On facts and an out of tune hunting orchestra

Facts not fiction

Mario Zarb writes a letter in today's The Times which he entitles "Facts not fiction". In his letter, Mr Zarb writes:

"In his article, Tolga Temuge, BirdLife Malta's executive director, leaves out facts (The Times, March 3). How can he explain the interpretation of the final negotiating document dated September 2002 given by the then Prime Minister and now President of the Republic Eddie Fenech Adami, that spring hunting for turtle dove and quail would remain after Malta joins the EU? How does he explain the interpretation given by Simon Busuttil, then head of MIC and now MEP, that spring hunting for turtle dove and quail would remain?

These are the facts written in our history, not his fictitious interpretations!"

Sometimes it sure feels like talking to a brick wall, but I'll say it once again anyway. The interpretation of the then Prime Minister (and now President of Malta) and that of Simon Busuttil counts as much as the interpretation of anyone whose opinion is just an opinion, and whose interpretation does not matter at all. Now that we are members of the European Union, all that matters (if it has to come to this at all - I have yet to see a document from the EU guaranteeing spring hunting) is the interpretation of the European Court of Justice. What is so hard to understand about this simple common-sense fact?

The fact to be written in our history is that both Eddie Fenech Adami and Simon Busuttil deceived the hunters, and that all those who voted yes for EU membership ensured that spring hunting would be abolished.

These are the facts to be written in our history, dear Mr Zarb, and not your fictitious interpretations!

An out of tune hunting orchestra

Meanwhile, Daniel Xriha once again writes another puerile letter in The Times, in support of hunting. This time, apart from the letter being childish and self-defeating, it completely lacks originality.

In his letter entitled "Hunting tunes", Mr Xriha, among other nonsense, repeats Aldo E. Azzopardi's already defeated argument invoking Picasso, writing:

"Once during an exhibition of his works, Picasso was addressed by a woman puzzled about one of his artworks. He replied: 'Your question indicates to me, madam, you understand nothing about art, in which case I should be wasting my time giving you an explanation, because you still will not understand'. Perhaps we should leave it at that".

Perhaps we should not leave it at that. Perhaps I should repeat what I said on February 2, since apparently, Mr Xriha wasn't paying attention.

Regarding Mr Azzopardi and Mr Xriha's Picasso anecdote, I think it applies particularly to them and their incomprehension of the immorality of unnecessarily causing sentient birds to suffer or die. So, to paraphrase Picasso, if Mr Azzopardi and Mr Xriha understood anything about morality and the ethic of non-violence, they would not even question the immorality of hunting, but seeing that they have no idea, should I spend a year explaining it to them, they 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 actual 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 Xriha goes on to say that "Mr (Tony) Zahra thinks that the birds 'have also got rights, including the right to live without being shot at and/or trapped'.

Where did these 'rights' suddenly originate from? Do these 'rights' really exist? It is only human beings that have rights, and these rights go hand in hand with obligations".

Well, not to waste time arguing with people who have no idea of moral philosophy, I will only reply by saying that the rights of birds originate from the same source as the rights of humans. In short, they arise from the recognition that all sentient beings have interests, including the interest in continued existence, and the recognition that it is immoral to deny any sentient being the pursuance of those interests unless the pursuance of those interests is harmful to the more fundamental interests of others.

Mr Xriha should perhaps also realize that by claiming that rights necessarily go hand in hand with obligations, he is threading on very dangerous grounds. This kind of reasoning would deny rights to human babies and severely mentally disabled humans, who also do not have any obligations. The last refuge of Mr Xriha's speciesism would be that humans matter more, but this would beg the question: why do humans matter more? This question cannot be answered in any way that would not exclude some (or many) of the most vulnerable humans from having rights.

Mr Xriha concludes his letter addressed to Mr Zahra, by saying: "Now he seems to have joined the 'Spring Hunting Orchestra' under the baton of an unknown foreign conductor supported by an unknown fiddler from Bermuda who is trying hard to change the EU's tune. Truly pathetic!".

Actually what I find pathetic is some hunters' ongoing xenophobic comments, though perhaps this is understandable. After all, both speciesism and xenophobia stem from prejudice and disregard for the rights of "out-groups".

Game over, Mr Xriha. Pathetic whining won't change the fact that as EU members, it is only a matter of perhaps a few months until spring hunting is abolished. Get over it.