Submitted by ANIMAL RIGHTS MALTA’S BLOG

David Borg Cardona writes another of his series of pro-hunting letters. I shall not reproduce it in full, only because most of it has nothing of interest to animal rights advocates and campaigners. The complete letter, entitled “The rationality of hunting”, may be read in The Times.

However, some of what he wrote merited a reply, something that I did in the comments section of The Times online, which in turn produced some other replies from hunters and their few sympathizers.

I’ll leave it up to you, dear reader, to judge on their merits, after you read the excerpt from Mr Borg Cardona’s letter, my reply, the comments by the hunters and hunting sympathizers, and my further replies to their comments.

Mr Borg Cardona writes:

“From the start, I must make clear that this is not a plea for compassion, though some will deny it, but a call for rationality…Gone are those April days when on seeing the game bag slung across your shoulder, the neighbour would inquire about your catch, or at times ask you for “żewġ gamiem għal brodu” (a brace of turtle doves for broth). Spring hunting was taken for granted and accepted as part of life in spring.

But all of us are now portrayed as camo-clad gunmen, and branded as killing machines…

I was brought up to appreciate and nurture hunting as a way of life. It is in fact an integral part of my life and of all those who like me, are real hunters. And hunting is partly what makes us agreeable humans. Those who try to restrict, or worse, to abolish hunting, are acting against our humanity, and that is something I and my fellow hunters will never, repeat never, tolerate or accept”.

It is ironic that Mr Borg Cardona mentions compassion in his first sentence, when he shows no compassion for the birds he kills.

Mr Borg Cardona writes that “gone are those April days when on seeing the game bag slung across your shoulder, the neighbour would inquire about your catch, or at times ask you for “żewġ gamiem għal brodu” (a brace of turtle doves for broth). Spring hunting was taken for granted and accepted as part of life in spring”.

Yes, dear Mr Borg Cardona. Thankfully, gone are those days. Many people are coming to see hunting as it really is - unnecessary slaughter.

Mr Borg Cardona concludes his letter by writing:

“And hunting is partly what makes us agreeable humans. Those who try to restrict, or worse, to abolish hunting, are acting against our humanity, and that is something I and my fellow hunters will never, repeat never, tolerate or accept”.

I honestly would like to know how hunting partly makes one an agreeable human. Does this mean that those who do not hunt are less agreeable humans?

As for his claim that he will not tolerate those who are acting “against his humanity”, (does his humanity really rest on being able to hunt? - Will he lose his humanity if he does not hunt?), I thank him for letting us know that he will not tolerate the democratic right to oppose hunting and work for its abolition.

I personally not only tolerate, but respect his right to lobby on behalf of his outdated “tradition”. His concluding sentence, however, shows that his letter, far from being about the rationality of hunting, is actually about the irrationality of hunting (or hunters).

And, incidentally, how will he go about not tolerating those who want hunting to be abolished? If he means by replying to letters with counter-arguments, to me that does not involve not tolerating abolitionists. But if it is not this, it would be interesting to know what he means exactly.

Meanwhile, a certain D. Cachia writes:

“As for Kenneth Cassar, why does hunting lack compassion towards non-human animals, as you insist on calling them? I think the bird’s mother will surely miss her son, or the bird will miss going to bird University because a heartless hunter shot him. Boo hoo hoo. Maybe they should start wearing bullet proof vests, and then they wouldn’t have any problems! If this seems exaggerated and farfetched to you, please realise that this is the only logical conclusion of your attempt to humanize birds”.

First of all, I insist on calling non-human animals “non-human animals” just for the simple fact that they are non-human animals. It’s not too puzzling at all.

Why does hunting lack compassion towards non-human animals? Simple. It is for the same reason that would make me lack compassion if I decided to shoot an innocent human being just for pleasure.

As for “humanizing” birds, I am doing nothing of the sort. But if D. Cachia takes some time off killing non-human animals and starts reading some good books on evolutionary biology and zoology, (nothing to do with zoos, by the way), he or she would learn that all sentient and conscious beings (who have a brain and nervous system) care about their own life (a life that D. Cachia chooses to violently end for them) and would rather live than die, given the choice.
And why mention “bird university”? Does this mean only intelligent humans have the right to life?

Meanwhile, M. Cardona writes:

“To the abolitionists I dare ask; why only here in Malta and not everywhere else in the EU? Is the local practice of such an encompassing magnitude and effecting global avian populations? My appeal is seeking a truthful and unbiased answer. Then and only then may you some day come to the realisation that the local efforts with foreign intrusion are just that; misplaced and counterproductive efforts as regards global protection of a species, when the same efforts could with the co-operation of the hunting fraternity, yield better protection for those species really in need!”.

So M. Cardona asks abolitionists “why only here in Malta and not everywhere else in the EU? Is the local practice of such an encompassing magnitude and effecting global avian populations?”.

M. Cardona’s first question is presumptuous, and assumes that we do not care about the killing of birds (or other animals) outside of Malta. But since we live in Malta, we think globally and act locally.

As for the second question, it shows that M. Cardona has no idea on what it means to be an abolitionist. An abolitionist opposes any and all exploitation and killing of any animal (human or non-human). Therefore, M. Cardona’s question on whether local hunting effects global avian populations makes as much sense to an abolitionist animal rights advocate as much as the question of whether killing a single black child effects the black population, makes sense to an anti-racist one.

Finally, Sylvana Zarb Darmanin writes:

“Mr. Cassar, you seem an expert on compassion - is this the type you show towards hunters and the pro-hunting individuals? Intollerance, vindictiveness and infliction of mental violence are bad traits in a human being. Unfortunately these bad traits are all existent in the anti-hunting individuals and their foreign masters. Group up and learn to co-exist with others who hold different views”.

So Ms Zarb Darmanin tells me that I “seem an expert on compassion”. Perhaps I am. In any case, I am certainly more compassionate than hunters. I live a lifestyle that is totally free of purposeful killing of any sentient being. If she does not call that compassion, she may as well suit herself.

Regarding showing compassion to hunters, I do not harm hunters in any way. I only campaign for the abolition of a practice, (or practices) that harms to a much greater degree, (kills and exploits), than any abolition of a hobby could do. That hunters enjoy hunting does not make me uncompassionate just because I would want to stop them from hunting, just as that thieves enjoy stealing does not make me uncompassionate if I don’t allow them to steal from me or others.

As for intolerance, vindictiveness and mental violence, I can only say the following:

I am certainly not vindictive. I do not care about what people do, unless what they do harms innocents.

Regarding mental violence, I am only voicing my opinions. If they have the desired effect, it could only mean that I am making sense and that many people are agreeing with me. If not, then what makes no effect cannot be mental violence anyway.

Regarding intolerance, I am all for freedom of speech (which includes hunters’ freedom of speech), which is not what could be said of David Borg Cardona, who says that “Those who try to restrict, or worse, to abolish hunting, are acting against (his) humanity, and that is something (he) and (his) fellow hunters will never, repeat never, tolerate or accept”.

So who’s intolerant?

As for co-existing with others who hold different views, that is precisely what I do on a daily basis. I expect others with different or opposite views to do likewise. I do not make laws. I can only seek to influence those who make the laws. Others have the same right. This is what we call democracy.

Of course, people addicted to killing will still call what I write, “mental violence”, just as people addicted to stealing will find their possible arrest unfair. And just in case someone says that my analogy is unfair, since hunters do not necessarily steal, my reply would be that they actually steal the most valuable thing from others: life itself.

Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.