Lackey government to argue for spring hunting at the European Court, wasting tax-payers' money in the process

As reported in The Times, "the government said today that it felt that the European Court was the best place for a final decision on the spring hunting issue and while it would argue its case according to law, it would respect the court’s decision.

The government was reacting to the European Commission’s decision to refer the spring hunting issue to the court.

The commission had also called on the government to issue an interim measure for no spring hunting to be allowed until the issue was decided. The government said the commission’s statement confirmed that derogation on spring hunting was possible under EU law and that such a derogation was discussed during the accession talks".

Of course, nobody ever disputed that a derogation was in theory possible. But what is simply beyond any dispute (except apparently to naive hunters who believe everything politicians tell them) is that the EU never granted any derogation to the Maltese government. This makes spring hunting in Malta illegal.

"In view of a European Court decision against Finland, taken after Malta joined the EU, the European Commission was now saying that a derogation should not be allowed in Malta since the bag declared by Maltese hunters showed that autumn was a sufficient alternative for spring hunting.

The government, while saying it would argue its case before the court, observed that since the procedure fell under article 226 of the treaty, Malta would not be liable to any fines or penalties".

Of course, I will not take the government's word for it, more so if the EU decides to impose immediate interim measures (a temporary court order) to prevent the opening of the coming season, and the government goes ahead and defies the EU once again. Moreover, one should question the integrity of a government willing to waste EU money (if not local taxpayers' money) just to win a few votes from the hunting lobby. If this is not evidence of a government in serious crisis, I wonder what would be. But of course, what does the arrogant Nationalist party care about the will of the majority of Maltese citizens?

"Meanwhile, BirdLife International and BirdLife Malta welcomed the European Commission's decision.

'Unfortunately, the Maltese government has missed many opportunities in the past to solve this case and to avoid European wide embarrassment for the country' said Konstantin Kreiser, EU Policy Manager at BirdLife in Brussels.

'Therefore, we can only welcome the Commission’s decision to take Malta to Court now'.

BirdLife called on the Maltese government to respond to the Commission's actions by officially declaring the end of spring hunting in Malta, for 2008 and beyond.

'If the Maltese government opens another spring hunting season this year, BirdLife will urge the European Commission to ask the European Court of Justice for an immediate order', Kreiser concluded".

But of course, the Nationalist Party's Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando tells us that his government cares about animals. Sure, and I can run as fast as a million miles an hour!

And of course, the above does not mean that the hunters' government (it is definitely not mine) has any chance of winning the case in Brussels. It only means that there is the certainty of waste of funds, and the possiblilty of more illegal murder of birds next spring. The government must sure hope that the hunters' votes are worth the trouble of being rightly judged as an animal murderer, a dictator (going against the will of the majority) and a squanderer of public funds!

On Brussels agreeing to send spring hunting issue to European court, and the San Anton Gardens prison

Spring hunting issue to be decided at European Court

Ivan Camilleri reports in today's The Times:

"The European Commission yesterday instructed its legal services to open a court case against Malta at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over spring hunting.

The College of Commissioners also agreed to take the necessary measures to prevent the Maltese authorities from allowing spring hunting until the ECJ decides on the matter.

Despite this decision, the Commission will only make its stand public today.

'The decision was made and approved by the Commission', sources close to the Cabinet of Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas told The Times yesterday. Asked to specify why the official announcement was not made yesterday, the sources said it is normal practice that, in the case of infringement decisions, announcements are made the day after the approval by the College of Commissioners.

There was no immediate reaction by the government yesterday to the report carried by The Times that the Commission will be asking the ECJ to issue urgent interim measures against Malta, thus preventing spring hunting this coming season.

A spokesman for the Office of the Prime Minister said when contacted that the government will only react following an official announcement by the Commission.

The Commission decision will now set the ball rolling at the judicial level whereby the ECJ, after receiving the Commission's request, will open a case against Malta and appoint a judge to preside over it.

Concurrently, once the Commission is asking for immediate interim measures (that is, a temporary court order) to prevent the opening of the coming season, the ECJ will refer the case to the court's President to examine the reasons brought forward by the Commission and give a ruling.

The temporary decision does not impinge on the hearing and on the eventual ruling on the original case.

European court experts have told The Times that, normally, a court case before the ECJ similar to the one involving Malta will take between two to three years to be heard and decided.

However, as the Commission is also applying for interim measures, the court will hear the preliminary submissions by both parties and decide in a matter of weeks whether to issue an injunction against the Maltese authorities or not. The decision will be issued before the start of the upcoming spring season.

Normally, the hunting spring season starts on March 20.

Meanwhile, Alternattiva Demokratika yesterday called on the government to respect the wishes of the majority of Maltese citizens and stop spring hunting with immediate effect.

AD chairman Harry Vassallo said Malta is being dragged before the EU courts because of the hard-headedness and irrationality of the government and the political parties' thirst for votes throughout the years.

Carmel Cacopardo, AD spokesman on sustainable development, said Maltese taxpayers would be risking a huge fine if hunting is allowed this spring and if the law is not changed to ensure that hunting would not be allowed during spring in the future".

Note: Once again, I must add that hunting is wrong irrespective of what species is hunted, the numbers killed, whether the killing is done legally or illegally, or in which season the killing is done. Each sentient animal has the right to life, which makes killing birds for some perverse pleasure to be without question morally wrong.

That said, the abolition of spring hunting would spare the lives of thousands of birds otherwise destined to be murdered by hunters, which is the only reason why animal rights advocates like me support this ban.

The plight of the peacocks

John Zammit writes the following letter in The Times:

"Firstly, I wish to congratulate all those involved for the maintenance of San Anton Gardens. In our climate it's a real work of art and a pleasure to come to this oasis of colour and care.

One thing does mar all this beauty - the peacocks. On a visit a few days ago I was appalled at the conditions these birds are being kept in. There is stagnant water in front of the cage or cell-like area. Inside is worse. The floor is strewn with rubbish, old chairs, concrete and it hasn't been brushed or cared for in a long time. There are no perches or nesting area.

These big beautiful birds are forced to live in unnatural conditions, with no outside exercise in sun or daylight.

These gardens are visited by thousands of visitors both local and foreign. Can someone please help these peacocks?".

At this point, I cannot say whether these prison inmates (the peacocks) can or cannot be rehabilitated in the wild, from where they (or their ancestors) were abducted. However, the point should certainly be made that no more non-human animals should be abducted or bred to be imprisoned for public display. Anyone who takes animal interests seriously should demand and expect no less.

Spring hunting - Brussels insists on immediate action

"The continuation of spring hunting is illegal and goes against EU law"

Ivan Camilleri reports in today's The Times:

"The European Commission is today expected to ask the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to stop Malta from opening the hunting season this spring.

In a meeting today, the College of Commissioners is expected to decide to take the Maltese spring hunting case to the ECJ, a Commission source told The Times yesterday. Concurrently, it will file an extraordinary application so that, until the main case is decided, the Maltese authorities will still be barred from allowing hunting next spring.

'We have warned Malta over the past years that, according to the Commission, the continuation of spring hunting is illegal and goes against EU law', the source said.

'As Malta did not come in line and continued to allow spring hunting, we will now have to take extreme measures to make sure that no hunting is allowed in spring or until the proper court case is decided'.
Malta had been served with two written warnings by the Commission over this issue, a first formal notice in July 2006 and a reasoned opinion last October.

The island replied officially to both letters but did not specify that it would stop spring hunting as it argues that, prior to accession, it had negotiated the right to apply a derogation to allow hunting for turtle doves and quail.

The Commission source said the expected application will be made under the ECJ's 'special form of procedure' so that an injunction will be issued against the Maltese authorities prohibiting them from granting permission for spring hunting until the original court case is decided.

European court experts said the ECJ normally takes two to three years to decide a case similar to Malta's. However, as the Commission believes that the issue is urgent it will also ask the court to take interim measures and the court will declare itself in a matter of weeks or even days.

According to the experts, interim measures are granted under strict conditions. The substance of the main proceedings must appear, at first sight, to be well founded. The applicant (the Commission) must show that the measures are urgent and that it would suffer serious and irreparable harm without them. The interim measures must also take account of the balance of the parties' interests and of the public interest.

A spokesman for the ECJ said yesterday an application by the Commission for interim measures is only used in rare cases where there is need for urgent and fast track decisions to be taken. Last year, there were only three cases where applications for the issue of interim measures were filed out of a total of 573 court procedures that were started.

The spokesman said that, according to the procedures, the president of the ECJ may issue an order even before the observations of the opposite party have been submitted. Under normal circumstances, a hearing is held before a decision on interim measures is made.

It is not yet decided how the case against Malta will be dealt with by the ECJ as the Commission is only expected to file its application today. Commission sources told The Times the ECJ is likely to accept the Commission's request in a few weeks' time. This would mean that hunting would not be able to take place in Malta this spring.

Last week, the government said it had not yet decided whether to open the spring hunting season in March and was waiting for the opinion of the Ornis committee on the issue.

Government sources said they were aware of a possible decision to be taken by the Commission but would only comment when the actual decision is made.

The Sunday Times reported last Sunday that the EU executive had rejected an 11th hour proposal by the Maltese hunters' federation (FKNK) to allow hunting on quail and turtle dove 'in small numbers and under strictly supervised conditions'.

A Commission spokesman had told this newspaper the Commission had already said that 'another satisfactory solution is available in Malta where it is possible to hunt at another time of year - during autumn'.

Since its accession to the EU, Malta has allowed spring hunting to take place in four spring seasons against the wishes of the European Commission.

Chronology of actions on spring hunting

July 2006 - The Commission decides to send a first warning letter to Malta over the spring hunting of two species of birds: quails (Coturnix coturnix) and turtle doves (Streptopelia turtur). The Commission claims that the granting by Malta of a derogation between May 1 and 22, 2004 was not in accordance with the strict conditions governing this derogation as 'a satisfactory solution to spring hunting existed during the autumn hunting season'.

September 2006 - Deadline for Malta's reply elapses. Commission decides to give Malta a further two months to reply.

March 2007 - Malta sends reply to first warning letter. It says it believes it has acted in line with EU law with respect to the application of the derogation for spring hunting under article 9 of the Birds Directive and has also acted fully within the spirit of the accession negotiations.

Late March 2007 - Spring hunting allowed again. The European Commission decides to send a supplementary letter of formal notice to the government over the issue, widening the scope of the infringement to cover similar derogations granted by Malta for the spring hunting seasons of 2005, 2006 and 2007.

October 2007 - Malta's arguments rejected. The Commission decides to move to its second stage of legal proceedings sending Malta a reasoned opinion. The Commission states that it believes that alternative solutions to spring hunting exist in autumn.

January 2008 - Malta replies to reasoned opinion".

Note: Wherever the above report mentions "Malta", it refers to the Maltese government. The majority of Maltese citizens (reported to be over 80%) are opposed to spring hunting.

Also, I must once again stress that hunting is wrong irrespective of what species is hunted, the numbers killed, whether the killing is done legally or illegally, or in which season the killing is done. Each sentient animal has the right to life, which makes killing birds for some perverse pleasure to be without question morally wrong.

That said, the abolition of spring hunting would spare the lives of thousands of birds otherwise destined to be murdered by hunters, which is the only reason why animal rights advocates like me support this ban.

Although a ban on spring hunting will be enforced for speciesist reasons (to preserve species and not indivual birds), the ban would effectively mean that no killing of any bird will be permitted during the migratory season when most birds get murdered in Malta. That, in itself, would be a minor victory, but a victory nonetheless.

Used as string puppets for political ends

Apart from my letter entitled "Animal awareness", a longer version of which may be found in this blog under the heading "Hunting and morality", today's The Times also publishes a letter from the indefatigable Mark Mifsud Bonnici from the "St Hubertus" hunters in reply to Alternattiva Demokratika's Arnold Cassola. I shall not waste much space commenting on the parts of the letter (most of it) that are inconsequential and evidently an attempt at clutching at straws. I will limit myself to two particular paragraphs that deserve a comment.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici writes: "Prof. Cassola, as often, has let his mind run wild and concludes that the other political parties need to form alliances in order to get votes. For his information the other political parties, unlike the Greens, have the decency to recognise that hunters have a right to practise their pastime and have always accepted hunting as part of Maltese life. Prof. Cassola can rest assured that no hunter supports the Green Party since their vote-grabbing stand against hunting makes this an impossibility. So even if, in the wildest of dreams, his theory is correct I fail to understand his concern".

I shall not delve on the fact that hunters do not have the right to murder birds, irrespective of whether one calls the killing a "pastime" or a "part of Maltese life". It should be clear to anyone who does not derive a perverse pleasure from killing non-human animals that no one has a right to kill any sentient being just for fun. In any case, I have already made a solid case against this "right" to kill on other occasions.

I shall only comment on Mr Mifsud Bonnici's apparent confusion with regards to the "vote-grabbing" issue. What is under dispute is not whether the Nationalist Party or the Malta Labour Party genuinely believe that hunting in spring should be retained. Of course they do, be they the speciesists that they are, and both having hunters or hunter supporters in their ranks. No one is surprised by this. What concerns us at this point in time, and what marks both hunter organizations as particularly naive, is both major political parties' insistence that Malta has any chance of retaining spring hunting. If hunters wish to be fooled by any particular party of their choice, so be it. However, there is no question that it is only a matter of time until spring hunting is abolished in Malta. Sunday's declaration from the EU commission leaves no room for different interpretations.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici also declares that "All hunters form part of either the Malta Labour Party or the Nationalist Party so rather than his (Arnold Cassola) imaginary alliance, hunters, in matters related to hunting, refer to their respective political party's declared stand. It is a known fact, even though Prof. Cassola seems surprised to learn, that both the MLP and the PN are in favour of spring hunting".

Mr Mifsud Bonnici, and all his fellow bird killers, would do well to realize that now that Malta is a member of the European Union, the Nationalist Party (PN) and the Malta Labour Party (MLP) cannot do whatever they please. The sooner hunters, the PN and the MLP wake up from their deep slumber and get a grip on reality, the better for everyone, including the birds they murder and the tax payers out of whose taxes any fines the EU would slam on the Maltese government would have to be paid if any party in government chooses to go on defying the EU and its regulations. And this, dear Mr Mifsud Bonnici, is not an opinion. It is a fact. The EU commission and Alternattiva Demokratika both say that spring hunting has to be abolished. The hunters' organizations, the PN and the MLP say that it can be retained if the government works hard enough. We'll soon get a confirmation about who is lying and who is being used as a puppet on strings.

On hunting and greater or lesser evils, and the EU once again declares "no more spring hunting"

Killing for pleasure and convenience

A .J. (Tony) Ellul from Canada writes a letter in today's The Sunday Times entitled "Hunting is no 'pastime'", in which he argues that since hunting is no longer necessary for sustenance or clothing, it is nothing but a harmful practice, and no 'pastime', and gives his reasons for declaring it so.

However, Mr Ellul makes the all too common mistake of declaring hunting unnecessary (so far so good), but saying that this is so simply because one can buy "meat" and other "animal products" from shops without having to hunt to obtain them. He also seems to contradict himself by first declaring that hunting is wrong because unnecessary, and then declaring that if hunters must hunt, they should do so legally. But more about that in a moment.

What Mr Ellul seems to ignore is the fact that all "animal products" are in themselves unnecessary, and that the false belief that such products (such as "meat" and "leather") are necessary seems to point to a totally opposite conclusion from the one reached by the correspondent. Such a false belief would actually suggest that people should hunt instead of buying their "animal products" from shops.

Mr Ellul writes: "At the dawn of civilisation, our ancestors found it necessary to hunt in order to protect themselves from predatory animals and to provide food and clothing for themselves and their families. In time, humans became more civilised and learned to farm and to domesticate and raise animals for their needs.

Today most of us do not need to hunt for our food. Humans have come a long way in farming and animal husbandry (sic) methods where most of us need look no further than our refrigerators or freezers, or our grocery and butcher stores, for our next meal".

It is clear that Mr Ellul is correct in saying that hunting most probably was a necessity to our ancestors, both as a means of defence from predators, and as a means of sustenance and clothing. However, Mr Ellul makes the wrong assumption that, while today most of us do not need to hunt for food, we still need to eat "meat" and other "animal products", and so we should buy these products from shops instead of killing the non-human animals ourselves.

This assumption is mistaken for two reasons. First of all, we do not need to kill any animals for clothing and food. Humans can live a perfectly healthy life on a vegan diet, and similarly, the skin of non-human animals is not necessary to clothe humans, particularly when there are sufficient clothing options available that are not made of dead animal skins. Secondly, his claim rests on the false assumption that there is such a thing as "humane slaughter" of animals for food or clothing. In terms of suffering for the animals concerned, most probably a "clean" shot from a hunter causes less suffering than a life in a modern "farm" and the actual execution of the non-human animals to obtain their skin and flesh or other "products". Humane slaughter is a myth.

Of course, this is not to say that people should go out hunting instead of buying their "animal products" from the shops. Since "animal products" are not necessary for our survival, humans should of course reject the use of such products, which always involve some degree of suffering, and always involve the unnecessary taking of innocent life. This, apart from the fact that all animals (and I obviously include humans in animals) are irreplaceable individuals whose life matters to them individually.

There is no such thing as a generic "human" or a generic "cow". Each human and each cow is an individual whose life may fare better or worse, and the taking of life necessarily involves preclusion of any further experience. To deny any animal the chance of experiential life, unless in exceptional cases like self-defence, involves treating that individual as simply a means to one's end - an object or thing. All living beings who have an experiential welfare (to whatever degree) are not objects or things. They are individuals who deserve respectful treatment as autonomous individuals. To treat non-humans as things just because they lack some characteristic which we arbitrarily decide should hinge on whether such individuals have a right to life, would preclude many humans from having the same right. To claim that only humans have such a right because they are humans simply begs the question: Why do humans have rights? To deny the right to life and liberty to non-humans is speciesist.

Mr Ellul goes on to say that "Some people in parts of the 'uncivilised' world still rely on hunting for their food. Yet even these 'unsophisticated' and 'uncivilised' people do not hunt inedible animals such as raptor birds, and they certainly do not hunt for the purpose of acquiring trophies to boost their egos".

This much, of course, I will concede. Hunting in Malta is only practiced as a "pastime" or "hobby", or perhaps, as our correspondent says, to "boost (the hunters') egos". However, even if hunting in Malta were to be practiced for food, hunting would still be wrong for the simple reason that "meat" and other "animal products" are not necessary for our survival.

Everyone who consumes "animal products" does so for pleasure or convenience, which differs little to the reason why hunters in Malta hunt. Pleasure is pleasure, and if it is justified to deny sentient beings their lives just for the pleasure of the taste of their flesh, it would be equally justifiable to deny similar beings their lives just for the pleasure and "thrill" of a kill. Of course, since both the consumption of "animal products" and hunting are unnecessary for our survival, they are both unjustified killing, which to a non-speciesist would mean murder. In this respect, it could be claimed, for the reasons explained above vis-a-vis the suffering caused by hunting compared to the greater suffering in modern "animal farms", that our own society is actually less civilised than the people in the "uncivilised world".

Mr Ellul goes on to say that "It appears that only the Maltese 'hunters' still indulge in their barbaric pastime of shooting anything that moves or flies. In pursuing their 'pastime', these 'hunters' exhibit egoistic tendencies that are typical of immature people who care only about themselves and who have no regard for others, least of all the creatures that share this planet with us".

People who do not care only about themselves and who have regard for others, including "all the creatures that share this planet with us", would not unnecessarily kill any such "creatures" just for pleasure or convenience. Of course, Mr Ellul is correct in claiming that "shooting anything that moves or flies" exhibits "egoistic tendencies". However, one should perhaps look deeper into one's own actions and think about whether it is also "egoistic tendencies" that make one kill, or have killed on one's behalf, other sentient non-human animals, whose flesh or skin we can easily do without. The killing of non-human animals doesn't cease to be "egoistic" or unjust simply because it serves the satisfaction of my pleasures and not those of someone else.

Mr Ellul then says: "They go so far as to make dire threats and to indulge in savage vandalism, even vandalising our national treasures and burning down precious trees, to get their way. If they must hunt, let them do it within the law, hunting only in season, and taking only prescribed limits of fowl and animals that are fit for human consumption. Do these 'hunters' realise that we humans are the stewards of creation?"

Again, this is where Mr Ellul is very wrong. Hunting, for the reasons explained above, is equally wrong when done legally, in season, with limitations or for human consumption as it is wrong when done illegally, out of season, without limits or not for human consumption. To the murdered individual, the reasons or circumstances under which he or she is murdered make no difference whatsoever. And no, we are not the "stewards of creation". In fact, in all probability, "creation" would do much better without us, considering we are the most polluting and most violent species on the planet.

Mr Ellul concludes his letter by saying: "Do they realise that all humans have a responsibility to care for our environment, if not for our sake, then for the sake of those who will come after us? Do they realise that the lead pellets that come out of their guns fall to the earth and into the water where they poison both earth and water as well as any creature that ingests the lead pellets?

Hunters' self-proclaimed 'pastime' poses a danger to themselves, to the rest of the nation (especially when they illegally discharge firearms close to people's homes), and to future generations - our children and grandchildren and their children".

Of course, Mr Ellul is right to conclude so. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that hunting is wrong primarily because it is harmful to its own direct victims. All the rest are harmful consequences that stem out of this rights-violating act of taking sentient life for no other reason than pleasure or convenience. Hunting would still be wrong if it did not entail such harmful consequences. Hunting is primarily wrong because it violates the hunting victims' right to life and liberty. Therefore, all hunting, like other speciesist practices such as the completely unnecessary consumption or use of "animal products", is wrong and unjust. Until we reject all speciesist and unnecessary exploitation of all animals, we cannot honestly say that we have morally progressed. In fact, in relation to neanderthals, who most probably consumed non-human animals out of necessity, we have actually regressed.

Brussels shoots down hunters' proposal - Crucial decision on spring hunting on Wednesday

Ivan Camilleri reports in today's The Sunday Times:

"The EU executive has rejected Maltese hunters' latest proposal and made it clear that there is no valid reason for spring hunting to continue, a spokesman for the European Commission told The Sunday Times.

Sources yesterday said that the Commission will on Wednesday meet to discuss whether Malta should be referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over the issue.

'We have been warning Malta since its accession to the EU and the time has come to take drastic action. We expect that in less than a year the ECJ will be in a position to give a ruling. The court might also consider imposing interim measures until a final ruling is made', the sources said.

Malta is the only EU country which still permits spring hunting and the Commission has warned on a number of occasions that it will take the issue to court if the Government continues to allow the practice to take place.

The hunters' federation is arguing that the spring season should open by virtue of an exemption - known as a derogation - permitted under the EU's Birds Directive. However, the spokesman said this does not apply as hunters in Malta can already practise their hobby during the autumn season.

In a final gamble to 'save' Malta's spring hunting season, the FKNK last week said that in collaboration with European hunting organisation FACE, it had drawn up a position document 'in order to allow the Maltese authorities to grant a derogation for hunting only quail and turtledove during part of the pre-nuptial migration, in small numbers and under strictly supervised conditions, by taking into account the particular bio-geographical and socio-cultural situation of Malta'.

However, the Commission reiterated on Friday that this is not possible and spring hunting in Malta has to stop once and for all.

