There is a fundamental difference between exercising the democratic right to protest and descending into intimidation, violence and public disorder. What happened in Portsmouth last weekend demonstrated that difference with disturbing clarity.
Police have released images of six men they want to speak to following an anti-migrant protest in the city during which officers were injured and police, coastguard and Border Force vehicles were damaged.
Around 200 protesters blocked roads for hours after a boat carrying approximately 140 migrants arrived at Eastney Marina. Officers eventually moved to disperse the crowd, with the operation continuing into the early hours of Monday morning.
Hampshire Police Assistant Chief Constable Tony Rowlinson was unequivocal: what happened was not peaceful protest but “violent public disorder”.
That distinction matters.
People have every right to hold strong opinions about immigration. They have the right to demonstrate, criticise government policy and demand political change. What they do not have is the right to assault police officers, damage vehicles, block roads or intimidate others.
Once a protest crosses that line, it ceases to be an exercise in democratic expression and becomes an attack on the very society its participants claim to be defending.
The Portsmouth disorder is particularly revealing because it follows similar scenes in Dover, where around 200 people were involved in an anti-migrant protest that caused significant disruption to traffic. Masked men were reported to have blocked roads leading to the port.
The wearing of a face covering is not, by itself, proof of criminality. Kent Police have correctly pointed that out. But there is an obvious difference between concealing your face while exercising a legitimate democratic right and concealing your identity while participating in criminal behaviour.
The far right has repeatedly attempted to portray itself as the defender of “law and order”. Yet when police officers themselves become targets of violence and public property is attacked, that rhetoric collapses under the weight of its own hypocrisy.
It is also worth remembering what triggered the Portsmouth protest: people fleeing their circumstances arriving in Britain after an exceptionally long Channel crossing.
They were met at sea by RNLI crews whose job is to save lives.
The RNLI does not decide who deserves rescue. It does not demand passports before pulling people from danger. It saves human beings.
That simple principle is precisely what the politics of hatred struggles to accommodate.
Britain can have a serious debate about immigration, asylum and border policy. It can argue about numbers, resources and government failures.
But smashing vehicles, injuring police officers and turning communities into battlegrounds is not political courage.
It is public disorder.
And it should be treated accordingly.
