Council could be sued over trans flag zebra crossings
The pink, blue and white crossings in Bloomsbury were introduced by Islington Council in November 2021 to celebrate trans awareness and serve as a reminder of the LGBTQ+ history in the area.
Now an evangelical Christian resident, Blessing Olubanjo, claims she will sue the local authority if they fail to remove them.
Ms Olubanjo said she shouldn't be made to 'feel excluded or marginalised by political symbols in public spaces' and that public spaces should not 'advance divisive agendas' and 'alienate people of faith'.
She has been backed by the Christian Legal Centre, who called the crossings 'a visual endorsement of a contested ideology'.
The crossings, at Tavistock Place and Marchmont Street, faced criticism even before they were installed, with The Royal National Institute for the Blind warning they could be hazardous for visually impaired people.
Transport for London's Independent Disability Advisory Group, meanwhile, said individuals with disabilities, dementia or sensory sensitivity could become anxious by the colours or find it difficult to interpret the abstract shapes.
Ms Olubanjo, 57, said she brought this case because she believes in 'fairness, freedom of belief, and the proper role of public institutions'.
With thousands of members from all over the world, our vibrant LGBTQ+ WhatsApp channel is a hub for all the latest news and important issues that face the LGBTQ+ community.
Simply click on this link, select 'Join Chat' and you're in! Don't forget to turn on notifications!
She added: 'As a Christian and a taxpayer, I should not be made to feel excluded or marginalised by political symbols in public spaces.
'This crossing sends a message that only one viewpoint is welcome, and that's not right in a truly democratic society.
'I'm standing up not just for myself, but for everyone who feels silenced or sidelined by discredited, harmful activism forced on the public by ideologically captured local authorities.'
Ms Olubanjo argues that the crossings breach political neutrality rules under the Local Government Act 1986.
She also says they infringe on freedom of belief and expression under the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Christian Legal Centre's chief executive, Andrea Williams, said: 'The crossing is a visual endorsement of a contested ideology, installed by a public authority in breach of its legal duties. More Trending
'This is not the role of local government. Public spaces should be able to be used by everyone, not to advance divisive agendas that alienate people of faith and those who hold to biological reality. 'The council needs to remove or redesign the crossing and apologise to its residents and local businesses.'
At the official opening of the crossings, then-councillor for Islington, Abdul Hai said: 'Camden is renowned for being 'no place for hate' and a borough that has a strong and continuing history of respect and support for everyone.
'These amazing crossings are not only an impressive visual statement to help celebrate transgender awareness, but also act as a reminder of the rich LGBT+ history and daily life currently in the Bloomsbury area and across Camden and should prove to be a popular draw to this vibrant area.'
Metro has contacted Islington Council for comment.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: Posh London restaurant fined £31,000 after dead mouse found in kitchen
MORE: Eurostar delays and 'café car raids': what to do if your cross-channel train is disrupted
MORE: Mum hits back at TfL for 'blaming her' for losing arm and leg under Tube trains
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
5 hours ago
- Spectator
Kate Forbes's treatment at the Edinburgh Fringe was a farce
Summerhall is one of Edinburgh's largest Fringe venues, also running year-round exhibitions and artistic performances. This past week, it has also played host to the city's latest site-specific beclowning show, with artists so reportedly 'terrified' by Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes being in the building, they had to set up a 'safe room' on the day she was booked to be there. Forbes is apparently so dangerous to your average avant-garde theatre-maker or performance poet, using Summerhall's many spaces for their Fringe run, that management at the venue issued a grovelling apology to these notional adults: A fragility and intolerance of others, an anti-arts politics even, has been permitted to spread Summerhall Arts' primary concern is the safety and wellbeing of the artists and performers we work with, and going forward we will be developing robust, proactive inclusion and wellbeing policies that would prevent this oversight in our bookings process happening again. With such overblown rhetoric and handwringing, your average person still living in reality may suspect something appalling happened. Did Forbes goosestep across the atrium? Call for an immediate ban on stage make-up? Did she bring some kind of weapon to the venue, which was awarded £608,302 of public cash from Creative Scotland in January? It's worse. She came to the building, was asked questions by the Herald's Andrew Learmonth, in front of a paying audience who wanted to hear her, then left again. Frightening. Forbes was booked to take part in the Herald's Unspun Live talk-show series on 6 August. Leaving aside the irksome rise in political interview shows at what is supposed to be an arts festival, it's entirely ordinary she would do so. A diminutive 5ft 2, Scotland's not-remotely-dangerous deputy First Minister has an earned reputation of being a capable, diligent and principled legislator who, until the recent announcement she'll be leaving parliament at the 2026 elections, was tipped to be a future First Minister. She also holds gender-critical views. Despite these being entirely lawful, they bring instant pariah status in the arts world. In addition to the heresy of believing in the law of the literal land, which states that women and men are not each other, and that the former require single-sex spaces sometimes, Forbes is also a devout Christian. Her religious views wouldn't have permitted her to vote for same-sex marriage had she been in parliament at the time that Act was passed. She has also said she'd personally never have an abortion. Both viewpoints arguably scuppered her leadership bid against former First Minister Humza Yousaf in 2023, despite his devout Muslim beliefs likely being similar. If you want to impose a double standard on a woman, of course, it suddenly becomes very easy to know what one is. It says something ugly about both the state of the arts and freedom of expression that a venue in a city once celebrated as the 'home of the Enlightenment' wishes to apologise for a mild-mannered political leader saying things some people disagree with. In my recent experience, however, as someone formerly embedded in Scotland's artistic community, I know that using one's art form to explore difficult, controversial issues is in itself a downward trend. The performing arts have been inculcating such a navel-gazing, relentless focus on the self – whether one's sexuality or the ever-nebulous 'gender identity' – that it has made a great deal of its practitioners about as edgy as a floral-patterned fabric circle. A fragility and intolerance of others, an anti-arts politics even, has been permitted to spread. It's not normal for artists to act this way – something younger performers perhaps may not be aware of. It's also not remotely acceptable – or lawful – for a venue in receipt of taxpayers' funds to say they may in future ban people with Forbes's views from their programming. The dramas created by these types are often worthy of a Fringe First award. A stunning display of both comedy and farce, good fodder for column inches and baffled conversations with like-minded peers. But, for those of us who value the arts, freedom of speech, and democracy, this is yet another example of a growing tragedy.
Telegraph
21 hours ago
- Telegraph
BBC's Thought for the Day shouldn't sell wokery
Radio Four's Today programme is the BBC's current affairs flagship, a three-hour set that seeks to establish the political agenda with interviews and discussions. Thought for the Day, broadcast at around 7.45 each morning, is supposed to offer some reflective relief from the normal cut and thrust. The slot, which began life in 1939 under the title Lift Up Your Hearts, was once almost exclusively Christian in its output but is now often occupied by representatives of other faiths. The BBC says it offers 'reflections from a faith perspective on issues and people in the news'. Clearly, it will be the opinion of the contributor but it must still conform to the non-partisan requirements of a public service broadcaster funded by licence-fee payers who don't have the luxury of getting their two minutes and 45 seconds on the air. Wednesday's Thought for the Day was given by a hitherto little-known refugee charity founder called Krish Kandiah. He proceeded to deliver a sustained attack on the Conservative front-bencher Robert Jenrick over a newspaper article about illegal immigration. He said the shadow justice secretary had fuelled 'fear of the stranger' by saying he did not want his children 'to share a neighbourhood with men from backward countries who broke into Britain illegally'. Mr Kandiah commented: 'The technical name for this is xenophobia.' Since the Government has asked a panel to produce a new definition of Islamophobia we can now see how it could be used by some to shut down legitimate points of view expressed in a newspaper. These segments on Today are scripted and screened in advance so how did this get through? It has subsequently been edited; but since no one who read it requested any changes we must infer they thought it contained nothing untoward. There is a set of assumptions that underpins far too much of the BBC's news output, ranging from welfare and the NHS to climate change and immigration. An in-built bias against anything that challenges lazy Left-of-centre nostrums suffocates broader debate on issues that matter to the great majority of listeners. The Thought for the Day fiasco is on a par with the failure to pull the live anti-Israeli ranting of rap group Bob Vylan during Glastonbury. Will the BBC ever learn, or is it simply incapable of doing so?
