Silent springs… no thank you

“The world will not be destroyed by those who do harm, but by those who watch them without doing anything”  –  Albert Einstein

We are all fascinated and thrilled at the sight of an unusual migrant bird which pops in our garden come Spring. Children get excited and dream of a day when more of these birds will come to feed from their hands. Well, such a dream could soon become a reality, but only if we are resolute about this.  

The forthcoming 11th April abrogative Spring hunting referendum reminds me of Rachel Carson’s environmental science book ‘Silent Spring’ published way back in 1962. The book documented the detrimental effects on the environment – particularly on birds – of the indiscriminate use of synthetic pesticides. In the local context it’s about the wanton killing of birds, especially in Spring, but in a different way: Maltese hunters ably taking the role played by pesticides then. 

Our No vote should be first and foremost a vote for the sustainability of bird species. It has nothing to do with Saviour, Kathleen, Moira, Joe, Mark or even worse with Joseph and Simon. Sustainability dictates that a species is left to breed and multiply so that hunting does not lead to extinction.

In modern civilised society the senseless killing of birds just for the thrill of it is both morally and ethically unacceptable. Birds have a right to live as well. Had hunting been inevitable for survival for a good number of us then it would be a totally different question. Our No vote should also send a strong message to the major political parties that backroom pre-election agreements with hunters are no longer acceptable. We should also keep in mind that no matter what the Yes camp says this referendum is about the abolition of spring hunting not all-year hunting, so as to achieve this sustainability. And sustainability takes precedence over anybody’s presumed hunting rights, or rather privileges. 

One bone of contention between the Yes and No camps is the interpretation of data and sustainable numbers with respect to specific bird species. In such a scenario when scientists cannot agree on one interpretation of data the precautionary principle comes into play as is the case with global warming and the curbing of greenhouse gases.

I would have expected a firm unequivocal stand against spring hunting especially by both our environment and tourism ministers and their opposition counterparts. Remaining mum or neutral, or even worse, beating around the bush are the most “politically” convenient ways to act. No matter which camp prevails after the vote, our politicians’ past talk about biodiversity, sustainability, future generations and what not, is all waffle… just buzz words and clichés and nothing more! Unfortunately those who make it to parliament become some sort of know it all while the role for unelected candidates is that of glorified telephone operators in party fundraising marathons. Only one of our MPs had the guts to say that she is voting Le! 

This referendum is a civil society initiative and seeing that almost everything in our country is politicised I humbly think that it would have been more prudent if the two party leaders had not taken a public stand on this issue. Let alone give more than just a push to one camp or the other if it consistently trails the other in media and party polls.

Don’t get me wrong. Party leaders have a right to their personal opinion on the matter and I respect their choice but it should have remained just that – personal. Had this referendum been a parliamentary initiative or a private member’s bill (as was the case with divorce) then yes I would have expected them to go by their party electoral manifesto if the party commitment on this issue is clearly stated therein. The leaders’ position is putting undue pressure on the electorate. Prior to the last election our Prime Minister was visionary when stating that the time for political parties was over. Movements are taking the lead from political parties and that’s precisely what we are witnessing – a movement arising from a civil society initiative.

I am of the humble opinion that by taking such a repeated strong public stand for the Yes vote our Prime Minister may have unwittingly shot himself in the foot in achieving that elusive mid-term majority in votes and/or seats, no matter how small, in the 11 April local council elections, especially when one considers the country’s positive economic achievements since he took over. I think that he would do well to remember that man does not live by cash alone. For many PL voters who are against spring hunting this may be a déjà vu. We all remember the EU referendum when thousands of PL voters who voted for EU entry felt ostracised from the party because they did not toe the party line. 

Since I have publicly declared my support for the No vote and started attending SHout activities because I am consistent with what I teach, practise and believe I have been called a traitor and hypocrite by a number of PL supporters, including councillors, who do not know any better and who do this out a false sense of loyalty to the party leader.

I expect the PL administration to publicly condemn such behaviour. What surprises me is that a number of these have good professional qualifications from prestigious universities, but apparently this is no guarantee for free thought. In a personal communication the Prime Minister has assured me that I am no traitor and this is to his credit.

The same goes for our 69 MPs. Of those interviewed only one (to my knowledge) plucked up enough courage to declare her support for the No vote. All the others have either agreed with the party leader’s stand fearing a backlash or conveniently said that they were still undecided. No wonder that according to the latest Eurobarometer survey the people’s trust in our politicians is so low.

The campaign by the Yes front is as deceitful as it can be. They are trying their best to shift the focus from the birds and confuse issues by demonising the No camp exponents and picturing all this as an Alternattiva Demokratika ploy.

But their own very billboards have unmasked them! Ironically they too imagine a world where families are happy but only if there are no hunters or shotguns around! Was this a lapsus?  Their slogan – IVA bħala Maltin u Ewropej – is more appropriate for a campaign celebrating Malta’s EU entry – a flashback to May 2004. Moreover, judging from their exponents and attendance at their activities one would imagine that there is a sizeable number of female hunters on these islands.

It is true that hunters are a minority. But a very small minority within this minority has given them such a bad reputation along the years. The illegalities and criminal behaviour of the former, but especially their bullying antics, is making a mockery of our democratic credentials. Not only has the majority of our population put up with them for so long but now we have come to a stage where they are so arrogant that whenever people go in the countryside (which belongs to all of us) many a time they feel threatened if this small minority does not have their way. This is a bullying situation which our authorities have always conveniently ignored.

I have never shied from stating what I believe in, no matter the consequences. Once again I am standing up to be counted because I believe that principles, not votes, should guide politicians. As in the previous two referenda I want to strive for the common good. I want what is best for my country and I want Malta to be truly a leader in Europe even in the environment sector.

My No vote is not because I have some grudge against hunters. Nor do I want to deny hunters some presumed “rights” or wish them to be any lesser than their European counterparts but because for a start I want Malta to take the lead and set higher environmental standards in the EU, with others following suit.

What convinced me to join the ‘Malta Tagħna Lkoll’ movement more than five years ago was precisely because I saw in Joseph Muscat a leader with vision, who wants to do away with past amateurism. This frame of mind is epitomised in his famous saying: Malta the best in Europe. So if one is imbibed with this spirit it is only natural for ‘Malta Tagħna Lkoll’ supporters to vote No. For those who have already decided to vote No this reaffirms their conviction to do so. Our environmental record in the EU leaves much to be desired and this is an area where we could truly be leaders.

When individuals neglect the well-being of society in the pursuit of personal gain often a tragedy of the commons results. A victory for the Yes camp will perpetuate the current tragedy. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring an end to this absurd state of affairs.

Complacency will retain the status quo. Let us all be on the right side of history once again!  It really is an easy choice…either you are for the sustainability of birds, so that there are enough for all, to be enjoyed by all (alive by nature lovers and ironically as a target practice by hunters) or you prefer them dead, rotting away or stuffed in some showcase or even worse because you don’t give a hoot.

We owe it to future generations to pass on to them what we have borrowed from our forefathers. As the renowned environmentalist Sir Robert Swan aptly put it: “The greatest threat to our planet is the belief that someone else will save it.” So do your part, grab this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and vote No come April 11! ‘L-għażla f’idejk...’

Carmel Hili is an Environmental Science lecturer at Gian Frangisk Abela Junior College and a PL candidate on the 11th and 12th electoral divisions