Pro and anti-hunting campaigners have recalled their respective feelings of joy at victory and regret at a missed opportunity 10 years after the referendum that decided whether spring hunting would continue to be permitted in Malta.
Many anti-spring hunting campaigners blamed Joseph Muscat for tilting the outcome at the last minute, while others lauded the campaign waged by those who wanted Malta to retain the controversial practice.
The abrogative referendum took place on April 11, 2015, after a coalition of environmental NGOs led by BirdLife Malta and Alternattiva Demokratika gathered 45,000 signatures on a petition launched almost two years earlier to end the practice of hunting quail and turtle doves in spring.
The question put to the public on the day of the referendum was: ‘Do you agree that the provisions of the framework for allowing a derogation opening a spring hunting season for turtle dove and quail regulations (Subsidiary Legislation 504.94) should continue in force?’
This meant that people who wanted spring hunting to continue had to vote ‘Yes’ while those who wanted it to stop had to vote ‘No’.
The ‘Yes’ vote won by a hair’s breadth – a majority of just 2,220 or 50.4%. Seventy-five per cent of eligible voters turned out on the day. Local council elections took place on the same day.
A decade after the vote, Times of Malta spoke with various people involved in both ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns.
Hunting in spring is generally banned across the European Union under the EU Birds Directive, which aims to protect wild birds during their critical breeding and migration periods. Malta has applied controversial derogations to retain spring hunting, landing it in legal disputes with the EU.
‘A fantastic day’
Joe Perici Calascione, who served as president of hunting federation FKNK at the time and a strategist of the ‘Yes’ campaign, described the day as one of the most important in the country’s history, as well as in his own life.
“It was a fantastic day – a win against many adversaries. But, more importantly, we managed not to lose a tradition that was, and, thankfully, still is, a big part of our lives. The repercussions would have been very negative,” Perici Calascione said.
He believes hunters succeeded in winning over the majority of the public by conducting a positive campaign.
“We managed to show our passion and our connection with the natural environment. We engaged with the public and got across the message that hunting is not just a hobby but a way of life.”
Kathleen Calleja Grima, who served as FKNK’s lawyer and spokesperson of the ‘Yes’ campaign, believes the majority of people voted to retain spring hunting because they did not want to deny people their hobby.
“We managed to rope in other hobbyists and focused our campaign on giving the public enough data to make an informed decision,” she said.
‘Time is ripe for another referendum’
By contrast, Saviour Balzan remembers the campaign as being characterised by toxicity and verbal attacks aimed at members of ‘Spring Hunting Out’ (SHout), in which he served as a strategist.
“You need to have a thick skin when you get involved in these things but some people were really taken to the cleaners,” said Balzan, who is also managing director of MaltaToday.
Balzan described the referendum as a missed opportunity.
“It was a mistake on our part not to push enough for the referendum question to require a ‘Yes’ answer to ban spring hunting.”
He believes the time is right to try again, with the caveat that the referendum should not just be about spring hunting.
“It would serve as an opportunity for people to protest against the government’s environmental and planning policies. Unfortunately, I think there is a lack of leadership among NGOs,” he said.
As one of the main faces of the ‘No’ campaign, animal rights activist Moira Delia bore the brunt of much of the abuse. Nevertheless, she says she has fond memories of the time.
“It put me in touch with many like-minded people who all came together to protect birds. I have no regrets over taking part,” she said.
Asked what she would do differently if she could go back in time, she says she would have spoken less emotionally and more rationally.
“I’m not a politician, so I did not know any better. I also think the campaign may have been too negative but, at the end of the day, we were just showing the reality of what happens to birds.”
BirdLife Malta CEO Mark Sultana believes the campaign’s two biggest mistakes were not countering the ‘Yes’ campaign’s “cunning move” of implying that other hobbies such as fireworks could be in danger of being banned if the ‘No’ vote won and underestimating the power of the Gozo vote. Indeed, if one discounts Gozitan votes, the ‘No’ campaign would have won by a considerable margin.
Sultana is optimistic that the referendum was not a once-in-a-lifetime chance that will never come around again.“Referendums are never cast in stone. People can change their minds. Provided a reasonable amount of time has passed, there’s no reason why there shouldn’t be another one. However, right now, we are more focused on fighting the derogation in court,” he said.
Joseph Muscat’s influence
When asked what they believed to be the main factors that led to the defeat of the ‘No’ campaign, every SHout campaigner mentioned the “last-minute” intervention of Muscat, who was then prime minister.
Despite insisting that people should be left to make their own decision in the lead-up to the vote, Muscat became increasingly vocal about Labour’s pro-hunting stance in the weeks before April 11.
Law-abiding hunters, he had said during a Labour Party rally in Qala two weeks before the referendum, should not be held responsible for the actions of “a few criminals and bullies”.
Today, Muscat denies that he had campaigned actively in favour of spring hunting.
“My position was clear from the very start... Labour was elected on a clear electoral platform, and this included a regulated hunting season. I do not renege on pledges, whether popular or not, and it was my duty as leader of the Labour Party to defend this position,” he said.
“During the campaign, I made my position clear on a few occasions but did not campaign in an active manner,” he insisted.
Muscat said that, while the Nationalist Party adopted the same position officially – former PN leader Simon Busuttil had said he would vote ‘yes’ –several PN MPs had actively campaigned for a hunting ban.
Busuttil was unavailable for comment.