Spring hunting referendum: No longer about the birds

MaltaToday, The Times and The Malta Independent have united in a common front against the continued use of political blackmail by the hunting lobby, and in favour of a Yes vote in a referendum on spring hunting.

All three newspapers have individually taken up editorial positions in line with this view, but this is arguably the first time that a comprehensive section of the media has stood united on a common platform.

That the need was felt for such an initiative in itself points towards a dramatic failure on the part of the political class to adequately regulate this sector, with serious consequences that affect all levels of society. The events of the past week alone have illustrated how Malta’s hunting phenomenon is no longer about birdlife conservation or even the environment. It has become a destabilising political force with significant impact on the rule of law.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s unexpected decision to close the season until October 10 marks a rare admission from a party in government that its previous policies on hunting are simply not working. Muscat had made generous promises to the hunting lobby before the election, and cannot therefore have taken a decision lightly which would surely have been interpreted as a volte face costing hundreds of votes.

Clearly, there is cognisance at the highest level – induced perhaps by the imminent grilling of Commissioner-designate Karmenu Vella on a portfolio that includes wildlife preservation – that the sheer level of lawlessness into which this pastime has descended is no longer tolerable in a 21st century EU member state.

Even before the fracas that ensued last Sunday – in which journalists and birdwatchers were assaulted with impunity – the hunting lobby was visibly not in a position to control its unruliest members. It was equally apparent that the government’s strategy of raising the maximum penalties for hunting infringement had little or no effect. Despite various warnings (even by hunting associations FKNK and St Hubert’s Hunters), this year’s autumn migration quickly became a festival of butchery.

By defying such measures and indiscriminately targeting storks, flamingos, herons, marsh harriers and other protected species, hunters sent off a subliminal message that they refuse to acknowledge any form of authority whatsoever. This pattern of behaviour repeats itself with every hunting season, in spite of all reasonable efforts to keep it in check. Far from a draconian measure, then, the decision to abruptly close the season was the only way to offer a measure of protection to these birds when all other stratagems have failed.

Faced with this situation, it speaks volumes that the reaction of some hunters was to stage a violent and inexcusable ‘protest’, resulting in at least two people suffering injuries. It is patently obvious that these people consider themselves above the law, and will not hesitate to threaten (and deliver) violence whenever attempts are made to discipline them. The fact that their representatives at institutional level have expressed sympathy and comprehension towards this sector is nothing short of disgraceful. Such attitudes can only make extreme measures inevitable.

It is precisely this repeated failure to evolve beyond brutish thuggery that has led to an unprecedented common front by the aforementioned newspapers. Not without good reason: on more than one occasion, journalists have been singled out for vicious attacks. The 2007 protest in Valletta, in which two journalists were injured, cost us dearly even in terms of our international reputation. Malta slipped down the press freedom table in the World Transparency Index as a direct consequence.

Another reason concerns the political clout wielded by the hunting lobby in Malta. For too long now successive governments have been enthralled to a lobby which seeks only to circumvent international legislation. The issue transcends party politics: both Nationalist and Labour parties have wooed the same sector with unfeasible and generally undesirable promises.

It is precisely this attitude by the political class that has resulted in a disproportionate sense of empowerment among the most lawless of the hunting community. A cursory glance at the messages on billboards during the many pro-hunting protests will reveal that the primary weapon in the hunters’ arsenal is their vote. The only conclusion is that, left to their own devices, the political parties are incapable of legislating in a way that offers adequate protection to migratory birdlife, or even to citizens who are sometimes victims of the hunters’ excesses.

We see examples of this inability all the time: the present government’s recent (and unwise) decision to weaken the Administrative Law Enforcement sector through transfers is a typical example. Earlier Nationalist administrations had relaxed hunting laws and enforcement, too. This is unacceptable, in a country which is manifestly incapable of guaranteeing the rule of law even with a strong ALE complement in place.

Most worryingly of all, there are indications that the present government may continue with an unsound policy of favouring hunters in future, at the expense of even the most fundamental aspects of democracy. A petition of more than 40,000 authenticated signatures has been received for an abrogative referendum on spring hunting – the most contentious aspect of the hunting scenario – and to date there is no reliable indication that the petition will be respected.

Prime Minister Joseph Muscat has already sent signals that he may be considering a direct plea by the hunters for a standalone referendum, by proposing a deferral of next March’s local council elections until 2019. Whether or not this is the motive, we have not to date been given any clear roadmap as to how this referendum – which is mandated by the Constitution – will be held. This uncertainty is worrying, in the context of a political milieu which has so far always tended to accommodate the hunters in everything.

For these and other reasons, MaltaToday, The Times and The Malta Independent have converged on a demand for a clear timetable leading to a free and fair referendum. Only this will give the electorate a chance to take decisions that neither party has so far had the courage to take on its own.