The Scottish Daily Mail flooded its pages with ‘facts’ and commentary supporting the retention of Section 28. They claimed Section 28 was brought in following fears “some Labour councils, particularly in London, were spending large sums promoting homosexuality in schools. The most famous example was the children’s book, Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin”. Just one copy of this book, published in Denmark in 1981, was held in a teaching resources library in London. Contrary to the media’s vivid imagination, no one had instructed it to be used by children. Author Susanne Bösche was furious. She told The Pink Paper: “I was really shocked at the way it was used in England and the way it was called homosexual propaganda. You must have very little confidence in your teachers in England if you think they will use propaganda or promote anything”. Her daughter Louise, who featured in the book as Jenny, was now aged 23 and lived with her boyfriend. Eric and Martin (real names Lars and Henrik) were still together and lived in Spain. The Daily Mail spun an entirely different tale of “the book that became the symbol of gay propagandists”. They also insisted that one of the original publishers was “threatening” to “rush out an updated version” as soon as Section 28 was lifted and would make sure that “every school which wants a copy will get a copy”. The Mail “tracked down” ‘Jenny’, ‘Eric’ and ‘Martin’ and apparently found “all three are united in their opposition to the idea of homosexuality being promoted to young children in schools”. Author Susanne Bösche was reported being “furious at the way gay campaigners used her book”.
Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin also shocked The Daily Record. “Jenny is sitting on a bed, clutching a doll, beside the couple, who are asleep, naked, in each other’s arms”, they gasped. Quite apart from anything else, Denmark does not share Scotland’s prudery over children seeing grown-ups naked. Record reporter Steve Smith declared that the book “was the reason the Thatcher government introduced Section 28 in 1988”. The tabloid also reported a “pledge” by “gay activist” Neal Cavalier-Smith - who was, more accurately, a director of gay publishing house, Prowler Press - saying: “I’ll make sure every school in Scotland has a copy of Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin”. A spokesman for Prowler Press assured me they were only considering reprinting an updated version of the book. The Daily Telegraph, on the other hand, insisted the book Colours of the Rainbow, published in 1986 and used by Camden and Islington Health Authority, was the primary reason for the introduction of Section 28. That would have been difficult: The book was not published until 1996!
The idea that homosexual material was being stockpiled for schools was another ‘fact’ too far for The Daily Record which stomped: “FACT: Homosexual lobbyists and publishers are already waiting in the wings to churn out gay propaganda for our schools”. Such an insult was not only inflammatory, but also untrue. By simply exchanging references to ‘gays’ into ‘Jews’ amplified how insulting and inflammatory these remarks might have been for some gay people; turning the copy into propaganda more befitting the Third Reich: ‘FACT: Jewish lobbyists and publishers are already waiting in the wings to churn out Jewish propaganda for our schools’. A letter from Ian McLaren Thomson in Glasgow to The Herald dismissed such comparisons outright: “…There is a vast difference between berating an individual for what he or she does by choice, and hounding someone to death for being born black or belonging to Judaism”.
Another regular columnist in Scotland on Sunday promoting ‘Keep the Clause’ was Mrs Katie Grant. Conservative, Catholic and a former pupil of St Mary’s convent, Ascot, her opinions were regularly bought by, amongst others, The Scottish Daily Mail, The Sunday Times Scotland and BBC Radio Scotland. Portraying herself as a simple parent, she begged Donald Dewar to join her “outside the school gates. It is here, where buggy-pushing mothers, and quite a few fathers, wait to collect their offspring…” Here, she reassured him, he would hear “reasoned debate”. Before launching into her rant, she rattled out a string of apologies on behalf of the parents. “These men and women are not ranting homophobes. They are not political activists. They are not out to cause trouble or make life difficult for anybody. They are just parents whose main concern is to safeguard their (mainly heterosexual) children’s mental, physical and sexual health”. Unfortunately, what Mrs Grant’s argument lacked in substance was compensated for in emotive gestures. She was convinced repeal would “allow those who want to play sexual politics with children’s sexual education to go ahead”. What she had successfully disengaged herself from was the Church and conservative media’s own efforts to use children’s sexual education to pitch their political battle. She was also investing her trust in a religious leader whose sexual experiences were at best; limited. Mrs Grant’s fears bubbled to the surface. What if gay people started “pushing their own agenda…” in schools? How would they be stopped? “Most parents will tell their children that sometimes men fall in love with men and women with women. Parents do not want teachers to deny these feelings exist. But whilst children are at school, most parents emphatically do not want their children to be taught about homosexual techniques or life styles”. This widespread ignorance of homosexuality prompted the Executive to announce its intention to post a leaflet on homosexuality to every household in Scotland aimed at the people who most needed it: Adults like Mrs Grant. She leant heavily on fear and distortion whilst regurgitating familiar Conservative propaganda into the minds of the credulous and gullible. “Let us not forget why Section 28 was introduced in the first place,” she wrote. “It was introduced because councils in London who wanted to promote a homosexual agenda used schools for their own very particular political purposes. Under the guise of ‘education’ they introduced materials that went beyond a point which parents found acceptable. The Section was not brought in to discriminate against homosexuals and when homosexual groups accuse worried parents of being homophobic it simply demonstrates their utter contempt for the truth. For the truth is that parents are a tolerant lot who are being used as political pawns. It is not children’s welfare that concerns the increasingly vociferous and militant gay lobby. It is a desire to exert their political muscle”. Members of the so-called ‘gay lobby’ were considerably less militant than Mrs Grant who, whilst picturing herself benignly standing outside the school gates, was, in fact, proselytising in the columns of a popular newspaper. As a pro-hunt supporter, she was not beyond joining marches and demonstrations and after the ban on foxhunting in Scotland, expressed her willingness to break the law and go to jail. All that the repeal of Section 28 was designed to do was ensure that the learning took place inside the school, properly and impartially delivered by qualified practitioners. Under a picture of a group of women outside the school gates, the caption for her story read: “Gates of learning…”
In an article Katie Grant once wrote on the First Minister, Donald Dewar’s plan to allow people to decide how the government spent its spare cash in a consultation exercise. Mrs Grant created a “virtual group” of people to raise their concerns with the First Minister. “And how we laugh when one of the children in the group quite innocently asks if his consultation falls into the same category as the consultation over the repeal of Section 28. The child points out that the words ‘con’ and ‘consultation’ begin in the same way”.
As unpopular as she was amongst journalists and readers alike, you might have expected criticism of Katie Grant to have been a rare sight in the profusion of media that gave her a platform, but it is was not unknown. Elizabeth Welsh from Ayr managed to fire at her from the letters’ pages in Scotland on Sunday over her piece on marriage and her suggestion that “most gay couples do not desire ‘exclusive faithfulness’! Where does she get that from? The common thread that runs through her comments and those of Betty Souter is homophobia, linked, worryingly, with the promotion of ‘family values’.”
Katie Grant was once again lurking outside the school gates contemplating the future of St Mary’s Episcopal Primary School in Dunblane. In a double-page spread in The Scottish Daily Mail, her opinion was exercised on: “A tale of two schools… Parents and teachers have made a success of running St Mary’s by themselves. So, why should they be forced to surrender this freedom when one other Scottish school (where the Education Minister sends his children) will still be allowed to carry on running its own affairs?” Small children were dragged in to support her emotive argument. “As usual, it is the children who get right to the heart of the issue. And when what is under threat is the school they loved, their questions are clear and direct. Why, the pupils of St Mary’s want to know, does Sam Galbraith (the Education minister) want to stop their parents and teachers from continuing to run their flourishing school? ‘Shouldn’t the Scottish parliament be proud of us?’ asked 11-year-old Robert when I visited the school this week. ‘Why do they want to change things when they are just fine as they are?’ whispered a worried looking Rachel, 10’.” Sam Galbraith’s children attended Jordanhill School, which, by ancient charter, remained outside local authority jurisdiction. The Conservative Government introduced opting-out legislation on the back of its ‘parent power’ programme. St Mary’s Episcopal Primary School, with 66 pupils, however was resisting pressure from the Labour administration to go back under local authority control. “…If he is going to destroy, as one child put it ‘the essence of our school’, it would be only courteous to attempt to explain, to that person, the reason why… Over coffee in the staff room, this is what sticks in their gullets: In a secret ballot, 97 per cent of those who voted wanted to retain the status quo. These people are not political proselytisers; just people who are passionately concerned for the well-being of their school… Labour’s election mantra of local solutions for local issues rings pretty hollow in the ears of these primary schoolchildren and their parents. They point out that one of the reasons cited for abandoning opting out - that too few parents put themselves up for election and that the school board could be hijacked by a few vociferous and bossy people - has not happened, not is likely to happen at St Mary’s”. Mrs Grant’s idea of education could have more usefully illustrated boxes of chocolates. She found St Mary’s “located at the top of a small lane, the pretty, stone-built school with its gable roof and white door exudes an aura of efficient, homely cosiness”.
