An important aspect of the spring hunting referendum is that we are given the facts. On the hunters’ side we are told the European court accepted that Malta can make use of a derogation, that the two types of birds hunted are of no concern and that European directives permit hunting in spring by means of a derogation. Those opposing hunting on the other hand oppose all this and state their own facts for us to evaluate.

I am not sure who is right but I do know that whatever Malta does or legislates has to satisfy the European Commission. I am aware that spring hunting was stopped by the European Commission some years after accession.

I have every respect for those out to protect birds as I do for those who hunt a few birds. I commend our Prime Minister for his expedient actions following an illegality by suspending the season in autumn.

I am baffled, however, by a number of issues in this debate. The referendum is spearheaded by Alternattiva Demokratika, a political party, and yet AD expects other political parties not to politicise the issue. Also, contrary to a series of actions prior to the spring hunting case in the European courts, the European Commission has failed to take any action or pronounce itself on the issue ever since.

Furthermore, while the hunting lobby refers to quotes and references in most of their arguments, I fail to see anything similar from those opposing them.

Some argue that our countryside is occupied by hunters and yet I have yet to experience such an ‘occupation’ during the spring hunting season.

I also eat meat and while respecting those who don’t, I fail to see the argument of those opposed to hunting who gladly eat meat. My personal opinion is that this referendum has nothing to do with hunting in spring, but is a contest between those against hunting and those who make hunting part of their life.

I see no reason why I should be one of those supporting a ban. On balance, I have decided to vote ‘Yes’.