What's next, Nazis in the classroom?

Aldo E. Azzopardi writes another pro-bird murder letter (entitled "Teaching about hunting") in today's The Times, in reply to my letter of January 16.

Mr Azzopardi writes:

"Kenneth Cassar (January 16) is of the opinion that since 'hunting is wrong' (is it?) school teachers are justified in brainwashing - sorry, drumming this 'fact' in the minds of pupils under their charge".

Yes, Mr Azzopardi. Hunting is wrong because it involves the totally unnecessary killing of sentient and innocent animals. Hunting, apart from constituting gross animal cruelty, involves the violation of sentient animals' right to life and liberty, just for the sake of the perverse pleasure of killing weaker beings. If pleasure in taking innocent life was not a significant factor of hunting, hunters would concede that "clay-pigeon" shooting and photographing birds are viable alternatives.

As for teachers "brainwashing" or "drumming up the fact" or whatever terms Mr Azzopardi opts to use, the fact remains that the majority of the Maltese population expects teachers to instill in their children values such as kindness and a sense of repulsion towards unnecessary cruelty and killing of animals, apart from the fact that teaching such values is the right thing to do. Like I wrote on January 16, Democracies are governed by majority rule, and the majority of Maltese citizens are opposed to hunting.

Mr Azzopardi then goes on to say: "He then goes on to compare the 'evils' of hunting with that of racism. Racism is universally condemned.

Hunting is not condemned worldwide but the sport - sorry, pastime - is practiced in every country".

Actually I did not really compare the evils of hunting with racism, although both stem from prejudice and disrespect towards those outside one's group. My point was, and still is, that just as a racist would complain about anti-racist education, a speciesist hunter would equally be expected to complain about anti-hunting education. But just as anti-racist education should continue despite racist protests, so should anti-hunting education, despite speciesist protests.

As to racism being universally condemned, that is a false claim. I concede that racists are perhaps nowadays a minority. Similarly, pro-hunting people in Malta are also a minority. Also, that something is practiced in every country does not necessarily make it right. I would be interested to know Mr Azzopardi's views on abortion, for instance, which is also legally practiced in nearly every country but not in Malta. I assume that Mr Azzopardi, being a Catholic, is still opposed to abortion, or is he not?

Of course, I won't go into the merits of whether abortion is ever or never justified. However, Mr Azzopardi would concede that just because something is commonly practiced (nearly) everywhere, does not necessarily make that practice morally right. Whatever the moral conclusion, it must be reached through rational arguments, and not simply by saying "everybody's doing it". Of course, to reach a conclusion on whether an act is morally right or wrong does not necessarily mean that it will be legally binding. For that, Democracy requires a majority vote. Mr Azzopardi is an adult. He should already know such stuff.

Mr Azzopardi then writes: "I would have thought that rather than teaching schoolchildren that something is wrong, fullstop, it would make more sense if these children were made to hear both sides of an issue then make up their minds. Has any teacher even lectured his/her pupils on the pros of hunting? If not, listening to one side of an argument, day in, day out, could be called 'brainwashing'".

By Mr Azzopardi's reasoning, it can be argued that schools should invite prominent racists to give talks, so that children will get "both sides of the issue". Unfortunately for Mr Azzopardi, that's not how Democracies work.

In Democracies, practices that are generally accepted by the majority as wrong, are taught by teachers to be wrong, and the only reference to "the other side", if any, would only be made in support of the generally accepted claim that they would be wrong. If anti-hunting education without giving the other side is "brainwashing", so are all sorts of moral education such as anti-racist, anti-sexist and other such education. Would Mr Azzopardi claim that for anti-drug education to be "unbiased", teachers should invite drug dealers to give lectures on the "benefits" of illegal drugs? I think not.

As for the "pros" of hunting, the onus is on him to claim them. He has failed to do so in his letter. However, if he decides to mention them in his next letter, I would appreciate it if he mentions what's in it for the birds.

Mr Azzopardi concludes his letter by saying: "Mr Cassar seems to cast some doubt on whether the questionnaires, for or against hunting, will be signed by the pupils.

If they are, they could be marked against hunting to please their anti-hunting teachers, in other words, 'bootlicking'. If they are not signed, who is to say that the questionnaires will not be filled in by a rabid anti-hunting teacher instead of by his/her pupils".

On this claim, I will only say that I have no time to rebut conspiracy theories. I have learned that it is not worth it to lose time on wild claims, like I did on the other hunter conspiracy theory of last year, that Birdlife Malta has some "secret weapon" to use on hunters. I think that all such conspiracy theories only serve to heap ridicule on those who make them.

And yes, children, once again Mr Azzopardi has called you "boot-lickers", which, on hindsight, makes me realize that one cannot be expected to respect non-human animals if one does not even respect children.