I wrote about the issue last year when it hit the
UK news following naturalist Chris Packham’s high profile campaign against the practice.(1)
I chose to defend the hunters against the chorus of
criticism and vilification from UK based commentators, celebrities and
campaigns.
In anticipation (I hope I am wrong) of yet more castigation
of Maltese hunters as the rednecks of Europe, a few points of principle are
important.
Many of the campaigns, such as that by the UK’s League
Against Cruel Sports, look to the EU to
do something about the hunters. The EU is a relatively undemocratic and distant
institution. It is far better if this Maltese mini culture war is played out in
the confines of Maltese society. Here Maltese people can decide,
democratically, on what is and is not allowed on their soil. That is what the
referendum represents, and therefore holding it was positive. Given the scale
of the issue on the island and that it is not a clearly party political one, the referendum,
forced by a petition from the anti-hunting lobby, shows the strength of Maltese
democracy.
After all, this has long been a hot issue on Malta. The vote
in favour of allowing hunting was very close. It shows that almost half of the
Maltese people want an end to the Spring hunt. They have good reason for doing
so. A beautiful Spring walk through the countryside is fraught in hunting season. A
weekend camping trip or a barbeque may be spoiled or more likely simply be a
non-starter. Bear in mind that Malta is the most densely populated country in
Europe. There isn’t a great deal of accessible land for leisure, and a
considerable amount comprises hunting grounds.
Some see hunting as a hangover from the past, something that modern
Malta should move on from as soon as possible.
Against this many Maltese enjoy hunting, and see it as a
tradition they want to hold on to. There are some 9,000 registered hunters on
the archipelago, out of a population of 450,000.
Hunting is far more controlled than in the past, and it is not a
growing pastime. (2)
I wonder whether the high profile intervention from British
and other European campaigners helped or hindered the anti-hunting cause? Most
Maltese people are proud of their country and its customs. I have recently
spoken to some who are against hunting and others certainly not advocates of it
who were also highly critical of the arrogance of campaigners, many of whom
condemned hunters as barbaric and even floated the idea of boycotting Malta’s
staple tourism industry. Quite a few critics followed the lead of Queen guitarist Brian
May who described the practice as ‘another manifestation of the vestiges of
savagery in humans’. (3) Mark Mifsud Bonnici, runs a hunting association in
Malta and understandably feels: ‘We’re being depicted as a breed that is separate
from everyone else, that we are not human anymore, that we are public enemy
number one.' (4)
The referendum is a victory for Maltese democracy. It was
accompanied by a high turn out (75%) and a follows a vigorous debate. The
result has been gracefully acknowledged and respected by Maltese anti-hunt
campaigners even though they were narrowly defeated. That defeat may be
relatively short lived. There is evidence that younger Maltese are
significantly more anti-hunting than others. The referendum can be repeated
after two years. Perhaps during that period commentators and campaigners
outside of Malta could refrain from portraying hunters as barbarians and show
some respect for the democratically expressed wishes of the Maltese islanders.
