| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Robathan: I am sorry, but no--I have given way twice and, as the hon. Lady knows, we are subject to a time limit.
Some say that section 28 has been quite ineffective, citing in evidence the absence of prosecutions under the provision. However, I suggest that its effect has been achieved through the message--the statement--encapsulated in it and the consequent deterrent effect that that has had. Local authorities have not felt minded to
push "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin", but, apparently, the publisher of that book promises to reprint it if section 28 is repealed. I have seen the book: it was pretty shocking in the 1980s, but, regrettably, it is less shocking now, because we are inured to such stuff. Nevertheless, I am quite certain that, if the provision is repealed, many publications that promote homosexuality will be produced.The issue has become the star turn of the Bill, even though it is only one small part of it, so it is curious how out of touch with popular feeling the Government are. As a parent of two young children, I am against the repeal of section 28. A Gallup poll showed that a large majority of the British public are in favour of maintaining section 28. The Prime Minister should spend more time listening to his constituents in Sedgefield, where 71 per cent. of those polled stated that they want to keep the law as it is.
I am not a Roman Catholic, but I shall quote Cardinal Winning, because his words are reasonable and measured. He said:
- The current debate is not about homophobia, or discrimination, or intolerance. It is about education. It is perfectly natural that parents should be concerned that their children will be exposed to material that they do not consider either appropriate or advisable. Our politicians are imposing a values-free policy of political correctness on children, parents and society in general.
The Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, stated:
- Section 28 is the logical outworking of putting the family at the heart of a stable society. It is, of course, discriminatory. Yet the setting of all values is a form of choice and discrimination in favour of certain moral principles.
The Government have given the matter such priority because they have bought a wider gay agenda. They have bought the aggressive single-issue pressure group lobbying to which we have all been subjected. Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) is about to jump up and tell us about all the lobbying to which he has been subjected.
The Government apparently intend to publish a code of practice for employers to discourage discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, which will mean that gay partners get the same rights to health care, travel benefits and relocation allowances as married couples. There is also, apparently, a case for the law to be changed to allow gay partners to register as next of kin and thereby to qualify for inheritance tax relief.
To most people in the country, outside the Westminster village, that is nonsense. It is not intolerant of them to say that. I am not intolerant of all homosexuals. I do not think that homosexuality is an equivalent life style, but I am not intolerant of homosexuals. What people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is largely up to them.
However, the proposal is an unwise move by the Government, which I shall certainly oppose. To most voters, especially Labour voters who are concerned about
the real issues that face them in areas which may not be as prosperous as the area that I represent--this was well expressed by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle)--it is extraordinary that the Government should give such priority to this one politically correct issue. I believe that that is because it is being driven by the single-issue aggressive campaigning homosexual lobby. I wonder what Labour Members' voters will think, in the local elections and come the general election, as well.7.33 pm
Mr. Shaun Woodward (Witney): I look forward to the Government introducing their proposals to repeal section 28 in Committee, and I look forward to the removal of the amendments that were introduced in another place. I hope that that will happen soon.
No one should be in any doubt about the purpose of section 28. It was introduced not to protect, but to discriminate and to hurt. Its presence on the statute book directly or indirectly creates a climate of confusion, fear, intolerance and hatred. That climate still pervades the classroom, despite changes to the legislation in the 1990s--not directly, because of the Education Act 1994, but indirectly.
Let there be no doubt that the purpose of keeping section 28 is to maintain discrimination, to continue hurting, and to inflame prejudice. We heard some of that prejudice from the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan).
If there has been a consistent theme justifying the actions of those who oppose the repeal of section 28, it is the claim that there is no evidence to support its abolition. I shall focus on evidence.
The House knows that I was sacked from the Conservative Front Bench because I opposed the party's decision to force its Members through the Lobby to keep section 28. I shall say more about those events in a moment. In the weeks that followed, I received an enormous quantity of letters, more than 95 per cent. of which supported my stand.
As so much of the debate has focused on family values, let me begin by quoting from a family--a mother--[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Blaby finds a letter from a mother funny. I think that it is rather important. She writes:
- My son is gay and has lived his life being bullied at school. His life has been an absolute misery.
I, like most of the nation, cringed at the very thought of homosexuality (not knowing my son was gay.) I have recently found out and am so ashamed that I have been so ignorant of all the facts, believing that this was a life choice and not understanding that there is no choice in this matter--that it is purely a fact of nature.
I now have to live with the fact that my ignorance has been a factor in how my son now feels about himself. He spends most of his time in a depressed and suicidal state.
And yes, I do blame myself for this because he has been conditioned by myself to believe there is only one way to live and that is to marry someone of the opposite sex.
- If children could go to their teachers and tell them why they are being bullied and it could be discussed in an open way, I'm sure that by the time they reach adulthood they would not feel ashamed and disgusted about themselves.
This matter has touched me in a way I couldn't have imagined. I can't do much to help my son. I can't change the way people think. I can't educate people or make them understand what it can do to a young person--how society can make them want to commit suicide.
But you and people like you can.
-
[Interruption.] It is a great shame that four of the greater exponents of keeping section 28 on the statute book are not even interested in listening to that lady's letter--the mother who has had the responsibility of bringing up that child.
I regret the fact that so much of the debate has degenerated into an almost warlike atmosphere. It is presented as some kind of cultural war. Efforts to persuade people to adopt greater tolerance and understanding of those who are gay have been caricatured as a battle to defend family values. Somehow we have arrived at the ludicrous position in which arguing the case to end discrimination is seen as attacking the role of the family and family values in our society.
Nothing could be further from the truth. That caricature is misleading and grossly misrepresents the real argument. Somehow, being against discrimination is equated with being against the family. That is utter nonsense, utterly wrong and utterly misleading.
