Section 28 was a good idea that was implemented badly
Welcome to 'Letters From A Tory', covering British politics from a conservative perspective. Please leave a comment if you have any thoughts about today's letter, and don't forget that you can CLICK HERE to get my letters sent to you by RSS every morning.
Dear David Cameron,
While I take no issue with your liberal views on homosexuality that have been rightly welcomed by many people, your apparent change of heart on the now infamous ‘Section 28′ is not something that I can subscribe to. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which stated that a local authority “shall not intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality” or “promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship”, existed for 15 years before being repealed in 2003. While I certainly do not fully support Section 28, I think that your political motives have overridden common sense on this occasion.
The 1980s saw numerous battles between Labour-run councils who were pushing anti-discrimination / anti-homophobia messages and a parent-led campaign to outlaw certain books from schools that they claimed ‘promoted’ homosexuality. The latter was kick-started in 1983 by the Daily Mail, who reported that a copy of a book entitled Jenny lives with Eric and Martin – portraying a little girl who lives with her father and his gay partner – was provided in a school library run by the Labour-controlled Inner London Education Authority. Conservative MP Jill Knight joined the chorus of concern, saying that she was contacted by parents who strongly objected to their children at school being ‘encouraged’ into homosexuality using taxpayers’ money and being taught that a normal family with mummy and daddy was outdated . She also claimed that this pressure came from the Gay Liberation Front, whose manifesto stated: “We must aim for the abolition of the family.” She went on to cite other books that children as young as five were being given, such as The Playbook for Kids about Sex “in which brightly coloured pictures of little stick men showed all about homosexuality and how it was done” and another called The Milkman’s on his Way “explicitly described homosexual intercourse and, indeed, glorified it, encouraging youngsters to believe that it was better than any other sexual way of life.” Although the first attempt to introduce Section 28 fell by the wayside because of the 1987 general election, it became law the following year. There were, however, still uncertainties about whether it applied to local authorities or schools themselves. The Department for Education and Science said in 1988: “Section 28 does not affect the activities of school governors, nor of teachers… It will not prevent the objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, nor the counselling of pupils concerned about their sexuality.” Jill Knight MP responded to this by saying : “This has got to be a mistake. The major point of it was to protect children in schools from having homosexuality thrust upon them.”
Even so, after some notable resistance from the House of Lords, Section 28 was finally repealed by the Labour government in 2003. The arguments against Section 28, which you appear to have taken to, came in various forms. The most obvious argument is that homosexuals were being discriminated against by this legislation as it appeared to give legal grounds for opposing homosexuality. The notion that homosexuality can be promoted is dubious in any case, seeing as it is highly likely that it has biological rather than social origins. One might also claim that it put teachers in a difficult position in terms of the well-being of pupils and protecting them from bullying, because they were unable to be seen to ‘promote’ homosexuality to a pupil regardless of their circumstances. In any case, subsequent legislation rendered Section 28 redundant to a large extent. It seems to me that the original legislation took a sledgehammer to crack a very delicate nut in this instance. No doubt the Daily Mail did their best to hype up parental opposition to the aforementioned books in a way that only the Daily Mail can, and the religious lobby who supported Section 28 were not exactly coming at the problem from an entirely objective perspective in terms of what’s best for children. You have now gone on record as saying that Section 28 was a mistake and was offensive to gay people.
Powerful as these arguments may seem, your stance is incorrect in my opinion. From what I gather, not a single opponent of Section 28 at any stage denied that the books in question promoted homosexuality and it is clearly inappropriate for such incredibly young children to be expected to understand and assimilate this kind of information almost a decade before some of them hit puberty. Yes, homosexuality should be objectively discussed in schools – anyone who suggests otherwise is an idiot. Nonetheless, there is a time and a place for such discussions and primary school lessons for 5-year-olds are neither the time nor the place. I also noted that not a single opponent of Section 28 denied that the Gay Libertation Front sought to destroy the family unit for their own political aims, making them look just as bad as the legislation’s supporters in pushing their own agenda. Homosexual relationships remain a difficult issue for many corners of society, and while this is not a reason to shy away from incorporting the issue into schools, one must remain conscious of the need for objectivity, clarity and sensitivity at all times – something which Section 28 could have helped to achieve if it had been implemented and worded correctly.
