On the PN and MLP being clones on the spring hunting issue, and a hunter's obsession with secret weapons

On spring hunting, the MLP and the PN are clones

In a meeting with hunters and trappers, Labour MEP Joseph Muscat once again has proved that with regards to the spring hunting issue and the political stance of both major political parties in Malta, there is no difference at all between the Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party. Both insist on government doing its best to try to retain the spring hunting season in Malta. It is only Alternattiva Demokratika (the Green Party) which is unequivocal on the issue - Alternattiva Demokratica has consistently said on several occasions that spring hunting should be abolished.

"A Labour Party in government could not promise spring hunting 'just like that' because it would have to take into account the decision of the European Court of Justice and abide by it", MEP Joe Muscat told hunters and trappers yesterday. "If the case goes to the European Court, there is little any government can do. There is only one submission to be made, and that is at the beginning of the process. It is likely to have already been made by the government by the time Labour comes into power", Mr Muscat said, effectively letting the MLP off the hook and giving up responsibility on the issue of spring hunting.

As reported in today's The Times, his statement was not enough for the hunters who, like environmental NGOs last week, wanted to know what stand Labour would adopt in government and whether it would defend their cause. Of course, Mr Muscat's speech could well be interpreted as an avoidance of the issue, since he has not mentioned where the MLP stands on spring hunting. If the MLP's position is that the government should await the outcome of the EU's legal case against it, then, basically both the PN and the MLP are saying the same thing.

Mr Muscat said the Labour Party had many defects, but if it gave its word in writing, it would keep it. "When we are sure of what we have to say, we will speak, and only then, because we do not want to take anyone for a ride" he said, adding that it needed to know the European Court's legal case against Malta. In essence, this means that the MLP, like the PN, would insist on retaining the spring hunting season if the EU would allow it. The EU of course has made its position quite clear on this. In the words of Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, "Derogations are only given if the conditions providing for them are met. The main condition is that spring hunting becomes possible if no sufficient alternatives exist. Although the Maltese authorities invoke this as the reason for allowing spring hunting, we have found that there are sufficient alternatives in autumn and, so, we have not granted any derogation. This also means that Malta must come in line with EU rules and stop hunting in spring".

Mr Muscat said the European Court's case should be made available in black and white for everyone's benefit, and the government should also publish its position to make its arguments known. In essence, this means that Mr Muscat is prepared to waste public funds just so that the MLP will be seen as doing all it can to appease the hunters.

Mr Muscat stressed that "the government had not negotiated any derogation on spring hunting with the EU - and there were no two ways about that. It had taken the hunters for a ride. And no sector could be renegotiated; it was closed the minute Malta joined the EU. Moreover, it would be impossible to negotiate a derogation that did not exist".

Asked whether the situation regarding the derogation could be changed if the government changed, Mr Muscat said any government would have to accept the decision of the European Court and no one had ever challenged it. Once the government made its first and final submission to the European Court and lost the case, there would be no turning back, he said. Whether the MLP in power could apply a derogation after the court case depended on the European Commission's case and the arguments the government put forward.

Mr Muscat explained that hunting and trapping were regulated by the Birds Directive, and that article 9 allowed for the application of a derogation under three circumstances, but it did not mean the country would necessarily be granted it.

Mr Muscat also said that if hunters and environmentalists "pulled together", a solution would be found. This is, of course, nonsense, since one cannot both retain and not retain the spring hunting season. If Mr Muscat meant something different, he has failed to make what he meant clear. In this issue, there is only one solution - a total ban of spring hunting, which would be the only logical, moral and legal solution to be made.

Mr Muscat also commented that he firmly believed that the abrupt close of the spring hunting season 10 days before planned had nothing to do with the illegal killing of protected birds. It was a "premeditated, electoral move on the part of the government, who has realised it has lost the votes of the hunters, and is trying to 'trap' the votes of the environmentalists instead". But the simple thing that Mr Muscat does not realise is that "environmentalists" are not fools who are swayed by empty words and half-baked actions. Environmentalists and animal rights supporters will only trust a political party when that party will make it clear that it would completely abolish spring hunting, and not merely close it a few days early. Until now, the only party that has been unequivocally clear that it wants a total ban on spring hunting and trapping is Alternattiva Demokratika (the Green Party).

No secret weapon

George G. Debono writes a letter in today's The Times in reply to hunter Alfred Zammit regarding his obsession with secret weapons (see also "On hunter self-regulation, pro-environment momentum, an obsession with secret weapons, and the MLP"). Mr Debono writes:

"Many thanks to Alfred Zammit (Secret Weapon, May 17) for conceding that the words 'secret weapon' were quoted directly from a FKNK press release and that they were not used by Tolga Temuge.

The word 'aggression' was also used by the secretary general of the FKNK at a public meeting in Rabat and is, therefore, not attributable in this context to Mr Temuge; furthermore, to 'change tack' does not imply aggression or resorting to violence.

Finally, it is beside the point whether Mr Temuge or somebody else felt 'irked' by Mr Zammit's false statement in one of our leading national papers - and chose to correct it. What counts is the truth. The issue in dispute was whether or not Mr Zammit made a misleading public statement by attributing words to somebody who never said them".