Talk:Section 28/Archive 1

Archive 1

Draft version

This is a draft version and there is probably a lot wrong with this article. The dates and some of the facts probably need double-checking but I'm fairly confident most of it is fairly accurate. I've strived to be as balanced as possible here but I have to admit I am biased and this may show up in the article. Particularly, the 'Support' section lacks reason for support Section 28 - I had some trouble coming up with reasons so it might be an idea for someone else to add them? --Axon 21:41, 25 March 2003 (UTC)

Use of bold

Looking at the page I find it disturbing to see so many bold words. As far as I understand the style guide (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style) the subject should be in bold in the first line. After that I think using italics is fully sufficent (the same holde for "Section 2a"). -- mkrohn 01:54 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

:"It prohibited teachers and educational staff from discussing homosexual issues with students for fear of losing state funding". I think this isn't quite as clear as it could be. There was (apparently) debate as to whether this actually applied in schools. Headteachers and Boards of Governors were specifically exempt. What was definitely true was that schools and teachers became confused as to what was actually permitted, and obviously tended to err on the side of caution. I know that is what the sentence means, but it could be made clearer that it was the confusion, rather than Section 28 itself. Supporters Section 28 tended to say that the schools were mistaken, and that was the problem of the schools, not of Section 28.

The NUT said of this "... While Section 28 applies to local authorities and not to schools, many teachers believe, albeit wrongly, that it imposes constraints in respect of the advice and counselling they give to pupils. Professional judgement is therefore influenced by the perceived prospect of prosecution." The "albeit wrongly" is interesting.

That does seem to have been a mistake by the drafters of the section, mind you. The intention was to effect schools, but it constrained local authorities and not schools.

"Section 28 does not affect the activities of school governors, nor of teachers," the environment department circular states. "It will not prevent the objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, nor the counselling of pupils concerned about their sexuality." (Dept for Education and Science statement, 1988).

When Dame Jill Knight heard this, she was somewhat upset (so it was quite clearly the intention of the section, it was just stupidly done). "This has got to be a mistake. The major point of it was to protect children in schools from having homosexuality thrust upon them,"

http://briandeer.com/social/clause-28.htm

http://www.teachers.org.uk/story.php?id=2320

--Amortize

I didn't read all the style-guides: I'll change the other mentions of Section 28 to italic emphasis rather than bold. Sorry to hear you found this "disturbing". Bit of a strong reaction :) -- Axon

I'm assuming this would be the British Parliament? How UK-centric. -- Zoe

Hi Zoe. Didn't realise my article was so UK-centric. In my defense a lot of the articles in Wikipedia are quite Americocentric (for example, gay rights). When I say Parliament I generally mean the United Kingdom one, in the same way that when people say Congress they typically mean the one in Washington. Marco kindly ammended the article

I'd be interested to know what you thought of my article otherwise. -- Axon

hehe ... you're right about Americocentric articles. But the way to deal with that is to un-America ... er... you get the idea :-) -- Tarquin 19:34 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Phew! I just got through collating everything I could find on Section 28, nevermind writing a history of gay rights for the UK, or even for the whole world. But it sounds like a challenge and I may well attempt it. 20:56 Mar 27, 2003 (GMT)

---

Image?

Would anyone know of an image that could be used for this article? Notable protests? Notable protestors? Scans of gay newspaper covers of the time? - David Gerard 11:17, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, if we were to have an image (and I am not convinced that it needs one), the ideal one would be either the Six O'Clock News protest or the House of Lords Abseiling protest. There are some images of marches from that time as well - maybe this one of Ian McKellen from his website [1] which is of course copyrighted by him.

The reason I want an image is that I'd quite like this article to achieve Featured Article status, and that pretty much requires a picture to get past WP:FAC these days. I can't find that image on his site - where is it linked from? - David Gerard 22:13, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, of course since Ian was FA we might suffer from McKellen Overload :) It is linked from Galleries - Fotos: 1985-1989 It's about two thirds of the way down with the caption:

1988 With Michael Cashman at the Gay Rights March on Manchester in protest of Section 28, the act outlawing local government funding of any pro-gay activity.

Has anyone requested permission to use these pictures yet? Any status update? An image would really help this article. --Axon 10:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have contacted the owners of the site in question and they seem positive to letting us use the image on our page. I will ask them to send a release statement. Do I need to publish this here in the discussion page?--Axon 14:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just added the picture to the article with permission from a Keith Stern who responded to emails at mckellen.com. Not sure if this is ready to be a featured article: for starters, it contains a list of bullet points which the FA team don't seem to be too fond of. --Axon 17:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section does not currently mention chronology at all. I came here on the link from Paragraph 175. I read the lead. I can guess second half of 20th century by the photo, but that's all I gleaned quickly. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:45, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

It does mention in the first paragraph that Section 28 was included as part of the 1988 Local Authority Act, but I agree it could probably be made clearer. I will try and add some more infomation but do you have any suggestions? --Axon 10:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dates of any modifications, date it ceased to be in effect. See Paragraph 175 for a model. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:57, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

The article says

In essence, Section 28 prohibited local councils from distributing any material, whether plays, leaflets, books, etc, that portrayed gay relationships as anything other than abnormal.

FWIW I'm glad we're rid of Section 28; my purpose here is just to discuss whether the above is NPOV...

I find it hard to believe that failing to portray homosexuality as abnormal would in itself be interpreted by a court as promoting homosexuality, and (though this isn't an issue I've folowed closely -- please correct me if I'm wrong) I was under the impression that no prosecution was brought under this section, so there is no case law to establish otherwise.

My understanding is that the assertion made in the article is far from established (and quite probably not true) but that the main practical problem with Section 28 (other than the fact that it is offensive and homophobic) is that of the chilling effect; the pragmatic need by councils to stay clear of possible legal grey areas almost certainly had the effect described. But I'm not sure that the quoted paragraph relects that fact; it implies that it is accepted that it was a legal requirement to portray homosexuality as abnormal.

Hence my questioning of NPOV. Yes, the legislation is offensive, but I'm not convinced it is accurately described by the quoted paragraph...

I don't claim to be particularly familliar with this subject, please feel free to rebutt this...

(Edited slightly) Roy Badami 01:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Roy, thanks for taking this to the talk page first.

It depends upon the interpretation of "promote". For a great many people at the time protraying homosexuality as normal was (and sometimes still is) considered to be "promoting" homosexuality. The inspiration for Section 28 was a book that did just this: portrayed a homosexual family as normal (see Jenny lives with Eric and Martin). This was generally considered to be it's purpose by both sides (see article references for more information).

As is mentioned in the article, Section 28 was never successfully used in a court of law and its effects were only ever "chilling" - that is it's effects were not legal but "administrative" as various schools complied to the new legislation. Fortunately, we'll never know exactly what Section 28 covered. Neverthless, it's stated purpose was clearly to prohibit distribution of material that portrayed homosexual family relations as normal so I don't think the above is a strawman at all.

With that in mind, perhaps the sentence could be revised, but I believe it should remain, perhaps as:

In essence, Section 28 prohibited local councils from distributing any material, whether plays, leaflets, books, etc, that portrayed gay family relationships as normal.

If you have any evidence that contradicts this interpretation I'd be interested to know. --Axon 11:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: From Knight, the "mastermind" behind Section 28: 2The major point of it was to protect children in schools from having homosexuality thrust upon them.". From this quote (in the article) the intention of Section 28 would seem to be no to stiffle discussion of homosexuality as normal, but to stiffle discussion of homosexuality at all. This link to the BBC site[2] would also seem to back up this interpretation. --Axon 11:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of the history of this Roy Badami 15:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

"Almost all polls"

From the article: "Almost all polls conducted in 2003 at the time the repeal process was underway showed that most people supported keeping section 28." This is incredibly vague and uncited. If someone cannot back it up with a solid citation, it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:03, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree - I've modified this somewhat to be somewhat less assertive and attribute the claim to supporters. I think the claim - that most polls supported Section 28 - should be backed up with some concrete evidence otherwise this whole sentence should be deleted. Certainly, Souter's privately financied poll demonstrated support for Section 28 but I would be interested to know what other polls were carried out in this area. --Axon 09:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! I marked my last edit as being "POV" when I meant to write NPOV. Just to confirm that I'm not actively trying to add POV to this article :) --Axon 09:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Is Section 28 Grammatically Incorrect?

I removed a paranthesis remark in the starting section that notes that section 28 is gramattically incorrect. I added this note myself after reading it somewhere online but am now unsure if it is correct. Any references or verification would be useful here. Axon 09:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

what a load of bias bullshit

Excuse my bad language, I'm sure you'll edit this just as good as you have this article, but this is one of the most one sided load of left wing rubbish on this entire encyclopedia. Wiki is nothing more than partisan tabloid trash these days and such a shame it used to be a beacon of neautrility and therefore a great resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.99 (talk • contribs) 20 OCt 2005

If you would like to point out which parts of the article you feel are biased I am sure we can neauralise it somewhat. --Spacepostman 11:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am shocked that a nation which has always prided itself on being open and tolerant would not only debate but legislate a bill which clearly discriminates against a fairly large minority group. Shame on you, Britain! Legislation such as this fits the society of the 19th century; I am shocked that such laws were in place in the U.K. as late as 2003. Thank goodness saner heads prevailed and the bill was repealed, though not without opposition from hypocritical Christians (love thy brother, yeah, right).--142.161.180.125 23:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think overall this is not a bad page. I've edited the Opposition section very slightly to make it appear less POV. I hope people approve. I think the phrase 'loaded, homophobic assumption' (though I agree with the sentiment) is somewhat over-emotive. I also think that, strictly speaking, the assumption in question implied an association of homosexuality with paedophilia rather than equating them. After all, the perceived threat was far more moral than physical. I also think a reference is needed for the polls mentioned, particularly as they contrast with Souter's (admittedly somewhat disingenuous) poll. ----Garik 18:13, 6 May 2006 (BST)

The first part is correct. It is a load of left wing bomb throwing hate & bile directed towards anyone who dare have an alternative opinion. The Sexual Offences Act was changed to show tolerance to an alternative lifestyle choice (Fair enough, no problem), but non of it was ever intended to lead to the 'promotion' of such a choice and that is why section 28 was used. A 'phopia' as an 'irrational fear' is way over used by many in this too as many find the homosexual choice including some of the sexual acts rationally fearful, distasteful and repugnant (and always will). The fact that no one is allowed to have any balanced view on section 28 and how it could have been amended without bully hate tactics and opinion shut down rants like above shows that equality will never happen until we both listen to each other and you allow others to have a different view. Instead of equality we have a seething majority, unable to speak that 'pretend' to agree out of fear and a minority group who bully, hate and shout down anyone in their path. Tolerance you scream you want, tolerant you say you are? Non, vous n'etes pas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.131.94 (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Labour voted for it?

According to this article, from an old copy of the Sunday Herald:

"The origins of Section 28 lie in the dark days of the mid-1980s, at the height of Thatcherism. But it is not only the Tories who must take the blame for it. Not many people know this, but Labour voted for Clause 28 in the committee stage of the 1986 local government bill."

Now, if that's true, that's pretty significant, and needs to go into the article. Does anyone have a way of verifying it? Maccoinnich 15:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I find it highly unlikely that Labour did, as is suggested, vote for it at the committee stage of the Local Government Bill 1986, since Section 2A was only added to the Local Government Act 1986 by Section 28 the Local Government Act 1988. IP 22:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The link is dead but it's hardly unknown for reporters to get bills and acts mixed up - parliamentary procedure is not exactly simple.

I'm trying to locate the relevant debate on the Hansard archive but if the clause was added in committee there may not be a voting record easily available. The main debate on the clause in the Commons is difficult to follow because of further amendments to it flying around, but it's clear that Labour did not oppose the clause at committee stage but instead wanted it modified - Jack Cunningham, speaking for the Labour Front Bench, said in the debate:

The amendments seek to set out clearly the priorities of the Opposition Front Bench in relation to the new clause tabled in Committee. The amendments make it clear, first, that we do not believe that any local authority has or should have a duty to promote homosexuality, but that this restriction relates solely to the promotion of homosexuality, and not to services or information to homosexual people or those personally close to them, such as their family or friends. "Promote" should not be taken to mean only "actively encourage, help and advise people to understand the circumstances they are in". Nothing in the new clause should be allowed to prevent or hinder the discouragement of discrimination against homosexual people, or to impinge on their civil rights.

That position underlay the decision of myself and my hon. Friends on the Standing Committee not to oppose the clause, to the extent that it covered the promotion of an act, but to make it clear that we intended to seek amendments on Report, as we are now doing.

Timrollpickering (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As if the procedure isn't complicated enough, in the initial stages the relevant part was Clause 27. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Private Members Bill?

The article consistently puts it that the Labour Party put forward the amendment. This is not the case; the enacted amendment was put forward as a private members bill (by a Lib Dem, inferred from the record; see below), not a public one:

(from Hansard records: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/a/st030213/am/30213s08.htm) "Mr. Goodman: Can the hon. Gentleman explain something to me? I understand that not only are a range of organisations in favour of scrapping section 28, although several are against, but the Government are in favour of doing so and will be sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's proposal. That being so, why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government have not tabled an amendment to that effect themselves?

Mr. Davey (Lib Dem): I asked the Minister that question on Second Reading and I was not terribly happy with his answer. I am surprised that the Government have not tabled their own amendment and I wish that they had done so. However, as I said earlier, I do not intend to make party political points on the issue because it is too important.

Kali Mountford (Labour): My understanding of my party's policy and the Government's position is that it is their clear intention to introduce a Bill in its own right. Seeing an opportunity, as my hon. Friends have, of using the Bill to scrap the the measure at an earlier date, I would prefer to congratulate the Government on taking that opportunity, rather than denigrating them for not waiting to do so.

Mr. Davey: I would rather congratulate the hon. Lady on her initiative than the Government.

Column Number: 552

Mr. Lepper: In the light of what my hon. Friend said, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the sentiments that I expressed on Second Reading—that it matters not who introduces the amendment; the important thing is that the iniquitous section 28 is repealed.

Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman will know from the tenor and substance of my remarks that I agree with him, but I ask hon. Members on both sides of the Committee not to make these points but to move on. (Party membership in brackets added)

The Committee records are well worth reading in regards to this act, the Right Hon. Mr. Davey also seems at pains to point out that there is cross party support.

I think the article may be politically non-neutral in terms of it's Labour/Conservative sentiments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.134.82 (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article does not conform to NPOV policies.

I couldn't see what could be done to this:

• Evidence was emerging that, by excluding gay support groups and gagging teachers from protecting victims of homophobic bullying, Section 28 was actually endangering vulnerable children. --- Implies section 28 stopped these things, includes original research
  • Actuallly, it says quite the opposite of what you assert it said. - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Section 28 came with a loaded, homophobic assumption that homosexuals were inherently dangerous to children, wrongly equating homosexuality with paedophilia. --- Original research
  • Seems to me like stating the obvious. But I agree that finding a citation of someone asserting this would be good. - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not only did Section 28 prevent the promotion of homosexuality, it appeared to give a legal reason to oppose it in schools and other forums. -- Needs citation

• The fact that Section 28 was law gave an impression to the public that the government sanctioned homophobia. -- Implies law is homophobic - violates NPOV issues
  • Are you saying that there is doubt that the law was homophobic? Frankly, I see that as carrying NPOV beyond the point of reason. One can perhaps object to the term homophobia, but it seems pretty clear that if you accept the term at all, it applies here. Do you also reject the term racism? Anti-Semitism? If there were a similar law about Blacks or Arabs or Jews would you object to these terms in describing it? - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Polls indicated widespread acceptance of homosexuality and indicate that parents would like their children to be taught tolerance for LGBT people. -- Needs citation

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.38.69 (talk • contribs) 23 Feb 2006.

The anon who made the remarks above followed them with this series of edits. This strikes me as using NPOV as a weapon rather than a tool. I won't reiterate my remarks above, but I stand by them. - Jmabel | Talk 04:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I would support reversion of those: appending things like "some people believe" does not make something NPOV. Joe D (t) 05:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Amendment?

Precisely which Local Government Act did 'section 28' amend? It can't be the 1988 Act, for if the Local Government Act 1988 page is to be believed, it was that Act which introduced the provision. --Danward 00:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've found out and changed the article accordingly. --Danward 00:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Give me the video

Section 28 became law on May 24, 1988. The night before, lesbians protested, abseiling (rappelling) into Parliament and famously invading the BBC's Six O'Clock News[4]. One managed to chain herself to Sue Lawley's desk and was sat on by Nicholas Witchell.

I demand footage of lesbians attacking the Six O'Clock News! --Ultra Megatron 02:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Begging for some citations

From the article:

The spread of AIDS had also brought about widespread fear, much of which was directed at gays and bisexuals who made up three quarters [3] of the HIV-infected community. It seemed that sexual orientation played a factor in the spread of disease, and negative, often unfair sentiments toward the homosexual community was a consequence. These sentiments intensified already-existing opposition to school policies, activities, and practices, which supporters claimed were efforts to be inclusive of sexual minorities, and which opponents deemed as the promotion of homosexualism.

The citation is a blind URL to a Macromedia Flash site; I assume it is a citation for "three quarters"; I didn't have the patience to let it load. Can someone please fill this out to a proper citation? But then the paragraph goes on into pretty strange territory: "It seemed [to whom] that sexual orientation [note the claim of orientation, not behavior here] played a factor in the spread of disease, and negative, often unfair [conversely: unfair in whose view] sentiments toward the homosexual community [don't we normally say "gay community"?] was a consequence. These sentiments intensified already-existing opposition to school policies, activities, and practices, which supporters claimed [according to what source? Presumably true, but should be cited] were efforts to be inclusive of sexual minorities, and which opponents deemed [similarly: according to what source?] as the promotion of homosexualism [a truly bizarre word, truly begging for citation]. - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

But not selective citations!

