The alarm bells raised by Birdlife that the authorities may be planning yet another amnesty for hunters in possession of illegally-stuffed birds shows a worrying trend in the government’s approach to enforcing the law, especially when large numbers of people, with votes, are concerned.

Following up on similar amnesties granted to hunters in 1998 and, again, in 2003, this latest proposal, if implemented, would require hunters to register their stuffed birds, ostensibly shot before May 2003, and pay a once-only €500 fine and €50 per bird.

They all get to keep the birds, of course, birds which they should never have shot. This translates into the legalisation of illegality and sends a very wrong message from a government that claims it wants to come down hard on illegal hunting. Surely, this is not the way to go about it.

The Parliamentary Secretariat for Animal Rights has denied that the plan would amount to another amnesty and said the government was still to consider the proposal. Birdlife, the secretariat said, was referring to a technical report before the Ornis Committee concerning penalties for the declaration of protected bird specimens that had not been declared to the authorities during the 2003 registration exercise.

The plan, according to the secretariat, is to allow hunters in possession of unregistered stuffed birds to voluntarily declare their protected bird specimens and pay the penalties at the current rates before the “much higher penalties proposed” are introduced.

Was that statement meant to put people’s minds at rest that the government means business on hunting? Hardly. It is another amnesty in disguise for a minority of people who hold the countryside at gunpoint and which government after government chooses to appease rather than control.

It appears that for this government, so long as a fine is paid then all is fine, legal and hurriedly swept under the carpet. In reality, it is just perpetuating a problem. More worrying, this approach by the government to de facto situations of illegality is not unique to hunting laws.

A few months ago, Enemalta began installing a temporary electricity supply to illegal boathouses in Armier and St Thomas Bay. The justification given by the Prime Minister was that the occupants of those illegal shantytowns were stealing electricity from the government grid and that installing meters would put a stop to the theft.

The theft of electricity was a matter for the police to handle and not the government. Just because the squatters were made to pay for the temporary supply did not alter in any way the fact that the law had been blatantly broken. In the same way that hunters will soon be able to keep their illegally-shot birds, those squatters will be enjoying, in comfort, the illegal structures they built on public land. That too is an amnesty.

As was the amnesty given to people who were caught tampering with Enemalta smart meters. The thieves were asked to pay a fine and interest in addition to what was due. Instead of calling in the police, the government evidently bowed to voter pressure and found a way out for the thieves, leaving all law-abiding citizens, people who always pay their energy bills, who don’t occupy public land and don’t shoot protect birds, very shortchanged.

Laws are there to be upheld and not compromised. To do otherwise is an injustice and only serves to open the door to more abuse.