Gay railway station volunteer banned over gender-critical views
A gay volunteer was banned from a railway group after expressing his gender-critical views on email and social media.
Matthew Toomer, 48, was thrown out of West Midlands Railway's 'Adopt a Station' scheme after he privately contacted company bosses to express concern about its 'Progress Pride' train.
WMR rebranded one of its trains last summer with a 'rainbow diamond motif' that bares similarities to the Progress Pride flag, which features a yellow diamond. It was also named 'Hurst Street' after the Birmingham road at the centre of the city's Gay Village.
Mr Toomer commented on a social media post about the rebranded train, asking if it would 'return to its natural state once the event is over'.
In response, he was summoned to a meeting and told that his views 'do not align with [WMR's] values and mission'. He was banned from the Redditch station volunteer group.
Mr Toomer said: 'As a gay man myself, I want to stress that this wasn't about objecting to visibility. My concern was the increasing tendency of public transport organisations to take visible positions on divisive issues.
'The Progress Pride flag has become associated with particular ideological stances – particularly around gender – which not everyone, including many within the LGB community, fully endorse.
'My position was simply that public services should remain neutral and welcoming to everyone.'
The new train was named 'Hurst Street' ahead of Birmingham Pride last summer - West Midlands Trains
The Free Speech Union (FSU), which represents the volunteer, has written to the rail operator to warn it that punishing Mr Toomer in this way 'unjustifiably restricts his freedom of expression, and that it is contrary to WMR's stated values of diversity, equality and inclusion'.
Rebekah Brown, a case officer at the FSU, called on the train company to 'apologise for this vindictive decision and reinstate him'.
Instead a spokesman claimed to The Telegraph that Mr Toomer's social media activity in general 'felt problematic'.
The WMR spokesman said: 'Our company has a proud culture of inclusion and allyship.
'We believe the views Mr Toomer has expressed on social media on a range of subjects are at odds with these values and could be harmful or offensive to our colleagues, customers or other volunteers.
'We have therefore asked that Mr Toomer no longer volunteers on behalf of West Midlands Railway.'
When asked to point out examples of allegedly 'problematic' posts by Mr Toomer, the spokesman failed to do so.
'Majority of WMR customers will agree with Mr Toomer'
Ms Brown, the FSU case officer, said: 'WMR should focus on delivering a working service for their passengers, not compelling every volunteer to be a fellow traveller for corporate wokery.
'I expect the vast majority of West Midland's Railway's customers will agree with Mr Toomer, not with WMR's enforced ideological orthodoxy.
'A train company has no business acting as the arbiter of permissible opinion for volunteers, with these chilling consequences for individuals' freedom of speech in their daily lives.'
Train companies' efforts to align themselves with political ideologies have caused a number of controversies.
Last year Government-owned LNER prompted outrage after a senior manager trawled through a passenger's social media account to find material to justify refusing to answer her questions about the cost of a similar Pride train rebrand.
Similarly, Avanti West Coast triggered a row after a racial diversity-themed 'wrapping' of one of its trains.
Unlike the well-known rainbow Gay Pride flag, the Progress Pride flag is associated with the pro-transgender political movement.
This campaigns for the view that men who wish to call themselves women – that is, changing their gender to become trans women – must be treated as if they had been born female.
This political stance was dealt a fatal blow by the Supreme Court a few weeks ago when the country's most senior judges ruled that such trans women are not women, and are therefore not allowed to use women's facilities such as public toilets and changing rooms.
Securing lawful access to such areas is a key focus of pro-transgender campaigners and lobbyists.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
In Tallahassee town hall, progressives talk of concerns over TMH sale talks
A panel of Democrats, including the progressive wing of local elected officials and the county commission's longest-serving member, gathered in a "town hall" to ruminate on the future of Tallahassee Memorial Healthcare. A small crowd of about 30 people braved a downpour the evening of June 5 to listen to Tallahassee City Commissioners Jeremy Matlow and Jack Porter and Leon County Commissioners David O'Keefe and Bill Proctor, with Leon County Democratic Party chair Ryan Ray moderating. Ray is also Matlow's commission aide. After city leaders recently signaled they might consider a sale of TMH and all its assets, Florida State University immediately made its interest in purchasing the hospital known, hoping to put it under the FSU Health umbrella and get one step closer to creating an academic medical center. The possibility of the sale of the community-owned hospital has many displeased: "What we're looking at is a few hot headed men, some at Florida State, some at the City of Tallahassee, (who are) in a power struggle to meet their individual goals," Matlow told the audience at the American Legion hall at Lake Ella. "... What we're trying to say is, we need to be having a broader conversation about community goals, because what we would like to do is work with Florida State to see how we can expand academic medicine in our community," he added. The town hall was the latest in an ongoing citywide debate, sparked by a city commission agenda item that in part said "... staff will also explore the feasibility and potential advantages of a possible sale of the property, considering all available options and approaches." After the agenda item, FSU dropped a letter declaring interest in seeing TMH become an academic medical center, commonly referred to as a "teaching hospital," presumably under the FSU Health banner. For his part, Ray said he invited others from City Hall, TMH and FSU to join the forum. They didn't show. O'Keefe likened the TMH/City/FSU drama to a family argument among elected officials: "If we have a major issue with a family member, doesn't mean we throw them out. We agree with them on one thing; we don't agree with another. But that doesn't mean we just give up and do everything that 'Uncle FSU' wants to do." One person in the audience asked Porter which city commissioners voted to put up TMH for sale. She quickly provided clarification. "Technically, the hospital is not for sale," she said. "As far as I know, part of the problem with this process is that a lot of it has been happening behind the scenes without commissioners' or the public's awareness. "But that has not come to us for a vote, to initiate a sale, though it does seem that those conversations have been happening behind the scenes between the city, the city manager and the mayor and FSU," she added. City Manager Reese Goad wasn't immediately available for comment. Proctor, first elected in 1996 to represent the county's south-side District 1, suggested that if the discussion does go the way of a teaching hospital, FAMU should be included as well. So far, a partnership among the three entities hasn't been brought up. Discussion wound up veering in different directions later in the town hall, encompassing goings-on in state government, the new Florida A&M president-elect, even Blueprint's portion of funds for the remodeling of Doak Campbell Stadium to be finished this summer. And while a TMH discussion is not on the agenda, the city commission is still scheduled to meet June 11 at City Hall. This story contains previously published material. Arianna Otero is the trending and breaking news reporter for the Tallahassee Democrat. Contact her via email at AOtero@ and follow her on X: @ari_v_otero. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: 'Uncle FSU' and TMH: Local Democrats resist idea of hospital takeover
Miami Herald
a day ago
- Miami Herald
FSU students have plan to prevent campus shootings — after all, they lived through one
On April 17, 2025, a gunman entered the campus of Florida State University in Tallahassee — our campus — killing two people and injuring six others. Phoenix Ikner, 20, an FSU undergraduate student from Tallahassee, is being charged with the murder of Coach Robert Morales— a local legend who coached high school football and had ties to Miami — and Tiru Chabba, a South Carolinian food service executive visiting FSU for work. A lack of gun control didn't directly cause this tragedy. Ikner used firearms that legally belonged to his parents; his stepmother is a Leon County Sheriff's deputy. While there is no single solution to prevent gun violence, a group of FSU students has developed a three-part proposal to mitigate the risk of school shootings on college campuses. We propose three legislative acts: the ACCESS Act, the ARMOR Act and the AGENT Act. ▪ The ACCESS Act addresses a long-standing issue for college students — access to mental health resources. College students are an especially vulnerable group when it comes to mental health. This act would create the Office of Mental Health Services to provide oversight and coordinate mental health resources across Florida's public university system. It would fund the hiring of more licensed mental health practitioners and train existing staff on specialized care. A portion of services would be provided by licensed professionals, with support from graduate students earning clinical hours. Of course, counseling alone cannot prevent all forms of gun violence. ▪ The ARMOR Act is designed to ensure that every classroom door on Florida's 110 public college campuses can be locked from the inside during an emergency. This simple yet crucial infrastructure upgrade could save lives by buying time during active shooter events. ▪ The AGENT Act is a more controversial but, we believe, necessary measure. It gives students the right to protect themselves from armed threats, like the one we faced in April. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Gun-Free School Zones Act to curb campus violence. However, in practice, this designation has turned campuses into soft targets — spaces where law-abiding citizens cannot respond to threats. The AGENT Act in accordance with federal statute, would permit campus carry of guns in Florida under tightly controlled conditions. It would not simply follow Florida's constitutional carry law. Instead, the AGENT Act would require a concealed carry weapons (CCW) permit, which involves a live-fire proficiency test. To carry on campus, students and staff would have to pass this test annually and undergo regular mental health check-ins through the new Office of Mental Health Services or an equivalent body on private campuses. Our bill is modeled on elements from Georgia and West Virginia's campus carry laws and includes important limitations. For instance, weapons would not be allowed in on-campus daycares to eliminate risks to infants and children. Similarly, areas with 'adequate security measures'— meaning locations with electronic screening and armed staff— would be exempt from carry permissions, as those spaces already have built-in protections. By combining mental health investment, safety-focused infrastructure upgrades and regulated campus carry, we believe Florida can make meaningful progress in protecting students. We, the students behind this proposal, urge the Florida Legislature to act. We also call on the public to demand meaningful change from their elected officials. We are looking for legislative sponsors and are meeting with Florida representatives and senators. Together, we can turn a tragic moment into a lasting transformation that protects the future of our state — and its students. Reid Seybold is pursuing a bachelor's degree in political science at FSU. Noah Brown is pursuing a master's degree in applied American politics. They can be reached at: TheAAASolution@
Epoch Times
3 days ago
- Epoch Times
Man Convicted Over Koran-Burning in London Says Ruling Is Assault on Free Speech
A man who burned a Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London has branded his prosecution 'an assault on free speech' as campaigners argued the ruling 'signals a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes.' Hamit Coskun was found guilty on Monday of a religiously aggravated public order offence, having shouted '[Expletive] Islam,' 'Islam is religion of terrorism,' and 'Koran is burning' while holding the flaming religious text aloft earlier this year. The 50-year-old had argued his criticism was of Islam in general rather than its followers, but District Judge John McGarva said he could not accept this, finding that Coskun's actions were 'highly provocative' and that he was 'motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims.' Coskun was convicted at Westminster Magistrates' Court of a religiously aggravated public order offence of using disorderly behaviour 'within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress,' motivated by 'hostility towards members of a religious group, namely followers of Islam,' contrary to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section five of the Public Order Act 1986. Turkey-born Coskun, who is half-Kurdish and half-Armenian, travelled from his home in the Midlands to carry out the act in Rutland Gardens, Knightsbridge, on Feb. 13 and in court argued he had protested peacefully and burning the Koran amounted to freedom of expression. His legal fees are being paid by the National Secular Society (NSS) and the Free Speech Union (FSU), both of which criticised the ruling and said they intend to appeal 'and keep on appealing it until it's overturned.' Related Stories 6/2/2025 5/29/2025 In a statement issued through the FSU, Coskun said: 'This decision is an assault on free speech and will deter others from exercising their democratic rights to peaceful protest and freedom of expression. 'As an activist, I will continue to campaign against the threat of Islam. 'Christian blasphemy laws were repealed in this country more than 15 years ago and it cannot be right to prosecute someone for blaspheming against Islam. Would I have been prosecuted if I'd set fire to a copy of the bible outside Westminster Abbey? I doubt it.' Conservative shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick, posting on social media platform X, said the decision was 'wrong' and 'revives a blasphemy law that parliament repealed.' McGarva, who issued a fine of £240, rejected the idea that the prosecution was 'an attempt to bring back and expand blasphemy law.' In his ruling, he said burning a religious book and making criticism of Islam or the Koran are 'not necessarily disorderly,' but added, 'What made his conduct disorderly was the timing and location of the conduct and that all this was accompanied by abusive language.' The judge said Coskun, who is an atheist, has a 'deep-seated hatred of Islam and its followers,' based on his experiences in Turkey and the experiences of his family and that it was 'not possible to separate his views about the religion from his views about its followers.' The judge said: 'A criminal conviction is a proportionate response to the defendant's conduct. 'I am sure that the defendant acted in a disorderly way by burning the Koran very obviously in front of the Turkish consulate where there were people who were likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress and accompanying his provocative act with bad language. 'I am sure that he was motivated at least in part by a hatred of Muslims. I therefore find the defendant guilty.' Hamit Coskun leaving Westminster Magistrates' Court after being convicted and fined, in London on June 2, 2025. Aaron Chown/PA NSS Chief Executive Stephen Evans described the verdict as 'a significant blow to freedom of expression' and one which 'signals a concerning capitulation to Islamic blasphemy codes.' Evans said the conviction 'suggests a troubling repurposing of public order laws as a proxy for blasphemy laws.' He added: 'This jeopardises freedom of expression by establishing a 'heckler's veto' that incentivises violent responses to suppress views deemed offensive. 'Such an erosion of free speech is detrimental to community relations. Social cohesion is best achieved not by restricting rights but by fostering their free exercise.' An FSU spokesperson said they will take the case 'all the way to the European Court of Human Rights' if necessary. They added: 'Religious tolerance is an important British value, but it doesn't require non-believers to respect the blasphemy codes of believers. On the contrary, it requires people of faith to tolerate those who criticise and protest against their religion, just as their values and beliefs are tolerated.' Humanists UK said that while the 'defendant's views, revealed in the course of the trial, are bigoted, and all decent people would be repelled by them,' he had not expressed 'anything publicly that was prejudicial against Muslims' meaning in their view the ruling 'does raise concerns.' The organisation said the 'bar to successful prosecutions in cases like this is drawn too low' and warned public order legislation must not be 'used to disproportionately target speech – even offensive speech – on religious matters, thereby chilling legitimate criticism and expression.' In footage captured on a mobile phone by a passerby that was shown to the court, a man approached and asked Coskun why he was burning a copy of the Koran. Coskun can be heard making a reference to 'terrorist' and the man called the defendant 'a [expletive] idiot.' The court heard that the man approached Coskun allegedly holding a knife or bladed article and appeared to slash out at him, chase him, and spit at and kick him. The man said: 'Burning the Koran? It's my religion, you don't burn the Koran.' Coskun had posted on social media that he was protesting against the 'Islamist government' of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan who the defendant allegedly said 'has made Turkey a base for radical Islamists and is trying to establish a Sharia regime,' prosecutors said.