It is looking for citations, but adding the requirement to certain lines that people don't like the sound of seems a bit daft. The list of reasons for why repeal seemed neccessary seems perfectly reasonable taken as a list - but conversely, of course, POV could demand citations for each line. Unless there is some sort of screaming bias then {{Fact}} tags should not be applied selectively - of course - that's just my view. Stevingtonian 09:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

{{fact}} isn't just about bias. It is reasonable for an editor to ask for citation on anything he or she doubts. They don't have to question the motivation of the editor who wrote it. I've been known to add {{cn}} (which produces the same request for citation) to my own statements when there was something I couldn't track down. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'll be bolder in my own edits and add stuff that I know to be true, to articles, and flag them as {{fact}} so somebody can hunt down a source. I didn't think it was a good idea to do that, but now that you mentioned it... Bwrs (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Entirely agree Jmabel, only comment is that requirement for citations was only on two of the items on a larger list - perhaps more appropriate to request citation at the top of the list for all items? Stevingtonian 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Chumbawamba

"The punk rock band Chumbawamba"? A very odd characterization of a band who have done everything from a capella tight harmonies (indeed their song "Homophobia" is a capella) to sample-heavy pop. I'm cutting that odd description. - Jmabel | Talk 08:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have altered some things

I've changed the instances of the word 'gay' to the word 'homosexual', the word gay is now, sadly, often used in this context, I feel that wikipedia should not use words incorrectly (for example, if someone described Victoria and David Backham as Chavs in an article it would be changed quite quickly)-GeorgeFormby1

How is this an incorrect use of the word "gay"? To refer to Victoria and David Beckham as chavs would be unacceptable on Wikipedia for quite different reasons. garik 15:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the word Gay actually means happy, carefree joyous, and just because a few gay rights people and politicians who think that they're being trendy use it to describe homosexuals dosen't mean we should-GeorgeFormby1

That's only what it meant to most English speakers at some point in the history of the word. But like it or not, if someone says person X is gay, most people now interpret that to mean homosexual. Words and their meanings change; there's no authority that decides that word x means y for ever more – it would be ridiculous to follow one even if there was. Just because word x meant meaning y at one point, it doesn't mean that that is any more correct than some later meaning. I take it you don't insist on interpreting the word "nice" only in its 13th century sense, or insist on spelling aluminium and grey as aluminum and gray, because that's how they used to be spelt even in Britain. Why should semantic change be any different? garik 11:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC) PS Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Section 28/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• I have made some tweaks to the article's POV but overall I think that it is fairly neutral.
• On hold pending fixing of dead links and unsourced statements (marked by a previous editor as "{{citation needed}}.")
• If these are fixed, will commence with fact-checking. If factual error is present (or the dead links or missing citations are not fixed), will fail; if citations are fixed and facts verify, then most likely will submit for a second opinion from a more seasoned editor.
• Finally, I assume that the brackets around the text of the Act itself denote repeal? Bwrs (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm clearly missing something-- where are you seeing brackets on that page? The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, if that page has no brackets, that means either that Section 28 is still in force, or the link to it from the Wikipedia article is incorrectly labelled, as it says "as amended and in force today within the United Kingdom." If Section 28 is still in force then I would have no choice but to fail the article; if the link is mislabeled then please fix it. Bwrs (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't see any brackets on the page you linked to there, which was a link to section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 (i.e. Section 28 itself). I think (as a non-lawyer) that there is some confusion on the subject. Section 28 itself was never repealed; to do so would have been pointless because it had one-time application: as the lead paragraph of the article says, it merely amended an existing law, adding a new section 2A to the Local Government Act 1986, and it was this section that was repealed. The OPSI text of the 1986 act shows brackets for repeal, but the 1988 page doesn't, which is why I was confused that I thought you'd said it did. The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• I removed "moral panic" because the Wikipedia article on the subject indicates that the term denotes a specific point of view. I have replaced it with "major controversy." Bwrs (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

article name

I also suggest changing the name of this article to Section 28 (U.K.) or Section 28 (United Kingdom) or Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, and then starting a new Section 28 disambiguation page, in consideration of the fact that many countries may have laws with a section numbered 28, and of those, some of them will be notable, particularly if a constitution has a section 28 (as suggested by the dab link at the top). Bwrs (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more sensible to move it only if and when other notable section 28's come up; disambig pages with one link look silly. Larklight (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And besides, maybe other parliaments passed a local government act in 1988, so it would need to be Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 of the Parliament of the United Kingdom... Even if there's another notable Section 28 at some point, I think generally where there's one especially famous bearer of a name, they're allowed the plain name with no disambiguation (London is the English and not the Ontarian instance, and Channel 4 is the British broadcaster even though there's also a station in Iran and a shedload of UHF stations in North America which can use the name. (I'm not deliberately coming in and tearing down all your suggestions; I'm just continuing the debate. Please carry on helping improve the article: it's much appreciated.) The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the DAB link at the top, there is another notable Section 28, and I would argue that a constitutional document would be just as important as a repealed law, if not more so. As for the analogy to channel 4, do I understand correctly that the British channel 4 is a nationwide broadcaster? This would generally be more notable than any of the U.S. VHF channels 4, which are all local or regional.

Anyway, this is my first good article review so I intend to have a second editor check my work before I pass or fail it. Bwrs (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly endorse renaming the article. Even if there is no more notable "section 28", there are surely hundreds of statutory provisions that in fact have a section by that number, and the vast majority of people around the world will never have heard of this particular provision. bd2412 T 06:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Verifying sources....

background section

• The website linked-to by Footnote #4 is presently inaccessible. I have marked it as a "dead link" until such time as somebody else can either verify that the site is up or provide a different source. It seems that I cannot access many U.K. sites at this time.
• The sentence, "[b]ut it was not until 1986 that major controversy arose and widespread protest demonstrations made a major contribution towards the subsequent passing of Section 28" needs an additional footnote. Footnote #5 provides good information, but the third party source cited by that footnote does not directly support the above statement.

legislative history

• The sentence, "[t]he new amendment was also championed by Knight and accepted and defended by Michael Howard, then Minister for Local Government, although it had little to do with the broad remit of the Act, which dealt with the compulsory tendering of school services" is cited to a reference that does not mention Michael Howard by name; however, the reference does support the second half of that sentence.
• Footnote #7 displays an error message, "You must specify title = and url = when using {{cite web}}."

controversy over applicability

• The web page linked-to by Footnote #9 presently displays a "story not found" error. I have marked it as a "dead link".
• I have provided an extra inline citaiton to clarify the fact that the quote from the Department for Education and Science and the quote from Jill Knight are taken from the same secondary source.

political response

• The names of individuals mentioned in the second sentence of the first paragraph of this section are not contained in the source cited. I have duplicated and moved the <ref name="4letter" /> tag next to the names of groups, and have marked the individual names as {{fact|date=June 2008}}.

repeal

• I have changed the discussion of the "Keep the Clause" public-opinion poll to reflect that "slightly less than" one third (31.75%) of the voters responded.
• Footnote #17 redirects to the BBC news home page, and the website cited in Footnote #18 seems presently inaccessible.
• Footnote #20 points to the home page of the polling company, not to the actual poll results.

opposition

This section seems to lack inline citations. Please provide citations at least for the statements that have been flagged by other editors as {{citation needed}}, if not for all statements.

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review this article, and good luck on its promotion. Bwrs (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Second reviewer

I agree with the first reviewer's detailed comments. In terms of naming, everyone knows what you mean when you say section 28 in the UK, so naming it more comprehensively sounds pedantic but people from other parts of the world won't know from the title that this is a UK-specific law. The reviewer has cleaned-up the article and inserted citation needed tags, no one has edited the article in 12 days. I'd renominate when all issues above have been addressed, thanks Tom (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I realise no one's contributed to this discussion for a very long time and so you might not necessarily see this. (I've also already renominated the article and I'm aware there's currently a backlog for review requests, so I'm not trying to expedite the process or anything. I'm basically just posting this to encourage further/active discussion of the article if anyone else decides to make any large edits to it in future!). But I just thought I'd respond to say I believe I've addressed most of the issues discussed above after making substantial edits to the page.

Thank you! Itssymbiotic (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Homophobia category

This article says this legislation was controversial. By labeling it as homophobic, aren't we taking sides on the issue? Even the those opposing section 28, did they blame homophobia, or did they simply state it was unconstitutional. I think may have had other reasons, besides an irrational fear of homosexuals, for supporting Section 28. I need a reliable source that says the intention of section 28 was homophobic. Joshuajohanson (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary defines homophobia as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". Section 28 certainly discriminated against homosexuals because it denied an entire minority group certain services at a local government level and also prevented the issue being raised constructively in schools (so as to teach tolerance and/or offer student support where required). Furthermore, it was quite clear that irrational fear was a prime factor in the making of Section 28 as its architects within the Tory government at that time were using terms such as "we are protecting our children" - as if any kind of perceived "promotion" of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle could actually make somebody gay. Wherever your political or personal beliefs lay, there is no doubt that Section 28 was discriminatory in its very nature. Therefore, to categorise it as homophobic in the article is not taking sides on the issue, it is simply reporting it for what it was based on the definition of homophobia. Of course none of its supporters will actually admit to being homophobic because nobody likes admitting they are bigoted.79.66.9.203 (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"An awkward and overlooked fact is that section 28 has never applied to schools" [4] As for the motivations being 'irrational fear', that is pure POV pushing on your part.

It applied to local authorities, which would include state run schools. And it looks like you are the one pushing a POV.89.168.105.226 (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was never 100% clear if it did or didn't apply to schools. I think the confusion is that local authorities's actual power over state schools wasn't (and still isn't) as much as people (on all sides of the argument) thought, with much of the curriculum set either at school level or regionally/nationally, not by the local authority. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The legislation was notoriously unclear, but the core of it was that Section 28 prevented the "intentional promotion of homosexuality" by local authorities, and since state schools were funded via Local Education Authorities (part of local councils), then it affected them (as well as public libraries, etc). It's not particularly relevant how much power the local authority actually had in the running of the school or its curriculum. It just meant that if their money paid for staff, textbooks, audio/visual material, or fictional books for the school libraries, then there was an issue. Privately financed schools could easily have sidestepped Section 28 because it wouldn't have applied to them.89.168.105.226 (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

More background needed

I've just added a few more bits about what was going on before S28 was proposed - we need to add to more of this and perhaps some images would be useful. The point about S28 was that it was a right-wing response to what the left wing councils were doing - in the early to mid 1980's you couldn't turn the page of a UK newspaper without seeing words like "this council does not discriminate against applicants on grounds of sexual orientation" etc. It absolutely infuratied the Tories. It was primarily THIS that fueled the development of the Conservative legistaltion - they wanted to stop the councils splattering ideas like that all over the press. This was the DRIVING FORCE of the initial moves to get what became Section 28 going. It is worth remembering that Thatchers Govt were so angry about what left wing LA's were doing that they changed the law to abolish them!!! This was all tied up with issues like gay rights and the other poles of attraction that these authorities were magnetising to themselves. They were almost like the offcial opposition - remember the GLC HQ opposite the Houses of Parliament? Ken facing Maggie? gay rights festivals opposite the seat of Tory government! I remember hearing interviews on the radio (can't find transcript to add as a reference but I'll keep looking) with Gill Knight and others bemoaning the GLC and the GMC and others as their fundamental reason for drafting the earliest forms of the text. Though it became a bigger issue than just local authorities job adverts from all sides...it was definately this that stirred them into action and we could do with adding more about this into the background text. Signed mapmark 27 Jan 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.70.147.75 (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Any background that can be given would be very useful. It will need to be carefully worded though. As the last poster indicates at one stage, there were a number of factors which motivated the Tory policy of abolishing the GLC. To tie that issue too closely to the subject of this article will run the risk of both POV and accuracy issues. Informed Owl (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Informed Owl

What?

Looking through the article I noticed:

"The idea that homosexuality could be "promoted" implied that homosexuality was a choice which people could be persuaded to make, when in fact sexual orientation is biologically determined."

Am I missing something here, or is this comment from someone who thinks that people's sexuality is biological? Not that I'm against that, but when has it been proven it is biologically determined? 86.142.99.185 (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely correct; it has not. I made a quick fix, but this is one of those articles that needs a lot of work —EqualRights (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

These edits need to be discussed here. I agree that there is work to be done in making the tone of the article more impartial, but this end is not served by changing "Some believed that sexual orientation played a factor in the spread of disease" to "It was correctly believed that sexual orientation played a factor in the spread of disease" (certain sexual practices played a part in the spread of the disease, not orientation—the link is indirect) or "statement about the unacceptability of homophobic behaviour within their organisations" to "the what they believed to be the unacceptability of homophobic behaviour within their organisations" (this actually makes a previously neutral statement less impartial).

I'm also not clear what distinction is being drawn in the edit summary between grammatical and syntactic errors. Indeed, the only change that seems close to fitting is changing "adoption by the Labour Party Conference" to "adoption at the Labour Party Conference", which is neither a syntactic nor a grammatical matter.

But that's by the by. As I say, I agree that changes need to be made to this article to make the tone more impartial, and some of the anonymous editor's changes may be in the right direction. But most of them, I think, are not. garik (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

I'm not expert enough to do this myself without messing up the formatting etc but these points could be added: 1. There were three very large public demonstrations against the law in the run up to its introduction (one in Manchester, two in London). Police estimated at the time 20,000 took part in the Manchester and later London protest making them the biggest gay rights protests ever seen in Europe at the time or since.

2.Jill Knight's citing of the Gay Liberation Front should be qualified by the fact that the GLF in Britain did not survive into the 80s, let alone the late 80s when she was quoting it.

3.The Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin book was available only to teachers in a London Teching Centre and was never available to children in any school despite the impression given by this article and supporters of Section 28. This book and the Clause 28 'promotion of homosexuality' issue was used by the Conservative party as an electoral weapon against the so-called 'Loony Left' Labour councils of the day and this aspect should be reflected in the article. Here a 1987 Conservative party election poster heralding what would become the Section 28 initiative the following year; http://bodley30.bodley.ox.ac.uk:8180/luna/servlet/detail/ODLodl~6~6~51819~105174

Vauxhall1964 (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV (Political)

Just came across this article and have to say the wording of it is politically biased to the point of incoherency. The attempts to berate the Conservative party in this article come so thick and fast that they often actually impede the flow of sentences. In particular parts such as; "Section 28 was repealed by the Labour government without concession (Cameron was absent for the vote on its eventual repeal). However, in June 2009, Cameron—then leader of the Conservative Party whilst campaigning to be the next Prime Minister—formally apologised for his party introducing the law, stating that it was a mistake and had been offensive to gay people.[39] He restated this belief in January 2010 and proposed to alter the policy of the Conservative Party to reflect his belief that equality should be taught in British schools[40] though he has failed to further this proposal since he became Prime Minister in May 2010". The article reads like a left-wing crusade and large sections need completely rewording. I'm not saying that factual shortcomings on the part of the government at the time shouldn't be mentioned in full, but sentences like "Given the domination of central government by conservative thinking, most gay rights activists were to be found in the Labour Party or the Liberal Party." are entirely spurious and unprovable due to the very nature of membership and activism in political parties. Likewise, "The 1980s was the era of Margaret Thatcher's Government, which brought large-scale social changes (see: Thatcherism); it was also the era in which AIDS was first reported". Apart from the fact that leading with the government of the day rather than that AIDS was first reported at this time is bizarre, the first part of that sentence is entirely irrelevant and surplus to this article.

Looking through this talk section, complaints have been made about the bias in this article now for nearly 6 years, so unless anyone makes an alternative suggestion, I propose I will start rewriting the controversial wording shortly and removing unreferenced claims. I would invite anyone to check any edits I make to ensure I am not applying my own bias, or better yet, ask anyone else to help with trying to make this article read more like a Wikipedia article and less like a blog post by a 15 year old Labour supporter. VWOzone (Talk) 03:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Vwozone: Thank you for bringing this up on the talk page. I agree with what you are saying with the latter to sentences (which I have removed) and I have removed uncited claims that Cameron "has failed to further this proposal", this seems very subjective. However, I'm not sure precisely what sort of rewording you're considering for the first paragraph you've mentioned – maybe this is my own personal bias, but I don't see how that fails Wikipedia's neutrality policy. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 12:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Editing LGBT sex education article--Legal battles section

I just created a section in the LGBT sex education article called "Legal battles" and I would like to include a subsection on Section 28, which I will link to this article. If anyone wants to review it I would really appreciate it! Thanks, Saira Weinzimmer (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Section 28 → Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 – Primary or not, the title must be precise. In the meantime, the current title looks mighty ambiguous to non-UK people. It should be of a disambiguation page. George Ho (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Well then non-UK people will just have to read the first sentence. Sources / Bibliography shows a vast majority of uses as just "Section 28", "S28", etc. WP:COMMONNAME applies. (And even if it didn't, there's only one other option, so there's no need for a two-option disambig page.) SnowFire (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@SnowFire: If they are of just British sources, the amount ain't enough. Speaking of British sources, here's one and another and another and another and another. They're just books. Shall I mention articles? George Ho (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• It doesn't appear to be controversial that you can refer to this "in full" as Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. It also isn't controversial that the full name is United States of Mexico or Rhode Island and Providence Plantations for Mexico & Rhode Island. Yet Wikipedia refers to the latter two by their "short names" which are common and well-known. I'm not British and never heard of this legislation before, but I did click on some of the sources / external links, and there are metric boatloads of references to this as just "Section 28", far more than what you came up with in your search. So... follow the name given in the majority of the sources. (The same at 228 Incident, mind, except I was already familiar with that one. There is little advantage in moving from well-recognized names to something else unless there's a far more direct worry about confusion, e.g. the likes of Mercury.) SnowFire (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Why comparing sovereign states to a section of a legislation? As for external links, one is a directory (DMOZ.org), one is a .gov.uk official website showing the existing legislation, and one is BBC (from UK). The British has been familiar with "Section 28" and might refer it as such without longer title, but the article still uses the longer title as part of introduction for non-Brits. Checking DMOZ, they are just British sources. Guardian is less reliable and barely uses the name of the Act. Telegraph is also less reliable and uses "Local Government Bill" instead of "Act". We got BBC is one of highly reputable sources. By the way, I have remembered that controversial UK clause, but I forgot the name of it until recently. Actually, I couldn't remember what section it was; I only know it was part of the Act. --George Ho (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong rename UK Bias, when this is moved, it should point to the Canadian constitution. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary rename. The article lede makes it clear what the article is about. It is always called "Section 28". This is a case where a clause of an Act is more well known (notorious even) than the Act itself.--Britannicus (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose "Primary or not, the title must be precise..." – see WP:COMMONNAME. Section 28 is commonly known as "Section 28", not "Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988". I understand that there may be UK bias, but a quick search for Section 28 on Google throws more results for the UK law than Canadian one, and as far as I know, "Section 28" is used more internationally to refer to the UK law than Canadian constitution – I may be wrong though. However, if the name is not changed, the article text should still clarify that we are talking about the UK law, which as of now, it does. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 14:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Section 28. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20031011113338/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/news/nicholaswitchell.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/news/nicholaswitchell.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Section 28. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041225065954/http://www.teachers.org.uk:80/story.php?id=2320 to http://www.teachers.org.uk/story.php?id=2320

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Section 28. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/lawsection28.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Section 28. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930012922/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/vo991206/text/91206-10.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/vo991206/text/91206-10.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150804054721/http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm to http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150804054721/http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm to http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Section 28. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308181830/http://www.galha.org/glh/section28.html to http://www.galha.org/glh/section28.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128052721/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-047.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-047.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128052721/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-047.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-047.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060317054430/http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=629 to http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=629
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308181830/http://www.galha.org/glh/section28.html to http://www.galha.org/glh/section28.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)== Use of bold ==

Looking at the page I find it disturbing to see so many bold words. As far as I understand the style guide (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style) the subject should be in bold in the first line. After that I think using italics is fully sufficent (the same holde for "Section 2a"). -- mkrohn 01:54 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

:"It prohibited teachers and educational staff from discussing homosexual issues with students for fear of losing state funding". I think this isn't quite as clear as it could be. There was (apparently) debate as to whether this actually applied in schools. Headteachers and Boards of Governors were specifically exempt. What was definitely true was that schools and teachers became confused as to what was actually permitted, and obviously tended to err on the side of caution. I know that is what the sentence means, but it could be made clearer that it was the confusion, rather than Section 28 itself. Supporters Section 28 tended to say that the schools were mistaken, and that was the problem of the schools, not of Section 28.

