Christian group threatens Westminster Council over 'indoctrinating' pride flags
A London council has been threatened with legal action after hanging trans-inclusive Pride flags around Regent Street from this weekend.
Group Christian Concern says Westminster Council is 'indoctrinating' visitors to the famous West End location and breaching planning control.
The Crown Estate, which owns most of the property on Regent Street, lodged plans in March to hoist hundreds of flags in 20 locations between mid-June and mid-July to support Pride events.
But after being permitted by Westminster Council in mid-May, Christian Concern says the council is opening itself up to potential legal action.
In recent years, the display has included over 300 LGBTQI+ Progress Pride flags, developed in 2018 by non-binary American artist and designer Daniel Quasar.
Based on the iconic rainbow flag from 1978, the redesign celebrates the diversity of the LGBTQ community and calls for a more inclusive society, celebrating trans, black and brown, gender non-binary and intersex community members.
But hardline Christians say the flags, which on June 22 will replace Union Jacks currently flying to mark VE Day, create division by excluding more traditional views.
Christian Concern has previously made the point to the council that the Cass Review prohibits the indoctrination and confusion of primary school children with trans ideologies.
But the group claims: 'The flags do just that, exposing the hundreds of thousands of children who walk up and down Regent Street, including those who visit Hamleys, to a message and symbols which will be unlawful to teach and display in schools.'
Last year, Christian Concern launched a petition signed by 31,000 people calling for a similar display to be stopped.
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: 'Many people experience these flags as an attack on historic, traditional beliefs about sex and gender.
'They send the message that people holding these views, which are worthy of respect in a democratic society, are not welcome.
'The majority of the public does not know the highly controversial and harmful symbolism presented by the Progress Pride Flag. At the heart of the flag is the trans flag – pink for girls, blue for boys and white for the 'transition' phase.
'This ideology has been discredited by the Cass Review, the closure of the Tavistock, and most recently Supreme Court ruling. When will the Crown estate catch up with the rest of society?
'If the council chooses to proceed with the display, we will have no option but to pursue legal action.'
The proposed flags will be hung from supporting wires, making use of existing fixing points which are intended for reuse.
In the planning report, Westminster planning officer Shaun Retzback noted that the flags would be hung at 20 locations along the street running from Oxford Circus to Piccadilly from June 22 until July 17.
He said: 'Flags are, in principle, an acceptable, colourful addition to Regent Street's buildings and there is a longstanding tradition of such displays. More Trending
'The flags proposed, to be strung on lines across the street, are not harmful to visual amenity for the temporary period sought, neither are they harmful when considered cumulatively with other flags and banners displayed on buildings in the street at present and across the street from time to time.'
A Westminster City Council spokesperson told Metro: 'The council supports festivals and celebrations from our different communities across the year. Pride is an annual and established fixture and has been supported by the Council for many years.
'Pride flags are in keeping with a cosmopolitan City that welcomes millions of visitors every year. All public community celebrations have a fixed duration and are both proportionate and fitting. Given similar pronouncements in previous years we await further information about the Christian Legal Centre's legal challenge with interest.'
Metro contacted the Crown Estate.
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: £20 Pan-Indian feast from a Michelin-starred chef: 10 unmissable Time Out deals
MORE: Enjoy the weekend's heat with London's best boat restaurants
MORE: 'Swan Whisperer' banned from Hyde Park after residents objected to him kissing the birds
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
33 minutes ago
- The Independent
Business news live: FTSE opens higher but retail sales fell sharply in May
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
Spectator
2 hours ago
- Spectator
Has Ursula von der Leyen seen the light on China?
Coming from an American politician, the accusations would have been unsurprising. Beijing is unwilling to 'live within the constraints of the rules-based international system' and its trade policy is one of 'distortion with intent'. It splashes subsidies with abandon, undercuts intellectual property protections, and as for China's membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), that was probably a mistake too. It is bold of von der Leyen to raise the WTO, and it will be intriguing to see how she is greeted at the EU-China leaders' summit Yet this tirade came not from an acolyte of Donald Trump, but from Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission during this week's summit of G7 countries in Kananaskis, Alberta. 'Donald is right,' she said during a roundtable. Could there have been something in that Rocky Mountain water? Or was this all a devilish ploy to curry favour with Trump and thereby secure a favourable trade deal with the US? After all, it will not have gone unnoticed in Brussels that the US-UK trade pact contained security and other provisions clearly aimed at excluding China from sensitive supply chains and cutting edge tech. But it wasn't only her words. The EU has also scrapped a key economic meeting with Beijing, which was to have been held ahead of an EU-China leaders' summit in the Chinese capital next month, citing a lack of progress on numerous trade disputes. It recently restricted Chinese medical device manufacturers from access to the EU's vast public procurement market, launched an anti-dumping investigation into Chinese tires and wind turbines and refused Beijing's demands to remove tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. The truth is that Brussels has lost patience with China, and the famous EU fudge is (at least for now) being jettisoned for a far more robust approach to what EU officials see as China's serial rule-breaking. Beijing's recent restrictions on the export of critical minerals, which threatened to bring the continent's motor industry to its knees, have been a painful reminder of the EU's dangerous dependencies and Beijing's willingness to weaponise its supply chains. The EU's trade investigations are being carried out under a new Foreign Subsidies Regulation, which unusually for the rather pedestrian EU bureaucracy is fast, focused and – so far – exceedingly effective. If a foreign-owned company bidding for a contract or involved in a takeover is suspected of unfair subsidies, the EU can demand detailed business information. Last year, the Dutch and Polish offices of Nuctech, a Chinese security equipment company, were raided by EU competition regulators, acting under the new powers. A Chinese railway equipment manufacturer pulled out of bidding for a large contract in Bulgaria, preferring not to hand over data that would almost certainly have revealed wads of subsidies. In spite of these growing tensions, Beijing believed it could use Trump's tariff war to prize away Brussels from Washington – a long-standing goal of Chinese policy. To this end, in late April it announced it was lifting sanctions it had imposed on members of the European Parliament in retaliation for EU sanctions on Chinese entities accused of human rights abuses in Xinjiang. President Xi Jinping also launched a charm offensive, calling for unity in the face of coercion and presenting himself as an upholder of free trade. This has backfired, being seen widely in Brussels as laughable hypocrisy. Looming large over EU relations with China is Beijing's support for Vladmir Putin, which is felt much more profoundly in European capitals than in Washington. But Brussels has also been willing to call out China on a range of security issues. These include the blacklisting of Huawei lobbyists earlier this year following allegations of bribery linked to the tech company's activities in Brussels. Germany has accused China of being behind a cyberattack on the federal cartography agency for espionage purposes, and the Belgian intelligence agencies have investigated Alibaba for 'possible spying and/or interference activities' at the cargo airport in Liège. It should not be forgotten that the term 'de-risking' in relation to China was first popularised by von der Leyen. She introduced it in a March 2023 speech to the Berlin-based Mercator Institute for China Studies. She said it meant being clear-eyed about China's growing economic and security ambitions. 'It also means taking a critical look at our own resilience and dependencies,' she said. 'De-risking' was soon adopted in other Western capitals, replacing the more clunky 'decoupling'. De-risking sounded more nuanced – a more orderly form of decoupling. It was vague, slightly murky, and open to interpretation. But therein lay its strength. It could be dialled up or down according to the circumstances, a flexible tool, with which few could disagree. It seemed like plain common-sense, which is probably why it so irked Beijing. 