I became Ornis Committee chairman 10 months ago. At the time of appointment, I promised parliamentary secretary Roderick Galdes I would do my job with impartiality and discretion. It’s a promise I don’t intend to break, which is why what follows isn’t about hunting.

The Prime Minister was wrong to suspend the autumn hunting season. I’m surprised that few if any political commentators picked up on it. I’m less surprised that the Opposition seems to have accepted it without as much as a whimper. Another example of the PN not being in a position to respond, shall we say. That, or government and the Opposition are partners in crime on this one.

In any case, what I’ve seen so far is the usual pro-/anti-hunting see-saw. On one hand, people who were happy to see hunters out of the way for a while. On the other, hunters nursing a sense of injustice and frustration.

My premise is that, politically, hunting is a legitimate activity. I am not a hunter, nor do I wish to become one. What I mean is that there is a political consensus that hunting is permissible. Kind and extent are hotly contested, but the area of least contention happens to be the autumn season – precisely the type that was suspended.

In other words, the government chose to tamper with an activity that’s legitimate, and that has been described as such by the Prime Minister himself on numerous occasions – including, significantly, before the last election. It follows that we should ask whether or not the suspension was fair.

The answer is bound to be profoundly consequential, politically speaking.

It is for that reason that we non-hunters need bother. That includes the anti-hunting environmentalists, who might consider putting their Schadenfreude on hold for a wee while in order to ask questions about the political implications of the suspension.

Some hunters have proved to be unpleasant customers, truth be told. But that is not the point. A government that acts arbitrarily and unfairly towards one group is likely to do so again with others. This is particularly true if that government finds it can get away with it.

And that is precisely what the Prime Minister has discovered on this one. The anti-hunting lobby feels so passionately about its purpose that it has stopped seeing reason.

That may be lucky for Joseph Muscat, but very bad news for the rest of us. I’ve a sinking feeling that what happened to hunters will happen to journalists, or teachers, or environmentalists for that matter. Once unfair (and unchallenged) is always unfair.

There are two reasons why the suspension was not right. The first has to do with the basis on which the decision was made. A suspension of this kind is radical and draconian. What that means is that a government that decides to go for it had better have a cast-iron argument.

The Prime Minister said last Sunday that the hunting situation leading up to the suspension was “a race to the bottom”. In other words, that things had spiralled out of control to the extent that a drastic solution was called for. Question is, should we just believe him?

I for one does not. My impression is that things this autumn were much the same like previous years. In sum, an average season peppered with reports of injured and dead protected birds.

Ten years ago I’d have said ‘swamped’ rather than ‘peppered’. But that was then and now is now, thanks to political will, the work of the police, surveillance by Birdlife and CABS, and the goodwill of hunters broadly speaking.

True, there was the stork. But the person who shot it was apprehended and got what he deserved in no time. If anything, the stork incident showed that the police were coping well enough.

I don’t expect readers to take my, rather than the Prime Minister’s, word for it. But I do expect the government to tell us exactly on what grounds the decision to suspend the season was made. Tangibly, the government is duty-bound to present us with statistical and other data that show that things were indeed much worse than previous years, and racing to the bottom.

The data does exist. The police keep detailed and comparative records of reports and incidents and so do Birdlife, CABS and the government’s own Wild Birds Regulation Unit.

Until those data are published, I refuse to simply take the Prime Minister’s word for it.

He may be the most honest man in Malta, my point is about the transparency or otherwise of political decisions.

The FKNK is right about the second reason why the suspension was unfair. This was a case of collective punishment, and collective punishment is more akin to bully-boy tactics and tantrums than it is to justice.

The government cannot reasonably hold hunters collectively responsible for illegalities committed by few, some or many.

The official version is that collective punishment will force hunters to report each other’s mischief, à la East Germany. But surely that is misguided, for two reasons.

The government chose to tamper with an activity that’s legitimate

First, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of social practice. Relations with neighbours are an essential part of hunting. If the Prime Minister honestly expects hunters to witness in court against their neighbours, he must be dreaming. Readers inclined to take the moral high ground might wish to ask themselves when was the last time they reported a neighbour for putting the rubbish out in the wrong bag.

Second, because it is not right that government should abdicate its responsibility on law enforcement and pass it on to hunters, collectively. While it is perfectly acceptable for the government to collaborate with Birdlife, and with hunters and their associations, final responsibility must rest at the top.

There was something else the Prime Minister said last Sunday which I thought was quite sinister. Those who thought that the current penalties were tough “had not seen anything yet”, he warned.

The hint is that prison sentences will become de rigueur. After all, when Giljan Tanti was handed a three-month suspended sentence (plus a life ban and a €5,000 fine) for shooting the stork a month ago, the government backed the police’s appeal for an effective term.

Stiff law enforcement and tough penalties are a good thing. But I hope the government is aware of the crushing human and social costs of imprisonment. The Prime Minister might want to listen carefully to what recently-retired Judge Lawrence Quintano has been saying about his experiences.

I find it extraordinary that the same people who normally bash government for being arbitrary, and for not consulting the proper channels, are now applauding it for doing much the same thing – just because they happen to hate hunters. They’re happy that the Prime Minister ‘has balls’, apparently (refer to a million Facebook comments).

Well, I happen not to be interested in other men’s genitals. What does concern me is that, on hunting or whatever else, government decisions should be based on transparent and fair reasoning.

mafalzon@hotmail.com