Scottish Government’s survey of school age children about their sexual knowledge and sexual behaviour has caused cetain sectors of society to object to factfinding about attitudes.
The Clause 28 debate [on homosexuality] gives us a couple of pointers worth reflecting on in the present.
First, arguments for greater equality cannot win by stealth – which was the Scotland pre-Section 28. The case for equality, for liberal sex education, for treating children with respect, has to be publicly made and restated all the time.
Second, the forces of moral authoritarianism represent a very small part of Scotland – one very vocal and over-cited in parts of the media. Groups like Us For Them Scotland and Safe Schools Alliance are tiny organisations given disproportionate space.
Third, the role of media is critical. Twenty years ago, there was a nervousness and unsureness in responding to and reflecting a more liberal Scotland comfortable with lesbian and gay people, talk about sex and sexuality, and other issues of diversity. Today large parts of the print media are hollowed out and read by a predominately older audience who are more conservative on such issues. This has led to the rise of a reactionary clickbait commentary in papers such as The Herald where various voices write often inflammatory pieces to play to the worst instincts of part of the paper’s declining audience and to cause wider waves and hence get noticed.
Fourth, beyond media platforms there is a strand of Scottish public opinion (some of which was once liberal and thought itself progressive) including McKenna and Iain Macwhirter who have grown disillusioned and bitter with today’s Scotland. They don’t like the march of social reforms, with McKenna once writing of a ‘liberal junta’ dominating Scotland and yearning for a return of the prescriptive moral authoritarianism of previous years when what the Catholic Church said on issues such as abortion and homosexuality really counted.
It is true that controversy is part of what it is to live in society, and modern society even more. But we have to have a sense of proportion, humanity and empathy.
Yet there is even a bigger point. Who we are and what we become is defined by what we discuss in everyday conversation. Do we really want to be defined by the heated discussion of the latest supposed cultural war controversy – another one of which will be along shortly to take up time and energy?
Or can we say that we refuse to be diverted and instead recognise the tough times we are living in – without even mentioning COVID or Brexit. Do we want to bring our focus, resources and imagination to the existential issues that humanity and the planet faces such as climate change, how we address AI, the economic calculus of neoliberalism, crony capitalism, and the march of authoritarianism and assault on democratic norms?
This will require nearly all of our attention and courage if we are to have a chance of doing the right thing. For some it is easier to hide in the excuses and evasions of becoming fixated about what are, compared to the huge issues, relatively smaller. No one should say such areas don’t matter but we have to have a sense of proportion and not give space or succour to those who peddle hatred and bigotry.