Katie Grant’s interest in St Mary’s school was more than just the passing interest of a ‘concerned parent’ of course. St Mary's, famed for it’s no nonsense approach to teaching with an emphasis on the ‘three Rs’ was a school that had won its independence under reforms introduced by a Conservative Government. Brian Monteith MSP wrote about the debate that had taken place in the Scottish Executive in his political diary for Wednesday, 22 March 2000 in The Herald. It was what he described as the “first stage in principal of the Education Bill which is supposed to be about raising education standards but reveals Labour’s vindictive side. It will snuff out the independence of St Mary’s Primary School in Dunblane whilst maintaining the independence of Jordanhill School in Glasgow. I make this the main subject of my speech while also raising Section 28, greater choice in State schools and stronger powers for the General Teaching Council”. Parents of the school were already preparing to take a test case to the European Court of Human Rights where parents hoped to argue they had a right to respect for their private and family life, including the right to choose the kind of education they wanted for their children. This was the same ploy campaigners hoped might prevent the repeal of Section 28.
Gerald Warner could also be counted on to echo Mrs Grant’s opinion, as he did in Scotland on Sunday. “St Mary’s Episcopal Primary School at Dunblane is to be sacrificed to the principle that there is no room for clever-clogs in an inclusive education system”.
Much of what Katie Grant wrote failed to hide a pernicious right-wing message. Even on the subject of gamekeepers in her column in Scotland on Sunday she managed to attack gays once again: “When political correctness (should it not, correctly, be political rectitude?) is confined to asinine rules about calling someone a ‘sissy’ in the playground (the Scottish Executive has decreed this to be a hanging offence); it can be viewed simply as a joke. But when it begins to contaminate the legislative process it ceases to be a joke and becomes a threat”.
The Daily Mail offered unqualified support for any efforts to prevent the repeal of Section 28. At the Stagecoach AGM in September 2000, shareholders gathered in Perth to find a copy of On Stage, the company’s magazine on their seats. It carried one advertisement, promoting The Daily Mail and its sister newspaper The Mail on Sunday.
Letters published in The Scottish Daily Mail, of course, largely reinforced the opinion of the newspaper. Visiting his local surgery, P McMullin of Jedburgh was “horrified to see a large poster in the toilets and leaflets in the waiting area which advertised ‘free condoms and lube’ which could be posted to gay men. The message was in full view of any child who happened to be there. Doubtless we should be pleased the NHS is so well-funded”, he sniped.
David J Wilson of Woolwich in London imagined recruiting impressionable youngsters in after-school clubs was to become part of a secret gay agenda: “As happened in the U.S and Canada, after-school clubs for gay recruiting are the secret agenda after the removal of Clause 28”.
A. Parker of St Andrews in Fife - no stranger to the letters’ pages of tabloids - squealed: “I have just visited the website of Stonewall and was horrified to discover the extent of the orchestration for the repeal of Section 28/2a. If Donald Dewar is not happy with Brian Souter, I don’t see him being just as angry with Stonewall. The propaganda from Stonewall admitted that they have a growing number of like-minded MPs… is it any wonder Brian Souter and the silent majority are on a hiding to nothing, when our Government is full of homosexuals and lesbians”.
A. C. of Fochabers demanded: “We don’t want compromise. We want the clause to stay before we are a society where the lunatics are running the asylum, with Dewar as the biggest maniac in charge”.
Associated Newspapers successfully distributed a free newspaper throughout Scotland. On the whole, Metro Scotland avoided mimicking the vociferous moralising of its sister paper, The Daily Mail. However, there were some baffling coincidences on the letters’ pages of English and Scottish editions of The Metro. On Monday, 3 July 2000, for example, nine out of 10 letter-writers in the London edition shared the same names or initials as those in the Scottish edition - despite having altogether different addresses. M Lester of London E4 wrote to the London edition about police rapid response units - but another M Lester, this time from Livingston, West Lothian, wrote about the NHS in Scotland.
The Daily Mail didn’t have it all its own way. It was alleged their highly popular astrologer Jonathan Cainer had resigned and joined The Daily Express over The Mail’s attitude to homosexuality and single mothers.
Next issue: Scotland on Sunday and Gerald Warner
Just leave an e-mail address and we'll e-mail the next part when it's out.
garry@scottishmediamonitor.com
www.scottishmediamonitor.com
