A Christian artist, who is suing a local authority after she was barred from her own exhibition after voicing her gender critical beliefs, has uncovered lies and “collusion”, Christian Concern says.
A judge has allowed Victoria Culf, 44, to file an amended claim against Watford Borough Council in light of the new evidence. She started her claim last year on several grounds including breach of contract, discrimination and harassment, misfeasance in public office and defamation.
It followed a casual conversation in June 2023 when a council official told Victoria that her child was socially transitioning and asked her opinion. Victoria told the official she believed transitioning was harmful because of her Christian faith and her experience working in mental health.
The same day, the council official posted on social media accusing Victoria of subjecting her to a “transphobic rant” and, a few days later, reported her to the police and accusing her of a hate crime. Victoria was eventually barred from the exhibition at Watford Museum.
However, it was discovered during the litigation disclosure process that the official had falsely led her superiors to believe that Victoria was under police investigation. This was untrue, but it was what led to her being banned from her own exhibition.
It also emerged that the official was being advised by Stonewall-affiliated charity Ask for Clive which encourages hate crime reports to the police.
Christian Concern said police records confirm they did not log her comments as a crime and describe Victoria’s comments as protected free speech. She has never been contacted by the police.
Andrea Williams of Christian Concern said: “This case is a chilling example of how public institutions are being captured by extreme ideologies that punish people for expressing lawful, evidence-based, and compassionate views. The council’s actions were not only unlawful but deeply unjust.”
A council spokesperson said: “This is a sensitive issue, and the council is confident that it has acted fairly, reasonably and within the law in relation to this matter but as legal proceedings are continuing, it would be inappropriate to comment further.”
