Submitted by ANIMAL RIGHTS MALTA’S BLOG

Some hunters have recently described this blog as “comic writing“. While thanking some of them for the publicity they are giving me, going as far as putting a link to this blog in the comments section of The Times (online version), I must say that perhaps I should start paying royalties to some of them, for, if this blog is comic writing, I owe much to them for supplying me with most of the humour.

A case in point is David Borg Cardona’s letter in today’s The Times, entitled “Turtle doves are a plague”, where he goes as far as shooting down his own argument in his same letter.

Mr Borg Cardona writes:

“One cannot but notice on the way to Tripoli airport the plush fields by the perimeters of the smooth highway with the thousands of turtle doves devouring all the newly planted crops. My thoughts go back to the Libyan farmers who are prohibited from owning shotguns or cartridges. Without exception these poor dwellers are aggravated by all the damage done to their sprouting produce resulting from an ever increasing pest or what they rightly consider to be as a ‘plague’. Anger is strongly vented by all the farmers across North Africa where turtle doves demolish the farmers’ livelihood, which in turn trickles down the grapevine increasing consumer prices.

Ask the hundreds of Maltese hunters who have been to the Fayoum region in Egypt. Farmers plead with them to hunt from dawn to dusk and kill as many doves as they can. Here I cannot but think of Daphne Caruana Galizia, I.M. Beck, Ira Losco, Winston Zahra and all the rest of the tribe publicly squawking for a spring hunting ban on a species that is by no means far from extinction but is multiplying by the thousands”.

So Mr Borg Cardona seems to suggest that Maltese hunters should be permitted to hunt turtle doves, because he says that turtle doves are a plague in Africa. Now, leaving aside the fact that there are other more humane methods of controlling bird populations, (contraception in food, for instance), it is ironic that Mr Borg Cardona shoots down his whole argument when he writes:

“But alas the ‘trumpeters’ both in Malta and the EU are blind to the fact that turtle doves are an uncontainable plague. Can any of the anti-hunting clans or organisations convince me that the shooting of a few thousand turtle doves over Malta during spring is going to affect the millions of doves or deplete the species that inhabit North Africa, some of which cross the Mediterranean in April? This is the bottom line folks so let’s be sensible please”.

So yes, dear Mr Borg Cardona. Let us be sensible. You say that hunting turtle doves in Malta will have a negligible effect on the turtle dove population. So, to be sensible, how can one bring up the “argument” of turtle doves being a plague in Africa, as a justification for hunting them in Malta, when, in Mr Borg Cardona’s own words, “shooting of a few thousand turtle doves over Malta during spring is (not) going to affect the millions of doves or deplete the species that inhabit North Africa”.

That’s one argument shot down by Mr Borg Cardona’s own gun.

Mr Borg Cardona also writes:

“Before arriving at the airport I concluded that those who support the ban on spring hunting and claim that ‘God’s creatures’ should not be destroyed (say this to any farmer and he will tell you who God’s creatures really are) must either live in cloud cuckoo land or have no perception of what damage is being done by this pest”.

Well, Mr Borg Cardona, if one believes in God, no matter what any farmer will tell you, one will necessarily believe that every living individual, human or non-human, is “God’s creature”. On the other hand, unbelievers, or the more sensible believers, will tell you that all creatures are the product of evolution, and that every animal, if one goes back far enough, has evolved from one, or at most a few, common ancestors. The person who lives in cloud cuckoo land is the one who holds the completely unscientific, and therefore irrational and non-sensical, view that humans are somehow not animals.

Mr Borg Cardona also writes:

“Turtle dove hunting in Malta during spring is a long standing traditional pastime for thousands of citizens and is a form of outdoor activity that provides relaxation and enjoyment”.

I assume that in saying that turtle dove hunting provides relaxation and enjoyment, Mr Borg Cardona does not mean relaxation and enjoyment to the birds. Hunting may be a traditional pastime, (as was going to the Colosseum in ancient Rome), and it may well provide relaxation and enjoyment to a minority that derives pleasure from a practice that unnecessarily kills sentient individuals. However, the fact that a practice may provide pleasure, is not in itself a justification for the practice to continue, particularly if the pleasure derived requires the elimination of all future pleasures, (and life itself), of others.

And yes, by others, I mean the birds. Speciesists may hold the irrational belief that non-human animals do not matter morally, but I have yet to meet a rational justification for the holding of that claim that would not deprive some humans from having the right to life.

Mr Borg Cardona writes:

“Are not foxes, crows and wood pigeons shot by farmers across European countries simply to prevent another form of destruction to their livestock (sic) and livelihood? These too are ‘God’s creatures’ however the ’squawkers’ turn a blind eye on this issue”.

Perhaps Mr Borg Cardona is not paying enough attention. If he actually reads this blog, and makes an effort to understand it, he will actually find out that this blog is all about defending the rights of all animals, including humans. So no, I do not turn a blind eye on any issue that involves the violation of rights of individuals.

That said, I will immediately acknowledge that, nature being amoral, one will always find instances where rights will conflict. One such instance is the example Mr Borg Cardona gives, where the right of humans to grow crops for their own consumption might conflict with the right of other animals to eat. However, if one cares enough, one will always find more humane ways to deal with such situations, other than simply shooting the other to protect one’s food.

As for “livestock”, these animals should not have been bred by their human exploiters in the first place, so the problem of “protecting livestock” from predators is of the human exploiters’ own making. As for the question of livelihood, when one recognizes a practice to be immoral, the earnings derived from that practice are recognized to be immoral earnings, so one should seek gainful employment elsewhere.

Now, how about this for true comedy?

And next, a certain R. Spagnol, who would do his “cause” a better service were he to learn to read and write properly, instead of calling what he does not understand “comical”, writes the following comment in reply to my comments in The Times (online):

“Again, K. Cassar is performing the usual escape from facts. First of all I can’t believe how a person like you wish to turn all the people into vegetarians. You can’t even accept that even the dental formation of the human is created in such way to consume meat. I must not enter the discussion of veggies since although I may laugh at them I prefer to tolerate them. In some way or another I admire vegetarian friends as I see it impossible to go on without devouring meat products.The leading argument that you don’t seem to accept is here Mr.Cassar - the fact that there is no alternative solution for Spring hunting. Those like you should reveal their agenda of prohibiting hunting and as you surely may know, this is against social tolerance. It sounds unfamiliar how you are working against the killing of breeding parents and then would tolerate the shooting of the newborns!!!”

Let me start by remarking that one does not say “performing the usual escape” from facts. If anything, one should perhaps say “ignoring the facts”, or at most “escaping from the facts”. No wonder R. Spagnol does not seem to comprehend anything that I say. That said, he refrained from enlightening me as to how I am ignoring or escaping from facts, and what are the facts that I am “escaping from”.

R. Spagnol says he cannot understand how I can wish to turn everyone vegetarian. What’s so hard to understand? It doesn’t require a university degree for one to understand that someone who respects the life of all sentient individuals, would wish that no one exploits, or kills, any such sentient individual. Not rocket science at all, just common sense.

R. Spagnol mentions “dental formation” in support of eating meat. I will at once concede that our teeth are formed in a way as to enable us to eat both fruit, grains, and vegetables, as well as cooked meat. However, a moral person does not simply do something just because he or she can. It could be argued that males are generally speaking physically stronger that females. However, this does not justify the subjugation of females to males. I doubt that R. Spagnol would get the point, but its always worth a try. What matters is that our bodies are perfectly capable of obtaining good health from a vegan diet. This is all that matters. When R. Spagnol writes that he sees it impossible to go on without devouring meat products, he is only displaying his ignorance. He should seriously start reading some good books.

R. Spagnol says that he might laugh at vegetarians, but would prefer to tolerate them. Trust a semi-literate person to laugh at someone such as Albert Einstein, who was a vegetarian! Now that would be comical!

R. Spagnol says that what I don’t seem to accept is that there is no alternative to spring hunting. Actually, what R. Spagnol fails to see is that it is precisely because there is no adequate alternative to spring hunting that I support its abolition. If there were an adequate alternative, banning spring hunting would be a waste of time, as the same birds would be killed during another season.

My agenda, unlike what R. Spagnol thinks, is not hidden at all. My agenda is the elimination of all exploitation and murder of any sentient individual. I would rather believe that killing someone is less tolerant than a rational argument in support of a just cause.

R. Spagnol concludes his comment by saying that “it sounds unfamiliar how (I am) working against the killing of breeding parents and then would tolerate the shooting of the newborns!!!”.

Now this is truly hilarious. Let’s ignore the fact that I am not working against the killing of just “breeding parents”. But where did R. Spagnol get the ridiculous idea that I tolerate the shooting of newborns? Were it not for the fact that R. Spagnol has a serious problem with expressing himself, and were it not for the fact that R. Spagnol does not understand most of what I write in simple English, his last comment would be libellous. But then again, I’d rather laugh than waste my time in court.

Now, where shall I send my payment for the amusement these two kind hunters have provided the readers and listeners of this blog?