Category: Hunting

Categories
Hunting

The War on Hunting in Liliput

hunting_akkuzaIt might seem to be hotting up. What is it about this nation that turns any democratic decision making exercise into an internecine battle? As the referendum approaches we get to watch the two sides and their different approach to convincing people to cast the vote in their favour. At some point the “No” camp, the one against hunting, stated that it prefers debate to battle. That was a reaction to the earlier affirmation by the hunting fraternity that this referendum meant “War”. Debate? What debate? This Liliput nation is fast proving to have shed all semblance of analytical consideration and prefers the heads-on instinctive approach. Facts and data or principles and values are discarded – we much prefer “taking sides” either instinctively through some visceral attraction to some form of roots or out of spite.

In the end a referendum that (as we have stated elsewhere) constitutes at most a political message to our supposed representatives is becoming yet another Lilliputian outcry as to how eggs are best broken open. The comedic elements have also made their appearance – prime among which is Saviour “Hogan” Balzan – foaming at the mouth and doing his damned best to ruin the appeal of a vote that should be in favour of the reasonable enjoyment of the countryside and above all in favour of the birds.

Ah those wingèd beings have little or no knowledge of what is going on in the island of milk and honey. Would they be able to fathom the deceptive campaign of the Yes Camp, with all its mystical happy families, multi-dogged hunters sans-senter and verbose lawyerisms they would gather in one massive flock above the next meeting of the hunter confraternity and take one massive dump covering all the bullshitters in avian faeces.

Incidentally Liliput insists on subsidising airfares for those of its electors and decision-takers (read voters) who reside abroad. March 2015 and polling booths in Embassy are still a Utopic mirage for those of us who would have hoped to be able to cast out vote comfortably.

The referendum risks becoming a non-event very fast. Sure we will have a result. Either way there will be a sector of Maltese society kicking up a fuss. Politically it is fast becoming obvious that the two main parties that sit in the decision making positions of this country will be able to wash their hands of the main set of consequences – having found someone else to blame for the immediate aftermath. Whether the Birds Directive, derogations and all, will be properly implemented in Malta for the years to follow is another chapter, another story.

10997375_1001375046558072_8265459475622731081_o

11053686_10204488801594993_5338501285898200951_n

 

Categories
Hunting Mediawatch

It’s not about what Simon Says

simonsays_akkuza

Diplomacy, they say, is the art of letting someone have it your way.

I rarely agree with Joseph Muscat and I don’t always agree with Simon Busuttil and when it comes to the referendum for the abrogation of the turtledove and quail hunting regulations I am in agreement with neither of them. It’s not so simple as a YES or NO vote though. The gigantic chessboard that was set in motion once the constitutional court found no objections to the petition for an abrogative referendum is full of diplomatic minefields, political manoeuvrings and vested interests. And notwithstanding the incredible murmur that hit the web once his press conference was over today it really is not at all about what Simon Says. Then what is it about?

It’s about hunting

In essence it should be. The aim of the referendum is an attempt to end spring hunting “once and for all”. That is what the NO camp hope to achieve. I have explained the technical reasons why the result of the referendum must be seen more as a political achievement than as a legally binding result. Put simply the more people vote for a ban on hunting the more the political parties who run the daily show will get a message (and a sort of protracted mandate) not to do anything to facilitate spring hunting again. At least for the time being. So what is needed is numbers. Big ones. It’s a vote with your feet moment. And that is where there might be the first problem. This is the first issue requiring a referendum about which lots and lots of people quite frankly don’t give a damn. It does not touch their pockets, there are no electricity bills to be lowered and probably they are more irritated by the whingeing of the “tree-hugging greens” than anything else. Is there a large enough section of the population who might bother to turn up at the polls simply because they hate the kind of bullies that rally behind a gun and a bullets on a protest in Valletta? Je ne suis pas convaincu.

