Even more hunter and trapper illogic

Speciesist addiction

So Mr David Borg Cardona (The Times, April 7) is displeased with Mr Stephan Stirjobosch, because the latter considers it hilarious that hunters are trying to convince us that they have the right to hunt in spring. Actually, Mr Borg Cardona, hunters have no right to murder non-human animals, not only in spring, but throughout the whole year.

Mr Borg Cardona quotes from Simon Busuttil (a speciesist pro-hunting Nationalist MEP - see "Nationalist MEPs think Maltese citizens are fools") where he tells us that "No, it is not true that Malta risks being fined because of last week's decision to open the spring hunting season. Claims to this effect are not correct and are misleading the public. But even if Malta had to lose the case, the European Court would not impose a fine. It would simply rule that EU law has been breached and it would order the country to comply with the law. It will stop at that." Mr Borg Cardona tells us that "this should hopefully satisfy Mr Strijbosch's concern that his taxes are not going to be used to pay any justified fines".

Apart from the fact that whatever Simon Busuttil tells us is irrelevant to whether hunting is wrong or not, and apart from the fact that the EU Environment Commissioner has left us no doubt that the opening of the spring hunting season is in clear breach of EU rules (see "Has the government not read the EU accession treaty" and "On fundamentalists, mandates and votes"), the fact that the government might bow down at the last moment, and abolish spring hunting when it will be clear that fines would be issued, does not change the fact that in the meantime, several birds will have been murdered through the callous indifference of the likes of Simon Busuttil and the Nationalist government. Furthermore, the possibility of fines is not excluded. Like I said in "On wrongness without borders and being impressed by the pro-hunting logic", perhaps Simon Busuttil should provide us a guarantee that any fines from the EU due to illegal spring hunting would be paid by him and his party.

Mr Borg Cardona tells us that "it is blatantly pathetic and somewhat offensive from his (Stephan Stirjobosch) end that he deems it fit to ridicule approximately 15,000 trappers and hunters for trying to safeguard a centuries old tradition which is deeply embedded in our lives. This is a passion for all of us and cannot be eradicated by turning off a switch in Brussels nor by a group of abolitionists spearheaded by a Turk".

Apart from the obvious racist remark in his last sentence (which makes the analogy of racism with speciesism so much more obvious), actually what I find pathetic is that approximately 15,000 trappers and hunters consider hunting and trapping as a question of life or death (for them, and not for the non-humans they imprison or murder). A harmful passion which cannot be stopped is an addiction. What Mr Borg Cardona is implying is that hunters and trappers, for all the macho-image they try to show, are actually addicts (see also "Some more hunter and trapper illogic"). Their addiction is not dissimilar to that of a serial-killer. Instead of killing humans, they kill non-humans, and their craving for more killing apparently is never satisfied until they are compelled to stop by means of law and law enforcement. Serial-killers cannot be stopped through reason alone. They have to be stopped by legal force. A "century old tradition" does not make a practice right. Human slavery was a tradition. It was abolished for the same reason hunting and trapping should be abolished - it is unjust, unnecessary and cruel.

Mr Borg Cardona tells us that they "have already been penalised enough by shorter seasons and by new fines which border on the incredulous. It is totally unjust and unfair to impose such fines while more serious offences are treated more lightly. We are not criminals, we are normal citizens like all other Maltese and do not deserve a lesser treatment whatever the public opinion may be".

Mr Borg Cardona falls in the usual trap (excuse the pun) of comparing a bad thing with another bad thing, and says that because there are other bad things, his "minor" bad thing should be tolerated. This is not how things work in a moral life, Mr Borg Cardona. We should be compelled to abolish and penalise all immoral practices, and hunting and trapping are immoral practices since they involve murder and false imprisonment of innocents. Hunters and trappers, in a speciesist society, are not considered criminals (although some of them who physically attack journalists and deface neolithic temples are), but they should be. This is not a question of lesser treatment. This is a question of justice for all the birds you murder and imprison.

Mr Borg Cardona concludes by saying: "And by the way, Mr Strijbosch, to quote a famous Italian saying: 'He who laughs last laughs best'".

I have to agree with this final statement. He who laughs last laughs best. After all, it is only a matter of time until spring hunting and trapping will be abolished.

The EU, animal rights and starving children

Meanwhile, Mr Keith Galea, a pro-bird killer apologist, also in today's The Times, tells us: "The European Union can do much to focus the rich world's attention on this (human poverty) and other tragedies. May I ask: Is the Socialist-Green majority that voted to condemn hunting and trapping in Malta not getting its priorities slightly wrong? Will the European Parliament's deliberations not be much more profitably conducted if they concentrate on the real tragedies in Europe and the world? Are hunting and trapping in Malta, however repugnant they might be, not exercising the European Union a tad in excess of the plight of the most vulnerable human beings?".

This illogical argument has been posed to animal rights activists several times. "Why waste time on non-human animals, when there are several humans who need help?". This question usually ignores the fact that we can do both, and is usually asked by people who do not do anything to end poverty themselves. So, I would ask Mr Galea: Why waste money on hunting licenses, hunter's federation membership, guns and cartridges, when the money could be saved and sent to poor people? Why does the Maltese government give tax-payer money to the Hunters' federation, when these funds could help poor people? Why does the EU itself fund hunting federations, when these funds could also be used to help the poor? Why have a hunters' federation, when the federation could change itself into a fund-raising NGO collecting money for the poor? Why criticize people who are doing something positive (saving birds) while not criticizing even more, people who are doing something negative (murdering and imprisoning birds?).

Mr Galea will also appreciate that there is a huge difference between not helping enough those in need of assistance (like starving children), and disregarding a law already in place which does not permit actual killing (like the EU Birds Directive). Ironically, it is people like Simon Busuttil, David Casa, Environment Minister George Pullicino and Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi (along with hunters and trappers) who are wasting EU time and resources, which could be devoted to other meritable and urgent issues like child poverty, on a futile battle whose outcome is pre-determined (the government will lose and spring hunting and trapping will be abolished), in the vain hope of gaining time and a few deluded hunters' and trappers' votes.

Mr Alfred E. Zammit gets another (non-violent) beating

I was not alone in replying to Mr Alfred E. Zammit's defence of the murder and imprisonment of birds (see "On abolitionists, fundamentalists and serial-killers"). In his excellent piece from his weekly column, I.M. Beck writes:

"It is Mr Alfred E. Zammit's opinion that taking a game bird (not just any bird) from the wild is pleasurable in many ways and morally acceptable. He goes on to say that this is also the opinion of 10 million people living in the member states of the EU, though the extent to which that is anything but a product of his imagination is debatable.

He also goes on to say that "others, of course, might disagree, and some do violently".

According to him, then, there are those of us who disagree with hunting who do this, disagreeing that is to say, violently. Of course, the dear fellow, who is graced with the title "President of St Hubertus Shooters" (I feel I should bow, or fall about laughing, more accurately) fails to give a single example of violence on the part of those of us who disagree with him, while I, and many others, can give many examples of violence on the part of those who agree that killing animals is morally acceptable. The scenes of thuggery in Valletta a couple of weeks ago, together with the lightly veiled threats inherent in the writing of most people who favour killing birds, are just a few such examples.

Mr Zammit and his ilk can wail about abolitionists and threaten the Nationalist government that "hunters are increasingly looking to Labour to champion their cause" but the simple, stark fact is that the bird killers are now beyond the pale. They have now come out in their true colours and they are not nice colours at all.

And it's not just me that thinks so, either - I'm still being stopped in the street by people who want me to fight on.

No problem, folks, I'm going to".