'Spring hunting - that is hunting of migratory birds on their return to their rearing grounds - is prohibited under Article 7 of the Birds Directive. A derogation from that general prohibition is provided for under Article 9, which states that a fundamental condition that must be met before a derogation can be permitted is the requirement that no other satisfactory solution is available', the spokesman explained.

The latest issue raised by the federation has already been addressed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in an almost identical case to Malta's, he added.

The ECJ has looked at this matter and concluded that another satisfactory solution is available where it is possible to hunt at another time of year - during autumn - even if a smaller numbers of birds are available then (Case C-344/03 - Commission vs Finland).

'Following this approach by the court, where a derogation concerns 'small numbers... under strictly supervised conditions' another satisfactory solution exists'.

The Government has always maintained it is ready to defend its position before the ECJ, while also declaring that it will respect the court's decision. The Government has not yet decided whether to open the next spring hunting season in March.

Environment Minister George Pullicino last week said that he will wait for the opinion of the Ornis Committee before taking a final decision. Sources yesterday told The Sunday Times that the Government will not be making any move until it knows the outcome of the Commission's decision on Wednesday".

There you have it. The EU commission has once again made it clear that "spring hunting in Malta has to stop once and for all". Daniel Xriha, Mark A. Sammut, Lino Farrugia, Aldo E. Azzopardi, Mark Mifsud Bonnici and all the other hunter whiners please take note.

No, we won't shut up

Apart from my letter, a longer version of which I published in this blog under the heading "What's next, Nazis in the classroom?", today's The Times publishes a letter from a very bright guy called Daniel Xriha, under the heading "Just shut up"

Mr Xriha writes: "Joseph Mangion, the president of BirdLife (Malta), should stop his irritable whines that the government is violating some EU legislation simply because it still intends to allow the socio-cultural Maltese tradition of hunting in spring".

I don't know about you, but I actually I find the hunters' persistence in insisting that spring hunting does not breach EU legislation, to be nothing but whines coming from people whom their gut feeling tells them that it is only a matter of time until their "socio-cultural Maltese tradition" of murdering birds in spring will be brought to a close. But of course, a drowning man will clutch at straws. Or do these people honestly believe that spring hunting is to be retained, despite the EU's several warnings and proclamations to the effect that it will not be permitted? I don't know about that, but I sure know that ignorance as opposed to delusion would at least conserve some sense of dignity for them. After all, maybe it's not their fault that they are being deceived by the two major political parties in Malta that spring hunting has any chance of being retained.

I would like to remind Mr Xriha that the European Commission, on the 17th October 2007, issued a final warning to the Maltese government to ban spring hunting or be hauled before the European Court of Justice.

As EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas has made clear on countless occasions, "Derogations are only given if the conditions providing for them are met. The main condition is that spring hunting becomes possible if no sufficient alternatives exist. Although the Maltese authorities invoke this as the reason for allowing spring hunting, we have found that there are sufficient alternatives in autumn and, so, we have not granted any derogation. This also means that Malta must come in line with EU rules and stop hunting in spring".

Mr Xriha goes on to say that "Prior to Malta's EU accession, Mr Mangion was one of the 'chosen few prominent' Maltese citizens who, on this very daily (The Times), huge photograph and all, proclaimed that he would be voting yes for Malta to join the EU in the then forthcoming referendum.

Now all those wise 'chosen few prominent' Maltese must have been very well versed in what had been negotiated and agreed between the Maltese government and the EU, and if not all, for one, Mr Mangion was definitely aware that Malta had made and documented its crystal clear intentions to the EU, that it will still allow hunting in spring as an EU member state".

Now here is where Mr Xriha's confusion stems from. The simple fact that the Maltese government had made it clear that it intended to allow spring hunting does not necessarily mean that the EU would concede to the Maltese government's request and give Maltese hunters a derogation. It's this simple, Mr Xriha. This is how EU derogations work. A particular government applies for a derogation, and the EU either accepts or rejects the application for a derogation. The EU commission has already made it clear that a derogation will not be given to Maltese hunters. You don't need a university degree to understand something so simple and straight-forward as this. Let me spell it out once again: You ask for permission to do something. Permission is not given. You cannot do what you asked for. Elementary, Mr Xriha.

Mr Xriha concludes his letter by saying: "It is, therefore, high time for Mr Mangion and the rest of the Maltese population who voted for EU membership to shut up and accept all conditions, including spring hunting, that have come about as part and parcel of Malta's EU membership agreements.

Unless of course, this half of the Maltese population have now understood that maybe either the government or the EU, or both, have deceived them".

It sure looks like Mr Xriha understands everything in reverse. Let me correct his wrong conclusion on this ongoing pitiful state of affairs: It is high time for Mr Xriha and his ilk to recognize that now that we are EU members (and those who voted "yes" for membership voted so precisely for this reason) we should accept all conditions, including the abolition of spring hunting, that have come about as part and parcel of Malta's EU membership agreements. Since a derogation on spring hunting was never given (and I challenge Mr Xriha or anyone else to prove otherwise - with documented evidence), membership in the EU means an automatic ban on spring hunting.

Of course, it is high time for the hunting minority to recognize that, on this particular issue, the government has deceived them. Get over it. They should count their lucky stars that speciesist EU regulations do allow for the murder of some birds in other seasons. That the abolition of hunting in spring in Malta will mean that hunters will have fewer opportunity to murder birds, is a cause for celebration, albeit a limited one. Hopefully, it will be a matter of time until all hunting in Malta will be seen as just a shameful page in Maltese history, as opposed to being ridiculously spoken of by a dying minority as a "socio-cultural tradition". There is nothing socio-cultural about murder.

And no, Mr Xriha, I won't shut up until all speciesist practices, including the murder of birds by hunters, are abolished.

Hunting and morality

Hunting and education

Mark A. Sammut writes a long letter "in response" to my letter in The Times of January 16 (a longer version was published in this blog under the heading "More on that hunting questionnaire and the eradication of a neanderthal mentality"). I put "in response" in quotes only because I believe that Mr Sammut did not address any of the points I raised in my letter.

Mr Sammut writes: "Kenneth Cassar's It's Right To Teach That Hunting Is Wrong (January 16) cannot be accepted as stated at face value.

The question concerning the practice of hunting in Malta has, most unfortunately, become an undeniably loaded one".

I agree with Mr Sammut that it is unfortunate that the question of hunting in Malta has become a loaded one, but I do so for an entirely different reason. The reason that the issue has become so loaded is only because most people see the hunting issue in a utilitarian manner that excludes individual non-human animals as worthy of individual consideration. The questions most people seem to ask is: "Can hunting in Malta be sustainable?" and "Does hunting benefit or harm humans or the environment?". From a moral standpoint, it would be sufficient for a person who regards sentient non-human animals as individuals who can suffer and have an experiential welfare, to simply ask the following question: "Does hunting harm the shot birds?". The simple answer to that question is "yes". The question only becomes "loaded" if one makes the speciesist assumption that non-human life matters less than human life, or does not matter at all.

Mr Sammut then says: "To invade state and Church schools for the direct purpose of enlisting their manifest assistance to bolster the anti-hunting lobby surely runs against the correct interpretation of the curriculum as agreed upon by the Education Division and Education Minister Louis Galea".

My immediate reply would be that perhaps "invade" is too strong a word for Mr Sammut to use in this context. It's not as if "animal advocates" are sending hundreds of "recruits" to ensure that "their ideas" are taught at schools!

And to link this with the second part of Mr Sammut's above statement, what actually happens in schools is this: The government appointed Animal Awareness committee, which actually has an Animal Awareness Education Programme, appoints individual teachers to act as their Animal Awareness teacher in each school. It is these teachers who actually invite representatives of "animal organizations" to give talks, and organize activities together with "animal organizations" for their pupils to participate in. Browsing the Animal Awareness Education Programme website will give an idea on what the programmes and aims of the Animal Awareness section within the Education Division are.

Of course, I must make clear that I do not believe that the programme of the Education Division goes far enough. For instance, it does not question the property status of non-human animals. That said, for someone to claim that what the teachers are teaching about hunting goes over and above what the Ministry of Education allows or intends, is to distort the facts, to put it mildly.

As clearly stated in the Animal Awareness Education Programme, under the heading "A nation of animal lovers", teachers are instructed to "Ask the pupils to think about cruelty to animals. What types of things do they think are cruel? Pupils often focus on deliberate cruelty – hitting and beating. Once they have been given a range of examples, ask them to think about the difference between; neglect – failing to look after an animal properly, deliberate cruelty – intending to do something that hurts the animal. Do the pupils think one type of cruelty is worse than the other? Ask the pupils to think from an animal’s point of view. Both neglect and deliberate animal cruelty make animals suffer".

Mr Sammut goes on to say: "To seek unquestioning patronage from members of the teaching profession entails also the indirect selective assistance of the Malta Union of Teachers".

I disagree. To seek "unquestioning patronage" from the appointed animal awareness teachers (who are selected by the Education Division's Animal Awareness committee) does not require any selective assistance or approval from the Malta Union of Teachers. This is because, first of all, the teachers selected to act as Animal Awareness teachers willingly accept that post. Most probably they even volunteer. And secondly, what they teach accords with what is instructed in the Animal Awareness programme.

Mr Sammut says: "For surely here we are up against a baleful select manner of interpreting the meaning of ethics when and where violence is intrinsically involved".

Violence is violence, and there is no select way of interpreting the meaning of violence.

Mr Sammut then says: "Much ado is made of Maltese hunters, their ways and interests, their failings, true or perceived. It is not my intention to break a lance in their favour but the whole hullabaloo deserves a more rational approach. Instead of crying for hell's fire to fall upon their heads, why don't we seek and have more factual information?"

The "whole hullabaloo" comes from a belief that non-humans do not morally matter. The only factual information we need is that birds are sentient animals, and hunting them is killing them without moral justification. A rational approach requires the recognition that birds are sentient animals who have an individual welfare that may fare better or worse for them, and that to shoot to kill them is to deny them any further life experience without any moral justification.

The only justification from the hunters' end is that hunters derive pleasure from shooting birds. That is no moral justification. To claim otherwise would be to claim that non-human animal life does not matter (to them), and this would require that one gives valid arguments to support the claim that human life matters (to humans) and non-human animal life does not matter (to non-human animals). All scientific evidence points to the contrary claim, that is, that life matters to all sentient animals.

Mr Sammut then says: "To have Malta's name blackened to such a dire degree by people living in European northern latitudes calls more for unbiased factual data resulting from properly conducted research rather than selective use of an act of violence enshrined in a perceived ethical context.

Indeed, let birds of song enrich the land with their warbles. Let the migratory birds follow their chosen paths; but why single out the comparatively small hunting group in Malta but turn more of a blind eye as to what happens from Sicily northward? That is not the end of it all".

Mr Sammut here lumps me together with those who argue for the "abolition" of hunting in terms of numbers killed, "sustainable" hunting, and illegal hunting activity in Malta. I am not such a person. To me (and all animal rights advocates), the numbers killed, whether they are killed legally or illegally, or where they are killed, does not matter. Every individual non-human animal has the right to life and liberty, whether the hunting victim is in Malta, Sicily or wherever. Of course, one is perfectly entitled to "think globally, act locally", which is what I usually do.

Mr Sammut concludes his letter by saying: "Toying with violence in the context of calling upon the sustenance of ethics should lead us to also consider that this perspective involves much, much more than migratory birds and hunting, and that means in Europe and beyond its limited confines.

The deaths of the unborn in their mother's womb, the wailing of dying non-combatants as a result of sophisticated modern weaponry, the bloated stomachs of people plagued by hunger, and man's perennial inhumanity to man on a global scale, all breathe violence regardless of all accepted norms of ethics. These aspects of contemporary "globalisation" also deserve the attention of school teachers and those responsible for drawing up the respective syllabi".

