Section 28: Death threats and Holyrood's 'first culture war'
It was rare for politicians to get death threats in 1999.But former MSP Wendy Alexander says she found herself an "obvious target" during what she describes as the Scottish Parliament's first culture war – the battle to repeal a law commonly known as Section 28.The law prohibited schools and councils from intentionally promoting homosexuality or the teaching of "the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship"."It was very unpleasant," she says. "There were death threats, which sadly have become more common to politicians, but in those days were mercifully rare. It was really incredibly febrile."
Section 28 – known as Section 2A in Scotland – was introduced by Margaret Thatcher's government in 1988 after an outcry sparked by reports about content in school books in LondonAlexander – who is now a member of the House of Lords – describes the law as "pernicious".
And 25 years on, she recalls how she and Scotland's "fledgling" parliament would take on the tabloid media and one of the country's richest men. "You could label this as one of the first pieces of culture war legislation," she says."This was something that Mrs Thatcher put on the statute books because somebody didn't like, literally, a storybook, which had children growing up in a gay family."This was a story book that some London borough allegedly used, and this was a chance for Mrs Thatcher to commence a culture war."She adds: "Because it banned local government from promoting homosexuality, what it did was make teachers very, very scared about being able to talk about relationships in schools."They were frightened that they would be accused of promoting homosexuality by virtue of talking to children who were confused about their sexuality or simply talking about the lives they saw around them, if it came up in personal education."
In 1997, the UK's new Labour government had pledged to abolish the law. And by 2000, it would fall to Scotland's new parliament to pass the vote.Alexander was communities minister in Holyrood's first Scottish Executive when she received a call from Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott."He said: 'Wendy, we are about to embark on our manifesto commitment to abolish Section 28… If you want to repeal on the same timetable as England, you have to start now.'"We announced in the October before, it was then the Queen's Speech in England, that we intended to repeal in Scotland. The consultation we ran was in favour of the repeal of Section 28 in Scotland as well."However, while the majority of MSPs looked likely to vote to repeal Section 28 in Scotland, there were voices outside parliament opposed to the move.
In 2000, Brian Souter, founder of the Stagecoach Group, funded the "Keep the Clause" campaign that sought to prevent Section 28 from being abolished.Backed by the Daily Record newspaper and several religious groups, the campaign ran a private postal referendum. It received more than 1.2 million responses, with more than 86% respondents voting to retain the ban.Speaking after the result in May 2000, Mr Souter addressed MSPs via the media. He said: "We plead with you to respect parents' rights to nurture their children with their own beliefs and values."And we warn you that we will not stand back and allow a politically correct minority to undermine the important position of marriage and determine morality of the majority."The BBC contacted Mr Souter for this article but he declined to comment.
Alexander says: "Cardinal [Thomas] Winning at the time accused me of being the greatest threat to Christian unity in Scotland."Of course, the right thing was to try and take the temperature down. We were not interested in a crusade, but I was an obvious target at that time. I was young, single, I wasn't married, I didn't have kids."But we worked to give reassurance around guidelines to schools that fundamentally this was not about sex education, that the sex education guidelines were there, they were adequate.""This was about society, recognizing that you don't honour marriage by denying the reality of other relationships which are equally well established and honourable."In the end, the repeal was passed on 21 June 2000 – with 99 MSPs voting in favour and 17 against.England and Wales would follow suit by repealing Section 28 in 2003."And of course within 10 years, it was forgotten," Alexander says."People, I think, are proud that Scotland became a more tolerant society and of course it laid the foundation for civil partnerships and then equal marriage, which again are well accepted."The Scottish Conservatives had voted against the repeal, but before he became prime minister in 2010, the party's UK leader David Cameron apologised for Section 28, labelling it "offensive to gay people".Alexander says: "I think it's important in these cases to hold your ground but to do so with humility and try and take people with you."And I think looking back we didn't always manage to take the country with us but the parliament stood firm."
