Section 28 surely qualifies as the most controversial piece of legislature since the poll tax.

As part of the Local Government Act 1988, the infamous clause states that a local authority shall not: "promote homosexuality or publish material with the intention of promoting homosexuality, and that it shall not promote the teaching in any maintained school of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship".

In an age of supposed tolerance and enlightened thinking, it was always going to chafe against the grain.

Now the Government plans to repeal Section 28, and the furore which has simmered uncomfortably since its introduction by the then Conservative government is once again out in the public forum. With the spotlight on open debate, the division of parties, religious leaders, educationalists and the public has been expressed in a number of ways.

Emotions and opinions always run high when alternate streams of life intersect, and the debate as inevitably focused around homosexuality.

But whatever your understanding of same-sex relationships and how it should be explained in schools, Section 28 poses important broader questions.

John Eekelaar, a Reader in Family Law at Pembroke College, Oxford, says: "It is unclear what the first limb of Section 28 means when it says that local authorities should not intentionally promote homosexuality - it could mean that they shouldn't promote it, in the sense of encouraging people to engage in homosexual activity, but it doesn't stop you from saying that you shouldn't tolerate it."

"The second section might affect the interpretation of the first. If the second part clearly doesn't allow tolerance then the first will be subject to a less tolerant interpretation. "The bigger point is that in itself it seems to disallow teaching which could put the view that we should accept homosexual relationships as equal or equivalent to family relationships.

"The point is not to argue one way or another on this. If teachers are not allowed to say that homosexuality is acceptable, in my view that makes it a matter of freedom of speech."

History is littered with the consequences of restricting the social health of differing points of view. In the case of Section 28, anti-campaigners argue that a lack of information has led to confusion and fuelled prejudice, leading to a rise in homophobic bullying in schools.

Dr Eekelaar adds: "It's a mistake to argue this is about gay rights, although that is the form it has taken. It is not improper for a teacher to debate a case with students, so why stop them doing that? We're not talking about six or seven years-olds, but sixth formers here, most of which are more sensible than many adults."

Taking the core issue as freedom of speech, Dr Eekelaar is convinced that were Section 28 challenged on those grounds in the Court of Human Rights, it would not survive.

Story date: Wednesday 02 February

Converted for the new archive on 30 June 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.