It’s not about a derogation (really)

There is so much confusion on this point that even Simon Busuttil slipped on a nasty banana shortly after his press conference explaining his position. “I am voting for a derogation that WE negotiated” he said. No you are not Simon. Neither is Joseph for that matter. See, the “derogation we negotiated” that everyone is talking about is an altogether different derogation that was negotiated by the Fenech Adami government and concerned trapping. The derogation referred to in this referendum is the reason why we have the legal notice that some of us are now hoping to abrogate and it was not the result of negotiating skills of any pro-hunting Maltese. It is a mechanism that exists in the Birds Directive and – much to everybody’s chagrin – will continue to exist no matter how you vote and what the result is in the next referendum.  If anything I had been hoping that Simon Busuttil would say that his position was in favour of a proper use of that derogation – as against the carte blanche interpretation that has most recently been given by Joseph Muscat’s government or as against the interpretation given by the Gonzi government in 2008 when arguing before the European Court of Justice. It was a chance for Simon to show a real change in attitude by one of the parties – no lies to suck up to the hunters -the simple truth: we will work on the derogation when the conditions exist to apply it. Given that those conditions are very strict and exceptional because they are set within a framework based on real conservation it might have even made many bird lovers happy while reassuring those who are still testing Simon that their new leader does not bow to the men with guns.

But it’s not about the parties

In the end though it should not be about the parties. As I said, the PLPN had long abrogated any idea of leadership in this field. Their track record is atrocious and anyone waiting to hear what the PL or PN had to say before making his mind up about what to vote for in the referendum would be absolutely off the plot. Joseph Muscat tried every trick up his sleeve in order to appease hunters. First we had the slackening of conditions for hunting, licensing for hunting etc. Then it was obvious he tried to avoid the possibility of a referendum as much as possible. Finally when the referendum became inevitable he hoped and hoped that he could get away with an isolated referendum away from Local Council elections. When that idea caused a ruckus and backlash he succumbed and threw in the Ace up his sleeve. He backed the YES vote personally and automatically had that translated as the official Labour Party position. Labour had reneged on its promise to keep out of the campaign and had been forced to back the hunters by its scheming leader who was still underwriting the cheques he had issued before the election. Muscat now had one more wish – that Simon turn this into a PL vs PN move in the hope that he could translate this into a double trashing: a victory for the hunters and a beating of Simon by default.

Which is where you can begin to see Simon Busuttil’s position from a newer, better perspective. First of all Simon was right to first wait for the party to take a position of its own. I would have preferred it to stop at that. Probably what happened next is the result of Labour’s trying to egg Simon into an open battle and to taint the referendum with yet another partisan war. Simon would have none of that. There was the danger that he would be labelled a fence-sitter (unfairly, if we agree that waiting for the people’s decision was the right thing to do). There was the problem of consistency – given how the PN’s position had not exactly been anti-hunting in the past. So Simon has opted for the stalemate insofar as Labour is concerned. He has chosen to neutralise the Labour vs PN battle by throwing in his personal opinion on the side of the derogation (admittedly he wrongly claimed this is the negotiated derogation).

It’s a smart move really because this turns the referendum into anything but PL vs PN. Busuttil has sacrificed the possibility of measuring his popularity to the hope that the voters think with their own mind and transform this into a battle of the people or civil society vs the establishment. I would have liked a clearer position with regards to what kind of spring hunting Simon Busuttil was committing himself in favour of but given the red and blue manner of thinking for which this electorate has been groomed, Simon’s “sacrifice” for the greater good of a clear non-partisan vote turns out to be admirable. The proof of the pudding will be whether Simon’s party will act like Labour and do its utmost for the YES vote to be carried or whether the PN will limit its pronouncements to today’s leader position and allow the people to decide.

It’s about a clear statement

Which brings me back to where I started. The most important factor in this result will be the statement of the people. This is an issue upon which both parties gunning for leadership of the country (pardon the  pun) have long compromised their souls in the past. Theirs is not a position of vision. The true representative party will  be the one that takes note of a referendum result and works upon that for the future of hunting. As I said, confusingly for many people, the derogation will still remain a possibility within the Birds Directive. How and why parties in government decide to make use of it (if at all) will depend on the clarity of the vote come 11th April. Only a resounding No will tie the hands of scheming politicians like Muscat or will give a clear mandate to Simon Busuttil in the future to use the derogation wisely and within the clear and strict conditions within which it is framed.

Go out there and vote clearly. The truth is that this referendum is about what you think and what you believe.