The National
3 days ago
- The National
Black and white thinking takes us closer to fascism
Both of those things are enough to remind me that while communication in black and white is possible, it quite often seeks to create contrast where none is appropriate or desirable. We do not, for example, live in a world where the people of Israel are wholly good or wholly bad. Likewise, we do not live in a world where the same could be said of Palestinians, or the US government, or even – and perhaps this is the most difficult to admit these days – the Parliamentary Labour Party. READ MORE: Trust selling Highland clan's land for £6.8m under investigation There are good and bad people in every one of the groups I have mentioned. The numbers of those who are good and those who are bad might vary within them but to pretend everything is a simple question of groups being good or evil, or right and wrong, is mistaken. The reality of human life is that such simplistic claims can never be justified. In every group, every society, among people of every ethnicity or race, and in every state, and every organisation, we have to recognise good and bad can coexist, and sometimes simultaneously even in the same people. I know this makes life much harder. But, if we succumb to the temptation to subscribe to generalisms about any group, anywhere, at any time, and believe blanket descriptions can apply to them without taking into account the diverse nature of humanity, then we succumb to something that is best called fascism. Fascists have one political goal, which is all too easily seen among some politicians in both the UK and the United States at present. They seek to describe some group in society as the 'other'. They then ascribe to that group a range of characteristics which can, in truth, be found in any group in any society, anywhere, but which they claim are commonplace or universal within the group they deem to be the 'other'. They then blame all the ills in a society upon that 'other'. The extermination of that group becomes their political focus, all the while disguising the fact that what they are really doing is pursuing an agenda that, almost without exception in the case of fascism, is intended to advance the interest of some (but not all) among the wealthiest in their society, at cost to everyone else. This is most easily seen in the US, where the support of some (but I stress, not all) within the tech community for the agenda pursued by Donald Trump and far-right think tanks is resulting in the 'othering' of those they describe as illegal immigrants. US president Donald Trump They are then indifferent to the suffering of all those who might share ethnicity with those they 'other'. All of this is being done to advance the interests of a white, male, evangelical Christian anti-feminist elite within that society over the interests of all others. In the UK, we see a similar exploitation of so-called illegal immigrants, even though no-one is an illegal immigrant in the UK until their application to be resident here has been formally declined. It is easy to identify far-right politicians from Reform UK and the Conservative Party who are undertaking this activity but, as Keir Starmer has reminded us, not least with his 'island of strangers' speech, this is something Labour are also all too keen to do. Division is now a political strategy when not so long ago our whole focus was upon the creation of integrated communities so that people might live in harmony. READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon says she should have paused gender reform legislation The change has been dramatic and appears to have been quite sudden but in practice it can be fairly easily traced as having begun in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis. Then, it became apparent to many that our economy was being systemically structured to ensure some got all the advantages of the actions the state undertook as a consequence of the banking collapse. The majority, and most definitely those on median incomes or less, enjoyed no gain at all, and quite probably suffered losses. People were told there was growth, that there was no such thing as austerity, and that government services were being maintained by additional government spending. But what they experienced was something entirely different. They were not better off. Services were worse. The society in which they lived was very definitely suffering, and they were angry about that. Then, despite the fact that this was actually because of the exploitation created by some bankers and others in a wealthy elite (and again, I stress, this was not universal), some politicians, acting with the outright support of those who were benefiting the most, chose to blame those they call illegal migrants for the situation the majority of people found themselves in. The anger and disillusion people quite reasonably felt as a consequence of the deliberate failure of the Tories to meet need was redirected for the political advantage of the elite that was actually exploiting people and, in the process, something once described by the German historian and philosopher Hannah Arendt occurred. As she explained, the constant lying of our politicians is not intended to make people believe the lies that they are told. Instead, its goal is to ensure no-one believes anything any more. The intention is to ensure no-one can, with any degree of certainty, distinguish between truth and lies, and so between right and wrong. People deprived of that power are, in Arendt's opinion, also deprived of the power to think and judge and, as a consequence, are then unwittingly subject to the rule of lies. This then means politicians who wish to manipulate a population for their own advantage are free to do so. That is what happens when we give up on nuance. That is what happens when we give up on believing we have more in common with others than that which divides us. That is what happens when we forget there is right and wrong, but that there is no-one, or any group, that is at all times and in all places possessed of either quality on every occasion. That is, in effect, what happens when we give up on judgment. We become exposed to manipulation and so to abuse. And this is where we are. This is why politicians think they can lie to us, on Gaza, on the state of the UK, on Scottish independence, and on almost anything else. It's because they believe we have forgotten how to determine the truth in among the noise that those who wish to distract us deliberately create. It is our job to work out what is really happening and to form a judgment upon it. That is what politics and political economy demand of us. It's hard and it sometimes leaves us confused and feeling alienated, but that is the price we have to pay if we are to continue to believe in humanity and decency, and to believe there are things we must do because they are simply right.
