A London council has been threatened with legal action after a woman called for four transgender-marked road crossings to be removed, claiming they constitute unlawful political messaging and infringe on her rights as a Christian.
Labour-led Camden Council, which commissioned the £10,464 project in November 2021 to mark Transgender Awareness Week, has defended its stance of being an “ally to our trans residents” and vowed to fight any legal challenge. The pink, white and blue striped crossings appear at Tavistock Place and Marchmont Street in Bloomsbury, central London.
Camden resident Blessing Olubanjo, 57, an evangelical Christian and member of the Christian Peoples Alliance Party, told the BBC she was threatening to bring a legal challenge against the council in what she says is unlawful political messaging and an infringement on her rights as a Christian. She has already sent a pre-action letter giving the council 14 days to respond before initiating judicial review proceedings.
The council defended the crossings, saying they were “a visual statement to help celebrate transgender awareness and act as a reminder of the rich LGBTQ+ history and daily life in the Bloomsbury area and across Camden.” However, it told the BBC it had received the letter and “entirely rejects” the arguments made by Olubanjo.
“Camden is ‘no place for hate’ and we have a strong and continuing history of respect and support for everyone in our borough,” a council spokesman said. “We fight discrimination in all its forms, and this includes being an ally to our trans residents.”
The white, pink and blue striped road crossings are representative of the trans community, based on the community’s flag. At the time they were established, Camden Council said the installation was “an important step” in showing support for the area’s LGBTQ+ community.
In her bid to remove the crossings, Olubanjo has been supported by the Christian Legal Centre. Her legal team has referenced Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986, which prohibits councils from publishing material that appears to promote a politically controversial viewpoint.
Olubanjo’s team argues the markings are a form of “publication” under the Act, which is designed to influence people on a political issue which divides the wider community. The judicial review would determine whether the council followed correct legal procedures and acted within its powers.
“I brought this case because I believe in fairness, freedom of belief, and the proper role of public institutions,” Olubanjo said. As a Christian and a taxpayer, I should not be made to feel excluded or marginalised by political symbols in public spaces.
She added: “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.”
Christian Legal Centre chief executive Andrea Williams said the crossing “not only is a matter of public safety and Christian freedom”, but was also about the “misuse of public resources for political campaigning.
“The crossing is a visual endorsement of a contested ideology,” Williams said. “(It has been) installed by a public authority in breach of its legal duties. This is not the role of local government.”
Williams added that public spaces should be free to be “used by everyone”, but instead have been used to “advance agendas that alienate people of faith and those who hold to biological reality.”
The legal challenge also contends that the installation constitutes a violation of political neutrality laws under the Local Government Act 1986, as well as an infringement of freedom of belief and expression under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Olubanjo’s letter also claims the crossings breach the Public Sector Equality Duty “due to known risks to disabled and neurodivergent individuals.” Council documents from 2021 indicate there had been a “small number of concerns” raised around disability access of coloured crossings.
The Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) had stated it could cause confusion, according to the council’s own Equality Impact Assessment. However, the council states in the documents that officers consider the crossing to be “sufficiently simple to mitigate these concerns.”
The RNIB told BBC London that “93 per cent of registered blind and partially sighted people have some level of vision,” adding that black-and-white stripe designs on pedestrian crossings offer high contrast, which is particularly important for people with low vision.
The location of the crossings has added significance, being near the site of the now-closed Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. The Tavistock clinic was permanently closed in March 2024 following revelations of systematic failures in patient care and the publication of the independent Cass Review.
When the crossings were unveiled in 2021, Councillor Abdul Hai, cabinet member for young people, equalities and cohesion, said they were “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.”
The intersection is also overlooked by blue plaques commemorating Soviet Union dictator Lenin, who once lived at the crossroads, and Mary Shelley, author of Frankenstein.
If the council fails to take action by removing or redesigning the crossings, Olubanjo will seek a declaration of unlawfulness through judicial review proceedings. The challenge represents a broader debate about the role of local government in promoting contested ideologies and the balance between supporting minority communities and maintaining political neutrality.
The case comes at a time when Camden Council, like many local authorities, faces financial pressures, having raised council tax by 5% this year. A legal battle over the crossings could prove expensive for the cash-strapped authority, which has indicated it will fight the case in court.
This is not the first time LGBTQ+-themed crossings have faced backlash. Similar installations in other areas have prompted debates about public space usage and political messaging. The outcome of this potential legal challenge could set precedents for how councils approach similar initiatives in the future.
Follow for more updates on Britannia Daily
