It is very clear that they shoot birds besides horses. Following the recent referendum, hunters will keep on shooting birds to their hearts’ content not only in Gozo, which voted in favour, but also in Malta, which voted against.

A slim majority of voters did not get the argument that shooting birds can only go on as long as there are birds around to shoot. Shooting them in spring is the best way to guarantee that spring hunting will eventually stop, referendum vote or no referendum vote. But I digress.

In my commentary of February 2, I stated that the ‘abolish spring hunting’ referendum like the divorce referendum “is not mainly about hunting or not hunting birds for a limited period during the year... It is about the state of Malta today”.

My position was that the ethical-cultural infrastructure underpinning Maltese society that had won the day for the pro-divorce lobby could easily win the day for the hunting lobby. The ‘liberal’ argument used to mobilise people to vote for divorce legislation was also being used to legitimise hunting in spring. Thus the liberal lobby, which fought for the introduction of the former, was risking being hoisted on its own petard in the latter. This happened and they hoisted the rest of us no-voters with them.

I will not revisit in great detail what I wrote in February, but a couple of references suffice.

It is very clear that not all animals are equal on this pseudo-liberal progressive farm

“We have moved away from the vision of society where solidarity is based on the sharing of a common human nature and the pursuit of the common good.

“The newer (but not shinier) vision of society views individuals almost as free-standing beings whose main concern is not the common good but the individual or sectorial good together with the potential effect of a particular action by the ‘other’ on the ‘I’.”

Our evolving society is moving away from being in favour of things perceived to be good in themselves towards ad hoc arrangements mostly based on a utilitarian rationale, many times motivated by short-term goals.

One can describe this ethical worldview using very simple words: Don’t interfere with my life and I will not interfere with yours. Live and let live.

Ayn Rand, the darling of the American libertarian right wing, must have been very proud last Sunday to note yet another example in a very long series which clearly shows that Maltese society is being built on her moral doctrine of ethical egoism.

Times of Malta, this time with the benefit of hindsight, seemed to have reached a similar conclusion in its editorial of April 13, the day it reported the referendum result. Together with the other English language press in Malta it openly campaigned for a No vote and consequently one can understand that the paper, like many of us, was feeling rather depressed last Monday. The final sentence of the editorial stated that the paper was “above all, depressed that people care more about themselves than they do about our environment – which is the biggest loser of all”.

Then on Tuesday, Times of Malta editorially stated that Labour is fast losing its moral compass. It was an editorial well and truly written buttressed to the full by a battery of examples, but do the inhabitants of Cynic Malta care about a moral compass unless it impinges on the instant gratification of their whims?

Seen from a Christian perspective, this is the main challenge our society is facing. The vote for spring hunting is just a symptom. Which area would be the next target of this cynically utilitarian mentality? It will probably be surrogacy, for starters, then euthanasia and a few years down the line, abortion.

The writing is clearly on the wall and sections of the media – willingly or unconsciously – nourish both the humus and the mentality that will bring this about. Only the blind don’t see it.

There is also another comparison, nay contrast, between the hunting and the divorce referendum that I would like to point out.

The then prime minister, Lawrence Gonzi, had clearly stated that he was against the introduction of divorce and campaigned against its introduction. As soon as the result became known, he immediately said that he respects the will of the people and would see to it that it would be put in practice. He noted that since there was a clear majority in Parliament for the passing of the divorce law, for credibility’s and consistency’s sake and in respect for the tens of thousands who voted against the introduction of divorce, he would vote in line with his position against divorce.

The liberal lobby lambasted and denigrated him no end. They hounded him every step of the way. How dare he not bow his head to the people and vote with the majority, they said.

Abracadabra and fast track to the hunting referendum. Be surprised by the reaction of those who castigated Gonzi but are now among the losers. They said that they respect the result. Whatever that means, I am not certain since they were very quick to add that they still considered spring hunting as an abomination and they will soldier on in their struggle to save the environment. Accepting the result in the sense of working for the actualisation of the people’s decision would be considered as reneging on their principles.

I had no issue with Gonzi’s position as I now have nothing against this principled position which is not substantially different from the position taken by Gonzi! The real reason behind the vilification of Gonzi was not that he was the prime minister and they are not. The real reason is that Gonzi’s stance was considered to be conservative while the anti-spring hunting stance is considered to be liberal. In Cynic Malta one has every right to take so-called ‘liberal’ positions but is not allowed to adopt stances the liberals daub as ‘conservative’.

It is very clear that not all animals are equal on this pseudo-liberal progressive farm. It is a pity that many people feel awed by this lobby and opt for silence or feign public approval.

I refuse to stay mum as this is another instance where silence is not golden.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt