A referendum is a useful mechanism in a democracy whereby civil society has the opportunity to express itself, one way or another, on a particular issue. But the spring hunting referendum goes deeper than that. It addresses basic human needs – security, recognition, identity – of a group of people and seeks to deprive them from enjoying a legal activity.
Every person has multiple identities. A young woman may be a nurse, a mother, a sister, a daughter and the wife of someone who does not like hunting, among other things. A young man may be a lawyer, a father, a brother, a son, a husband and a hunter, among other things.
In the case of hunters, a decision to ban spring hunting is equal to the non-satisfaction of their identity and this can bring about negative reactions.
The anti-hunting group emphasises the “killing” of birds. The majority of them have not collected any signatures to stop the electrocution and bleeding to death of millions of chickens, which people eat every week around the world. Some may even wear leather jackets and other accessories, apart from eating all kinds of animals.
The same anti-hunting group has exaggerated the lack of enjoyment of the countryside when, of course, there is plenty of space to do such a thing. These have not collected signatures to stop the sprawling of buildings.
The spring hunting referendum should never have been allowed to take place. This is not a mechanism for democracy but, as James Madison argues, it is more like the “tyranny of the majority”.
In a democracy, the majority finds a way of accommodating a minority, not deprive them of their identity. A way should have been found whereby hunters perform their activity within the limits of the law, without the need of voting for or against such an activity.
The spring hunting referendum is the ‘dictatorship of the majority’
There is a form of sport – motor sport – which is also based on an exception to the rule.
Motor sport is meaningless if it is held within the regular speed limits indicated in the Motor Vehicles Regulations, 1994. Section 127 (2) of Legal Notice 128 of 1994, clearly states: “Provided that the provisions of this regulation shall not apply to any motor vehicle participating in a sporting event held with the permission of the Commissioner of Police on a public road which is at the time closed to the public for the purpose of the holding of the said sporting event.”
Motor sport is a type of sport one tends to love or hate. Those who do not like motor sport are invited to stay away from such activities but they have no right to deprive those who love the sport from enjoying it.
Some of the prime movers involved in the anti-hunting in spring campaign happen to have strong reservations on motor sport. This is not surprising when some of these same people also objected to the greenest of sport, namely a golf course.
Motor sport followers have been waiting for 50 years to have a decent place where they can practise their sport in safety. They may expect some resistance from another group of people who have no interest in the sport, if and when a serious proposal for a motor racing circuit is launched.
The spring hunting referendum is an eye-opener for motor sport followers, who also constitute a minority. If they wish to enjoy their sport, motor sport followers must not allow a group of people to have their say on the legal activity of another group of persons.
The spring hunting referendum is not a mechanism of democracy, as some say it is. It is the ‘dictatorship of the majority’.
Motor sport followers need to defend their own interests on April 11 by voting Yes because they could be next on the list of a group of people collecting signatures.
Some have expressed their concern on what might happen if the majority were to vote Yes. However, it would be better if the majority were to be concerned if the majority were to vote No.
Attacking the identity of a group of people is a dangerous thing. Care should be taken so that normal law-abiding citizens are not cornered into a state of desperation. We must be careful not to give birth to home-grown ‘terrorism’ by voting No.
Alfred Farrugia is president of the Malta Automobile Club.