I am not toying with violence. Violence towards innocents is serious business. That said, I agree with Mr Sammut that we shoud consider "much more than migratory birds and hunting" and we should look "beyond (our) limited confines". That is why I believe that human rights are part and parcel of animal rights (humans are animals too), and I agree with Mr Sammut where he says that human rights issues "also deserve the attention of school teachers and those responsible for drawing up the respective syllabi". I couldn't agree more, which is not to say that this is not already being done. What I find particularly strange is for someone who claims there are far more important issues (like the unborn, war victims, poverty etc) than a "trivial" matter such as hunting, and then wastes a whole letter "rebutting" an anti-hunting letter instead of "enlightening us" on how to resolve the human tragedies he mentions.

"I'll kill those you care about, but please don't hate me for it"

Of course, someone like Sylvana Zarb Darmanin would say that Mr Sammut "hit the nail on the head" (I personally think he missed the nail entirely and made significant damage to the furniture, if not his own fingers) and "Nice to read common sense instead of hatred towards a section of the population!!".

What Ms Zarb Darmanin is saying here is akin to saying something like "I will kill those you care about, but please don't hate me for it".

What such people fail to grasp is the simple fact that campainging for the protection of innocents does not imply "hatred towards a section of the population". Am I asking for hunters to be shot? I don't think I am. All I am asking is for hunters to stop murdering birds. Also, would Ms Zarb Darmanin say that people campaigning against racism would be spreading hatred towards a section of the population? And just in case I need to spell it out, no, I am not equating racism to speciesism, even though they are very similar in that both stem from prejudice and the exclusion from moral concern of those outside one's group.

Far from spreading hatred towards a section of the population, I am spreading respect towards every sentient being, which includes respect for each individual being's right to life.

Hunting and Christianity

Meanwhile, John Darmanin from the Vegetarian Society of Malta, writes a letter in The Times in reply to the one by the hunter federation's Lino Farrugia. Once again, Mr Darmanin (a Christian vegan) debunks "religious" pro-animal abuse arguments from a Christian ethical perspective.

Mr Darmanin writes:

"Lino Farrugia's vision of education and religion, (January 14) in which he says that conservation is synonymous with hunting and his summary conclusion that hunting is morally acceptable in modern religion deserves some comments.

Conservation, in its environmental aspect, is a very complex and broad science, which tries to protect and preserve the fine and delicate biodiversity of nature from the minutest microbe to the biggest animal; from the microscopic plant to the giant sequoias. It tries to maintain the labyrinth of interactions of life with the earth, oceans and atmosphere, that are impossible to reconstruct once destroyed. Conservation is mostly a consequence of realisation that we humans are so much an integral part of nature that whenever we harm the natural environment we will be harming ourselves.

Therefore conservation is a far cry from the simple selfish concern to limit hunting because otherwise there would be nothing left to hunt! I do not think that anyone would take Mr Farrugia's statement seriously. Redefining of the word conservation as a synonym of hunting would be sheer madness and perverse.

Mr. Farrugia readily quotes St Augustine, nearly as a supporter of hunting, but I would not believe that the quotation by St Augustine means a free license to wantonly kill any creature, even if unprotected by man-made laws. Hunters cannot adopt such statements so simply because they are music to their ears. Christianity has a direction that points only one way - towards love, kindness, compassion and humility. Killing innocent creatures inevitably points in the reverse direction. So it is not morally valid to conclude as the writer did; a middle position between St Augustine and St Francis. In this respect, it is the example of St Francis that points in the right direction.

Unfortunately no matter how carefully law abiding, no matter how conscientious a hunter may be, nothing can change the fact that hunting is a blood sport. It kills innocent creatures; it wounds helpless birds and animals. It is pleasure derived from inflicting pain when red-hot lead bludgeons into their fragile flesh. It is immensely cruel and cruelty is an evil.

The suffering of animals is not different from the suffering of humans. Animals are just as vulnerable and may be even more so because they do not have means to protect themselves from harsh natural or man-made environment conditions. In the words of Cardinal Henry Newman in a sermon delivered on Good Friday 1842 '... what should move our hearts and sicken us is that they have done no harm, they are innocent. Next they have no power whatever of resisting; it's the cowardice and tyranny of which they are victims which makes their suffering so especially touching... there is something so very dreadful, so satanic in tormenting those who have never harmed us and who cannot defend themselves, who are utterly in our power, who have weapons neither of offence nor defence that none but very hardened persons can endure the thought of it...'

Rev. Professor Dr Andrew Linzey, author of many books on animals and Christianity, derives more profound theological insight from Cardinal Newman's intelligent sermon, but the above should be more than enough proof that the way of Christianity is to protect animals from any form of cruelty. It leads to one inescapable conclusion; hurting animals for the sake of pleasure is immoral and those who teach schoolchildren against hunting are not extremists but they are teaching the right moral and the correct ethical values. St Francis loved all creatures because they originate from the same God.

He was not an extremist but his profound love of nature was a rare state of grace afforded by the Lord only to such mystic figures.

There is no middle way between virtues and vices and God forbid that school children be taught differently, it would be the antithesis of education".

Once again, I would only add, in the words of the Right Reverend Richard Holloway, retired Bishop of Edinburgh and Professor of Divinity (in his "Godless Morality" that "...the use of God in a moral debate is so problematic as to be almost worthless. We can debate with one another as to whether this or that alleged claim genuinely emanated from God, but who can honestly adjudicate in such an Olympian dispute? That is why it is better to leave God out of the moral debate and find good human reasons for supporting the system or approach we advocate, without having recourse to divinely clinching arguments".

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.

Gonzi insists on murdering birds in spring

Government sticks to its guns on spring bird-murder

The Malta Independent on Sunday's David Lindsay reports:

"The government has stood its ground on the issue of spring hunting and appears to have every intention of opening the season this year, flying in the face of the now very real threat of legal action by the European Commission. The EC had given Malta a final warning in October to cease the practice of spring hunting this year, unless it could provide scientific evidence justifying the practice...

BirdLife Malta confirmed yesterday that Malta’s awaited reply to the final warning was sent to Brussels this week. The EC is said to have frowned upon Malta’s arguments in favour of the practice once again, and will be taking the government before the European Courts of Justice.

Malta’s latest manoeuvre could be perceived as a delaying tactic aimed at postponing the issue until after the forthcoming general election, with legal proceedings potentially being a drawn-out affair unless the process is otherwise fast-tracked. The EU courts could, however, resort to interim measures and order the closing of spring hunting until the case is concluded and the verdict delivered.

As pointed out by BirdLife International’s EU Policy Manager Konstantin Kreiser, 'Malta is not only facing a European Court Case. By declaring another spring hunting season for 2008, it is also likely to provoke Interim Measures of the Court – which would enter into force immediately. The Polish Via Baltica (Rospuda) case last year showed that the court no longer accepts delaying tactics of member States. The Maltese government should learn this lesson before it is too late'.

If Malta loses the case, it could be slapped with potentially heavy punitive fines, possibly for every day in which Malta infringed the EU’s Bird Directive. According to the Commission, Malta has contravened the directive since it joined the EU – for four years running, with this year being the fifth, if the season is indeed opened.

BirdLife Malta (BLM) called on the government on Friday to immediately withdraw its intention to allow spring hunting this year. In a letter sent to Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, BirdLife Malta advised, 'Malta’s insistence on allowing spring hunting and trapping has already become a European wide embarrassment for our country. As an example, the European Parliament’s resolution of 15 March 2007 is a very rare example of a member State being openly urged by a great majority of MEPs from the whole political spectrum to comply with EU law'.

BLM president Joseph Mangion also accused the government of pandering to the hunters lobby in the interest of its political party and against the interest of the majority of the Maltese people. 'We have every reason to be furious with the government and also with certain politicians from both the Nationalist and Labour parties who persist in making promises to the hunting fraternity that go against the conservation laws with the hope of winning their votes', he commented. 'How can any government expect its citizens to abide by the law when it has no respect for EU law and the conservation of our natural heritage?'.

October’s final written warning follows Malta’s first written warning on spring hunting in July 2006, which had observed, 'Currently, laws in Malta allow the hunting of the birds during spring, a key period of migration and breeding. In taking this step, the Commission is asking Malta to bring its rules on hunting in line with the EU’s Wild Birds Directive. The hunting of these migratory birds (turtle-dove and quail) takes place during their return from Africa to breeding grounds in Europe, before they have had a chance to reproduce. The impact on bird numbers is therefore more significant than it would be in autumn or winter, after the breeding season. The Commission believes that alternative solutions to spring hunting exist, in this case the possibility to hunt the two species in the autumn'.

Hunting in the EU is regulated in the EU by the 1979 Wild Birds Directive, which holds a general prohibition on the killing of wild birds but allows the hunting of certain species 'provided this does not happen during breeding or migration'."

Spring hunting ban possible before EU court ruling

In the meantime, Herman Grech from The Sunday Times reports:

"Malta could be forced to stop spring hunting before the European Court of Justice reaches its verdict, Birdlife has warned.

The Commission is expected to take Malta to the European Court within the next few weeks and if the Government decides to open another spring hunting season, the Court may decide on interim measures and stop the controversial practice until a verdict is reached.

With the clock ticking to the general election and as hunters prepare their shotguns for another season, Birdlife Malta urged the Government in a letter sent to Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi on Friday to immediately retract from its intention to open another spring hunting season.

The Government last week replied to the Commission's final written warning on spring hunting sent to Malta last October.

The response was sent after a delay of almost a month and, according to a report in The Times last week, Commission sources said it is likely that the issue will now have to be decided by the European Court - indicating that the Government is committed to opening another spring hunting season in 2008 in direct violation of EU law.

But Birdlife has warned that Malta's delaying tactics could backfire. Birdlife International's EU policy manager Konstantin Kreiser said: 'By declaring another spring hunting season for 2008, Malta is also likely to provoke interim measures of the court - which would enter into force immediately'.

The Polish Via Baltica (Rospuda) case last year showed that the court no longer accepts delaying tactics of member states.

In a March 2007 ruling, the Commission made use of special procedures to ask the court to make an urgent order requiring Poland to suspend works immediately, until the judgment was handed down. The Maltese Government should learn this lesson before it is too late, Mr Kreiser said.

Birdlife Malta told Dr Gonzi that Malta's insistence to permit spring hunting and trapping had already become a European-wide embarrassment for the island. The European Parliament had issued a resolution in March last year against the practice, in a rare move to openly urge a member state to comply with EU law.

The conservation organisation also reminded the Prime Minister that there is no justification to permit another spring hunting season in Malta and that he had no mandate from the overwhelming majority of the Maltese who were against spring hunting.

'In spite of this stark reality our Government still attempts to appease the hunters' lobby', Birdlife Malta president Joseph Mangion said.

'It is very clear that the Government's decision to allow another spring hunting season is not based on the best interest of the Maltese public or the Government's duties, but based on the interest of their political party'.

Mr Mangion said: 'We have every reason to be furious with the Government and also with certain politicians both from the Nationalist and Labour parties who persist in making promises to the hunting fraternity that go against the conservation laws, with the hope of winning votes. How can any Government expect its citizens to abide by the law when it has no respect for EU law and the conservation of our natural heritage?'"

Alternattiva Demokratika - the only party to be trusted on Spring Hunting

At this point, the Green party Alternattiva Demokratika's message of yesterday in The Times bears repeating:

"The alliance between the hunters and the PN is now being openly declared. Mr Mifsud Bonnici stresses, in fact, that 'Dr Busuttil shows a sense of fairness and consistency by additionally stating that the 2008 spring season should be opened in line with his party's electoral promises'.