The NUT said of this "... While Section 28 applies to local authorities and not to schools, many teachers believe, albeit wrongly, that it imposes constraints in respect of the advice and counselling they give to pupils. Professional judgement is therefore influenced by the perceived prospect of prosecution." The "albeit wrongly" is interesting.

That does seem to have been a mistake by the drafters of the section, mind you. The intention was to effect schools, but it constrained local authorities and not schools.

"Section 28 does not affect the activities of school governors, nor of teachers," the environment department circular states. "It will not prevent the objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, nor the counselling of pupils concerned about their sexuality." (Dept for Education and Science statement, 1988).

When Dame Jill Knight heard this, she was somewhat upset (so it was quite clearly the intention of the section, it was just stupidly done). "This has got to be a mistake. The major point of it was to protect children in schools from having homosexuality thrust upon them,"

http://briandeer.com/social/clause-28.htm

http://www.teachers.org.uk/story.php?id=2320

--Amortize

I didn't read all the style-guides: I'll change the other mentions of Section 28 to italic emphasis rather than bold. Sorry to hear you found this "disturbing". Bit of a strong reaction :) -- Axon

I'm assuming this would be the British Parliament? How UK-centric. -- Zoe

Hi Zoe. Didn't realise my article was so UK-centric. In my defense a lot of the articles in Wikipedia are quite Americocentric (for example, gay rights). When I say Parliament I generally mean the United Kingdom one, in the same way that when people say Congress they typically mean the one in Washington. Marco kindly ammended the article

I'd be interested to know what you thought of my article otherwise. -- Axon

hehe ... you're right about Americocentric articles. But the way to deal with that is to un-America ... er... you get the idea :-) -- Tarquin 19:34 Mar 27, 2003 (UTC)

Phew! I just got through collating everything I could find on Section 28, nevermind writing a history of gay rights for the UK, or even for the whole world. But it sounds like a challenge and I may well attempt it. 20:56 Mar 27, 2003 (GMT)

---

Image?

Would anyone know of an image that could be used for this article? Notable protests? Notable protestors? Scans of gay newspaper covers of the time? - David Gerard 11:17, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, if we were to have an image (and I am not convinced that it needs one), the ideal one would be either the Six O'Clock News protest or the House of Lords Abseiling protest. There are some images of marches from that time as well - maybe this one of Ian McKellen from his website [5] which is of course copyrighted by him.

The reason I want an image is that I'd quite like this article to achieve Featured Article status, and that pretty much requires a picture to get past WP:FAC these days. I can't find that image on his site - where is it linked from? - David Gerard 22:13, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, of course since Ian was FA we might suffer from McKellen Overload :) It is linked from Galleries - Fotos: 1985-1989 It's about two thirds of the way down with the caption:

1988 With Michael Cashman at the Gay Rights March on Manchester in protest of Section 28, the act outlawing local government funding of any pro-gay activity.

Has anyone requested permission to use these pictures yet? Any status update? An image would really help this article. --Axon 10:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have contacted the owners of the site in question and they seem positive to letting us use the image on our page. I will ask them to send a release statement. Do I need to publish this here in the discussion page?--Axon 14:05, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just added the picture to the article with permission from a Keith Stern who responded to emails at mckellen.com. Not sure if this is ready to be a featured article: for starters, it contains a list of bullet points which the FA team don't seem to be too fond of. --Axon 17:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section does not currently mention chronology at all. I came here on the link from Paragraph 175. I read the lead. I can guess second half of 20th century by the photo, but that's all I gleaned quickly. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:45, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

It does mention in the first paragraph that Section 28 was included as part of the 1988 Local Authority Act, but I agree it could probably be made clearer. I will try and add some more infomation but do you have any suggestions? --Axon 10:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dates of any modifications, date it ceased to be in effect. See Paragraph 175 for a model. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:57, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?

The article says

In essence, Section 28 prohibited local councils from distributing any material, whether plays, leaflets, books, etc, that portrayed gay relationships as anything other than abnormal.

FWIW I'm glad we're rid of Section 28; my purpose here is just to discuss whether the above is NPOV...

I find it hard to believe that failing to portray homosexuality as abnormal would in itself be interpreted by a court as promoting homosexuality, and (though this isn't an issue I've folowed closely -- please correct me if I'm wrong) I was under the impression that no prosecution was brought under this section, so there is no case law to establish otherwise.

My understanding is that the assertion made in the article is far from established (and quite probably not true) but that the main practical problem with Section 28 (other than the fact that it is offensive and homophobic) is that of the chilling effect; the pragmatic need by councils to stay clear of possible legal grey areas almost certainly had the effect described. But I'm not sure that the quoted paragraph relects that fact; it implies that it is accepted that it was a legal requirement to portray homosexuality as abnormal.

Hence my questioning of NPOV. Yes, the legislation is offensive, but I'm not convinced it is accurately described by the quoted paragraph...

I don't claim to be particularly familliar with this subject, please feel free to rebutt this...

(Edited slightly) Roy Badami 01:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Roy, thanks for taking this to the talk page first.

It depends upon the interpretation of "promote". For a great many people at the time protraying homosexuality as normal was (and sometimes still is) considered to be "promoting" homosexuality. The inspiration for Section 28 was a book that did just this: portrayed a homosexual family as normal (see Jenny lives with Eric and Martin). This was generally considered to be it's purpose by both sides (see article references for more information).

As is mentioned in the article, Section 28 was never successfully used in a court of law and its effects were only ever "chilling" - that is it's effects were not legal but "administrative" as various schools complied to the new legislation. Fortunately, we'll never know exactly what Section 28 covered. Neverthless, it's stated purpose was clearly to prohibit distribution of material that portrayed homosexual family relations as normal so I don't think the above is a strawman at all.

With that in mind, perhaps the sentence could be revised, but I believe it should remain, perhaps as:

In essence, Section 28 prohibited local councils from distributing any material, whether plays, leaflets, books, etc, that portrayed gay family relationships as normal.

If you have any evidence that contradicts this interpretation I'd be interested to know. --Axon 11:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: From Knight, the "mastermind" behind Section 28: 2The major point of it was to protect children in schools from having homosexuality thrust upon them.". From this quote (in the article) the intention of Section 28 would seem to be no to stiffle discussion of homosexuality as normal, but to stiffle discussion of homosexuality at all. This link to the BBC site[6] would also seem to back up this interpretation. --Axon 11:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation of the history of this Roy Badami 15:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

"Almost all polls"

From the article: "Almost all polls conducted in 2003 at the time the repeal process was underway showed that most people supported keeping section 28." This is incredibly vague and uncited. If someone cannot back it up with a solid citation, it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:03, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree - I've modified this somewhat to be somewhat less assertive and attribute the claim to supporters. I think the claim - that most polls supported Section 28 - should be backed up with some concrete evidence otherwise this whole sentence should be deleted. Certainly, Souter's privately financied poll demonstrated support for Section 28 but I would be interested to know what other polls were carried out in this area. --Axon 09:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! I marked my last edit as being "POV" when I meant to write NPOV. Just to confirm that I'm not actively trying to add POV to this article :) --Axon 09:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Is Section 28 Grammatically Incorrect?

I removed a paranthesis remark in the starting section that notes that section 28 is gramattically incorrect. I added this note myself after reading it somewhere online but am now unsure if it is correct. Any references or verification would be useful here. Axon 09:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

what a load of bias bullshit

Excuse my bad language, I'm sure you'll edit this just as good as you have this article, but this is one of the most one sided load of left wing rubbish on this entire encyclopedia. Wiki is nothing more than partisan tabloid trash these days and such a shame it used to be a beacon of neautrility and therefore a great resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.99 (talk • contribs) 20 OCt 2005

If you would like to point out which parts of the article you feel are biased I am sure we can neauralise it somewhat. --Spacepostman 11:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am shocked that a nation which has always prided itself on being open and tolerant would not only debate but legislate a bill which clearly discriminates against a fairly large minority group. Shame on you, Britain! Legislation such as this fits the society of the 19th century; I am shocked that such laws were in place in the U.K. as late as 2003. Thank goodness saner heads prevailed and the bill was repealed, though not without opposition from hypocritical Christians (love thy brother, yeah, right).--142.161.180.125 23:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I think overall this is not a bad page. I've edited the Opposition section very slightly to make it appear less POV. I hope people approve. I think the phrase 'loaded, homophobic assumption' (though I agree with the sentiment) is somewhat over-emotive. I also think that, strictly speaking, the assumption in question implied an association of homosexuality with paedophilia rather than equating them. After all, the perceived threat was far more moral than physical. I also think a reference is needed for the polls mentioned, particularly as they contrast with Souter's (admittedly somewhat disingenuous) poll. ----Garik 18:13, 6 May 2006 (BST)

The first part is correct. It is a load of left wing bomb throwing hate & bile directed towards anyone who dare have an alternative opinion. The Sexual Offences Act was changed to show tolerance to an alternative lifestyle choice (Fair enough, no problem), but non of it was ever intended to lead to the 'promotion' of such a choice and that is why section 28 was used. A 'phopia' as an 'irrational fear' is way over used by many in this too as many find the homosexual choice including some of the sexual acts rationally fearful, distasteful and repugnant (and always will). The fact that no one is allowed to have any balanced view on section 28 and how it could have been amended without bully hate tactics and opinion shut down rants like above shows that equality will never happen until we both listen to each other and you allow others to have a different view. Instead of equality we have a seething majority, unable to speak that 'pretend' to agree out of fear and a minority group who bully, hate and shout down anyone in their path. Tolerance you scream you want, tolerant you say you are? Non, vous n'etes pas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.131.94 (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Labour voted for it?

According to this article, from an old copy of the Sunday Herald:

"The origins of Section 28 lie in the dark days of the mid-1980s, at the height of Thatcherism. But it is not only the Tories who must take the blame for it. Not many people know this, but Labour voted for Clause 28 in the committee stage of the 1986 local government bill."

Now, if that's true, that's pretty significant, and needs to go into the article. Does anyone have a way of verifying it? Maccoinnich 15:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I find it highly unlikely that Labour did, as is suggested, vote for it at the committee stage of the Local Government Bill 1986, since Section 2A was only added to the Local Government Act 1986 by Section 28 the Local Government Act 1988. IP 22:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The link is dead but it's hardly unknown for reporters to get bills and acts mixed up - parliamentary procedure is not exactly simple.

I'm trying to locate the relevant debate on the Hansard archive but if the clause was added in committee there may not be a voting record easily available. The main debate on the clause in the Commons is difficult to follow because of further amendments to it flying around, but it's clear that Labour did not oppose the clause at committee stage but instead wanted it modified - Jack Cunningham, speaking for the Labour Front Bench, said in the debate:

The amendments seek to set out clearly the priorities of the Opposition Front Bench in relation to the new clause tabled in Committee. The amendments make it clear, first, that we do not believe that any local authority has or should have a duty to promote homosexuality, but that this restriction relates solely to the promotion of homosexuality, and not to services or information to homosexual people or those personally close to them, such as their family or friends. "Promote" should not be taken to mean only "actively encourage, help and advise people to understand the circumstances they are in". Nothing in the new clause should be allowed to prevent or hinder the discouragement of discrimination against homosexual people, or to impinge on their civil rights.

That position underlay the decision of myself and my hon. Friends on the Standing Committee not to oppose the clause, to the extent that it covered the promotion of an act, but to make it clear that we intended to seek amendments on Report, as we are now doing.

Timrollpickering (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As if the procedure isn't complicated enough, in the initial stages the relevant part was Clause 27. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Private Members Bill?

The article consistently puts it that the Labour Party put forward the amendment. This is not the case; the enacted amendment was put forward as a private members bill (by a Lib Dem, inferred from the record; see below), not a public one:

(from Hansard records: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/a/st030213/am/30213s08.htm) "Mr. Goodman: Can the hon. Gentleman explain something to me? I understand that not only are a range of organisations in favour of scrapping section 28, although several are against, but the Government are in favour of doing so and will be sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's proposal. That being so, why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government have not tabled an amendment to that effect themselves?

Mr. Davey (Lib Dem): I asked the Minister that question on Second Reading and I was not terribly happy with his answer. I am surprised that the Government have not tabled their own amendment and I wish that they had done so. However, as I said earlier, I do not intend to make party political points on the issue because it is too important.

Kali Mountford (Labour): My understanding of my party's policy and the Government's position is that it is their clear intention to introduce a Bill in its own right. Seeing an opportunity, as my hon. Friends have, of using the Bill to scrap the the measure at an earlier date, I would prefer to congratulate the Government on taking that opportunity, rather than denigrating them for not waiting to do so.

Mr. Davey: I would rather congratulate the hon. Lady on her initiative than the Government.

Column Number: 552

Mr. Lepper: In the light of what my hon. Friend said, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the sentiments that I expressed on Second Reading—that it matters not who introduces the amendment; the important thing is that the iniquitous section 28 is repealed.

Mr. Davey: The hon. Gentleman will know from the tenor and substance of my remarks that I agree with him, but I ask hon. Members on both sides of the Committee not to make these points but to move on. (Party membership in brackets added)

The Committee records are well worth reading in regards to this act, the Right Hon. Mr. Davey also seems at pains to point out that there is cross party support.

I think the article may be politically non-neutral in terms of it's Labour/Conservative sentiments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.111.134.82 (talk) 10:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article does not conform to NPOV policies.

I couldn't see what could be done to this:

• Evidence was emerging that, by excluding gay support groups and gagging teachers from protecting victims of homophobic bullying, Section 28 was actually endangering vulnerable children. --- Implies section 28 stopped these things, includes original research
  • Actuallly, it says quite the opposite of what you assert it said. - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Section 28 came with a loaded, homophobic assumption that homosexuals were inherently dangerous to children, wrongly equating homosexuality with paedophilia. --- Original research
  • Seems to me like stating the obvious. But I agree that finding a citation of someone asserting this would be good. - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Not only did Section 28 prevent the promotion of homosexuality, it appeared to give a legal reason to oppose it in schools and other forums. -- Needs citation

• The fact that Section 28 was law gave an impression to the public that the government sanctioned homophobia. -- Implies law is homophobic - violates NPOV issues
  • Are you saying that there is doubt that the law was homophobic? Frankly, I see that as carrying NPOV beyond the point of reason. One can perhaps object to the term homophobia, but it seems pretty clear that if you accept the term at all, it applies here. Do you also reject the term racism? Anti-Semitism? If there were a similar law about Blacks or Arabs or Jews would you object to these terms in describing it? - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Polls indicated widespread acceptance of homosexuality and indicate that parents would like their children to be taught tolerance for LGBT people. -- Needs citation

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.38.69 (talk • contribs) 23 Feb 2006.

The anon who made the remarks above followed them with this series of edits. This strikes me as using NPOV as a weapon rather than a tool. I won't reiterate my remarks above, but I stand by them. - Jmabel | Talk 04:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I would support reversion of those: appending things like "some people believe" does not make something NPOV. Joe D (t) 05:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Amendment?

Precisely which Local Government Act did 'section 28' amend? It can't be the 1988 Act, for if the Local Government Act 1988 page is to be believed, it was that Act which introduced the provision. --Danward 00:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've found out and changed the article accordingly. --Danward 00:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Give me the video

Section 28 became law on May 24, 1988. The night before, lesbians protested, abseiling (rappelling) into Parliament and famously invading the BBC's Six O'Clock News[4]. One managed to chain herself to Sue Lawley's desk and was sat on by Nicholas Witchell.

I demand footage of lesbians attacking the Six O'Clock News! --Ultra Megatron 02:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Begging for some citations

From the article:

The spread of AIDS had also brought about widespread fear, much of which was directed at gays and bisexuals who made up three quarters [7] of the HIV-infected community. It seemed that sexual orientation played a factor in the spread of disease, and negative, often unfair sentiments toward the homosexual community was a consequence. These sentiments intensified already-existing opposition to school policies, activities, and practices, which supporters claimed were efforts to be inclusive of sexual minorities, and which opponents deemed as the promotion of homosexualism.

The citation is a blind URL to a Macromedia Flash site; I assume it is a citation for "three quarters"; I didn't have the patience to let it load. Can someone please fill this out to a proper citation? But then the paragraph goes on into pretty strange territory: "It seemed [to whom] that sexual orientation [note the claim of orientation, not behavior here] played a factor in the spread of disease, and negative, often unfair [conversely: unfair in whose view] sentiments toward the homosexual community [don't we normally say "gay community"?] was a consequence. These sentiments intensified already-existing opposition to school policies, activities, and practices, which supporters claimed [according to what source? Presumably true, but should be cited] were efforts to be inclusive of sexual minorities, and which opponents deemed [similarly: according to what source?] as the promotion of homosexualism [a truly bizarre word, truly begging for citation]. - Jmabel | Talk 05:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

But not selective citations!

