| Q. Why does the Scottish
Executive want to repeal Section 2a?
A. The Executive
has included repeal of Section 2a as part of its “Ethical Standards in
Public Life Bill”. The repeal of this piece of legislation is seen
by the Executive as being necessary to reduce social exclusion in Scotland.
At the moment, teachers are being bound by not being able to discuss homosexuality
in the classroom. Indeed, in a recent poll, well over half of teachers
surveyed said that they believed that the repeal of Section 2a was essential.
The repeal will also arm teachers against incidences of homosexual bullying,
and will allow them to take appropriate action. Essentially, the
Executive believes that this legislation has no place in a modern day democracy
and is simply discriminatory and vindictive.
Q. But surely this
was needed to curb unsuitable material being made available to schoolchildren?
A. Of course it is
important that inappropriate material is kept out of the classroom.
However, drawing a distinction between homosexually explicit material and
heterosexually explicit material is unhelpful. It is vitally important
that schoolchildren receive sex education which is suitable for their age
and stage of development. To claim that a law which states that a
local authority shall not promote homosexuality ensures this is naïve
and, frankly, ludicrous.
Q. Why has the Scottish
Executive not had a referendum on the subject? After all, the Labour
Party seems so keen on them when public opinion is on their side.
A. There have only
ever been three referendums held in Scotland, and these have all related
to matters of constitutional or governmental change. These were;
the 1975 referendum on whether or not the United Kingdom should remain
within the European Community, the 1979 referendum on the establishment
of a Scottish Parliament, and the 1997 referendum on the same topic.
There is no precedent for a referendum on matters of policy. Scotland
has a representative parliamentary democracy, and therefore has no need
for constant policy-oriented referendums. In Switzerland, where referendums
are held at a rate of almost one a week on all sorts of issues, including
matters of governmental policy, turnouts are often negligibly low.
This adds absolutely no legitimacy to the process, and indicates that the
only need for referendums is on matters of extreme importance to the country
at large.
Q. Why would any
government want to “promote” homosexuality to impressionable young children?
A. This is the last
thing that the Scottish Executive wants to do, and it will not happen.
It is not the responsibility of governments, local authorities or schools
to “promote” one kind of sexuality. However, as the law currently
stands, a kind of sexuality is being discriminated against, and this is
not the duty of governments either. This discrimination would not
be tolerated on race, religion or gender, and nor should it be. The
Executive wants to ensure that it is not tolerated on sexuality either.
Q. If England are
now on the verge of dropping the repeal of Clause 28/Section 2a, then what
are Donald Dewar, Sam Galbraith and Wendy Alexander trying to prove by
insisting it must still be repealed in Scotland?
A. England are not
on the verge of scrapping the repeal of Clause 28 and it will be repealed
at Westminster as well as in the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, as
recently as March, Prime Minister Tony Blair was in Scotland outlining
why he believed repeal was necessary.
Q. Is this not another
example of England using Scotland as a guinea pig for political decisions,
as happened with the poll tax?
A. No.
Repeal is being proposed on both sides of the border.
Q. Schools are for
education, not for the promotion of sexual values. What about the
importance of the three “R”s?
A. You are right
in one respect here. Schools should not be about the promotion of
a certain kind of sexuality. However, it is important that there
is a standard sex education programme being run throughout the country
to ensure that future generations of Scots grow up well-informed and free
of prejudice. The importance of children being informed about the
dangers of unprotected sex, for example, cannot be over-emphasised.
Those who advocate burying their heads in the sand must realise that an
uninformed, sexually naive teenager is far more likely to fall prey to
sexually transmitted disease or unwanted pregnancy than one who is fully
aware of the facts.
Q. What will the
Executive do if Brian Souter’s referendum shows a majority of the population
opposing repeal?
A. The Keep the Clause
“Independent” referendum is NOT a referendum. It is being organised
by a group who have already spent £1.75million pounds on opposing
repeal, and the campaign has not been bound by the long-established electoral
rules in this country. As well as this, this plebiscite has been
damaged by tens of thousands of Scots voters being excluded from casting
their votes due to problems with the electoral roll. No-one under
19 has received a ballot paper, yet many people have received more than
one. This is nothing more than an expensive opinion poll, and I would
expect that it will carry no more weight than any other opinion poll.
Q. Does the level
of debate surrounding this issue concern you?
A. Absolutely.
Constant references to the “gay mafia” and the “gay lobby” have only served
to cheapen the debate. However, the flip-side of this
has been the ease with which certain members of the pro-repeal side have
labelled those opposed to repeal as “homophobes” and “bigots”. This
is not always the case. Certainly, I have had people write to me
and visit my surgery who do fall into these categories. However,
there are many in society who, perhaps as a result of a well-run campaign
of misinformation, have genuine fears which are merely based on concerns
for their children, and not on homophobia and bigotry. I would like
to see this debate move on, and see a more rational consideration of the
issue.
Click
here to read the Ethical Standards in Public Life (Scotland) Bill
|
