Section 28

In England and Wales, homosexuality was decriminalised for men over the age of 21 under the Sexual Offences Act 1967,{{cite legislation UK |type=act |act=Sexual Offences Act 1967 |year=1967 |chapter=60}} following recommendations made in the Wolfenden report in 1957.{{Cite web |title=Regulating sex and sexuality: the 20th century |url=https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/relationships/overview/sexuality20thcentury/#:~:text=In%201967%20the%20Sexual%20Offences,for%20Northern%20Ireland%20until%201982. |access-date=25 October 2024 |website=UK Parliament}} However, discrimination against gay men, and LGBT people in general, continued in the following decades.

This was exacerbated in 1981,{{Cite journal|author=Gallo RC|title=A reflection on HIV/AIDS research after 25 years|journal= Retrovirology|volume=3|page=72|year=2006|pmid=17054781|doi=10.1186/1742-4690-3-72|pmc=1629027|issue=1 |doi-access=free }} as the first recorded cases of HIV/AIDS were found in five gay men with no previous health issues.{{Cite web |title=Timeline of The HIV and AIDS Epidemic |url=https://www.hiv.gov/hiv-basics/overview/history/hiv-and-aids-timeline#year-1981 |access-date=2024-10-25 |website=HIV.gov |language=en-us}} The mass media, as well as medical professionals, then associated HIV/AIDS with gay and bisexual men. Although subsequent medical research showed that gay men were not the only people who were susceptible to contracting the virus,[http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/Books/lbb/x590.htm "The History of AIDS and ARC"] at the LSU Law Center the perceived association with HIV/AIDS increased the stigmatisation of gay and bisexual men. This correlated with higher levels of discrimination towards LGBT people.{{cite journal|last=Herek|first=GM|author2=Capitanio, JP|author3=Widaman, KF|title=HIV-related stigma and knowledge in the United States: prevalence and trends, 1991–1999|journal=American Journal of Public Health|date=March 2002|volume=92|issue=3|pages=371–7|pmid=11867313|pmc=1447082|doi=10.2105/AJPH.92.3.371}}

Rising negative sentiments towards homosexuality peaked in 1987, the year before Section 28 was enacted. According to the British Social Attitudes Survey, 75% of the population said that homosexual activity was "always or mostly wrong", with just 11% believing it to be "not wrong at all". Five years prior to the enactment, a similar BSAS poll had found that 61% of Conservative and 67% of Labour voters believed homosexual activity to be "always or mostly wrong".{{cite web|publisher=BSAS|title=Homosexuality|url=http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/latest-report/british-social-attitudes-30/personal-relationships/homosexuality.aspx | access-date=5 May 2014}}

The law's precursor was the publication in 1979 of LEA Arrangements for the School Curriculum, which required local authorities to publish their curriculum policies. Following the legalisation of homosexuality proposals for Scotland (added as an amendment to what became the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 by Labour MP Robin Cook), guidance was published indicating that schools should not teach homosexuality as part of sex education lessons. This was part of a deal to ensure government support for legalisation of homosexuality in Scotland.{{citation needed|date=May 2015}}

This was followed, two years later, by the School Curriculum (25 March 1981), in which the secretaries of state (for Education and Wales) said they had decided to "set out in some detail the approach to the school curriculum which they consider should now be followed in the years ahead". Every local education authority was expected to frame policies for the school curriculum consistent with the government's "recommended approach" (DES 1981a:5) which required teaching of only heterosexual intercourse in schools.{{Cite web |title=The School Curriculum (1981) |url=http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/des/schoolcurric.html#rec |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100406062943/http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/des/schoolcurric.html#rec |url-status=dead |archive-date=6 April 2010 |access-date=2022-07-01 |website=www.educationengland.org.uk}}

Despite growing levels of homophobia in 1980s Britain, several Labour-led councils across the country introduced a range of anti-discrimination policies{{Cite book |title=Learning our lines: sexuality and social control in education |date=1989 |publisher=Women's Press |isbn=978-0-7043-4199-9 |editor-last=Jones |editor-first=Carol |location=London |editor-last2=Mahony |editor-first2=Pat}} and provided specialist support services for their LGBT constituents. The Greater London Council also granted funding to a number of LGBT organisations, including the London Lesbian and Gay Community Centre in Islington.{{Cite book |url=https://academic.oup.com/manchester-scholarship-online/book/15944 |title=Labour and the Left in the 1980s |date=2018-02-01 |publisher=Manchester University Press |isbn=978-1-5261-2093-9 |language=en |doi=10.7228/manchester/9781526106438.001.0001 |editor-last1=Davis |editor-last2=McWilliam |editor-first1=Jonathan |editor-first2=Rohan }} About 10 of the 32 local authorities in London, most prominently Islington and Haringey were also funding gay groups at that time, one report estimating that these boroughs and the GLC together donated more than £600,000 to gay projects and groups during 1984.Sunday Telegraph, 6 October 1985.

The attention to this, and the alliances between LGBT and labour unions (including the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM)) – formed by activist groups such as Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners and Lesbians Against Pit Closures – led to the adoption at the Labour Party Annual Conference in 1985 of a resolution to criminalise discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual people. This legislation was supported by block voting from the NUM.[https://web.archive.org/web/20160125083132/http://hwj.oxfordjournals.org/content/77/1/240.full?keytype=ref&ijkey=2vyGTx8tdxTUlMp "Solidarity and Sexuality: Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners 1984–5"]. Oxford History Workshop Journal, Volume 77, Issue 1 (Spring 2014), pp. 240–262. In addition, the election to Manchester City Council of Margaret Roff in November 1985 as the UK's first openly lesbian Mayor{{cite web|title=LGBT Source Guide|url=http://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/448/archives_and_local_history/520/lgbt_source_guide/4|publisher=Manchester City Council|access-date=24 May 2015}} and the publication of Changing The World by the GLC in 1985{{cite web|title=1985. Greater London Council: 'Changing the World'|date=29 October 2012 |url=http://www.gayinthe80s.com/2012/10/1985-greater-london-council-changing-the-world/|publisher=Gay in the 80s|access-date=24 May 2015}} all fuelled a heightened public awareness of LGBT rights.

