Joseph, Simon and the abrogative spring hunting referendum

turtle dove 2


The Prime Minister’s declaration as published in this morning’s Times of Malta that he will not block the abrogative referendum on spring hunting is welcome news.

It is welcome in view of the conflicting statements which Joseph himself made during the past weeks.

Both Joseph and Simon are in a tight corner at this point in time as they are both aware that their respective parties have, for political expediency, kowtowed to the hunting lobby during past years.

Both the Labour Party and the Nationalist Party are in a tight corner. They know it. As both have supported spring hunting. The Labour Party glorifies spring hunting. The PN alternates between glorification of spring hunting and insisting on controls and limits to the practice.

They have developed their specific spring hunting policies throughout the years in response to lobbying by hunters and their organisations. As a result they have created the current mess.

It is clear that the motivation of both PN and PL is not a love of hunting but the fear of being black-listed by pro-hunting voters. It is a choice which they have made and which obviously has its consequences. Their political choices are in conflict with the manner in which modern Maltese society views spring hunting. In view of their not being able to reflect what modern society expects of them it is pretty obvious that the only way forward is for decision-taking in this respect to be exercised directly by the voters.

This is what the abrogative referendum on spring hunting is about.

The abrogative referendum is a decent and democratic way of solving the whole matter hopefully once and for all. It is an exercise in direct democracy which when carried out will be a credit to the country.

3 comments on “Joseph, Simon and the abrogative spring hunting referendum

  1. if the environmentalists had been as demanding and pushy as the hunters i am sure that our votes would have been taken heed of too but unfortunately i feel that we have not been threatening enough for both political parties to have our demands considered!! i hope that we will get our wish respected after the referendum!!!

  2. Political parties should take heed of the needs and requests of minorities, as the PL did with the Civil Union Bill. They cannot ignore this. I cannot understand why so many people make a fuss about hunting birds and not about hunting fish for example, even migratory ones like the lampuki. The emphasis should be on PROTECTED species and nothing else.
    Before referenda are made, the government should state clearly that unless a certain, acceptable percentage of the population votes, the referendum shall not be binding. If not, those who do not vote can be taken as part and partial of the ones won do not care and, hence, taken with the ones in favour of hunting.

    • The law regulating the holding of referenda establishes that the result will only be considered valid if not less than 50% of the electorate turn up and vote.

      The basic principle of the Birds’ Directive is that spring is the time when birds mate and have their offspring. It is the time when they require protection.

      Their are no minority rights involved: the issue is one, the protection of birds.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s