The referendum being proposed on spring hunting disregards the legality of spring hunting in accordance with an irrevocable European Court ruling and the legal right acquired by Malta’s Government to derogate, when necessary, from a European Directive.

Its proposers fail to mention that the shooting of birds in spring under derogation from the same directive is not a unique concession given to Malta, but common practice for a large number of member states.

Also, what they portray as imminent financial penalties is synonymous with any member state’s breach of EU directives or derogations thereof with no special emphasis on spring hunting in Malta, as is being depicted. Quite the contrary, the European Commission considers the legislation governing spring hunting to be acceptable and within the European Court’s objectives.

Not only is the anti-hunting coalition attempting to erode the rights of a minority group of citizens, but above all it is promulgating the efforts of a stagnant Green political party to gain recognition and to depict hunting in Malta, a hindrance to their radical views on bird protection, as an abomination.

If our Constitution permits 10 per cent of voters sharing a dislike for anything to call for an abrogation of a law, then perhaps before a precedent is set, our Constitution should take into account certain limitations such that legal practices, more so when practised by a minority, are not subjected to the whims of an indoctrinated sector of the public who for years have been subjected to misinformation, exaggerations and untruths.