The picture is now clear: both the MLP and the PN are in favour of hunting in spring. Alternattiva Demokratika, instead, will work to ensure the prohibition of all forms of spring hunting. It is now up to the Maltese voters to have their say on the issue".

Of course, it must be said that EU law on hunting is speciesist and discriminatory, since it does not accord equal protection to any and all birds and restricts protection to some birds only during certain periods of the year (like spring). That said, the Maltese government deserves total condemnation for its insistence in retaining spring hunting, and by so doing, not even allowing minimal protection to birds at least during their breeding season. It certainly looks like this government, despite its eagerness to join the EU, is still stuck with an archaic mentality that thinks that anyone in Europe can do what they want as long as what they do is politically expedient (to win votes from the bird-murderers).

Hunters "shot" from all sides

Using religion to justify the unjustifiable will obviously backfire

It looks like the more the Hunters' Federation (FKNK) and the other hunting organization whose patron saint ironically is said to have received a "heavenly apparition" ordering him to stop hunting (the "St Hubertus" Hunters) write in newspapers in defence of the indefensible murder of birds, the more they get "shot" from all sides.

Following yesterday's letter from Joe Aquilina-St John, today's The Times publishes the replies from two local environmentalists regarding Christian saints and hunting.

John Schembri writes:

"I am in some agreement with Lino Farrugia (January 14 and previous correspondence) about schools being brainwashing institutions.

First of all I believe these institutions are staffed by educators. Somehow they never taught me the word 'educationalists'.

These educators are entrusted with human beings when these are very young. They start by brainwashing them to get along, turn them from being illiterate to, in most cases, being excited about learning. Eventually educators brainwash these humans to become like them or doctors, lawyers, craftsmen. Well, you get the picture. The brainwashing does create some undesirables. Of course, depending on which side of the spectrum a person is, these undesirables might be very popular. Let's leave it at that.

I don't think that St Augustine ever went hunting and he might be a great contrast to St Francis. I don't know much about either one, just, if dates are accurate, that St Augustine died in 430 and St Francis in 1226. Maybe 800 years made humans somewhat kinder towards other living creatures.

Now we might even be more aware. Man, being the most pernicious weed, has encroached dangerously over the environment of most other living things. One needs only hear the arguments about the harm we are doing to the environment.

It would be shameful if the Minister of Education were to stop educators making children aware of what challenges we are facing. The younger generation is getting more informed and more assertive.

Unfortunately, some of them will even become hunters. Hopefully not ones that will shoot at anything that flies".

To be fair to Lino Farrugia of the FKNK, the word "educationalist" does exist. It means "a specialist in the methods and theory of education". But that's where all the sense in Mr Farrugia's correspondence ends.

As to Mr Schembri's letter, not to repeat myself on what I wrote previously on the topic, I would only remove the last sentence. It makes no difference at all whether one shoots at "anything that flies" or whether one shoots to kill only legally unprotected birds. Life matters to all birds equally. There is no such thing as a responsible hunter. All hunting is murder.

With regards to Mr Schembri's very valid point that St Augustine's views on non-human animals (as opposed to those of St Francis) are perhaps understandable considering that he died in the year 430 (compared to St Francis who died in 1226), and as Mr Schembri correctly points out, in 800 years opinions can change considerably with further knowledge gained, perhaps St Augustine's views will be seen as more understandable when one considers that even a renowned philosopher such as René Descartes (1596 - 1650) still believed that non-human animals are non-conscious machines and "thoughtless brutes", and that "it is nature which acts in them according to the disposition of their organs, just as a clock, which is only composed of wheels and weights, is able to measure the time more correctly than we can with all our wisdom" (René Descartes - Discourse on Method). It is no wonder, then, that St Augustine, 800 years earlier than Descartes, would believe that to refrain from killing non-human animals is "the height of superstition"!

Meanwhile, George Debono writes:

"It is time that Lino Farrugia realised that his wishy-washy arguments in support of hunting fail to convince.

The saintly quotations he used in his latest letter were written hundreds of years ago when human beings were sparse, birds plentiful and when there were no supermarkets where all kinds of food could be found. The saints he quotes would have thought quite differently if there were as many hunters as today shooting birds (and other equally beautiful fellow creatures on this planet) almost to extinction, just for the fun of it".

Once again, the same applies to Mr Debono's letter. I would only add that numbers do not matter, and killing even one legally unprotected bird who is a member of a numerous species is still murder, since it still entails the unnecessary taking of the life of a sentient innocent.

AD unbowed

I had ignored Anthony Formosa's attack on Arnold Cassola of the Green Party, but had made a small comment on another attack on him by Mark Mifsud Bonnici (January 17) of the "St Hubertus" Hunters. I feel that Arnold's letter would be an interesting read, especially to Maltese voters who care about non-human animals, so I am reproducing it below.

Arnold Cassola writes:

"So now, Anthony Formosa from the hunters' federation (FKNK) has come to the rescue of Simon Busuttil regarding hunting in spring in Malta. In his letter (January 15), Mr Formosa has asked: 'Where was he (Arnold Cassola) when all the carob trees and fertile fields (in Wied Għomor) were bulldozed to make way for villas etc'?

The answer is very clear, Mr Formosa: Alternattiva Demokratika and I were on the forefront in the fight against the giving out of building permits in Wied Għomor, during the tenure of the then Minister, Michael Falzon. All Mr Formosa needs is to check the papers of the time.

As for Mr Formosa's assertion that 'Minister George Pullicino has accused Prof. Cassola and his party of damaging Malta's reputation over the hunting issue', yes, I can confirm that the Maltese government - through the Department of Information - has tried to discredit Alternattiva Demokratika on the issue by depicting me as a traitor of my country because of my call for the abolition of hunting in spring.

Indeed, other PN activists based in Brussels had even actually complained to the European Parliament authorities, asking them to prohibit me from speaking on the premises of the European Parliament.

I can assure Mr Formosa that no threats, on anybody's part, will prevent Alternattiva Demokratika and me from working for a Malta that is free from hunting in spring".

Addendum:

Saturday, January 19, 2008

Hunters, PN and MLP united

Arnold Cassola, in The Times of January 19, adds: "Had there been any doubt, it is now crystal clear. Following the letter by Anthony Formosa of the hunters' federation (FKNK), it is now the turn of Mark Mifsud Bonnici of the Kaċċaturi San Ubertu ("St Hubertus" Hunters) (January 17) to come out in defence of Simon Busuttil's stance in favour of hunting in spring.

The alliance between the hunters and the PN is now being openly declared. Mr Mifsud Bonnici stresses, in fact, that 'Dr Busuttil shows a sense of fairness and consistency by additionally stating that the 2008 spring season should be opened in line with his party's electoral promises'.

The picture is now clear: both the MLP and the PN are in favour of hunting in spring. Alternattiva Demokratika, instead, will work to ensure the prohibition of all forms of spring hunting. It is now up to the Maltese voters to have their say on the issue".

On lifeless trophies and the Hunting Pied Piper

Lifeless trophies

Joe Aquilina-St John, as expected, has replied back to the secretary of the hunters' federation Lino Farrugia's letter in the Times of January 14.

Mr Aquilina St-John writes: "It seems that Lino Farrugia, secretary of the Federation for Hunting and Conservation (sic) (January 14), is the sole entity qualified to educate our children.

In his unqualified wisdom, he changes the meaning of words to suit himself. He claims that 'hunting has become synonymous with conservation' and qualifies this by stating 'hunters safeguard, husband or conserve' species of birds they hunt, 'as otherwise there would be nothing to hunt'.

So there we have it, right from the horse's mouth: Hunters conserve just long enough to shoot them down! And what does he mean by saying 'species of birds we hunt'? It has long been evident that many hunters are indiscriminate, killing anything that flies, including threatened and protected species. Mr Farrugia, one does not safeguard birds by shooting them; one does not husband by killing them before they reach their breeding grounds, and one does not conserve birds by breeding them for the kill!

Hunters are not allowing our children to enjoy seeing these magnificent birds in our skies. Instead, they selfishly covet these birds for themselves, preferring to see them stuffed and motionless in their display cabinets, rather than enjoy them in their natural environment.

Perhaps they can 'educate' our children by inviting them into their homes to see their lifeless trophies!"

Mark the Hunting Pied Piper

In the meantime, Mark Mifsud Bonnici, secretary of "St Hubertus" Hunters, whose patron saint, legend has it, was ordered by God to stop hunting or else burn in hell, wastes quite a lot of space in today's The Times (in a letter headed "Anti-Hunting Pied Piper" - referring to Arnold Cassola of the green party, the only political party in Malta that is unequivocal in its opposition to Spring hunting), speaking out irrelevancies and making it clear that they are in a state of panic due to the fact that if the European Union (EU) has its way (and this is only a matter of time), they will not be allowed to murder birds in spring anymore.

Considering that all that Mr Mifsud Bonnici writes has already been addressed and debunked by several people, I will not waste any of this blog's space in needless repetition. All I will say is this: No matter what the Nationalist government (which is apparently successful in fooling hunters that spring hunting will be retained) think, and no matter the mixed messages of the Labour party, it is a simple fact that Spring hunting will soon be abolished because it goes against EU regulations.

Get over it, Mr Pied Piper. You may entice a few to your tune, but the rest of us are no fools!

On hunting and prejudice

Today's The Times has published my reply to Aldo E. Azzopardi's pro-hunting letter of January 11. You will find a longer version in my entry entitled "More on that hunting questionnaire and the eradication of a neanderthal mentality", so I won't repeat myself here.

However, in the same edition of The Times, one will also find a letter from Mark Mifsud Bonnici, secretary of the "St Hubertus" Hunters, in reply to a letter from Brian Simmons on December 29, 2007. I will limit myself to quoting, and replying to, most of Mr Mifsud Bonnici's letter. The rest does not even merit a second glance.

In his letter paradoxically entitled "On hunting and prejudice", Mr Mifsud Bonnici writes:

"I refer to the letter Education, Not Brainwashing by Brian Simmons of Kent (The Times, December 29) expressing his prejudiced (sic) opinion of hunting.

While agreeing that many old traditions should be maintained, he singles out hunting as the exception. He says 'in the past it may have been necessary to kill birds for eating and survival,' but also admits that times change. They do indeed. Nowadays hunters kill wild game-birds for sport, and eat them as well, adding to the variety of the menu, as they are considered a delicacy. Clay-pigeon shooting is no substitute for hunting, precisely because there is as yet no clay-pigeon that can be pointed over, flushed, and retrieved by a dog, and then provide a meal for the hunter".

Mr Mifsud Bonnici, as usual, misses the entire point. When Mr Simmons says that it is no longer necessary to kill birds for eating and survival, he is actually stating a fact. That hunters nowadays kill "wild game-birds" for "sport", eat them and consider them a "delicacy" does not change the fact that it is not necessary to kill birds for eating and survival. Therefore, what Mr Mifsud Bonnici says here is both irrelevant and a convenient means to sidetrack the issue. Hunting is unnecessary, so hunting in effect means the unnecessary killing of sentient non-human animals. This is what makes it utterly wrong.

As for the mention of clay-pigeon shooting being "no substitute for hunting", this is no excuse. Even if one concedes that clay-pigeon shooting is no substitute, killing just for pleasure (which in effect is what hunting, flushing and having a dog retrieve the carcass is) is immoral because it deprives life to an innocent just for fun. Hunting for pleasure is in effect no different from any other means of killing for "entertainment".

Mr Mifsud Bonnici goes on to say that "That hunting 'is no longer acceptable to the vast majority' is a moot point and no reason to demean it. There are things in life perhaps unacceptable to the vast majority which only a minority, usually knowledgeable, can appreciate".

