It was a glitzy affair yesterday morning when the ‘Yes’ to spring hunting group launched their referendum campaign.

By all appearances, it seems that the ‘Yes’ camp has taken a page out of the Labour Party’s last and immensely successful election campaign – youngsters in colourful T-shirts backing speakers on a platform, and glossy brochures for some reason featuring a young family enjoying the countryside.

But at least the Yes camp has gone for the democratic route by advocating a ‘Yes’ vote instead of an all-out abstention from the 11 April referendum that will decide the fate of Malta’s highly controversial spring hunting season. 

A referendum is arguably the ultimate exercise in democracy and it would have been a crying shame had the ‘Yes’ camp advocated their followers to deny themselves of that democratic right and a call for spring hunting sympathisers to not exercise their democratic right and obligation would have constituted an affront to democracy.

But underlying all of this is the fact that we are not hearing much from hunters themselves. Much as the young family were apparently having a great time in the great outdoors in the brochure, as opposed to perhaps young hunters smiling as they take aim at the skies, we are hearing pro-spring hunting arguments not from hunters themselves but rather from others who do not exactly fit the Maltese hunter prototype.

Back to that image of that young family frolicking in the countryside, which also ironically features on our front page advert in today’s issue. Under what delusion was someone labouring when they came up with that concept? How on earth does the continuance of spring hunting facilitate scenes such as that depicted?

This particular editorialist, as a father of a young child who relishes taking walks in the countryside, knows very well that one would need to be seriously unhinged to even consider taking a child out during hunting hours – autumn or spring for that matter.

This, however, is not the only incongruence that the ‘Yes’ campaign treated the media to yesterday.

For starters, the ‘Yes’ campaign yesterday noted with satisfaction the stance that the Prime Minister and the Opposition leader took in favour of retaining Malta’s derogation from EU rules. It is, however, blatantly obvious that the two politicians did so out of their own respective political exigencies and not because they personally favour spring bunting.

Secondly, the ‘Yes’ campaign was quoted as saying that hunters have private property which should be respected and protected, and that no one can expel hunters from what is theirs. This is a democratic country in which no one can be stripped of their land. That does not, however, mean that they should be able to do whatever they want to do on that land. If spring hunting is disallowed, they will be free to practise any legal activity of their choosing on their own land in spring – picnics, barbeques, hide and seek, etc…

Thirdly, we were told yesterday that the referendum has been instigated by a small group of people with an agenda to abolish hunting. The 40,000 plus citizens of Malta who signed the petition to hold a referendum is no small group of people. Moreover, we are speaking strictly of spring hunting when species are en route to their mating grounds, and not hunting during the five-month autumn season after those species have bred.

Fourthly, we were also told that “we can never accept having foreigners telling us what to do in our place of birth. Foreigners have to respect our culture and beliefs…” The 11 April referendum is the result of signatures collected by Maltese citizens, and not ‘foreigners’. It is only Maltese citizens who will be voting in the referendum and rest assured that Maltese citizens will not be influenced by ‘foreigners’, they will be influenced by common sense. Enough of the nationalism card, hunters’ lobbies have been using that one for years on end now.

Fifthly, it was claimed that the ‘No’ campaign wants to abolish a right that “has even been sanctioned by the EU”. This referendum is a Maltese matter and a Maltese matter alone.  If the Maltese want to reclaim the countryside in spring and give bird species a chance to mate before being blasted out of the Maltese skies, that is purely a Maltese matter. By bringing the EU into the equation, is it not the Yes camp itself that is now invoking the influence of ‘foreigners’?

Lastly, we heard yet again how other minority rights will be at risk if the ‘No’ vote wins and that “we will fight this threat not just for hunters but for every other minority. No one should try to do away with a legal hobby...’”

Reverting back to the “once there has been a referendum on spring hunting, referenda on horses being allowed on the streets, fireworks and amateur fishing” argument is disingenuous and an exercise in clutching at straws at best.

The hunting lobby is evidently casting the widest net possible in its 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.

That argument has already been dispelled by a group of the country’s best legal minds, who researched the argument and concluded that this bit of hunters’ propaganda 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.”

We are frankly surprised that yesterday’s campaign launch was not backed up by facts and reasonable argumentation. Yesterday was the chance for the Yes camp to set the ball rolling in a more logical direction.

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.

Let us see whether they rise to the challenge presented yesterday by the No camp to hold a public debate. Failure to do so would be tantamount to admitting their already flawed logic a failure.