‘Conviction’ is the word, but it initially sounded like a word from the court reports. The word ‘convincement’ has an entry in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, but not in the Oxford dictionary. I will start use the latter. Thanks for the correction.

If you think that one should depart from a religious vacuum to become a genuine believer, you are wrong.

I believe what I believe after what you call ‘rational assessments’ and deeper reflections.

Everyone is free to leave or remain. Other than that, my religious experience is to your concern as much as yours is mine. Only to raise the point that equating ignorance and hysteria with a religious upbringing, is a derision.

I hope you are right, Matthew S.
Time will tell.
Thanks.

Kieku mhux ghal kaccaturi irresponsabbli dan ir-referendum ma sar qatt necessarju.

Kif ser nidru mal-Ewropew jekk il-vot LE jghaddi?

Dawn ser jehduna bis-serjeta? Veru li ahna BISS ghandna l-kacca fir-rebbieha?

[Daphne – Yes, Victor, that’s why it’s a derogation from the law banning spring hunting. Otherwise we would be subject to the law just like the rest of the European Union.]

The best thing for the referendum would have been had neither leader pronounced himself and stated that they were going to leave it up to the people to decide and would abide by the people’s wishes. However, with Muscat taking the position he did, Busuttil had no choice but to take a position, especially after he failed to do so on the civil unions bill. In the circumstances, the one he took was probably the better one for the ‘No’ camp but a disaster for his own environmental credentials.

It is Muscat that forced this position and to my mind Busuttil was between a rock and a hard place. He may have neutralised Muscat’s position so that Muscat cannot claim any victory over him in case the “yes’ win, however, he has alienated environmentalists many of whom one would consider a ‘floater’.

As for the referendum, since the political leaders have now pronounced themselves, the hope is that people will think for themselves. However, there is the risk that die-hards will vote in a particular way because the leader is voting that way, which will be a disaster for the No camp.

I know that there is a strong argument that leaders of political parties should say the way that they are going to vote. However, I believe that once a question is put to the people in a referendum, political parties and their leaders should step back and not seek to influence the vote in either way. Throwing their weight around is going to lead to a distorted result as inevitably there will be many who will simply follow suit.

To my mind these are the issues that need to come out strongly are:

1. This is not a referendum to abolish hunting altogether but just hunting in spring when birds (including the turtle dove and quail) are breeding.

2. The referendum will not effect the autumn season whichever way the vote goes, so hunters will still be able to practice their “hobby’ in the autumn. This year alone this is a whole 5 months.

3. This is a “hobby” which effects others. It infringes on the rights of others – to enjoy the countryside without fear of being hit by pellets or even threatened by confrontational hunters, to not be woken up at the early hours of the morning if you live close enough, to enjoy watching and listening to birds.

4. The derogation that they are all using as an argument to prove how limited their practice actually is, was not sufficient for them and they wanted more. This is what actually led to the referendum being called in the first place. Had they not pushed for more, the chances are there would be no referendum. What will happen if they win, will they be satisfied with the derogation they are using are their defence or are they going to ask for more again?

5. The hunters lobby have held political parties to ransom election after election. Their intimidating tactics need to be stopped.

6. The shooting of birds in the spring has given Malta a really bad name all over Europe. This effects each and every one of us.

I’m sure I could think of more and this without going into all the illegalities and slaughter of protected birds.

[Daphne – Of course not. The problem is that migrating birds can’t change course.]

Don’t now much about hunting – in fact I don’t have a specific opinion on this issue.

Maybe if Malta covered half the Med Sea I would understand the reason given by the No side, but if Malta is not in a specific `corridor` through where birds MUST fly, then, the amounts of birds (species) that risk their extinction flying over Malta is close to negligible, and I bet that not even a small percentage of those that by accident happen to pay these islands a visit ends up in Mari`s kitchen.

[Daphne – Significant numbers of birds pass over Malta because they use Malta or Sicily as a staging post.]

Simon Busuttil is also right. Some of the hunters were there when the country joined the EU according to existing EU laws, including the Birds Directive with its derogation on controlled and limited hunting in the reproductive season. Without their vote, EU citizenship would have remained a dream.

So those who voted to join the EU must appreciate that this is part of the price to be paid for the bigger benefit.

I think this is what he is suggesting in his argument.

Stretching a bit here and there the argument somewhat holds a bit. But then you have to come to grips with the issue of ‘convincement’, which you so much harp for the other side.

[Daphne – ‘Convincement’ is not a word in the dictionary. Please explain what you mean.]

Because stretching a bit further your reasoning, there is no inconsistency between Joseph Muscat mark 2003, the Eurosceptic just doing his journalistic work for the Labour Party, and the present, almost Europhile Joseph Muscat. It cannot be otherwise. Not to mention that this card never worked electorally. This subconscious inconsistency is somewhat confusing the majority of your readers.

In truth, Simon Busuttil the MIC leader, apart from being a government employee, was also a political figure, going in programs confronting the ‘No’ campaign and other political activities. If today he says he was not convinced of what he was doing, his credibility rating would spiral down drastically.

And you will not want that for sure.

Simon Busuttil took the best strategic option this time round. Of course his position on spring hunting is now compromised even when he will be in government, but the first aim of a political party is to get elected. In 3 years time this issue will only be remembered mostly by hunters. On the other hand, there will be more environmental issues on which Simon Busuttil can take a friendly stand.