I will here concede that being part of a majority does not necessarily make one right. That said, to claim that there are things in life which only a minority, usually knowledgeable, can appreciate, is also a moot point that says nothing about the validity of the proposition that hunting is not morally wrong. A racist, for instance, might justify beating up racial minorities by equally claiming that there are things in life (such as beating up or killing members of other races) which only a minority, usually "knowledgeable", can appreciate. Should such a claim be taken seriously? I would say, of course not!

Mr Mifsud Bonnici concludes his letter by saying that "Abusers brought before the Maltese courts of justice face a maximum jail term of two years and a fine of €14,000. Birds on these islands can look forward to a protection equal, if not better, to that enjoyed by your average homo sapiens. So next time one sees a photo in The Times of some dead bird, one may take it with the proverbial pinch of salt".

Well, I am sure that equal protection to birds (compared to that provided for "homo sapiens") would require much more than a maximum jail term of two years and a fine of €14,000. I don't recall that humans found guilty of murder get such a meagre fine and/or prison sentence. I also don't recall modern judges sentencing human murderers differently depending on which race the murdered person belongs to, as happens in the case of murdered birds, in this case depending on which species they belong to.

Mr Mifsud Bonnici can unfortunately rest assured that, as long as we live in a speciesist society, his speciesist murder of birds (provided it is legal) will go unpunished, and that even if he ever hunts and murders "protected" birds, his punishment will definitely not fit the crime. Mr Mifsud Bonnici, instead of wasting newspaper space and innocent life, should follow his organization's patron saint's example, quit hunting, and live a moral life - one that is based on the moral imperative that to unnecessarily harm anyone is wrong - unless, of course, he considers himself too "macho" to drop his gun.

More on "brainwashing" children, St Augustine's major fallacy, and Lino Farrugia's clutching at religious straws

Lino Farrugia, secretary of the hunters' federation (FKNK) seems convinced that speaking out absurdities will convince the overwhelming anti-hunting majority in Malta to switch ranks and support the totally unnecessary killing of innocent and sentient birds.

Mr Farrugia, in today's The Times, replies to Joe Aquilina-St John's letter of January 5 by saying:

"Letters such as The Opposite Of Hunting (January 5) by Joe Aquilina-St John of Mellieha are typical of those under the illusion that they are qualified to educate children".

I suppose that soon, the Education Department will employ Mr Farrugia as an examiner and selector of aspiring teachers in Malta, perhaps to ensure that values such as xenophobia and the justification of the unnecessary killing of weaker innocents are instilled in our young pupils at an early age. Of course, that would not be "brainwashing". On the contrary, it would be the best way to ensure that our young pupils are brought up to have a "good moral character" (might is right) and to "recognize right from wrong" (holding a gun makes you right). I'm sure that Mr Farrugia would be the best qualified for that post. Oh well, but let's move on.

Mr Farrugia goes on to write: "In what he calls 'the bible of the English language' Mr Aquilina-St John finds that an antonym for the word 'hunting' is conservation. We wish to inform him that according to the New Testament of the English Language, hunting has become synonymous with conservation".

I don't know which edition of Roget's Thesaurus Mr Farrugia has, but I have failed to find hunting as being synonymous with conservation in any of the online Thesauruses. Mr Farrugia would have perhaps been more credible if he included a direct quote, and perhaps also mentioned which edition of the Thesaurus he would be quoting from. Apart from this, to claim that hunting is synonymous with conservation defies common sense. The onus is on Mr Farrugia to prove that common sense is mistaken in this case.

Mr Farrugia goes on to say that "Hunters have to safeguard, husband (are they marrying birds now?) or conserve the species of the individual birds they hunt, as otherwise there would be nothing to hunt. Whatever Roget's Thesaurus had to say in the 19th century about hunting, the fact is that in the modern age hunting and conservation go together. If the correspondent for whatever reason cannot understand this simple fact, that is not our problem".

Three replies are in order here.

First of all, the best way to safeguard or conserve a species is to stop killing its members.

Secondly, for one to ensure that species are "conserved" (if we are to concede this point, considering that numbers don't matter and all unnecessary killing is murder) requires that there is sufficient monitoring of legal and illegal hunting. But, as reported in The Times of January 10, Mr Farrugia sees nature observers who report illegal hunting as provocative and irresponsible, and describes it as "foreign interference" if any of the nature observers are not Maltese. This seems to suggest that Mr Farrugia is more interested in "conserving" illegal hunters than the "protected" birds they shoot and kill.

As for the comment on Roget's Thesaurus being a 19th century book, Mr Farrugia, who perhaps has more worthwhile things to do (killing the defenceless) than to educate himself by reading books, would perhaps be surprised to learn that the book is often updated and re-published, which makes it contemporary.

Mr Farrugia goes on to say: "The correspondent (Mr Aquilina-St John) suffers from the same prejudice as those trying to brainwash Malta's schoolchildren. Children need to be taught values and principles based on the whole truth, not just a part of it".

Again, I guess that Mr Farrugia is referring to values and principles such as xenophobia and the unnecessary killing of sentient and defenceless animals. But let us see what this "whole truth" is, according to Mr Farrugia.

Mr Farrugia, referring to Mr Aquilina St-John's reference to St Francis, writes: "Other saints held a different worldview to that of St Francis. Foremost among them is St Augustine who had opposing views. In The City of God he wrote: 'Christ himself shows that to refrain from the killing of animals and the destroying of plants is the height of superstition for, judging that there are no common rights between us and the beasts and trees, he sent the devils into a herd of swine and with a curse withered the tree on which he found no fruit'. These two great saints of the Catholic Church represent the two extremes of the interaction of humans with the environment. The modern version of Christian ethics tries to embrace the middle way".

It is a good thing that Mr Farrugia, in attempting to justify the unnecessary killing of sentient non-human animals, chose to quote St Augustine's irrational justification for killing them. First of all, let us scrutinize St Augustine's main claim. St Augustine tells us that "Christ himself shows that to refrain from the killing of animals and the destroying of plants is the height of superstition". This in effect means that we are entitled, if we so wish, to grab a knife, and start killing any non-human animal that comes in our way. I'm sure that not even Mr Farrugia would condone such behaviour. And it is heartening that at least, the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 2418), says that "it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly". Would Mr Farrugia perhaps claim that this sentence in the official Catechism goes contrary to Christ's teachings, or will he concede that perhaps St Augustine was grossly mistaken on this issue? But let us examine St Augustine's justification of this highly immoral claim.

St Augustine tells us that it is "the height of superstition" to believe that one should not kill animals or plants, since Christ supposedly sent devils into a "herd of swine" and supposedly cursed an out of season fig tree for not bearing fruit. The absurdity of the second example (on the fig tree) makes belief in the literal interpretation of the first (about the pigs) doubtful at best. For let us examine what the Bible is saying here, and consequently, what St Augustine and presumably Mr Farrugia take as literal truth.

In that particular passage, the Bible (Mark 11:11 - 11:14) says: "And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve. And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry: And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it".

So according to a literal interpretation of the Bible, we are supposed to believe that Jesus actually cursed and "punished" a fig tree for not producing figs while out of season! This, in effect, means that the original claim that to refrain from the killing of animals is the height of superstition, itself rests on superstitious belief, which logically nullifies the claim, since to use superstition as a negation of superstition is paradoxical at best.

But then again, one could always pick and choose which parts of the Bible to be taken literally, and which not, I suppose. But one would perhaps deem it at least understandable if I claim that it's Augustine's belief that Jesus literally punished a fig tree that is "the height of superstition". And apparently, that is Mr Farrugia's belief as well, considering that he brought it up as an example to justify the killing of any living being that is not human.

Also, like I wrote in "A "God-given" right to kill, and humanity's "uniqueness"":

"One should perhaps be reminded that a word-for-word literal interpretation of the Bible would sanction slavery; genocide; capital punishment by stoning of blasphemers, gay people, and those who work on the Sabbath; the giving away of daughters for prostitution; and lots more heinous crimes which we find justified (or sometimes even demanded of us) in the Old Testament".

I wonder if St Augustine and Mr Farrugia approve of slavery; genocide; the killing of blasphemers, gay people and those who work on the Sabbath; and forced prostitution - because the Bible says so!

Mr Farrugia concludes his absurd letter by writing: "Relating to hunting, this translates into 'hunting is morally acceptable provided it is sustainable'. This is the education our schoolchildren should be getting. Instead they are being brainwashed by extremists. We again urge the Minister of Education to take action and put a stop to the shameless actions of a few masquerading as educationalists".

I'm sorry, Mr Farrugia, but St Augustine's particular belief in a literal "truth" that would make Jesus crazy (like anyone who really punishes a fig tree would be), disqualifies him from making a moral conclusion that hinges on an absurdity. St Augustine may have been a clever philosopher in other matters, but on this point he was grossly mistaken, which invalidates any conclusion one makes out of his assumption (such as the conclusion that 'hunting is morally acceptable provided it is sustainable'). If such a conclusion is to be validated (and I can't see how needlessly killing sentient innocents could ever be), one should perhaps look elsewhere than superstition.

Of course, I concede that Mr Farrugia, in his usual habit of calling any dissenter an "extremist", tells us that "these two great saints of the Catholic Church represent the two extremes of the interaction of humans with the environment. The modern version of Christian ethics tries to embrace the middle way". Well, Mr Farrugia, the modern version of Christian ethics does not try to embrace the middle way. It actually embraces St Francis' way. Like I already quoted above, the Catechism states that "it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly", and hunting is in effect making animals suffer and die needlessly. I have given enough evidence to show that St Augustine's opinions on this issue are seriously flawed, since they rest on superstition which, if taken as true, would make Jesus (whom St Augustine believes to be God) crazy (through cursing and punishing trees). I highly doubt that Mr Farrugia could ever meet the challenge of proving St Francis wrong on animal issues.

As for "brainwashing" and "shameless actions" of "a few masquerading as educationalists", sweeping accusations unsubstantiated by rational evidence only serve to ensure that such people making such statements are not taken seriously.

More on that hunting questionnaire and the eradication of a neanderthal mentality

Aldo E. Azzopardi writes a letter in today's The Times claiming that school teachers, who are "invariably against hunting", are "brainwashing" their pupils against hunting.

Mr Azzopardi writes: "A questionnaire has recently been distributed to the pupils of the Siggiewi primary school. The leaflet is intended to be filled in by persons 21 years or older, going by the box at the bottom of the page, but let that pass.

The hunters' federation, the FKNK, called this 'brainwashing of school children'. I respectfully beg to differ but would say that the questionnaire is the end product of an extended period of brainwashing of these young pupils by their school teachers, who are invariably against hunting".

Thankfully, it is true that most school teachers are invariably against hunting. Whether this is a bad thing and whether what they teach their pupils (about hunting) is wrong and "brainwashing", is another matter.

It is a well known fact that most modern teachers try to instill in their pupils a sense of the wrong and evil that is racism, and teach their pupils that it is wrong to treat members of other races differently simply on the basis of their race. Most modern rational people, parents included, would not see this as "brainwashing". On the contrary, they would expect and demand that such education be given to their children.

Now, it is to be expected that some hunters will of course see any teaching on the wrongness of hunting as "brainwashing". But this case is no different from the anti-racist teaching. Similarly, all teachers should try to instill in their pupils a sense of the wrong that is hunting (and all speciesist practices, for that matter), and most modern rational people, parents included, would not see this as "brainwashing". On the contrary, they would expect and demand that such education (about the wrongness of hunting) be given to their children.

Of course, I would personally like pupils to be given a comprehensive education about the wrongness of speciesism and any and all speciesist practices. However, I acknowledge the fact that this is not possible as long as most people (teachers included) are speciesists themselves. The only difference, apart from the fact that, contrary to Mr Azzopardi, I wish for progressive instead of reactionary education (such as ignoring or supporting hunting), is that instead of whining about the lack of holistic anti-speciesist education, I choose to do all that is in my power and ability to provide anti-speciesist education myself for any who are interested.

Mr Azzopardi could of course retort that public schools are paid for through our taxes, so hunters would have a "right" to demand that their tax money is not used to provide education in a direction that they do not support. However, a racist could similarly claim that he/she would not want his/her taxes to be used to provide anti-racist education. Does this mean that we should stop public schools from teaching pupils on the wrongness of racism? I think not.

Mr Azzopardi should, sooner rather than later, resign himself to the fact that tolerance of hunting will soon be just a sad chapter in our history books, and that if he does not change his neanderthal mentality on this issue, at least he should resign himself to the fact that democracies work through majority rule.

Mr Azzopardi goes on to say that "Having been subjected to domination by foreign powers for many centuries, we Maltese have honed the practice of bootlicking to a fine art. And we start young".

Interesting. Does Mr Azzopardi mean that Maltese pupils are "boot-lickers"? I'm sure this will win him several points, and that given another opportunity, the pupils would now change their vote to support hunting!

Mr Azzopardi concludes by saying: "But, retournons à nos moutons (wow...I'm impressed), when a child is asked by its teacher whether he/she thinks that 'hunting should be abolished completely in Malta' which box do you think the child would tick to ingratiate itself with his/her anti-hunting teacher? No prize for the correct answer!

When the questionnaires are collected, and the statistics assessed, surprise, it will be found out that the great majority of Maltese children (or, will it be the majority of young Maltese citizens) are against hunting".

Well, Mr Azzopardi's conclusion might be true, unless of course the children do not have to sign their names on the questionnaire. In that case, it is truly no surprise that the results would show that the majority of pupils will be against hunting, but not for the reason that Mr Azzopardi suggests. Perhaps the fact that we are now in the year 2008 CE (AD) and not 20,008 BCE (BC) is one of the major factors for such an encouraging result - one that would be predominantly against the wholly unnecessary killing of sentient birds.

With apologies to neanderthals, who, unlike "modern" hunters, most probably hunted out of necessity, and not for the perverse pleasure of killing the defenceless.

No licence to kill and abuse animals

P. John Darmanin from the Vegetarian Society of Malta gives a Christian vegan perspective on animal circuses and veganism in a letter to The Times in reply to Shane Johnson's letter of January 1.

Mr Darmanin writes: "With reference to Shane Johnson's letter in The Times (January 1), I too used to believe that there was nothing wrong with animals performing in circuses. But one late evening many years ago, I happened to stop by the tents of a circus in Gzira and tried to sneak a glimpse of the animals. I had not walked far before I saw something that I had not expected. Under one of the tents there were some elephants, chained by the foot to a peg in the ground and while some attendant emptied a sack-full of cabbages for them to eat, the nearest elephant tried to go for him in vociferous anger. The attendant then grabbed a hay fork threatening a blow at the animal's trunk. I returned to the car very perplexed. What I had seen was to change my view about circus animals.

I would believe that no coercion is used when, inside the cage with a pack of lions or tigers, I see the tamer without any sticks or whips. That will be the day, because no lion or tiger will fear any bare handed human and for that reason these kings of the jungle will have to be respected. It must be the fear of the stick and the whip, gained from unpleasant past experience that makes them obey a physically inferior animal.

While I believe that some domestic animals like dogs, cats, horses etc. can be trained without aggression to perform mild and cute circus acts, I will never believe it can be the same with the wild cats. Confinement of the big cats in small cages, and chaining of elephants are forms of suffering that are often overlooked. Born to be free, these animals suffer from delusion, frustration, fear, boredom, exclusion and everything that makes them what they really are - kings of the jungle. In the circus their nature is subdued to a caricature. There is no escaping the fact that caging wild cats and conditioning them to perform tricks for selfish human pleasure is just another cruelty.

How helplessly naïve it is to rally theological misconceptions to support an assertion for human rights over animals. Lions are obligate carnivores and have no other option but to hunt when desperately hungry; it is not a question of rights. Man is the world's greatest predator remorselessly killing billions of animals annually, not to survive but to satisfy his tastes, to feast, in celebration and in sport. If Mr Johnson's God gives him licence to kill animals for food then his is not my God. My God tolerates me eating meat if circumstances demand it, as He offered me kinder and healthier nutritional options. To refrain from eating meat is to acknowledge God as the only Lord of Creation.

Our place at the head of creation imposes on us obligations not rights. Our obligations are to care for all creation in His likeness not to exploit it. Asserting the right to kill innocent creatures, a person would reflect an image of a God the ruthless hunter-predator. There is more nobleness in humanity when it embraces all creatures within its circle of compassion because like us they are infused with the breath of life. Like us they have one special desire - a desire to simply live".

Mr Darmanin's letter is very insightful from a Christian vegan perspective, although I wish to point out that I certainly disagree with his claim that "our place (is) at the head of creation". It is true that Mr Darmanin follows that statement with "imposes on us obligations not rights", but I still see that the mistaken belief that we are somehow the culmination of evolution or "creation", apart from being wrong (all animals evolve through necessity by random mutation - the ones best suited for their own environment survive and propagate their genes to "create" future generations - and each species is best suited for its own particular world), if taken as true, would still let humans to wrongly assume that they matter more than members of other species. In matters of conflict of interest, this mistaken way of thinking would ensure that non-humans' interests are always trumped by human interests, perhaps even in instances where non-human interests would be vital and the human interests trivial.

I also personally dislike the use of phrases such as "animal kingdom" or "kings of the jungle" which would seem to mistakenly assume or imply a sort of species hierarchy, where in fact there is none.

The belief that we humans are the culmination and stewards of "creation" rests on a disproven belief in the Bible's account of "creation" taken as literal and historical fact. Like I said previously, when one picks and chooses from the Bible the parts that agree to one's beliefs, one must face the consequence of having to account for the contradictory claims in the same Bible, claims that can relatively easily be used to justify contradictory actions, both benevolent and vile.

Regarding the circus animals part, I would also like to add that even holding any animal captive (unless for his or her own good - like in the case of animal sanctuaries and rescued pets), is to treat the animals as property and to violate their right to liberty. So it must be stressed that even circuses that may include animal acts that are not the result of (or involve) any blatant suffering, still go against the non-human animals' right not to be used as human property. As an internet friend of mine from the United States rightly pointed out in an online discussion (see below), animal circuses necessarily involve holding all the performing non-human animals captive, which in itself is a rights violation.

As Susan Cho from the animal rights internet forum puts it, "What (Mr Johnson) is missing is that (animal circus acts) can only take place in a setting of comprehensive coercion, in that the animal is being kept in some enclosure. Without that overarching factor, no training is possible.

The reason positive reinforcement works is that it's the ONLY way the animal can get the treat. If the animal were free to obtain a similar treat from another source, she might not cooperate. Of course, she might still choose to cooperate, because it's easier to sit up for a hunk of meat than to exhaust oneself hunting for it. But she wouldn't do it reliably, which is what a trainer wants - reliable results.

I suspect that what often happens for less cooperative animals is that the animal's food itself becomes the motivator, so she can only eat IF she cooperates. That's how they train monkeys in many experiments - deprive them of water for 20 hours and then only give them small amounts if they do a certain behavior.

On the other end of the spectrum, sometimes dogs can be trained not to do things simply by ignoring them when they do something undesirable like barking or jumping up. But these dogs are dependent on their "owners" for all their social (and physical) needs, so it makes sense that those dogs who are especially people-oriented and sociable would suffer by being ignored. If they were free, they might just go find someone else to socialize with. It all hinges on captivity".

The opposite of hunting

It looks like, not surprisingly, I was not the only one to see the secretary of the bird-murder federation Lino Farrugia's letter of the 2nd of January in The Times as nothing short of ridiculous.

Joe Aquilina-St John replies to Mr Farrugia's letter in The Times in the following way:

"Here we go again, another bleating letter from Lino Farrugia, secretary of the FKNK (January 2) moaning about 'brainwashing' questionnaires.

He complained about the holy picture of St Francis, objecting to the accompanying words. 'He never shot them (birds) or killed them in traps...', he wrote, calling the statement 'ridiculous' and saying St Francis never had muesli for breakfast or brushed his teeth with toothpaste, and asked whether children should emulate him.

Now if there was a truly ridiculous case in point, it was hunter - or is it conservationist? - Mr Farrugia's. One would presume that had there been muesli and toothpaste in St Francis' time, he would have used them. But he most certainly never killed or trapped an animal, which is why he is their patron saint!

Then he made an even more ridiculous statement, claiming that 'any sane person knows that hunting and conservation go together'.

Perhaps Mr Farrugia should study his English a bit better. If he simply picks up a copy of Roget's Thesaurus - the bible of the English language - he will find that the antonym for the word hunting is conservation.

He and his co-fraternity should stop kidding themselves or trying to fool us, and drop the word conservation from their association's title, and perhaps follow in St Francis' footsteps - not by not brushing their teeth or not eating muesli for breakfast, but simply by loving and treating God's creatures with respect".

I have nothing to add to Mr Aquilina-St John's letter and to my commentary of the 2nd January, except perhaps the following:

Mr Farrugia might retort that St Francis of Assisi may well have been anti-hunting, but St Hubertus, it should be remembered, was a hunter himself. However, unfortunately for all the hunters using St Hubertus to justify murdering birds (we even have a Maltese "St Hubertus Hunters" for that matter), anyone who cares to find out about the history or legend (depending on one's beliefs) of St Hubertus, will find that he apparently stopped hunting and changed his life out of fear of going to hell.

According to Wikipedia, "Unfortunately, his wife died giving birth to their son, and Hubert retreated from the court, withdrew into the forested Ardennes, and gave himself up entirely to hunting. But a great spiritual revolution was imminent. On Good Friday morning, when the faithful were crowding the churches, Hubert sallied forth to the chase. As he was pursuing a magnificent stag or hart, the animal turned and, as the pious legend narrates, he was astounded at perceiving a crucifix standing between its antlers, while he heard a voice saying: 'Hubert, unless thou turnest to the Lord, and leadest an holy life, thou shalt quickly go down into hell'. Hubert dismounted, prostrated himself and said, 'Lord, what wouldst Thou have me do?' He received the answer, 'Go and seek Lambert, and he will instruct you'."

There are two possible conclusions from this story, one for believers and one for unbelievers. The literalist Christian believer will see it as a direct "evidence" that God sees hunting as wrong (He ordered St Hubertus to stop hunting), and that it is at best farcical that hunters would use St Hubertus (or any saint, for that matter) as their patron saint. The unbeliever (in Christianity or in the literalist interpretation of Christian texts), on the other hand, will conclude that one cannot use the Christian God as a justification for the killing of sentient non-human animals since one will find contradicting claims in the religious texts, both in support of killing non-human animals and both against doing so.

But does this necessarily mean it is wrong for Nature Trust to use St Francis in their anti-hunting campaigns? Of course not (although I would not do it, for the reasons explained further down). St Francis himself would have approved of such a campaign. Should the "St Hubertus" Hunters use St Hubertus as their "patron saint"? Not unless they wish to look ridiculous.

But then again, Maltese hunters are experts in using oxymorons. Just as we have "St Hubertus" Hunters, we also have the Federation of Hunters and "Conservationists". Oh well, and they say the Maltese lack a sense of humour!

Of course, I must say that I am generally against using religious arguments in support of rights, when, first of all, reason should suffice, and secondly, religious arguments depend on belief that can neither be proved nor disproved (otherwise, it would be science).

As the Right Reverend Richard Holloway, retired Bishop of Edinburgh and Professor of Divinity, says in his book "Godless Morality", "...the use of God in a moral debate is so problematic as to be almost worthless. We can debate with one another as to whether this or that alleged claim genuinely emanated from God, but who can honestly adjudicate in such an Olympian dispute? That is why it is better to leave God out of the moral debate and find good human reasons for supporting the system or approach we advocate, without having recourse to divinely clinching arguments".

