difficult for British politicians to take independentrnaction on any issue. The EuropeanrnUnion’s record on this topic, asrnon so many others, is devoid of commonrnsense. Under the E.U. Human RightsrnAct, which takes effect in Britain in October,rnschools could be sued for banningrnhomosexual sex among pupils over 16.rnThe Section 28 debate exposed the dividernbetween Britain’s elites and thosernwho foolishly vote for them. Members ofrnour present ruling class believe thatrn”equality” is an attainable goal, that therernis no such thing as “normalcy,” and thatrnmorals and sexual differences (not tornmention national identities) are just randomrnconstructs which have no relevancern—except during elections. Theyrnare convinced (ludicrously but, norndoubt, “sincerely”) that they are uprnagainst a “homophobic,” “conservative,”rnand “racist” (these three words are interchangeable,rnin leftist rhetoric) establishmentrnfrom which all “minorities” needrnprotection.rnThe attempt to repeal Section 28 isrnpart and parcel of a general drive tornequalize everyone down to the lowestrncommon denominator. An article in thernDaily Telegraph on February 10 bore thernrevealing headline: “Section 28 skirmishrnis prelude to a war on inequality.” JournalistrnRachel Sylvester pointed out thatrn”The Blairites are trying to redefinernequality as a pragmatic rather than a politicalrnthing”; as the Equal OpportunitiesrnMinister stated, “Economic prosperityrndepends on making the most of our mostrnvaluable resource—people. To do that,rnwe must not discriminate.” The mixturernof economic reductionism and femininernsentiment is unappealing to both visceralrnTories and the Old Left, but such viewsrnare likely to prove attractive to a certainrnkind of Tory for whom the free market isrnthe be-all and end-all.rnThe same issue of the Telegraph reportedrnthat the Equal OpportunitiesrnCommission will draw up a code governingrnhow companies should treat homosexualrnemployees and their paramoursrnon the questions of travel allowances andrnhealth insurance, and that officials at thernDepartment of Health want to alter thernmeaning of “next of kin” to include homosexualrnpartners. On February 14rncame news that Royal Air Force cadetsrnwould be told that homosexuality is notrndamaging to morale.rnOn March 2, naive Anglican and RomanrnCatholic bishops, at the suggestionrnof the Bishop of Blackburn, reached arncompromise agreement with Labour underrnwhich they would drop their oppositionrnto Section 28’s repeal in exchangernfor a commitment in the forthcomingrnLearning and Skills Bill to teach the importancernof marriage and “stable relationships”rnin schools. Sharper-witted Toriesrnnoticed the worryingly anodyne expressionrn”stable relationships,” which will berntaken to include homosexual relationships.rnThe idea was also promptly attackedrnfrom the left—the health secretaryrnand the minister for women bothrnargued that concentrating on marriagernwould hinder the (long-running and futile)rncampaign against underage pregnancies,rnand the (homosexual) ministerrnfor culture, media and sport claimed thatrnthe proposed replacement was just asrn”bad.” (The Tories defeated this amendmentrnlater in March.)rnOn March 6, at an election hustings,rnTory mayoral candidate Steven Norrisrnsaid that the police should turn a blindrneye to cruising and discreet sex (the “extremernright-wing” William Hague ofrnLabour mythology has just appointedrnNorris vice-chairman of the ConservativernParty). On March 9, a poll in Sedgefield,rnCounty Durham (Tony Blair’s constituency)rnrevealed that 71 percent ofrnadults, mostly Labour voters, want to retainrnthe ban. Also in March, a debate onrnthe subject split the Association of Teachersrnand Lecturers almost down the middle,rnwith one delegate using the splendidlyrnold-fashioned (but weak) argumentrnthat homosexuality “was one of the majorrnconcomitant parts of the decline and fallrnof major empires.” On March 23, arnprominent homosexual theologian wasrnappointed as the new university “missioner”rnat Oxford. Stonewall, the homosexualrngroup at the forefront of the battle to repealrnSection 28, received almostrn£900,000 in lottery money, bringing therntotal amount of lottery money given tornhomosexual groups since April 1999 torn£2.8 million.rnEven with Section 28 on the books,rnhomosexuals are getting their propagandarninto schools. In schools for childrenrnfrom age 11 up, Berkshire Health Authorityrnhas circulated a newsletter (fundedrnby the National Health Service) advertisingrnhomosexual pubs and websites,rngiving “cruising” tips, and inviting readersrnto take part in a homosexual “beautyrncontest.” (Health authorities are not coveredrnby Section 28, which only applies tornlocal councils.) Christopher Booker,rnwriting in the Sunday Telegraph inrnMarch, described Avon Health Authorit”rns “teachers’ pack,” A Practical Guide tornChallenging Homophobia in Schools,rnwhich gives guidelines for teachers whornwish to encourage their students to actrnout various roles (such as “16 year oldrnAsian lesbian,” “male to female transgenderedrnperson,” and “black disabled lesbianrnwho is also a wheelchair user”) andrnsuggests that pupils should regard suchrnfigures as Quentin Crisp, GeorgernMichael, and “Pat in [the British soaprnopera] Eastenders” as positive role models.rnThis gives the lie to Blair’s Februaryrnspeech in which he said, “People are beingrntold their children will have—whatrnwas it? —homosexual roleplaying inrnschools, it’s nonsense” and that suchrnthings could never happen “not underrnthis government. Not ever.”rnThe motion to repeal Section 28 wasrnpassed easily by Blair’s puppet ScottishrnExecutive, whose members are fanaticallyrndetermined to force metropolitan permissivenessrnon the generally conservativernScots that they recklessly ignored opinionrnpolls. (Even 90 percent of school boards,rninstitutions not normally regarded as conservative,rnwish to retain Section 28.) ThernExecutive enthusiasts also insulted millionairernbusinessman Brian Souter’srn”Keep the Clause” campaigning group,rnsaying that it is “homophobic” and refusingrnto recognize the moral force ofrnSouter’s privately funded ballot to allrnScottish voters, which cost him £1.5 million.rnThe referendum asked Scots tornchoose the statement with which theyrnagreed: “I vote to retain Clause 28” or “Irnvote to repeal Clause 28.” On May 31,rnthe results were announced, with 86.8rnpercent (about 1 million) of the 32 percentrnwho responded demanding the retentionrnof Section 28. Souter’s criticsrnwere delighted when a senior executivernin his corporation was arrested in July forrnallegedly soliciting a male prostitute.rnThere were complaints in June whenrnLabour’s Lord Alii used the House ofrnLords as a contact address when advertisingrnfor a chief executive for his newrnGay.com venture.rnNew Home Office proposals announcedrnin July are intended to equaternhomosexual and heterosexual behaviorrnby removing laws, such as those onrnsodomy and “cottaging,” that relate onlyrnto homosexuals. “A man and a man—orrna woman and a woman—kissing or holdingrnhands in public should no more berncriminalized than a man and a womanrnbehaving in the same way,” say the relANUARYrn2001/39rnrnrn