Some time ago Time magazine ran an article about the curtailment of spring hunting on the Aaland islands of Finland: "Aaland voters voted 'yes' in their own referendum, after being assured that their hunting rights would be preserved. Yet the European Court of Justice later declared most spring hunting as illegal."

Because both the Finnish government and the EU wanted Finland to join, and because the "yes" vote of autonomous Aaland was crucial, the islanders were given an assurance or guarantee before the pre-accession vote that they would retain their hunting rights. But after Aaland had voted in favour, the promise was retracted and eventually the EU took them to court to stop spring hunting.

The EU first acquiesces to pre-accession demands even though it knows all along that they conflict with its own predetermined rules. Then in the post-accession stage when a member state proceeds to act in accordance with the so-called pre-accession "Common Position", the EU, aware that the cat is now in the bag, suddenly decides that the so-called "Common Position" is no longer as "common" as it had pretended that it was. At this point it starts making noises and dictating to a member state what it must do. When the member state ignores these noises and carries on regardless, the EU goes for its ultimate weapon. It submits its "case" to the European Court of Justice. In this manner the EU always gets its way. And Brussels has the brazen gall to call this Macchiavellian deceit "justice".

One need not be surprised. According to Time magazine: "The European Union 'excels' at establishing endless government regulations, in effect, micromanaging its sovereign member-states". The EU has managed to turn the meaning of the word "sovereign" on its head. According to the authoritative English language dictionaries, "sovereign" means "supreme in power; possessing supreme dominion; exempt from external control. Therefore when the EU "micromanages" or simply "manages" a member state, that state has in effect lost its sovereignty. Malta is no longer a sovereign state, and anyone who thinks or affirms otherwise is under a great delusion.

The reason why springtime hunting on Aaland - "a cultural practice for centuries" - was brought before the ECJ was "due to the EU Directive on the protection of birds". It was admitted that spring hunting on these Finnish islands had been going on for hundreds of years and was still going on at the time of the court case. It came under investigation not, as one might perhaps expect, because there was any cause for alarm due to decreasing bird numbers. There was no cause for concern in that respect. Centuries of hunting had had little effect. No, the reason was that Brussels had spoken: there was "the EU directive on the protection of birds". In short, the EU Birds Directive has been elevated on high and is considered more important than the rights of a handful of non-entities living in the middle of a cold nowhere. The unfortunate hunters of Aaland had to bow to the diktat from Brussels and watch their centuries-old tradition, culture, practice, way of life - call it what you want - destroyed almost completely by a stroke of a pen, purely to satisfy a few mercenary fanatics who consider a piece of paper as their god.

The deceitful tactics used against Aaland are now being directed against Malta. It is useless to argue that the two species hunted in spring - the turtledove and the quail - are entered on the IUCN Red Data list under the category "Least Concern". It is useless to argue that their European populations alone run into several millions, and that Malta's spring hunting accounts for an infinitesimal percentage of the total. It is useless to argue that spring is, since time immemorial, the main hunting season for these two species. It is useless to argue that the Maltese government had made this clear to the EU in its pre-accession negotiations, and that it formed part and parcel of the so-called Common Position. It is useless to argue that the majority of hunters have no chance of shooting a turtle-dove in autumn, and that consequently autumn hunting of the turtle-dove is not "a satisfactory solution". It is useless to argue that the hunters were promised in writing by the Prime Minister (now President) of the Republic of Malta that spring hunting would be retained. It is useless to show that the assurances of the Prime Minister were repeated verbatim in writing by the Malta-EU Information Centre (MIC). It is useless to argue that the EU should live up to its responsibility to safeguard the right of minorities to engage in their lawful activities. All this is of no account. What counts is that Brussels wants its pound of flesh: the Birds Directive is paramount.

All is not lost, however. The European Court of Justice may yet turn out to be "a Daniel come to judgement". Those who quote the EU/Finland case always leave unsaid, on purpose of course, the fact that according to the ECJ ruling, not all spring hunting has been banned on the Aaland islands. According to the Court's decision, the hunters on Aaland have still got the right to hunt at least one game-bird species during the spring season. These are the facts, and they cannot be denied. The ECJ might decide, after all, that the genuine law-abiding hunters of the Maltese Islands deserve to be served with real and transparent justice. We shall see.