On serial killers and acquired rights

Understanding serial killers

I've never had an easier letter to reply to than Aldo E. Azzopardi's "reply" in today's The Times, in "reply" to my letter of January 26 (published here on January 22). Mr Azzopardi, failing to provide any rational and logical argument in favour of hunting, tries to be funny. Of course, I too can play at his game.

Mr Azzopardi writes: "On the assumption that hunting is 'evil', Kenneth Cassar (January 26) goes on and on to justify the brainwashing of schoolchildren in this regard.

Mr Cassar also requested me to enlighten him on the pros of hunting.

I could quote from Matthew vii.6 and expand on that bit about the futility of casting pearls before swine, but I will not do that, it would sound rude. I will, instead, recount an anecdote in the life of Picasso. During an art exhibition, a visitor, with tongue in cheek, asked the artist to explain what a particular picture represented. 'Madame', replied Picasso. 'If you understood anything about art you would not have asked that question; seeing that you do not, should I spend a year explaining it to you, you would still not understand'. Or words to that effect.

'... the majority of Maltese citizens are opposed to hunting', opines Mr Cassar. If that were the case, why is it that Alternattiva Demokratika, the only political party with a declared anti-hunting agenda, has never made it to Parliament?"

Aldo E. Azzopardi very conveniently (presumably to avoid embarrassment), chose not to reply to my very simple statement that the onus is on him to mention any benefits (not otherwise obtainable) that hunting provides, other than the fun of killing birds, and assumes that my claim that hunting is evil (because it unnecessarily deprives sentient beings of their life) is just an assumption.

I could devote myself to several pages of moral philosophy in the vain attempt to convince someone addicted to killing birds to stop, but alas, I suppose this would be a futile exercise.

Like Mr Azzopardi, I could also expand on the futility of casting pearls (the ethic of non-violence) before swine, but I will not do that, since it would be disrespectful towards pigs who never intentionally harm anyone.

Regarding Mr Azzopardi's Picasso anecdote, I think it applies particularly to himself and his incomprehension of the immorality of unnecessarily causing sentient birds to suffer or die. So, to paraphrase Picasso, if Mr Azzopardi understood anything about morality and the ethic of non-violence, he would not even question the immorality of hunting, but seeing that he has no idea, should I spend a year explaining it to him, he still would not understand.

In any case, one does not necessarily have to know exactly what goes on in the mind of a serial killer (in this case, of birds) to know that unnecessary killing is wrong. A serial killer could spend hours extolling the pleasures he/she derives from the chase and the kill, and explaining in detail each step from the contemplation of the kill to the actuall killing. A serial killer who would tell the presiding Judge "if you understood anything about what goes on in the mind of a serial killer, you would not convict me" would probably be sent to a mental institution instead of a prison cell.

When dealing with sentient beings and not things, practices that may harm others, unlike playing chess or scrabble, are matters of moral concern. In morality, claiming expertise in performing immoral acts is no excuse for doing so. Moral people need not be experts in the pleasures of immoral acts in order to condemn them.

Mr Azzopardi concludes his letter, to use soccer terminology, by scoring an own-goal. He doubts my claim (evidenced even in several polls conducted by The Times) that the majority of Maltese citizens are opposed to spring hunting, by reasoning that if this were so, Alternattiva Demokratika would have been elected.

First of all, a government is not elected on a single issue. But even if this were not so, a comparison of Alternattiva Demokratika's Arnold Cassola's European Parliament election result with that obtained by the hunter federation's secretary Lino Farrugia, to refresh Mr Azzopardi's memory, would indicate an overwhelming majority that is opposed to spring hunting. Arnold Cassola obtained 22,938 first count votes, while Lino (Carmelo) Farrugia got an embarrassing 3,119 votes.

But again, only a feeble mind would make such a conclusion (either way) from the result of any election in which people vote for parties with several policies in their manifestos, hunting being only one in a long list.

And speaking of Picasso, I must admit that I do not appreciate his art that much. But that is perhaps a matter of personal taste. I'd rather have a Leonardo Da Vinci any day. Speaking of whom, it was Leonardo Da Vinci himself who once said that "The time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look on the murder of men". That time, dear Mr Azzopardi, is now.

Hunters sue government claiming breach of "acquired right"

Mark Micallef, in today's The Times, reports that "The hunters' federation (FKNK) yesterday sued the government and the former EU information centre over what it termed as their betrayal on the spring hunting issue.

In an application filed by lawyer Alex Perici Calascione on its behalf, the FKNK asked the court to declare that hunters' rights are being breached by the hunting regulations introduced after Malta became an EU member.

The federation is claiming that the promise made by the government then, through a letter sent by the Office of the Prime Minister to hunters and trappers before the 2003 election, promising that spring hunting would remain unchanged after EU accession, amounted to a formal commitment.

This, the federation argues, gives hunters the acquired right to expect that the legal regime would remain the same and, therefore, that the changes implemented in the years since accession breach this right".

Of course, while acknowledging that the hunters have been taken for a ride by this government, making them promises it could never keep, to speak of an "acquired right" in this case is complete nonsense.

Suppose a friend of mine owns a car, and I believe that this friend of mine will sell me the car. I subsequently make a written promise that I will sell you the same car within six months. In the meantime, my friend never makes any commitment to sell me the car, written or otherwise.

Six months go by and my friend does not sell me the car. Do you have an "acquired right" to own the car? No. My contract with you is null and void, since the car was never mine to sell it to you in the first place.

The same applies in the case of spring hunting. Whatever the government promised hunters prior to the European Union (EU) membership referendum, hunters do not have an "acquired right" to hunt in spring, since the government had no right to promise something that was not in its competence to promise, something that the EU has made it abundantly clear it could, and as it turns out would, refuse to give.