Odious hunters and their right to protest

While I fully support the Prime Minister’s decision to suspend the Autumn hunting season and condemn the acts of violence committed against birdwatchers and fellow journalists, I feel very uneasy about some of the charges brought against the hunters who participated in last Sunday’s unruly march.

Spontaneous protests, irrespective of how odious the message is, are a hallmark of democratic life. It is only in a sanitized democracy that protests are only held if blessed by a police permit. 

During the Scottish referendum, dozens of Labour MPs streaming into Glasgow to campaign for a ‘No’ vote were given less than a warm reception by a man on a rickshaw who relentlessly blared out the Darth Vader theme while welcoming Scotland’s “imperial masters” on a megaphone.  I am sure that he did not apply for a permit.

Protesters worldwide are known to vilify and insult their country’s prime ministers and presidents and politicians.  Margaret Thatcher was vilified through her entire political career right up to her funeral and beyond. Bush and Blair were depicted as liars and bloodthirsty warlords during the Iraq war protests.  Berlusconi was often depicted as a criminal and called so.  I do not recall protesters being arrested for disrespecting these politicians.

In all democracies governments and police are expected to use judgement and even exercise a degree of tolerance towards the antics of demonstrators: it is always better to sin in favour of freedom of expression and assembly than against it.

What are unacceptable are acts of violence and incitement to perform acts of violence. Equally unacceptable is the incitement of   racism and homophobia. For example, protesting against immigration or gay marriage is odious but a sacrosanct right; but carrying placards with hateful messages against black or gay people should be illegal.

In view of last Sunday’s protest, what was clearly unacceptable was the violence against journalists and the subsequent attack on birdwatchers in Buskett. It is these acts which should be punished firmly according to law. 

I would go further and say that all 30 people who demonstrated in Buskett with the intent of causing harm to peaceful birdwatchers should be prosecuted. It is such acts of violence which should be firmly condemned.

Probably the police are piling all possible charges against the hunters to send a strong message. I am not suggesting an organised plot to undermine constitutional rights by clamping down on a detested group of people. But by adding ridiculous charges to these grave acts the police risk obfuscating the issues at stake.

Organising a spontaneous protest without informing the police commissioner may in itself be technically in breach of the law. But pressing with this charge risks sending a message that we are living in a limited, sanitised democracy.

I have personally participated in a number of spontaneous protests and although I was held by the police a number of times, I was never prosecuted in court.

Even more serious is pressing with the charge that those protesters showed disrespect towards the Prime Minister and the government of Malta. By pressing this charge – which does not exist at law specifically in relation to the office of the prime minister, but is a general charge of uttering obscenities – the police are behaving in an anachronistic way reminiscent of regimes which have little appreciation towards democracy. The fact that one particular person, a Facebook heckler, who did not attend the protest was remanded in custody, along those who threw stones at birdwatchers, is also disturbing.

Personally I disagree with hurling insults at anyone. Moreover by vilifying the PM the hunters were shooting themselves in the foot, alienating the only category of voters, which was sympathetic to them.

Even more worrying was arraigning a hunter for allegedly posting on Facebook about the protest, which for the police was tantamount “to instigating others to commit a crime.”  This case suggests that the police have a very limited interpretation of constitutional freedoms which we should always defend irrespective of who is affected.