'It is just another word game. It will not change the 'ostrich mentality' of some countries to escape from the real world,' snarled the Global Times, a state-owned tabloid, at the time. When von der Leyen travelled to Beijing with French President Emmanuel Macron a week after her speech, Macron was given the red carpet treatment while the EC president was largely cold-shouldered in what was interpreted as a calculated snub. During this week's G7 meeting, von der Leyen said: 'We strongly feel that the biggest challenges are not the trade between G7 partners. Rather, the sources of the biggest collective problem we have has its origins in the accession of China to the WTO in 2001'. China's membership of the WTO is widely seen as a high point of western delusion about China. Beijing promised to improve the rule of law, to protect intellectual property rights, cut import tariffs, give greater access to its market, liberalise controls on its exchange rate, scrap trade barriers and much more. Few of these ever happened, or where one barrier was removed, another was erected. China has clung to the privileges of a 'developing' country. It has never provided a level playing field for foreign companies but was able to flood the world with its own cheap exports, while western companies flocked to outsource production and supply chains to Chinese factories, hollowing out manufacturing throughout the West. This led inextricably to the dependencies the West is decades later trying to unwind and has fuelled populist anger in developed economies. It is bold of von der Leyen to raise the WTO, and it will be intriguing to see how she is greeted at the EU-China leaders' summit, tentatively set for late next month to mark 50 years of bilateral relations. Few will be in celebratory mood, and Xi will probably concentrate on individual European leaders, believing he has greater influence with them than with the European Commission president. His main miscalculation has been to believe he can leverage the distrust of Trump to China's advantage, because while it is true that Trump is haemorrhaging trust, the grim truth for Xi is that Beijing never enjoyed much trust in the first place.
Glasgow Times
2 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Donald Trump delays US TikTok ban again
'As he has said many times, President Trump does not want TikTok to go dark. This extension will last 90 days, which the administration will spend working to ensure this deal is closed so that the American people can continue to use TikTok with the assurance that their data is safe and secure,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement on Tuesday. Mr Trump disclosed the executive order on the Truth Social platform on Thursday morning. Donald Trump (Alex Brandon/AP) It is the third time the president has extended the deadline. The first one was through an executive order on January 20, his first day in office, after the platform went dark briefly when a national ban — approved by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court — took effect. The second was in April when White House officials believed they were nearing a deal to spin off TikTok into a new company with US ownership that fell apart after China backed out after Mr Trump's tariff announcement. It is not clear how many times he can — or will — keep extending the ban as the government continues to try to negotiate a deal for TikTok, which is owned by China's ByteDance. While there is no clear legal basis for the extensions, so far there have been no legal challenges to fight them. Mr Trump has gained more than 15 million followers on TikTok since he joined last year, and he has credited the trendsetting platform with helping him gain traction among young voters. He said in January that he has a 'warm spot for TikTok'. TikTok praised Mr Trump for signing an extension on Thursday. 'We are grateful for President Trump's leadership and support in ensuring that TikTok continues to be available for more than 170 million American users and 7.5 million US businesses that rely on the platform as we continue to work with Vice President Vance's office,' the company said in a statement. As the extensions continue, it appears less likely that TikTok will be banned in the US any time soon. The decision to keep the site alive through an executive order has received some scrutiny, but it has not faced a legal challenge in court, unlike many of Mr Trump's other executive orders. Jeremy Goldman, analyst at Emarketer, called TikTok's US situation 'deadline purgatory'. The whole thing 'is starting to feel less like a ticking clock and more like a looped ringtone. This political Groundhog Day is starting to resemble the debt ceiling drama: a recurring threat with no real resolution'. For now, TikTok continues to function for its 170 million users in the US, and tech giants Apple, Google and Oracle were persuaded to continue to support the app, on the promise that Mr Trump's Justice Department would not use the law to seek potentially steep fines against them. Americans are even more closely divided on what to do about TikTok than they were two years ago. A recent Pew Research Centre survey found that about a third of Americans supported a ban, down from 50% in March 2023. Roughly a third said they would oppose a ban, and a similar percentage said they were not sure. Among those who supported a ban, about eight in 10 cited concerns over users' data security being at risk as a major factor in their decision, according to the report. Democratic senator Mark Warner, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the Trump administration is again 'flouting the law and ignoring its own national security findings about the risks' posed by a China-controlled TikTok. 'An executive order can't sidestep the law, but that's exactly what the president is trying to do,' he added.
