Conservative Home's debate blogs


  • DVD rental
  • Conservative Books
My Photo

Conservative blogs

Blog powered by Typepad

  • Tracker 2
  • Extreme Tracker

« Fox endorses Cameron | Main | Hustings begin today »



Are you really saying that the repeal of Section 28 has made "sexually explicit material" of a heterosexual or homosexual nature, required-reading on the curriculum Daniel?

If Playboy is currently on the subscription list at school library's up and down the land, I obviously had a mis-spent youth when I left the education system a few years ago.

Incidentally, I think its the school's job to educate, not "promote" either heterosexuality or homosexuality. If however teaching students that "Its ok to be gay" is considered an act of "promotion" then that's plainly absurd.

Daniel Vince-Archer

"Are you really saying that the repeal of Section 28 has made "sexually explicit material" of a heterosexual or homosexual nature, required-reading on the curriculum Daniel?"

No, that would be a misrepresentation of what I said.


Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy.

Henry Cook

Daniel, if you have ever had the pleasure of reading FHM, Maxim or any other similar straight man's magazine, you would realise that they are just as much 'sex-oriented' as gay magazines, if not more so. Most school boys, gay or straight, will have looked at these magazines, while very few gay school boys will have the courage to buy a gay magazine.

An alternative reasoning is that gay culture might be 'sex-oriented' because the moral pillars of society, eg the Church, seem to (even if they don't in practice) look upon homosexuality as evil/unnatural/weird. (See the website cited on this blog - - for a very obvious example. What kind of a message does it send out to have every piece of legislation making it easier to be gay marked with a big red cross, which apparently describes 'a morally wrong vote'? Speaking as a Christian myself, I'm very disappointed such a website is given an airing here.) Therefore some in the gay community react against this rejection by engaging in a lifestyle antithetical to the one described as 'moral' or 'right'.

The thing with Section 28 was that it was a piece of legislation based on an utterly bizarre premise - that homosexuality could be 'promoted', i.e. a kid could be somehow 'turned' to homosexuality. Its in the nature, not the nurture, and this point must be grasped by those who seek to legislate on such matters or there is no hope for a just society.


"This is about the State telling teachers what they can and can not say,"

Really ? There are limits on what you can say too under Public Order Acts, Race Relations Acts, and you are not even in loco parentis.

Clause 28 is a memorial to Ken Livingstone who rendered the GLC such a joke and made London the centre of lunatic weeks of action. The Act was designed to stop public funding of propaganda in schools it did not stop education on STI transmission which might be a useful activity.

Cameron is in hock to his PR friends and metropolitan party circuit. Clause 28 was nothing more than a response to Livingstone's irresponsibility extendeed to the whole nation much as London is a failing inner city on most measures of social provision, governmemnts inflict local solutions on the whole nation rather than point out that LOndon is dysfunctional.


"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, might be happy."

statement by one ignorant of history and unable to see the nature of Puritanism as a reaction to the excesses of ecclesiastical and political corruption. No doubt the word "Purity" itself causes you to retreeat into the dark corners away from the light ?


"I'm all in favour of increasing awareness and combating intolerance, particularly if it involves tackling the scourge of homophobia and preventing disgraceful incidents like the recent murder of an innocent barman in London,"

So it was uninformed schoolchildren who committed this murder ?

Perhaps if they can get the class to sit still teachers can inform them that pencil sharpeners are not for facial surgery, knives are best left at home, handguns are not welcomed on the streets, glue is better as an adhesive than an inhalant; and that if your parents had known how to use condoms the teacher would not be held prisoner in the monkey cage until the bell rang.


"Buxtehude can't be allowed to get away with misrepresenting the excellent Michael Gove. At the time that MG wrote his famous "I just can't hold it back; I love Tony Blair!" he was a newspaper columnist, not a Tory MP."

To this, and the very similar comment a little later, my simple answer is: do these guys believe what they say or not?

Gove and his friends clearly to seriously admire Tony Blair. Not just for his stance on Iraq. I think that admiration misplaced.

Can anyone post the original article please? Then we can make a better judgment. I can't find it on the Times website.

Michael Gove, could you help out here? Thanks.


I think Ed should justify his 'sexualisation of children' comment.

Whilst your nostalgia for legislation that discriminated against gay poeple is clear, what exactly do you mean by that comment?


Loyal Tory/Tory T, let me make it clear: Just because some of these guys were disloyal does not mean I think I think it ok for others to be disloyal. If you scroll back, you'll find I wasn't saying that.

But we're not yet fully immersed in IngSoc: don't try to re-write history. Gove was not just trying to please his editors - he was an editor himself. His comments came at the time when Labour were reeling from the Kelly affair - Gove and his circle were staunch defenders of Blair's conduct over this, when the Conservatives were making it a major part of their attack. (Personally, I support the Iraq intervention but not Blair's domestic handling of it).

Anyway, it's a quaint notion you have: we don't have to take seriously what someone says as a columnist, but we do when he becomes an MP? How do you judge which is the most sincere? My feeling is, either you mean what you say, or you don't.


'Sexualisation of children' means, I think, efforts by advertisers etc to turn children into part of the psycho-sexual consumerist culture at the earliest possible age; that this is predatory; and something that, unwittingly, much of this discussion plays into. Kids don't need us constantly to nudge them into the widest possible access to debate on sexuality. It distorts their own experience, their own discovery, which should come when they seek it, not when it suits those with adult agendas. This doesn't mean there should be no sex education - just that it should be approached from the child's point of view, not from the agenda-ridden-adult's.


Very reasonable, reasonable. How, though, did S.28 stop the 'sexualisation of children'?

It's main effect seems to have been to have left adolescents coming to terms with their sexuality in a vacuum, whereby they were unable to see any literature that reflected their own experience.

Barbara Villiers

Of course politicians are allowed to change their views and I welcome it when they do. However, DC has no real views on anything and I absolutely despair that this Party is so desperate for victory that they look set to elect a Blair clone. What's worse is that since the average age of Party members is 60 something it is clear that so called mature people are are taken in by what is so wrong with the world today - image, instant gratification, a quick fix. You don't change the world by following it but by staking a new position. I really do despair.

modern conservative

Barbara, I sympathise with your despair, but do we have to keep reading about it?

If John Major, Michael Heseltine, William Hague and John Redwood can put their faith in David Cameron, couldn't you at least try to be a bit more positive for the sake of the party and possibly accept that their combined knowledge and experience might begin to equal yours?

Barbara Villiers

Oh yes, I really do put my faith in a bunch like that who couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

Cameron will be a disaster for this Party and make no mistake. And just wait until one of the red top rags publishes something really awful about his past (whether true or false) right after he is elected and we'll really have egg on our faces.
Mark my words.


"t's main effect seems to have been to have left adolescents coming to terms with their sexuality in a vacuum, whereby they were unable to see any literature that reflected their own experience."

Worthy of Dr Goebbels.........the purpose of the Clause was to stop the use of PUBLIC money to fund the activities of the lobby groups sponsored by Ken tell us how many prosecutions actually took place ?

In short the Clause deterred the antics of clowns like Livingstone though I concede abolishing the GLC probably had a greater impact.

One town elected a man in a monkey suit as Mayor; he has been eminently sensible, yet Londoners seem prone to electing an uncostumed monkey as mayor and he feeds his vanity on taxpayers money just as he did at the GLC.

London is simply a joke with its mayor and his bloated vanity - that was the reason for Clause 28......imagine if Livingstone could raise Council Tax just how lunatic he would be ?


Barbara Villiers | 14 November 2005 at 09:59

Agreed !



Regardless of Ken's lunacy and Goebbels (?), the fact remains that section 28 was deeply offensive to the gay community while, ludicrously, achieving nothing, as you admit.

So a party that aims to appeal to the entire nation should have supported its repeal.

Bizarre really when the proportion of party members who are gay considerably exceeds the national average...


Lancake.....the issue is actually the use of public money.....frankly Livingstone should have been surcharged as Skinner's brothers were at Clay Cross for breach of fiduciary obligation.

It would be beneficial for the NHS if schools focussed more on STIs than on being subject to LEA lunacy from the likes of Livingstone and Tony for CLause 28 it was a typical response of that phase of Conservatism rather akin to the reflex actions of Tony Blair with regard to his "Respect" agenda.

Jack Stone

Good god there`s been even more than the usual rubbish spoken in this thread than we usually get by the right-wing nutters who are to blame for this party losing the last three elections.
David Cameron will be this party`s next Prime Minister because he as the ability, which Davis does not have, to talk to those outside the party`s core vote and to sound as if he is of today`s Britain not yesteryears Britain.
If the party is ever to get back into power its got to stop sounding as if it wants to be nasty to gays, women, immmigrants etc and starts sounding like it actually cares about all.

Daniel Vince-Archer

"The right-wing nutters who are to blame for this party losing the last three elections."

Which right-wing nutters are you referring to Jack? The Head of Party Policy Co-ordination responsible for drafting the 2005 manifesto? Or that swivel-eyed goose-stepping bigot John Major perhaps?

"David Cameron will be this party`s next Prime Minister because he as [sic] the ability, which Davis does not have, to talk to those outside the party`s core vote and to sound as if he is of today`s Britain not yesteryears Britain."

Any solid evidence to back this assertion up? Thought not.

Jack Stone

Any evidence to suggest that David Davis appeals to anyone outside of the core vote. Of course not!
There`s two choices in this election. Win with Cameron, lose with Davis.

Daniel Vince-Archer

Jack, as a wiser man than me once said,

"Answer the question please, Jack, or stop making such baseless assertions."


Some school children at age 11 to 15 are very vulnerable to all sorts of propoganda, and so they need to be protected. I understand that Section 28 did that by preventing the promotion of homosexuality, as has been said, by loony left-wing councils. This sort of thing should be prevented by good headteachers and school governors. To those who claim that sexuality is something which cannot be changed by influence or propoganda, then explain how someone can be bi-sexual? There is a lot more to sexuality than simply being born with a certain predisposition.


"David Cameron will be this party`s next Prime Minister "

Perhaps Jack Stone, but I suspect he might well be in his 50s by then and facing Ieuan Blair in the Commons !

The comments to this entry are closed.

About Conservative Home


  • Conservative Home's
    free eMailing List
    Enter your name and email address below: