Henry Fenech Azzopardi, Sliema
Real 'farce' at Ornis meeting
In reply to comments made by BirdLife, I would like to clear some points raised with regard to this week's Ornis meeting. At the end of a four-hour meeting it was agreed by all that the outcome of the meeting was to remain confidential and that the chairman would deliver to the authorities any way forward in connection with spring hunting. I was contacted by the media and so were fellow committee members but we stood by what was agreed and refrained from leaking information.
By the time I drove home I discovered that BirdLife had forgotten all about the confidentiality and had given their own version of events in timesofmalta.com and in so doing, at the spur of the moment, they let their emotions drive them senseless, so much so that they attributed facts which were nonexistent.
The first remark was that the meeting was farcical and that the Prime Minister was using Ornis as a smoke screen. The Prime Minister declared in Parliament on November 9 that spring hunting will be opened. I circulated an online recording of the parliamentary sitting. All the members of Parliament of both sides agree that spring hunting should be opened, with or without Ornis consent. In the past the government closed or restricted the seasons without any advice from Ornis. Even at this stage the government may still not open the season, despite what was agreed.
The comment of "farcical" applies exactly to what BirdLife tried to do by blocking any way forward with senseless and repeated arguments that had no basis. They literally tried to take over the meeting without any argument to substantiate their claim. The judgement by the European Court of Justice was a brick wall for all their types of reasoning. Their continuous baseless interruptions led the chairman to remark that their intentions were only to put spokes in the wheels.
It must be recorded that FKNK circulated their proposals, which were confidential, days before the Ornis meeting. BirdLife broke all ethics and published their comments on these proposals to gain support.
The Ornis meeting started with Andrè Raine's counter proposals, which were printed but not circulated. These counter proposals took 45 minutes to read out and believe me, trying to follow Dr Raine's accent of speech in a rather fast forward mode is no joke. How can BirdLife comment on the circulation of Mepa proposals when their own counter proposals, which were much longer, were not circulated? After all, Mepa's proposals were more or less based on the FKNK's, which BirdLife published except for the bag limits.
I believe there is still time for both NGOs to work together. We heard FKNK asking BirdLife for the CABS to come and help with the supervision of illegal hunting, when in the past FKNK were against their presence. We still have to see an approach by BirdLife showing good faith in this regard. All they have done to date was to criticise all that FKNK are trying to do to educate the hunters. Let us look on the positive side for the future and involve both NGOs in fruitful service to the public. Legal hunting has to be accepted; anything illegal has to be deplored and penalised.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
4 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Henry Fenech Azzopardi
Mar 7th 2010, 00:29
@ Peter Green.
I am very sorry to state that you are totally misinformed. Birdlife first and foremost have the backing of the European Commission and besides the thousands of Euros pocketed these have a continuous voice in Europe. Money talks and with it Birdlife have at the moment a TV programme aired on One TV. A programme with anti hunting at its best.
Furthermore Birdlife have succeeded over the years to get hold of not less than three bird sanctuaries plus natura 2000 and the project in Mellieha. At present they are also trying to acquire the Miziep area which till now they have not succeeded.
You see Mr Green they do not need to use their vote to get what they want. They have been brainwashing all those that are prepared to believe anything they say.
They have no boundaries and they will not stop till they achieve their agenda to abolish hunting. This they want to do despite that they say that they do not want to abolish hunting.
My letter above is ample proof of how they go about matters to try and win support. However facts cannot be argued and twisted. They remain facts.
Sylvana Zarb Darmanin
Mar 6th 2010, 20:30
Peter Green, BLM have in the past presented non-factual arguments and these have been exposed by none other than the ECJ. BLM are presently acting like kids by not honouring the undertaking to abide by the ECJ ruling while also disclosing confidential information to the media before an official announcement is made by the authorities concerned. I also refer you to results of both MEP election and General Election where pro-hunting candidates obtained the support of voters whereas anti-hunting candidates faired really badly. It is incorrect when you state that the FKNK "threatens the political parties". The Maltese citizens spoke!
Joseph Calafato
Mar 6th 2010, 14:54
I started out mildly against hunting and trapping in my youth but I do accept that most people in Malta, especially in rural areas outside Sliema-centric newsrooms are in favour of hunting and trapping.
After years of BirdLife trying to foist on the Maltese population a wholesale ban on hunting/trapping that the population of Malta so obviously disagrees with, it is now clear for me that an elitist anti-liberal minority wants to force this ban via Brussels rather than via the ballot box in Malta.
This same elitist minority sees hunters and trappers not as fellow Maltese but as 'hamalli' that have to be dictated to.
This illiberal minority is trying to do via European institutions (especially the EU Commission's environment directorate that is actually infested with BirdLife activists) what both main political parties in Malta representing 98% of the electorate disagree with.
This is unacceptable in a liberal democracy and BirdLife should be shown for what it is - a fixated minority run by foreign activists in Malta influencing politicians against the electorate's wishes peddling untruths now clearly shown as such by the European Court of Justice.
Peter Green
Mar 6th 2010, 13:16
Sadly enough, Birdlife Malta will loose out since they have no support from main political parties. FKNK threatens the political parties with its members votes so they listen to it. Birdlife is politically neutral so it does not pose a threat to the main political parties so it gets ignored.