Spring hunting | Let’s talk about rights and democracy

SHout’s campaign has attempted to convince electors that ‘Yes’ voters are evolutionary challenged and support the acts of “bullies who think they are above the law” (Ramona Depares, Times of Malta, March 16, 2015) and “gun-toting primitives” (Daphne Caruana Galizia, 1 March, 2015).

Online comments to numerous hunting articles have depicted hunters as criminal chavs. The hunters who went to Ethiopia to build a school were mocked on social media for being fat, despite their generous efforts! Moira Delia said a success for the pro-hunters would be a loss for democracy (Malta Independent, 27 March, 2015) and that citizens are worried that a “pandemonium” would ensue if the yes camp wins (Xarabank, 20 March, 2015). They have also tried to say that no one should criticize their eminent lawyers. 

I believe that generalized judgments lead to malicious sentiments; on a deep public scale this becomes the incitement of hatred. No one’s expression should be gagged. The freedom of expression should be used prudently; using it in a deceiving way insults the value it stands for and the intelligence of the audience.

Mark Sultana explained that not every hunter hunts illegally, rather “the majority do” (TVM2, 25 March, 2015). No evidence substantiates this. Instead, the Wild Birds Regulation Unit’s report on last year’s spring hunting season shows that there were 69 suspected offences of which only 15 amounted to a serious infringement. That’s 0.15%; hardly a majority of all 9,754 hunters, is it?

Misinformation tarnishes voters’ understanding as to what they are really voting about. Take Ramona Depares’s recent article in which she explains that since the ECJ Judgment found Malta in violation of the derogation, there existed no derogation at all (Times of Malta, 1 April, 2015). She must have read the last part of the judgment in isolation.

True, Malta was found in violation of the derogation, but for administrative reasons – the season was too long, the bag limit too big and Malta was not fulfilling its reporting duties (clauses 65-66). That said, the ECJ made it amply clear that autumn is not a suitable alternative, and since the birds in question are categorised as being of the ‘least concern’, Malta can open the spring hunting season under strict conditions (See clauses 48 & 60-64).

Both camps ‘won’ in this instance. The aim of the court was to reach a balance and remain proportionate, in line with the same aims of the Birds Directive (clause 56). (To access the judgment simply google Case C‑76/08 Commission v Malta, I promise it’s easy reading! You can even read it in Maltese.)

Democracy balances majority rules with minority rights. On numerous occasions SHout expressed that at law, there exists no right to hunt. This is true at Human Rights Law, just like there is no right to bird watch. Rather, the right the IVA movement speaks of in terms of the derogation belongs to Malta as a State.

Mark Sultana thus says hunters have a privilege, not a right. When the European Court of Justice confirmed that autumn is not a suitable alternative to spring hunting, effectively it confirmed the right to open the season under supervised conditions. The rights I am more concerned with are those to privacy, property and the freedom from prejudice and discrimination, enjoyed by all. Minority rights form part of a legal framework designed to ensure that groups that are smaller than a majority group, so too enjoy these rights.

Some assume hunters hold some great political power (Depares, Times of Malta, March 16, 2015). I don’t see this. I see the power of 40,000 signatures collected to call a referendum, and in doing so allowing an unnecessary list of insults and untrue information to become public. Sadly, the 104,000 signatures collected to protect the rights of minorities weren’t as effective as the 40,000.

I am truly surprised to see people, whom I know are wholly against intolerance and discrimination, judge an entire group of individuals based on the actions of a few. It is this very prejudice that has led to the hatred targeting hunters and their supporters. According to an anti-hunter I once criticized, the end justified the means: “anything to promote a no vote” he said. Anything indeed, even at the expense of misinforming the public and offending the integrity and dignity of law-abiders.

Unfortunately, the idea that discrimination is acceptable in this case has also been portrayed by the lawyers who announced that other hobbies will remain safe, albeit I am sure (or at least hope) that this was not their intention. SHout’s eminent lawyers declared that, through Article 14 of the Referenda Act, electors can use the collection of 40,000 signatures to demand a referendum only in cases where the intention is to abrogate (i.e. delete) an already existing law.

This is misleading. An underlying message is that it is acceptable to pick on hunters, while others will remain safe. Also, the argument is akin to saying that you cannot petition the government, which is nonsense, because the right to petition the government is foundational to democracy. 

SHout do not like me saying that. After expressing my views on a documentary about hunting, the Gaia Foundation and Mark Sultana have publicly claimed that daring to challenge this interpretation is presumptuous, especially given that one of the eminent lawyers was the ex European Court of Human Rights judge, Giovanni Bonnello (Gaia Foundation Facebook page 10 March, 2015, SHout and KSU RTK interview, 19 March, 2015).

The lawyers’ very profession is rooted in the fact that they and judges disagree among themselves all the time. SHout need not be rude about this. The lawyers’ interpretation was not incorrect. It was, however, certainly incomplete.

What the lawyers did not point to is Article 3 of the Act which states that voters can use a referendum to approve Parliamentary proposals to introduce a law (including a ban). The difference is that by way of Article 14, calling for a referendum to abolish a law requires 10% of electors. This is not the case with regard to Article 3. Calling upon the government to hold a referendum to approve proposals simply requires convincing.

To suggest we cannot petition the government to introduce bans and laws is to do a great disservice to all those who fought to implement the cornerstones of democracy. I don’t want to promote scaremongering. I say this to promote the protection of all of Malta’s traditions. Hunting will not be the only targeted activity since it is possible for referenda to be introduced to ban other activities.

This referendum may have set a precedent. Indeed, it was AD’s own Cassola who said that “it is quite possible that the same could be done in the future on other important issues” (Malta Independent, 12 January, 2014). Cacopardo too said that this was the first of a number of referenda (MaltaToday, 22 November, 2013, comment now deleted). 

Both camps hate poachers; the yes camp because it condemns any form of illegality and because it is tired of being tarnished by the wrong-doings of a handful of criminals. The no camp have largely exploited the criminal acts of a tiny few to extents that are both misleading and irresponsible. SHout have rightfully called upon the yes camp to have a public debate to discuss facts. Yet, they encourage the suppression of legal interpretations and the distribution of misleading sensationalist pictures and propaganda, mostly regarding birds this referendum is not even about. They insist the majority of hunters are criminal when statistics show otherwise.

Without a doubt, wildlife crime should be condemned; but never at the expense of condemning a non-criminal. I am proud to say that no picture of a blood-covered bird or catchy song have affected my firm belief that it is fundamentally wrong to judge an entire group as criminal because of the criminal actions of a few.

It despicably promotes malice. The sentiments I hold against any form of prejudice, are the reason I became a lawyer in the first place. A success for the Iva movement would not be a loss for democracy. It would be a sign that citizens favour the use of democracy to maintain the traditions, hobbies, and integrity of all honest law-abiders.

Ylenia Rosso practises law in the UK.