Bebe, Elsie and Alice were just six, seven and nine. A Taylor Swift dance class sounds like the perfect summer holiday activity. For the three little girls, it became the nightmare beyond any parent’s most fearful imagining. Yet we were not allowed to focus on mourning the victims, as those who gathered at Southport’s large, peaceful vigil on Tuesday sought to do. Instead, the incomprehensible act of slaughter that claimed three young lives has triggered senseless reactions. First, riots and disorder targeted at a mosque in Southport. And, this weekend, there has been a concerted effort to spread ugly prejudices against migrants, Muslims and minorities around Britain. “If this is true, then all hell is going to break loose” was how false rumours about the perpetrator were introduced by one social media account that helped to send toxic and inflammatory misinformation viral: a fake Arabic name, an invented story about a Channel crossing last year to claim asylum, and an MI5 watchlist to complete a full set of incendiary details. It proved a self-fulfilling prophecy, bar one crucial detail. All hell was to break loose anyway, whether the story was true or false. The thoughtlessly naive and those just monetising clicks with AI-generated fake news sites became the unwitting allies of far-right actors with a lifelong commitment to mobilising people towards hatred. The ugly violence at the Southport mosque – replicated in Sunderland and threatened in communities across the country – was misdirected. But to focus on that may be to miss the point. That the named 17-year-old suspect turned out to be of Christian heritage does not mean that the mob should have been trying to smash church windows instead. There is a parallel, hypothetical universe where the fevered online assumptions might have aligned with the facts of a shocking murder. Even in such a universe, any attempt to “retaliate” by finding asylum seekers or Muslims to punish would remain hateful acts fuelled by prejudice. In polarised times, we should be able to agree on some basic foundations. Terms like “far right” sometimes get thrown around too loosely. But if such things as targeting religious minorities with violence, and injuring the police if they get in the way, are not legitimately defined as far right, then nothing is. It should always be legitimate to debate or critique the ideas of any faith and any political creed – but it is never acceptable to direct violence against churches, synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras, nor to attack people on the grounds of their faith, or their lack of faith. My golden rule for policing boundaries on hatred, extremism and prejudice effectively is this: always say what must be permitted as legitimate speech, before showing what must be excluded. To strengthen the common ground, the liberal left and the Labour government should counter perceptions that it closes down debate too quickly. Scrutiny of contested issues – including policing, immigration or integration – must be part of democratic debate, while insisting that hatred, violence and extremism merit no respect. Those on the socially conservative right who do not unequivocally condemn hatred and violence against the police and minority groups, fail to show they seek to protect legitimate politics and protest rather than prejudice. How dangerous a moment could this be? Images of riots and disorder are not the social norm, yet Britain is much more anxious and divided than any of us would want. There is a deep shift against prejudice, towards more meaningful contact across the generations that even the most malevolent actors will struggle to reverse. But it would be complacent to rely on this coming good in the end. The story of community – reflected in Southport coming together to clean up the town the morning after – struggles to compete with the volatility of shocking events. It is in the nature of integration to be invisible when it works. Failures stick out and shock us. The intuitive response by some to this terrible crime – compared with other examples of child murders, like that of James Bulger – suggest that a multi-ethnic Britain is still considered by many to be a postwar multicultural experiment rather than a settled reality. More pressure is needed on the social media giants. Five years ago, the major platforms were shocked by the Christchurch mosque massacre in New Zealand into taking more seriously the real-world consequences of online hate. There was significant progress – on rules and standards and setting boundaries against hatred. That has gone into reverse. Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter (now called X) saw a commitment to once again providing a voice for groups dedicated to hatred and violence – such as Patriotic Alternative and Britain First. At the same time, the capacity for staff at Twitter to respond in real time during an emergency was cut. Action against social media platforms is unlikely without clearer threats of intervention – from national regulation or multilateral coalitions. The Southport disorder illustrates how anti-Muslim hatred has a broader reach than most other forms of racism and prejudice in Britain, alongside racism against those of a Roma and Traveller background. A vacuum exists where government policy should be. The new government inherits no working definition of anti-Muslim prejudice, no independent adviser to lead the work, nor any sustained forum of engagement with civic society. So there should be an opportunity to level up approaches to all forms of hatred and prejudice, including mutual solidarity with those working to tackle antisemitism, anti-Muslim prejudice and other forms of racial and religious hatred, to promote a common ethos of protecting for others the rights we seek for ourselves. The most effective way to deal with questions of Muslim identity, integration and prejudice is to articulate the foundational principles for common citizenship in a society of many faiths and none, and to show how to apply those equitably across all groups. This could be a hot and dangerous summer. The immediate battle the government faces is to take back control of the streets and rebuild confidence in effective policing. That should not distract from the long-term task of forging closer and better connected communities, which in turn offers the strongest antidote to every form of extremism. These ugly scenes are generating a false narrative from voices on the populist right. “What did you expect?” they ask, mistaking angry mobs and the online bubbles of the rightwing ecosystem for authentic public sentiment. This offer to talk us into a crisis of social collapse has only a narrow appeal. But it should not be countered by government alone. How the rest of us talk and act can make a difference. Every civic act of goodwill, no matter how small – in schools and workplaces, and reaching out to the local mosque – can help restore a grounded confidence in the Britain that most of us want. Sunder Katwala is director of British Future and author of How to be a Patriot