The Coalition for the Abolition of Spring Hunting have submitted their replies to the hunters’ objections to the referendum in the Constitutional Court.
Terming the hunters’ objections as “illogical and legally baseless”, the coalition replied, paragraph by paragraph, to the hunters' objections, including the one which dealt with the number of signatures collected.
While the hunters raised doubts on the Electoral Commission’s exercise to verify the signatures, the coalition said that even when the mathematical margin of error was subtracted, the number of signatures collected was that of 41,494, well above the 33,000 threshold.
Referring to the hunters’ complaint that the commission had not sought the services of a calligraphic expert to verify the signatures, the coalition said the commission was not bound by law to appoint such an expert.
The coalition also threw out the hunters’ complaint that the Referenda Act prevented the holding of a referendum to abolish any legislation of a fiscal nature.
It said there was nothing fiscal about spring hunting because there was no requirement of a specific licence to go hunting in spring.
Moreover, the legal notice was on the derogation from the Wild Birds Directive and not over some fiscal measure.
The coalition said the hunting lobby’s interpretation of the law was “diametrically opposed to what the interpretation should be”.
It said that while the hunting lobby referred to considerations of the European Courts of Justice in the case against Malta, it “conveniently” omitted the part where Malta was found in breach of the Wild Birds Directive between 2004 and 2007.
“It is ironic, and with all due respect incorrect, not to say perverse, that the [hunters] imply that if the referendum is allowed to go through it would be in breach of democracy when the referendum is the strongest expression of democracy,” the coalition said.
It added: “...by no stretch of the imagination can hunting be considered as some fundamental right. On the contrary, hunting is an activity which is regulated by licensing and on which limitations are not only legitimate but needed, particularly in spring when birds are at their most vulnerable.”
The coalition also rebutted the claims that the petition was not according to law as the first 10 signatories were not specified as being the proposers. However, the coalition said this was specified in the opening part of the petition.
It, therefore, called on the Constitutional Court to turn down the objections and continue the process to hold the abrogative referendum.
In a statement, the coalition said it now looked forward to the last step in the process which would allow the referendum to be held.
It encouraged people to get informed and be involved in this democratic process.
"Together it will finally be possible to stop spring hunting in Malta once and for all," the coalition said.
The Coalition for the Abolition of Spring Hunting is formed by 14 environmental organisations, namely Alternattiva Demokratika, Birdlife, Coalition for Animal Rights, Din L-Art Ħelwa, Flimkien għal-Ambjent Aħjar, Friends of the Earth Malta, Gaia Foundation, Greenhouse, International Animal Rescue Malta, Malta Organic Agriculture Movement, Moviment Graffiit, Nature Trust, Ramblers Association Malta, Youth for the Environment.
AD deputy chairman Carmel Cacopardo said this marked the beginning of the last stage which would lead to a precise date for the holding of the referendum to abolish hunting in spring.
"The Constitutional Court has around three months to hear the oral submissions of the interested parties and to then decide on the admissabity of the referendum request. By the end of January, at the latest, we should know the outcome".
AD chairman Arnold Cassola said that since its foundation in 1989 AD worked consistently to abolish spring hunting.
"We are proud to have worked closely with other environmental organisations to make this dream come true. We would like to thank again all those that signed the petition since -in the absence of any government action- through their signature they exercised their rights in such a way as to be able to give the opportunity to all the Maltese people to decide on the issue through their vote in a referendum. This is a democratic expression of the highest kind," he said.