Passions are running high over the issue of spring hunting in Malta. In recent months and years, we have witnessed numerous acts of vandalism apparently connected with this issue, often directed at the property of well-known anti-hunting campaigners. This year alone there has been an arson attack on cars owned by BirdLife Malta personnel; vandalism of anti-spring hunting billboards; as well as individual defacements of bus stops and other such targets with pro-hunting slogans. (Admittedly there is always the case that the attacks are in fact unrelated to hunting, and either intended to falsely incriminate hunters, or simply to waste police time. But it must be said that this hypothesis is unlikely.)
The situation calls to mind the mid-1990s, when the government moved to curtail spring hunting for the first time. On that occasion, there had been a spate of serious vandalism attacks, often targeting priceless national monuments. These included the megalithic temples of Mnajdra and Hagar Qim, with the ominous slogan “Namur jew intajru” daubed on the latter’s floor.
Sadly, the situation today is every bit as serious as it was 14 years ago, and as such demands serious reassurance that our law enforcers are up to the task of protecting our national heritage. Speaking to MaltaToday last Sunday, Police Commissioner John Rizzo claimed to be “prepared for any eventuality”. But when asked to provide specific details, he was at best vague. With all due respect, and considering the gravity of such incidents in the past, Mr Rizzo’s personal assurance that the police are “always” on the alert is insufficient.
Furthermore, this week is particularly sensitive on account of today’s hearing in the European Court of Justice. Judging by comments posted on the hunters’ federation online forum (which incidentally seems to be in dire need of a moderator), hunters appear to be under the impression that a “final decision” is now imminent. Tensions have not been at all helped by the FKNK itself, whose secretary-general Lino Farrugia told hunters in a public meeting last month that: “Whereas I usually encourage you not to break the law, this time, if the spring hunting season will not be opened by whoever is in government after these elections, I will not say anything”.
These were irresponsible words, and have been widely interpreted – not without good reason – as an open invitation to mayhem.
For these and other reasons, this country is owed serious reassurance that obscenities such as the ones we saw in the past will not be repeated. Empty words and platitudes are clearly not enough.
On another level, it must be pointed that much of this tension has been exacerbated by misinformation surrounding the case itself. The hunters appear to be working themselves into a frenzy over nothing. For contrary to widespread perception, today’s hearing will not decide on the legality or otherwise of spring hunting. It is only the first hearing in a case that may take months, possibly more than a year, to reach its conclusion. As things stand, only one decision is expected tomorrow: whether to proceed with the European Commission’s request for “interim measures”.
Last February, the EC announced the opening of court action against Malta for repeatedly violating the European Wild Birds Directives by permitting hunting in spring between 2004 and 2007. But because, back in February, the Maltese Government had refused to rule out another spring season in 2008, the European Commission decided to also request the court to issue interim measures against Malta, should it decide to open the season. (Such measures, if granted, would effectively force the government to close the season immediately.)
It is therefore unlikely that today’s decision will have any real impact on hunting. If no interim measures are granted, government will be theoretically free to open this year’s spring hunting season. But we are now in April, and no date has yet been set for the next Ornis Committee meeting; which in any case would have to announce the dates four weeks before the commencement of the season. This means that the season cannot realistically start before the first week of May (The spring season traditionally ends in mid-May).
If, on the other hand, the ECJ does grant the measures, then there will surely be no spring season this year. But the final decision will still have to be taken at a later date.
Ironically, part of the reason for such misinformation can be attributed to the European Court itself, which, for reasons that are far from clear, decided to hear Malta’s case behind closed doors. This unusual decision has contributed unnecessarily to the mountain of misinformation currently amassing around the issue, exacerbating tensions and adding to the very real danger of another series of vandal attacks of the kind we saw in the mid-1990s.
It must be said that one would have expected just a little more transparency from an institution of this calibre.