I only resort to religious counter-arguments to counter the claims of literalist "religious" people who claim that their God supports the abuse and murder of sentient rights-holding individuals, be they human or non-human animals. However, it sure is a relief - for the sake of those who renounce reason, and in the absence of reason put their unquestioning faith in religious leaders or texts - to know that animal abusing hunters cannot even claim "their Christian God's support" for their murderous "tradition" or "hobby". Their own "patron saint", after all, was specifically "ordered by God" to stop hunting, or else he would "end up in hell".

No need to worry - FKNK will keep amusing us in 2008

It seems like the new year's resolution of Lino Farrugia, secretary of the bird-murder federation, is to continue amusing us with his nonsense throughout the year 2008. In today's The Times, Mr Farrugia writes:

"The Federation for Hunting and Conservation (sic) - Malta (FKNK) refers to the news item Hunters Complain Of 'Brainwashing' Questionnaire concerning two incidents in which a holy picture of St Francis was distributed to children at the Zurrieq primary school at the end of October, and a questionnaire was distributed to Siggiewi primary school children before the Christmas holidays.

Printed on the former were the words: 'Saint Francis of Assisi loved nature, especially the birds. He never shot them or killed them in traps or caught them in nets'.

How ridiculous! For that matter he never had muesli for breakfast and he never brushed his teeth with toothpaste every morning and night either. Should children copy him?".

What I, and presumably the majority of Maltese citizens, find ridiculous is Mr Farrugia's warped logic and reasoning. His analogy would make sense only if Saint Francis of Assisi refrained from shooting or trapping birds only as a matter of personal taste. However, everyone who knows anything about the Christian saint knows that St Francis refrained from killing or trapping birds out of concern for their well-being, as he considered them to be like brothers and sisters. Not only did St Francis not kill or trap birds, but stories abound on how he actually bought trapped birds only to release them. If there ever was an anti-hunting and trapping saint, St Francis was one. In fact, an often reproduced quote from his teachings is that "If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who deal likewise with their fellow men".

Should children copy him if he never had muesli for breakfast? Of course not, both for health reasons and also for the fact that whether or not to choose to eat muesli is not an issue of moral concern. Should children copy St Francis in not killing or trapping birds? Of course they should. Killing and imprisoning birds is a moral issue, and a non-violent lifestyle should of course be emulated.

And to make one last comment on Mr Farrugia's two extremely ridiculous examples, St Francis did not eat muesli and brush his teeth with toothpaste for the simple reason that they did not exist in his time. Hunting and trapping, on the otherhand, did exist, and St Francis actively chose not to kill and imprison birds - not because he could not do so, but only because he saw the wrongness of killing and imprisoning birds, and saw both practices as going against the will of the God he believed in. But then again, if Mr Farrugia wants to try to look funny and compare killing birds with eating muesli, the joke's on him since it only serves to show that any self-respecting person cannot take him seriously.

Mr Farrugia also writes: "With reference to the Siggiewi questionnaire, we query whether children are in a position to say whether the police 'are doing a good job to control illegal hunting in Malta' when BirdLife (Malta) itself alternates between praising and lambasting the police!".

Regarding whether children are in a position to say whether the police are doing a good job, Mr Farrugia is of course right. I personally concede that many young children are not in a position to give an informed answer to this question, although one would be surprised about the knowledge some children already have on these issues, thanks in no small way to the Ministry of Education and their appointed animal awareness teachers. But with regards to Mr Farrugia's comment that BirdLife (Malta) alternates between praising and lambasting the police, this, of course is a false claim. BirdLife (Malta), to my knowledge, never lambasted the police. They only claim (and I wholeheartedly agree) that the police force does not have sufficient human and other resources to tackle the illegal hunting issue effectively. That's a very far cry from "lambasting the police".

Mr Farrugia also says that "Any sane person knows that hunting and conservation go together".

On the contrary, Mr Farrugia, any sane person knows that hunting is the opposite of conservation. One does not conserve life by killing it.

Mr Farrugia goes on to say that "Other comments (to the news item) do not make a distinction between target shooting and game hunting. It also seems that some of the commentators still do not know how to draw the line between hunting and its abuse".

The distinction between "target shooting" and "game hunting" is a false distinction if both involve the unnecessary killing of sentient animals. To the animal who is shot at, it does not matter in any way whether he/she is called a "target" or "game". To the animal in question, hunting is no game at all. It is literally a question of life or death. And yes, to unnecessarily take the life of sentient animals is abuse. There is no such thing as a distinction between hunting and "its abuse". All unnecessary killing of sentient animals is abuse.

Mr Farrugia concludes his letter by writing that "The FKNK, therefore, and yet again, urges the Minister of Education to take the necessary steps to prevent, in the schools under his jurisdiction, the circulation of similar questionnaires in future and other non-educational material whose clear intention is to poison the minds of youngsters against hunters".

Good luck with that, Mr Farrugia. But considering the Ministry of Education's commitment towards animal awareness education, I highly doubt that you will be successful in intimidating the government to change its tracks on this issue. Moreover, hasn't the FKNK already made an "unholy alliance" with the far-right party Azzjoni Nazzjonali? I only hope that the Minister of Education takes note of this!

On "gentle training", murder and "killer" Gods

Shane Johnson replies to my letter in The Times of December 21, 2007. In his letter to The Times entitled "Animal training", Mr Johnson writes:

"Kenneth Cassar found a lot of objections to my letter questioning all the fuss made about the protest against the circus. One of my main points was that it is not true that one has to necessarily hurt or cause an animal to fear one in order to train it.

In the animal rights Malta blog on the internet, Mr Cassar wrote: 'However, it is a well known fact that many wild animals do not willingly learn unnatural tricks unless coerced in doing so, often through violent means (fear is a great motivator)'.

I ask, how can any person who is so strongly against any organisation that keeps animals in captivity, talk about the way these animals are trained when they have probably never set foot inside one of these organisations to have a look at what really happens? I have personally trained different types of animals (some more wild than others) and have never had to use force or cause the animals to fear me in any way. I have also watched and assisted tens of other people train many different animals with modern techniques and not once have I seen anyone use force.

Mr Cassar should check his facts before accusing organisations of abusing animals. Let me repeat myself. Any animal rights group activist worth his salt should know these facts before dissuading people from visiting these circuses or any other organisations that use animals to entertain. Mr Cassar has no idea about animal training and should check his facts before accusing the trainers of wrongdoing".

Let me address each of the points raised by Mr Johnson. Mr Johnson claims that it is not true that one has to necessarily hurt or cause an animal to fear one in order to train her. Well, this much I concede, of course depending on the species of animal in question. In fact, in my blog entry of December 14, I also mentioned positive and negative reinforcement, which involves rewards when an animal performs a task, and deprivations when the animal does not perform. This, an animal rights advocate worth his salt, will recognize as abusive.

That said, it is a fact that animals belonging to some species (like tigers and elephants) cannot be trained unless through coercion and violent means. It is not necessary for one to set foot inside one of these "organizations" to know that a tiger will not willingly jump through a flaming hoop, or an elephant stand on one leg, unless coerced to do so through violent methods. It's all common sense, and the onus is on the trainer (like Mr Johnson) to prove that no violence has been used by providing evidence that no violence is involved in his/her training methods. Otherwise, we are entitled to keep to our own common sense belief that one cannot train such animals except through violence.

Mr Johnson goes on to say: "Mr Cassar also tells us that he does not even agree that police dogs, and dogs that save people from avalanches, should be trained. If, God forbid, Mr Cassar or any other person close to him should ever be trapped under an avalanche, he would be praying that a dog (who according to him has been coerced to learn unnatural behaviours), should turn up and save him from an ugly death".

Well, strictly speaking, I did not mention police dogs and dogs who save people from avalanches in my letter, but of course that was implied in my saying that "all sentient animals have the right to life and liberty, and the right not to be property".

Mr Johnson makes a grave moralistic fallacy in judging an action to be morally right through weighing the consequences to the beneficiary of the action. Mr Johnson justifies the using of non-human animals as human property by claiming that human lives are saved through non-human animal use. The fallacy of this line of argument becomes clear when one considers that perhaps millions of human lives could be saved if scientists were allowed to experiment on a few non-consenting human beings, thus providing the chance of huge medical breakthroughs. Of course most people would agree that the end does not justify the means.

Mr Johnson continues by saying: "Furthermore, in the blog Mr Cassar also mentioned that he thought it abusive that human beings murder animals for food. As far as I know murder is when one animal or human kills another for no good reason. By saying so he is accusing the vast majority of humans (those who are not vegan or vegetarian) of being murderers just because they are exercising their God-given right to eat other animals. I am sorry but in no way can I or indeed the vast majority of humans worldwide ever agree with him on this matter".

Let's use Mr Johnson's own definition of murder. Mr Johnson says that murder is when one animal or human kills another for no good reason. Now, considering that it is perfectly possible for humans to go vegan, or at least vegetarian, this makes killing non-human animals for food unnecessary. Eating meat is killing non-human animals for no good reason. That he, or the vast majority of humans worldwide cannot agree with me on this matter is of no consequence. Numbers neither prove nor disprove the validity of a proposition. Reasoned arguments do.

Does this mean that humans who eat meat are murderers? By Mr Johnson's own definition of murder, the answer seems to be in the affirmative. However, murder involves knowledge of the act of killing being wrong. That is why the law makes a distinction between murder and manslaughter. Therefore, by my own definition of murder, I would call the act of unnecessary killing murder, but would not call people who eat meat because they have not yet recognized that doing so is wrong as murderers.

That said, no one is let off the hook, so to speak, and when the lives of millions of sentient animals are at stake, it is a moral duty of everyone to be properly informed about these issues. That is why I provided a link to a list of books on the subject in my last reply to Mr Johnson.

Mr Johnson concludes his letter by writing: "We do have a right given to us by God to eat other animals, just like a lion living in the African Savannah has the right to hunt and eat. Such extremist views are only supported by a small minority of people".

First of all, the lion living in the African Savannah needs to eat meat to survive. We don't. That makes all the difference. Secondly, it is very convenient for people to refer to parts of the Bible only where it suits them. Does Mr Johnson, by referring to a God who supposedly has given us the right to kill non-human animals, mean the same God who approves of slavery; orders genocide; orders capital punishment by stoning of blasphemers, gay people, and those who work on the Sabbath; approves of the giving away of daughters for prostitution; and permits or orders many more acts which any moral person considers to be atrocities, but which we are led to believe God permits or orders us to do in the Bible? If you don't believe me, read Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

Like I said in "A "God-given" right to kill, and humanity's "uniqueness"":

"Creationists who reject evolution, and who believe that God authorized humans to do with other animals as they wish, will hold on to their selfish anthropocentric view of a 'God-given' right to treat non-human animals as lesser beings and human property - an unfounded claim which echoes the claim of supposed 'God-given' superiority made by racists in respect of black humans in the era of black slavery. It must also be pointed out that the claim of a "God-given" right to humans to treat non-humans as they please rests on the mistake of taking the whole Bible as historical fact which should be followed literally word-for-word...Of course, a non-literal interpretation sees all these crimes as human policies in history whose origin was falsely or mistakenly attributed to God. Likewise the supposedly 'God-given right to dominion' is also a mistaken claim whose origin is falsely or mistakenly attributed to God".

As for calling me an "extremist", I've gotten used to being called that name in the absence of valid counter-arguments to my own. The more people call me an extremist without explaining why they consider me so (and having minority views does not make one an extremist), the more I am convinced that I am striking a chord and making people feel uneasy about the abuse on non-human animals that they themselves perform or have performed on their behalf.