Submitted by ANIMAL RIGHTS MALTA’S BLOG

A quick read of some of the pro-hunting comments under The Times online’s news report, entitled “Hunters call for end to ‘hate’ campaign“, makes it clear that the task of convincing animal abusers to stop abusing (and killing) animals, is an uphill struggle.

The main difficulty seems to be either that those who gain pleasure from abusing non-human animals are reluctant to see the facts as they are, or that some of them actually lack the linguistic and logical ability to comprehend the animal rights arguments, or both, as is evidenced in some of the comments I am reproducing (and replying to) below. One may find more comments of mine as well as comments from others in The Times online’s article.

In reply to one of my posts, for instance, Sylvana Zarb Darmanin writes:

“Mr Cassar, one must realise that most of the human being’s practices might bother others at one time or another. It then depends on how tolerant one is. I am bothered by many behaviours and acts of other human-beings, as I am sure others are bothered by what I sometimes do. That is absolutely normal. If we are to live peacefully together, we have to put up with these things and respect all individuals.

Unfortunately, some people are all the time pointing fingers and tarnishing other people’s reputations. They would be wise to sit down and think of the many things they do which irritate people. Only then will they start showing respect and tolerance towards others”.

Of course, I agree that all practices will bother someone at one time or another. However, the (hunting) issue in question is not simply a case of “bother”, but a question of rights. I have no right to launch a campaign against people who wear a brown t-shirt, even if brown t-shirts bother me. However, when it is a question of gross violation of rights, things somewhat change drastically.

However, perhaps, even in cases of rights violations, generally one should not resort to violence or personal hate-campaigns (perhaps it should be pointed out that the only people who resorted to violence in the recent past are hunters, albeit a small minority), but we should limit ourselves to educational and awareness campaigns with the clear intent of convincing a majority - legislation might then, in time, follow. I can see this already, slowly but surely, happening.

One can be tolerant towards a person and intolerant towards a practice that violates rights. To tolerate injustice, however, is to perpetuate and compound injustice. When saying “If we are to live peacefully together, we have to put up with these things and respect all individuals”, Sylvana Zarb Darmanin is obviously leaving non-human animals out of the equation.

Regarding tarnishing reputations, I value truth. If truth shows a person to be in the wrong, it is that person’s actions that are tarnishing his or her own reputation. Hunters kill non-human animals. If by saying so, and thereby saying the truth, I am tarnishing their reputation, I wonder if Ms Zarb Darmanin believes I should lie, and say that hunters don’t kill non-human animals. If, on the other hand, this is not what Ms Zarb Darmanin expects from me, then is it perhaps possible that by claiming that I am tarnishing hunters’ reputations by saying that they kill non-human animals, she recognizes that unnecessarily killing non-human animals tarnishes one’s reputation, and therefore, if one sees the logic, hunting is wrong? But perhaps I am giving Ms Zarb Darmanin too much credit. Perhaps all Ms Zarb Darmanin means when complaining about tarnished reputations, is that hunters are above criticism.

Moral persons have an active duty to expose injustice, and I’ll keep on doing just that.

Then, following my reply, Ms Zarb Darmanin wrote:

“Don’t you think you are infringing on the rights of the law abiding hunter? This traditional pastime (hunting) is practised throughout the world. It seems that only the Maltese anti-hunting lobby are being so intolerant towards these hunters. As usual you are tarnishing the reputation of the law abiding hunter and I feel you have absolutely no right to do so. That is what call disrespect to the people around you. You may accuse law breakers, and I will join you in this, BUT placing all hunters in one basket and accusing them unjustifiably is definitely a shortcoming!

That is injustice indeed. Mr Cassar, it appears that my comments invariably hit home. This has been going on for years. Is it a case of la verita’ offende? (the truth hurts?)“.

Ms Zarb Darmanin’s reply raises further questions, such as: Is someone who opposes killing, infringing the rights of the killer, even in cases where the killing is done legally? Are people who oppose capital punishment infringing the rights of the executioner? Are people who oppose torture and killing conducted by dictatorial regimes infringing the rights of the dictators? I don’t think so.

That something is practiced throughout the world does not necessarily make it right. Human slavery was also once practiced throughout the world. We abolished it. If Ms Zarb Darmanin thinks that only the Maltese anti-hunting lobby opposes hunting, she needs to spend some time browsing some international abolitionist websites.

And, once again, how am I tarnishing the reputation of the law abiding hunter, when all I am saying is that hunters do not have the right to deprive innocent and sentient animals of their lives?

How does one tarnish reputations by saying the truth (that hunters kill birds)?

All hunters unnecessarily kill birds (or other animals). That is why I put them “in the same basket”. I only accuse them of killing birds, which is the truth. If they didn’t kill birds, they would not be hunters, and their reputations would not be tarnished.

In the meantime, Stef Zarb Darmanin (a relative of Sylvana perhaps?), writes:

“Although I am tolerant towards law-abiding hunters, I can understand that some people have different opinions. However I cannot comprehend why these people are defending birds and not other animals. Can you please enlighten me about the difference in the killing of birds, fish, cows, pigs, rabbits, chicken, and many other animals?

Finally, what about snails which people who enjoy the countryside often also enjoy destroying rubble walls in order to find? Incidentally, these poor snails are kept in captivity for quite a long time without any food, and then cooked alive!”.

I of course agree with Stef that there is no difference in the killing of birds, fish, cows, pigs, rabbits, chickens, snails and all other animals. However, BirdLife Malta (the organisation the original article is about) is not an abolitionist animal rights organization. That is why it deals principally and perhaps exclusively on issues regarding illegal hunting of birds. I, on the other hand, am an abolitionist animal rights campaigner, and thus I defend the interests and rights of all animals.

Strangely enough, if one is consistent in defending all animals, one is called an extremist. If, on the other hand, one is not morally consistent, and defends only some animals, one is criticized for being inconsistent. So apparently, the choice is between either being morally inconsistent or being seen as an “extremist”. I’d rather choose the latter, since justice requires moral consistency, and I am a strong believer in truth and justice. Hunters may keep complaining of “tarnished reputations”. My principal concern is not my own reputation, but that of saving lives. If someone sees saving lives as a “hate campaign”, perhaps they need some re-education.

Apologies for placing the picture of a hunter with a gun. I sincerely hope it does not tarnish the hunters’ reputations.

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