Lesbian Looks – Postcards from the Edge, Scarlet Press, 1993.
Lesbians Are Out of This World – Pam Isherwood.
Section 28 or Clause 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 caused the addition of Section 2A to the Local Government Act 1986, which affected England, Wales and Scotland.
Section 28 prohibited local authorities from “promoting” homosexuality or gay “pretended family relationships”. Some people believed that Section 28 prohibited local councils from distributing any material, whether plays, leaflets, books, etc, that portrayed gay relationships as anything other than abnormal. Teachers and educational staff in some cases were afraid of discussing gay issues with students for fear of losing state funding. Because it did not create a criminal offence, no prosecution was ever brought under this provision, but its existence caused many groups to close or limit their activities or self-censor. For example, a number of lesbian, gay, transgender, and bisexual student support groups in schools and colleges across Britain were closed due to fears by council legal staff that they could breach the Act.
Section 28 originated in the social transition in British society from homosexuality as ‘illegal but discussed’ to ‘legal but not always approved’, following debate in the 1950s and the 1967 decriminalisation of homosexual acts for those over the age of 21 in the Sexual Offences Act 1967. The 1980s were turbulent years politically in the UK, coinciding with the large scale social changes of the Thatcher Government and the rise of AIDS. Intense media interest and public fears over policies of the more left-wing local authorities towards homosexuality and education (the ‘Loony left’) were also prominent, with widespread concern over the funding of unheard-of minor groups with significant public resources. The spread of AIDS had also brought about widespread fear, much of which was directed at gays and bisexuals. Some believed that sexual orientation played a factor in the spread of disease and negative, often unfair sentiments toward the homosexual community were a consequence. These sentiments intensified already-existing opposition to school policies, activities, and practices, which supporters claimed were efforts to be inclusive of sexual minorities, and which opponents deemed as the promotion of homosexuality.
A final factor was the tone taken by some activist groups such as the Gay Liberation Front, cited by Baroness Knight of Collingtree (then Conservative MP Jill Knight), who introduced Section 28, and who in 1999 spoke about the purpose of that section: “Why did I bother to go on with it and run such a dangerous gauntlet? I was then Chairman of the Child and Family Protection Group. I was contacted by parents who strongly objected to their children at school being encouraged into homosexuality and being taught that a normal family with mummy and daddy was outdated. To add insult to their injury, they were infuriated that it was their money, paid over as council tax, which was being used for this. This all happened after pressure from the Gay Liberation Front. At that time I took the trouble to refer to their manifesto, which clearly stated: ‘We fight for something more than reform. We must aim for the abolition of the family’.
“That was the motivation for what was going on, and was precisely what Section 28 stopped. … Parents certainly came to me and told me what was going on. They gave me some of the books with which little children as young as five and six were being taught. There was The Playbook for Kids about Sex in which brightly coloured pictures of little stick men showed all about homosexuality and how it was done. That book was for children as young as five. I should be surprised if anybody supports that. Another book 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.“ As a consequence, many Conservative backbench MPs became concerned that left-wing councils were indoctrinating young children with what they considered to be homosexual propaganda.
Section 28 became law on 24 May 1988. The night before, several protests were staged by lesbian women, including abseiling into Parliament and a famous invasion of the BBC’s Six O’Clock News, during which one woman managed to chain herself to Sue Lawley’s desk and was sat on by Nicholas Witchell.
The introduction of Section 28 served to galvanise the disparate British gay rights movement into action. The resulting protest saw the rise of now famous groups like Stonewall, started by, amongst other people, Ian McKellen and OutRage!. While the gay rights movement was united over Section 28, gay issues began to divide the Conservative party, heightening divisions between party modernists and traditionalists. In 1999 Conservative leader William Hague controversially sacked frontbencher Shaun Woodward for refusing to support the party line that Section 28 should not be repealed, prompting pro-gay rights Tories, such as Steve Norris, to speak out against the decision. 2000 saw prominent gay Conservative Ivan Massow defect to the Labour Party in response to the Conservative Party’s continued support of Section 28. There is only one case of Section 28 being used to bring a case to the courts against a council. In May, 2000 – the first and last case of its kind – the Christian Institute unsuccessfully took Glasgow City Council to court for funding an AIDS support charity which the Institute alleged promoted homosexuality.
On 24 July 2000 the Local Government Act 2000 was sent back to the Lords with an amendment re-introducing repeal. Concessions were made in the form of the new Learning and Skills Act 2000 which emphasised family values and which was hoped would win over opponents. However, the repeal was again defeated in the House of Lords. Despite successive defeats in the House of Lords of attempts to repeal Section 28 in England and Wales, the Labour government passed legislation to repeal this section as part of the Local Government Act 2003 by a vote of MPs. This passed the Lords and received Royal Assent on 18 September 2003 and the repeal became effective on 18 November 2003. The Conservative-run Kent County Council however decided to create their own version of Section 28 to keep the effect of the now repealed law in their schools. This was replaced with provisions stating that heterosexual marriage and family relationships are the only firm foundations for society on 16 December 2004.
The main point of argument claimed by opponents of Section 28 was the claim that it discriminated against homosexuals, and that it was an intolerant and unjust law. Various other arguments were also used against Section 28 which are summarised as follows:
The evidence emerging that, by excluding gay support groups and appearing to prevent teachers from protecting victims of homophobic bullying, Section 28 was actually endangering vulnerable children.
The claim that Section 28 made the assumption that homosexuals were inherently dangerous to children, implying an association between homosexuality and paedophilia, as obvious from the “predatory homosexuals” argument of the supporters of the law.
Not only did Section 28 prevent the active promotion of homosexuality but also it appeared to give a legal reason to oppose it in schools and other forums if necessary.