 

Categories
Hunting

Fence-sitting and Bird Hunting – all you need to know for the referendum

kakkuza

On the 11th of April 2015 the Maltese electorate will be called upon to express its opinion as to whether or not the derogation to spring hunting should continue to be applied. In short, layman’s terms the referendum will determine whether or not it will be possible to continue to hunt birds in spring. At least that is what we think is at stake. The issue is a minefield of controversies for a multiplicity of reasons. Hunting is notoriously a thorny issue, not least because of the hold that the hunting lobby has on the major political parties of the land. Also, since 2004 and full membership of the European Union, Maltese law has been complemented by the corpus of EU law, not least among which is the Birds Directive that includes what we tend to refer to as “the derogation”. Malta’s hunting practices have already been questioned under the terms of this directive and it got quite a few slaps on the wrist that time round. There is also the issue of an abrogative referendum. What is that about exactly and what effect does it have on the order of things?

As you can see it’s not that simple. As usual J’accuse is out to dispel some misunderstandings and research some truths for the benefit of the reader. Here is a list of observations on what is going on, in no particular order.

The Derogation

Let’s get this one out of the way, technical as it may be. What is this derogation and how does it fit in Malta’s hunting scene? Well it all begins with the Wild Birds Directive (the one we would label 79/409/EEC). I’ll let the Guidance Document on the directive tell you what it is about:

Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (the so-called “Birds Directive”) provides a common framework for the conservation of naturally occurring species of wild birds and their habitats throughout the European Union. The directive owes its origin to the fact that wild birds, which are mainly migratory, represent a shared heritage of the Member States and whose  effective protection is typically a transfrontier problem entailing common responsibilities. The Birds Directive fully recognises the legitimacy of hunting of wild birds as a form of sustainable use. Hunting is an activity that provides significant social, cultural, economic and environmental benefits in different regions of the European Union. It is limited to certain species, listed in the Directive, which also provides a series of ecological principles and legal requirements relating to this activity, to be implemented through Member States legislation. This provides the framework for the management of hunting.

So that is the genesis – the why and how of the directive. You may have noticed that there is an emphasis on the idea of sustainable hunting and basic ecological principles that exist behind hunting within the framework of this directive. So, the basic rule under this directive is that killing birds is not allowed. Essentially the basic principle is the “conservation of all species of naturally occurring birds in the wild state” (article 1). Member states are not only encouraged to limit instances of hunting but also to take measures to “maintain population” of species and to encourage their preservation by, among other things creating protected areas (article 2).  [For an in depth look at the next few articles scroll down to the end of this post *].  Having described when hunting may be allowed and what species may be hunted we can now look at Article 9 which is the infamous derogation.

It’s quite straightforward really: member states may derogate (create an exception to) from the provisions of articles 5 to 8 where there is no other satisfactory solution for a number of listed reasons. The reasons are the following:

  1. In the interests of public health and safety, in the interests of air safety, to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water, for the protection of flora and fauna.
  2. for the purposes of research and teaching, of re-population, of re-introduction and for the breeding necessary for these purposes.
  3. to permit, under strictly supervised conditions, and on a selective basis, the capture, keeping and other judicious use of certain birds in small numbers.

So. Let’s get one thing clear. The derogation is not a bespoke derogation that Malta negotiated and “acquired” in pre-accession talks. Forget the nationalist party claims that they had managed to acquire anything special and specific to Malta. It’s all bullshit and forms part of the general PLPN approach to butter the hunting lobby the right way. The derogation exists for everybody. The crux of the matter is that certain conditions need to be satisfied. To hunt outside the accepted levels of hunting (outside article 7 conditions) you have to fulfil certain criteria. A cursory look at the above list of conditions will immediately make it obvious to any reader that the exceptions relate to emergencies where birds become pests – a necessary cull because of a disease, air safety = shooting birds that hang around airports and imperil aviation, or killing birds that are threatening livelihood. Not exactly “il-kacca namur”.

There is an important phrase in article 9: “where there is no other satisfactory solution”. A member state must prove that not only is the species in question a pest (or required for research etc) but that the only satisfactory solution would be to hunt the buggers. That is a very tough onus of proof, one that Malta failed in 2008 before the court. So there. You now know what the derogation is and (bar some more technical info on reporting) how it works.

 Applying the Derogation – the History

So the way the derogation works is the following. Member states do not need permission from the EU to apply the derogation. They may go ahead and apply it if they believe that they fulfill the conditions that allow the use of the derogation. Member states are however obliged to report to the commission every time they make use of the derogation. This allows the Commission to monitor the use of the derogation and to take action if it believes that the Member state abused of it. In 2008 the Commission felt that the measures taken by Malta fell outside the scope of the derogation because the Maltese authorities failed to show that there was no satisfactory solution other than spring hunting the species concerned. The sole purpose of Malta’s use of the derogation, according to the Commission, was to extend the hunting season for species of birds.