After the bruising debate over Section 28, Wendy Alexander had a brief stint as Scottish Labour leader. She is currently a member of the House of Lords.In her personal life, she married and had two children. In 2020, her husband came out as trans and she says they are now amicably divorced.Referring to recent debates over trans right, she says: "In society we do have to be very, very careful not to stigmatise small minorities and certainly not weaponize them in a debate. I've watched this in my own family."I think the arc of progress bends long… Section 28 is instructive in the sense that there was a huge orchestrated media campaign of opposition to legislation that had overwhelming support in the elected parliament and that involved distortion."It was classically in the culture wars tradition - magnifying and weaponising an issue that stigmatised a community."Social media just happens to be the vehicle of choice these days. Twenty-five years ago, it was well funded tabloid campaigns funded by PR agencies and business people."I think the lesson is that, I suppose, it says we're all at risk of being intolerant to the minority," she says.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Ban on Palestine Action as ‘terrorists' is shameful
I am a former chief constable, and once attempted to become a Labour police and crime commissioner. I'm not therefore someone easily categorised as a supporter of terrorism or criminal activity. The decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group is beyond satire (Report, 20 June). I suspect that embarrassment over hilarious security failures at an RAF base may be clouding judgment and good sense. Proscribing a group for peaceful protest – albeit illegal – is a disgrace. It is nearly as disgraceful as the continued UK support for the apartheid, ethnic-cleansing Israeli state. If the home secretary is so keen to proscribe an organisation, why not proscribe the terror group known as the Israel Defense Forces? They kill innocent people daily, and yet my voted-for government does absolutely nothing. Words mean nothing. Israel's leadership ignores them, yet our government persists in arming it. The proposal to proscribe Palestine Action is undemocratic and, frankly, shameful. It is an abuse of an important law – one here being used to suppress support for Palestinians. The home secretary appears to have left reason Hughes Bradwell, Derbyshire The plan to proscribe Palestine Action represents a failure of this government to engage in meaningful discussion with all those who deplore Israeli actions in Gaza and the West Bank, and our government's support of those actions. The protest group has made it clear that their reason for using spray paint on two planes was to draw public attention towards RAF logistical support for Israeli actions. That logistical support has taken many forms, and the public is only aware of some. At the same time, the government has often condemned Israel's genocidal policies. It should not be surprised when its support for Israel leads to alarming reactions. I recently joined a large, friendly and peaceful march in London in support of the Palestinian cause. I dearly hope the home secretary will consider the British history of tolerance of protest in her future BarberUttoxeter, Staffordshire The government responds to a few people spraying paint and breaking windows by declaring them 'terrorists'. If that is terrorism, then the word loses all meaning. Banning them – and their supporters – could be justified if they have carried out, or advocate, a campaign of murder and/or bodily harm. But unless the government can provide evidence of the latter, then proscribing a group that is protesting against a war is ludicrous, and sets a very dangerous precedent. Are the anti-frackers terrorists? Hunt saboteurs? Even last year's rioters weren't called terrorists, yet they caused mayhem in many towns and cities. No one is safe if proscription becomes the Loschi Chadderton, Greater Manchester So now you're a terrorist if you protest against the government supporting genocidal acts on innocent people? A small act of vandalism is hardly blowing people up, but this government is supporting murderous behaviour in Gaza in all our names, no matter how many times we take to the streets or write to our MPs. The suffragettes would have been branded terrorists if we used this criterion. I'm not a member of Palestine Action, but they sound just like my kind of people. Mary Gildea Charlton, London Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Diversity policies improve the civil service
As a retired civil servant, I read your article with interest (Civil service is 'too remote' from people's lives across UK, says minister, 14 June). I am in favour of moving roles out of London, but simply moving locations is not enough without culture change. Civil servants come from a range of communities. Most are passionate about public service. But the hierarchy means that only those who are able and willing to play by unwritten rules (created by white, middle-class, non-disabled men for their own benefit) can climb the ladder; civil servants are encouraged to focus more on what will please senior leaders than on what will benefit communities; and the civil service often values grade and seniority over knowledge, experience and expertise. To provide the best public services the civil service needs to reflect, at all levels, the communities it serves. At present it doesn't, and diversity diminishes with seniority. The 'back-office function' of experienced equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) specialists is essential: to identify barriers to under-represented groups; to ensure a working environment where everyone can thrive; and to rewrite the hidden rules so that they work for everyone. Senior leaders (including ministers) need to value the experience and expertise of specialists at more junior grades. In 2008 I joined the Crown Prosecution Service as an equality, diversity and community engagement manager. As well as EDI issues, my role involved engaging with local communities to understand their needs and build confidence in the criminal justice system. Engaging with communities improves the service provided and encourages those from under-represented groups to consider joining the civil service. In this country, we have always referred to EDI. Those who advocate doing away with 'DEI' betray their slavish Trump AirsNewcastle upon Tyne Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
The Herald Scotland
15 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
John Swinnney: 'This situation is a threat to us all'
He said he agreed with the UN Secretary General on the need for an end to the conflict through diplomacy. Mr Swinney said: 'The conflict in the Middle East has escalated to an intensely more dangerous and alarming level as a result of the US intervention overnight, which risks spiralling into disaster for the region and the wider world. 'The world finds itself at a profoundly dangerous moment and must pull itself back from the brink.' READ MORE: He added: 'I agree with the Secretary-General of the United Nations that we need to see immediate de-escalation and an end to the conflict through diplomacy. It is vital that the UK Government takes any and all steps it can through diplomatic channels to insist upon that. We also call on Iran to return to negotiations. 'And while the danger is clearly greatest for those in the region, make no mistake that this situation is a threat to us all. The consequences for international peace and security could be severe and it is vital that all nations work through the United Nations to de-escalate this conflict and bring about peace.' United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said earlier on Sunday he was "gravely alarmed by the use of force" by the United States against Iran. 'This is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security," he said. President Donald Trump in the White House on Saturday 21 June (Image: AP) He added that there is a 'growing risk' that this conflict could 'rapidly get out of control – with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world'. Mr Guterres called on member states to 'de-escalate' and 'uphold their obligations under the UN Charter and other rules of international law'. He said: 'At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace.' The First Minister's response to the developments in the Middle East came after Sir Keir Starmer urged Iran to return to negotiations. US President Donald Trump said early on Sunday that three key nuclear sites in Iran were 'completely and fully obliterated' in the military strikes. The US is thought to have used B-2 stealth bombers to drop bunker-busting munitions on the sites – including the deeply-buried Fordo facility – as well as 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from submarines. The US-UK base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean is not thought to have been used in the operation. The Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran confirmed attacks took place on its Fordo, Isfahan and Natanz sites, but it insisted its nuclear programme will not be stopped. Iran and the UN nuclear watchdog said there are no immediate signs of radioactive contamination at the three locations following the strikes. The strikes came just days after President Trump said a decision on whether to join Israeli attacks on Iran would be delayed as international leaders, including Prime Minister Keir Starmer, urged restraint. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Thursday the US president was still hopeful of reaching a negotiated solution with Tehran and would decide on military action within two weeks. But speaking after the strikes on Iran early on Sunday, President Trump said: 'Iran's nuclear programme is a grave threat to international security. 'Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon and the US has taken action to alleviate that threat.' Trade policy minister Mr Alexander, who is the MP for Lothian East and a former international development minister, spoke to the BBC's Sunday Show. He said: 'I understand that people have woken up this morning to the news that was breaking overnight with a real sense of concern. 'I want to assure your viewers that the British Government has been putting contingencies in place. 'There have been a whole series of meetings, I and other have been attending Cobra meetings in the course of the week.' He said plans are being put in place to move UK nationals in affected countries to safety, stressing the UK 'took no part in this military action'. The Prime Minister had earlier said Iran should 'return to the negotiating table', noting the region remains 'volatile'. Former Scottish first minister Humza Yousaf was critical of the Prime Minister's response. He posted on social media: 'An awful statement from the PM, which ignores our collective responsibility to uphold international law. 'Supporting illegal military action in Iran, and gas-lighting us about an imminent nuclear threat, is hauntingly reminiscent of the lies told in the run up to the Iraq war.' During a protest march in London, Mr Yousaf had earlier accused the UK Government of 'abusing' anti-terror laws against the Palestine Action group, which vandalised two aircraft at RAF Brize Norton. Meanwhile, business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds said today it would be 'naive' to think the risk of Iranian-backed terrorism in the UK will not increase as a result of the US strikes on Irainian nuclear sites. Speaking to Sky News this morning Mr Reynolds said the UK was not involved in the strikes against Iran but was informed in advance by the US. He said "no request was made" was made to the UK by the US for support. He told Sky News: "We were not and have not been involved in these attacks." But asked about the potential risk to the UK, he added: 'This is not hypothetical. There is not a week goes by without some sort of Iranian cyber attack on a key part of UK critical national infrastructure. 'There is Iranian activity on the streets of the UK, which is wholly unacceptable.' He added: 'It's already at a significant level. I think it would be naive to say that that wouldn't potentially increase. The Iranian ambassador to the UK branded the US military strikes on Iran as a violation of a United Nations charter.
