Section 28 - English Folio Essay

'Section 28' has since been scraped in Scotland, and then eventually in England and Wales. For more information (including Newspaper reports), see 'Society & Tolerance', also in this section.

by Graham Hughes
as part of my Standard Grade English Folio
submitted to the Scottish Qualifications Authority in 1999.

Section 2A of Clause 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, commonly known as Section 28, is a piece of legislation that effectively prevents Local Authorities in the UK from "promoting" homosexuality. Section 2A was added to the Act under Margaret Thatcher's Conservative Government and has lain dormant to the present day. Now, Prime Minister Tony Blair, leader of the Labour Party, is the key figure in the movement to repeal Section 28 on the basis that it creates inequality between homosexuals and heterosexuals. However, the abolition of the law has raised many, I would say, unfounded concerns amongst the Scottish School Boards Association (SSBA), Parents' Groups, and most problematically, amongst members of The Roman Catholic Church in Scotland.

Brian Souter, the Stagecoach transport tycoon, is also heavily against the planned repeal, and is funding the "Keep The Clause!" advertising campaign said to be worth over £500,000. One billboard quotes a parent saying that they accept homosexuality, but repealing Section 28 is "a step too far". This attitude can be seen repeatedly throughout Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Their main fears are that children, as young as five years old one exaggerated article exclaimed, would be taught about homosexuality in school. Other ridiculous arguments included the idea that children would be exposed to gay pornographic material if the law was to be removed. It is for this reason that Parents' Groups, in particular, see the clause as a safety net protecting their youngsters. So in what way do they believe the law is protecting their children? By stopping the nation's teachers from making gay porn available in schools? This argument is irrational and is clearly the result of scaremongering by Mr Souter and the tabloid media. Perhaps what we are seeing is a bad case of highly infectious homophobia rather than a widespread concern for the welfare of children. Is there an underlying intolerance, and dislike towards the homosexual population within the often outwardly accepting attitude in Scotland?

The safeguards for children idea is only the tip of the iceberg to some highly publicised leaders of the Church of Scotland, such as Cardinal Winning who have made it clear that they believe homosexual relationships should never be portrayed to be on the same moral level as heterosexual relationships. Therefore, they see the government's attempt to repeal Section 28 as undermining marriage, and the family, leading to children receiving inappropriate information.

On the other hand, the church is facing divides on the issue in exactly the same way the church always has when it comes to sexuality, and we have seen ministers "coming out of the closet" and supporting the repeal.

Wendy Richards, the minister for social inclusion, refers to the clause as "a piece of legalised intolerance", backed up by Tony Blair's view that Section 28 is "a badly drafted, discriminatory piece of legislation". This is also the opinion of many MSPs, an increasing number of Scots, and not to mention the Gay Rights Activists.

One serious argument is that the existence of Section 28 prevents teachers halting the bullying of gay students. In my opinion, if teachers do feel that the law creates a burden, then there must be a serious problem.

In the same way, teachers could feel that Section 28 stops them from discussing homosexuality with their students as the actual wording of the clause is such that no definitive meaning can be derived from it. For example, what exactly does constitute "promotion"?

In addition, the Gay Rights Activists argue that the clause is offensive to the homosexual population as it implies they are of less value than their heterosexual counterparts.

I believe that Section 28 must be removed from the new bill currently being drawn up by the government as the law is supposed to define the line between right and wrong, legal and illegal. And if it is an offence for councils to acknowledge homosexuality as acceptable, then surely this law must be the root of intolerance in our society.

Even if it cannot be decided what in fact Section 28 currently stands to represent, it should at least be abolished on the grounds that it only causes confusion, a far cry from defining that line between right and wrong.

Newspaper reports

News Unlimited:
'Teachers Should Not Promote Sexual Orientation - Government'
7 February 2000

The Scotsman:
'Resounding defeat for Section 28 supporters'
11 February 2000

The Scotsman:
'Oppressed minority brings gaiety to Section 28 day on the Mound'
11 February 2000

News Unlimited:
'Scots strive for section 28 deal' by Kirsty Scott
25 February 2000

Websites

Schools Out
http://schoolsout.gaystoke.org/
(now offline)