|
Political
Revealing A Mystery: What was “Section 28”
B-F-P came across some interesting facts on a law called Section 28, which has now been abolished, and asks the question: Did anyone really understand the true issue as to why it was written, designed and implemented into law. All civil rights groups and activists believe they know exactly why it was written designed and implemented.
This paper may prove otherwise and may contradict many beliefs and ideals of civil rights groups and activists on what Section 28 was thought to be written and designed for, and that reason is because this paper will reveal every aspect of Section 28 from all angles, that no one has ever revealed or realised before.
How many times in any and western country has Anti-gay conduct been approved & endorsed by government in legislation & law? And why is it always written in the language of the life choice theory, implicating sexual conduct only, & rejecting implications to love?
History of S-28: In 1986, the London borough of Haringey lesbian & gay unit wrote to all maintained school governor heads on campaigning for them to promote a positive image of Homosexuality in schools to pupils, in the attempt to reduce homophobic bullying and give some form of supporting guidance to young Homosexuals in schools from indirect discrimination. Unfortunately a massive whirlwind trailing back to government was induced, invoked & created.
The Ecclesiastical Committee guided by the General Synod put forward a Church of England measure through government for the implementation of a law outlawing any education on Homosexuality in any public maintained, private, nursery and religious schools. The Church of England measure put forward by the General Synod was based on the life choice theory language on Homosexuality. The government guided by the Synod, had their perceptions confirmed about the issue of Homosexuality, and with that, they realised that the issue any of such education on Homosexuality was not based solely about crudely educating children on sexual behaviour sex between men. Because of society’s prejudice on Homosexuality based on sexual behaviour between men and not love, school governors with the help of government, disallowed the teaching of Homosexuality to children be placed in schools, but not basing such restrictions on material of sexual behaviour. On December 7, 1987 a new amendment written by MP Michael Howard, called Section 28 of the local government Bill was introduced in the House of Commons, and both Houses endorsed Section 28 unanimously. On the 24 May 1988 Section 28 came into force, becoming law and clinching the biggest national "Catch 22" in fighting oppression in the UK. Not long after Section 28 become law, Stonewall, an LGBT civil rights lobby group was set up, in response to this new law on a mission to abolish it.
SECTION 28 0f "THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT OF 1986 (C.10)"
(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 2 of the (1986 c. 10. Local Government Act 1986 prohibition of political publicity)
Prohibition on promoting Homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material.
2A. (1) A local authority shall not;
a) Intentionally promote Homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting Homosexuality.
b) Promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of Homosexuality as a pretend family relationship.
2) 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.
3) In any Proceedings in connection with the application of this section, a court shall draw such interference as to the intention of the local authority as may reasonably be drawn from the evidence before it.
4) In subsection (1)(b) Above "maintained schools" means (a) in England & Wales, a country school, a voluntary school, within the meaning of the education act 1944; and (b) in Scotland, a public school, nursery school, or special school within the meaning of the education (Scotland) Act 1980.
(2) This section shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this act is passed.
It has taken 14 years to abolish Section 28 by Stonewall, which classed Section 28 as a piece of written prejudice law, which it was. But, Stonewall never once or any other rights groups ever fought against "why exactly" it was put into place. If they had, they would have abolished it 14 years ago, which leaves a question; have rights groups only fought against what is done directly against them and disallowed to them, and never "Why"?
The reasons that civil rights stated to make every effort to abolish Section 28 was that this law is a piece of written prejudice and hate. The other was the mental degradation and mental stability in young Homosexual children in schools from homophobic bullying that even led to suicides. Stonewall even did surveys on finding out the factual damage statistics on children to prove genuine reason to abolish it.
_______________________________________________________
An extract of Material, copyright of Stonewall 1996; Title;
[Young Gay and Bullied]
In 1995 A survey by Stonewall revealed that more than a third of Homosexual men and women and half of those were under 18 had been subjected to homophobic violence between 1990 – 1995.
Ian Rivers, Lecturer of psychology at the university of Luton, had conducted an extensive research in homophobic abuse in schools that gave a dark picture to the reality of homophobic bullying.
The Currant figures suggested that as many as 27 percent of primary school pupils are bullied regularly every term. For the past to years, I have been researching the problem of homophobic abuse in schools and its long-term effects upon the mental health of lesbians and Gay men. Since 1993 over one hundred and forty lesbians and Gay men and Bisexuals had responded to articles and advertisements in the popular press and a further 80 have completed very detailed questionnaires about their experiences since leaving school.
Overall, the results show that the bullying which lesbians and Gay men experienced in schools was more server in nature than general bullying. When questionnaires were analysed according to the types of bullying behaviour participants reported that the most common for of harassment was found to be name-calling-(80%) followed by being ridiculed openly by other pupils and occasionally by teachers-(69%), and being hit or kicked-(59%). However, various other methods of victimisation were also reported by participants including having rumours spread about them-(55%) being teased regularly-(49%) being stolen from-(45%) being frightened by the way they were looked and stared at-(45) and being sexually assaulted-(8%).
For many Gay man and Lesbians the term bullying does not adequately describe their experiences in schools. One Gay man wrote he had been raped by a teacher, while others have reported their clothes being set alight; having chemicals thrown on them during science lessons; Being urinated upon; and being burnt with cigarettes while being held down. Similar levels of violence were experienced by lesbians – one young lesbian woman wrote that she had been raped by a male pupil, while another said that a group of pupils used to knock and drag her around the playing field by her hair.
It is not surprising to learn that 40% of participants reported attempting suicide on more than one occasion. When this figure was broken down further, the number of reported suicide attempts per person was found to be higher than anticipated with an average of four reported attempts per person as a result of not wanting to be a Lesbian or Gay; and five attempts per person as a result of having problems at home and or as well as school.
In addition to the reports of attempted suicide, some participants said they lived daily with long-term effects of bullying; Nightmares and flashbacks were a common occurrence; some said they felt insecure in long-term relationships and became overly possessive because they were afraid their partners would leave. Levels of depression, anxiety and hostility were higher than normal among the group as a whole, and several participants said they had sought counselling or psychiatric help at some point. The effects bullying can have upon the quality of life, is illustrated very well.
_____________________________________
Stonewall is the main leading civil rights lobby group that was set up specifically to fight against Section 28 since it was enforced and campaigned for the teaching of Homosexuality in schools with the intention of reducing bullying by the need of positive images of Homosexuality in schools and guidance to young Homosexuals in schools. Yet, it has not been found as to what exactly Stonewall means to the guidance for young Homosexuals and the whole issue has been promoted on "Sex education", when there are more paramount teaching issues of guidance irrelevant to sex education. Especially as the main basis of sex education: is about the human body and understanding sex safe. For the prejudice issue of society believing the theory that Homosexuality is a life choice, shouldn't every moral issue of Homosexuality be placed forward to give a logical contradiction to society's belief of the choice theory, so they could question genuine issues? The Government claims Section 28 was implemented because they had no funding for materials for teaching Homosexuality and therefore made it illegal for any school to promote and teach Homosexuality since no funding was allowed to be allocated for it. This omission by the government was fraud for two obvious reasons that rights groups never figured out even after the abolishment of Section 28, 15 years later.
1) Not one word that was written into Section 28 stated anything about local authority funding.
The second reason was written into the law itself when classing a Homosexual relationship as "pretend," which left a very simple equation that rights groups saw and spoke of, but never figured out. And never figured it out further than just being prejudice & hate of a sexual behaviour attribute issue of a minority. Rights groups always made the statement that Section 28 was written in prejudice and hate, and always seemed to combat Section 28 on that issue to abolish it. It is without doubt that the largest percent of prejudice society believes Homosexuality is a life choice sexual behaviour with the same sex by inherent Heterosexuals, which means they would be incapable of such genuine eternal marital love for the same sex. To believe Homosexuals are incapable of love is to believe there is no moral equivalence, and every politician in government that protects Section 28 always without fail made that statement.
But every civil rights groups fought against Section 28 calling it a piece of written prejudice law and never saw the simple equation that showed without doubt to be a contradiction of law. Section 28 was written by MP Michael Howard, in the direct discriminatory political language based solely on the life choice theory of sexual conduct, not "inherent dignity", which is political bias and prejudice, but…
2) What makes a "pretend family relationship", in relation to a "genuine family relationship"?
The only Answer; "LOVE"…
Anything else is a material or physical denominator, not a legal characteristic based on inherent dignity… And since that law defined a Homosexual family relationship to be pretend in relation to the reality of things, or to be politically correct, inherent dignity as any Human rights law or court would construe it, and not just by what it states, but by how it would be legally construed through a Human rights law, meaning without any characteristic of love or psychological inherent moral needs. Which intern, it defines "any" Homosexual relationship to be pretend meaning without love.
All Human rights laws are based on the protection of all the human family of inherent dignity, which is stated at the beginning of all human rights laws within the presentation interpretation preamble. Because anything construed through political and legal definition of Human inherent dignity, is based only on what is inherent from birth meaning without choice, which has the highest moral standing and legal ground of any human rights law on protection, and anything else is acquired, meaning a choice and is changeable. Behaviour does not make sexuality, and beyond behaviour, human sexuality is the only inherent characteristic of any genuine loving family relationships, which for example with Heterosexuality, is the confines of love for the opposite sex, and Homosexuality is not only not recognised in any human rights declaration as an inherent minority, they not recognised as an inherent minority by the largest percent of society.
So was this law underlining a premise that Homosexual relationships are not based on genuine human sexuality? Which leaves the question; Was the "founding principle reason" of writing Section 28 solely based of hate & prejudice against a minorities’ sexual behaviour? Or was it about criminalizing the teaching of Homosexual relationships as normal and acceptable, without any practical reason? Or did the founding principle of Section 28 have an entirely other purpose? …
Was Section 28 about the sexual behaviour issue, or an inherent morality issue?
If Section 28 was designed over prejudice of an issue of sexual behaviour
[The heresy of law called Section 28] If Section 28 Was implemented because of the sexual behaviour issue and acts of heresy by state law were still illegal, then Section 28 if it was implemented over an issue sexual behaviour would have been put in place through a contradiction of law by the government, and not one rights group has ever realised. And the "reason why" this law was written, was written into Section 28 itself, in subsection (2a)(b) and no rights group ever figured it out, even though they questioned that section. That act of sex between persons of the same sex was legalised in 1967, and any actions by any persons, state government or organisations to reform society "against" persons based on the issue of that act of sex, who by law have been legally exempt since 1967, and basing the reason to reform society against such people; on an issue that is legally exempt by law, is an illegal contradiction of law, even though Heresy was removed from state law a long time ago.
HERESY; 2, An act, belief or practice, contrary to what is normally maintained and accepted.
In this case "by law since 1967", making Section 28, by the words used in its writing as a contradiction of law, if it was about the sexual behaviour issue, and not one civil rights group figured it out, which shows that civil rights fight against what is done directly against them and never "WHY"…
If Section 28 was implemented solely because of prejudice of over an issue of sexual behaviour of a minority, no human rights court would have ever allowed any such form of a direct act of discrimination on any person or minority through the writing of legislation for law because of simple prejudice without any genuine and substantial reason regardless of religion, to justify it. And the issue of the lack of funds for local authorities to implement such materials would not qualify for such a direct act of prejudice discrimination in any human rights court over prejudice of sexual behaviour.
So was Section 28 implemented over prejudice of a sexual behaviour issue of a minority?
Or was it a morality issue of non existent inherent dignity?
If Section 28 was not designed over a prejudice issue of sexual behaviour:
Many politicians have stated Section 28 never stopped the teaching or discussion of sex education on the issue in classrooms, which is absolutely true with Section 2a (2)
Section 2a (2) Nothing in subsection (1) shall be taken to prohibit the doing of anything for the purpose of treating or spreading the threat of disease.
This is a NHS health authority protocol that is statutory to any legal issues that may involve issues of sexual behaviour. And any health authority like the NHS would lay down this statutory instrument and requirement, regardless how the government feel about the subject, and they have that power over government with “The NHS Health Authority Act 1977”, the same as the Church of England has legal power over issues of morality, because of the “Church of England General Assemblies Act 1919”.
