Free Speech, Fear and Listening: Who Really Gets Heard?

Earlier this month, thousands gathered in London to march for “free speech.” At first glance, it might seem like a worthy cause. After all, who doesn’t want the right to speak their mind? But here in the UK, free speech is already protected by law. Article 10 of the Human Rights Act enshrines it, and frameworks such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child go further by emphasising the importance of young people having a say in decisions that affect them.

So, if the right already exists, what is driving people to take to the streets?

The law and the lived reality

While our rights may be protected on paper, in practice not all voices carry equally. People with confidence, education, money, or status often find it easier to be heard. They can navigate local consultations, attend council meetings, or write persuasive letters. For others, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, these platforms can feel alien, inaccessible, or simply irrelevant to everyday struggles.

Data from sources including the ONS’s Community Life Survey show that civic participation is lower in more deprived areas. For example, adults in the most deprived decile report around 27% participation in civic activity in 2023/24, versus about 36% in the least deprived decile; and those in higher managerial and professional occupations have participation rates much higher than those in routine/manual occupations. These disparities underline that while rights exist, structural inequalities affect who uses them.

When people feel disconnected from the systems that claim to represent them, apathy can set in. And when apathy hardens into frustration, it is easier to be drawn toward louder, more polarised movements.

Fear as the hidden driver

In a recent Radio 2 programme, a guest on Jeremy Vine’s show made a vital point. Both sides of many arguments are often trying to silence the other. But underneath that noise is a common fear — each side fears for a future they believe is slipping away. One group may fear an erosion of tradition, identity or cultural norms; another may fear the erosion of rights, equality, or safety. Both fears are valid, even when people express them in ways others find worrying.

This is why it helps to remember that there are always three sides to every story: one version, the opposing version, and the truth. That truth usually lies in the facts themselves, but it also lies in our ability to hear the underlying concerns that drive people’s attachment to a particular stance.

So, here are some facts...

Background: Recent Marches, Counter-Protests and Campaigns

Unite the Kingdom (13 September 2025, London)

• Organised by far-right activist Tommy Robinson (Stephen Yaxley-Lennon).

• Attendance estimated at over 100,000 people.

• Metropolitan Police reported around 25 arrests and 26 officers injured in clashes.

• Stated purpose and messaging: the march was billed as a “demonstration for free speech,” and was framed by organisers and attendees as defending British heritage and national identity. Protesters waved Union Jacks and St George’s Crosses, some wearing “Make America Great Again” hats.

• Key messages and chants heard: opposition to immigration, with chants such as “send them home.” Some participants expressed views like, “We want our country back, we want our free speech back on track.”

• Political commentators later suggested that the scale of the turnout was a “klaxon call” for government to take public concern over immigration more seriously.

Stand Up to Racism / March Against Fascism (Counter-protest, same day)

• A counter-protest organised by a coalition of unions, community groups, students, and anti-racism campaigners.

• Estimated attendance: around 5,000 people.

• Stated purpose and messaging: organisers described their demonstration as standing for “justice, equality, and solidarity in the face of hate.” The aim was to oppose the far right, challenge xenophobia, and prevent divisive rhetoric from spreading.

• Trade unions in particular urged their members to attend, stating that working-class communities must not be divided by racism. Placards and banners emphasised anti-racist solidarity rather than reactive opposition.

Operation Raise the Colours & Symbolic Flag Campaigns

• A broader patriotic campaign encouraging public displays of national flags, especially the Union Jack and St George’s Cross.

• Actions include attaching flags to lamp posts and painting mini-roundabouts.

• Supporters say it is about patriotism and national pride, a positive celebration of British identity.

• Critics, including anti-racism groups, argue it risks being co-opted as far-right symbolism, intimidates minority groups, or fuels social tension. Some of the displays have been painted without permission; in Birmingham, roundabouts were later over-painted with messages like “LOVE ALL STOP HATE.”

Media and framing

• Coverage varied across outlets. The Guardian focused on the links between Tommy Robinson, anti-immigration rhetoric, and far-right mobilisation.

• Reuters and ABC News highlighted both the scale of the march and the violence between protesters and police, often framing it as more than simply a “free speech” issue.

• Trade union communications and left-leaning platforms framed the counter-protests as proactive defence of equal rights.

• Some media sought to remain neutral, presenting the rally as an indicator of wider public anxiety about immigration and cultural change, without explicitly supporting one narrative over the other.

Whose voices are amplified?

The Unite the Kingdom marchers demanded the right to speak. Yet the paradox is that those same people may already have louder platforms than others who seldom get heard. As a friend thoughtfully reflected after the marches, there is also an irony in some of these voices calling for greater volume while supporting ideologies that would restrict or silence the voices of those who are already less privileged.

These concerns are reflected in civic participation data: in 2023/24 only around a quarter of adults in the most deprived decile took part in civic activity at least once in the previous year, compared with over a third in less deprived areas. Occupation and socio-economic class also show gaps — those in higher managerial and professional roles are much more likely to engage. While not direct proof of who was at the marches, this data shows who tends to be heard more.

A young person in care, a family struggling on a low income, or a refugee in a new country may not use formal civic channels — not because they don’t want to be involved, but because they might not know those channels exist; because they feel intimidated by opposing views; because the process seems inaccessible; or because they believe their participation won’t change anything.

These barriers are recognised in civic research:

Mental wellbeing is tightly bound to whether we feel heard. Being silenced or ignored corrodes confidence and breeds resentment. By contrast, being included in dialogue can build resilience, strengthen communities, and reduce the temptation to retreat into fear-driven movements.

The quieter opportunities we overlook

We often forget that there are everyday platforms where voices can make a difference. Voting, taking part in community forums, joining consultations, or volunteering locally may not feel as dramatic as marching through the capital, but they are tangible ways to be heard. They also bring the benefit of dialogue rather than division.

If you have ever attended a council Q&A session or been part of a consultation on local services, you will know the process is not perfect. Yet these are real opportunities to shape outcomes. The louder we demand change from the side lines, the easier it is to miss the quieter spaces where genuine influence is possible.

From noise to hope

The challenge for all of us is to resist the temptation to shout down those we disagree with. Instead, we might ask: what fear is driving their position, and how can it be understood? Listening does not mean agreeing, and it certainly does not mean excusing harmful behaviour. But it does mean looking for the humanity in the person across the divide.

Free speech in the UK is not under threat. What is fragile is our willingness to listen. Hope grows not through tearing down the voices of others but through building systems and communities where more people feel included.

So perhaps the real question is this: where in your own community might your voice make a difference, if you chose to use it?

If you are affected by any of the content above, or want to talk to someone about your own fears, judgements, or abilities to hear and understand opposing opinions, please feel free to reach out to Happy Citta for a chat.