This is not war

There are emotive words that can accurately describe the silly comments by Joe Perici Calascione, president of the hunters’ federation FKNK, who said that the Yes campaign seeking the retention of the age-old practice of shooting birds in spring, was tantamount to war.

The result of those fiery words was immediately to realign the benign image that the Yes campaign wanted to convey, to the retrograde, sadistic image of hunters in Malta.

Perici Calascione made his utterance while the Yes campaign had been going to great pains to present itself as a moderate, tranquil and middle of the road organisation.

Trust a hunter such as Perici Calascione to utter words that can be considered only a rude blast in a warm spring sky, to upset an occasion – the launch of the hunters’ own bid for spring hunting – when the main spokesperson presented by hunters for their Yes drive was Gozitan lawyer Kathleen Grima, a person who herself is not a hunter.

The launch of the slick hunters’ campaign led to a swift and angry rebuke by the No campaign calling on real hunters to take charge and debate the issues that mattered.

Needless to say the No to spring hunting campaign headed by SHOUT responded to Perici Calascione’s comments by saying the debate was all about convincing the public to vote yes or no in the referendum.  

People have to decide on facts and not on the level of intimidation. This is a unique opportunity to vote in Malta’s first abrogative referendum.  

The No campaign have fixed their sights on the things that matter. 

The public are in the vast majority against hunting but they are also motivated by the argument that having a hunter-free countryside in spring makes great sense.

More so when one considers what limited roaming spaces Malta has to offer to the public.

But the No campaign has also some strong arguments to make, such as when it comes to the interpretation of the European Court of Justice decision in 2009.

In 2009 the ECJ made it very clear that the derogation, or exemption, to hunt in spring in Malta was illegal and also fined the Government of Malta.

Both the Labour and Nationalist administrations have chosen to ignore this decision and go ahead with their hunter-appeasement policy.

SHOUT, which leads the No campaign, has emphasised that an alternative to hunting quails and turtledoves does exist.

If their word was not enough, a recent study by Ecoserv, an independent agency commissioned by the government, has concluded that over 45,000 quails migrated over Malta in autumn last year. That conclusion is clear proof that claims by the hunters that autumn did not offer a reasonable alternative to hunting in spring are in fact unfounded.

But perhaps one of the better reasons why Maltese and Gozitans should in fact vote No on April 11, the referendum date, is because a victory for the Yes campaign would be the death-knell to the environment movement and all its work.

Over the last years, Malta has gone to the polls and decided to change the course of this inward looking society. Europe and divorce are just two success stories.

The 11 of April may signify that apart from social and political considerations, we also embrace environmental protection.

A win for the NO vote will mean so much for this small nation. It is crucial that we vote NO.