It must be hard for the Commission to keep a diplomatic poker face when faced with Malta’s argument – that hunting of the species concerned was possible in autumn, ok, but we did not have enough birds to hunt. We get more birds in spring so hey, we should be allowed to kill them then. In fact the stats presented by Malta for 2005 showed that in spring 15,239 quails were “taken” while “only” 5,109 were “taken” in autumn. Turtledoves? 31,493 taken in spring and only 4,990 in autumn. At no point did Malta bother to justify the use of the derogation under any of the criterion required under article 9 of the directive. At most, Malta argued, the total prohibition on spring hunting would in practice lead to the entire prohibition of the hunting of the species.

In the end the Court rapped Malta’s wrists very strongly for that period, emphasising that there must be a balance between protection of species and certain leisure activities. The derogation must be used proportionately but Malta did not prove such proportionality given that it allows the killing of 3 times more quails and 8 times more turtledoves in spring than in autumn. That, for the record, was Lawrence Gonzi’s PN government arguing before the court to justify the spring hunting season. We can only infer today that Joseph Muscat’s government would do the same – given the PM’s declaration that he would vote in favour of spring hunting. Same same, but different.

The Legal Notice and the Referendum

So if we got punished by the court why are we still talking about it? Well it’s not that easy. The issue arises every season. A Member state can declare the next hunting season open – always with the necessary conditions being fulfilled. In Malta we have Subsidiary Legislation 504.94 entitled “Framework for Allowing a Derogation Opening a Spring Hunting Season for Turtledove and Quail Regulations”. Under Section 3 of the legal notice, the Minister may decide to open the spring hunting season (a maximum of three weeks in April) by means of a notice in the Government Gazette. Since the ECJ case a proviso has been added:

 “Provided that the Minister shall not open the spring hunting season when the hunting for the two species concerned during the previous autumn hunting season may be considered as having constituted a satisfactory solution in therms of Article 9(1) of Directive 2009/147/EC f the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November2009 on the conservation of wild birds, and taking into consideration the thresholds established in Annex I”.

See? The discretion is available for the government every year under these regulations. Every year a spring hunting season may be opened – supposedly bearing in mind the conditions of the directive. Once it is opened and the government has made use of the derogation it is obliged to report to the commission – including birds bagged.

In Malta we have the possibility of an abrogative referendum. What the referendum initiated by petition is doing is kicking off a vote as to whether or not the legal notice that empowers the minister to set up a spring hunting season should be abolished. So if the people vote NO (don’t ask why, but maybe Joseph is banking on the fact that YES has a 100% record in referenda in Malta) the Legal Notice will be abolished and the minister will have no instrument to set up a hunting season. If the people  vote YES then nothing changes.

Party Opinions and binding the future

First off the parties. Joseph Muscat has declared he will vote in favour of spring hunting. The Labour party has not got an official position although we are supposed to assume that since they are accusing the PN of dilly-dallying then they are assuming that Joseph’s position is Labour’s position. The PN has stated that it will wait for an internal debate before taking a position. Somewhere I seem to have read that Simon Busuttil is in favour of regulated spring hunting. I strongly believe that the two main parties have long abdicated any right or duty to be opinion formers and leaders on this issue. Their historical dealings with hunting lobby is such that it would be preferable if they both wait for the people to speak and then act accordingly. It’s not a question of fence-sitting but a question of  (for once) listening to the electorate they represent.

But here is my biggest question. Let us assume a victory for those who want to ban spring hunting. Legally speaking all that would have been banned is the legal notice that empowers the minister to set up a spring hunting season. For obvious reasons the Wild Birds Directive, derogation and all, will remain applicable in Malta. Even if our parliament were to vote out the Legal Notice in question there is nothing – absolutely nothing – that binds future parliaments and prevents them from re-enacting an implementing legislation of the Wild Birds Directive. This leads me to conclude that the message of the forthcoming referendum is political more than legal. A strong victory for the LE ghal Kacca would be a strong message to the parties in parliament. Sure they could in the future try to re-enact another implementing bill but they would do so in strong defiance of public opinion and would have to face the consequences.

