In a tweet from Baku, Azerbaijan, the Prime Minister closed the spring hunting season after a bird of prey was illegally shot. Some have decried this as collective punishment. Kurt Sansone explores the argument.

Joseph Muscat has described his decision to prematurely close the spring hunting season as a way of making hunters responsible for their actions.

The Prime Minister’s decision was motivated by the shooting of a bird of prey that fell bleeding into a schoolyard of stunned students.

But the decision, which follows a similar one taken last autumn, has rekindled the debate as to whether this form of collective punishment is fair on law-abiding hunters.

The number of reported shootings on protected birds during this year’s spring hunting season would equate to less than 0.1 per cent of the 10,000 or so registered hunters, even though bird conservationists insist many instances of abuse go unnoticed.

Sylvana Zarb Darmanin, one of the leaders of the Yes camp during the spring hunting referendum campaign, was scathing about Dr Muscat’s decision.

“Closing the season because of six illegalities out of 10,000 hunters in the field is ridiculous indeed!”

Her outcry reflects a widespread sentiment among hunters who only managed to clinch the referendum and save spring hunting by a mere 2,500 votes.

Collective punishment is illegal. It is also frowned upon by educationalists when used in the classroom as a tool for discipline.

But according to former human rights judge Giovanni Bonello it is “nonsense” attributing the notion of collective punishment to the hunting issue.

Dr Bonello, who came out against spring hunting during the referendum campaign, argues the law prohibits collective punishment from being delivered by the courts in criminal cases. In criminal law responsibility is personal, he adds.

“The decision to close the spring hunting season was not imposed by a court of law. It is not a criminal punishment and so perfectly in order,” Dr Bonello says.

Closing the season because of six illegalities out of 10,000 hunters in the field is ridiculous indeed

Collective punishment has precedents in other areas of community life as football enthusiasts will attest. The most notable case was the outright ban on English football clubs from playing in European cups following the Heysel stadium tragedy in 1985.

Liverpool played Juventus in the Champions Cup final when English hooligans started causing trouble. In the mayhem that followed 39 fans lost their lives, mostly Italians. Two days after the tragedy the English Football Association banned English clubs from playing in Europe.

The decision was supported by UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and was announced outside Number 10 Downing Street, the prime minister’s office. Some days later, Uefa, the European football association, imposed a five-year ban on English clubs.

Derided by many English fans as collective punishment, the decision was lauded by Ms Thatcher: “We have to get the game cleaned up from this hooliganism at home and then perhaps we shall be able to go overseas again.”

It is this reasoning that prompted Dr Muscat to close the spring hunting season. But according to Nyal Xuereb, an official at St Hubert Hunters, the Prime Minister could have adopted a different strategy.

Mr Xuereb disagrees with collective punishment but has commended the Prime Minister’s decision. He believes the authorities should have stopped all hunting within a one kilometre radius of the area where the incident took place.

“Until someone owns up or someone speaks up the area would remain out of bounds and in this way collective punishment becomes restrictive and the perpetrator is surely caught,” he argues.

Going down this road would have spared the rest of the hunting community the anguish of seeing the season truncated, even if by a mere three days.

But birdwatcher Steve Zammit Lupi disagrees the season should have been closed in this way after it was opened following a democratic process. Writing on his Facebook wall, Mr Zammit Lupi says there will always be people who decide to flout the law.

He says that, in the post-referendum reality, many hunters spoke of the need to act responsibly and tackle abuse.

“If it were up to me the season should have never opened, because I believe a bird going to nest is best left to live... I believe there are other alternatives to curb abuse than collective punishment.”

While bird conservationists welcomed the decision, hunters have warned that poachers will not be deterred.

The Prime Minister’s unilateral decision to close the season has fired up a debate, but it seems the jury will always be out on whether collective punishment will reap the desired results.

kurt.sansone@timesofmalta.com