Nazis in the classroom?

I refer to Aldo E. Azzopardi's letter of January 22. Hunting is wrong because it involves the totally unnecessary killing of sentient and innocent animals. Hunting involves cruelty and the violation of sentient animals' right to life and liberty, just for the sake of the perverse pleasure of killing weaker beings. If pleasure in taking innocent life was not a significant factor of hunting, hunters would concede that "clay-pigeon" shooting and photography are viable alternatives.

As for teachers " brainwashing" children, the fact remains that the majority of the Maltese population expects teachers to instil in their children values such as kindness and a sense of repulsion towards unnecessary cruelty and killing of animals, besides that teaching such values is the right thing to do. Democracies are governed by majority rule, and the majority of Maltese citizens are opposed to hunting.

Contrary to what Mr Azzopardi claims, I did not compare the evils of hunting with racism, although both stem from prejudice and disrespect towards those outside one's group. My point was, and still is, that just as a racist would complain about anti-racist education, a speciesist hunter would equally be expected to complain about anti-hunting education. But just as anti-racist education should continue despite racist protests, so should anti-hunting education, despite speciesist protests.

As to racism being universally condemned, that is a false claim. I concede that racists are perhaps nowadays a minority. Similarly, pro-hunting people in Malta are also a minority. Also, that something is practised in every country does not necessarily make it right.

I would be interested to know Mr Azzopardi's views on abortion, for instance, which is also legally practised in nearly every country but not in Malta . I assume that Mr Azzopardi, presumably being a Catholic, is still opposed to abortion.

As for schools inviting hunters so that children get "both sides of the issue" , by Mr Azzopardi's reasoning it can be argued that schools should invite prominent racists to give talks, so that children will also get " both sides of the racism issue" .

Unfortunately for Mr Azzopardi, that's not how democracies work. In democracies, practices that are generally accepted by the majority as wrong, are taught by teachers to be wrong, and the only reference to "the other side", if any, would only be made in support of the generally accepted claim that they would be wrong.

If anti-hunting education without giving the other side is "brainwashing", so are all sorts of moral education such as anti-racist, anti-sexist etc.

Would Mr Azzopardi claim that for anti-drug education to be "unbiased", teachers should invite drug dealers to give lectures on the "benefits" of illegal drugs? I think not.

As for the "pros" of hunting, the onus is on him to claim them. He has failed to do so in his letter. However, if he decides to mention them in his next letter, I would appreciate it if he mentions what's in it for the birds.

As to whether children mark questionnaires to please their teachers, I have no time to rebut conspiracy theories. I have learned that it is not worth it to lose time on wild claims, like I did on the other hunter conspiracy theory of last year, that Birdlife Malta has some "secret weapon" to use on hunters. I think that all such conspiracy theories only serve to heap ridicule on those who make them.

And yes, children, once again Mr Azzopardi has called you "boot-lickers", which, on hindsight, makes me realise that one cannot be expected to respect non-human animals if one does not even respect children.