You will have noticed my resplendent red tie, donned in order to try to divert attention from the fact that my efforts to research decent eateries on your behalf are putting rather more of me on display than is seemly. The colour of the tie is without significance, it just happened to be one I had at the office and I needed to be wearing one just after the press conference during which my photograph was snapped.

Of more significance was the subject matter of the presser, which was prompted by the need to scotch the ‘misinformation’ being resorted to by the pro-hunting lobby. When one says ‘misinformation’, one is being charitable, as was made amply clear during the event, and what one really means is that the argument being put forward by the bird killers is untrue, it is not supported by fact, it is, at the end of the day, a lie.

The Assorted Orwellian Conservationists – also known as the pro-hunting lobby – are going around trying to build on the inherent fear of change that many people, especially of the type who would not be contrary to supporting hunting if left to their own devices, feel most of the time.

The lie being put about is that if the referendum to abrogate the derogation on spring hunting is carried by the ‘No’ vote this would be the thin end of the wedge and any bunch of crackpots could come up with a referendum to ban, say, band clubs or fireworks or stamp-collecting.

In simple terms, backed up if you like by the masterful brief prepared by Mark Bencini, this is simply not the case. The only reason spring hunting is allowed at all is that there is a law in place that allows it and the proponents of the referendum are asking for this law to be abrogated. There is no (good word, that) other hobby, pastime, pursuit or time-filler that requires a law in place to let it carry on, however much the massed ranks of bird killers splutter and spin about it.

For virtually every other activity that could be relevant to this discussion, a law would have to be proposed, by Parliament, for the consideration of the people by referendum, banning it or otherwise restricting it: did you notice the operative words “by Parliament”?

However many misguided fools get their undies in a twist and put petitions into place, the House would have to take leave of its senses and frame the required proposition and put it before the rest of us, whose collars are presumably not seething with the residual heat of a bonnet full of bees, for horse-racing to be banned.

It will just not happen. Is this sufficiently clear now?

The exercise in which I had a mere supporting role was valuable not only to put into sharp relief the depths to which the pro-hunting lobby will descend. The comments below the various stories on the portals were also highly illuminating.

If you can bring yourselves to read them, you will discern a pattern that is becoming clear: the bird slaughtering brotherhood, and one sister, are very, very angry that their desire to do their thing without restraint is being gainsaid by anyone, let alone a bunch of lawyers who, if they know nothing, have a grasp of the law and a modicum of logic.

Can you imagine what their tone will be if they carry the day and enough people are persuaded to vote for the maintenance in force of the law allowing migrating birds to be killed on their way north to breed?

Insufferable, even more arrogant, even less constrained by the limits of common decency are a number of descriptors that spring to mind.

Never let it be said that all lawyers are always practical and forgiving when it comes to letting the slightest of procedural advantages slip from their clutches

Whatever happens come the day, I will be proud to have voted ‘No’ and done my best to persuade others to follow suit. If my best is insufficient, then so be it, I will have to adopt the Moor’s position in the Merchant (Act II, Scene IX).

The legal profession distinguished itself on a different topic over the last few days: a judicial protest was filed against the government by a goodly number of them (yes, I was there too, surprised?) making it known that our Lords and Masters were charging the citizenry fees to accede to the courts of law that were not catered for under the law.

When the Minister for Peanuts and Low Pay (the Finance Minister) was doling out the good news for the coming year, he had given to understand, to be sure, that Court Registry fees (not lawyers’ fees, mark you) would be raised and no sooner did January 1 roll around than the good folk at the registry started charging the higher fees.

The problem was that there was a slight technicality that was overlooked: for fees to be charged for any government service, there needs to be some form of authorisation in place. The Minister of Finance’s dictum, worthy as he and it are, is insufficient unto the task.

Now this might strike you as nitpicking, but the point is that for a legal document filed in court to have been validly thus filed, the right fee needs to be paid and, in certain circumstances, if this is not done, all manner of legal complications might arise.

Never let it be said that all lawyers are always practical and forgiving when it comes to letting the slightest of procedural advantages slip from their clutches.

This is why a bevy of legal beagles thought it might be a good wheeze to poke the minister in the ribs and exhort him to get his act together. No-one, despite what certain sectors of the press were mumbling, was whinging about the level of fees, this is a matter for the government to decide on within the context of its own priorities but everyone was concerned that even on this most basic of levels, that is, getting the fees properly listed and legislated, the government had messed up.

It’s almost as if the Minister for Perceiving Traffic as an Illusion had got his finger into this particular pie.

On the subject of traffic, can I suggest you download the excellent MRTU App and use it? You will be giving others a service while you are snarled up in one of Joe Mizzi’s dogs’ dinners and, by their very nature, these things work best when many use them. It only costs €1.99.

On the subject of excellence, the Friends of the Notarial Archives did one very good piece of work in having a fund and awareness-raising dinner based on historic ingredients and methods a week ago at the Maritime Museum. Cooked and served entirely by the volunteers who are battling to save the archive from the years of criminal neglect visited upon it by successive governments, the meal was enjoyable in the extreme and thanks are due in no small measure to Matty Cremona for it.

Joan Abela, who importunes, bullies, inveigles, persuades, charms and otherwise infects everyone around her with an enthusiasm that seems to know no limits, deserves more than thanks: she deserves support. So, adopt a (dead) notary soon.

Closing as one must, La Vela in Msida (where the Torpedo Depot used to be) is a very good place to try, Sicilian food cooked as it should be, while if you want good meat, Chukka’s is the place, it was packed on Monday night, which is always a clear sign.

imbocca@gmail.com

http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs