Is it legal to teach gay hate in schools?

19 February 2012 by

Updated, 20 Feb 2012 | Following the news recently it would seem that the UK is convulsed by a raging battle between religious observers and, in the words of Baroness Warsi, militant secularists. On the same day, the High Court ruled that Christian prayers held before a council meeting were unlawful, and the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court that two Christian hotel owners had discriminated against gay clients by not offering them a double room.

Today’s spat, according to The Guardian, involves a letter sent to the Education Secretary Michael Gove by the Trade Union Congress leader “expressing alarm that a booklet containing “homophobic material” had been distributed by a US preacher after talks to pupils at Roman Catholic schools across the Lancashire region in 2010.” From the quotes provided in The Observer, the book sounds pretty offensive:

The booklet, “Pure Manhood: How to become the man God wants you to be”, discusses a boy dealing with “homosexual attractions” which it suggested may “stem from an unhealthy relationship with his father, an inability to relate to other guys, or even sexual abuse”.

The booklet, which claims that “scientifically speaking, safe sex is a joke”, explains that “the homosexual act is disordered, much like contraceptive sex between heterosexuals. Both acts are directed against God’s natural purpose for sex – babies and bonding.”

Interestingly, the complaint mirrors, to an extent, one recently made by pupils at the Jewish Free School (JFS) which had shown information about a ‘gay cure’ institute as part of a discussion about homosexuality in a Jewish studies lesson. I guest blogged about this on Cartoon Kippah website: Teaching Jewish children to cure gays

The TUC’s Barber wrote to Mr Gove that because of the Equality Act 2010, which prohibits discrimination against individuals, “Schools now have a legal duty to challenge all forms of prejudice. Such literature undermines this completely.” Gove apparently responded in the following terms:

The education provisions of the Equality Act 2010 which prohibit discrimination against individuals based on their protected characteristics (including their sexual orientation) do not extend to the content of the curriculum. Any materials used in sex and relationship education lessons, therefore, will not be subject to the discrimination provisions of the act.

Is he right? Part 6 of the 2010 Act provides for education, and section 85 states that a school must not discriminate against, harass or victimise, amongst other things, “in the way it provides education for the pupil”. However, section 89(2) provides that “Nothing in this Chapter applies to anything done in connection with the content of the curriculum.” On a bare reading of these provisions, it would appear Mr Gove is correct.

But, the explanatory notes, drafted by Mr Gove’s Department,  provide more information:

… [section 89] makes it clear that the prohibitions in the Chapter do not apply to anything done in relation to the content of the school curriculum. This ensures that the Act does not inhibit the ability of schools to include a full range of issues, ideas and materials in their syllabus and to expose pupils to thoughts and ideas of all kinds.

Perhaps this is where Mr Gove finished reading, because it goes on:

The way in which the curriculum is taught is, however, covered by the reference to education in section 85(2)(a), so as to ensure issues are taught in a way which does not subject pupils to discrimination. This section also gives effect to Schedule 11 which provides some exceptions to the provisions in this Chapter.

So the position is this. A school is permitted to teach about whatever subject it likes, so as not to inhibit it from teaching about a wide range of issues, including, it would seem, controversial views about homosexuality. However, the school must still ensure that those issues are not taught in a way which subjects pupils to discrimination.

So it seems that Mr Gove is incorrect to say that “Any materials used in sex and relationship education lessons, therefore, will not be subject to the discrimination provisions of the act”. Schools are still not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, religion or race and so have a responsibility to ensure that if they are going to introduce controversial material about gay sex being “directed against God’s natural purpose”, they have to be very careful indeed to balance that material so that gay students are not subjected to discrimination.

I should sound a note of caution (with thanks to the comment below), that although admissible as an aid to construction (see e.g. R (S) v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [2004] UKHL 39, in particular Lord Steyn at para 4), the Notes have not been endorsed by Parliament and cannot be decisive of the correct interpretation of the Act. However, more help can be found in the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s  simple summary of the position in its guide for schools to the 2010 Act:

The way in which the curriculum is delivered is covered by the Act so you must ensure issues are taught in a way that does not subject pupils to discrimination. In addition, what is taught in the curriculum is crucial to tackling key inequalities for pupils including gender stereotyping, preventing bullying and raising attainment for certain groups.

The EHRC even provides the following example of potential harassment:

During a PSHE (personal, social, health and economic education) lesson, a teacher describes homosexuality as ‘unnatural’ and ‘depraved’ and states he will only be covering heterosexual relationships in the lesson. A bisexual pupil in the class is upset and offended by these comments. This may be unlawful direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

It may be that the booklet was used by the Lancashire schools in a sensitive way, perhaps as part of a careful discussion about religious attitudes to homosexuality which may be controversial, but also cannot be simply airbrushed away, particularly at a Roman Catholic, or for that matter Orthodox Jewish, school. Indeed, this was the explanation given by JFS.

If this was the case, it may (just about) have been lawful for the schools to present the material as part of a lesson and not be caught by the Equality Act. An analogy might be history books showing Nazi propaganda about Jews: an important part of history, but it must never be made a joke of or be left unexplained by a teacher – either could lead to discrimination against Jewish students.

It is surprising and a little worrying that the Secretary of State responsible for Education has provided an incorrect summary of the basic principles of equality legislation which apply to schools. It may be that the Education Secretary was quoted out of context [this may be the case – see my update below], but it is difficult to see, even on a charitable reading, what that context could have been.

Despite the bluster on the news, the UK is a both religiously tolerant and broadly secular country. But to ensure this tolerance continues, Ministers of State should make sure they understand their own discrimination law.

Update, 20 February 2012 – I have been reliably informed that the legal content of Mr Gove’s complete letter was a lot more sophisticated than the quote provided by The Observer. I am trying to track this down and will update the post once I have it.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts


  1. John D says:

    It was similar American preachers who set in motion a process of events which led to proposed legislation in African countries, criminalising homosexuality and providing for state-sanctioned execution of homosexuals.
    If Mr Gove is happy to support a discriminatory process which can lead to state-sanctioned murder then I suppose we will all just have to watch powerlessly from the side lines.
    Clearly, pillsbury will be happy to share the blood on the hands of Mr Gove.
    This issue is not just about law – it is about human values.

  2. I might instead ask the question, “is it ethical to teach hate anywhere?”

  3. Pillsbury says:

    The sentiments in the booklet are censored, of course, by the semi-facistic thought-police and, although unsubtle, broadly correct. Obsession with the rights of homosexuls is disproportionate and counter-productive.

  4. I tend to agree with Adam’s conclusion, but would express some caution about total reliance on the explanatory notes to the Act to get there. Although admissible as an aid to construction (see e.g. R (S) v. Chief Constable of South Yorkshire [2004] UKHL 39, per Lord Steyn at para 4), the Notes have not been endorsed by Parliament and cannot be decisive of the correct interpretation of the Act. Nevertheless, it is significant that the relevant part of the Guidance was prepared by Mr Gove’s own Department. Para 1 of the Notes states:

    “These explanatory notes relate to the Equality Act 2010 which received Royal Assent on 8 April 2010. They have been prepared by the Government Equalities Office, … , the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (in respect of provisions relating to education),… . Their purpose is to assist the reader in understanding the Act. They do not form part of the Act and have not been endorsed by Parliament.”

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      Thanks Angus – a fair comment. I should have added a note of caution about explanatory notes. I have added this in (borrowing your text – thank you!)

      Having looked at the provisions again this morning, they could be clearer – s.89: “Nothing in this Chapter applies to anything done in connection with the content of the curriculum” could – at a stretch – be interpreted as a simple get-out clause which applies to everything that is taught at school, as long as it is in the curriculum. It depends on how you interpret “content of the curriculum”, which could be construed narrowly – i.e. the subjects which are covered in the written curriculum, or widely, i.e. also what is taught under the auspices of the curriculum.

      However, I would be surprised if the wide reading convinced a court. It seems unlikely that Parliament intended s.89 to exempt everything which is taught in school from discrimination rules. That would mean that within a class room, as long as what was taught formed part of the curriculum, and however offensive, discriminatory, harassing etc it would be if, say, taught in the workplace, a pupil could not bring a discrimination claim. This would be very odd indeed.

      That said, this does beg the question as to what the point of s.89 is – if it is simply there to stop schools being frightened of including offensive material as part of a curriculum (see my example of Nazi propaganda in a history lesson), then this could have been expressed in a much narrower way.

  5. ObiterJ says:

    “A school is permitted to teach about whatever subject it likes, so as not to inhibit it from teaching about a wide range of issues, including, it would seem, controversial views about homosexuality. However, the school must still ensure that those issues are not taught in a way which subjects pupils to discrimination.”

    Is this an impossible ask?

  6. I would be interested to know if ‘schools’ as referred to in the Equalities Act include all schools, or just maintained schools? Are independent schools, academies and Free Schools all equally subject to this act? I know from reading David Wolfe’s blog ‘A can of worms’ that some laws only apply to maintained schools.

  7. Nick Nakorn says:

    An excellent point. Religious schools or religious school activities should also be so examined to determine if they discriminate against or for one particular group or groups. I attempted to get support from my local Race Equality Council concerning the overtly pro-Christian and pro-slavery lyrics of the winning song in the Devon County sponsored Devon Song Competition and in relation to the Pro-Christian new Devon Flag. But no support was forthcoming. You can read about it here:

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: