|
With reference to the interview with Lino Farrugia, ‘Minority Retort’ (23 July 2006), I would like to point out that it would be preferable if interviewers and interviewees alike avoided being overzealous about brandishing the notion of violated minority rights.
While minorities within a community certainly do have the right to defend and preserve their customs and traditions, this is not sufficient reason for the government to condone or encourage the perpetration of customs and traditions that have been proven detrimental to the local (and in the case of bird hunting, international) community and the environment. Figures back NGO claims that lack of government regulation has allowed bird hunting in Malta to degenerate into a blood sport. Other countries have had the courage to regulate or ban such traditions in the past. Great Britain outlawed traditional fox hunting in England and Wales in November 2004. A sport described by Oscar Wilde as “the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable” simply could not be tolerated any longer in a country that calls itself civilised. There can be no progress without change, it is as simple as that.
What we are currently discussing with regard to bird hunting in Malta is not as ‘drastic’ a solution as the one Great Britain opted for. The EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) does not abolish hunting. Its goal is to regulate it. Among other things, the Directive stipulates that “In the case of migratory species [member states] shall see in particular that the species to which hunting regulations apply are not hunted during the period of reproduction or during their return to their rearing grounds.”
The arguments advanced by the FKNK for the continuance of spring hunting are broken-backed. If it is true that the number of turtle doves and quails shot by Maltese hunters in the springtime is as low as statistics claim, then it is primarily the right to slaughter other (protected) species that Maltese hunters are defending. It is a known fact that every year thousands of migrating birds such as the Marsh Harrier, Honey Buzzard, Black-winged Stilts and the threatened Purple Heron are shot illegally by Maltese hunters. Only last week, a protected migratory wading bird was gunned down in spite of the hunting season being officially closed.
This country chose to apply for EU membership. Along with the generous funds we were all very happy to receive came a set of directives we are legally bound to comply with. The Birds Directive is one of these. This is not a matter of the EU “snatching” the hunting issue out of the hands of the Maltese authorities and handing it over to “bureaucrats”. It is a case of Malta’s failing to comply with European law and its being requested to remedy its irresponsible behaviour or face the consequences.
Spring hunting has been banned in other EU countries. Malta was granted a derogation from the Birds Directive once and this privilege was abused by Maltese hunters. On what grounds should the EU grant a second derogation to a country that flouts the law so overtly? Further attempts by the Maltese government to put forward yet another pathetic claim that Malta is a cas à part is only going to plunge these islands into deeper shame and ridicule. Refusing to transpose the Birds Directive into Maltese legislation and making the country as a whole incur penalties to defend the bloodlust of a small fraction of the population is not only unjustified but absurd.
The bottom line is that minorities have rights, of course, but nothing entitles them to break the law and indulge in practices that cause irreversible damage to the natural heritage of the world as whole. By no stretch of the imagination can the implementation of the Birds Directive be interpreted as a violation of minority rights.
Irene Mangion
Santa Lucia
|