 

What should have been done long ago by any party that has the environment at heart is that the Wild Birds Directive should have been implemented to the letter. Rather than promising the impossible to the hunting lobby (and conservationists), the parties in government could and should have been busy applying the directive – even if that meant an impossibility of applying the derogation and therefore no spring hunting. It would take a smatter of intellectual honesty and political accountability and responsibility.

 

Perhaps it might have been too much to ask.

How to vote?

 

I hope this blog post has helped clarify any questions you may have had. If you hold the environment to heart and want to pass on a strong message to our main representative parties then do please go out and vote LE/NO on the 11th April. This blog will be backing the No campaign wholeheartedly.

 

 

 

 

[*] The Articles in Detail

 

The directive contains annexes that are lists of bird species. Annex I contains the untouchables – the birds that need special conservation measures due to, for example, a danger of extinction or vulnerability (article 4). States are also urged to extend such protective measures to species not listed in Annex I but that may be regularly occurring migratory species (very crucial for Malta). Article 5 is the “thou shalt not kill” bit. You cannot kill birds, you cannot destroy their nests, their eggs, keep their empty eggs. You cannot even disturb the birds particularly during their breeding and rearing. Also, you cannot keep birds of the species the hunting and capture of which is prohibited. Clear? Article 6 prohibits the commerce in birds (dead or alive).

 

Which brings us to Article 7. Which is where our dear Turtledoves and Quail come in. Due to the population level, geographical distribution and reproductive rate of certain species (such as the turtledoves and quail), hunting may be allowed under national legislation. Careful though. It is not a carte blanche. Conservation standards must be respected. Turtledoves and quail fall within this category. The fact that a species is in Appendix II/2 and therefore one for which hunting is allowed does not oblige a member state to allow hunting for that species. It is an option that is left to the member state, and one that it must implement using national legislation allowing for such hunting to happen. Furthermore the directive requires that member states ensure that the practise of hunting complies with the principle of “wise use and ecologically balanced control”. While the interpretations of the latter phrase may be controversial it is definitely not an open license to kill indiscriminately.

 

Article 7(4) also asks of Member States that they make sure that the species to which hunting laws apply are not hunted during the rearing season or during the various stages of reproduction. This was an important point that was raised when the Commission took Malta before the European Court as it was one of the problems that arose when it comes to hunting in spring. Article 8 prohibits the use of disproportionate means of hunting in any case. you cannot use a kalashnikov, dynamite or rocket launcher, nor can you hunt from any mode of transport.

Categories
Hunting

The Hunters and the Palace

hutners_akkuzaAll the love that Labour’s lost. Well in many ways it is just desserts. Whenever I asked how sustainable Muscat’s populist politics I always seem to be given confident answers in the positive. Of course it is sustainable – people are happy and happy people will generate wealth. Really?

On a recent visit to the island I had a chance to speak to persons active within the Labour party. They were overwhelmed by what they described as the triumph of different strands of progressive thought that were being allowed to express themselves. To me it seemed like a particularly strong attack of drug induced delirium but they were really convinced that the progress made in different legislative fields and the introduction of “rights” was the result of some progressive dialectic that was taking place within the Labour party and finding itself baked into government policy.

Blinded by such laudable successes as the belated introduction of gay partnership rights they actually believed that this was the beginning of the unraveling of a great programme of Labour social and civic policy.  At no point did they suspect that this was Labour allowing all the mini-sectors of society who had provided the much needed votes to cash their hard-earned cheques. No one was suspecting that this peppering of ex gratia interventions had no foundation in solid planning.

Trust the hunters to be the first to call the bluff. They had to be. The unruly lot are mired in twisted self-perception based on misconstruction of such terms as “conservation”. They have always laboured under the illusion of constituting a veritable block vote that will first and foremost back their “namur”. What was that daubed in paint on the Mnajdra Temples way back in less suspicious days? “Namur jew intajru”?

Muscat had wooed them with vague accommodating signals. Relaxing of licensing rules, a not too helpful approach with the nature wardens – including mass transfers of experienced personnel. Even the courts joined in the surreal dance by arraigning bird lovers for having displayed dead carcasses. Could you blame the Kaccaturi for thinking “Illum il-gvern taghna u naghmlu li irridu”? I wonder which strand of socialist progressivism leads to that kind of thinking. Not that the kaccaturi ever seem to care which party is sucking on their immense balls in order to pander to their vote-winning quality.

Yet here was their latest hero. Muscat’s government even went so far as to propose the sabotaging of the democratic process of local elections in what was too suspiciously a ploy to facilitate the hunters’ hand in the forthcoming referendum on spring hunting. How could they imagine such a paladin ever turning against them? He had dangled enough carrots to woo even the most hardened of donkeys onto his side.

Then they overdid it. The kids who had been handed air guns and catapults for Christmas suddenly found themselves in detention for shooting the neighbours cat and skinning it for good measure. Suddenly generous daddy who had won their kisses and praise became an irrational punisher. They could not fathom why. So they burnt the labour tesseri on youtube and yelled “No Kacca, No Party”. Oh how heavy handed Muscat seemed. Un pugno di ferro. And this after his monumental “moral” decision to keep out a sailor who was sick with hepatitis (it could have been ebola you know… and our hospital is prepared for an outbreak but not one that involves foreigners).

Of course Muscat’s bark could very well be a handy decision to boost Karmenu Vella’s chances during his commission grilling as a potential Environment Commissioner. If he is asked about Armier Boathouses and the raping of public land in order to get votes he may feign not having understood and repeat “But we stopped hunting abruptly” ad infinitum. You’d be surprised what percentage of gullible persons exist in any random collection of homo sapiens.

Once the grilling is over Muscat may yet return to the table with the Kaccaturi San Isplodu and hand out a few more carrots. He is also safe in the knowledge that the hunters cannot really threaten with votes since if his local council move really happens, the hunters will not be asked their opinion on which party is most likely to suck up to their demands before 2018.

The hunters are in the palace all right. They are busy exposing the faults in the underlying premises of Malta Taghna Lkoll. They may yet be appeased for another season but we have them to thank if Labour’s hypocritic policies are finally being exposed for what they are.

Bang.

 

Categories
Hunting

Getting Simon

gettingsimon_akkuzaIt looked like a shot in the foot. The Times headline was unequivocal – “Busuttil: Politicians should keep away from spring hunting controversy”. I was lost for words. Here was the leader of Malta’s opposition, still struggling in the trust ratings at the polls, coming up with a declaration that stank incredibly of fence-sitting. Could it be possible that after the disastrous management of the Civil Union issue the PN was once again falling far short in the battle of public perception?

I was mistakenly (as it turned out) provoked to putting together another Banana Republic poster that decried the fence-sitting qualities of the declaration. A facebook reader pointed out that there was much more to be read than the headline. Mea culpa, it seems, but only to a point. In fact after reading the Times article in full I began to understand where Busuttil was coming from. It all hinged on the fact that Busuttil was placing importance on the referendum – “the decision rested on the will of the people in a referendum”. What Busuttil seems to be saying (as confirmed further on in the report) is that for this particular decision “political parties have to bow their head to the will of the people”.

Could that be it? Is the PN leader telling anybody who listens that the PN will not stand in the way of a popular decision? This was reinforced by Busuttil’s reference to the party’s position – that of having a limited and controlled season. So we do know that officially the PN is not against spring hunting as such – if anything it has a position that is in favour of limited and controlled hunting in spring. What we are also being told by Busuttil is that notwithstanding this position, his party (and the politicians) should keep away from the controversy and let the referendum run its course. Presumably so the PN will not be campaigning for or against a particular position but has committed to respect the final decision in the referendum.

Is that really fence-sitting? Not really no. It falls much, much shorter than the ‘liberal’ anti-hunting sentiment that has been whipped up over the last year. The PN has definitely decided not to take up the baton of the anti-spring hunting movement and form some sort of coalition for the purposes of the referendum. Insofar as that is concerned it is a form of fence-sitting. On the other hand,  it is also not actively gathering hunters’ votes in Cyrus Engerer fashion or sending out equivocal statements that worryingly threaten the very possibility of the referendum. A positive passiveness if you will.

What has happened though is that the gist of the Times headline spread far quicker than the convoluted institutional message that Simon wanted to send out. It is far easier to jump to the conclusion that the PN is fence-sitting (I for one am guilty of doing so) than to see that there is a clear commitment from one of the two parties in parliament to respect the outcome of the referendum and give full power to a useful tool of political representation.

AD’s criticism of the PN position is not entirely correct in this respect but it is an inevitable result of a grave mishandling of communication from Busuttil’s PR team. The PN is not neutral – it has a position on spring hunting but it is choosing not to lead with it – promising to honour the outcome of the referendum instead. True, if like me you are dead set against spring hunting you would have preferred if at least one of the two political behemoths puts its full force behind getting a referendum result in favour of the abolition of spring hunting.

Whether it is for a calculated purpose or out of a purist interpretation of the institution of public referenda Busuttil has other ideas. The way his speech was reported results in a mini-disaster at PR and spin level. The leftovers at Dar Centrali in Pietà are proving rather inept at understanding the basics of communicating to the extent that even a bungling Labour party in government that rides roughshod over basic constitutional concepts manages to survive ahead at the trust polls.

As the MEP elections approach the PN remains an incoherent machine that is unable to clearly define itself and as a consequence unable to sell a clear defined message to the electorate. They should have learnt by now that voting PN by default is for many not an option – no matter how evident the ugly warts of the party in government have become.

As thing stand, even if you do “get Simon” the safest and clearest message on spring hunting comes from the candidates in green. It has always been and now it is louder and clearer than ever. It is not only about spring hunting but also about taking clear unequivocal positions on issues that are not only (as some mistakenly seem to suggest) restricted to national policy but that are also based on an open European vision.

 

 

.

Categories
Hunting Mediawatch

A history of violence and animals

violence_akkuzaThe works of a psychopath in Mosta (whether direct or through a hired hand) have tickled the curiosity of the Maltese public. It does not take much for anything to get onto the media these days (as I discovered to my chagrin thanks to a what I thought would be an innocuous Eurovisionjoke involving Gary Barlow) but the “Mosta Cat Killer” has qualified for permanent stardom. Let’s face it, the case of dead cats and dogs hanging from crucifixes is destined to be spoken of for many years to come – there will probably be a Xarabank programme about it on the 16th anniversary complete with a live performance from the musical “Cats”.

In a tiny island that still gets its occasional murder or two as well as multiple cases of theft one cannot but wonder whether the sensationalism behind what in many other nations would be a village freak crime is over-hyped – and consequently whether too many resources are being dedicated to the matter. I googled “cat killer” and “serial cat killer” – because that is the thing you do these days – and was surprised to discover several cases reported in the UK and US. Admittedly there is not the Dan Brown addition of gory crucifixes linked to statues of saints but there was a sense of relief to be had in the idea that cat murderers are not confined to the isle of milk and honey.

Having said that the fascination with the whole idea of having Malta’s own serial killer (albeit of the feline and canine victim kind) persists and as the 16th of the month approaches (although I am told by Cat Killer aficionados it won’t be the 16th because it’s February – go figure) the hype is destined to build up again. Is this another case of the obscene voyeurism that the 21st century has thrown in our collective faces? Elsewhere Raphael Vassallo has concluded that the Danish Zoo’s putting down of perfectly healthy giraffe Marius was made public in order to take advantage of the gory fancies the general public might have. This was no “mercy killing”, it was “panem et circenses” all over again.

The moral vagaries of such issues are hard to catch up with. On the one hand there is a huge gap between this society and the one I grew up in – aiding my grandma to skin a rabbit that she had just killed not so mercifully with a deft chop to the neck. The empathy for the dead cats and dogs in the Mosta Killer case must surely be put into perspective. As far as I know nobody has walked up to the police in tears claiming that their pet cat or dog has been killed. These are “wild” cats and dogs. Which does not make killing them any nicer but does point out to some kind of conscientious choice by the perpetrator. Let’s face it, he could be kidnapping and killing your moggies and pooches but he is not. He is just intent on making whatever twisted point he has to make to society in general.

In the UK they often license the culling of squirrels – the overpopulation is harmful to the greater balance in nature. In Malta we now have quotas for hunting – whether they are respected is another story – but wild cats and dogs run freely and dangerously in villages and the countryside. Is this Mosta Killer Malta’s weird and unorthodox way of coping with this overabundance of stray cats and dogs? Of course not. Forgive me for thinking so though, especially since when last I checked the public reaction to the problems with dog shelters and cat shelters was not half as enthusiastic as the ogling and curiosity that surrounds the Mosta Cat Killer.

“Some werewolves are hairy on the inside” – Stephen King.