Replies

Beside pushing this non issue, John Nicholson has been pushing removing the age limit for homosexual activity for decades. So he appears to be anothe Fudge Packer against GW and our war in Iraq.

http://www.agenda.org.uk/html/agenda1802.htm

Fight it, or Forget it?

John Nicholson | first published: Februrary 1999 | Agenda18

John Nicholson says that we must not forget Section 28

Barring further disasters the homophobic unequal age of consent will be removed from the statute book this session. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 is still there and shows no signs of going away. Section 28 legally outlaws the 'promotion of homosexuality' by local authorities, but one of its worst effects has been to frighten schools from acknowledging lesbian and gay sexuality. Is it any wonder that HIV infections amongst young gay men have continued to rise if recognition of gay identity and provision of sex education is undermined in schools?

Back to the 1980s

The origins of Section 28 lie in the politics of the Thatcher governments in the 1980s. Section 28 was partly the outcome of dramatised conflict with so-called 'loony left' councils (as part of a strategy to undermine the independent powers of local authorities), and partly an expression of Right wing ideological preoccupations with issues around 'family' and sexuality.

Cutting local government funding and reducing local services reinforced the impact of wider economic and social 'market' changes, particularly the loss of jobs. The key changes were implemented during the first period of the Thatcher governments, from 1979-1987. There were marked increases in poverty and ill-health in the inner cities (and other areas of urban disadvantage), with growing populations of homeless people, people with drug using histories, and people with mental health problems. Metropolitan councils - with the greatest needs - suffered the greatest cuts.

One effect of this urban crisis, later compounded by the decline in electoral registration resulting from the poll tax, was to undermine commitment to participate in local electoral politics. Unsurprisingly many of the councils fighting economic disadvantage and championing poorer communities linked their struggle with those who were socially discriminated against as well (women, disabled people, and lesbians and gay men), which had the effect of opening up councils to new influences.

From the mid-1980s lesbians and gay men had an increasing impact in local government as they saw its scope to support lesbian and gay community organisations and to improve their access to employment and services. This effect was exaggerated by a new geographical and social mobility of gay men, who moved in large numbers to live in inner London and a few other urban centres, including Manchester. In the research study 'How far will you go?' (1996), Gay Men Fighting AIDS found that 'The overwhelming majority of the gay men in our sample who are currently resident in London did not grow up in London but moved there. This shows a massive influx of gay men into the capital'. This effect was very visible by the mid and late 1980s. This stronger lesbian and gay identity, particularly in London local government, was used directly as a campaign issue by the Conservatives in the 1987 General Election.

In the aftermath, Clause 28 - later Section 28 - was presented as an amendment to the Local Government Bill by Conservative MP Dame Jill Knight on 7 December 1987. Section 28 came into force on 24 May 1988.

Fight it, or forget it?

The response from the official opposition (a local government team which boasted the Two Jacks, Straw and Cunningham - during much of the 1980s) was instant approval. This should not be forgotten. The response behind the scenes was that the proposal was unworkable, and the eventual law was so toothless, in legal fact, that no prosecutions have taken place.

Real resistance to Section 28 came from elsewhere. The response from the lesbian and gay communities was tremendous, with huge public protests - including a demonstration of 20,000 people in Manchester (photo) - and other direct action. One effect was to draw large number of younger people into campaigning for lesbian and gay equality for the first time. Another effect was to achieve a Labour Party manifesto commitment to repeal.

No prosecution has ever been brought under Section 28. But that was never the real issue. The reality of Section 28 is a climate of self-denial and self-censorship within local government - including education and youth services - which represses recognition of lesbian and gay identities.

Making the connection with HIV

Sex education offered in schools fails for most young people growing up lesbian or gay.

At the most obvious level, Section 28's ban on 'promoting homosexuality' may encourage teachers to ignore lesbian and gay sexuality altogether in the sex education offered by schools. Estelle Morris MP, the Schools Standards Minister, confirmed in October 1997 that 'Although the responsibility for the detailed content and organisation of sex education lies with individual schools, there is no restriction on teaching about lesbian and gay issues in the classroom.. (Section 28) applies to the activities of the local authorities themselves, so does not apply to the activities of the governing bodies and staff of schools'.

This is hardly the point. The statement by the Minister has less impact in shaping public perception than the continued existence of Section 28 on the statute book and the absence of any positive proposal to repeal it.

Ministers are not alone in complacency. AVERT (AIDS Education and Research Trust) wrote in November 1998 that '(As) we all know, Section 28 does not apply to schools. Fortunately, thanks to the work of organisations like ourselves, many schools are now taking steps to address gay issues and tackle the problems of homophobia and bullying'.

The Terrence Higgins Trust and Stonewall report 'Playing It Safe' (1997), based on a survey of 300 schools by researchers at the London University Institute of Education, confirms how damaging this complacency is to the health of young people. 'Over half of schools said they had difficulty addressing the needs of lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils because of Section 28. Over 80% of the schools surveyed stated that they were aware of incidents of verbal homophobic bullying, and 26% were aware of physical homophobic bullying'. This highlights the real limits of sex education and on the possibilities of schools contributing to prevention of HIV infection amongst young men growing up gay.

Section 28 contributes to the continuing failure of schools to engage with the real lives of their lesbian and gay students. Sex education in schools cannot begin to address issues of good sexual health for all young people until it acknowledges lesbian and gay identities. In the meantime incidence of HIV amongst young gay men in the UK is not falling.

Simply providing young gay men with information about HIV transmission and about safer sex practices will not stop HIV. Schools and other agencies must support young gay men in taking responsibility for their own lives. This means promoting the self-esteem and confidence of gay men in their early sex lives. In turn, this must mean going beyond sex education classes, to providing safe space in schools for young men growing up gay (and including positive lesbian and gay images in the school curriculum).

Back to the future

Victorian values in the 1980s have been replaced by New Family Values, rooted in a distorted vision of life in 1950s England. These provide no place for lesbian and gay households, or family relationships not based on the model of heterosexual marriage. These contradict the warmer message of 'social exclusion'. Section 28 promotes social exclusion for lesbians and gay men.

The Government now says that it can't yet repeal Section 28 because the measure can be blocked by the House of Lords. Maybe. But that does not stop it trying. It did not stop it sending back a closed list voting system for European elections on five occasions (the age of consent was not sent back once). And it doesn't stop an individual back bencher putting a new amendment forward to cast the Section out into the deep dark pit of history where it belongs.

This is a victory we can win. And we must. Equality demands the repeal of Section 28, just as it demands the equal (not - and how many times must we say It - a 'lower') age of consent. Parliamentary surveys show there is no significant support in the House of Commons for maintaining this law. A one clause Bill could scrap it, but lesbian and gay campaigning organisations appear to have relegated the repeal of Section 28 to the back burner. Soldiers, marriages and concessionary train travel are, perhaps, more fun.

But Section 28 costs lives. People affected by HIV - and HIV organisations - must join in working for its immediate repeal. Contempt for Section 28 is not enough. Its repeal is an urgent priority. This is just the start. It must be followed by positive steps to address the real needs of young people growing up lesbian and gay.

John Nicholson is Director of George House Trust john@ght.org.uk