For the very first time ever Malta has a Parliamentary Secretary for Animal Rights in the person of the Roderick Galdes.

In a recent interview with The Times of Malta he said that one of the two tasks on his in-tray is the obtaining of a derogation for autumn trapping. He said that his Ministry has found some chink - or was it a xaqq? – in EU legislation that one could wiggle through – barring obesity problems, that is – to get this derogation. Even the possibility that this great exception could possibly include finches was discussed.

If the Honourable Parliamentary Secretary gets his way our local trappers would drink real champagne or some kind of spumante, if they do it the cheap way. But would this derogation add anything – even one tiny iota – to animal rights? Would any bird chirp to its heart’s content if the minister responsible for the enhancement of its rights gets his way? I don’t think so.

I do not envy the balancing act that the Hon Galdes has to do. But how on earth can a Parliamentary Secretary responsible for animal rights goes out of his way to enable hunters to kill more birth and trappers to trap to their heart’s content? And, sopra corna bastonate, how can he have the guts to say that he is doing it to improve animal rights? Had Galdes been the Parliamentary Secretary for Hunters’ and Trappers’ Rights his efforts would have been in place. But he is responsible for animal rights, not for hunters’ rights!

Was the setting up of a parliamentary secretariat for animal rights just a politically convenient/vote-catching move? Or is this secretariat really interested or committed to improve animal rights?

The discussion about animal rights is a very serious one. It concerns us humans as much as it concerns animals. It tells about how we live out our own humanity as much as it tells us about how we view other creatures on Planet Earth. Philosophers, law makers, international organisations, religious leaders, politicians and common folk have contributed to this discussion.

UNESCO had adopted the “Universal Declaration of Animal Rights” in 1978. It took a position in favour of philosophical trend assenting that animals should be regarded as members of the same moral community as humans, and as such have rights.

This was a very important step forward for these fellow inhabitants of this planet and for the relationship – many times stormy – between humans and animals.

Some cultures, mainly for religious reasons, have adopted a very respectful attitude towards animals.  In these cultures some animals are treated as sacred beings while others animals are treated with great respect since some relative or friend could have been incarnated in one of them. Vegetarians, and more so vegans, do not eat animals or fish or products coming from animals or fish.  Animals are safe with them more than children are safe with their parents.

Other cultures have perceived and continue to perceive non-human animals as subjects to be dominated, owned, or consumed. Even in such cultures the number of those reacting against the inhumane ways in which humans interact with animals is on the increase.

There are several initiatives against the over-consumption of meat, the use of animals for experimentation, and the confinement and abuse of animals for entertainment. Humans who respect themselves will also respect other creates though this respect can be shown in different ways. It is important for all human beings to acknowledge their duty to live in balance with their animal counterparts. This will help to counteract the many abuses directed towards animals by ensuring their protection and rights to co-exist alongside human beings. Moreover when humans respect other creatures they will also respect each other more.

Quite naturally there is disagreement about what in concrete terms this respect entails. Many, this writer included, are against cruelty but are not against eating animal flesh. However I do not try to justify my carnivorous ways as an example of respect for animal rights. I look at it as a limitation.

Similarly should Mr Galdes realise that his attempts to help hunters and trappers do a lot for hunters rights and zilch for animal rights. A change in the name of his remit would not be amiss.