|
I refer to Michael Falzon’s opinion piece of March 18 (Going cuckoo over birds).
Mr Falzon says that “Both sides in this (spring hunting issue) battle seem to think that the most important issue confronting this country is whether turtledove and quail should be caught or shot in spring”. He further says that he “can only conclude that there are too many people who have got their priorities wrong” and who are “willing to jeopardise the future of this country for the sake of a few birds”. He also says “the problem is that no one wants to accept a compromise on this issue”. First of all, to say that there are two sides is incorrect. There are more “sides” concerned about this issue, and the anti-hunting side is composed of over 80 per cent of the population, just to put matters into perspective. There are of course the bird killers and the environmentalists, but apart from these two, there are other groups interested in the issue, one of which is the animal rights movement with its ever growing numbers. Since I am an animal rights campaigner, I will only treat this issue from an animal rights perspective, though of course, other concerns may also be valid.
Now, consider this hypothetical analogy. Suppose the EU allows the killing of black people (you may replace “black” with any other race or ethnicity) in other seasons but not in spring (of course, it doesn’t, this is all hypothetical). So suppose the killing of black people in spring is illegal in the EU. Now suppose that the Maltese Government defies the EU and allows killing black people in spring, but manages to bring the economy to a point where all Maltese citizens, without exception, become millionaires. Would I vote for the party in government? The answer is a definite no. It will be remarked that black people, in this hypothetical scenario, will be killed anyway in other seasons. But the fact remains that killing fewer black people is always better than killing more, and a ban on killing in spring would at least spare a lot of people from being murdered. Of course, if it were up to us, unnecessary killing would be illegal throughout the whole year.
Perhaps, at this point, Mr Falzon will retort that birds are not humans. But Mr Falzon should know that birds, like humans, are sentient individuals, and as such, should not be killed unnecessarily. Unnecessary killing is always wrong, since it deprives sentient individuals of the means for further experiences in life. It also severs family ties, and so, is also detrimental to other individuals apart from the direct victim.
So no, if it is a question of killing innocent and sentient individuals, there should be no compromise. Would Mr Falzon compromise if the question was on whether one should be allowed to kill 20, 30, or a thousand black humans? Would he say that perhaps a hundred would be a fair compromise? I am confident that Mr Falzon would say that there should be no compromise, and that the killing of any single black human should be illegal. There is no logical reason why the matter should be any different in the case of sentient non-human animals such as birds. To state that birds are not humans, simply begs the question: why does it matter to kill humans unnecessarily, and not matter if the individuals killed unnecessarily are not human?
So Mr Falzon can say we are “going cuckoo” as much as he likes. Our reply would simply be that he is a “species-ist” who does not care whether an innocent sentient bird is unnecessarily killed. By not showing unequivocal opposition to all unnecessary bird killing, he is making sure that birds will continue to be needlessly killed.
Anyone who cares about the unnecessary killing of non-human animals should not vote to any party that goes out of its way, and defies EU regulations, to permit a minority to needlessly murder birds in spring, not even if this is promised before an election. Would you keep your promise if you promise to kill an innocent human being? I think not. To believe otherwise if the victim is not human is simply species-ist. Are we extremists? Perhaps, since we extremely care about the unnecessary murder of innocent sentient individuals who have a right to their life.
Kenneth Cassar
Animal Rights Malta
Marsascala.
|
