Hunters’ objections to the holding of a referendum to abolish spring hunting were shot down yesterday, with the coalition fighting for the national poll describing them as “illogical and legally baseless”. The hunting lobby’s interpretation of the law was “diametrically opposed” to the correct interpretation of basic laws, it said.

“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.

In an extensive document filed before the Constitutional Court, the Coalition against Spring Hunting replied, almost paragraph by paragraph, to the objections raised by the Hunters’ Federation (FKNK) and St Hubert Hunters.

According to the Referenda Act the Constitutional Court is tasked with deciding whether the referendum can be held after hearing submissions for and against.

‘Hunting can’t be considered a fundamental right’

The hunting federation noted that the Referenda Act prevented the holding of a referendum to abolish any legislation of a fiscal nature. But, the coalition rebutted, there was nothing fiscal about spring hunting.

Moreover, it said the legal notice on the derogation from the Wild Birds Directive, which it wants repealed, was not over a fiscal measure.

It is an activity regulated by licensing on which limitations are needed

The coalition is made up of Alternattiva Demokratika, Birdlife Malta, 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 Graffiti, Nature Trust, Ramblers’ Association Malta and Youth for the Environment.

The coalition collected more than 41,000 signatures calling for the holding of an abrogative referendum to strike out the 2010 legal notice that makes spring hunting possible.

Rebutting the hunters’ claims over the number of signatures collected and the verification exercise conducted by the Electoral Commission, the coalition said that even when the mathematical margin of error was subtracted, the number of signatures collected was 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, as it was not bound to appoint an expert mathematician for his professional opinion on the exercise.

The coalition also shot down the hunters’ argument that the referendum would breach Malta’s EU Treaty obligations, saying the derogation itself created a moratorium on the implementation of the directive and which the country is not expected to fulfil until the derogation ends.

Hunters insisted the proponents could not be identified in the petition and so it was not possible to verify whether the legal condition was satisfied.

However, the coalition disproved this by referring the hunters to the introduction to the petition which states that the first 10 on the list are the proponents.

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.

The coalition said it was “ironic” how the hunters quoted a document on “the effective participation of members’ minority communities in decisions which affect them” when they, as members of a minority, were trying to stop a referendum, which is the most effective way of having a say.

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 the limitations are not only legitimate but needed, particularly in spring when birds are their most vulnerable.”

It therefore called on the Constitutional Court to turn down the objections and continue the process to hold the abrogative referendum.

Political leaders’ responses

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil yesterday confirmed that they will also make written submissions to the Constitutional Court on the matter.

According to the Referenda Act, both had to be notified with the submissions of the objectors.

They are not legally obliged to reply.

However, when asked by Times of Malta whether they would, they both said yes.