Section 28

28 -(1)   2A -(1)

The following section shall be inserted after section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986 (prohibition of political publicity) - A local authority shall not:

(a)   (b)

intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.

(2)   (3)

Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or preventing the spread of disease. In any proceedings in connection with the application of this section a court shall draw such inferences as to the intention of the local authority as may be reasonably be drawn from the evidence before it.

Above is the text for the controversial British "Section 28." It was introduced during Margaret Thatcher's premiership, in order to protect children. Protect them from what, one might ask. I have spoken to Ann Widdecombe MP on the matter, who fears that children may be exposed to homosexual pornography. When I mentioned that heterosexual pornography exists, yet is not seen in the classroom, Miss Widdecombe replied that "there is, as far as I can see, no equivalent in heterosexual material." The key issue of contention though is that of 'choice' of lifestyle. Miss Widdecombe believes that "children must be given the best possible chance of growing up to marry and have a family." I asked Miss Widdecombe if favouring one choice of lifestyle over another (see clause 1b) contributes to inequality. Her response was as follows:

"It has always been the case, right throughout history and right across the globe, that no substitute has been found to the traditional family. I do believe we should promote families; I certainly don’t think all lifestyles are equal. You don’t accord them equal validity."

This summarises the entire issue of debate. Ann Widdecombe, with other proponents of Section 28, believes that homosexuality is not a valid lifestyle. Given the Catholic doctrine on the matter (that homoerotic thoughts are unavoidable and therefore tolerated, but homosexual activity is sinful), this is hardly surprising. However, why should people succumb to this attitude? It is all to easy to fall in line with the nation's hate icon. In America it has been socially acceptable to hate (in roughly chronological order) blacks, jews, asians, and homosexuals. In Britain, it is still legal to fire a homosexual on no grounds other than sexuality. Section 28 is more a symbol than a piece of restrictive legislation, (likewise the homosexual age of consent). However, it is an important symbol. To dub homosexuality as a "pretended family relationship" and, in so doing, to dismiss its validity, is not an attitude Britain should legally maintain in the 21st century. Fortunately, the current government is trying (if half-heartedly) to repeal Section 28. Unfortunately, the British public is not behind this decision. This lends William Hague ammunition with which to attack the Labour Party on the grounds of irresponsible government, making Tony Blair even less likely to repeal it. Matters came to a head when millionaire Brian Souter, boss of Stagecoach, independtly organised and funded a plebiscite on the matter in Scotland. A disturbingly high percentage of people voted in favour of keeping Section 28. If you are in favour of keeping section 28, I would be interested to know why and I would appreciate it if you e-mail me with your reasons. If you are, however, in favour of repealing section 28, you might want to consider visiting the House of Commons Website, where you will find links by which to contact your local MP. You can also contact MPs with the following address:

MP's name House of Commons London

Or, in Tony Blair's case:

Tony Blair, 10 Downing Street, London

You might also wish to contact Stagecoach and explain matters gently to Mr Souter. Remember that polite correpsondence is more likely to be effective than abusive correspondence.