ABSTRACT
In order to understand how these lesbian teachers live out their lives it is necessary to situate them within the wider socio-political and cultural context. Analysis of the circumstances leading up to the passing of Section 28 reveals much about the power of the new moral right and about attitudes towards lesbians and gay men. Attitudes and resultant discourses that I will argue remain exceedingly powerful-and especially so within the conservative world of education and more specifically that of physical education. During Margaret Thatcher’s premiership the ‘campaign for family values’ was pursued with much vigour and concerns were expressed about the sanctity and well-being of the institution of the family. This traditional patriarchal institution was seen as being under attack particularly from homosexuals whom it was believed ‘could
undermine the basis of our society’ (Boyson, 1987, pp. 1002-3). These fears were to lead, in part, to an increase in state involvement and to a greater regulation of sexuality. Alongside these concerns must also be seen central government alarm over the growing power and autonomy of some local authorities and, in particular, the activities of some local Labour councils-the so called ‘loony left’. Haringey in north London was seen as one such example: their policy of ‘positive images’ of homosexuality led to clashes between parents and gay rights supporters. Dame Jill Knight (1987, p. 1000) speaking in the House of Commons commented: ‘Hundreds of thousands of pounds are being spent by some councils in promoting sexuality in our schools. All of that money could be far better spent’. In the same debate, Dr. Rhodes Boyson (the Minister for Local Government) stated:
The government share the view that a society is defined by its shared beliefs and habits. There are some kinds of behaviour that Christian charity may lead us to tolerate, but there is no reason why public funds should be spent on promoting that behaviour and no reason why we should tolerate those who spend public funds in this way. Undermining the common standards of society, flaunting behaviour that the overwhelming majority of those brought up in this country and its traditions find revolting, unsettling the minds of the coming generation is one way-a subtle wayof changing the society in which we live. (1987, p. 1002)
It was against this political landscape that the supporters of Section 28 were able to mount a passionate and vociferous campaign against homosexuals who were depicted as sick, sinful, predatory individuals who were a threat to children and the continuance of society. The Earl of Halsbury (1986, p. 310) spoke of how he had been ‘warned that the loony left is hardening up the lesbian camp and that they are becoming increasingly aggressive’. In support of the Local Government Act (Amendment) Bill [H.L.] 1986, Lady Saltoun of Abernethy (1986, p. 317) summed up the views of many of those in the House of Lords by stating: ‘This is a small Bill-a David of a Bill that sets out to kill a Goliath of an evil’. Thus the Conservative moral crusade was mobilized and orchestrated around the twin threats of local government autonomy and homosexuality, each in their own way viewed as a potential threat to public safety and the security of the state. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 was therefore an attempt to fuse the two ‘evils’. It stated:
1 A local authority shall not-
(a) intentionally promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality;
(b) promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship.
