Monday, 23 April 2012
Should primate experimentation be banned?
‘Animal experimenters want us to believe that if they gave up their archaic habit, sick children and other disease and accident victims would drop dead in droves.’ When confronted about the controversial subject of Animal experimentation, scientists argue that this method of research has enabled them to make major advances in the medical world. Many examples are then thrown about, such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease. However, several medical historians have in fact argued that many of these discoveries were in fact due to clinical research and human autopsy.They argue that experimentation is justifiable as animals are of lesser intelligence to humans, however, as discussed below, this too is a flawed argument. The issue of primate experimentation is a highly controversial one with both sides arguing strongly for their cause. However, due to modern scientific advancements, it may be that primate experimentation is unnecessary and should now be banned.
It has sometimes been the case that unreliable evidence produced by animal experimentation, has resulted in evidence produced by human testing to be discounted. For example, when a correlation between smoking and lung cancer was first discovered, animal tests were used to prove it. However, efforts to produce lung cancer in animals failed, and it was therefore believed that there was no link between smoking and cancer. It was said that ‘The failure of many investigators to induce experimental cancers, except in a handful of cases, during fifty years of trying, casts serious doubt on the validity of the cigarette-lung cancer theory.’ Due to this, warnings were delayed for years, resulting in many cancer related deaths. Similarly, during the 1940’s human clinical trials showed that exposure to asbestos causes cancer, however, due to this not being proven during animal trials, proper precautions were not implemented until decades later. We also delayed our understanding of polio, heart disease and diabetes because of animal testing. ‘animal experimentation has been misleading and resulted in either withholding of drugs, sometimes for years, that were subsequently found to be highly beneficial to humans, or to the release and use of drugs that, though harmless to animals, have actually contributed to human suffering and death.’ An article from the prestigious British Medical Journal says ‘Clinicians and the public often consider it axiomatic that animal research has contributed to the treatment of human disease, yet little evidence is available to support this view.’
Reactions to drugs vary enormously in different species. For example, penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits. In fact, Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of penicillin commented ‘How fortunate we didn't have these animal tests in the 1940s, for penicillin would probably have never been granted a license, and probably the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized.’ An article in the British Medical Journal states that ‘because we share no common ancestry with other animals we know not whether we share similar reactions to new drugs.’ Therefore, what may be inactive in primates may be lethal in humans. ‘The rate of drug metabolism can vary greatly between human and non-human primate.’In As well as this, It is also a common view that Animal experiments are not used to show that drugs are safe and effective in human beings - they cannot do that. Instead, they are used to help decide whether a particular drug should be tested on people.
Scientists argue that during experiments, they cause no more harm and suffering than absolutely necessary. Stating that laws such as the Animal (scientific procedures) Act, prevents unnecessary suffering. However, opposition argues that it would be very easy to become blasé in their treatment of animals. Working with them every single day would mean that soon they would stop being seen as living creatures, and simply be seen as an object of study which is disposable. Not only this, but many of the animals endure a great amount of suffering and stress simply from capture, not to mention the isolation, confusion and depression that they so often live with. In the wild, many primates are highly social, living in large groups and staying together for many years. However, for the purpose of experimentation, they are often put in a metal cage on their own with barely enough space to move. They have nothing that is natural to them, or anything to stimulate their minds. This, more often not, results in insanity; it is not uncommon to witness this in undercover footage. The animals will circle their cage for hours or repeat movements over and over. The Animal (scientific procedures) Act does indeed regulate the treatment of the animals, however, there are many loopholes in the law, and more often than not, it is simply the bare minimum that it adhered to. In many cases the act is simply ignored and nothing is done about it. ‘The RSPCA believes that the consistent infringements of the act are unacceptable and recommends that such infringements are dealt with more forcefully by the Home Office, either by immediate revocation of the license of the perpetrator or by prosecution by the Director of Prosecutions.’It has also been said that ‘the only measure that would completely protect primates, and ensure more productive medical research, is an outright ban.’
Zoologist-Russel and microbiologist-Burch 1959 book principles of humane experimental technique, first introduced the three R’s, introduction of the concept of alternatives. The three Rs are now a set of principles that scientists are encouraged to follow in order to reduce the impact of research on animals. The first of the three R’s is reduction; this says that scientists should aim to reduce the number of animals used in experiments, either through the improvement of experimental techniques or through the sharing of information with other researchers. The second of the three R’s is refinement. This is where scientists are urged to refine the experiment or refine the way that the animals are cared for in order to reduce their suffering. This can occur through a number of changes, such as the use of less invasive techniques, for example, using x-rays, rather than cutting animals open. It can also be achieved through better medical care, such as the administration of pain medication, or better living conditions. Finally there is replacement; scientists are urged to replace animal experimentation with alternative techniques as much as possible. There are a number of ways in which this can be done, for example experimenting on cell cultures instead of whole animals, using computer models and simulations statistical modelling, Studying human volunteers, using epidemiological studies, Replacement eyes, for example, instead of using rabbit eyes, they use eye balls of cows and chickens that have already died. There is also artificial skin that is being developed for the testing of things such as toiletries and household products
Some argue that animal experimentation is justified because animals are of less intelligence than humans and do not possess logic. This is one of the most flawed arguments that can be used, if this was the case then it would be just as ethical to experiment on humans that were of lesser intelligence, someone with learning difficulties for example. Not only that, but it has been said that pigs have the same intelligence level as a toddler; therefore, using the intelligence argument, it would be ethical to use toddlers. Not to mention that primates show very high levels of intelligence and logic, sharing many traits with humans. In Japan, a group of macaques established a culture when they began washing their food. This proved that they were highly intelligent and they share knowledge just like humans. There are countless reports and stories of how primates has shocked scientists by demonstrating new levels of intelligence. It is said that, ‘If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalist for the same reasons’ Similarly, some people stand by the notion that ‘an animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable.’‘
Professor Charles R. Magel says that animal experimentation ‘rests on a logical contradiction’, he says that ‘Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Dr. Christian Barnard, a South African surgeon who performed the first ever open heart transplant has spoken of his experiences with primates. He spoke of how he purchased two male chimps from a colony in Holland who lived next to each other in cages for many months before one of them was used as a heart donor. When the donor was put to sleep he cried incessantly and once his body was removed, the other chimp wept and was inconsolable for days. After seeing this, Dr. Christian Barnard vowed to never experiment with such sensitive creatures ever again. How absurd to say that all beasts are machines, devoid of knowledge and feeling.’
