The editorial of March 2 about “sacred cows” is entirely misleading.

Contrary to what The Times asserted, it is not the silent majority which is “simply demanding that Malta sticks to EU rules” but it is, in fact, an extremist group of anti-hunting fanatics. Moreover, it is all unnecessary because even the hunting organisations intend to stick to EU rules. For example, one EU rule permits derogations and Malta invokes this rule to apply its spring hunting derogation.

It is, again, only the arrogant leaders of Birdlife Malta who negate the righteousness of the Maltese spring hunting derogation, a derogation implemented by the Nationalist Government after negotiations with the Environment Commission of the EU. The derogation is based on a historic decision, applicable only to Malta and from which there is no appeal, made by the European Court of Justice, which found that the principle of ‘no satisfactory alternative solution’ (to spring hunting) in the case of Malta had been met.

This fact was confirmed by none other than Simon Busuttil. In an article published by The Times on September 16, 2009, he wrote: “On the contrary, it (the European Court of Justice) suggested that it is indeed possible to authorise spring hunting, provided that this is done in a restrained and judicious manner. …So, the question in Malta, is not whether spring hunting is possible but under which conditions it is possible.” Therefore, The Times is wrong to accuse the Nationalist Government of persisting “in challenging the law on spring hunting”.

Again, it is only Birdlife Malta who maintain that the derogation is wrong because they say the two species targeted are under threat. The EU Court of Justice had refuted Birdlife’s claim because the Court accepted the fact that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies both species as being of ‘Least Concern’.

Moreover, it is a fact that, during autumn of every year, within the EU between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000 turtle doves are harvested (killed). The EU knows this and allows it. Therefore, it logically should not bother with a few thousands legally shot in Malta in spring. Dead birds, whether shot in autumn or in spring, cannot reproduce.

If there is a “lobby which thrives on bullying tactics”, it is certainly not the hunters but Birdlife Malta. There is no end to their arrogance and unreasonable demands. Their latest bullying tactic was to send a questionnaire to every election candidate and demand that they fill it in and return it.

The Times wrote: “An abrogative referendum could be forced if 10 per cent of voters sign a petition”. An abrogative referendum would be null and void if, as in this case, it could result in the deprivation of a minority’s rights. Maltese hunters have a right to hunt as much as any other EU citizens.

If the majority do not wish to hunt, that’s their prerogative but if a minority wish to hunt, the majority have no right to take away that right.

When he stated he would organise a referendum on spring hunting if need be, Lawrence Gonzi contradicted earlier declarations by Busuttil and David Casa. A statement issued by Busuttil’s office on November 7, 2006, declared: “However, during (accession) negotiations Malta also made it clear that it would be using derogation for spring hunting limited to just two species. The results of these negotiations were approved in a referendum. The Government should, therefore, continue to feel politically bound by the commitments endorsed in the referendum. We appeal to those who claim that the Government should renege on these commitments to appreciate that this is a mandate and, as such, it should be respected.”

Finally, instead of making gratuitous assertions contradicted by the facts, could The Times specify in what way “on the eve of an election they (hunters) are once again threatening the two main parties at gunpoint”? For example, it wrote that the “front page story citing hunting officials claiming to have come close to signing a ‘memorandum of understanding’ to endorse Labour is very worrying”.

Does The Times take that as meaning that the Labour Party is being threatened at gunpoint?

The hunters protested, as they have a right to, against a proposed abrogative referendum. Again, does The Times interpret that as threatening the PN at gunpoint?

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.