h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

is there any views out there on the clause 28 being discussed by the scottish parliament.

For reference, it's not clause 28, it's now Section 28, since it because law.

And it's disgusting, and ridiculous and pernicious, but doesn't actually say anything that's even vaguely enforceable. It's just a real shame in this day and age that such bigotted legislation still exists....

The fact that it is being discussed in the Scottish Parliament is interesting as it came in as UK-wide legislation and can now be taken off the statute books in Scotland.

For the non-UK people's info: Section 28 is a law which prohibits the "promotion of homosexuality in teaching". Since it doesn't bother to define what it means by promotion and since the onus is on the local authority to ensure compliance, this means that it has become a lever for right-wing religious groups to prevent the teaching of sex education in schools and as a rallying call whenever tub-thumping bigots meet.

Whereas most laws are a response to a problem, this was a shameless publicity stunt by the previous government to appease the right wing press and try to undo the shift to Labour which was happening in the electorate.
The fact that it failed so to do doesn't mean that the current government willl remove it from the statute books...it is a political problem now, not a legal matter ;-(

To be even more precise it forbids 'Promoting homosexuality as a pretended family relationship', which is even more meaningless and unenforceable.

Also, here was I believing that it wasn't teachers' jobs to be 'promoting' anything - surely they should just be presenting facts.

Anyway, there's a large amount of debate on the matter, but apparently the section doesn't even apply to schools...

I am being infuriated daily, here in Glasgow, by the one-sided propaganda in favour of clause/section 28. There has been relentless and massive billboard advertising of the pro clausers' cause and nothing to counteract it. The 'vote' may be past but the signs are still up. You should note that by no means everyone received a ballot paper here in Scotland so the results are not necessarily representative.
I eventually pasted signs to the rear and side windows of my car saying, 'vote to repeal clause 28', and everyone I knew who mentioned my stickers asked if I was not worried that my car would be damaged because of them. I felt that was very telling.
How dare these pro clausers tell me and others that we must live by the 'morals' of THEIR religions? How dare the pro clausers tell me and, in particular, any descendants of mine who are at school that it is better to be married than living together? How dare they suggest that the family of a child whose parents are married is superior to that of a person whose parents are not, whether they be straight or gay?
How dare they gag teachers like that? It seems the teachers may make derogatory remarks about gay life but not remarks which promote it as OK. Do these bigots really believe that you can be persuaded into being gay, so fear that happening to their kids? Are they worried that, due to attitudes like theirs, many are still in the closet and they fear open, honest talk of their existence will cause them to come out? Do they think homosexuality contagious?
Money talks, huh?. I wont be taking Stagecoach buses any more although, I have to admit I rarely take a bus so it will not be hard.

Clause 28 it a classic example of the difference (in the level of thinking) between "a person" and "people".
A person tends to be fairly liberal, egalitarian etc. but put him or her in a group and something odd happens - they become altogether more reactionary and right wing...and oddly, easier to control.
This is why Clause 28 was political genius. Its equivalent (as mentioned on other fora) to asking the electorate "When did you stop beating your wife" because it is sooo difficult to elaborate why you are against it in public...but [here goes]...

Clause 28 is bad law, because words like "pretend" have no business being in the law to start with. It is _very_ unlikely that there could ever be a prosecution brought through this law.
Clause 28 is bad politics because it is the politics of hate. It is squarely targetted at the Maud Flanders element of the electorate [Simpsons character, phrase: "Dear god, won't somebody think of the children"].

...and the irony is that Clause 28 is probably illegal itself. There are any number of laws to protect people from discrimination yet here is a law which itself discriminates.
Hopefully we (the people) will get rid of it soon - but I don't hold out much hope....sorry.

Exceedingly well put, Mr Jones. I do hope we will be rid of the clause soon although I understand your doubts.

Finally, here in Scotland, Clause 28 is repealed. Sanity prevails.
I keep hearing the phrase, 'the significant place of marriage in society and in raising children'. What significance?

I know of SO MANY pointless marriages where the couples endlessly bicker and stay together purely because they fear change - 'better the devil you know'. Some don't even seem to realise how much they bicker and how disrespectful they are to each other. This is meant to be preferable and more 'moral' than a couple living together in harmony with each other and their children? It's how you treat your partner and children that is significant, not some purely cosmetic ceremony and piece of paper. Marriage is fine as a way of publicly complimenting each other, of stating that you hope to stay with this partner for life and, perhaps, have children together. A way of celebrating your happy relationship. It is NOTHING more.
Thank goodness the days (in this country at any rate) when the only way a woman could survive was to find a husband to support her and, in turn, give up any independance, give up freedom to leave the relationship without society ruining your life for it and denying you your children. The days when a wife was the husband's property. There was more inclination to marry then as it was the only hope of survival for most women and, once married, it was made almost impossible to get out of, is it any surprise that less marriages broke up back then? The pro clause 28ers would probably advocate returning to that. Some countries are still like that, do they think that better than the way it is now? Fools

The Guardian story on this at: http://www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,184654,00.html states the salient points quite well, but also shows how stupid the house of Lords can be when they set their tiny minds to it.

So, in England, the House of Lords has now voted to retain Clause 28. It strikes me as absurd that a bunch of homophobic peers who were not voted into power by the people they supposedly represent can have any say over such a matter. Let's hope the government balk at letting them be so bigoted and dispose of the absurd clause altogether.

Embarassing, isn't it....and there seems to be absolutely nothing that the man in the street can do about it.

The whole idea of clause 28 seems ubsurd to me (this coming from a straight female). But what also seems strange to me is the fact that gays cannot get married... I mean why not? To me, it seems that if there are two people, who wish to make a lifetime commitment to each other, then why on earth should the law prevent them from doing so?

sorry. just my two pence worth...