Prior to the Great Ape Project (GAP), apes such as gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and bonobos were used in experiments. Now they are protected and given basic rights, such as the right to life and the right not to be tortured (torture includes medical experiments). In 1996, the British Animal Procedures Committee recommended new measures for dealing with NHPs. The use of wild-caught primates was banned, except where "exceptional and specific justification can be established"; specific justification must be made for the use of old world primates. Britain, Austria and Netherlands banned cosmetic testing in 2003 however prior to this 'It was claimed there were no alternatives to animal tests on cosmetics... 'But when these tests were banned, the industry quickly found alternatives. Banning primate experiments would concentrate scientists' minds in exactly the same way ‘Non-human primates are thought to be amongst the most intelligent animals and are most likely to have human like thought.’small steps are being taken because deep down people know that it’s wrong. Sexism, racism have been phased out and seen as bad, now apes are off limits, soon other animals will follow and spec seism will be a thing of the past.
There have been many controversies around the use of primate experimentation, all of which are discovered either by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) or the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUVA). One case that caught the media attention was the case of Britches the macaque monkey. Britches was born into a breeding colony at the university of California. Straight from birth he was removed from his mother and had his eyelids sewn shut. He then had an electronic device, which was almost the same weight as him, attached to his head. The justification for this was that it was part of a three year sensory deprivation study designed to study the behavioral and neural development of monkeys reared with a sensory substitution device. Britches was eventually rescued by the Animal Liberation Front. Similarly, in an investigation carried out by the BUVA, it was discovered that marmosets were getting the top of their heads sawn off in order to induce strokes in Cambridge University’s primate testing labs. They were then left overnight without any veterinary care because the staff were not paid to work through the night. Prior to the strokes, the marmosets were trained to perform certain behavioral and cognitive tasks, they were then retested after they had suffered brain damage to determine how they had been affected. It was alleged that the monkeys were deprived of food and water to encourage them to perform the tasks, water was withheld for 22 out of every 24 hours.
Another shocking story that caught the media’s attention was that of some of the atrocities that occur in the animal testing center, Covanance. Here monkeys were shown to lead miserable lives, living alone in small metal cages with hardly any natural light. They were constantly subjected to high levels of noise, either from staff members shouting or from the radio. It was alleged that during an autopsy, for which the monkeys were supposed to be dead, three monkeys pushed themselves up onto their elbows gasping for breath after their eyeballs had been removed and there intestines were in the process of being removed. It was claimed that this was simply a reflex, however it was suggested that it was not a reflex, but "botched euthanasia performed by inadequately trained personnel.
In the wild, non-human primates(from here simply primates) are known to have a highly social life, macaques, the most commonly used primate for experimentation, live in troops of up to 100 members and can recognize complex relationships. Primatologists have proven that when shown photographs of family members, the monkeys are able to recognize them. ‘A young female rhesus monkey stays with her mother and sisters for life, forming "one of the tightest and most complicated social systems known in the animal kingdom,"During an average day in the wild, primates will hunt for food, swim, play and travel for many miles. However, in Laboratories, primates are deprived of all that is natural to them. They are confined to metal cages, usually alone, with barely enough room to move. They are given nothing to stimulate them, except for occasionally a cheap plastic toy. This, more often than not results in lab induced insanity. ‘Research shows that 90 percent of primates in laboratories exhibit abnormal behaviors that are caused by the physical abuse, psychological stress, social isolation, and barren confinement that they are forced to endure’ It is not uncommon for laboratory primates to pace in their cages and rock backwards and forwards. ‘They even engage in acts of self-mutilation, including tearing out their own hair or biting their own flesh.’
During their time in laboratory’s, primates are subjected to toxicology tests, studies of AIDS and hepatitis, studies of neurology, behavior and cognition, reproduction, genetics, and xenotransplantation, not to mention Maternal-deprivation experiments, Invasive brain experiments, Military experiments and training, Pharmaceutical tests. One author describes animal experimentation as ‘tough, rigorous, rational, impersonal, competitive and unemotional.’The are held in restraining chairs or forced into restraining tubes in order for experiments to be carried out, not being able to ove to protect themselves is highly distressing.
Sir Thomas Aquinas claimed that only Humans have a soul and are capable of rationality, and therefore non- human animals were merely objects as they do not have a soul. They existed only for human needs and were bereft of moral status
A recent review of primate research carried out by the BUAV found that primates are being subjected to experiments that cause pain, trauma and misery. It was revealed that despite the special protection given to primates, they are still being used in experiments that are considered to be unnecessary or where alternatives are available and would provide better results. Such experiments are usually very invasive and can be highly distressing for the primates. For example at the University of Oxford, researchers wanted to investigate whether the source of ‘afterimages’ is in the eye or in the brain. In this shocking experiment, they used two monkeys who were anaesthetised and then kept paralysed with a poison throughout the study. Their skulls were sawn open and electrodes were inserted into their brains to record brain activity. Their eyes were forced open and focused on images on a TV screen for testing. They were kept in this paralysed state for five continuous days during which they were kept alive through intravenous fluids. At the end of the experiment, the monkeys were killed. This study was apparently done to confirm data already obtained humanely from humans
In July 2011, another review of the use of primates, led by Sir Patrick Bateson showed that one in 10 projects involving primates ended with no medical or social benefits and the justification for carrying out these experiments was not convincing.The Bateson report was put into effect to assess whether or not research on primates was necessary, he said that "Funders and researchers should avoid overstating and generalising the medical benefit (of research on monkeys).The findings of the report showed that there was "little direct evidence of medical benefit". The chief of the BUAV described the report as "a chilling insight into primate research in the UK.’The report followed the Weatherall Report 2006 which also found difficulty finding evidence to support the idea that primate experimentation benefits medicine.
Primate experimentation is often reaching the headlines lately, people nowadays are genrally against the idea and this is evident by the boycotting of companies that aid primate experimentation. Recently, upon discovering that Air France were intending to transport 60 primates to a research centre, thousands of calls and letters were sent urging the company not to. As a result, Air France decided to withdraw from transporting the animals and this has made other companies think about their own policies. It has been reported in the media that many scientists are worried as many transport companies are refusing to take part in the transport of the animals.
It seems to be that animal experimentation, especially involving primates is outdated and unnecessary. There are many available alternatives to experimentation which are both time saving and more accurate. Primates are among the most intelligent and sensitive creatures, highly social and highly active, they are arguably the most affected of all creatures that are experimented on. It is questionable even whether primate experimentation even provides any scientific advantages, with many claims that it even hinders progression. It is unreasonable to condone the suffering of primates for the benefit of humans, it has been asked ‘is it a greater wrong to kill a person than a non-person, and if so, does this mean that human life is more morally significant than animal life?’ With improvements such as GAP, bans on wild primates and many companies such as Air France not condoning experimentation, it may just be that slowly, primate experimentation is being phased out.