Which means Section 28 allowed that provision, but if it allowed that provision, why was it so important to segregate and penalise the teaching of Homosexual relationships and class them as pretend? What danger would there be in teaching genuine loving Homosexual relationships? But then again, teaching genuine loving relationships or marriage is not a science lesson, sex education is a science lesson, and even if such teaching of morality issues was a science lesson, it classed Homosexual relationships as pretend, meaning to be without inherent dignity. Since Section 28 defined a Homosexual family relationship to be pretend in relation to the reality of things, or to be politically correct, the legality of inherent dignity in any Human rights law or court would construe it, and not just by what it states, but by how it would be legally construed through a Human rights law, meaning without any characteristic of love or psychological inherent moral needs. Which intern, it defines "any" Homosexual relationship to be pretend meaning without love. All Human rights laws are based on the protection of all the human family of inherent dignity, which is stated at the beginning of all human rights laws within the presentation interpretation preamble. Because anything construed through political and legal definition of Human inherent dignity, is based only on what is inherent from birth meaning without choice, which has the highest moral standing and legal grounds of any human rights law on protection, and anything else is acquired, meaning a choice and is changeable. Behaviour does not make sexuality, and beyond behaviour, human sexuality is the only inherent characteristic of any genuine Heterosexual relationships, which for example is the confines of love for the opposite sex with Heterosexuality. If this law was legally defining that Homosexual relationships have no inherent status of dignity meaning from birth and classing them as pretend, then this law is legally construing Homosexuality “as acquired”…
And if they believed it is an acquired aspect of life that could limit the chances of having a normal life, I doubt very much they would have ever allowed any teaching of such relationships to children.
Because if Homosexuality is not only seen as acquired but actually was an acquired aspect of life: “You would have to be something else first”…
Since Section 2a (2) did apply to any materials or promotion of reducing or preventing the spread of disease on STD’s; meaning the teaching of sexual issues in it anyway in a law that prohibits the teaching of materials on a minority as something different to Heterosexuality. But what about teaching what really is substantially important to the moral needs of conditioning guidance in what to aim for personally in life, in terms of relationships, love, family, parenting specifically within same sex couples. Was the issue about protecting children from seeing the issue of Homosexuality as normal, genuine and loving, or was it about protecting them from viewing the sex issue? Because why start writing prejudice legislation against a minority on an issue, that they maybe hated the most, but have been legally exempt from law on that issue for nearly 20 years.
(Between 1967 & 1988)?????
Any other reason would mean the "founding principle" of Section 28 was based on something, that meant there is more to the Heterosexual perception of the Life Choice Theory, than meets the eye…
If they believe Homosexuality is acquired, they believe it is a choice. If they teach such relationships as normal and acceptable, would they not be blindly worried that Heterosexual children may make such a life choice, even though a choice of sexuality is ultimately impossible.
Does this answer the question why the conservative government used a cover excuse of government funding to cover Section 28's contradiction of law, by changing the entire issue without allowing the subject matter to be changed? Politicians seem to blindly support the gay rights agenda by unknowingly discriminating against them, by implying there are no other needs of teaching on the subject. Are Homosexuals and civil rights lobby groups tolerating the stigma, by being comfortable on being tolerated? Or do they want to be understood, "because tolerance keeps the international stigma".
If politicians that support the civil rights agenda believe sex education is the only thing on the issue of Homosexuality that needs to be taught in schools, why do politicians truly believe that it is of paramount importance that Heterosexual children need to be taught about genuine loving relationships, family, marriage and the brining up of children, etc? Which is not a science lesson. Does that not mean they solely believe in equal rights on sexual expression as much as the life choice theory without direct personal understanding by bias knowledge? It's one thing to believe in the theory of a choice to be that way and act against people they believe that do that. But it is something very different, when a person believes that Homosexuals make such a choice to be that way and making such a life choice, is OK, " and supports it within the grounds, standards and principles of the social inclusion in a government’s job to do so. That person could allow the implementation of the life choice theory language into legislation unaware of the implications to the Homosexual community, because to them, that language “is second nature”.
Can any government politician, Minister or Lord, really be trusted in writing legislation & law in regards to Homosexuality, whether they support the gay rights agenda or not? If a person or politician who does genuinely support Homosexuals for every equal true moral reason, "would does that person ever allow such bias political language based on the choice theory" to enter any legislation? Stonewall was set up to combat Section 28, so if this expert of research material by university’s done for Stonewall, was used to understand the grounds of why Section 28 should be abolished. Would that not mean that Stonewall will not fulfil its purpose until it has totally made sure, that the teaching of Homosexuality is actually being taught to the fullest extent on inherent needs in schools? Section 28 was written in the political language of the life choice theory. Every law whether gods law or state law, is written for a reason.
