On thinking before writing, and some clarifications

Yesterday, The Times reported the following:

"A shotgun thought to belong to a hunter has been found hidden in the grass at Kennedy Grove, Salina, not far from popular picnic areas.

The gun, which was loaded, was stowed in a long, unlocked plastic tube.

Eyewitnesses said people in the area had regularly noted bird shooting from this bird sanctuary but had not actually seen anyone carrying a gun coming out of the grove.

They alerted BirdLife who in turn contacted the police.

The gun was found in marshland after a search by members of the Administrative Law Enforcement unit (of the police)".

Now, I had intentionally not commented on this news report, for reasons which will be explained further down. However, a comment from hunter Fabian Borg needs a clarification.

Mr Borg, commenting about the news report in the online version of The Times, among other things, writes:

"Dear Franco Farrugia and Co...What I hate, and I hope that all of you (unless maybe a couple) agree, are those statements which come out almost spontaneously stating - BAN HUNTING , COLLECT GUNS, SHOOT AT HUNTERS, CRIMINALS etc. One must think before writing and not continue to throw stones just because others are doing so".

Like I said, I have refrained from commenting on this news item...until now. I have done so for two reasons.

1. I do not believe that the many should be punished for the actions of the guilty few.

2. I would rather let the police do their work and find the culprit.

However, just to make it clear where I stand, I would like to comment on Mr Borg's statement quoted above.

1. Mr Borg will already know that I am one of those who would like to see a total ban on hunting, including the collection of guns. However, my reason for this is not because of an irresponsible person like the one in this case. Like I said, the many should not be punished for the actions of the few. I shall not repeat my reasons for wishing hunting to be abolished - I have written extensively about this in my blog and in letters to The Times.

2. Regarding "shoot at hunters", only an irresponsible person would say that. One who believes in the right to life of all individuals can never incite others to kill anyone except in self-defense.

3. Regarding "criminals", since not all hunting is illegal (although in my opinion, all hunting is immoral and should be illegal), not all hunters are criminals (where criminal is defined as those persons who break the law). However, those who hunt illegally are criminals. But again, the many should not be punished for the actions of the few.

So yes, Mr Borg is correct in saying that one must think before writing and not throw stones just because others are doing so. In fact, he will notice that I have ignored this issue in my own blog (until now), since I believe that it is a case for the police, and the issue should stop there.

So when Mr Borg says "unless maybe a couple" (see quote above), I hope he was not referring to me as one of the "couple". In that case, he may wish to change the "couple" to "just one", if even that is the case, which, to be honest, I don't think it is even so. Franco Farrugia, the person Mr Borg mentions by name, never said "shoot at hunters", so Mr Borg should follow his own advise, think before writing (his comment in Mr Farrugia's regard could be libellous) and not throw stones just because others are doing so.

Perhaps Mr Borg might think that I am being inconsistent, saying that the many should not be punished for the actions of the few, when I am all for the abolition of hunting (including of course spring hunting).

However, Mr Borg might appreciate the fact that I am not for the abolition of hunting as a sort of "punishment", but only because I am a firm believer in the right to life of all sentient individuals. This is why I oppose any form of hunting (and any other activity that unnecessarily deprives sentient individuals of their life or liberty), be it legal or illegal.

Addendum:

I hereby note that according to the hunters' federation (FKNK), a comment on the online version of The Times (later removed by The Times moderator) was posted by someone (not Franco Farrugia and obviously not myself) that said: "the only solution to stop illegal hunting is to deploy the army with shoot to kill orders at anyone in possession of a gun".

Of course, allowing for the high probability (to put it mildly) that such a comment was not intended to be taken seriously (considering that no Maltese government would order the army to do so), I must immediately say that such comments are not conductive to a serious debate.

That said, what I wrote in the above article still stands.

Also, I am glad that Mr Borg has posted another reply on The Times online, where he explains that he does not consider me to be one of the "maybe a couple" (see quote above). Therefore, its only fair for me to reproduce his further comment here.

Mr Borg writes:

"Kenneth Cassar, I was not referring to you as part of 'maybe a couple'. I believe we are just two persons on opposite sides of a river just on the legal hunting issue. I surely appreciate most of your work as I believe you would appreciate mine when this is limited to conserving my part of Malta's landscape for anyone to enjoy the sight and wild animals to live in. My land holds many local animals like hedgehogs, wild rabbits, variety of snakes, lizards, chameleons, weasels (ballottri), not to mention nesting birds like a variety of warblers and sparrows. Then there are other unwanted visitors like pests, mice and rats which I try to eliminate but that will always find you opposing it. True ?

Thanks for your comment and unless you noticed it our famous dog debate ended up on TV today ;-)"

Well, I certainly do appreciate Mr Borg's conservation and habitat preservation work (there is no reason for me not to trust his word on this). If only he limited his activities to this, and forgot all about hunting - but I guess that's just my wishful thinking.

Regarding the unwanted visitors he calls pests, I would rather trap them humanely and release them if they ever entered my house (or other room) and I did not want them there, but that's me.

Regarding our "dog debate" ending up on TV, no, I did not know about that. Of course, I would have no problem with that. I believe that both sides of a debate should be given an opportunity to expound their views, and then its up to the individual listener or the general public to act on what they think is right or true. Of course, it would only be fair to the listeners if, one party being absent from the debate, his views are not misrepresented. But then again, people may always find my views written clearly here.