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
David Cameron - Slave Driver?
Article 4(2) of the Human Rights Act states ‘No one shall be
required to perform force or compulsory labour.’ Despite this, many young
people who are claiming jobseekers are finding themselves forced to work for
free in fear of getting their jobseekers benefit cut. This is due to the
Governments ‘back to work’ scheme.
The Back to work scheme is aimed at people between the age of 16
and 24 who have been unemployed for more than three months. On paper it seems
to be a great idea, young people who are claiming benefits are given the opportunity
to ‘volunteer’ for a company in order to gain experience. However the reality
is not as good, under the ‘back to work’ scheme, many will be expected to ‘volunteer’
full time for up to 8 weeks. Working full time would usually see you earning
around £182, based on you working 30 hours per week at minimum wage, yet many
young people will be working full time for a pittance of £50 (the average amount
of jobseekers benefit.) The word exploitation springs to mind. It gets worse, if a person leaves their placement
after the first week, they stand to lose two weeks of jobseekers. Therefore, it
is somewhat baffling to me how the government can use the word ‘voluntary’,
surely the potential loss of benefits just screams the word ‘compulsory’ or
even ‘blackmail’?
The scheme will affect many graduates who are struggling to find a
job. Claiming that it will help them gain vital experience. I am soon to be a
graduate and for the past two months, I have applied for numerous jobs, even
ones that I do not particularly want. I have even contacted over 20 law firms
asking if I could volunteer a couple of days a week while I am still at university
in order to gain experience. Call me crazy, but if I am in a position whereby I
am forced to claim jobseekers whilst trying to find a job, I do not think that
8 weeks of forced labour in Tesco is going to help me do this.
The scheme has attracted a wealth of opposition, namely that of
the Socialist Workers Party. Due to this opposition and the controversy of the
subject, many companies have dropped out with Burger King being the most recent
but others including Waterstones, Maplin, Sainsburys and Argos. Tesco have remained
in but they guarantee a job at the end of the 8 week placement. Why wouldn’t
they stay in, it just means that they can get 8 weeks of free slave labour.
David Cameron's thoughts on the matter are 'Put
a young person into college for a month’s learning, unpaid, and it’s hailed as
a good thing. Put a young person into a supermarket for a month’s learning,
unpaid, and it’s slammed as slave labour.’
- Maybe that’s because it is
Dave.
.
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Presumption of Death
‘A ‘crazy paving’ of statutory and common law
provisions’[1] is how the current law
relating to resolving the affairs of missing people has been described. MP’s are
calling for the Ministry of Justice to introduce new legislation which will
make it easier for families to resolve the affairs of missing people. The
proposed legislation is based on the Scottish
Presumption of Death Act 1977 under which an average of four orders are made
each year.
If successful, a presumption of death order would be
obtainable after seven years of a person’s disappearance; this would put an end
to all legal issues surrounding the person, much as a death certificate would. However,
it has also been suggested that extra provisions are brought in to deal with
the missing person’s financial affairs up to four years before the presumption
of death order can be awarded. These will be known as ‘guardianship’ orders and
would allow families to deal with the person’s property, including the paying
off of mortgages, dealing with direct debits, cancelling credit cards or even
providing maintenance for any dependants of the missing person.
People such as Rachel Elias and Peter Lawrence, both, who have
suffered the tragedy of a disappearing family member, support the proposals.
Peter Lawrence has described the difficulties that he faced following the disappearance
of his daughter. He says that it was impossible to cancel her direct debits, or
switch money between bank accounts due to the lack of suitable legislation. If the proposals are to come into force, then
families of those that a presumed to be dead will have a greater peace of mind
when it comes to dealing with their affairs.
Critics of the proposed legislation claim that it is dangerous to
presume a death has occurred with no evidence and therefore, their affairs
should not be meddled with. However in the 34 years since Scotland introduced
its Presumption of Death Act only one person has ever reappeared.
Saturday, 18 February 2012
Minimum wage for trainee solicitors is to be scrapped.
.jpg)
There
are plenty of nervous whispers travelling around at the moment as it has been announced
that the minimum wage for trainee solicitors may soon be abolished. The minimum
wage, which has been around since 1982 and was implemented to prevent trainee
solicitors being exploited, currently stands at £18,590 for those working in
central London and £16,650 for everywhere else. However, it has now been condemned
by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) who claims that there is no
justification for keeping it.
In the consultation paper (found here), the SRA claim that
the wage deters many firms from taking on trainees and by removing it, it would
increase the number of opportunities for students. They deny the claims that
this may result in trainees being exploited, saying that they will still be
protected by the National Minimum Wage (£6.08p/h).
What it seems that
they fail to take into account is, by the time the start their training, that
many students, will be over £30,000 in debt. The Legal Practice course alone sets
students back £8500 and with no Government funding available, many people are
forced to turn to bank loans. By removing the minimum pay rate for trainees,
many people will be deterred from the legal profession as they simply would not
be able to afford to pay back their loans.
People
who are willing to invest over £30,000 for a career as a solicitor would find
themselves earning a wage that they could of earned working behind a bar.
The
SRA also seems to be forgetting that trainee solicitors also have living costs.
Many people are already finding it difficult facing the rising prices in the
current economic climate, never mind having loans to pay back on top of this.
If the current pay rate is to be scraped, then the only people that would
realistically be able to train are those that come from the more wealthy
families. Read more about the proposals here
The fate of
the minimum wage will be announced on 12th May 2012.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
Friday, 17 February 2012
Proprietary Estoppel
Should the Doctrine of Proprietary Estoppel be Based on the Notion of Unconscionability Alone?
It is possible to trace proprietary
estoppel right back to the 17th century and for many years; there have been
many attempts to lay down a definitive test for it. During the well known case
of Wilmot v Barber, five criteria
were laid down, these were known as the five probanda, however, these
conditions were so restrictive that development of the doctrine was essentially
impossible, the conditions were soon dismissed as they were unable to adapt to
the many different situations in which proprietary estoppel can arise,
flexibility was restored by the judgement in the High Trees case[1].
