The Right to Protest vs Acts of Hate: Reflecting on Southport 

By Mel Stevens, CfGS Chief Executive and Antony Mullen, CfGS Research and Impact Manager

In any healthy democracy, the right to protest is fundamental—it’s a powerful way for citizens to express dissent, influence change, and hold power to account. However, the recent riots in Southport were not a legitimate expression of democratic rights; they were an eruption of violence fuelled by hatred, division, and a toxic political discourse that has been stoked in some quarters over many years—often with the tacit or overt support of mainstream media. This discourse, which scapegoats minority communities, has been allowed to fester and grow, distracting from the real issues affecting people’s lives, such as the deep and lasting impact of austerity. 

While democracy thrives on the expression of diverse opinions, it also depends on the rule of law, which serves as a cornerstone in protecting the rights and safety of all citizens. These riots, marked by acts of thuggery and hate, crossed far beyond the boundaries of acceptable protest.  

The post-Southport protests posed a challenge to local government and to police services across the country. The organisation and mobilisation of protesters via social media proved to be a particular challenge, with encrypted messaging services like Telegram enabling groups to coordinate their activity in secrecy before promoting – with relatively short notice – meeting dates and locations via Facebook and X. 

A consequence of the hidden coordination is a challenge for the police, in that the riots had to occur before the police were able to assess how many people would be involved and what kind of behaviour they would display.  

But there is also a secondary reason why this mode of communication poses a challenge to local leaders: as we saw after the first round of riots, the threat of a second wave was promoted on social media – and, though many of these did not take place, businesses and healthcare providers had nonetheless closed in anticipation of trouble. Local authorities geared up for, and allocated time and resources to events that did not take place. The threat, as well as the reality, is something that Councils also need to learn to assess and prepare for. 

Some figures in local government have suggested that that the police need to be better empowered to mobilise at short notice and perhaps to be able to access encrypted messages by the back door. This will open up debates about individual liberty and privacy versus the tools required to safeguard communities. 

The events in Southport and elsewhere remind us that while protest is an essential component of democratic life, it must be exercised responsibly and within the bounds of the law. The recent riots were not legitimate expressions of political dissent; they were acts of hate and violence that have no place in our society. As a community, we must stand firm against such actions, recognizing them for what they are—attacks on the very foundations of democracy and social cohesion. It is essential that local governments and police forces are equipped to respond to these threats swiftly and effectively. However, any measures taken must be balanced with a commitment to safeguarding both individual freedoms and the public order. 

To move forward, we must craft and promote alternative narratives that address the genuine grievances of our society, with leaders who take responsibility for healing divisions rather than exploiting them.  It is through this delicate balance that we can ensure our society remains both free and safe, protecting the democratic rights of all citizens while upholding the rule of law that binds us together.