Islington London Borough Council received further attention in 1986, when the Islington Gazette reported that a copy of the children's book Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin was available in a local school library. The copy found by the Islington Gazette was actually located in an Inner London Education Authority teachers’ resource centre, and there was no evidence to support the newspaper's claim that it was seen or used by children. However, the book's portrayal of a young girl living with her father and his male partner provoked widespread outrage from the right-wing press and Conservative politicians.{{Cite web |last=Buckle |first=Sebastian Charles |title=Homosexual Identity in England, 1967-2004: Political Reform, Media and Social Change |url=https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/367041/1/Homosexual%2520Identity%2520in%2520England%252C%25201967-2004%2520-%2520Sebastian%2520Buckle.pdf |access-date=25 October 2024}} Following this, the 1987 election campaign saw the Conservative Party issue posters attacking the Labour Party for supporting the provision of LGBT education. Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin was referenced frequently in the parliamentary debates that led to the introduction of Section 28.{{Cite journal |last=Davis |first=Glyn |date=2021-01-02 |title='Gay Sex Kits': Lessons in the History of British Sex Education |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09528822.2020.1861872 |journal=Third Text |language=en |volume=35 |issue=1 |pages=145–160 |doi=10.1080/09528822.2020.1861872 |issn=0952-8822|hdl=10023/25665 |hdl-access=free }}

Prior to the introduction of Section 28, Conservative politicians became concerned about the future of the nuclear family{{Cite journal |last=Moran |first=Joe |title=Childhood Sexuality and Education: The Case of Section 28 |url=https://doi.org/10.1177/136346001004001004 |journal=Sexualities |date=2001 |volume=4 |issue=1 |pages=73–89|doi=10.1177/136346001004001004 |url-access=subscription }} as fewer people were getting married and divorce rates were increasing. In an attempt to mitigate these fears, the government introduced a clause to the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 which stated that sex education should “encourage … pupils to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life”.{{Cite web |title=Education (No. 2) Act 1986 |url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/61/section/46/enacted |access-date=25 October 2024 |website=legislation.gov.uk}} However, some Conservatives also blamed the perceived decline of the nuclear family on members of the LGBT community.{{Cite web |title=Local Government Bill (Hansard, 16 February 1988) |url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1988/feb/16/local-government-bill-1 |access-date=2024-10-25 |website=api.parliament.uk}} During this time, Conservative backbench MPs such as Jill Knight also believed that schools and Labour-run local authority areas would provide materials that would ‘promote homosexuality’ to children.

Consequently, in 1986, Lord Halsbury first tabled the Local Government Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill,{{Cite web |title=PROHIBITION ON PROMOTING HOMOSEXUALITY BY TEACHING OR BY PUBLISHING MATERIAL (Hansard, 15 December 1987) |url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1987/dec/15/prohibition-on-promoting-homosexuality |access-date=2024-10-25 |website=api.parliament.uk}} whose long title was An act to refrain local authorities from promoting homosexuality, in the House of Lords. The bill became commonly known as the Earl of Halsbury's Bill. Although it successfully passed both the House of Lords and the first stage in the House of Commons, further attempts to pass the bill were impeded by the 1987 general election and it ultimately did not become law. Its provisions were not reintroduced by the Conservative government following its re-election.

Instead, on 2 December 1987 in committee, Conservative MP David Wilshire proposed an amendment to the new Local Government Bill, as not yet passed, debated as Clause 27 and later as Clause 28, intended to be equivalent to the Earl of Halsbury's Bill.{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-047.pdf |title=The Local Government Bill [HL]: the 'section 28' debate |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071128052721/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2000/rp00-047.pdf |archive-date=28 November 2007 }} The government agreed to support the tabling of the amendment in exchange for Knight forgoing her place on the Health and Medicines Bill standing committee;{{cite news |title=The Diary |first=John |last=Street |newspaper=Tribune |date=25 December 1987 }} the amendment received the support of the Ministers for Local Government, Michael Howard and Michael Portillo. On being tabled, a compromise amendment was introduced by Simon Hughes on 8 December 1987 that was debated in the House on 15 December 1987 and which was defeated by a majority of 87,{{cite web|url=https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1987/dec/15/prohibition-on-promoting-homosexuality|title=Prohibition on Promoting Homosexuality by Teaching or by Publishing Material|work=Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)|date=15 December 1987|access-date=29 September 2015}} and the bill was approved on its first Commons debate that day. The bill was read a first time in the Lords two days later.[https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1987/dec/17/local-government-bill Hansard from Millbank Systems Archive] 17 December 1987 col 906

Lord McIntosh of Haringey took up the mantle of Simon Hughes' amendments in the Lords' second reading, furthered by the Bishop of Manchester, Stanley Booth-Clibborn:

{{blockquote|I should regret it if this Bill were to go through with this clause unamended. If it were to do so, I think it should certainly be confined to schools because otherwise there would be a real danger that some organisations which do good work in helping those with homosexual orientation, psychologically and in other ways, would be very much impeded.}}

A spectrum of literature across the ages was cited (in support of these compromise amendments) by Lord Peston. Nonetheless, the Bill passed second reading in the Lords before going to a whole house committee.[https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1988/jan/11/local-government-bill Hansard from Millbank Systems Archive] Second reading debate in Lords col 966

In that debate Lord Boyd-Carpenter cited a book display, and proposals for "gay books" to be present in a children's home and a gay pride week to be permissible in schools by named London councils. However, on questioning, he said, "of course, 'promotion' can be treated in different ways. If the clause becomes law it will be a matter for the courts to interpret in the sensible way in which the courts do interpret the law." The SDP peer Viscount Falkland with Lord Henderson of Brompton proposed another compromise amendment, the so-called "Arts Council" amendment, and remarked "There is a suggestion in the clause that in no way can a homosexual have a loving, caring or responsible relationship".

Lord Somers countered:

{{blockquote|One has only to look through the entire animal world to realise that it is abnormal. In any case, the clause as it stands does not prohibit homosexuality in any form; it merely discourages the teaching of it. When one is young at school one is very impressionable and may just as easily pick up bad habits as good habits.}}

The narrowing amendment failed by a majority of 55 voting against it; and the Lords voted the clause through the following day by a majority of 80.[https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1988/feb/01/local-government-bill Hansard from Millbank Systems Archive] Lords 1 February 1988 col 865–890[https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/lords/1988/feb/02/local-government-bill Hansard from Millbank Systems Archive] Lords 2 February 1988 col 865–890

Michael Colvin MP thus on 8 March asked whether the minister, Christopher Chope, would discuss with the Association of London Authorities the level of expenditure by local authorities in London on support for gay and lesbian groups to which he replied:

{{blockquote|No. Clause 28 of the Local Government Bill will ensure that expenditure by local authorities for the purpose of promoting homosexuality will no longer be permitted.[https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1988/mar/08/gay-and-lesbian-groups Hansard from Millbank Systems Archive] 8 March 1988 – House of Commons}}

The following day Tony Benn said during a debate in the House of Commons:

{{blockquote|[...]{{nbsp}}if the sense of the word "promote" can be read across from "describe", every murder play promotes murder, every war play promotes war, every drama involving the eternal triangle promotes adultery; and Mr. Richard Branson's condom campaign promotes fornication. The House had better be very careful before it gives to judges, who come from a narrow section of society, the power to interpret "promote".{{cite news|last1=Roberts|first1=Scott|title=Tony Benn: "Long before it was accepted I did support gay rights"|url=http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/03/14/tony-benn-long-accepted-support-gay-rights/|access-date=22 May 2015|newspaper=Pink News|date=14 March 2014}}}}

Wilshire added that "there is an awful lot more promotion of homosexuality going on by local government outside classrooms", and the tempering amendments of that day's final debate were defeated by 53 votes.[https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1988/mar/09/business-of-the-house Hansard from Millbank Systems Archive] Lengthy debates of 9 March – House of Commons

Section 28 became law on 24 May 1988. The night before, several protests were staged by lesbians, including abseiling into Parliament and an invasion of the BBC1's Six O'Clock News,{{cite news |publisher=BBC |title=When gay became a four-letter word |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/611704.stm | date=20 January 2000 | access-date=4 January 2010}} during which one woman managed to chain herself to Sue Lawley's desk and was sat on by the newsreader Nicholas Witchell.{{cite web|year=1998 |publisher=BBC |title=Nicholas Witchell |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/news/nicholaswitchell.shtml |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031011113338/http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/biographies/biogs/news/nicholaswitchell.shtml |archive-date=11 October 2003 }}

As the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 gave school governors increased powers over the delivery of sex education, and local education authorities no longer retained control over this, it has been argued that Section 28 was a redundant piece of legislation. Section 28 was heavily influential in spite of this, and many of its opponents campaigned for its abolition as "a symbolic measure against intolerance."{{cite news |date=25 July 2000 |title=Section 28: An overview |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/848699.stm |access-date=24 May 2015 |work=BBC News}}

In response to widespread uncertainty about what the legislation permitted, including a common misconception that teachers were banned from discussing homosexuality with their students,{{Cite journal |last=Biddulph |first=Max |title=Sexualities Equality in Schools: Why Every Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender (LGBT) Child Matters |url=https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0122.2006.00367.x |journal=Pastoral Care in Education |date=2006 |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=15–21|doi=10.1111/j.1468-0122.2006.00367.x |url-access=subscription }} the National Union of Teachers released a statement to try to provide clarity for its members. The statement asserted that the legislation restricted “the ability of local authorities to support schools in respect of learning and educating for equality”, had an adverse impact on schemes designed to curb discrimination and made “it difficult for schools to prevent or address the serious problems that arise from homophobic bullying."{{Cite web |date=2004-12-25 |title=NUT on the Web |url=http://www.teachers.org.uk/story.php?id=2320 |access-date=2024-10-25 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041225065954/http://www.teachers.org.uk/story.php?id=2320 |archive-date=25 December 2004 }} A government circular also stated that Section 28 would “not prevent the objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, nor the counselling of pupils concerned about their sexuality."{{Cite web |title=Section 28: impact, fightback and repeal |url=https://beta.nationalarchives.gov.uk/explore-the-collection/stories/section-28-impact-fightback-repeal/ |access-date=2024-10-25 |website=The National Archives |language=en-GB}} This contributed to further confusion around what was permitted under Section 28, with Jill Knight asserting that the aim of Section 28 “was to protect children in schools from having homosexuality thrust upon them."Brian Deer, [http://briandeer.com/social/clause-28.htm Schools escape clause 28 in 'gay ban' fiasco] (Sunday Times).

Both the Education Act 1996 and the Learning and Skills Act 2000 reduced Section 28's impact on sex education policy prior to its repeal, as the Secretary of State for Education solely regulated the delivery of sex education in England and Wales under these policies. However, the policy continued to have a significant impact on LGBT inequality across Britain.

No local authorities were successfully prosecuted under Section 28. However, there were legal attempts to use it to stop the funding of LGBT and HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives.

In May 2000, Glasgow resident Sheena Strain took Glasgow City Council to the Court of Session, with support from the Christian Institute. Strain objected to her council tax being used for what she viewed as the promotion of homosexuality. She particularly took issue with the provision of funding to the Scottish HIV/AIDS awareness organisation PHACE West, which produced and distributed a safe sex guide named ‘Gay Sex Now.’ Strain claimed that the guide was pornographic.{{cite news |date=14 May 2000 |title=Council halts gay group cash |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/746575.stm |access-date=31 January 2021 |work=BBC News}}

Glasgow City Council countered this by arguing that the funding granted to PHACE West was for the purpose of preventing the further transmission of HIV/AIDS, and that the organisation was not promoting homosexuality. The council also emphasised that the Scottish Parliament had recently passed the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000, which would consequently repeal Section 28.

However, two months later, Strain dropped the case after reaching an agreement with the council. Under the agreement, Glasgow City Council was required to include a covering letter to grant recipients, stating that "You will not spend these monies for the purpose of promoting homosexuality nor shall they be used for the publication of any material which promotes homosexuality."{{cite news|title=Gay groups claim court victory|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/821896.stm|access-date=31 January 2021|work=BBC News|date=6 July 2000}}

File:Stop the Clause, March on London, 30 April 1988.jpg

File:Bezoek Engels Koninklijk paar protest tegen Engelse homo-wetgeving, Bestanddeelnr 934-2828.jpg to the country, 1988]]

The implementation of Section 28 divided the Conservative Party, heightening tensions between party modernisers and social conservatives.{{Cite journal |last=Monahan |first=Martin |date=December 11, 2018 |title='Tory-normativity' and gay rights advocacy in the British Conservative Party since the 1950s |journal=The British Journal of Politics and International Relations |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=140–141 |doi=10.1177/1369148118815407 |s2cid=150298734 |doi-access=free}} In 1999, Conservative leader William Hague controversially sacked frontbencher Shaun Woodward for refusing to support the party line for Section 28's retention.{{cite news |date=3 December 1999 |title=Tory MP sacked over gay row |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/547508.stm |access-date=4 January 2010 |publisher=BBC}} Woodward then defected to the Labour Party in opposition to the Conservatives' continued support of Section 28.{{Cite news |last1=Wintour |first1=Patrick |last2=McSmith |first2=Andy |date=1999-12-19 |title=Top Tory defects to Labour |url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/dec/19/labour.labour1997to99 |access-date=2024-10-30 |work=The Observer |language=en-GB |issn=0029-7712}} His dismissal also prompted Steven Norris and Ivan Massow to speak out against both Hague's decision to sack Woodward, and against Section 28. Ivan Massow, an openly gay man, defected to the Labour Party in August 2000.{{cite news |date=2 August 2000 |title=Tory adviser defects to Labour |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/862683.stm |access-date=4 January 2010 |publisher=BBC}}

In the House of Lords, the campaign to repeal Section 28 was led by openly gay peer Waheed Alli.{{Cite web |last=Kara |first=Maryam |date=2024-09-16 |title=Who is Lord Alli, the Life Peer and prominent Labour donor? |url=https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/lord-alli-life-peer-prominent-labour-party-donor-keir-victoria-starmer-b1182293.html |access-date=2024-10-30 |website=The Standard |language=en}} The Liberal Democrats{{Cite web |title=20 Years Since the Repeal of Section 28 |url=https://lgbt.libdems.org.uk/news/article/20-years-since-the-repeal-of-section-28 |access-date=2024-10-30 |website=lgbt.libdems.org.uk |language=en}} and the Green Party{{Cite web |date=2021-02-07 |title=Generation 28 |url=https://lgbtiqa.greenparty.org.uk/2021/02/07/generation-28/ |access-date=2024-10-30 |website=LGBTIQA+ Greens |language=en-GB}} also supported the legislation's repeal.

Section 2A was repealed in Scotland under the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 on 21 June 2000. While 2 MSPs abstained from the vote, a majority of 99 voted for the repeal of Section 28 and 17 voted against it.{{Cite web |title=BBC News {{!}} SCOTLAND {{!}} MSPs abolish Section 28 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/800673.stm |access-date=2024-10-29 |website=news.bbc.co.uk}}

Although New Labour's first attempt to repeal Section 28 in England and Wales was defeated following a campaign led by Baroness Young,{{cite news |last1=Langdon |first1=Julia |date=7 September 2002 |title=Obituary: Lady Young of Farnworth |url=https://www.theguardian.com/news/2002/sep/07/guardianobituaries.obituaries |access-date=22 May 2015 |newspaper=The Guardian}} backbench MPs introduced a new amendment to repeal the legislation as part of another Local Government Bill in early 2003. This amendment was supported by the government and was passed by the Commons in March 2003, with a majority of 368 to 76.{{Cite web |title=The Public Whip — Local Government Bill — Maintain Prohibition on Promotion of Homosexuality (Section 28) - 10 Mar 2003 at 19:29 |url=https://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-10&number=109 |access-date=2024-10-29 |website=www.publicwhip.org.uk}} As the impact of organised opposition within the House of Lords diminished following the death of Baroness Young, the legislation was subsequently passed with a majority of 180 to 130 in July 2003.{{Cite news |date=2003-09-18 |title=Section 28 to be repealed |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3120924.stm |access-date=2024-10-29 |language=en-GB}} The Local Government Bill received Royal Assent as the Local Government Act 2003 on 18 September 2003, and Section 28 was removed from the statute books.{{Cite web |date=2015-04-17 |title=Stonewall |url=http://www.stonewall.org.uk/at_school/what_the_law_says/8800.asp |access-date=2024-10-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150417212708/http://www.stonewall.org.uk/at_school/what_the_law_says/8800.asp |archive-date=17 April 2015 }}

Despite this, Kent County Council produced its own school curriculum guidelines as the county's “own form of Section 28.” The guidelines attempted to prohibit schools from “promoting homosexuality", while urging schools to emphasise the perceived importance of marriage and the nuclear family to their pupils.{{Cite web |date=21 July 2000 |title=Kent votes for its own Section 28 |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/kent-votes-for-its-own-section-28-707227.html |website=The Independent}} The guidance distributed to local schools by Kent County Council was eventually quashed by the Equality Act 2010.

The main supporting argument for Section 28 was that it would protect children from being ‘indoctrinated’ into homosexuality.{{Cite journal |last1=DePalma |first1=Renée |last2=Atkinson |first2=Elizabeth |date=7 December 2006 |title=The sound of silence: talking about sexual orientation and schooling |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/14681810600981848 |journal=Sex Education |volume=6 |issue=4 |pages=333–349|doi=10.1080/14681810600981848 |url-access=subscription }} Other arguments made in support of the legislation included that the ‘promotion’ of homosexuality undermined the importance of marriage, the claim that the general public supported Section 28,{{cite web |last=Braunholtz |first=Simon |date=21 January 2000 |title=Public Attitudes (In Scotland) To Section 28 |url=http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2000/sh000121.shtml |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071123085225/http://www.ipsos-mori.com/polls/2000/sh000121.shtml |archive-date=23 November 2007 |work=Ipsos MORI |publisher=Sunday Herald |df=dmy-all}} and that it did not prevent schools from discussing homosexuality objectively. The Conservative Party whipped its members to support Section 28 in 2000, but allowed a free vote on its proposed repeal in 2003 following dissent from some of its members.

The Secondary Heads Association and NASUWT objected to repealing the legislation, stating in July 2000 that "it would be inappropriate to put parents and governors in charge of each school's sex education policy." Religious groups including, but not limited to, The Salvation Army,{{cite web|url=http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/x-lg/reports-00/lgr00-06-08.htm#3|title=Salvation Army Letter to Scottish Parliament|access-date=6 September 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110131105443/http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/historic/x-lg/reports-00/lgr00-06-08.htm#3|archive-date=31 January 2011|url-status=dead|df=dmy-all}} the Christian Institute,{{cite web|title=Section 28: Briefing Paper |url=http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm |publisher=Christian Institute |access-date=24 May 2015 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150804054721/http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm |archive-date=4 August 2015 }} Christian Action, Research and Education,{{cite news|last=Merrick|first=Jane|title=Right-wing Christian group pays for Commons researchers|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-rightwing-christian-group-pays-for-commons-researchers-802607.html|access-date=22 March 2012|newspaper=Independent|date=30 March 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091124091518/http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-rightwing-christian-group-pays-for-commons-researchers-802607.html|archive-date=2009-11-24|quote=CARE connections (list of MPs)|url-status=dead|location=London}} and the Muslim Council of Britain, also expressed their support for Section 28. Newspapers that strongly supported Section 28 included the Daily Mail, The Sun, The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Record.{{Cite journal |last=Wise |first=Sue |title='"New Right" or "Backlash"? Section 28, Moral Panic and "Promoting Homosexuality"' |url=https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.452 |journal=Sociological Research Online |date=2000 |volume=5 |issue=1 |pages=148–157|doi=10.5153/sro.452 |url-access=subscription }}

One of Section 28's most prominent supporters in Scotland was the businessman Brian Souter, who led the country's Keep the Clause campaign.{{Cite web |title=BBC News {{!}} SCOTLAND {{!}} Souter defends Section 28 stance |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/744503.stm |access-date=2024-10-30 |website=news.bbc.co.uk}} This included privately funding a postal ballot, after which he claimed that 86.8% of respondents were in favour of retaining Section 28. However, the poll received responses from less than one third of registered voters in Scotland.{{Cite web |date=2000-07-07 |title=Anti-gay legislation repealed in Scottish parliament |url=https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/07/scot-j07.html |access-date=2024-10-30 |website=World Socialist Web Site |language=en}} The poll's result was dismissed by the Scottish Executive and acting Local Government and Communities Minister Wendy Alexander MSP,{{Cite web |title=BBC News {{!}} SCOTLAND {{!}} Poll supports S28 retention |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/768882.stm |access-date=2024-10-30 |website=news.bbc.co.uk}} and received further criticism from LGBT rights campaigner Peter Tatchell.{{Cite web |date=2011-08-09 |title=Peter Tatchell: Think Again, Brian Souter |url=http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/section28/souter.htm |access-date=2024-10-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110809141151/http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/section28/souter.htm |archive-date=9 August 2011 }} In contrast, Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP responded to the poll by stating that “the result confirmed that many Scots were concerned about repeal” and claimed that the debate regarding Section 28 was “difficult.”{{Cite web |title=BBC News {{!}} SCOTLAND {{!}} Poll 'backs' Section 28 |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/769639.stm |access-date=2024-10-30 |website=news.bbc.co.uk}}

File:Section28-cropped.jpg's Stagecoach company at a rally in Albert Square, Manchester, on 15 July 2000.{{cite web|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4156/is_20000716/ai_n13951409/|title=FindArticles.com - CBSi|website=findarticles.com}}]]

Those who advocated for the repeal of Section 28 argued that the legislation actively discriminated against LGBT people, and put vulnerable young people at further risk from harm by failing to offer appropriate pastoral support or address homophobic bullying.{{Cite news |last=Godfrey |first=Chris |date=27 March 2018 |title=Section 28 protesters 30 years on: 'We were arrested and put in a cell up by Big Ben' |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/27/section-28-protesters-30-years-on-we-were-arrested-and-put-in-a-cell-up-by-big-ben |work=The Guardian}} They also stated that Section 28 contributed to the further stigmatisation of LGBT people, particularly gay men, by framing them as inherently “predatory and dangerous to be allowed around children.”{{Cite web |date=2021-02-23 |title=Growing Up in Silence – A Short History of Section 28 |url=https://26pmx.com/insights/growing-up-silence-short-history-section-28/ |access-date=2024-10-30 |website=twentysixdigital |language=en}}

Section 28's implementation served to “galvanise [the disparate British LGBT rights movement] into action”, leading to the formation of campaign groups including Stonewall and OutRage!.{{Cite web |title=BBC News {{!}} SCOTLAND {{!}} When gay became a four-letter word |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/611704.stm |access-date=2024-10-30 |website=news.bbc.co.uk}} The Equality Network led the campaign in favour of repealing Section 28 in Scotland.{{Cite AV media |url=https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/thirty-five-years-since-section-28-august-10-2023 |title=Thirty-five years since Section 28 {{!}} Scottish Parliament TV |language=en |access-date=2024-10-30 |via=www.scottishparliament.tv}} Other organisations that supported repealing the legislation included Gingerbread, the Family Planning Association and the Terrence Higgins Trust.

The campaign to repeal Section 28 received media support from publications including Capital Gay, the Pink Paper, The Guardian, the Gay Times,{{Cite web |title=Section 28 Archives |url=https://www.gaytimes.com/tag/section-28/ |access-date=2024-10-30 |website=GAY TIMES |language=en-GB}} The Independent and The Daily Mirror. Many people who were involved in the labour movement, including trade union members, also opposed the legislation.{{Cite journal |date=2016-01-25 |title=Solidarity and Sexuality: Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners 1984–5 |doi=10.1093/hwj/dbt012 |url=http://hwj.oxfordjournals.org/content/77/1/240.full?keytype=ref&ijkey=2vyGTx8tdxTUlMp |access-date=2024-10-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160125083132/http://hwj.oxfordjournals.org/content/77/1/240.full?keytype=ref&ijkey=2vyGTx8tdxTUlMp |archive-date=25 January 2016 |last1=Kelliher |first1=D. |journal=History Workshop Journal |volume=77 |pages=240–262 }}

In February 1988, John Shiers led a demonstration in Manchester in protest against Section 28. 25,000 people attended the protest.{{Cite news |last1=Mottram |first1=David |last2=Cunningham |first2=Moira |date=2012-01-12 |title=John Shiers obituary |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jan/12/john-shiers-obituary |access-date=2024-10-30 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}} The night before Section 28 came into effect in May 1988, several protests were staged by lesbian campaigners. These included abseiling into Parliament and invading the BBC1's Six O'Clock News. During the invasion, one woman chained herself to Sue Lawley's desk and was sat on by the newsreader Nicholas Witchell.

A benefit show in support of the abolition of Section 28 also took place at Piccadilly Theatre on 5 June 1988, with over 60 performers. These included Pet Shop Boys, Sir Ian McKellen, Stephen Fry and Tilda Swinton.{{Cite web |title=Before The Act Podcast |url=https://beforetheactpodcast.com/ |access-date=2024-10-30 |language=en-US}} Boy George{{Cite web |title=By George* - No Clause 28 |url=https://www.discogs.com/master/71287-By-George-No-Clause-28 |website=Discogs|date=1988 }} and Chumbawamba{{Cite web |title=Chumbawamba – Smash Clause 28! / Fight The Alton Bill! |url=https://www.discogs.com/release/834246-Chumbawamba-Smash-Clause-28-Fight-The-Alton-Bill |website=Discogs|date=1988 }} also released singles in protest against Section 28.

After Section 28 was implemented, some local authorities continued to deliver training to education practitioners on how to deliver their services without discriminating against LGBT people. Manchester City Council also continued to sustain four officer posts directly involved in policy making and implementation, contributing to the 1992 report Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988: a Guide for Workers in the Education Service, produced by Manchester City Council, May 1992.{{Cite web |date=2008-06-11 |title=Manchester City Council - LGBT History - Real problems for real people |url=http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?categoryID=200041&documentID=398&pageNumber=2 |access-date=2024-10-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080611051241/http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?categoryID=200041&documentID=398&pageNumber=2 |archive-date=11 June 2008 }}

File:Section 28 Rainbow Plaque.jpg marking the location of protests against Section 28 in Victoria Gardens, Leeds]]

Some prominent MPs who supported the bill when it was first introduced have since either expressed regret over their support, changed their stance due to different circumstances which have evolved over time, or have argued that the legislation is no longer necessary.

In an interview with gay magazine Attitude at the time of the 2005 general election, Michael Howard, then-Leader of the Conservative Party, commented: "[Section 28] was brought in to deal with what was seen to be a specific problem at the time. The problem was the kind of literature that was being used in some schools and distributed to very young children that was seen to promote homosexuality... I thought, rightly or wrongly, that there was a problem in those days. That problem simply doesn't exist now. Nobody's fussed about those issues any more. It's not a problem, so the law shouldn't be hanging around on the statute book".[http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=629 Johann Hari – Archive] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060317054430/http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=629 |date=17 March 2006 }}

In February 2006, then-Conservative Party Chairman Francis Maude told Pinknews.co.uk that the policy, which he had voted for, was wrong and a mistake.{{cite news |publisher=BBC |title=Tories' gay stance 'was wrong' |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4696236.stm | date=9 February 2006 | access-date=4 January 2010}}

In 2000, one year prior to his election to the House of Commons, Conservative Party member David Cameron repeatedly attacked the Labour Government's plans to abolish Section 28, publicly criticising then-Prime Minister Tony Blair as being "anti-family" and accusing him of wanting the "promotion of homosexuality in schools".{{cite web|url=http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/cameron+toff+at+the+top/328047|title=Channel 4 - News - Dispatches - Cameron: Toff At The Top|work=channel4.com|access-date=29 September 2015}} At the 2001 general election, Cameron was elected as the Member of Parliament for Witney; he continued to support Section 28, voting against its repeal in 2003.{{cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/jul/02/david-cameron-gay-pride-apology|title=David Cameron apologises to gay people for section 28|author=Patrick Wintour|work=The Guardian|date=2 July 2009|access-date=29 September 2015}} The Labour Government were determined to repeal Section 28, and Cameron voted in favour of a Conservative amendment that retained certain aspects of the clause, which gay rights campaigners described as "Section 28 by the back door".{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/oct/04/conservatives2006.conservatives1|title=Cameron attacked over gay rights record|website=TheGuardian.com|date=4 October 2006}} The Conservative amendment was unsuccessful, and Section 28 was repealed by the Labour Government without concession, with Cameron absent for the vote on its eventual repeal. However, in June 2009, Cameron, then-Leader of the Conservative Party, formally apologised for his party's introduction of the law, stating that it was a mistake and had been offensive to gay people.{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cameron-sorry-for-section-28-1728003.html|title=Cameron sorry for Section 28|website=The Independent|date=22 October 2011}} He restated this belief in January 2010, proposing to alter Conservative Party policy to reflect his belief that equality should be "embedded" in British schools.{{cite news| url=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/jan/28/david-cameron-gay-equality | work=The Guardian | location=London | title=Teaching about gay equality should be 'embedded' in schooling, says David Cameron | first=Nicholas | last=Watt | date=28 January 2010 | access-date=23 May 2010}}

Section 28 received renewed media attention in late 2011, when Michael Gove, in Clause 28 of the Model Funding Agreement for academies and free schools, added the stipulation that schools must emphasise “the importance of marriage”. Although the clause did not explicitly mention sexual orientation (same-sex marriage was not legal at the time), it prompted The Daily Telegraph to draw comparisons between the newly published clause and Section 28.{{cite web |date=3 December 2011 |title=Free schools and academies must promote marriage |url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8933237/Free-schools-and-academies-must-promote-marriage.html |access-date=29 September 2015 |work=Telegraph.co.uk}}

A 2013 investigation conducted by LGBT activists and the British Humanist Association found that over 40 schools across Britain retained Sex and Relationship Education policies that either replicated the language of Section 28, or “[were] ambiguous on the issue” of teaching pupils about LGBT identities. Following this, the Department for Education announced its own investigation into the schools in question, stating that education providers were prohibited under DfE guidance from discriminating “on the grounds of sexual orientation.”{{cite web |author=Nigel Morris |date=19 August 2013 |title=The return of Section 28: Schools and academies practising homophobic |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-return-of-section-28-schools-and-academies-practising-homophobic-policy-that-was-outlawed-under-tony-blair-8775249.html |access-date=29 September 2015 |work=The Independent}}

Several academic studies on the impact of Section 28 show that it has continued to impact LGBT teachers and pupils in the years following its abolition.{{Cite journal |last1=Nixon |first1=David |last2=Givens |first2=Nick |date=29 May 2007 |title=An epitaph to Section 28? Telling tales out of school about changes and challenges to discourses of sexuality |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390601176564 |journal=International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education |volume=20 |issue=4 |pages=449–471|doi=10.1080/09518390601176564 |hdl=10036/42256 |hdl-access=free }}{{Cite journal |last1=Edwards |first1=Lisa L. |last2=Brown |first2=David H. K. |last3=Smith |first3=Lauren |date=5 August 2014 |title='We are getting there slowly': lesbian teacher experiences in the post-Section 28 environment |url=https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2014.935317 |journal=Sport, Education and Society |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=299–318|doi=10.1080/13573322.2014.935317 }} For example, a 2018 study by Catherine Lee{{Cite journal |last=Lee |first=Catherine |date=2019-11-02 |title=Fifteen years on: the legacy of section 28 for LGBT+ teachers in English schools |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14681811.2019.1585800 |journal=Sex Education |language=en |volume=19 |issue=6 |pages=675–690 |doi=10.1080/14681811.2019.1585800 |issn=1468-1811|url-access=subscription }} found that only 20% of participating LGBT teachers who had taught under Section 28 were open about their sexual orientations to their colleagues, compared to 88% of participants who qualified following Section 28's repeal. The study also found that 40% of the participants who worked in schools under Section 28 saw their sexual orientation as incompatible with their profession. In contrast, only 13% of those who received their training after Section 28 was repealed felt the same way.{{Cite web |date=12 March 2019 |title=LGBT teachers who taught under Section 28 still 'scarred' report finds |url=https://inews.co.uk/news/education/lgbtq-teachers-section-28-law-scarred-study-research-england-268437}}

In 2016, research by Janine Walker and Jo Bates found that Section 28 still had a lasting effect on school libraries; the availability of LGBT literature, resources and student support was very limited, and participating librarians lacked the knowledge required to appropriately support LGBT young people.{{Cite journal |last1=Walker |first1=Janine |last2=Bates |first2=Jo |date=2016 |title=Developments in LGBTQ provision in secondary school library services since the abolition of Section 28 |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0961000614566340 |journal=Journal of Librarianship and Information Science |language=en |volume=48 |issue=3 |pages=269–283 |doi=10.1177/0961000614566340 |issn=0961-0006 |s2cid=36944979}} A book chapter written by John Vincent stated that while conducting his research, he had met British library workers who assumed Section 28 was still in place. The book to which Vincent contributed was published in 2019.{{Cite book |last=Vincent |first=John |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1098173907 |title=LGBTQ+ librarianship in the 21st century : emerging directions of advocacy and community engagement in diverse information environments |date=2019 |others=Bharat Mehra |isbn=978-1-78756-473-2 |location=United Kingdom |chapter=Moving into the Mainstream: Is that Somewhere We Want to Go in the United Kingdom? |oclc=1098173907}} A 2014 report on homophobic bullying in schools, published by Stonewall, found that 37% of primary school teachers and 29% of secondary school teachers did not know if they were allowed to teach lessons on LGBT issues.{{Cite web|url=https://tribunemag.co.uk/2021/05/the-long-shadow-of-section-28|title = The Long Shadow of Section 28}}

Recent British policy approaches to the provision of healthcare and pastoral support for young trans people, including a statement made by the acting Minister for Women and Equalities Liz Truss in 2020,{{Cite web |date=2020-04-22 |title=Minister for Women and Equalities Liz Truss sets out priorities to Women and Equalities Select Committee |url=https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/minister-for-women-and-equalities-liz-truss-sets-out-priorities-to-women-and-equalities-select-committee |access-date=2024-10-31 |website=GOV.UK |language=en}} have also drawn comparisons to Section 28.{{Cite web|url=https://inews.co.uk/opinion/im-a-trans-woman-who-grew-up-under-section-28-i-worry-it-could-make-a-comeback-425234|title = I'm a trans woman who grew up under Section 28 - I worry it could comeback|date = 11 May 2020}}{{Cite web |last=Russell |first=Laura |date=2020-04-23 |title=Why we're worried about the Government's statement on trans rights legislation |url=https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/why-were-worried-about-government%E2%80%99s-statement-trans-rights-legislation |access-date=2022-10-21 |website=Stonewall |language=en}}

Due to its longstanding impact on British LGBT people, Section 28 has inspired a number of cultural depictions. These include the 2013 drag comedy musical Margaret Thatcher Queen of Soho,{{cite web|url=http://theatre503.com/whats-on/margaret-thatcher-queen-of-soho/|title=Margaret Thatcher Queen of Soho - Theatre503 Margaret Thatcher Queen of Soho - Book online or call the box office 020 7978 7040|work=theatre503.com|access-date=29 September 2015|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131027113256/http://theatre503.com/whats-on/margaret-thatcher-queen-of-soho/|archive-date=27 October 2013|df=dmy-all}} Chris Woodley's comedy drama play Next Lesson{{Cite web |last=Machin |first=Freddie |date=2019-05-01 |title=Next Lesson by Chris Woodley |url=https://www.dramaandtheatre.co.uk/content/review/next-lesson-by-chris-woodley/ |access-date=2024-10-31 |website=Drama And Theatre |language=en}} and the 2022 film Blue Jean.{{Cite news |date=2023-02-10 |title=Blue Jean: The lesbian teachers who inspired film about Section 28 |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-64426890 |access-date=2023-02-12 |work=BBC News |language=en-GB}} Russell T. Davies also included references to the legislation in the TV dramas Queer as Folk (1999) and It's A Sin (2021).{{cite episode |title=Episode 4 |series=It's A Sin |url=https://www.channel4.com/programmes/its-a-sin |first1=Russell T |last1=Davies |network=Channel 4 |date=January 2021}}

{{Portal|Politics|United Kingdom|Law|LGBTQ}}

• LGBT rights in the United Kingdom
• LGBT History Month
• Briggs Initiative
• Thatcherism
• Premiership of Margaret Thatcher
• Censorship of LGBT issues
• Russian LGBT propaganda law – similar law introduced in Russia in 2013
• Florida Parental Rights in Education Act – similar law passed in Florida in 2022
• LGBT ideology-free zones – similar laws introduced by over 100 municipalities in Poland
• "Promotion of homosexuality"

{{Reflist|2}}

{{Refbegin|30em}}

• {{UK-LEG|title=Local Government Act 1986}}
• {{UK-LEG|title=Local Government Act 1988|path=ukpga/1988/9}}
• {{cite web |title=Local Government Act (1988) |work=Section 28 |url=http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880009_en_5.htm |access-date=9 February 2005}} (Full text of the section)
• {{cite web |title=Knitting Circle |work=Section 28 1989 Gleanings |url=http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/gleanings2889.html |archive-url=https://archive.today/20061114084050/http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/gleanings2889.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=14 November 2006 |access-date=21 February 2005}} (Newspaper clippings from 1989 demonstrating use of Section 28 to close LGBT student groups and cease distribution of material exploring gay issues)
• {{cite news |title=The Guardian (31 January 2000) |work=Jenny, Eric, Martin ... and me |url=http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/childrenandteens/story/0,6000,130836,00.html |access-date=9 February 2005 | location=London | date=31 January 2000}} (article on Section 28 and the book that caused the controversy, Jenny lives with Eric and Martin, by author, Susanne Bosche)
• {{cite web|title=Knitting Circle (9 August 2001) |work=Section 28 |url=http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/lawsection28.html |access-date=21 February 2005 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20061212013418/http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~stafflag/lawsection28.html|archive-date=2006-12-12 }} (History of Section 28 with notes on attempted legislation that led up to the final amendment)
• {{cite web|title=Gay and Lesbian Humanist Society |work=Section 28 |url=http://www.galha.org/glh/section28.html |access-date=28 February 2005 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050308181830/http://www.galha.org/glh/section28.html |archive-date=8 March 2005 }} (Notes and links on Section 28 from a humanist perspective, with notes on usage of the Section 2a name.)
• {{cite news |title= When gay became a four-letter word |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/611704.stm |access-date=4 June 2005 | date=20 January 2000 | work=BBC News}} (Potted history of Section 28 from 2000)
• {{cite web |title=USSU National Policy Issues (28 January 1988) |work=Section 5.2.1 Stop Clause 28 (of Local Government Bill) |url=http://www.ussu.info/index.cfm?PRIMARY_ID=1&SECONDARY_ID=288&TERTIARY_ID=895 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050505083442/http://www.ussu.info/index.cfm?PRIMARY_ID=1&SECONDARY_ID=288&TERTIARY_ID=895 |archive-date=5 May 2005|access-date=29 June 2005}} (USSU National Policy Issues detailing notes on heightened violence against gays and lesbians in the lead-up to Section 28 enactment)
• {{cite news |title= Tory adviser defects to Labour |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/862683.stm |access-date=21 February 2005 | date=2 August 2000 | work=BBC News}} (Report of gay Conservative Ivan Massow's defection to the Labour Party)
• {{cite web |title=Scotsman.com News |work=Nicholas Witchell: A Celebration |url=http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4333511 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051228070651/http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4333511 |archive-date=28 December 2005 |access-date=18 May 2005}} (Nicholas Witchell's encounter with Section 28 protesters)
• {{cite web|title=National Union of Teachers (5 April 2003) |work=NUT campaign to repeal Section 28 |url=http://www.teachers.org.uk/story.php?id=2320 |access-date=9 February 2005 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041225065954/http://www.teachers.org.uk/story.php?id=2320 |archive-date=25 December 2004 }} (Statement by the NUT on the controversy of applicability of Section 28)
• {{cite web |title=The Sunday Times (London) (29 May 1988) |work=Schools Escape Clause 28 in 'Gay Ban' Fiasco |url=http://briandeer.com/social/clause-28.htm |access-date=9 February 2005}} (Knight's response to the controversy of applicability of Section 28)
• {{cite news |title= (30 May 2000) |work=Poll supports S28 retention |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/768882.stm |access-date=19 February 2005 | date=30 May 2000}} (Brian Souter's Keep the Clause campaign runs unofficial poll to discredit reformers)
• {{cite web|title=The Christian Institute |work=Briefing Paper – Section 28 |url=http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm |access-date=9 May 2005 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150804054721/http://www.christian.org.uk/briefingpapers/section28.htm |archive-date=4 August 2015 }} (Summary of points in support of Section 28)

{{Refend}}

• {{UK-LEG|title=Local Government Act 1988|path=ukpga/1988/9|type=ukpga}}
• {{Cite news |title=The Section 28 Battle |publisher=BBC News |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/613023.stm |access-date=25 March 2003 | date=24 July 2000}}
• [https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1988/mar/24/royal-assent#S6CV0130P0_19880324_HOC_3 Royal Assent] of the Local Government 1988

Category:1988 in British law

Category:1988 in LGBTQ history

Category:1988 in the United Kingdom

Category:Censorship of LGBTQ issues

Category:Conservatism in the United Kingdom

Category:Homophobia

Category:Laws in the United Kingdom

Category:LGBTQ history in the United Kingdom

Category:LGBTQ law in the United Kingdom

Category:LGBTQ-related controversies in the United Kingdom

Category:Censorship in the United Kingdom

Category:Premiership of Margaret Thatcher

Category:Discrimination against LGBTQ people in the United Kingdom