So we are going to have that hunting referendum between April and July
The Constitutional Court ruled this morning against the objections of the hunters’ lobby groups to the holding of a referendum on spring hunting. This means that the referendum will be held this year.
The main hunters’ association FKNK and the St Hubert Hunters had filed a Constitutional case listing their objections to the referendum over 22 pages.
The Constitutional Court ruled that the FKNK and the St Hubert Hunters are to carry the costs of the case.
The Coalition for the Abolition of Spring Hunting said that this is “a clear win for democracy in Malta” and that it is “history in the making”.
In the referendum, we will be asked to say Yes or No in response to the question of whether we wish to abrogate (cancel) the legal notice which allows for spring hunting of turtle doves and quails.
This is the first referendum to be held after a petition brought by the public in terms of the law. More than 50% of electors have to turn up and vote in a referendum for the outcome to hold.
The referendum date will be set by the president as this is not a government decision.
The independent newspapers – The Malta Independent, Times of Malta and Malta Today – have banded together on this matter to campaign for the holding of a referendum and to bring out the vote to ensure that turn-out is higher than 50%.
This website supports the Coalition for the Abolition of Spring Hunting.
19 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
A low turnout will simple have the FKNK try to claim a victory. Remember the EU referendum. Rebha ghall-partnership.
Time to put these gun wielding hunters in their place once and for all.
But it appears, from how the hunters speak, that Joseph Muscat promised them before the March 2013 election that he would ensure that a referendum would not be held with him in government. What’s he going to do?
He will obviously turn this into a political debate so as not to lose the hunters’ lobby.
The PN should not allow themselves to be drawn in. The PN had given hunters and bird lovers a balanced solution.
Both groups were unhappy about the compromise but at least there was an agreed compromise.
Joseph Muscat smelled the opportunity and promised both that they could have more than they had obtained from the PN. Hate them as much as you like, the PN were consistent.
This mess on Joseph Muscat’s lap has got nothing to do with politics but with deceitful tactics aimed at winning over both sides of an argument while promising the exact opposite to both parties separately. The chickens are coming home to roost for Joseph Muscat.
I am so pleased to learn that the Constitutional Court has finally endorsed the people’s wish to have a referendum on spring hunting, while providing space for opponents to air their views in a civil manner within the same court.
My satisfaction has nothing to do with the outcome of this referendum. In a truly democratic society, everyone is entitled by a natural right to voice his opinion and to be listened by those who oppose or have a diverging opinion.
It is also true that the decision of putting together the local council elections and this referendum should theoretically help to reach the required 50% benchmark. It would be really silly to have a referendum without a clear outcome due to the electorate’s absenteeism, even though people are legally free to choose between casting their vote or otherwise.
I will vote against spring hunting, while still respecting opposite views. This is a matter of deciding on a sensitive issue with clarity of mind and against the criteria of sound principles.
Something tells me that those who pushed for this referendum did not do their homework properly…and will be bitterly disappointed. One can’t rely on surveying The Times readers for something like this.
There is a catch in the referendum: uninformed voters are likely to think that YES means “Yes to spring Hunting” while NO means “No to spring hunting”! This has happened in Italy decades ago when the abrogation of already legalized abortion was put to a referendum.
[Daphne – Oh come on, we don’t even know what the question is yet.]
The question is already set:
Do you vote that the following provision of law, Framework for Allowing a Derogation Opening a Spring Hunting Season for Turtledove and Quail Regulations (Subsidiary Legislation 504.94 – Legal Notice 221 of 2010) should not continue in force?
Yes – No
Dawn id-disposizzjonijiet tal-liġi li gejjin, Regolamenti dwar qafas biex tiġi permessa Deroga li tiftaħ l-istaġun għall-kaċċa tal-gamiem u summien fir-Rebbiegħa (Leġislazzjoni Sussidjarja 504.94 – Avviż Legali 221 tal-2010) m’għandhomx jibqgħu jseħħu.
Iva – Le
Yes the risk is in this referendum there will have a low turnout, and this would lead to it being discredited and not binding.
I smell a catch here! am I right?
In the referendum, we will be asked to say Yes or No in response to the question of whether we wish to abrogate (cancel) the legal notice which allows for spring hunting of turtle doves and quails.
Does it leave a big hole open for other birds other than doves and quails to be shot?
I would prefer a more direct question that stops hunting completely.
As this is an abrogative referendum; one which aims to “cancel a law” then the question is as set in the Referendum act. This means that the referendum only affects spring hunting, and the question cannot be tweaked or touched in any way to mean anything else. As this is not a consultative referendum (ex: the referendum on divorce in 2011), the result of the referendum is binding if the quorum is reached (50%+1 of electorate).
The question is the same question which was listed in the Coalition’s petition:
Do you vote that the following provision of law, Framework for Allowing a Derogation Opening a Spring Hunting Season for Turtledove and Quail Regulations (Subsidiary Legislation 504.94 – Legal Notice 221 of 2010) should not continue in force?
Yes – No
Dawn id-disposizzjonijiet tal-liġi li gejjin, Regolamenti dwar qafas biex tiġi permessa Deroga li tiftaħ l-istaġun għall-kaċċa tal-gamiem u summien fir-Rebbiegħa (Leġislazzjoni Sussidjarja 504.94 – Avviż Legali 221 tal-2010) m’għandhomx jibqgħu jseħħu.
Iva – Le
Expect Joseph Muscat (forget about the duty of the President in this regard) to set a date when the lowest turnout possible might become a reality. Hope that the people travelling during the summer holidays will still have the option to vote beforehand.
Does anyone have information about how Maltese citizens living away from Malta can vote?
[Daphne – Yes. You fly to Malta, arriving in time to collect your voting document, which I think (but somebody might correct this) must be done up to 48 hours ahead of the date.]
U toqghodx tinqala’….;)
My work colleague is pro hunting, or rather pro destruction because his reaction to this referendum was ‘jaqtali l-kacca ta’ April u neqred kollox f’Settembru’.
I have been trying to reason with him for years. Kollu ta’ xejn.
Hmm, a disaffected fanatic. Make sure you keep him away from firearms.
Oh wait…
Anyone know what the question will be exactly? I hope it’s something very clear to understand.
Yes, the question will be as follows according to the Referendum Act.
(http://justiceservices.gov.mt/DownloadDocument.aspx?app=lom&itemid=8737 – Page 10)
Do you vote that the following provision of law, Framework for Allowing a Derogation Opening a Spring Hunting Season for Turtledove and Quail Regulations (Subsidiary Legislation 504.94 – Legal Notice 221 of 2010) should not continue in force?
Yes – No
Dawn id-disposizzjonijiet tal-liġi li gejjin, Regolamenti dwar qafas biex tiġi permessa Deroga li tiftaħ l-istaġun għall-kaċċa tal-gamiem u
summien fir-Rebbiegħa (Leġislazzjoni Sussidjarja 504.94 – Avviż Legali 221 tal-2010) m’għandhomx jibqgħu jseħħu.
Iva – Le
Expect more graffiti on heritage sites in the spirit of “namra jew intajru”
Looking forward to voting yes to ban hunting under Muscat.
That way he will learn a lesson that it is incorrect to promise everything to everyone just to win votes.
The PN tried to find a balance between hunters and environment NGOs, and disciplined hunting.
Muscat promised and gave hunters a virtual free-for-all, only to be met with a public outcry to ban all hunting.
The way I see it, and I imagine that many others too, is that fundamentally, this referendum is not actually to abolish the hunting of these two species of game birds, but to prevent the poaching of protected and highly protected species through the convenient vehicle of game hunting.
Had the hunting lot been principled and hunted only what was permitted to be hunted, I don’t think that they would find themselves at the end of their spring hunting pastime.
Let us be vigilant for vandalism on cultural and historical sites from now till well after the inevitable referendum result. I would be surprised if they take the impending referendum and result as real and grown men.