Those campaigning to retain the questionable practice of spring hunting need to put an end to their campaign of sheer misinformation and instead appeal to the sensibilities of the Maltese population with facts, as opposed to stoking an imaginary fear factor.

While misinformation is commonplace in just about every country when any polling time draws near, and Malta's general elections are not immune to this by any stretch of the imagination, it seems that whenever the Maltese nation heads for a referendum misinformation becomes the order of the day for those attempting to retain the status quo.

Take, for example, the two most recent referenda in Maltese history: the divorce referendum and the EU referendum. Both were riddled with misinformation from those who sought to retain the status quo. 

We heard all sorts of things from the anti-divorce lobby such as the 'fact' that the children of divorcees are prone to crime and drug abuse, that society as we know is would crumble, that wife beaters would easily be able to move on to new victims if their abused spouses divorced them, etc...

When it came to EU accession, we heard about how foreigners would flood Malta and leave the Maltese jobless, that abortion would be introduced to the country, that dozens of factories would be closed down, etc...

Needless to say, none of these harbingers' prophecies were realised in any way whatsoever, but those arguments resonated with the moiré gullible segments of the electorate.

These are all well-known historical facts but they deserve repeating in today's context because, although this referendum is of quite a different subject matter, those campaigning to retain the status quo of spring hunting are helplessly and haplessly spewing the same sort of lies in their desperate bid to scuttle a fair and balanced national referendum on an issue that has been festering for far too long now.

This leads us to the misinformation campaign being propagated by hunters on their supposed right to practise what they describe as a legitimate pastime.

Now we are hearing - in a whispering, village gossip campaign - that once there has been a referendum on spring hunting, referenda on horses being allowed on the streets, fireworks and amateur fishing will follow. What's next? Collecting stamps and old Telecards, lace making and bocci?

The hunting lobby is evidently casting the widest net possible in their quest for votes in the 11 April referendum. By appealing to anyone who has a 'hobby', they appear to be convinced that they will be able to sway the strong tide against spring hunting.  We are, on the other hand, convinced that the vast majority of the population will not be deluded but, of course, those on the borderline between a 'Yes' and a 'No' vote could perhaps be swayed to the hunters' cause.

This is disingenuous and an exercise in clutching at straws best.

A group of the country's best legal minds converged earlier this week to clarify that the spring hunting referendum will not by any means put any other pastimes or hobbies at risk, and that there is no risk of similar referenda on other hobbies being put to the referendum test. It is true that some of the lawyers who carried out the research may have anti-hunting sentiments but make no mistake: there is no way that people of this calibre would put their professional reputation on the line to simply score public relations points for the anti-hunting coalition.

The declaration was, in fact, signed by 11 renowned legal experts including Giovanni Bonello, Former Judge on the European Court of Human Rights, Kevin Aquilina, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Malta, Reuben Balzan, the President of the Chamber of Advocates, and a number of other eminent and reputed lawyers.

Hunters' propaganda, the legal minds surmised, is a clear-cut case of scaremongering in that other abrogative referenda cannot follow with respect to other hobbies or activities.

Their joint research document summarised it quite neatly by saying: "... it is the professional reasoned opinion of the lawyers and former judiciary hereunder listed that the fears being raised that regulated sports, hobbies and activities could be threatened or prejudiced by future attempts to have an abrogative referendum related to the legislation or regulation of people's hobbies is totally without any legal basis."

However, the main hunting lobby, the FKNK, brushed the findings of these astute legal minds aside in one fell swoop, putting their research down to a simple "interpretation of the potential impact of the forthcoming referendum on Maltese society minority groups".

The lobby observed that "thousands of Maltese lawyers contest one another with regard to the interpretation of some legislation or other and also appeal judiciary decrees. Such announcements only serve to strengthen the FKNK's belief and further its determination to campaign in favour of the interests, rights and legal privileges of minority groups in Maltese society".

With arguments like these, it is no wonder that the main hunting lobby has chosen to boycott the independent media in terms of comments and interviews.  The challenges that would be posed by the country's independent media could, after all, prove too much to handle.

Enough of the hyperbole already. The hunting lobbies need to present their facts, as opposed to their current fiction, for public consumption if they are to retain any shred of credibility they may have when it comes to justifying the spring hunt.