Not one rights groups figured it out, that Section 28 was written on the basis of believing that any Homosexual relationship is solely about "acquired physical needs" and not on any standing of inherent dignity, and everyone knows the physical attribute to any Homosexual relationship is an act of sex that was legalised almost twenty years earlier in 1967. And in doing so, writing this law on that belief, and Section 28 itself stated nothing on funding. And civil rights never realised the contradiction of law and never even came close to any conclusion of the simplest question over Section 28 being placed in law because national security of public health reasons on children, and not funding reasons.
If Section 28 was placed in law because of limited government funding; why define Homosexual relationships in law as physical and material wants? … Why feel the need to define a Homosexual relationship at all, or state that any promotion or teaching of Homosexual relationships is "illegal" because of a lack of funding regardless of how such relationship are legally defined? …
Could you make Section 28 mean the opposite?
If civil rights lobby groups really new why Section 28 was implemented into law, they would have recognised a very serious dumbfounding and amazing mistake made by Michael Howard when he wrote it…
Any written legislation or law will only be construed as a working statutory instrument of law by the official legal statutory meanings of every name, word, term, label or classification written into it, to work as legal mechanism of law. And any prosecuting or defending claimants lawyer or solicitor will look for every loophole in what the law states to protect his or her client. The official legal statutory vocabulary meaning of Homosexuality since the early 80’s was redefined by the University of Oxford, in concise Oxford Dictionary with a distinction that only carry’s inherent and immutable characteristics, and also laid absolutely no characteristic of sexual behaviour. So, when used in writing law, it can only be legally used and construed in its use as a legal mechanism, by its official legal statutory vocabulary meaning.
Homosexuality: 1a, People with feeling and or attraction towards persons of the same sex.
(Equal to the official statutory vocabulary meaning of Heterosexuality, but to the opposite sex)
This is the only name on the planet that can legally support the Homosexual community in writing law, regardless what people believe it could, would, should or might mean. Every civil rights lobby group and activist that fought to abolish Section 28, and Michael Howard that wrote it, and every politician that worked to keep it, completely missed one major mistake in its writing as an issue to work against the Homosexual community, which was; Even though regardless of clause (b) of Section 2a (1), the only part of Section 28 that needed to be abolished was Section 2a (1) (a) and not clause (b). If you are confused, examine clauses 2a, (a) & (b) bellow?
Section 28 of the Local Authority Act 1988,
(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 2 of the (1986 c. 10. Local Government Act 1986 prohibition of political publicity)
Prohibition on promoting Homosexuality by teaching or by publishing material.
2A. (1) A local authority shall not;
(a) Intentionally promote Homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting Homosexuality.
(b) Promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of Homosexuality as a pretend family relationship.
Which means, if you eradicated only clause (a) and kept the rest of Section 28 in its entirety, this law could have been used as a genuine legal statutory instrument for making it illegal to promote Homosexuality-(meaning; inherent & immutable) as pretend, or to be more precise:
It could have been used to penalise any school system and teacher that promotes or allows Homosexuality to be taught as a life choice to be that way.
And in doing so leaving them no legal standing or choice but to teach Homosexual family and loving relationships as genuine ones, and nothing less. No one has ever realised it! And prejudice politicians could have agreed to such a legal repeal and give that change to Section 28, and prejudice politicians would have been non the wiser because of their prejudice view of Homosexuality as a life choice, and what they believe the name Homosexual would, could, should or might mean! And Homosexuality is a “Name” and not a word, term, label or politically correct classification.
Word: 1) A sound or combination of sounds forming a meaningful element of speech, usually shown with a space either side of it when written or printed, used partly (or occasionally as a whole) of a sentence.
Name: 1,b) All who go under that name: a family, clan, race or people within the meanings or the terms of the name. (Also applies to an individual’s: Status, position and or nature-“Animal/Human”)
If you examine 2a 1(b) again by it’s legally construed writing, it could have achieved the complete opposite of what it was designed and written for…
But its to late for that.
Equality network Edinburgh, on the repeal section 2a
[Any written law that deliberately discriminates, is only acceptable, “if” it can be shown or proved, to be absolutely necessary for society.]
|
