![](http://content.maltatoday.com.mt/ui_frontend/thumbnail/62/62/screenshot_2024-11-09_at_16.37.20.png)
Don't touch the referendum
Presenting a petition calling on parliament to restrict referendum rights to protect the hunting lobby, undermines the democratic credentials of the entire government.
![Parliamentary secretary Michael Falzon will tonight present the petition to Parliament](http://content.maltatoday.com.mt/ui/images/photos/michael_falzon_pl_1.png)
Joseph Muscat made it very clearly before the MEP elections that parliament would not interfere to change the goalposts by changing the law to prevent an abrogative referendum on Spring hunting, backed by 40,000 signatures, from taking place.
As a savvy politician, Muscat knows that any such attempt would rob his party of its hard-earned democratic credentials. I expect him to stick to his word.
But now we have a situation where a member of his Cabinet, the parliamentary secretary responsible for planning (and a hunter himself) has accepted to present a petition calling on parliament to legislate to protect the “privileges” of minorities from referenda.
I understand that unlike backbenchers, Cabinet members represent government policy in whatever they do and say. Moreover, Falzon led negotiations with hunters before the last general election, which resulted in a pre-electoral pact between Labour and the hunting lobby.
Still the very fact that an anti-democratic petition is accepted by parliament is in itself shameful. James Debono
Therefore we have a big problem. Either the electoral result has made Muscat more authoritarian and therefore willing to consider the anti-democratic petition, or Falzon is acting against government policy.
Probably what we have here is a balancing act, with government “listening” to hunters while fully knowing that it can’t stop the referendum.
Still, the very fact that an anti-democratic petition is accepted by parliament is in itself shameful. By accepting the petition, Falzon has capitulated to a lobby which for the past four decades has actively blackmailed the political class. Falzon says that he could not ignore a 100,000 signature strong petition. But this argument suggests that any petition backed by big numbers, however anti-democratic it is, has to be discussed by parliament.
For ultimately the petition has transformed the controversy from one about hunting, to one about democracy.
Probably what we have here is a balancing act, with government “listening” to hunters while fully knowing that it can’t stop the referendum.
The PN, which is partly to blame for accommodating the hunters’ lobby for decades, had done the right thing by not accepting to present the petition in parliament.
The major issue at stake is that of safeguarding democracy from the blackmail of a lobby, which has excelled in dictating its agenda on governments and political parties. For what the petition asks for is to have parliament exempt hunters from the referendum law on the false pretext that hunters are a minority whose rights should be protected.
Unlike minorities like gays, hunters were not persecuted or emarginated. Instead they have dictated the political agenda of the country by resorting to constant political blackmail.
Moreover, if hunters want to change the referendum law they are free to collect 30,0000 signatures and ask for a referendum to ban referenda. Expecting parliament to do this for them betrays their fundamentally flawed conception of democracy. They expect parliament to do their bidding. If their aim is to restrict democracy, parliament should not be party to this.
Ultimately, any referendum can be stopped on the pretext that it is affecting the interests of a minority.
Moreover hunting is simply a blood sport, which is normally either banned or strictly regulated by law. Ever since Dom Mintoff introduced the first hunting laws, governments have regulated the practice by introducing closed seasons.
Ever since Mintoff's first laws, the hunting lobby has tried to blackmail the political class to get away with murder. Comparing the regulation of a blood sport to the rights of emarginated minorities is an insult to the latter. While the gay community talks about a right for family, equal pay and opportunities, the hunters are talking about their freedom to kill and maim birds.
The major issue at stake is that of safeguarding democracy from the blackmail of a lobby, which has excelled in dictating its agenda on governments and political parties. James Debono