It is looking for citations, but adding the requirement to certain lines that people don't like the sound of seems a bit daft. The list of reasons for why repeal seemed neccessary seems perfectly reasonable taken as a list - but conversely, of course, POV could demand citations for each line. Unless there is some sort of screaming bias then {{Fact}} tags should not be applied selectively - of course - that's just my view. Stevingtonian 09:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

{{fact}} isn't just about bias. It is reasonable for an editor to ask for citation on anything he or she doubts. They don't have to question the motivation of the editor who wrote it. I've been known to add {{cn}} (which produces the same request for citation) to my own statements when there was something I couldn't track down. - Jmabel | Talk 04:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'll be bolder in my own edits and add stuff that I know to be true, to articles, and flag them as {{fact}} so somebody can hunt down a source. I didn't think it was a good idea to do that, but now that you mentioned it... Bwrs (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Entirely agree Jmabel, only comment is that requirement for citations was only on two of the items on a larger list - perhaps more appropriate to request citation at the top of the list for all items? Stevingtonian 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Chumbawamba

"The punk rock band Chumbawamba"? A very odd characterization of a band who have done everything from a capella tight harmonies (indeed their song "Homophobia" is a capella) to sample-heavy pop. I'm cutting that odd description. - Jmabel | Talk 08:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have altered some things

I've changed the instances of the word 'gay' to the word 'homosexual', the word gay is now, sadly, often used in this context, I feel that wikipedia should not use words incorrectly (for example, if someone described Victoria and David Backham as Chavs in an article it would be changed quite quickly)-GeorgeFormby1

How is this an incorrect use of the word "gay"? To refer to Victoria and David Beckham as chavs would be unacceptable on Wikipedia for quite different reasons. garik 15:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Because the word Gay actually means happy, carefree joyous, and just because a few gay rights people and politicians who think that they're being trendy use it to describe homosexuals dosen't mean we should-GeorgeFormby1

That's only what it meant to most English speakers at some point in the history of the word. But like it or not, if someone says person X is gay, most people now interpret that to mean homosexual. Words and their meanings change; there's no authority that decides that word x means y for ever more – it would be ridiculous to follow one even if there was. Just because word x meant meaning y at one point, it doesn't mean that that is any more correct than some later meaning. I take it you don't insist on interpreting the word "nice" only in its 13th century sense, or insist on spelling aluminium and grey as aluminum and gray, because that's how they used to be spelt even in Britain. Why should semantic change be any different? garik 11:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC) PS Please sign your name using four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Section 28/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• I have made some tweaks to the article's POV but overall I think that it is fairly neutral.
• On hold pending fixing of dead links and unsourced statements (marked by a previous editor as "{{citation needed}}.")
• If these are fixed, will commence with fact-checking. If factual error is present (or the dead links or missing citations are not fixed), will fail; if citations are fixed and facts verify, then most likely will submit for a second opinion from a more seasoned editor.
• Finally, I assume that the brackets around the text of the Act itself denote repeal? Bwrs (talk) 12:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm clearly missing something-- where are you seeing brackets on that page? The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, if that page has no brackets, that means either that Section 28 is still in force, or the link to it from the Wikipedia article is incorrectly labelled, as it says "as amended and in force today within the United Kingdom." If Section 28 is still in force then I would have no choice but to fail the article; if the link is mislabeled then please fix it. Bwrs (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't see any brackets on the page you linked to there, which was a link to section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 (i.e. Section 28 itself). I think (as a non-lawyer) that there is some confusion on the subject. Section 28 itself was never repealed; to do so would have been pointless because it had one-time application: as the lead paragraph of the article says, it merely amended an existing law, adding a new section 2A to the Local Government Act 1986, and it was this section that was repealed. The OPSI text of the 1986 act shows brackets for repeal, but the 1988 page doesn't, which is why I was confused that I thought you'd said it did. The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• I removed "moral panic" because the Wikipedia article on the subject indicates that the term denotes a specific point of view. I have replaced it with "major controversy." Bwrs (talk) 18:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

article name

I also suggest changing the name of this article to Section 28 (U.K.) or Section 28 (United Kingdom) or Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, and then starting a new Section 28 disambiguation page, in consideration of the fact that many countries may have laws with a section numbered 28, and of those, some of them will be notable, particularly if a constitution has a section 28 (as suggested by the dab link at the top). Bwrs (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more sensible to move it only if and when other notable section 28's come up; disambig pages with one link look silly. Larklight (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

And besides, maybe other parliaments passed a local government act in 1988, so it would need to be Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 of the Parliament of the United Kingdom... Even if there's another notable Section 28 at some point, I think generally where there's one especially famous bearer of a name, they're allowed the plain name with no disambiguation (London is the English and not the Ontarian instance, and Channel 4 is the British broadcaster even though there's also a station in Iran and a shedload of UHF stations in North America which can use the name. (I'm not deliberately coming in and tearing down all your suggestions; I'm just continuing the debate. Please carry on helping improve the article: it's much appreciated.) The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the DAB link at the top, there is another notable Section 28, and I would argue that a constitutional document would be just as important as a repealed law, if not more so. As for the analogy to channel 4, do I understand correctly that the British channel 4 is a nationwide broadcaster? This would generally be more notable than any of the U.S. VHF channels 4, which are all local or regional.

Anyway, this is my first good article review so I intend to have a second editor check my work before I pass or fail it. Bwrs (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly endorse renaming the article. Even if there is no more notable "section 28", there are surely hundreds of statutory provisions that in fact have a section by that number, and the vast majority of people around the world will never have heard of this particular provision. bd2412 T 06:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Verifying sources....

background section

• The website linked-to by Footnote #4 is presently inaccessible. I have marked it as a "dead link" until such time as somebody else can either verify that the site is up or provide a different source. It seems that I cannot access many U.K. sites at this time.
• The sentence, "[b]ut it was not until 1986 that major controversy arose and widespread protest demonstrations made a major contribution towards the subsequent passing of Section 28" needs an additional footnote. Footnote #5 provides good information, but the third party source cited by that footnote does not directly support the above statement.

legislative history

• The sentence, "[t]he new amendment was also championed by Knight and accepted and defended by Michael Howard, then Minister for Local Government, although it had little to do with the broad remit of the Act, which dealt with the compulsory tendering of school services" is cited to a reference that does not mention Michael Howard by name; however, the reference does support the second half of that sentence.
• Footnote #7 displays an error message, "You must specify title = and url = when using {{cite web}}."

controversy over applicability

• The web page linked-to by Footnote #9 presently displays a "story not found" error. I have marked it as a "dead link".
• I have provided an extra inline citaiton to clarify the fact that the quote from the Department for Education and Science and the quote from Jill Knight are taken from the same secondary source.

political response

• The names of individuals mentioned in the second sentence of the first paragraph of this section are not contained in the source cited. I have duplicated and moved the <ref name="4letter" /> tag next to the names of groups, and have marked the individual names as {{fact|date=June 2008}}.

repeal

• I have changed the discussion of the "Keep the Clause" public-opinion poll to reflect that "slightly less than" one third (31.75%) of the voters responded.
• Footnote #17 redirects to the BBC news home page, and the website cited in Footnote #18 seems presently inaccessible.
• Footnote #20 points to the home page of the polling company, not to the actual poll results.

opposition

This section seems to lack inline citations. Please provide citations at least for the statements that have been flagged by other editors as {{citation needed}}, if not for all statements.

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to review this article, and good luck on its promotion. Bwrs (talk) 02:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Second reviewer

I agree with the first reviewer's detailed comments. In terms of naming, everyone knows what you mean when you say section 28 in the UK, so naming it more comprehensively sounds pedantic but people from other parts of the world won't know from the title that this is a UK-specific law. The reviewer has cleaned-up the article and inserted citation needed tags, no one has edited the article in 12 days. I'd renominate when all issues above have been addressed, thanks Tom (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I realise no one's contributed to this discussion for a very long time and so you might not necessarily see this. (I've also already renominated the article and I'm aware there's currently a backlog for review requests, so I'm not trying to expedite the process or anything. I'm basically just posting this to encourage further/active discussion of the article if anyone else decides to make any large edits to it in future!). But I just thought I'd respond to say I believe I've addressed most of the issues discussed above after making substantial edits to the page.

Thank you! Itssymbiotic (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Homophobia category

This article says this legislation was controversial. By labeling it as homophobic, aren't we taking sides on the issue? Even the those opposing section 28, did they blame homophobia, or did they simply state it was unconstitutional. I think may have had other reasons, besides an irrational fear of homosexuals, for supporting Section 28. I need a reliable source that says the intention of section 28 was homophobic. Joshuajohanson (talk) 09:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary defines homophobia as an "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals". Section 28 certainly discriminated against homosexuals because it denied an entire minority group certain services at a local government level and also prevented the issue being raised constructively in schools (so as to teach tolerance and/or offer student support where required). Furthermore, it was quite clear that irrational fear was a prime factor in the making of Section 28 as its architects within the Tory government at that time were using terms such as "we are protecting our children" - as if any kind of perceived "promotion" of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle could actually make somebody gay. Wherever your political or personal beliefs lay, there is no doubt that Section 28 was discriminatory in its very nature. Therefore, to categorise it as homophobic in the article is not taking sides on the issue, it is simply reporting it for what it was based on the definition of homophobia. Of course none of its supporters will actually admit to being homophobic because nobody likes admitting they are bigoted.79.66.9.203 (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"An awkward and overlooked fact is that section 28 has never applied to schools" [8] As for the motivations being 'irrational fear', that is pure POV pushing on your part.

It applied to local authorities, which would include state run schools. And it looks like you are the one pushing a POV.89.168.105.226 (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it was never 100% clear if it did or didn't apply to schools. I think the confusion is that local authorities's actual power over state schools wasn't (and still isn't) as much as people (on all sides of the argument) thought, with much of the curriculum set either at school level or regionally/nationally, not by the local authority. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The legislation was notoriously unclear, but the core of it was that Section 28 prevented the "intentional promotion of homosexuality" by local authorities, and since state schools were funded via Local Education Authorities (part of local councils), then it affected them (as well as public libraries, etc). It's not particularly relevant how much power the local authority actually had in the running of the school or its curriculum. It just meant that if their money paid for staff, textbooks, audio/visual material, or fictional books for the school libraries, then there was an issue. Privately financed schools could easily have sidestepped Section 28 because it wouldn't have applied to them.89.168.105.226 (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

More background needed

I've just added a few more bits about what was going on before S28 was proposed - we need to add to more of this and perhaps some images would be useful. The point about S28 was that it was a right-wing response to what the left wing councils were doing - in the early to mid 1980's you couldn't turn the page of a UK newspaper without seeing words like "this council does not discriminate against applicants on grounds of sexual orientation" etc. It absolutely infuratied the Tories. It was primarily THIS that fueled the development of the Conservative legistaltion - they wanted to stop the councils splattering ideas like that all over the press. This was the DRIVING FORCE of the initial moves to get what became Section 28 going. It is worth remembering that Thatchers Govt were so angry about what left wing LA's were doing that they changed the law to abolish them!!! This was all tied up with issues like gay rights and the other poles of attraction that these authorities were magnetising to themselves. They were almost like the offcial opposition - remember the GLC HQ opposite the Houses of Parliament? Ken facing Maggie? gay rights festivals opposite the seat of Tory government! I remember hearing interviews on the radio (can't find transcript to add as a reference but I'll keep looking) with Gill Knight and others bemoaning the GLC and the GMC and others as their fundamental reason for drafting the earliest forms of the text. Though it became a bigger issue than just local authorities job adverts from all sides...it was definately this that stirred them into action and we could do with adding more about this into the background text. Signed mapmark 27 Jan 09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.70.147.75 (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Any background that can be given would be very useful. It will need to be carefully worded though. As the last poster indicates at one stage, there were a number of factors which motivated the Tory policy of abolishing the GLC. To tie that issue too closely to the subject of this article will run the risk of both POV and accuracy issues. Informed Owl (talk) 08:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Informed Owl

What?

Looking through the article I noticed:

"The idea that homosexuality could be "promoted" implied that homosexuality was a choice which people could be persuaded to make, when in fact sexual orientation is biologically determined."

Am I missing something here, or is this comment from someone who thinks that people's sexuality is biological? Not that I'm against that, but when has it been proven it is biologically determined? 86.142.99.185 (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely correct; it has not. I made a quick fix, but this is one of those articles that needs a lot of work —EqualRights (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

These edits need to be discussed here. I agree that there is work to be done in making the tone of the article more impartial, but this end is not served by changing "Some believed that sexual orientation played a factor in the spread of disease" to "It was correctly believed that sexual orientation played a factor in the spread of disease" (certain sexual practices played a part in the spread of the disease, not orientation—the link is indirect) or "statement about the unacceptability of homophobic behaviour within their organisations" to "the what they believed to be the unacceptability of homophobic behaviour within their organisations" (this actually makes a previously neutral statement less impartial).

I'm also not clear what distinction is being drawn in the edit summary between grammatical and syntactic errors. Indeed, the only change that seems close to fitting is changing "adoption by the Labour Party Conference" to "adoption at the Labour Party Conference", which is neither a syntactic nor a grammatical matter.

But that's by the by. As I say, I agree that changes need to be made to this article to make the tone more impartial, and some of the anonymous editor's changes may be in the right direction. But most of them, I think, are not. garik (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

I'm not expert enough to do this myself without messing up the formatting etc but these points could be added: 1. There were three very large public demonstrations against the law in the run up to its introduction (one in Manchester, two in London). Police estimated at the time 20,000 took part in the Manchester and later London protest making them the biggest gay rights protests ever seen in Europe at the time or since.

2.Jill Knight's citing of the Gay Liberation Front should be qualified by the fact that the GLF in Britain did not survive into the 80s, let alone the late 80s when she was quoting it.

3.The Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin book was available only to teachers in a London Teching Centre and was never available to children in any school despite the impression given by this article and supporters of Section 28. This book and the Clause 28 'promotion of homosexuality' issue was used by the Conservative party as an electoral weapon against the so-called 'Loony Left' Labour councils of the day and this aspect should be reflected in the article. Here a 1987 Conservative party election poster heralding what would become the Section 28 initiative the following year; http://bodley30.bodley.ox.ac.uk:8180/luna/servlet/detail/ODLodl~6~6~51819~105174

Vauxhall1964 (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV (Political)

Just came across this article and have to say the wording of it is politically biased to the point of incoherency. The attempts to berate the Conservative party in this article come so thick and fast that they often actually impede the flow of sentences. In particular parts such as; "Section 28 was repealed by the Labour government without concession (Cameron was absent for the vote on its eventual repeal). However, in June 2009, Cameron—then leader of the Conservative Party whilst campaigning to be the next Prime Minister—formally apologised for his party introducing the law, stating that it was a mistake and had been offensive to gay people.[39] He restated this belief in January 2010 and proposed to alter the policy of the Conservative Party to reflect his belief that equality should be taught in British schools[40] though he has failed to further this proposal since he became Prime Minister in May 2010". The article reads like a left-wing crusade and large sections need completely rewording. I'm not saying that factual shortcomings on the part of the government at the time shouldn't be mentioned in full, but sentences like "Given the domination of central government by conservative thinking, most gay rights activists were to be found in the Labour Party or the Liberal Party." are entirely spurious and unprovable due to the very nature of membership and activism in political parties. Likewise, "The 1980s was the era of Margaret Thatcher's Government, which brought large-scale social changes (see: Thatcherism); it was also the era in which AIDS was first reported". Apart from the fact that leading with the government of the day rather than that AIDS was first reported at this time is bizarre, the first part of that sentence is entirely irrelevant and surplus to this article.

Looking through this talk section, complaints have been made about the bias in this article now for nearly 6 years, so unless anyone makes an alternative suggestion, I propose I will start rewriting the controversial wording shortly and removing unreferenced claims. I would invite anyone to check any edits I make to ensure I am not applying my own bias, or better yet, ask anyone else to help with trying to make this article read more like a Wikipedia article and less like a blog post by a 15 year old Labour supporter. VWOzone (Talk) 03:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Vwozone: Thank you for bringing this up on the talk page. I agree with what you are saying with the latter to sentences (which I have removed) and I have removed uncited claims that Cameron "has failed to further this proposal", this seems very subjective. However, I'm not sure precisely what sort of rewording you're considering for the first paragraph you've mentioned – maybe this is my own personal bias, but I don't see how that fails Wikipedia's neutrality policy. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 12:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Editing LGBT sex education article--Legal battles section

I just created a section in the LGBT sex education article called "Legal battles" and I would like to include a subsection on Section 28, which I will link to this article. If anyone wants to review it I would really appreciate it! Thanks, Saira Weinzimmer (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 9 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Section 28 → Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 – Primary or not, the title must be precise. In the meantime, the current title looks mighty ambiguous to non-UK people. It should be of a disambiguation page. George Ho (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Well then non-UK people will just have to read the first sentence. Sources / Bibliography shows a vast majority of uses as just "Section 28", "S28", etc. WP:COMMONNAME applies. (And even if it didn't, there's only one other option, so there's no need for a two-option disambig page.) SnowFire (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

@SnowFire: If they are of just British sources, the amount ain't enough. Speaking of British sources, here's one and another and another and another and another. They're just books. Shall I mention articles? George Ho (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• It doesn't appear to be controversial that you can refer to this "in full" as Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. It also isn't controversial that the full name is United States of Mexico or Rhode Island and Providence Plantations for Mexico & Rhode Island. Yet Wikipedia refers to the latter two by their "short names" which are common and well-known. I'm not British and never heard of this legislation before, but I did click on some of the sources / external links, and there are metric boatloads of references to this as just "Section 28", far more than what you came up with in your search. So... follow the name given in the majority of the sources. (The same at 228 Incident, mind, except I was already familiar with that one. There is little advantage in moving from well-recognized names to something else unless there's a far more direct worry about confusion, e.g. the likes of Mercury.) SnowFire (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Why comparing sovereign states to a section of a legislation? As for external links, one is a directory (DMOZ.org), one is a .gov.uk official website showing the existing legislation, and one is BBC (from UK). The British has been familiar with "Section 28" and might refer it as such without longer title, but the article still uses the longer title as part of introduction for non-Brits. Checking DMOZ, they are just British sources. Guardian is less reliable and barely uses the name of the Act. Telegraph is also less reliable and uses "Local Government Bill" instead of "Act". We got BBC is one of highly reputable sources. By the way, I have remembered that controversial UK clause, but I forgot the name of it until recently. Actually, I couldn't remember what section it was; I only know it was part of the Act. --George Ho (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• Strong rename UK Bias, when this is moved, it should point to the Canadian constitution. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary rename. The article lede makes it clear what the article is about. It is always called "Section 28". This is a case where a clause of an Act is more well known (notorious even) than the Act itself.--Britannicus (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose "Primary or not, the title must be precise..." – see WP:COMMONNAME. Section 28 is commonly known as "Section 28", not "Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988". I understand that there may be UK bias, but a quick search for Section 28 on Google throws more results for the UK law than Canadian one, and as far as I know, "Section 28" is used more internationally to refer to the UK law than Canadian constitution – I may be wrong though. However, if the name is not changed, the article text should still clarify that we are talking about the UK law, which as of now, it does. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 14:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Section 28. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20031011113338/http://www.bbc.co.uk:80/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/news/nicholaswitchell.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/news/nicholaswitchell.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Section 28. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041225065954/http://www.teachers.org.uk:80/story.php?id=2320 to http://www.teachers.org.uk/story.php?id=2320

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Section 28. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/lawsection28.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Section 28. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930012922/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/vo991206/text/91206-10.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/vo991206/text/91206-10.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150804054721/http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm to http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150804054721/http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm to http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Section 28. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308181830/http://www.galha.org/glh/section28.html to http://www.galha.org/glh/section28.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128052721/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-047.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-047.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128052721/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-047.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-047.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060317054430/http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=629 to http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=629
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050308181830/http://www.galha.org/glh/section28.html to http://www.galha.org/glh/section28.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)