| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Dr. Julian Lewis: To help to set my ignorance at rest, can my hon. Friend tell me whether he accepts that the practice of anal sex, whether between a man and a man
or between a man and a woman, is more likely to spread HIV and AIDS than the practice of what is generally called straight sex?
Mr. Woodward: The House has an opportunity to examine some of the prejudices behind my hon. Friend's comments. In his amusing autobiography, Stephen Fry points out that anal intercourse is of course not the prerogative of the homosexual community. He says that many homosexuals do not practise anal sex and that, if one considers the numbers and the fact that most people are heterosexual, it is a practice indulged in largely by heterosexuals: the straight people to whom my hon. Friend referred.
The reality is that the continuation of the wish to belittle, trivialise and caricature the relationships between homosexuals does enormous damage in our society. When people are prepared to grow up and approach the issue in a mature, considered way, we will be able to have a serious debate.
Mr. Bradshaw:
I thank my hon. Friend--and I use that term deliberately--for giving way. Perhaps I can help him in his conversation with the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). The main cause of the spread of HIV in Africa is heterosexual, vaginal intercourse. The infectivity of the virus is exacerbated by the heavy presence of other sexually transmitted diseases with which it might be possible to deal if the appropriate medical treatment were available.
I am sorry to have interrupted my hon. Friend's excellent speech. If his party had the sense to grasp the sort of leadership that he is showing, it might regain power in 15 years or so.
Mr. Woodward:
I may have to be cautious in responding to the hon. Gentleman's approbation, but I welcome it.
In this country, the greatest risk associated with unprotected sex is not that of spreading HIV or AIDS. It arises when heterosexual people engage in unsafe sex, and it involves not only sexually transmitted diseases but the possibility that a young woman will suffer an unwanted pregnancy and that a young man will become a father.
At 16, young males are engaging in their first meaningful physical relationships. It is a time for learning, and for maturing--not for fathering a child. I am grateful that I did not do so until I was nearly 30: if I had fathered a child at 16, my life would have been very different. To have become a father at that age would not have been good, but I do not believe that it would have been right if the law had said that, at 16, I should not have engaged in a mature relationship with another person. The reality is that, in Britain, there are 14,000 pregnancies every year involving young girls. If my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East is worried about risks, he should concentrate his efforts on that figure.
However, we do not use the criminal law to prevent heterosexual 16-year-olds from taking those risks. Instead, we rightly resort to education and information. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East may have proper motives in wishing to examine the sexual practices of people in Africa and the regularity of indulgence in anal intercourse in heterosexual or homosexual relationships,
but I can tell him that time spent with those organisations that work with and help young people suffering from HIV and AIDS is time well spent.
By the same principle, we should use education and information rather than the criminal law to help young gay men aged 16 and over to avoid exposing themselves to unnecessary risks.
Dr. Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon):
I wish to associate myself 100 per cent. with all the points that the hon. Gentleman has made in his magnificent speech, and to point out, in connection with the earlier intervention by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), that decriminalisation is very important in helping to get health and education messages through to people who may be putting themselves at risk. The British Medical Association is in many ways a conservative body, but it supported unanimously--for reasons of health education and for other reasons--the proposal to reduce and equalise the age of consent at 16.
Mr. Woodward:
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The criminal law will never stop people having sex. However, an effective HIV prevention strategy will be impossible to implement if the law always makes the activity in question a criminal offence.
Many people have raised the question whether a change in the law will lead to more young men becoming the victims of predatory older men. There is no evidence of that happening in other countries where there is an equal age of consent, although I am entirely sure that that prejudice is not the exclusive prerogative of these shores. However, the question gives rise to another: why should the law protect young men--if it can--from the predatory individual, but not young women? If we need a law to protect young men from predatory older men, why should not women be protected as well?
The sad truth is that some people in our society will prey on younger people. The evidence for that is plentiful in every square in every town in the country. We need to encourage a climate in which those who are preyed upon feel safe to report those who menace them.
The law should not distinguish between young men and young girls in consenting relationships, but young men and women are equal victims when it comes to predatory behaviour. Predators are predators, victims are victims and all victims need protection.
We are discussing the relationship between consenting people. The debate is not about an activity that is forced on young people. Rape is rape and indecent assault is indecent assault, whether it is between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, or a man and a man. All acts that are illegal because they are not consenting are illegal and should remain so. No one is suggesting that this Bill should in any way legitimise assault. Indeed, by changing the climate in which assaults can be reported, the Bill will do the very opposite. We need to feel sure that we are putting in place a better judicial system, in which victims will be able to come forward. This legislation will help.
The present climate, by its very discrimination, often prevents people from reporting rape and indecent assault by other men. Many police officers say that it is a real problem that remains to be tackled. However, it is just as important for a 17-year-old man to report such an offence
as for a 37-year-old man. Many 37-year-old or 57-year-old men and women still do not report assault and rape because they are afraid of the stigma that goes with it.
Discrimination against gay people discourages them from going to the police because they continue to fear the stigma that society bestows on them. All young adults in consenting relationships need sex education. They need advice, which is important. Indeed, it is particularly important for young people who may be gay because they are often going through a particularly uncertain period and it is particularly challenging to them. They hesitate to seek such advice because they fear that in so doing they will be breaking the law. The same law inhibits those who want to help or counsel young people. We should remember that while homophobia may be a new word it is not a new experience. It is deep-rooted in our society and it affects young people tragically.
If young people who are gay are attacked, they can be at risk of being prosecuted simply by reporting that they have been involved in what is effectively illegal activity as the law stands. They render themselves open to blackmail and to exploitation. Where is the morality in continuing with such injustice?
In 1994, when the House debated lowering the age of consent to 18, some Members thought a compromise was necessary. Apparently, that would allow the consequences of stopping halfway at 18, rather than taking the law to an equal age of consent at 16, to be assessed. That was five years ago. Since then, too many young people have continued to suffer and yet there is no evidence to support the argument that a discriminatory age of consent has been of benefit.
We are all aware of the crime problems on our streets. Is it sensible and wise for the House to continue to encourage police resources to be used to pursue young people engaging in consensual activity, predominantly with people of their own age? Of course, it is not.
Mr. Rowe:
Homosexual behaviour sometimes comes to light when the police are investigating something else. It is suggested that when it does come to light, they are distracted from the crime that they originally intended to pursue and pursue that with rather more vigour. That is part and parcel of the discrimination of which my hon. Friend speaks.
Mr. Woodward:
Clearly, discrimination in whatever form is bad. The distraction of the police at a time when people continue to worry about crime is bad.
Criminalising consensual relationships is wrong. The law can continue to outlaw meaningful relationships, but we can be certain that it will not suppress the expression of feelings between one individual and another. Our present law is the law of the intolerant and it has a bullying element. For those who are homosexual, it is a law that encourages not meaningful relationships but clandestine behaviour, fear and isolation. As the columnist Simon Jenkins wrote a few years ago,
A few months ago, I celebrated my 40th birthday and was given a cigarette box; politically correct Members will disapprove because smoking is deeply unfashionable. On the box was a quote from the composer and conductor Leonard Bernstein. It is very meaningful because it talks about the pilot light in all our lives that burns for something better. Bernstein often reflected in his work on the meaning of our life. He felt compelled to talk about the
"The current situation represents the persecution of a minority to appease the prejudice of a majority."
Today, we have the opportunity to end the persecution and let prejudice give way to reason, evidence and principle. Historians will look back at this period of discrimination against young people with the same
opprobrium with which we now look back on those who sought to justify the slave trade. Historians will simply ask, "How could they go on justifying something that was so patently unfair and unjust?"
"life and death importance of living out"
what he described as "the will to love". He spoke of the struggle to ensure that
"love was a practical reality",
and of the need
"To remind ourselves by nudging our awareness of the profound moral imperative we share to make our lives, moment by moment, an uninterrupted action of bearing witness."
Today, whatever our faith, we have the opportunity to show our humanity, to nudge our awareness, to encourage meaningful relationships for those who are homosexual but have the misfortune to be between 16 and 18. We have the chance to bear witness, to show our maturity and to make our country a better, more tolerant and more understanding society. I hope that hon. Members will take this chance to do something that is not only right but good.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |