Anyone’s right to swing their fist ends where someone else’s face begins

Recent statistics about illegal hunting incidents tracked by voluntary conservation groups have brought the need for greater environmental protection and tougher enforcement into sharper focus.

BirdLife Malta’s latest statement cites over 242 illegal hunting incidents in less than a month. Seventy-two per cent of these incidents involved the use of illegal bird callers.

Every single year, the conservation NGO continues to flag widespread illegalities and little to no active enforcement from the police, reporting that the corps’ average response time stood at a staggering 51 minutes throughout the early weeks of hunting season.

The Nationalist Party has been trying to introduce a constitutional amendment which would effectively make the government liable for environmental human rights violations for over two years now.

Opposition Leader Alex Borg followed up on his predecessor’s promise to present this constitutional amendment in Parliament, marking a rare moment in which environmental NGOs and the PN were in agreement over an environmental issue.

While enshrining the right to protect one’s environment in the highest law of the land does help with holding authorities accountable, it is certainly no panacea for a broken planning system, nor is it a replacement for an unreliable land registry.

The problem is compounded by the simple fact that not everyone has the means or the know-how to file a constitutional court case, not to mention the agonisingly slow pace of Malta’s justice system.

Having said that, the environment does urgently need all the protection that can be afforded to it: It is everyone’s shared responsibility to safeguard it, and anyone who harms the environment is, by any definition, harming everyone around them.

Politically speaking, it is a clever gambit. It is not an outright condemnation of the wealthy developers who reserve the bulk of responsibility for environmental degradation in the country, but it is just enough to make getting away with it more difficult.

Predictably, the government was caught on the back foot, pulling out all the stops to poke holes in the opposition’s narrative while glossing over the fact that the government’s environmental policies have wreaked havoc on Malta’s landscapes.

In a transparent attempt at turning the issue on its head while fishing for votes, Prime Minister Robert Abela evoked themes that were popularised by the hunting lobby’s campaign during the spring hunting referendum.

Sprinkling in a dose of racism to really drive the point home, the prime minister claimed that, with the PN’s proposed amendment, any random foreigner who is bothered by the local feast could theoretically sue the government and bring the tradition to a halt if the court rules in their favour.

Abela said: “The PN’s motion threatened all hobbyists, but we were there to stop them; we tell them hands off our hunters, our footballers, our shooting and festa enthusiasts.”

Right on cue, FKNK – Malta’s biggest hunting lobby – was among the first to issue a lengthy press release rubbishing the PN’s proposal, describing it as “totally unacceptable” and claiming that it is “draconian” and that “it has no place in a civil democracy.”

What stands out from all this is that the government and entities like FKNK are tacitly admitting that they know that the so-called hobbies which they wish to protect cause environmental harm that is currently not being addressed, and that they seek to keep the status quo for as long as possible.

If the right to the environment were constitutionally enforceable, it is plausible to argue that the government could be held liable for failing to ensure sufficient resources to continuously monitor illegalities and prosecute offenders.

As unpopular as that may be with lobby groups who got used to having things go their way, the reality is that an environmentally devastating practice isn’t just a hobby, but a threat to everyone’s well-being.

The saddest aspect of this whole debate is that both party leaders are deliberately missing the woods for the trees.

While Alex Borg is seeking to polish his environmental credentials after several clashes with major NGOs, Robert Abela co-opted an old slogan and doubled down on it.

To date, neither of them has presented a credible vision to directly address rampant over-development and hold rogue contractors accountable.

When your country looks and feels like a 24/7 construction site, a Constitutional amendment is just a wobbly first step in a very long journey.