The controversy surrounding Question Time has highlighted a much wider problem in the debate over immigration: the growing tendency to treat an entire group of people as though they share responsibility for the actions of a few.
There is no excuse for violence at demonstrations. Throwing objects at police officers, attacking people or deliberately causing disorder should be condemned regardless of the political cause behind it. Protesters who commit offences should be held accountable for their individual actions.
But that principle works both ways.
People who attend peaceful demonstrations against illegal immigration should not automatically be described as extremists, racists or thugs simply because they oppose the Government’s migration policy.
That distinction matters because public concern about small boat crossings is not confined to one political party or one particular section of society.
The Channel crossings have become a mainstream political issue. Thousands of people have arrived in Britain after making dangerous journeys from France, while successive governments have struggled to find a solution capable of satisfying voters.
For residents living near hotels used to accommodate asylum seekers, the issue can feel particularly immediate.
The arrival of a large number of migrants in a relatively small community can generate questions about housing, public services, policing, local infrastructure and integration. Some residents may welcome new arrivals and others may strongly oppose the policy. Both groups have the right to express their views peacefully.
That is what democratic politics is supposed to allow.
The difficulty arises when legitimate political disagreement becomes mixed with intimidation or violence.
There is an important difference between standing outside a hotel holding a placard demanding that the Government change its asylum policy and attacking a police officer.
The first is political expression.
The second is a criminal offence.
Treating them as though they are the same risks pushing ordinary political debate towards the extremes.
That is particularly concerning when the subject is immigration, because emotions are already exceptionally high.
Small boat crossings combine questions about national borders, humanitarian responsibility, public spending, crime, housing and Britain’s relationship with international law. There are reasonable arguments on all sides.
Some people believe Britain has a moral obligation to provide protection to people fleeing war or persecution.
Others believe the current asylum system encourages dangerous journeys and leaves taxpayers carrying costs that should not exist.
Many people probably occupy a position somewhere between those two extremes.
A serious political programme should be capable of recognising that complexity.
Instead, television debates can sometimes reward the most provocative statement in the room.
That may generate headlines and social media engagement, but it does not necessarily improve public understanding.
The Question Time controversy is therefore about more than one remark. It raises questions about how political broadcasting handles deeply sensitive subjects.
The BBC has a particular responsibility because of its role as a public broadcaster.
Viewers do not necessarily expect every guest on a programme to agree with them. In fact, disagreement is one of the reasons political programmes exist.
But there is a difference between allowing controversial opinions and allowing one side of a political argument to be dismissed through personal insults.
People who are worried about illegal immigration are not necessarily motivated by hatred.
Some may be concerned about the cost of accommodation.
Others may be worried about the pressure on local services.
Some may believe that Britain’s borders should be controlled more strictly.
Others may have concerns about the security implications of large-scale irregular migration.
Those concerns should be challenged with evidence where necessary, but they should not simply be mocked.
At the same time, protesters have responsibilities of their own.
A demonstration does not become acceptable simply because the cause behind it is popular. Protesters cannot use anger about immigration as a justification for attacking police, threatening migrants or intimidating local residents.
The rule should be simple: peaceful protest is protected; criminal behaviour is not.
That standard should apply equally to demonstrations supporting migrants.
If an anti-migration protester assaults a police officer, they should face the consequences.
If someone attacks a migrant because of their nationality or perceived immigration status, they should face the consequences too.
If someone threatens a protester because they oppose the Government’s immigration policy, the same principle applies.
The law should not depend on which political side a person happens to support.
This is particularly important because public trust is already under pressure.
Many voters believe political institutions do not listen to their concerns. If those voters see their views dismissed as inherently racist or extremist, they may become even more alienated from mainstream politics.
That does not mean politicians should validate every claim made by protesters.
It means they should engage with the underlying questions.
How many people should Britain accept through the asylum system?
How quickly should asylum claims be processed?
What should happen to people whose claims are rejected?
How can the Government prevent criminal gangs from exploiting migrants?
How much should taxpayers spend on accommodation?
How should Britain cooperate with France and other European countries?
These are legitimate questions.
None of them becomes illegitimate because someone asking them happens to be angry.
The Government also has a responsibility to recognise the fears of people living in communities affected by migration policy.
If residents believe that large numbers of migrants are being placed in their town without sufficient consultation, ministers need to explain why.
If people are worried about crime, authorities need to provide accurate information rather than simply dismissing their concerns.
If the Government believes that migrants accommodated in a particular community pose no additional threat, it should be able to explain the evidence.
Equally, when individual migrants commit serious crimes, politicians should avoid turning those cases into evidence that every migrant is dangerous.
The same principle applies to British citizens. One criminal does not represent an entire population.
This is where responsible journalism should play an important role.
A serious political programme should challenge exaggeration from both sides.
It should expose misinformation about immigration while also questioning ministers when their policies fail.
It should allow people who are worried about migration to explain their concerns without automatically labelling them extremists.
And it should give migrants and asylum seekers an opportunity to explain their own experiences without presenting every criticism of the asylum system as racism.
That is a difficult balance.
But difficult does not mean impossible.
Britain has a long tradition of political argument, protest and disagreement. Some of the country’s most important political changes were achieved because ordinary people refused to remain silent.
The answer to an uncomfortable opinion should normally be another argument, not an insult.
That is why the reaction to the Question Time comments has become so significant.
People can reasonably condemn the protesters who crossed the line into violence. They can also reasonably object when peaceful opponents of current immigration policy are portrayed as though they are all violent extremists.
Both statements can be true at the same time.
The country does not need less debate about immigration.
It needs better debate.
The small boats crisis will not disappear because television guests trade insults. Nor will public anxiety disappear because politicians tell voters that their fears are illegitimate.
Likewise, migrants will not become safer because governments ignore the criminal gangs profiting from Channel crossings.
The solution requires serious discussion about borders, enforcement, asylum, international cooperation and integration.
Above all, it requires politicians and broadcasters to remember that behind the statistics are real people.
There are migrants risking their lives at sea.
There are police officers dealing with increasingly tense protests.
There are residents worried about changes to their communities.
There are taxpayers concerned about the cost.
And there are women and families who simply want to feel safe.
Reducing all of those people to labels does nothing to solve the problem.
If Question Time has learned anything from the latest controversy, it should be this: political debate can be passionate without becoming personal, and disagreement does not automatically make someone a thug.
Britain needs a conversation about immigration that is tougher, more honest and more balanced.
That means condemning violence wherever it comes from — while defending the right of ordinary citizens to question the Government’s policies without being ridiculed for doing so.