Hunters' rights? What rights?

I still have letters waiting to be published in The Times, so I'll give the editor a break, but some comments made in today's edition of The Times cannot go without comment.

Mr Carmel Farrugia, presumably a killer of birds, expects people, and the government in particular, to respect the "right" of hunters to unnecessarily murder birds. He says the Ornis Committee was composed of "unscientific" people who were expected to give "scientific" advice. He also attacks the Ornis Committee's first chairman, Saviour Balzan for calling Maltese hunters "cavemen", along with other names.

I will not waste time commenting on this, primarily because I am quite sure that Saviour Balzan is quite capable on defending himself, being Malta Today's editor, and also because the Ornis Committee does not concern me that much for two reasons. For one, the Ornis Committee will be redundant once the European Union compels Malta to enforce its directives on hunting and trapping, and abolishes spring hunting. Secondly, the Ornis Committee is only concerned with "sustainable" hunting and trapping, and with safeguarding "protected" species. Animal rights opposes any unnecessary killing, no matter if the animal killed is a member of an abundant species or not.

Mr Farrugia says that "when politicians promise people retention of their rights, people take them at their word. When politicians do not keep their word, people turn against them". All well and good, but the retention of rights presupposes that one has those rights in the first place. No one has the right to unnecessarily kill sentient non-human animals. Our rights are limited by the proviso that those rights do not infringe on the more fundamental rights of others. The right to life trumps the "right" to gain pleasure from taking life. If politicians give their word on safeguarding the supposed "right" to unnecessarily kill non-human animals, morality dictates that they should not keep their word. After all, if I promise to kill another human being, morality dictates that I do not keep my promise. But then, what do hunters and most politicians know about morality?

Mr Farrugia continues by saying that "the Maltese government promised both publicly and privately in writing to each individual hunter that traditional spring shooting and trapping would continue even after Malta's accession to the European Union. Nothing, absolutely nothing, can ever change that truth." This is irrelevant on two counts. First of all, no one is morally obliged to keep an immoral promise. Quite the contrary - everyone is actually morally obliged to break an immoral promise. Secondly, what the Maltese government promised is irrelevant, since now we are members in the European Union, and must follow European Union rules. To all hunters and trappers, I say tough luck - it is your federation which had the duty to inform you that once we are EU members, we follow EU rules.

Mr Farrugia writes that "the hunters and trappers sense that the government's intention is to erode their rights gradually. The hunters and trappers have seen through the ploy and are determined to fight for their rights. The Minister for the Environment and his abolitionist lackeys have shortened the spring shooting season and banned songbird trapping and shooting at sea in spring".

Well, Mr Farrugia, for someone to erode your rights, you would have to possess those rights in the first place. No one has the right to unnecessarily kill sentient non-human animals. As for the Ministry of the Environment being composed of "abloitionist lackeys" - if only that were so! How is the Ministry of the Environment abolitionist, when it is defying the EU, breaking its rules, and allowing hunting in spring?