PC 8: Section 28 Repeal

[Alex Cardigan]

You know, whenever this think-of-the-children argument is brought up by the Conservatives, I do just that. I think about my two. They have long left home and lead their own lives, and I shall even become a grandfather soon, but I think about when they weren't so grown-up. And I know that at the schools they went to, they did not have much of an opportunity to learn about other ways of life, other sorts of people they might meet, and the fact that as much as that institution - the traditional family - is to be admired, that the big wide world is rarely so simple.

So speaking as a parent here, I wish my children had been given a chance to learn about different sorts of people and their lifestyles. And I wish that instilling a greater sense of compassion and understanding had been part of the national curriculum. It is easy to coddle, but young people in this country are not stupid. If we do not inform them of what to expect from the world, we have no hope.

Abolishing Section 28 is no affront to the traditional family. It is an admission that the world is not simple, and that our young people should be given a better chance of understanding it, and I sincerely hope, going into it with everything they need to make the best life for themselves. Homosexuals are a part of the world. They always have been, in every society, in every country, in every part of history. As parents, and in our schools, we must explain difficult concepts to our young people, when it is appropriate to do so, whether it be the birds and the bees or beyond.

[Will Frost]

For all the talk of it being us Conservatives who rush into every issue, it's becoming increasingly clear with each passing hour that the Government rushed into abolishing Section 28 with no idea as to what they're doing. The Education Secretary says this isn't a one-department issue, but then admits it's being run exclusively by Mr. Brown. They say Section 28 undermines student discipline, but has failed to provide any evidence to prove it. First it was about morality, now it's suddenly about practicality.

The only thing that remains consistent is New Labour's determination to strip parents of the right to protect their children and to force their own world view on the people of this country. With the vast majority of the people we serve consistently telling us they are against the Government's proposal, the Conservative Party believes we have a clear obligation to speak on their behalf and defeat the legislation.

[Andy Edwards]

The repeal of Section 28 will not change how our children are taught, nor will it open the floodgates to inappropriate lessons in schools. This Government has passed- as have previous ones- legislation that requires lessons to be determined by experts and applied nationally and that would prevent any inappropriate materials based on age, cultural, or religious backgrounds from being taught in schools. This Government has committed to protecting children against inappropriate materials in schools, and that won't change a bit with Section 28 repeal. And I have bad news for Mr. Croft, the lover of qualified free-speech: but that's always been the case. The argument is moral and practical. And it will be.

On practicality, I have mentioned it already: laws which this Government has passed have made Section 28 redundant. Fear of the law has prevented action in circumstances where it is warranted. On morality... many others have said it better than I. So if the law won't change, then what will?

What WILL change is the ability for individuals to provide support to those who need it- support which can't be provided to individuals now because of the simple fear that Section 28 instills in people. The only reason to maintain Section 28- and the Tories have danced around this all debate- is just to ensure that we can continue to demonise homosexuals for their existence.

A number of Tories who claim to have homosexual friends or colleagues seem all too ready to trot them out for this debate, but then to use them as a prop while they argue for a law that targets and calls out a specific group of people for a specific purpose. If there's one person harmed by Section 28- and there are more than one for sure- because they couldn't get the help they need, then it is a bad law and an unjust one. We will continue to protect children from inappropriate behavior; this Government has passed laws saying just that. It's Labour- not the Tories- that provided blanket protection against inappropriate materials based on age, religion, and culture. But what Labour is trying to NOT do, like with this legislation, is target individual groups just because we hate them.

[Elizabeth Tanner]

I am immensely proud to lead the Government that is repealing Section 28, a discriminatory law that harmed our children and the Conservatives must take complete responsibility for their actions while in Government. Only days after the leader of the Conservative Party heaped praise onto the ACLU for their commitment to equality and fairness he is already walking back his own words when faced with the reality that his party don't actually support his desire for equality and fairness for all, just for those who are like them. Ending Section 28 will enable a freer environment for schools to actually confront issues of homophobic bullying without the fear of breaking a law that had scared so many into silence. Ending Section 28 will ensure that parents do have greater control and say over their children's schooling, because now if they believe a school to be failing on welfare for gay and lesbian children they will be able to hold them to greater accountability. What ending section 28 won't do is open some imaginary floodgates where children will all of a sudden by subject to explicit material, any politician telling you that it will is lying to you.

[Amelia Lockhart]

Repealing Section 28 is the right thing to do. Organisations concerned with the welfare of children and young people agree, including the National Children’s Bureau, Save the Children, and the National Union of Teachers. The British Medical Association, the Family Planning Association, and the Royal College of Nurses all agree that Section 28 is actively harmful. Independent schools, where Section 28 does not apply, provide us with evidence that repeal would not damage child welfare. We trust parents and teachers in independent schools to be able to discuss issues and provide help where required, why not those in state schools? The Conservative Party should drop their opposition to repealing Section 28 and trust those who are concerned with the welfare of children and young people.

[Fred Sackville-Bagg]

Anybody who says that Section 28 is discriminatory is lying. It isn't. It wasn't brought in to discriminate against homosexuals, it was brought in to protect children from immorality and corruption. Protecting the innocence of children is far more important than allowing schools to promote homosexuality. The problem with those in favour of a repeal, is not that they are saying that Section is no longer needed, it is that they are saying it was never needed - they would rather it was never introduced - meaning that they support children being exposed to filth and learning about homosexuality from a young age. They favour moral corruption over a decent, innocent upbringing.

[Will Frost]

When I became leader of the Conservative Party, I said I would use my position to amplify the voices of the people who are continually ignored by this Government. As Leader of the Opposition, it is my duty to speak up for the vast majority of British people who oppose outright abolition of Section 28 and the harm it will do to the rights of parents across our country. The amendment I have tabled provides a commonsense solution to safeguarding the rights of parents and protecting our children from sexually explicit material. Ensuring its passage should be a no-brainer for every Member of Parliament, particularly for those Government Ministers who have continued to insist that they support the rights of parents to protect their children.

[Will Frost]

I'm extremely concerned about the speech that the Prime Minister has just given to the House relating to abolishing Section 28. The Government had originally argued that abolishing Section 28 was about preventing bullying, but now the Prime Minister has let slip that her real intention is to, "enable young gay and lesbian children." Parents should be able to send their children to school with the knowledge that they will receive a quality education, that they will develop a love for learning, and that they will discover their life's passions. They should expect that their children will leave class everyday having learned something new, not having been interrogated as to their sexual preference. They shouldn't have to worry about a Government that seems totally complacent in allowing them to be exposed to deeply innapropriate material. Children should not be subjected to information questioning their sexuality, or "enabling" them, as the Prime Minister would like, to pursue a particular sexual lifestyle. This is shocking, deeply disturbing rhetoric from the leader of our country's Government.

[Elizabeth Tanner]

If that is what Mr Croft learned from my speech today then I suggest he is the one who needs to return to school. Repealing Section 28 will not lead to children being interrogated about their sexuality, but will enable children to ask questions if they have any and will enable teachers to answer those questions. The Conservative Opposition to this has been to jump immediately for hyperbole - now I can expect that from certain members of his backbenchers but not someone who claims to be a serious politician. He really must try harder.

[Will Frost]

In her attempt to clarify her position, the Prime Minister has only succeeded in causing greater concern. Teachers shouldn't be the people fielding questions about a child's sexuality - that is a right that should naturally be reserved for parents! I don't believe it is a radical suggestion for the Conservative Party to want school to be about learning and expanding opportunity, rather than a laboratory of sexual proclivity. It is wholly inappropriate for the Labour Party, for the Prime Minister no less, to be seriously suggesting that teachers should assume the rights and responsibilities of parents on a matter that is so extremely personal and private.