A campaign carried out by a rival newspaper over recent weeks, and we will not say this often, has been spot on, although the authorities share a completely different view.

The campaign referred to has questioned the legality of the roadblocks the Maltese public is subjected to on an all too frequent basis, stops that are clearly not in line with human rights.

What’s more, the authorities’ argumentation on the subject is risible and, and, at the same time, beggars belief.

The specific point in question is the European Court of Human Rights’ verdict against the United Kingdom, where the court found that the stop and search powers granted to the police under the Terrorism Act were in breach of British citizens’ human rights since the requirement of reasonable suspicion was seen to have been thrown out the window.

But when confronted with the fact, the authorities’ reply was, we quote, “the ECHR ruling referred to British practices originated from ‘a completely different context – that of anti-terrorism efforts’”.

This is the very comment that defies belief. Legally speaking, Maltese reasons for setting up roadblocks are indeed in a different context anti-terrorism operations. That much is true from a strictly legalistic standpoint.

But what is implied by the remark is that, in the eyes of the Maltese authorities, searching drivers, passengers and vehicles, with a very questionable success rate at that, for drugs is a more worthy cause than combating terrorism. Very fortunately, this country has not had a taste of terrorism.

There is no doubt that the country needs to keep up its fight against drugs, but is this really the best way of going about it? Surely the country could do better by its citizens than subjecting them, the vast majority of which are blameless and unwilling participants in the exercises, to the indignity of such stops and searches. That is not to mention the intimidation many must feel when being confronted by gun-toting soldiers.

To this editorialist’s experience, soldiers at roadblocks have always been courteous and polite but that does not detract from the more sinister feeling most are left with after experiencing a roadblock.

While families are generally waved through without a search, it does not take much to imagine what kind of impression the experience might leave on a young mind.

This is not a country under martial law, and at no point in time should anyone be made to feel as though it is, for however fleeting the experience is, and for no solid reason apart from a figurative fishing expedition.

Yes, soldiers at roadblocks have similar powers as those of the police and as matters stand, one would be well advised to cooperate when stopped.

But, on the flipside, there should also be a real debate over the legitimacy of roadblocks, perhaps in Parliament should an MP feel it appropriate to raise the issue, must be carried out given the sensitivity and questionable legitimacy of the practice as well as the opposition to it from practically all segments of society.

Roadblocks, without a very good reason and not just randomly set up like fishing nets, are a definite violation of the Maltese people’s human rights. And it is not until a proper stance against them is made that they will stop.

Between a hide a hard place

The government has well and truly put itself between a rock and a hard place, or rather between a hunting hide and hard place with its announcement on the opening of this year’s spring hunting season. Once again, by trying to please all parties at the same time instead of adopting a hard line stance one way or another, it has merely invoked the wrath of all those concerned.

In all fairness, the government was damned if it did and damned if it didn’t…and even damned if tried as it did to strike some kind of happy medium between contrasting sides of the hunting equation and the European Court of Justice’s ruling.

It will remain to be seen how the season, with, for the first time, its strict bag limits and a limited number of licence carrying hunters, would be regulated, particularly given the very limited resources the Administrative Law Enforcement Unit has at its disposal. The SMS system that has been proposed and the other measures will simply not be enough to keep poachers at bay, especially with this year’s first time restrictions.

The hunters are also correct that with the time frame and bag limits proposed the government should not have even bothered opening the season in the first place.

Not only will hunters be aggravated by the bag limits and the limited number of special licences to be put on offer my MEPA, but enforcement of the quotas and regulations will certainly be near impossible if not wholly impossible.

At least the hunters and bird conservation groups have agreed on one thing – that the long called for Wildlife Enforcement Unit is now a vital necessity, but one that will most likely not be able to be implemented before the season begins.

One thing is for certain: much will remain to be seen at the end of the month.