Section 28

Section 28 was a controversial anti-gay amendment to the United Kingdom's 1988 Local Government Act, enacted on 24 May 1988 and finally repealed on 18 November 2003. The amendment 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"http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880009_en_5.htm#mdiv28.

Opposition

Gay rights advocates, such as Stonewall, OutRage!, The Pink Paper and the Gay Times formed the major opposition to Section 28 and led the campaign for its repeal. Prominent individuals who spoke out for the repeal of Section 28 included Sir Ian McKellen, Michael Cashman, Ivan Massow, Mo Mowlam, Simon Callow, Annette Crosbie, Michael Grade, Jane Horrocks, Michael Mansfield QC, Helen Mirren, Claire Rayner, Ned Sherrin and Alan Moore. Boy George wrote a song opposed to Section 28, entitled "Clause 28". The song "Shoplifters of the World Unite" by The Smiths is also rumoured to be about Section 28. It was also opposed by some religious groups and leaders, such as Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford. Newspapers that came out in opposition included The Guardian, The Independent and The Daily Mirror. Political parties that were opposed to Section 28 included the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party. In the House of Lords the campaign for repeal was led by openly-gay peer Waheed Alli.

Related Topics:
Gay rights - Stonewall - OutRage! - The Pink Paper - Sir Ian McKellen - Michael Cashman - Ivan Massow - Mo Mowlam - Simon Callow - Annette Crosbie - Michael Grade - Jane Horrocks - Michael Mansfield QC - Helen Mirren - Claire Rayner - Ned Sherrin - Alan Moore - Boy George - Clause 28 - Shoplifters of the World Unite - The Smiths - Richard Harries - Bishop of Oxford - The Guardian - The Independent - The Daily Mirror - Labour Party - Liberal Democrats - Green Party - Waheed Alli

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The main point of argument against Section 28 was that it discriminated against homosexuals of all age groups, and that it was an intolerant and unjust law, unfairly and needlessly labelling gay family relationships as "pretend". Various other arguments were also used against Section 28 which are summarised as follows:

Related Topics:
Intolerant - Law

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

• Evidence was emerging that, by excluding gay support groups and gagging teachers from protecting victims of homophobic bullying, Section 28 was actually endangering vulnerable children.
• Section 28 came with a loaded, homophobic assumption that homosexuals were inherently dangerous to children, wrongly equating homosexuality with paedophilia.
• Not only did Section 28 prevent the promotion of homosexuality, it appeared to give a legal reason to oppose it in schools and other forums.
• The fact that Section 28 was law gave an impression to the public that the government sanctioned homophobia.
• It was legally flawed and redundant thanks to the Education and Skills Act 2000 and the Education Act 1996.
• Despite claims that Section 28 was used to manage teaching about gay issues in schools it didn't actually directly apply to schools and, in fact, it only applied to local authorities (see Controversy over applicability for more information).
• It was poorly worded and ambiguous leading to confusion for teachers over what they could and couldn?t say and whether they could help pupils who faced homophobic bullying and abuse.
• Polls indicated widespread acceptance of homosexuality and indicate that parents would like their children to be taught tolerance for LGBT people.