Carmel Farrugia, in today's The Times, writes that "To some biased people the recent general election 'proved' that hunters and trappers are 'a spent force' and the hunters' and trappers'vote 'totally insignificant and ineffective'".
I'm not sure whether Mr Farrugia would consider me as one of the "biased people". But then again, who can be more biased about hunting than hunters themselves? All I can say is that although I truly believe that hunters and trappers are a spent force (actually they were never a force to begin with), and that the hunters' and trappers' vote in the last general elections was totally insignificant and ineffective, I certainly do not mean to say that their votes might not have swayed the election result one way or another. Of course they did, in exactly the same way that every other voter's vote did.
What I actually mean, which is what I wrote on February 6 (before the general elections) is that no matter how hunters vote, and no matter which party is elected to government, this would not change the fact that the decision on whether to abolish spring hunting or not rests entirely in the hands of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). So in this sense, it is very true to say that on this issue (spring hunting), hunters and trappers are truly a spent force and that, as I said on February 6, their votes do not matter, just as my vote did not matter too.
Mr Farrugia then says that "It is incredibly naive to think that the votes of hunters and trappers and their families amounting to well over 30,000 do not make a difference in Maltese elections which can be won or lost by a few hundred votes. In the last election the hunters and trappers were at liberty to vote as they wished and one cannot say what they did".
I have to agree with Mr Farrugia here, but again, I must point out that though it is true that no one can tell how the majority of the hunters voted, one can still say with certainty that no matter how they voted, this will not change the fact that the final say on spring hunting is in the hands of the ECJ. This also comes clearly from Mr Farrugia's next statement, where he writes that:
"The positions of the Nationalist Party and of the Malta Labour Party were practically identical on the spring hunting issue, both declaring they would abide by the decision of the European Court of Justice and that both parties if elected to government were prepared to defend spring hunting at the ECJ".
Again, nothing new.
Mr Farrugia then goes on to say that "If one thing can be stated objectively, this is that this election has proved nothing conclusively about the hunters' and trappers' vote. The only party with a clear-cut anti-hunting policy failed, yet again, to obtain even one parliamentary seat. This alone should by now hopefully send a clear message to the leaders of both major political parties, who were so scared of losing the so-called environmentalists' votes. If ever such votes had any true value for the self-proclaimed environmentalists, then Alternativa Demokratika should have had a voice in Parliament for 18 years".
"And yet, Lino (Carmelo) Farrugia (the hunter federation's secretary) got only 3,119 votes in June 2004's MEP elections. And thankfully, no matter which party is elected to government, the final say on spring hunting now rests on the European court. Gone are the days when the hunters' federation holds a government to ransom to obtain whatever it wants, regardless of the will of the majority of the Maltese population that is opposed to spring hunting (at the time of writing, The Times' poll stands at 90.5% opposed to spring hunting)".
So if, as Mr Farrugia suggests, "If ever such votes had any true value for the self-proclaimed environmentalists, then Alternativa Demokratika (AD) should have had a voice in Parliament for 18 years", what would one make of the fact that when the hunter federation's secretary contested an election, most of the hunters themselves did not vote for him? Of course, Mr Farrugia would perhaps contend that most voters do not vote on single issues, but this cuts both ways. Just as AD were not elected due to several factors too complicated to go into here, and not due to their stand on hunting, Lino Farrugia similarly did not get elected not due to his obvious support for hunting, but for other reasons only hunters themselves would know.
Mr Farrugia then writes: "More importantly on this particular occasion the hunting federation (FKNK) did not think it appropriate to direct its members to vote for a particular party. The government just elected, now more sensitive to the wishes of an electorate of which hunters and trappers form a decisive chunk, will be more cautious on all matters, hunting included. It cannot afford to ignore the message behind an election result giving it just a wafer-thin majority. One lesson the new government has hopefully learnt is not to give too much importance to the bleating of people known for their extreme anti-hunting sentiments".
Perhaps someone should remind Mr Farrugia that Malta is now a member of the European Union (EU). This effectively means that we must abide by EU regulations. Has it not occurred to Mr Farrugia that the only reason why both the Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party, who usually disagree on all things except an increase in the salary of their representatives in parliament, miraculously agreed on abiding by the ECJ's decision on the spring hunting issue? Has it not occurred to Mr Farrugia that the only reason why these two eternal enemies agreed on this issue is because they both recognize that the final decision is not theirs to take, but the ECJ's?
Contrary to what Mr Farrugia says, one lesson the new government has hopefully learnt is not to give too much importance to the bleating of people known for their extreme pro-hunting sentiments, when neither the pro-hunting, nor the anti-hunting advocates have any say in the matter. And this is what people like me have been saying for years. It is only a matter of time until we are proven right. I cannot stress this fact too much: hunters may take revenge on any party by voting for another party, but this won't change the fact that both the Nationalist Party and the Malta Labour Party have absolutely no power to decide on the spring hunting issue.
Mr Farrugia concludes his letter by saying: "Hunters and trappers are the true environmentalists, the first managers of our natural habitat, and the best contributors towards what is known, to use a buzzword misunderstood by many, as biodiversity. I firmly believe that the EU Commission's mission statement to 'halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010' will not happen in Malta if the hunting/trapping seasons are not opened, especially the traditional socio-cultural season of spring".
I guess I'll have to take the above as a joke, and leave it at that. But let me conclude this commentary by making a totally unbiased statement in the hope that hunters will finally see this whole issue in perspective. Let's say the 90% or more who according to the last The Times poll have shown that they oppose spring hunting are somehow convinced that hunters are "true environmentalists", that they are the "best contributors towards biodiversity", and that to "halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010" Malta must retain the "socio-cultural" spring hunting season. Let us suppose that 100% of the Maltese population miraculously get to support spring hunting. This too will not change a thing. This issue, to stress the point once again, rests on the final decision to be taken by the European Court of Justice. Get it?
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment