And so we will have a referendum on spring hunting on April 11. The reactions that followed the news last week revealed that the issue is not about dead birds but about how we, as a nation, share the civil space.

After the Constitutional Court upheld the petition, the Coalition Against Spring Hunting was jubilant, and not without good reason. A few steadfast activists managed to force a referendum on one of the most controversial political issues of the past decades.

But more striking was the press statement of the hunters’ federation, FKNK, which said the court decision threatened minority groups’ interests.

“The abrogative referendum is not about the legal practice of spring hunting. The Maltese people, all of whom form part of a minority group or other within the Maltese society, should be warned that, following the hunter, it will be their turn,” it said.

In other words, dear fellow citizen, if this referendum goes through, you’re screwed. For if ever the majority deems your pastime a nuisance and no longer fitting for society, signatures will be collected to elbow you out. Next time, it will be about boathouses in Armier, or fireworks, or forcing horse-drawn carriages off the streets.

The FKNK is right. The spring hunting referendum is about freedom not about birds. Their narrative reminded me of what happened in the United States two years ago.

The freedom narrative is much more powerful than a few dead birds

The massacre of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, at the hands of a deranged teenager, prompted the Obama administration to push for new gun laws across America. Essentially, the new laws would introduce background checks on anyone buying a gun while also limiting high-capacity magazines.

The momentum seemed right and it was hoped the measures would go some way to send the message that the schoolchildren had not died in vain. But the outcome was disastrous for the Administration.

The heavy lobbying by the powerful National Rifle Association gunned down the proposal in Congress and made sure the issue would not be touched again by politicians for a generation.

The NRA had successfully tapped into a powerful narrative that resonated well with gun owners. President Barack Obama’s gun control laws, they said, were the first step by the federal government to “take away their freedom”.

Without guns, Americans, for whom the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution, would not be able to defend themselves if they came under attack, perhaps even at the hand of their own government.

In a first instance, the reasoning sounds completely crazy to us Europeans. Yet, rest assured various reasonable Americans believe it and you will be surprised to learn the logic is not so far off from our own.

A recent vox pop by timesofmalta.com showed that the ‘next-time-it-might-be-me’ argument resonates very powerfully among the Maltese people. It is not difficult to see that if the pro-hunting lobby manages to package its message across properly, it stands a good chance of winning. That’s because the freedom narrative is much more powerful than a few dead birds.

The coalition faces an uphill struggle. Having come a long way, it will be a pity for them to lose the referendum because of a poor strategy. In this respect, the picture showing environmentalists holding Yes placards in front of the law courts – taken at a time when the referendum question was not yet known (it turns out voters choosing to abolish spring hunting will have to vote No) – is telling.

They need the right standard-bearers for their cause. Having the usual suspects from the environmental lobby fronting their cause may not help. They need new people who will lend their faces to the cause, even if, admittedly, those are difficult to come by.

Environmentalists will need to communicate in a lucid way. They could explain, for starters, that the referendum would abolish spring hunting, not hunting altogether. I, for one, am all for bird hunting in the autumn to be retained but will definitely be voting to end hunting in spring because it is clearly unsustainable.

Surely, there will be several undercurrents at play. We are likely to see a nationalist narrative at play with a great deal of EU bashing too.

The referendum could reveal new fissures across Maltese society, possibly consolidating further the divide between the liberal and more traditional factions.

One cannot discount the political dimension. The Prime Minister’s pronouncement that he will vote to retain spring hunting will definitely have an impact as will the leader of the Opposition’s decision to remain at arm’s length.

If voters decide that bird hunting should be limited to the autumn, hunters may well feel disenfranchised. But while a win in the referendum may or may not turn the FKNK into a beacon of minorities’ rights, it will surely fasten the hunters’ grasp on politicians for decades to come.

For the rest of us, spring hunting in Malta will become untouchable, much like guns in America. This is why the most powerful argument to abolish spring hunting is not about dead birds but about the danger that one group or another hijacks the civil space.