I find it difficult to understand why anyone should not logically want equal treatment for all our citizens. There is something very unpleasant about the way in which the argument about section 28 has evolved. Of course, discrimination has too long played a role in the history of our society. Likewise, we have long debated the meaning of equality.
Today, the rhetorical equation of civil rights with special rights--or as the hon. Member for Blaby called it, a special agenda--has dominated much of the debate. The tension between equality and individual freedom to discriminate fuels much of the discussion of section 28.
Regrettably, we live in a society that still fosters a system of sexual apartheid. Just as apartheid in pre-1994 South Africa denied black people full citizenship, so our laws deny that same full citizenship to those who are gay. As the mother's letter that I read earlier said so poignantly, it is all to easy to fail our children because of our bigotry, to think that it does not matter, or even to justify the discrimination because we think that it is about special rights, not civil rights.
In Britain we still have an age of consent that is not equal. We expect those of our citizens who are gay to fight in our wars, to defend our country and perhaps even to sacrifice their lives, yet only recently have we begun to realise that they, too, should have rights in the armed forces which may ask them to lay down their lives.
Much has been distorted in the argument about so-called pretend families. It is claimed that lesbians and gay men do not have families, only pretend families. We tell them that they are second best, if that.
However, we tend to consider the matter only from the perspective of adults. What about the children? As a trustee of Childline, which has counselled nearly 1 million children in 12 years, I have listened to children for a long time. I shall quote a letter from a mother, whom we shall call Kate. She said:
- My son David is 7-years old and already he is bullied at school for having gay parents. When he started school at 5 he thought there was no difference between having gay parents and straight parents. Not any more.
We have been staggered at the levels of homophobia in schools.
Hug a friend of the same gender and you are gay.
Use a smaller girl's knife at lunchtime and you are gay.
It's not all aimed at him.
It is just a term of abuse. Like nigger used to be when society sanctioned racial prejudice, like Section 28 sanctions homophobia.
The school knows about this kind of abuse, but feels unable to challenge it because of Section 28.
- How do you think these children are going to feel about their sexuality when it has been an officially sanctioned term of abuse throughout their childhood?
Much of the debate has been about misunderstanding. The climate in which misunderstanding operates easily becomes one of fear, prejudice, intolerance and even hate. It would be wrong to suggest that all those who oppose the repeal of section 28 wilfully wish to mislead the public. However, some do. They distort the facts and present misleading arguments. Their conclusions are underpinned by appalling prejudice.
Let us consider a Conservative party press release, which was issued by the shadow Secretary of State for Education and Employment. It states:
- The Conservative party is quite clear. We believe that no public money should be spent promoting homosexuality. Public money should be used to raise educational standards.
- Bullying is wrong. We do not believe that section 28 provides any legal impediment to teachers to tackle bullying.
The row over section 28 led to my sacking from the Conservative Front Bench. I had no idea that the Government intended to repeal section 28 until the Queen's Speech last November. As soon as I knew, I consulted every headteacher in every school in my constituency. Every secondary school headteacher wanted the law repealed. They gave example after example of homophobia. They said that, despite the fact that the law had changed, the climate meant that section 28 hung like a sword of Damocles over teachers' heads.
I tried to explain that to the Conservative Chief Whip. He was not very interested. I said that a party that wanted to listen to Britain should listen. However, he said that, when it came to section 28, the Conservative party was not listening. In three minutes, a meeting of members of
the shadow Cabinet decided, after taking no evidence from any interested party--social workers, teachers, the British Medical Association or children's charities--that section 28 constituted a good opportunity to promote their so-called family values. They ignored the sort of letters that they received from people whose families genuinely suffer.The university of London produced some evidence. It polled teachers in 307 schools. The research concluded:
- Although the direct legal effect of Section 28 on school policies is minimal, the existence of the legislation sends a clear signal that there may be something dangerous or wrong about addressing the needs of gay pupils.
This is an unnecessary, damaging and confusing message for teachers which adversely affects the lives of the young people with whom they work.
A briefing note that the Tories prepared on 27 March this year stated:
- Key point. Parents want the comfort of knowing that homosexuality cannot be promoted in schools at public expense, and that their children are protected.
The Prime Minister will not back off because the Labour party will do what is right, not what is expedient to exploit people's fears and prejudices. A teacher wrote a letter, which stated:
- I was asked to interview a young 15-year old boy who had not attended formal education for two years. It soon transpired that his failure to attend school had been due to vicious homophobic bullying.
This resulted in a severe breakdown and admission to a psychiatric unit.
He also told me that had been self-abusing and showed me his scars. Both his arms are covered by a huge series of scars from knife cutting.
- When I was at school, there was a swing park next to Airdrie hospital, and next to this there was a set of public toilets.
The one painful memory I have is that a young man was beaten to death in those toilets late one night.
His face had been kicked and booted so badly that his face was no longer recognisable as a face.
I do remember how everyone at school was laughing about it because the general idea was that he was gay and therefore his death was a good thing.
The fact that he suffered an inhumane death . . . was irrelevant.
I know of young kids who have been beaten up at school because they were perceived to be gay, and the school did nothing about it.
A young man called Darren committed suicide last year because he could no longer go on suffering the beatings and the abuse.
His teachers knew all about it, but because of Section 28 felt obliged to ignore it.
Section 28 drove him to suicide.
How many other young children has it driven to suicide, or suffered brutally . . . ?
We will never know, but it cannot be denied that such a situation is immoral and unfair.
- Section 28 is crude in its concept. Slanderous in its drafting. Vicious in its purpose.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |