Thatcher"s new model family Clause 29 of the local government bill now proceeding through parliament is the most severe attack on lesbian and gay rights in Britain since the outlawing of male homosexuality in 1885. The clause will have serious effects on the lives of millions of lesbian and gay people. But, argues JAMIE GOUGH, in explicitly branding lesbian and gay sexuality as inferior to heterosexuality, this law also poses to the socialist and labour movements more sharply than ever before the need to understand the nature of lesbian and gay oppression. THE CLAUSE would prohibit local authorities from 'promoting homosexuality' in any of their activities, including
grants to other bodies. In particular it prohibits teaching in schools that 'homosexuality acceptable as a pretended family relationship'. In order to understand how the courts will interpret the clause, we have to look at the existing status of homosexuality in
It is widely thought that the 1967 sexual offences act "legalised homosexuality'. Nothing could be further from the truth. The 1967 act, like the abortion act of the same year, did not make the previously-forbidden activities legal, but merely de-criminalised them under certain restricted conditions.
Homosexuality thus remains contrary to the "public policy of the law' and against 'public morality'. In other words, the law considers homosexuality undesirable and judges consider it their duty to prevent it wherever possible. Thus judges in custody cases nearly always consider it against 'public policy' to allow lesbians and their children to live together; and it is perfectly legal for an employer to sack a lesbian or gay worker purely for their sexuality.
Similarly, a whole number of laws concerning sexual "morality' ('indecency', 'obscenity' and so forth) anc public order have been interpreted to include homosexuality, effectively outlawing most public representations of lesbian and gay sexuality and, potentially, most lesbian 22 and gay organisations.
Spot the famous faces: an arts lobby demonstration against clause 29, (front row, left to right) Melvyn Bragg, Jane Asher, lan McKellen, Lenny Henry SOCIALIST OUTLOOK naó March/April 1988
G A Y RIGHTS Andrew Moore/Reflex SOCIALIST OUTLOOK March/April 1988
GAY RIGHTS
The courts therefore already consider it their duty to suppress homosexuality as anything but a secret, private activity between 'adults'. They can therefore interpret the word 'promote' in the clause to include any local authority activity which could give a positive, or even a neutral impression of homosexuality. It could include any presentation of lesbian and gay sexuality in schools that does not explicitly brand these as diseases or social maladjustment; policies to give lesbian and gay people equal access to the benefits of social services and housing; policies to end the victimisation of lesbians and gays in young people's homes; grants to any lesbian and gay organisations; use of council facilities by lesbian and gay organisations; and, famously, lesbian and gay books in public libraries or plays in public theatres.
'homosexuality remains contrary to the
"public policy of the law?? '
In forbidding it to be taught that homosexuality is a normal part of human sexuality, the clause introduces, for the first time since the start of universal education in 1870, a prohibition on the teaching of particular scientific theories in schools: an extremely dangerous thin end of the wedge. Not only could equal opportunities policies for lesbian and gay workers be outiawed, but it could become illegal for local authorities to employ openly lesbian or gay workers. Existing employment case law holds that for a worker merely to be openly lesbian or gay can have a corrupting influence on youth.
The clause will also reinforce homophobia in other branches of the law. The phrase about 'pretended family relationships', for example, will make the legal position of lesbian and gay parents even weaker. And the clause will undoubtedly reinforce popular prejudice, as shown by the fire-bombing of the Capital Gay offices in the week of the clause's introduction.
For the government, the 'lesbian and gay card' has proved politically useful. It used it to attack Labour in the general election (the first time that lesbian and gay issues had featured in this way). In attacking the local authoritycontrolled education system, the government has portrayed it as the kind of system that leads to the "promotion' of homosexuality to children, especially in the inner city areas where the government is aiming to break Labour's hold. And now, with the crash and imminent world recession, a moral panic can provide a useful smokescreen for economic failure.
Not all the ruling class is happy with the clause. This is partly due to ambivalence or even opposition to Thatcher's plans for the welfare state. It is due to an appreciation that the clause is so sweeping and ambitious that it will jeopardize the core aim, maintaining the promotion of heterosexuality to young people. Thus an Independent editorial (11/1/87) condemned the clause as "repressive' but called for its amendment so as to focus on the real evil: (teaching) children that homosexual conduct is merely one "valid sexual option", no better and no worse than conventional heterosexuality'. This is where the liberal bourgeoisie draws the line.
Not too surprisingly, that is where the Labour leader ship also draw the line. The Labour front bench policy on lesbian and gay rights over the last two years has, in fact, been a major factor allowing the government to sponsor 24 the clause. Kinnock and Cunningham, the shadow min-
ister on local government, have continually dissociated themselves from the attempts of a few Labour authorities, notably Haringey and the inner London education authority (ILEA), to introduce positive images of lesbian and gay sexuality into their school curricula. In attacking Haringey as a 'loony left' council they have played on the fame of its positive images policy. In the 'Hewitt' letter following the Greenwich by-election disaster, they sought to identify the lesbian and gay rights policies of the London Labour boroughs with Labour's unpopularity. They have, of course, professed themselves defenders of Labour conference policy against discrimination against lesbian and gay people; but they have sought to distinguish this policy from the 'excesses' of the positive images
The Tories could therefore calculate that legislation centred on the 'protection of youth' would have to be supported by the Labour leadership. And so it was. Immediately the clause was introduced, Cunningham declared his support for its basic aim, though wishing to amend it to allow local authorities to have 'antidiscrimination' policies and to provide 'information' to school students. Significantly, Cunningham said that there was no evidence that Labour authorities had been spending millions on promoting homosexuality, because such activity had been confined to the ILEA and Haringey. (Guardian, 9/12/87.)
'it could become illegal for local
authorities to employ openly lesbian or
gay workers'
Cunningham's position is completely incoherent. Once you say that lesbian and gay sexuality is undesirable it becomes perfectly logical and rational to discriminate. This is because lesbians and gay men are not a fixed minority of the population. Sexual desire and, even more important, the ability to live a lesbian or gay lifestyle are produced by society, including through the 'promotion' of homosexuality.
You therefore cannot avoid the question of whether it is desirable for lesbian and gay people to be produced. If it is undesirable, then you must continue with the promotion of heterosexuality to young people and you must stop teachers and youth workers from coming out as lesbian or gay at work. In other words, you must discriminate. Thus for the labour movement to oppose discrimination against lesbian and gay people it must also support the idea that lesbian and gay sexuality is equally valid to heterosexuality.
The clause has produced intense anger among lesbian and gay people in Britain. In dozens of cities and towns around the country open, broadly-based committees have been set up to fight the clause. This organisation has been led, politically and organisationally, by lesbians, who, drawing on their understanding of their oppression as women, have tended to be clearer than gay men about the significance of the clause.
As well as înnumerable local events and several large lobbies of parliament, there was a demonstration of 12,000 people in London on 9 January, and a festival and demonstration attended by 20,000 people in Manchester on 20 February. The next stage of the campaign is a day of local actions on 8 April, building towards what is planned
SOCIALIST OUTLOOK noó MerchiApril 1988
to be a huge demonstration and festival in London on 30 April. This is going to be supported by the lesbian and gay movement internationally. Kinnock to change tack and come out against the clause. But there is no room for complacency. The 'new realism' on this issue is far from defeated. Even within the lesbian and gay movement, there are forces, both liberal and labourite, who want to draw a line between "respectable' and 'unrespectable' lesbian and gay rights. the clause has made building labour movement support much more difficult. So far only the NALGO and NATHE leaderships have come out unequivocally against the clause, and there were very few Labour Party banners on 'Cunningham's position is completely incoherent' the 20 February demonstration. It is therefore vital that mobilisation for 30 April, and affiliation to the campaign and to the labour campaign for lesbian and gay rights (LCLGR), is taken up in every labour movement body. April and will come into operation in June. What then? Several Labour council leaders have already said that they will continue to carry out their lesbian and gay rights policies after the passing of the clause. But this is likely to have the same meaning as past 'assurances' not to carry out Tory cuts: you only stick to the policy while it remains legal. The Labour leaderships are claiming that their policies will be legal because they are not really 'promo- ting' homosexuality. But, as we have seen, the judges will have a different opinion. rights policies, and discriminate against lesbian and gay THE CLAUSE was introduced as an amendment to the local government bill by Tory MPs Jill Knight and David Wilshire. It was modelled on a bill proposed in December 1986 by Lord Halsbury. That bill failed, largely because it was explicitly not supported by the government. Yet the government is now backing clause 29 with three line whips in both houses: Why the change? The change arises from an important shift in the focus of the Thatcher government's activity since being elected for its third term. In the first two terms the government concentrated almost exclusively on the direct production of surplus value, the productive' economy. In this term of office it is shifting its focus to how the labour force (and the population as a whole) is reproduced. Hence the promised legislative measures on housing, education and local government in general, and ones in the pipeline SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 6 March/April 1988
One effect of the mobilisation so far has been to force The initial support given by the Labour leadership to The clause will pass its final stages in parliament in The choice will therefore be: scrap all lesbian and gay on the NHS. will be to increase the responsibility of families for reproducing themselves, to make individuals more dependent on their families, and to increase the differences in welfare between people according to their family income. The resultant a large part of the labour force will certainly create new problems for capital, But all 'monetarist' policies have these kinds of contradiction. In this context it is not surprising to find the government attempting to strengthen the family structure; and, nowadays, this means strengthening heterosexuality. of families within oppressed classes took place essentially under economic pressures: you could not survive and bring up children outside of this social arrangement.
GAY RIGHTS bills to abolish the clause. tor the right to mobilise, as they did in Haringey. unless the argument is taken outwards o WCIE 7HY, 01-580 9551 ext 227. A crucial effect of these measures deterioration in the reproduction of within them. In earlier societies the formation welfare state •
workers ... or break the law. The mood within the 'stop the clause' campaign is clear: councils should continue with their lesbian and gay rights policies whatever the law says. This is the position that socialists should be fighting Already there are several motions to NALGO national conference calling for this position to be adopted. But forcing Labour councillors to adopt it, and persuading local authority workers to put their jobs on the line, will need a very powerful and long campaign. Mobilisations around a succession of court cases will be necessary. A positive focus may also be provided by private members' But local organisation will also be vital. In this, we must learn from past mistakes. Most Labour councils which have introduced lesbian and gay rights policies, including Haringey, have tried to do so bureaucratically, without campaigning for support for the policies among working class people. This leaves prejudice unchallenged — negat- ing half the point of the policy - and leaves the field open The campaign therefore needs to include locally-based propaganda — speakers at every NUT branch but also at every parent-teacher association. Resolute action by the unions and Labour parties directly involved is essential. But this will be ineffective, and will be difficult to sustain, • Stop the clause campaign, c/o ULU, Malet St, London 'we must support the idea that lesbian and gay sexuality is equally valid to heterosexuality' Through the development of capitalism, and especially in the imperialist countries in the wentieth century, this economi ressure has been eroded. Th welfare state has contributed a large part to this erosion. As a result, sexuality has come to play an increasing role in why people form families and why they remain The stability of the family system has thus both produced, and come to depend on, heterosexual people, that is, people whose sexuality is fit to form a 'normal' family. Conversely, because the family system is no longer stable, there are many people who are able to varying degrees to live a non- heterosexual life. Reinforcing the family system therefore inevitably involves the promotion of heterosexuality. In other words, attacks on lesbian and gay people are part of the restructuring of the 25
Bob Gannon/Reflex ob Gannon/Reflex 26
King Hussein of Jordan Ya ac Guarita/Reflay
MIDDLE EAST