Section 28 - Opposition

Opposition

Gay rights advocates, such as Stonewall, OutRage!, Capital Gay, The Pink Paper and the Gay Times formed the major opposition to Section 28 and led the campaign for its repeal. Prominent individuals who spoke out for the repeal of Section 28 included Sir Ian McKellen, Michael Cashman, Ivan Massow, Mo Mowlam, Simon Callow, Annette Crosbie, Michael Grade, Jane Horrocks, Michael Mansfield QC, Helen Mirren, Claire Rayner, Ned Sherrin and Alan Moore.

A coalition of comic book creators, including Alan Moore, Frank Miller, Robert Crumb, Art Spiegelman, Neil Gaiman, and many others, produced a magazine called AARGH (Artists Against Rampant Government Homophobia) and raised at least £20,000 to contribute to the fight against the legislation, according to Moore. Boy George wrote a song opposed to Section 28, entitled "No Clause 28". The band Chumbawamba recorded a single entitled "Smash Clause 28! Fight the Alton Bill!" which was an attack on Clause/Section 28 and a benefit for a gay rights group; it also featured 12 pages of hand printed notes relating to gay rights. The legislation was also opposed by some religious groups and leaders, such as Richard Harries, Bishop of Oxford. Newspapers that came out in opposition included The Guardian, The Independent and The Daily Mirror.

Political parties that were opposed to Section 28 included the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party. In the House of Lords the campaign for repeal was led by openly-gay peer Waheed Alli. Perhaps the most famous act of opposition to Section 28 came when Shaun Woodward, a Conservative MP with a transgender sister, defected from the Conservative Party and his seat and joined the ruling Labour Party in opposition to the Conservatives' continued support of Section 28.

The main point of argument claimed by opponents of Section 28 was the complaint that it discriminated against homosexuals, and hence was an intolerant and unjust law. Various other arguments were also used against Section 28 which are summarised as follows:

• That, by excluding homosexual 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, in contrast to the Section's opponents' view that homosexuality is biologically determined.
• It was no longer relevant due to the Learning and Skills Act of 2000 and the Education Act of 1996.