Albert Einstein said: “The world will not be destroyed by those who do harm, but by those who watch them without doing anything.” We are all fascinated and thrilled at the sight of an unusual migrant bird which pops in our garden come spring. Children are fascinated and dream of a day when more of these birds come and feed from their hands. Well, such a dream could soon become a reality but only if we are resolute about this.
The spring hunting referendum reminds me of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring published way back in 1962. The book documented the detrimental effects on the environment – particularly on birds – of the indiscriminate use of synthetic pesticides.
In the local context, it’s about the wanton killing of birds, especially in spring but in a different way… Maltese hunters ably taking the role played by pesticides then.
Our ‘No’ vote should be first and foremost a vote for the sustainability of bird species. Sustainability dictates that a species is left to breed and multiply so that hunting does not lead to its extinction. In modern civilised society the senseless killing of birds just for the thrill of it is both morally and ethically unacceptable.
Our ‘No’ vote should also send a strong message to the major political parties that backroom pre-election agreements with hunters are no longer acceptable.
Our ‘No’ vote should be first and foremost a vote for the sustainability of bird species
This referendum is about the abolition of spring hunting not all-year hunting, so as to achieve this sustainability. And sustainability takes precedence over anybody’s presumed hunting rights, or rather privileges.
One bone of contention between the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ camps is the collection and interpretation of scientific data and what constitutes sustainable numbers with respect to specific bird species. In such a scenario, when the effects of a measure (in this case application of the spring hunting derogation) are disputed and scientific consensus is lacking, the precautionary principle comes into play, implying that spring hunting should be resisted, as is the case with global warming and the curbing of greenhouse gases.
This referendum is a civil society initiative and it would have been more prudent and desirable if both the PL and PN party leaders had not taken a public stand on this issue. Don’t get me wrong, party leaders have a right to their personal opinion on the matter and I respect their choice but it should have remained just that – personal. By going public, they have put undue pressure on the electorate and sowed more uncalled for division.
I am of the humble opinion that by taking such a repeated strong public stand for the ‘Yes’ vote our Prime Minister may have unwittingly shot himself in the foot in achieving that elusive mid-term majority in votes and/or seats, no matter how small, in April 11 local council elections, especially when one considers the country’s positive economic achievements since he took over.
I think that he would do well to remember that man does not live by cash alone. For many PL voters who are against spring hunting this may be a déjà vu. We all remember the EU membership referendum where thousands of PL voters who voted for EU entry felt ostracised from the party because they did not tow the party line.
Since I have publicly declared my support for the ‘No’ vote and started attending SHout activities because what I do is out of conviction and not convenience, I have been called a traitor and hypocrite by a number of PL supporters, including councillors, who do not know any better and who do this out of a false sense of loyalty to the party leader. The same goes for our 69 MPs – only one (to my knowledge) plucked up enough courage to declare her support for the ‘No’ vote.
I bet that in a post-referendum Eurobarometer survey the Maltese people’s trust in our politicians will dip even further. Given that Joseph Muscat and Simon Busuttil have made public their voting intentions, I would have expected a firm unequivocal stand against spring hunting at least by our environment and tourism ministers and their Opposition counterparts.
When individuals neglect the well-being of society in the pursuit of personal gain, often a tragedy of the commons results. A victory for the ‘Yes’ camp will perpetuate the current tragedy. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring an end to this absurd state of affairs.
Complacency will retain the status quo. Let us all be on the right side of history once again! It really is an easy choice: you are either for the sustainability of birds, so that there are enough to be enjoyed by all (alive by nature lovers and ironically as a target practice by hunters) or you prefer them dead, rotting away or stuffed in some showcase, or even worse because you don’t give a hoot.
We owe it to future generations to pass on to them what we have borrowed from our forefathers.
As the renowned environmentalist Sir Robert Swan aptly put it: “The greatest threat to our planet is the belief that someone else will save it.”
Your ‘No’ vote counts and will translate into a legacy for many generations to come.
Future generations are trusting us with their vote – let’s not disappoint them. This is what common sense and the common good dictate.
Carmel Hili is an environmental science lecturer at Junior College and a Labour Party candidate at the next general election.