Section 28 was a crude way of tackling this problem, but to deny that there was a problem that needed addressing is foolish. Homosexuality should never be ‘promoted’ in schools (which is what Section 28 was supposed to deal with) but then again neither should heterosexuality, any religion, any ethnic group or any other dividing line between people. Schools are not there to ‘promote’ anything – they are there to educate and inform. A more sensible solution would have been to deal with the individual books concerned rather than introducing a law that confused teachers and unnecessarily complicated the matter. Even so, for you to turn round and suddenly decide that Section 28 was totally unjustified strikes me as playing to the crowd. By all means talk about where Section 28 went wrong, but please don’t demonise the public and the government for objecting to what was happening at the time.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Thanks to Wikipedia for the background on this issue.
Witanagemot Blogs
I think there should be a general section 28 that is re-worded to the effect that, like you say LFAT, no religion, sexuality, ethnicity etc. should be promoted in schools.
That is not to say they can’t be taught in a non-biased way. Leaving the child to make his or her own decisions.
I have to say though I actually agree that books about a child living with gay parents might not be such a bad idea these days as it would help any children in this situation feel more normal and help children from a conventional family to understand the differences and could possibly increse tolerance and eliminate bullying of the child with gay parents. However, I would never condone a book that describes homosexual or heterosexual sex to any primary school children except perhaps in the final year when sex education is starts.
So many gay people deny that they are gay to themselves for many years or hide it because they think they will be ostracised by family and friends. If teaching it’s existence earlier in life helps children to accept that what they feel is not abnormal then that cannot be such a bad thing and would certainly help these kids develop without the psychologica;l trauma of thinking that there is something wrong with them for feeling the way they do.
I think there should be a general section 28 that is re-worded to the effect that, like you say LFAT, no religion, sexuality, ethnicity etc. should be promoted in schools.
No argument from me on that idea, Candid. Not least because no religion in the UK will agree to it.
“Homosexuality should never be ‘promoted’ in schools (which is what Section 28 was supposed to deal with) but then again neither should heterosexuality…”
So what else was the legislation if not a bit of homophobic moralising by the Tories? If it was merely about children not being taught about sex at an early age, the references to homosexuality would not be necessary.
Two thirds of lesbians and gay men report that they were the subject of homophobic bullying at school. Unless the heterosexual children are made aware of the issues, how are you going to prevent that? The age at which sex and sexuality was taught in school was not part of Section 28 of the Local Government Act as far as I recall, so the nonsense about “children as young as five” was simply a crude smokescreen to try to equate homosexuality with pedophilia.
Good for Cameron with his apology, which may or may not be an attempt to appeal to gay and lesbian voters, but they would be well advised to closely examine the voting record of the Tories on equality legislation over the last dozen years. Cameron, if he wins at all, is only going to have a small majority, and it won’t take many of the Jill Knight Tendency in order to put the lid back on the New Tory modernisers.
Candid, of course it should be discussed – but five year olds should be worrying about learning to read, write and count instead of having deep and meaningful conversations about family structures and relationships.
Shaun, behave!
Bob, I think parties on both sides of the argument had questionable intentions. This letter was about understanding what went wrong in the first place and thinking about how best to deal with it. If these books were given to very young children then something was clearly wrong but, like I said, that doesn’t mean that Section 28 had to be created in the way that it was. The paedophilia link was clearly bollocks.
Including this one, 3 of the last 7 letters seem to have been about homos*xuality. Is it time to declare an interest?
Shaun, for the second time this morning, behave! I just think these issues are fascinating to debate, especially as no-one in mainstream politics is willing to debate them.
LFat… “I think parties on both sides of the argument had questionable intentions.”
That’s because you labour under the misapprehension that homosexuality can be taught to people. Which is as daft as saying you can catch it.
By “both sides” you mean the moral bigots like Tebbit, Knight and Thatcher on the one hand, and teachers who feel it is important that children understand about sexual relationships, and that being homosexual doesn’t make someone ‘queer’ or a target for bullying, on the other.
The Daily Mail stories were as much garbage then as they are now, and I wonder where your evidence came from which states that the GLF were politically committed to “destroying the family unit for their own political ends.” The whole GLF movement was committed to seeking equality for lesbians and gay men with heterosexual men and women. Yes, they believed in direct action to do so, but their more extreme tactics don’t change their aims, which were defined in The GLF Manifesto:
* that all discrimination against gay people, male and female, by the law, by employers, and by society at large should end.
* that all people who feel attracted to a member of their own sex be taught that such feelings are perfectly valid.
* that sex education in schools stop being exclusively heterosexual.
* that psychiatrists stop treating homosexuality as though it were a problem or sickness, thereby giving gay people senseless guilt complexes.
* that gay people be legally free to contact other gay people through newspaper ads, on the streets, and by any other means they may want, as are heterosexuals, and that police harassment should cease right now.
* that employers should no longer be allowed to discriminate against anyone on account of their sexual preferences.
* that the age of consent for gay males be reduced to the same as for straights.
* that gay people be free to hold hands and kiss in public, as are heterosexuals.
Bob, I do not labour under any such misapprehensions – please do not make those kind of personal accusations. Children understanding about sexual relationships is obviously important, but trying to push this into the curriculum for very young primary school children is both unnecessary and pointless. As I have already said, children at this age are incapable of discussing serious moral and societal issues so they should be focused on core skills that form the spine of their later education – sex education can wait until they are older and more mature.
And where is your evidence that the Daily Mail stories were “garbage”? Did these books not exist? Were these parents making it up? Just because you disagree with their stance doesn’t make it “garbage” in itself. The reference to the GLF manifesto came from Wikipedia.
I did not agree with Section 28, but the 1980s were such a dust-up, so polarised… love it or hate it, a fascinating decade. I’m just surprised the Clause endured so long. You make a very interesting argument here. I’m no Cameron fan. His stance on England (“sour little Englanders”) and endless posturing to the Scots (banging on about his “Scottish Empire” building ancestors and demonising the big bad English) put me right off him.
If Section 28 wasn’t about discriminating against homosexuals… why did it only deal with the issue of homosexual relationships? It’s a simple enough question. If you think “pushing this into the curriculum” was wrong in respect of education about sexuality, presumably “pushing” heterosexual education was equally wrong. So… why only a law about teaching about homosexual relationships?
And I don’t know… believing wikipedia… you’ll believe all that crap in the bible next!
I didn’t like what Section 28 was about but have sympathy with those who felt that the agenda had swung too far the other way.
I don’t want the promotion of any way of life or political agenda in our schools – whether it is religion, sexuality, global warming or whatever.
Kids should not be subjected to the opinions of those who are in a position of influence. I was at art college in the 80s and the lefty zealots made any whisper of a contrary view impossible.
My dear Tory, I´m recent reader of your blog and even though I agree with the position you expressed in this post, I still haven´t understand whether you are in favour of homossexual marriage or not.
Whether directly by law or more likely, because of the anti-gay hoo-ha surrounding its introduction and the attitudes of its most vociferous supporters (and opponents), Section 28 became *totemic* for gays and bigots alike. The context for its introduction was primary schools like mine having ‘gay lifesyle is better’ books in it’s library in the pre-1979 period, tho that was in the People’s Republic of Islington.
In reality banning the ‘promotion’ of a sexuality is both illiberal and a nonsense (since sexuality certainly appears to be biologically determined), but served the purposes well enough of former Hitler-supporters like the Daily
FMail who wanted something to strike back at the ever more voluble gay-liberation movement to that very movement, for whom it became a rallying point.Bob, you’re right – sex education should go a long way beyond promoting or not promoting homosexuality.
Plato, that particular state of affairs is always disappointing.
Humphrey, I don’t agree with homosexual ‘marriage’ because of marriage’s religious background, but civil partnerships make perfect sense to me.
Shaun, I agree that Section 28 provided a focus for many people’s efforts for too long.
Well, I’m married, in a registrar office, without having any religion or a religious bone in my body. Surely the law shouldn’t allow that in your world?
In the world your faith-community mates, to whom Blair and Brown and the rest of the Parliamentry sheep have pandered, that’s almost exactly the case. Your and my secular, civil marriage is of no value to them and homosexuals should ‘repent and change’.
Shame Blair rolled over for anyone with a Sky Fairy, isn’t it?