In following years, a wider approach was adopted, in which unconscionability
became the main underlying principle. In the case of Taylors Fashions Ltd, Oliver J expanded upon the doctrine which was
originally laid out in Wilmot v Barber,
stating that ‘it would be unconscionable for a party to be permitted to deny
that which, knowingly or unknowingly, he had allowed or encouraged another to
assume to his detriment.’[2]
It is now recognised that there are
three main criteria that need to be satisfied for a proprietary estoppel claim
to succeed, Lord Walker says that there must be an assurance made to the
claimant, a reasonable reliance on that assurance by the claimant which leads
to a detriment suffered by the claimant in consequence of that reliance, meanwhile,
the notion of unconscionability runs throughout these criteria. Lord Scott once
commented that ‘unconscionability…plays a very important part in the doctrine
of equitable estoppel, in unifying and confirming as it were, the other
elements.’[3]
Due to the fact that unconscionability plays sucha major role within the
doctrine, proprietary estoppel ‘has wide application, but its boundaries are
uncertain and its effects are not entirely clear.’[4]
The first element that is required
for an estoppel claim is encouragement. The belief of the claimant must have
been encouraged by the defendant; this can be done explicitly or implicitly.
For example, if the defendant were to useprecise wording to assure the claimant,
then he will be explicitly encouraging him, this can be demonstrated by the
cases of Inwards v Baker[5],where
the claimants father suggested he build a bungalow on his land, and Pascoe v Turner[6],where
the claimant repaired a house relying on a man’s promise that the house was now
hers. Passive encouragement is where a defendant realises that the claimant has
made an assumption, yet does nothing to intervene. The encouragement must be that the claimant
had or would have a right over certain land or property; this can either be
through a gift or a contract. This was the case inLayton v Martin, where the claimant said that the deceased
encouraged her to live with him as his mistress with the understanding that he
would make a financial provision for her in his will.
During the case of Thorner v Major[7],
Lloyd LJ clearly focused on the important question of whether there was a
promise on the part of the defendant or a mere statement of current intention.
However, Lloyd LJ’s emphasis on the idea of whether the representation was
‘intended to be relied on’ might lead to the assumption that he believed that a
proprietary estoppel claim should fail if the defendant had not subjectively
intended that the claimant should rely on the representation. ‘As a matter of
principle, it seems clear that no successful proprietary estoppel claim should
be possible in the testamentary context unless the defendant’s representation
can reasonably understood to involve a promise, explicit or implicit, that the
claimant will ultimately inherit on the testators death.’
Robert Walker LJ once commented
that, ‘The whole point of estoppel claims is that they concern promises, which,
since they are unsupported by consideration, are initially revocable, what
later makes them binding, and therefore irrevocable, is the promisee’s
detrimental reliance on them. Once that occurs, there is simply no question of
the promisor changing his or her mind.’[8]
In a later case, he also said that ‘even when a promise or assurance is in
terms linked to the making of a will, the circumstances may make clear that the
assurance is more than a mere statement of present (revocable) intention, and
is tantamount to a promise.’[9]
The next element is reliance, to be
able to raise a proprietaryestoppel; the claimant must show that he has relied
on the defendant’s encouragement to his detriment. ‘The claimant must have
spent money or acted in a way which he would not have done if the landowner had
not built up an expectation in his mind.’[10]In
the case of Inwards v Baker[11],
the son built a bungalow on his father’s field upon his father’s suggestion and
relying on his fathers promise, similarly , in the case of ER Ives Investment v High[12],
High allowed the foundations of neighbouring flats to remain and built a garage
facing the forecourt of the flats because he expected a right of access.However,
the encouragement doesn’t have the only cause of the reliance, as in the case
ofAmalgamated Investment and Property Co
Ltd v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd[13]. In order to prove this reliance, the courts
will simply presume that it exists, provided that the claimant has acted to his
detriment, during the case of Brikom
Investments, Lord Denning stated that ’once it is shown that a
representation was calculated to influence the judgement of a reasonable man,
the presumption is that he was so influenced.’[14]However,
this presumption will, of course, be reversed if contrary evidence is proven.
It will be believed that there has been a reliance in some of the following
situations; where the claimant has suffered a personal disadvantage as in the
case of Wayling v Jones, where the
claimanthelped in the running of a business.
Where a claimant works as a carer to their detriment, as demonstrated byJennings v Rice, where the claimant
cared for an elderly lady and began living in her home without payment for
almost 28 years, on the reliance that he would inherit the family home. Over the years the courts have ‘come
to focus on the general fairness of the circumstances and whether or not the
defendant would be taking an unconscionable advantage of the claimant.’[15]
Next, the claimant must have
suffered a detriment, ‘There is no doubt that for a proprietary estoppel to
arise the person claiming must have incurred expenditure or otherwise have
prejudiced himself or acted to his disadvantage.’[16]Most
detriments involve money payments, such as the case of Jones v Jones[17]
which involved the part payments of the purchase price supporting a claim to
license to reside in the property. As well as this, labour on behalf of the
claimant can also be a detriment, for example building a house, building an
extension, or decorating, as in the case of Sharpe[18].
It does not have to be a substantial detriment for a claimant to make a claim,
it can be small acts, such as making mortgage payments, as in the case of Preston & Henderson v St.Helens MBC[19]
, or caring for relatives as in Piquet v
Tyler[20]
and Campbell v Griffin[21]
where the claimant was assured by an elderly couple that she would have a home
for life. When it comes to awarding a remedy for an estoppel, the weight of
detriment may become relevant. Recent cases now suggest that, for this element
to be satisfied, the representee must be left unconscionably disadvantaged by
reliance on the relevant assurance.
Finally, unconscionability must be
established. Detriment is now linked with unconscionability as much as it is
linked with reliance. This was recently
confirmed by Lord Scott in Yeoman’s Row
Management v Cobbe[2008] ‘Unconscionability in my opinion plays a very
important part in the doctrine of equitable estoppel, in unifying and confirming,
as it were, the other elements.’[22]
There are many factors which the courts must examine, these include, whether
the claimant has delayed in seeking a remedy as delay defeats equities. Whether
there has been any relevant misconduct on the part of the representee as he who
comes to equity must come with clean hands. Whether the representee had access
to other means of protecting or safeguarding his position as in Lloyds Bank plc v Carrick[23].
Whether there are or have been counter-balancing advantages for the representee
that may counter act any disadvantage allegedly suffered, as in the case of Sledmore v Dalby.[24]
Although unconscionabililty is
highly important, many scholars argue that it must always be used in
conjunction with the other three criteria as it is much too broad to be used on
its own, it is a common interest that ‘the only work the concept of
unconscionability should do in the law of proprietary estoppel is to point to
what is necessary, by way of remedy, to protect the reliance interest. No more
and no less is required.’[25]
Similarly in the recent case of Thorner v
Major it was identified that the three elements are needed, it was said
that ‘These elements would, I think, always be necessary but might, in a
particular case, not be sufficient.’ Hudson points out the problems that may
arise if only unconscionability was to be taken into account, he says that
‘there is a disjunction of our good conscience and our notion of good
conscience which is legally actionable.’[26]
He gives the example of a friend promising to telephone another friend, but
really has no intention of telephoning them, this would seem to be unconscionable
as lying is not the behaviour of an honest person, however, it would not be
considered to be legally actionable.
This is the reason that detrimental reliance is necessary, ‘none of the
jurists actually intends to capture all unconscionable behaviour; only
unconscionable behaviour which falls into established catagories.’[27]
However, there have been some
exceptions where it has appeared that there has been no criteria and a claim
for proprietary estoppel has been based mainly on the suggestion of
unconscionability, for example the recent case of Herbert v Doyle[28].
In this case no certain interest was ever formulated, the defendant argued that
due to this, the three ingredients were never present. However proprietary
estoppel was awarded, it was held that the first agreement they made was enough
to create an assurance. Sometimes ‘unconscionability alone is discussed because
factors other than detrimental reliance are decisive.’[29]
Proprietary estoppel and
unconscionability, up until the recent case of Yeoman’s Row, have had a very
broad scope, it is ‘this unconscionability that frees the court from the
strictures of the formalities requirements imposed by statute.’[30]However,
Thorner v Major is important as it
appears to retreat from the restrictive approach to proprietary estoppel
favoured by the House of Lords in Yeoman’s Row, which ‘disturbed the emerging
understanding of proprietary estoppel as being based on the prevention of
unconscionability’[31]
This decision was carefully analysed in the later case of Thorner v Major were
the assurances that were made were oblique, yet proprietary estoppel was still
awarded. It is now accepted that unconscionability shall be used alongside the
three ingredients, in the case of Gillet
v Holt, the courts approach was that ‘ estoppel claims should not be
dissected too closely by analysis of the three “ingredients” but should be
looked at in total to see if the denial of the claimants right is
unconscionable.’[32]Similarly,
Dixon is of the opinion that ‘even if the claimant has relied to detriment on
an assurance there can be no proprietary estoppel without unconscionability.’[33]
As well as this, In the case of Gillet v
Holt, Lord Walker said ‘It is important to note at the outset that the
doctrine of proprietary estoppel cannot be treated as sub-divided into three or
four watertight compartments.’[34]
On the whole it can be seen that
the judgement of Lord Scott was indeed correct, ‘proprietary estoppel cannot be
the route to it unless the ingredients for a proprietary estoppel are present’,
without the three elements, the doctrine is blown wide open and becomes much
too broad. Although it can be seen that unconscionable behaviour is unfair to
the claimant, if claims succeeded on this alone, it would be unfair to the
defendant. It can be difficult to the courts to make fair decisions, it is for
this reason that they should stick to guidelines, if proprietary estoppel was
based on unconscionability alone, then it would become unclear to what the law
was. The three ‘ingredients’ provide a basis for precedent whilst the notion of
unconscionability satisfies the need for flexibility. Lord Goff summed up the essence of estoppel
during his speech in the case of Johnson
v Gore Wood & co, where he said ‘In the end, I am inclined to think
that the many circumstances capable of giving rise to an estoppel cannot be accommodated within a single
formula, and that it is unconscionability which provides a link between them’[35]The
case law seems to suggest that you simply cannot have one without the other,
unconscionability and detrimental reliance are intertwined and constantly
developing. ‘The two cases do not justify confidence that the House of Lords
has yet come fully to grips with the considerable complexities of proprietary
estoppel.’[36]
[1]Central London Property Trust Ltd v High
Trees House Ltd [1956] 1 All ER 256
[2]Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria
Trustees Co Ltd; Old Campbell Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd
[1981] 1 All ER 897
[3]Yeoman’s Row Management v Cobbe [2008]
UKHL 55
[4]Law
Com No.278, Sharing Homes, p.33
[5]Inwards and Others v Baker [1965] 1 All
ER 446
[6]Pascoe v Turner [1979] 2 All ER 945
[7]Thorner v Major and Others [2009] UKHL 18
[8]The
Limits of Proprietary Estoppel; Thorner v Major [2009] CFLQ 367
[9]Gillet v Holt [2002] Ch 210
[10]P.SparksA New Land Law (2nd Ed, Hart Publishing,
2003) p.483
[11]Inwards and Others v Baker [1965] 1 All
ER 446
[12]ER Ives Investment v High [1967] 2 QB
379 CA
[13]Amalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd v
Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd [1981] All ER 577
[14]Brikom Investments v Carr [1979] QB 476,
483, CA
[15]A.HudsonEquity and Trusts (6th Ed,
Routledge Cavendish, 2010) P.599
[16]Greasley and Others v Cooke [1980] 3 All
ER 710
[17]Jones v Jones [1977] 1 WLR 438
[18]Sharpe v Sharpe [1980] 1 WLR 219
[19]Preston & Henderson v St.Helens MBC
[1989] 58 P&CR
[20]Piquet v Tyler [1978] CLYB 119
[21]Campbell v Griffin [2001] EWCA Civ 990
[22]Yeoman’s Row management v Cobbe [2008]
UKHL 55
[23]Lloyds Bank plc v Carrick [1996] 4 All
ER 630
[24]Sledmore v Dalby [1996] 72 P&CR 196
[25]E.Bant&M.HardingExploring Private Law (Cambridge
University Press, 2010) p.15
[26]A.HudsonEquity and Trusts (6th Ed,
Routledge Cavendish, 2010) P.586
[27]A.HudsonEquity and Trusts (6th Ed,
Routledge Cavendish, 2010) P.586
[28]Herbert v Doyle and Another [2010] All ER (D) 126
[29]E.CookeThe Modern Law of Estoppel (Oxford
University Press, 2000) P.87
[30]M.DixonPrinciples of Land Law (4th
Ed, Cavendish Publishing, 2002)P.331
[31]A.HudsonEquity and Trusts (6th Ed,
Routledge-Cavendish, 2010) P607
[32]M.DixonPrinciples of Land Law (4th
Ed, Cavendish Publishing, 2002)P.332
[33]M.DixonPrinciples of Land Law(4th
Ed, Cavendish Publishing, 2002)P.332
[34]Gillet v Holt [2002] Ch 210
[35]Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (No.1) [2002] 2 AC 1
[36]The
limits of proprietary estoppel: Thorner v Major [2009] CFLQ 367
Monday, 13 February 2012
Homophobia
Why does Homophobia Still Exist?
In the past decade, the introduction of new laws has meant that same sex couples can now enter into civil partnership, adopt children and donate blood, basic rights that everyone should be entitled to. However, for reasons that shall be explored below, homophobia and violence towards same sex couples still remains at large throughout the world. The question that remains is, why, if homosexuality has been politically accepted, then why are individuals taking longer to accept it? It has been said that homophobia is the ‘‘irrational fear or intolerance of homosexuality’’[1]This is a very basic definition and can be seen not to cover all forms of homophobia, this essay will discuss other possible reasons for anti-gay attitudes and behaviours.
In the last 50 years or
so, the law, in relation to homosexual rights, has advanced dramatically. In
1954 the home secretary appointed a committee headed by Sir John Wolenden ‘to
consider…the law and practise relating to homosexual offences and the treatment
of persons convicted of such offences by the courts.’[2]
The Wolfenden Report 1957 proposed that homosexual acts committed within
private and with consent should no longer be illegal for those above the age of
21. The report was controversial as it was believed that the legalisation of
homosexuality would threaten traditional family values, It was admitted by Sir
John Wolfenden that the report may pose a threat to traditional family life,
but it was said that so too do divorce and adultery[3]The
proposals came into force with The Sexual Offences Act 1967[4]
this was a major advancement for homosexuals.The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr
Fisher, supported the Wolfenden Report saying, "There is a sacred realm of
privacy... into which the law, generally speaking, must not intrude. This is a
principle of the utmost importance for the preservation of human freedom,
self-respect, and responsibility".[5]The
age of consent for homosexual activity was eventually lowered to 16 in 2000
following the case of Sutherland & Morris v UK[6],
where it was decided that English Law conflicted with the European Convention
of Human Rights[7].
Now The Sexual Offences Act 2003 has replaced the Sexual Offences act 1956 as
well as the 1967 act and abolished outdated homophobic offences such as
buggery, gross indecency and soliciting for men[8]
Today the law is still
making reforms to give homosexuals equal rights. In February 2011, The
Protection or Freedoms Bill was introduced into the House of Commons. If the
Bill succeeds, then over 16,000 convictions will be wiped from police records,
meaning that the people who were convicted of homosexual activities will now be
able to work with children or in other sensitive areas of work without
declaring their criminal record.[9]As
well as this, in March 2011, the Government published the civil partnerships on
religious premises consultation. Government ministers are planning to scrap the
legal definition of marriage as the union of a man and woman to promote equal
rights for same sex couples, which will therefore allow them to marry in
churches, as opposed to the current right of a civil ceremony.[10]The
law has also been coming down harder on those people who act on their anti-gay
attitudes. Following the Sexual Offences Act 2003, it was said that there would
be tougher prison sentences for those who committed homophobic attack, in order
to reduce the number of anti-gay offences. This, years on from the article can
still be seen in the various cases. During the case of Ian Baynham, Judge
Richard Hawkins increased Thomas’ sentence from six years to seven due to the
homophobic nature of her actions. This goes a long way in allowing the legal
system to show that hate crime in relation to homophobia is simply
unacceptable.
The law has developed
to the extent that homosexuals share many of the same rights as heterosexuals.
However society in general is taking longer to adapt to this new equal way of
thinking.It has been said that ‘public behaviour towards gay men and women has
changed enormously but private ideas about homosexuality are much what they
were 200 years ago.’[11]Groneberg
and Funke[12]
claim that homophobia is simply the result of long lasting persecution. For
centuries, homosexuals have in some way been persecuted by either the heads of
state or the heads of religion; therefore, people have become familiar with
homophobia and view it as reasonable behaviour. There have been many extreme
case of mass homophobia in the past, for example, during the Nazi regime.
During this time, Hitler wanted an entire race of perfect Aryan families;
homosexuals did not fit within this ideal. Therefore, up to 10,000 homosexuals
were placed in a work camp, they were recognised by the pink triangle they were
forced to wear on their arm. Giles[13]
talks of a Nazi university professor who was castrated for mild homosexual
acts. This may seem like an extreme example, yet even today, many countries
throughout the world still deem homosexuality as illegal. In Zimbabwe, Robert
Mugabe often states his opinion that homosexuals are ‘worse than pigs’ and have
no rights at all.[14]
Homosexual activity was
only fully legalised in Britain following the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
‘Pre-Wolfenden was a time of no hope for homosexuals,’[15]up
until 1861 sodomy, in England and Wales was punishable by hanging under the
Buggery Act 1533. Robb says ‘…the whole Victorian age looks like a homophobic
hell from which gay people eventually liberated themselves.’[16]Many
men were imprisoned for homosexual activity, including Oscar Wilde who was
imprisoned for two years for gross indecency with other men. It is unrealistic
to expect hundreds of years’ worth of thinking to change immediately, many
nations have lived thinking that homosexuality was wrong and illegal, and it
will take the people much longer to be fully acceptant of the issue. After
generations of these kinds of attitudes, 10 years of political rights isn’t
enough to change entire nation’s worth of thinking.
Some people
argue that homophobia throughout the country will never be gone because it
still isn’t gone in Parliament. Recently a member of the conservative party was
suspended for comparing gay marriage to bestiality. Following David Cameron’s
public backing for marriage equality, the Christian councillor James Malliff
wrote on a social networking site, ‘there is no doubt that the PM is wrong on
this issue. We may as well legalise marriage with animals, crude I concede but
no apology.’[17]Another
Conservative minister, Gerald Howarth, has described same sex couples as ‘an
unnatural relationship.’[18]How
is society supposed to accept gay culture when the government is making
comments like this? Not only this, but homosexuality is rarely discussed within
politics. ‘Thus, debates about
inheritance, tax, next-of-kin rights, citizenship and marriage are, in so far
as they relate to gays and lesbians, systematically omitted from political
debate and decision making, because the majority would feel repulsed at
discussing them and the minority too afraid or ashamed to bring them up.’[19]
‘HIV/AIDS has
legitimized homosexuality and created a more sophisticated discourse of
homophobia’[20]
Fear of HIV still plays a huge part in the non-acceptance of gay people.People
automatically assume that HIV and homosexuality go hand in hand, in the 1980’s
AIDS was referred to as ‘the gay gene’.[21]Although
with recent medical advancements which mean that living with HIV is no longer
the death sentence it used to be, people are still terribly afraid of this
incurable disease. It was discovered in 2009, that 49% of people living with
HIV in Britain were homosexual men. As a result of this, homosexual men have
suffered much abuse and also inequality especially when it comes to donating
blood. However, gay men are now allowed to give blood; however, the
restrictions are tighter than those of a heterosexual man. To be deemed
suitable donors, they must have not been sexually active for 10 years.However, this change in the law may spark further
homophobic attacks, considering that the new law allowing men to donate blood
is based only on trust, as there will be no tests to show when they last had
sex. However some believe that a ‘lifetime ban on blood
donation by men who have sex with men is discriminatory, infringes individual
rights, is disproportionate to risk, and reduces the supply of available
blood.’[22]
Religion plays a large
part in homosexuality not being readily accepted. Most religions consider
homosexuality to be immoral as it does not fit the ideal. Judaism prohibits it
in the Hebrew bible and it is made punishable by separation from the people or
by capital punishment. However, homosexual females carried lighter sentences.
Similarly, Islam also regards homosexuality as a sin, although it is better
known as homoeroticism. Muslim religious law sets a fixed punishment for gay
activities; this can be anything from a fine or flogging to imprisonment or
death.
As well as this,
Christianity forbids it. The church wants sex for pro-creation and idealises
celibacy. In The Bible, non-procreative sex is considered to be unnatural and
is regarded as being the same as beastiality[23]. The rejection of homosexual behavior that
is found in the Old Testament is well known and in the 12th
century, it was ordered by the church that homosexual acts were to be made
punishable by burning. In modern society, some Christians still see
homosexuality as a sin, such as Joel Osteen who stated that homosexuality is
still a sin[24].The churches ‘letter to the bishops of the
catholic church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons’ described homosexuality
as a ‘strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the
inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.’[25]Prior
to the mid 1990’s, catholic high schools were not addressing the issue of
homosexuality in any way[26] However, it seems difficult to believe that
negative attitudes to homosexuality in Britain are due to religion, as calculations
have shown that in some counties of England only 3% of people attend church
regularly. Since the 1960’s, many people have stopped attending church, stopped
marrying in church and have stopped baptising their children.[27]
Many scholars suggest
that homophobia actually stems from childhood. Both Plummer and Duncan are of
the opinion that homophobia comes from the playground. Plummer discusses
something known as the “homophobic passage” whereby the homophobic stage of
someone’s life ‘coincides with the passage of young males from childhood to
adulthood.’[28]Similarly,
Duncan conducted a study which showed that the term ‘gay’ was the term young
boys most disliked to be called. He also concluded that ‘the term gay was
mainly used to denote boys who did not possess enough of the qualities that
fitted the ideal male stereotype of the dominant peer group’[29]It
is considered that ‘gays’ are the opposite of being one of the lads[30],
and in many cases, people believe homosexual people to be weak, emotional, and
more feminine[31]
Even Freud developed atheory that all gay men were ‘mummy’s boys.’[32] Therefore,
it will more often than not be the boy that does not want to play sports that
will be targeted as the playground ‘gay’.
All this
playground ‘bullying’ comes from upbringing. There are a lot of expectations
placed on each gender, and if these are not adhered to, then that person is
seen as being ‘gay.’ ‘A person deviating from what society has prescribed to be
the normal set of gender roles for his or her sex (e.g., engaging in an
occupation more socially acceptable for the other sex) is likely to be
perceived as a homosexual.’[33]
For example, it has illogically become expected that baby girls wear pink and
baby boys were blue, little girls play with dolls and little boys play with toy
guns. If a little boy were to wear pink and play with a doll then this would be
considered to be very strange, however, parents would not do this as it does
not fit with the ‘ideal.’ This word, ideal, is what many of the problems come
down to. Throughout the years, same sex couples have been frowned upon as they
do not fit the ideal. ‘Gays and lesbians are subject to harassment, abuse and
violence on a regular basis because they are deemed to have violated norms … by
behaving in ways that contravene preponderant definitions of masculinity and
femininity.’[34]
These gender
stereotypes when looked at in depth are strange. Nicolosi describes a phone
call that she received where the caller describes her seven year old son with, ‘…he loves the colours pink and red…he plays
with Barbie dolls and … dances around the house on his tiptoes like a
ballerina.’[35]Due
to these acts, it was automatically assumed that he was, or would be
homosexual. Why is it then that if an 8 year old girl decided
that she wanted to wear a tracksuit and trainers, this would be quite
acceptable? Why can girls play football but boys can’t dance, women can be
house wives but men cannot be house husbands? Why do the majority of homophobes
target men? This is not to say that women do not suffer from homophobic abuse
because of course they do, but where homosexuality is legally punished,
punishments for women are usually lighter or non-existent.[36]It
seems that men are more targeted; this may come down to religious ideals of
what is natural and ‘right.’ It is seen that men are supposed to reproduce with
women and by not doing this, they are going against nature.
Homophobia… is often
indicative of repressed self-loathing homosexual feelings; … some homophobes
subconsciously use anti-gay attitudes as a smokescreen to disguise their own
homosexual feelings.’[37]This
is the view of Latham and many other scholars. If someone has homosexual
feelings but cannot act on them for whatever reasons, be it that their family
would disown them, or that they are married etc. This person may feel the need
to lash out on other homosexuals, either through jealousy of their liberation,
frustration, or in an attempt to show that they themselves are not homosexual.
‘Homosexual feelings create such
reat anxiety in these men that their existence then be understood as the
projection of the fear of one's own homosexual impulses onto the
expression of the homosexual impulses of others.’[38]
Studies have shown that homophobia is higher in places where the homophobes
themselves may be struggling with their own sexual identities, such as college
campuses[39]
Many people
argue that a lack of suitable education on the matter is a main cause for
homophobia.[40]
Section 28 prevented discussion of homosexuality in schools unless it involved
death or disease, this has now been abolished yet still no schools put forward
images of gay people.It is said that ‘currently only one in four secondary
school teachers report that they are aware of physical homophobic bullying and
just one in every 20 has policies that address it.’[41]
Many attacks are by teenagers; this in itself reflects a failure by schooling
system. As well as this, the word gay has become, in many places and amongst
most teenagers, a derogeraty term. If something isn’t good then more often than
not it will be described as ‘gay’. This has become such a natural use for the
word that today’s youth are being subconsciously homophobic.[42]
Redman says that it is ‘anti-lesbian and gay talk and behaviour saturates
pupils’ cultures, especially school-based cultures of masculinity.’[43]
Within secondary schools, lessons and textbooks exclude homosexual views and
are often heterosexually bias[44]Sex
education lessons focus on heterosexual sex. Studies suggest that homosexual
students do not receive the same educational opportunities that their fellow
heterosexual peers do. As well as this, homosexual teachers do not receive the
same working environment as heterosexual teachers do.[45]
Although the issue of
homosexuality is still, for many, a highly controversial subject and is still a
target for negative attitudes and behaviours, it can be seen that the rights
and lives of homosexuals are improving.Britain has now gotten to the point
where it is only the minority of people who hold negative attitudes, and even
less who act upon these negative attitudes. It may be a slow process but with improvements
in education and stricter laws governing homophobic behaviour, the amount of
anti-gay attitudes will reduce.[46]
However, minorities will always exist and be targeted. Be it racist, sexist or
homophobic, there will always be someone who disagrees. Summerskill makes the
point that, ‘changing the law, tough it may be is really just the easy part.
Changing the world is tougher still.’[47]
[1]
MONROE.M, BAKER.R.C & ROLL.S (1997):” The Relationship of Homophobia to
Intimacy in Heterosexual Men” Journal of
Homosexuality, 33:2, 23-37
[3]SELFE.D.W
& BURKE.V, Perspectives on Sex, Crime
and Society. (2nded, 2001, Cavendish Publishing.) p.18
[4]Sexual
Offences Act(1967) s1
[5]JEFFERY-POULTER.S, Peers, Queers and Commons; The Struggle for Gay Law Reform from 1950 to
the Present (Routledge Publishing 1991) P.33
[6]Sutherland & Morris v UK (1997) 24
EHRR 1121
[7][7]SELFE.D.W
& BURKE.V, Perspectives on Sex, Crime
and Society. (2nded, 2001, Cavendish Publishing.) p.24
[8]
WELLS.C & QUICK.O, Lacey, Wells and
Quick Reconstructing Criminal Law; Text and Materials (4thed,
Cambridge University Press, 2010)
[9]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/legislation/protection-freedoms-bill/
[10]http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/equalities/lgbt/
[11]
ROBB.G, Strangers; Homosexual love in the
19th Century, (Pan Macmillan, 2003) p.2
[12]
GRONEBERG.M & FUNKE.C, Combatting Homophobia;
Experiences and Analyses Pertinent to Education, (Transaction Publishers
2011)
[13]
GILES.G.J ‘The most unkindest cut of all; castration, homosexuality and Nazi
justice.’ Journal
of Contemporary History Vol. 27, No. 1 (Jan., 1992), pp. 41-61
[14]
HARBER.C Schooling as violence; how
schools harm pupils and societies(RoutledgeFalmer 2004) p.49
[15]
KLESSE.C, The Spectre of Promiscuity; gay
male and bisexual non-monogamies and polyamories (Ashgate Publishing, 2007)
p.23
[16]
ROBB.G, Strangers; Homosexual love in the
19th Century, (Pan Macmillan, 2003) p.17
[17]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8823000/Gay-marriage-We-may-as-well-allow-it-with-animals-says-Christian-Tory.html
[18]FENTON.R,
HEENAN.S & REES.J (2010) “Finally
fit for purpose? The Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 2008” Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, Vol:32
p275-286
[19]TEBBLE.A.J (2011) “Homosexuality
and Publicness: Towards a Political Theory of the Taboo” Political Studies VOL 59, 921–939
[20]GOH.D
(2008) “It's the Gays' Fault: News and
HIV as Weapons Against Homosexuality in Singapore”, Journal of Communication Inquiry.
[21]SELFE.D.W
& BURKE.V, Perspectives on Sex, Crime
and Society. (2nded,
2001, Cavendish Publishing)
[22]
GRENFELL.P & Others (2011) “Views and
experiences of men who have sex with men on the ban on blood donation: a cross
sectional survey with qualitative interviews” British Medical Journal
[24]
URICK.S Practical Christian Living (AuthorHouse
2011)
[26]MAHER.M.J
& SERVER.L.M (2008)” What Educators
in Catholic Schools Might Expect When Addressing Gay and Lesbian Issues: A
Study of Needs and Barriers”. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in
Education
[27]
BROWN.C.G The death of Christian Britain;
Understanding secularisation 1800-2000 ( 4thed Routledge 2009)
[28] PLUMMER.D
(1999) One of the Boys: Masculinity,
homophobia & modern manhood(Harrington Park Press)
[29] DUNCAN.N,
(2006) Homophobia, misogyny and school bullying, Educaton-line
[30]
REDMAN.P (2000) ”Tarred with the Same
Brush': `Homophobia' and the Role of the Unconscious in School-based Cultures
of Masculinity”, Sexualities 3: 483
[31]
MONROE.M, BAKER.R.C & ROLL.S (1997):” The Relationship of Homophobia to
Intimacy in Heterosexual Men” Journal of
Homosexuality, 33:2, 23-37
[32]
ROBB.G, Strangers; Homosexual love in the
19th Century, (Pan Macmillan, 2003)
[33]
WONG.F.Y and others (1999): “Gender-Related Factors Influencing Perceptions of
Homosexuality”, Journal of Homosexuality,
37:3,19-31
[34]TEBBLE.A.J (2011) ‘Homosexuality and Publicness: Towards a Political Theory of the Taboo’Political
Studies: VOL 59, 921–939
[35]NICOLOSI.J
& NICOLOSI.L.A, A Parent’s Guide to Preventing
Homosexuality,
(Intervarsity Press, 2002)
[38]MORIN.S.F & ELLEN.M, (2010) “Male Homophobia”, Journal of Social Issues 34: 29–47
[39]
FERARRO.F.R & DUKART.A, (1998) “Cognitive Inhibition in Individuals Prone
to Homophobia”, Journal of Clinical
Psychology, Vol. 54(2), 155–162
[40]
ESTES.S Ask & Tell: Gay and lesbian
veterans speak out (The University of North Carolina Press 2007)
[41]
SEARS.J.T Youth, Education and
Sexualities: A-J, (Greenwood Press 2005)
p.xxxiv
[42]
SUMMERSKILL.B The way we are now; gay and
lesbian lives in the 21st century (Continuum International
Publishing)
[43]REDMAN.P,
(2000) `Tarred with the Same Brush':
`Homophobia' and the Role of the Unconscious in School-based Cultures of
Masculinity, Sexualities 3: 483
[44]
WALTERS.A.S & HAYES.D.M (1998)
“Homophobia Within Schools”, Journal
of Homosexuality, 35:2, 1-23
[45]
WALTERS.A.S & HAYES.D.M (1998)
“Homophobia Within Schools”, Journal
of Homosexuality, 35:2, 1-23
[46]
ROBINSON.S Homophobia: An Australian
History (The Federation Press)
[47]
SUMMERSKILL.B The way we are now; gay and
lesbian lives in the 21st century (Continuum International
Publishing) p.3
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)