deals principally on issues regarding illegal hunting of birds.
I, on the otherhand, am an abolitionist animal rights campaigner, and thus I defend the interests and rights of all animals.
The strange thing is that if one is consistent in defending all animals, one is called an extremist. So apparently, the choice is between either being morally inconsistent or an "extremist".
Is someone who opposes killing infringing the rights of the killer, even if the killing is done legally? Are people who oppose capital punishment infringing the rights of the executioner? I don't think so. That something is practiced throughout the world does not change anything. Human slavery was also once practiced throughout the world. We abolished it.
If you think that only the Maltese anti-hunting lobby opposes hunting, you need to spend some time browsing some international abolitionist websites.
And how am I tarnishing the reputation of the law abiding hunter when all I am saying is that hunters do not have the right to deprive innocent and sentient animals of their lives? How does one tarnish reputations by saying the truth (that hunters kill birds)?
All hunters unnecessarily kill birds. That is why I put them in the same basket. I only accuse them of killing birds, which is the truth. If they didn't kill birds, they would not be hunters.
Which of your comments have hit home? Quale verita offende?
I`m very happy to create new socio cultural traditions that involve helping wildlife survive human greed. and thats what school children are learning.
Don't you think you are infringing on the rights of the law abiding hunter? This traditional pastime is practised throughout the world. It seems that only the Maltese anti-hunting lobby are being so intolerant towards these hunters.
As usual you are tarnishing the reputation of the law abiding hunter and I feel you have absolutely no right to do so. That is what call disrespect to the people around you. You may accuse law breakers, and I will join you in this, BUT placing all hunters in one basket and accusing them unjustifiably is definitely a shortcoming! That is injustice indeed.
Mr. Cassar, it appears that my comments invariably hit home. This has been going on for years. Is it a case of la verita' offende?
The recreation element is valid and I believe nobody is trying to impinge on that, on the contrary we're trying to protect it!
However the recreation + the shooting is depriving all others of the 'same' recreation of enjoying the countryside without having guys carrying and shooting shotguns around.
I sincerely hope that hunters realise this and eventually propose to limit hunting to the early and late hours of the week days - whilst they can relax and enjoy the views and serenity from their hide-outs on a 24x7 basis.
Putting food on the table is definitely necessary. Sustainable hunting is one way of doing this - legal hunting only targets edible birds. Ok, the hunter may be more interested in the recreational aspect of hunting - he does not need the turtle dove to survive. Chicken or fish will do instead. But the result is the same. I do not catch turtle doves but I eat fish. I must be as much a bad boy as the law abiding hunter is.
Humans are a part of nature. Animal eats animal or animal eats plant. Most humans prefer to eat meat than to live as vegans. Sustainable hunting is just the same as any other form of exploitation of animals for food; whether this is acceptable or not depends on one's point of view; animal rights activists obviously think that it is unacceptable. Most of us are not at all convinced.
I agree that all practices will bother someone at one time or another. However, the issue in question is not simply a case of "bother", but a question of rights. I have no right to launch a campaign against people who wear a brown t-shirt, even if brown t-shirts bother me. However, when it is a question of gross violation of rights, things somewhat change drastically.
However, perhaps, even in cases of rights violations, generally one should not resort to violence or personal hate-campaigns, but limit oneself to educational and awareness campaigns with the clear intent of convincing a majority - legislation would then follow. I can see this happening in the case of hunting.
One can be tolerant towards a person and intolerant towards a practice that violates rights.
When saying: "If we are to live peacefully together, we have to put up with these things and respect all individuals", you are obviously leaving non-human animals out of the equation.
Regarding tarnishing reputations, I value truth. If truth shows a person to be in the wrong, it is that person's actions that are tarnishing his reputation. Moral persons have an active duty to expose injustice.
One must realise that most of the human-being’s practices might bother others at one time or another. It then depends on how tolerant one is. I am bothered by many behaviours and acts of other human-beings, as I am sure others are bothered by what I sometimes do. That is absolutely normal. If we are to live peacefully together, we have to put up with these things and respect all individuals.
Unfortunately, some people are all the time pointing fingers and tarnishing other people’s reputation. They would be wise to sit down and think of the many things they do which irritate people. Only then will they start showing respect and tolerance towards others.
It is to be expected that a hunter (or hunt supporter) would find a comment supporting legal hunting to be the only decent one. However, if you try to put yourself in the position of one who opposes any sort of unnecessary killing, you would think otherwise.
Hunters who abide by the laws are being targeted along with hunters who shoot at any bird, precisely because more and more people are coming to recognise the fact that unnecessarily depriving sentient individuals of their life is unjust.
To such people who respect all sentient life, reported "facts" on numbers or species killed are irrelevant. Each individual counts, and to such people, any unnecessary killing puts the killer "in a bad light".
Regarding your reply to Fred, perhaps you too should grow up and accept the fact that hunting is increasingly being seen all over the world, including Europe, as unnecessary (and therefore unjust) killing. To such people (a growing majority) who see all hunting as senseless slaughter, all hunters must necessarily be put "in the same bracket".
People who indulge in practices that are inherently wrong should not whine about "hate campaigns" against their practice.
a) Killing for the sake of killing
b) Killing to fill a show case at home
c) and Illegal hunting
then I will consider to end my 'hate' for 'hunters'. I say consider because even if ‘hunting’ stops abruptly then still it is very difficult to forgive the number of hunters that have killed unnecessarily, especially protected birds of prey.
Please stop your campaign of killing, and then you can make demands like in this article. Till your members continue bringing down protected birds and killing birds unnecessarily, nobody is going to believe the "cry of the crocodile".
Sensibly the Ghaqda San Umbertu has rightly avoided endorsing this cheeky statement.
Reading Mr. Sultana's comment, readers will get a clear understanding of the hatred against hunters, whether these are law-abiding or not. He clearly admits to harbouring a hate towards hunters in general!
It is within me to defend arguments however without ever showing any hatred towards others. That is indeed how civilised peopple should behave.
You posted the only decent comment so far within this debate. Unfortunately hunters who abide by the laws are being targeted too along these criminals who shoot at anything. However some people think that it is up to each individual hunter to control those irresponsible and criminal individuals, this is the job of the authorities only.
Andrew, the problem, isnt that hunters have a bad repuation, the problem is that some 'facts' put across to the Maltese public are completely not true and put all hunters in a bad light. For heavens sake Malta is a speck in the Mediterranean, do you all seriously believe that hunting in Malta is having such a drastic effect on bid population in Europe?
Fred, grow up and accept the fact that hunting is practised all over the world, including Europe, do you hate all European hunters too now?
I repeat that i too codemn all forms of paoching, inculding at sea (because there is no difference between hunting a game bird and a fish!) but please do not put all hunters in one bracket.
Just as not all human beings are criminals, not all hunters are bad people!
Personally I think that FKNK has made its position worse by not condemning acts of vandalism and display of hatred, which have tainted its name even more. Maybe FKNK should check the facts and remove their blinkers, before issuing such statements. As time goes by , the federation keeps issuing such statements, giving us the impression that they are trying to clutch to the very last straws, without even trying to put up a reasonable argument.
I personally find no objection with hunting if it is practised within the boundaries of the law. However blaming the fact that they have such a bad image on Birdlife is shortsighted and is not doing them any good. This reputation has existed for many years and its up to the hunters to rehabilitate their image.