The claim that Section 28 was a law which gave an impression to the public that the government sanctioned homophobia.
The idea that homosexuality could be “promoted” implied that homosexuality was a choice which people could be persuaded to make, when in fact sexual orientation is biologically determined. Therefore the basic concept of the legislation was damaging and misleading.
It could lead teachers to confusion about what they could do to support pupils who faced homophobic bullying and abuse.
It was no longer relevant due to the Learning & Skills Act 2000 and the Education Act 1996. (x)
You know, in a horror movie, everyone always responds with a flight response when they see the monster. But that’s not the only thing that happens when people get scared. I want to see someone choose the fight response. I want to see a character turn around to see the killer right there, scream in terror, and start punching them in the face repeatedly.
No, from tags here, I probably haven’t earned the title of Worst Healthcare Tourist Ever, as bad as I have been at accessing actual services.
That may well go to my partner, who has never registered with/seen a doctor or dentist in over 15 years in the UK 🙄
He did actually leave work early one time to go to a walk-in centre, for what turned out to be a weird infection in his elbow joint. That must really have been hurting. This is the same man who tried to convince himself that a cracked tooth must have magically healed itself, BTW.
But, that is his only interaction with the NHS in 15+ years of paying rather a lot of taxes. Bleeding the system dry even more than I have been doing!
(He has his own reasons there, yeah. And it worries me sometimes. At least there was that indication that he might get something checked out if he thinks it could be serious. But, there are reasons he can’t be as much help in medical settings as probably both of us would like.)
i honestly dont know what i would do if healthcare was free here. i feel like i’d go to the hospital and they’d put me in the government funded sickness scanner and they’d be like “holy fuck dude, you got like, syndromes and shit. how are you even walking around right now” and i’d be like “i dunno, i didn’t wanna bother anybody about it”
Re: clatterbane’s tag, ugh, I’m sorry to hear that. systematic fatphobia is dreadful and I feel like it’s not being treated like it even really… exists? People seem to either want to deflect to America, like “we don’t have the same level of obesity crisis they have :)” or they want to support gross campaigns like the Cancer Research UK one this spring. Sorry this reply isn’t particularly constructive, just offering solidarity really.
Re: someone else’s tag about ‘how do they just test you for generally Being Sick?’, my friend and her mom were in a car accident and they were treated at an NHS hospital, and my friend told me that the staff had to run a screening on them as routine and that’s how they found out her mom was diabetic. to my limited knowledge, screenings are p general but can give indications of warning signs to follow up on although following up can take months if it’s non-urgent / or sometimes even in some urgent cases it can take too long but afaik staff try to ensure you get treated in time / they’re overloaded atm though
Tbf, both those examples which popped into mind were from the same terrible GP. (The first one I registered with, because that was the only surgery I could find accepting new patients for our catchment area. No wonder that guy had room for more patients…)
When my parents were visiting, they ended up staying longer than intended and had to see him for blood pressure medication refills. Just in that type of first appointment, he was blatantly racist enough dealing with my mother that she jumped down his throat. Which he was obviously not expecting, and it was more gratifying to watch than it should have been. He laid off me after that with the really overt stuff, but yeah. Any excuse to brush people off. Not a good situation in general.
Thankfully, that guy was a bit of an outlier. But, as serious a problem as systemic fatphobia is dealing with the US system? I really have run into more problems with it here, for whatever reason(s). Even when my BMI has been in the officially “acceptable” range. That’s a new one.
As with about anything, results are probably going to be much better if you’re not working against various types of largely unexamined bias. And if you’re more familiar with how a system actually works on the ground. Theoretically universal coverage doesn’t necessarily mean that access to appropriate treatment is truly equal, unfortunately. There’s always room for improvement.
(Probably preaching to the choir here, but it’s still worth saying.)
[ID: tweet by @/graphickat: “When people say “they never use disability as an excuse” it makes me furious.
Stating my reality is not an excuse. My body has physical limitations that aren’t negotiable.
When I tell you I can’t do something, it’s not an excuse. It’s not a matter of positivity. It’s truth.“ End ID.
still true with variable abilities. a healthy person knows they can probably run further on some days than others, depending on things like sleep, nutrition, stress, general health, etc.
so why is it so implausible that sometimes i can walk far enough that i don’t need an electric wheelchair, and sometimes i need it?
being able to walk for anything from 2-20 minutes per day produces a variety of different scenarios. drive me directly to a store and i won’t bring my chair. probably don’t need it for that length of time given the hassle involved. but if I have to get there myself and i can’t walk that distance, i need…….. a mode of transportation.
can everyone who is able to walk and has ever used a car maybe get off my fucking case?
The car this is really wild because in retrospect the fact I have never been really healthy enough to run around etc is PROBABLY a big factor in why I love cars. I also loved horseback riding and skiing. There is a trend here.
So I call the car the “big wheelchair”, the “friend wheelchair”, the “fast wheelchair” etc. Because that is what it is. A wheelchair that is bigger, faster, and can bring your friends with you.
I honestly think people get obnoxious about this shit because they are JEALOUS we get samll wheelchairs to drive around the store in, which they should be tbh because yes it is fun, but the solution is BUY YOUR OWN DAMN WHEELCHAIR ABLEDS AND MAKE EVERYTHING ACCESIBLE GOD
i honestly dont know what i would do if healthcare was free here. i feel like i’d go to the hospital and they’d put me in the government funded sickness scanner and they’d be like “holy fuck dude, you got like, syndromes and shit. how are you even walking around right now” and i’d be like “i dunno, i didn’t wanna bother anybody about it”
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 
You must be logged in to post a comment.