Any column about the referendum petition by the hunters’ federation (FKNK) needs to begin by declaring its vote in a referendum on spring hunting. Otherwise, the rest of the discussion will be overshadowed by the elephant in the room.

I would rather live in a country that permitted spring hunting. Although it would be garish, in this context, to say I’m motivated by an ethos of live and let live, there is a matter of cultural pluralism at stake, and, where, possible, I’m in favour of maximising such pluralism.

Therefore, in next year’s referendum, I shall probably vote for spring hunting’s retention. Probably? Well, I’m also a stickler for the law. My support for spring hunting is qualified by the respect for, and enforcement of, the relevant laws and ecologically responsible hunting regulations. I would change my vote if the debate convinced me that there was no good reason to hope for fundamental respect and enforcement.

The elephant having been acknowledged, what are we to make of the FKNK petition?

The short answer is that it’s a populist protest cloaked as a defence against populism. If Parliament had to respond to the petition the way the FKNK wants it, our democracy would take not one but two steps back.

It would, first, open the way to curtail any future abrogative referendum after the necessary signatures were collected by an act of Parliament.

Second, it would so severely distort our understanding of what minorities are, for democratic purposes, that it would make the notion unusable. The people the notion of ‘minority’ was designed to protect could become more vulnerable to the tyranny of the majority as a result.

The longer answer, however, requires us to distinguish between three separate questions that the petition raises.

First, the FKNK says that nearly 105,000 signatures cannot be ignored.

The association is playing on ambiguity. On the one hand, it is touting the signatures as potential votes in a general election. Hence, why the underage signatures count and why they are openly declared.

The hunting vote played an important role in the Gozo vote in the EP election. Even staunchly Nationalist voters voted for Clint Camilleri, the Labour candidate, given the FKNK’s endorsement. Given the importance of Gozo and of first-time voters in the next general election, the FKNK’s subtext is clear.

But all that is between the lines. The official message is that a petition of 105,000 signatures requires a response. Yes, it certainly does. It requires engagement. But it does not necessarily require acquiescence.

That depends on engagement with the principle being invoked. Those signatories would not have been ignored if Parliament engages with the request only to turn it down.

The second question the FKNK is raising concerns the nature of a ‘minority’. Its list of minorities potentially at risk of the tyranny of the majority include (citing the report appearing on Times of Malta) “offroad enthusiasts, horse racing enthusiasts, feast enthusiasts, karozzini owners, fishermen and gay people”.

In other words, minorities, according to this definition, can include hobby enthusiasts, people in trades and professions and sexual and gender minorities.

If the Maltese Parliament had to concoct its own definition of what a minority group is... it would risk making itself a laughing stock

Once summed up this way, one can see the problem. By this measure, everyone belongs to a minority, indeed to half a dozen or more at once. Lawyers are a minority. Tattooists are a minority. Boċċi enthusiasts are a minority. Nudists are a minority. Everyone belongs to a minority except Xarabank viewers on a good night.

For political purposes, the concept of a minority group was obviously coined for other reasons. International law does not give a definition but there are conventions. Generally, the term covers distinctions based on race, ethnicity religion, language, disability and, more recently, gender, sexuality and age.

What constitutes a minority group is not set in stone. But the general criteria include a history of being discriminated against, where one’s identity permeates most aspects of one’s everyday life, from the household to the job interview and the shopping counter.

It is true that some hobbies are pursued with such enthusiasm that people organise their lives around them. Many hunters in Malta have done just this, taking up jobs that suit the patterns of the hunting season. But that’s still a far cry from what belong to a minority group means.

Minority group rights can usually be traced back to human rights law. Any appeal to belong to a minority group must therefore begin with international convention.

If the Maltese Parliament had to concoct its own definition of what a minority group is, without any reference to European conventions, it would risk making itself a laughing stock, although, in fact, the result would be sinister.

Once there are no conventional criteria by which a minority group is defined, and anyone can claim special protection against anyone else, the only way of resolving issues would be ad hoc and arbitrary. That leaves the final question that the FKNK raises: what is a referendum supposed to be for?

It says it should be about ‘national’ issues. It requires a bit more argument to show that an issue that has swung national elections and involves collective ecological responsibility is not ‘national’.

In any case, the law itself allows that it can be about anything except, essentially, financial and constitutional law. What that means is that, actually, the FKNK is wrong to say that LGBTI people could be next, since their rights have been enshrined in the Constitution, thanks to Claudette Buttigieg’s initiative.

In fact, it is almost certainly the case that all recognised minorities (in the conventional sense) are protected from a malicious abrogative referendum. There is no need for the amendment proposed by the FKNK.

The only amendment to the law that would make any difference to the FKNK, therefore, would be one tailored to include it as a minority group. Far from being an issue of principle, such an amendment would actually make it impossible to protect minorities on principle.

It would be an ad hoc measure that makes it possible for anyone to claim to belong to a minority. It would, effectively, not just stop the spring hunting referendum but substantively curb the right to an abrogative referendum. Anyone against could just coalesce into an affronted minority.

This would leave, once more, the authorities in charge of deciding who gets to have an abrogative referendum. That would be the most sinister consequence of all: a law intended to decentralise power would end up giving more power to the centre.

ranierfsadni@europe.com