Alan Turing - Should He Be Pardoned?

[bluemonday]

If I wanted apologies, it would be from the individuals concerned who put those policies into force.

Indeed I can see your point. However some strange attitudes still exist in some countries even today

(2006)

http://www.rainbownetwork.com/UserPortal/A...18168&sid=5

The Isle of Man’s education minister is facing calls to resign after claiming that homosexuality has “huge health implications” and that gay lifestyles should not be treated as equal to straight relationships. According to the Isle of Man Examiner, David Anderson made the comments after he persuaded the House of Keys to delay a debate over controversial plans to scrap it’s version of Section 28 in its new Sexual Offences Amendment Bill.

(2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Houghton_%28politician%29

 

On February 11th 2009 he was accused by a fellow MHK of using language akin to that used by the Nazi Party when speaking about transsexuals. Houghton accused of using language more akin to the Nazis during a debate about the rights of transexuals after spoke out against a gender recognition bill that will bring Isle of Man legislation into line with the UK.

"It defies common decency," he said.

"I can't support it, I won't support it. It takes human rights too far."

 

Fellow MHK Peter Karran (Onchan) told iomotoday.com.im:

 

"It's what the Nazis used to say about the Jews.

 

"I thought we had got away from this Island being seen as a fascist, reactionary backwater." http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11123.html

[Rog]

If he had been falsely accused of being a sausage jockey and punished on the basis of that false accusation then an apology would be appropriate. In Turing’s case where he has topped himself some formal notice to the effect that any conviction was wrong would be fitting, but such is not the case.

 

He broke the law that stood at the time, he was put before a court, he was handed down a punishment, he served his time. What is there in that to apologise for?

 

In any case an apology has now become a worthless thing. It is being used as a means to attempt to draw a line under an event or events that have resulted from government of institutional failings. Such was NOT the case with Turing. He lifted shirts and paid the price to be paid at the time.

[John Wright]

The punishment was a fine and the adverse publicity but he was coerced into agreeing the chemical castration, with catastophic results

 

Without ******* we would have lost WW2

 

insert Winston or Turing as you choose

 

Apologies do have significant places in relations between governments and groups, either whole nations, such those who were dispossessed and handed over lands for a bit of paper and worthless objects, ie first peoples in Canada, US and Aus and NZ, or of the Japanese emperor Hirhito to those who were maltreated in WW2 or the Lesbigay community many of whose "heroes" were savagely maltreated

 

That maltreatment still has a cultural left over, namely attitudes such as those of Rog. The apology helps indictae those times are over and they should stop. They isolate the Rog's of this world, and a good thing to.

[Rog]

The punishment was a fine and the adverse publicity but he was coerced into agreeing the chemical castration, with catastophic results

 

Without ******* we would have lost WW2

 

insert Winston or Turing as you choose

 

Apologies do have significant places in relations between governments and groups, either whole nations, such those who were dispossessed and handed over lands for a bit of paper and worthless objects, ie first peoples in Canada, US and Aus and NZ, or of the Japanese emperor Hirhito to those who were maltreated in WW2 or the Lesbigay community many of whose "heroes" were savagely maltreated

 

That maltreatment still has a cultural left over, namely attitudes such as those of Rog. The apology helps indictae those times are over and they should stop. They isolate the Rog's of this world, and a good thing to.

I would insert neither Turing nor Churchill, I would insert America as without the might of the US manufacturing capacity the UK would have been overrun as soon as the effort made it worthwhile because there is absolutely no doubt that Britain had lost the war, a thing that the evacuation from Dunkirk clearly shows.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how an abject defeat culminating in the evacuation of the rag tag remains from Dunkirk has created the idea that The Dunkirk Spirit is anything but one of running away, having been thoroughly beaten, with tail firmly clasped between legs.

 

As for the silliness about my attitudes in relation to his ‘maltreatment’, what is wrong with an attitude that says that people who break the law should pay the price?

 

What I wrote has absolutely nothing to do with my ‘attitude’ to sexual deviants, and everything to do with upholding the law.

 

And before anyone goes into a knee jerk hissy-fit about homophobia I would recommend careful study of the word ‘deviant’.

[John Wright]

But words, meanings and how they change over time or with politics are themselves social constructs (as LDV would say)

 

Who is to say what the norm is Rog, you, me or LDV. Remember norm does not mean majority, it has nothing to do with numbers. It has to do with power and control and perception

 

Homosexual behaviour seems to be a norm in that it exists in nature in virtually all specises. It coexists with breeding behavious and sex for pleasure. Therfore qed it is not deviant

 

What has been deviant has been the time and effort expended on trying to label it deviant and continuing to want it to be so.

 

Yes Rog, you are the deviant now.

 

Lets face it the vast majority of human same sex behaviour was not illegal until 1865 and was decriminalised in private in 1967 in England, the years differ in IOM. They were never illegal under the Code Napoleon and only for 8 years in Nazi Germany

 

Turing had not been caught having anal intercourse at the vicarage on the lawn during the chirch fete with a 15 year old, no all he did was report a breakin which led to the police arresting him for the sexual offence which no one had complained of.. Many others got a record because they asked an agent provocateur entrapment agent of the state (a pretty police man) to have a wank with him

[Rog]

Yes Rog, you are the deviant now.

 

You see you’ve assumed that I am in some way disapproving of people with a same sex attraction for each other.

 

You’ve presumably based this on my choice of wording, my use of ‘deviant’ for example, as if it is in some way condemnatory.

 

It isn’t. It’s actually a perfectly correct word to use since people with a same sex attraction do deviate from the majority and the majority is the norm.

 

In fact my view about people with a same sex attraction is one of absolute indifference to their deviation from the norm as that deviation has nothing whatsoever to do with them being people.

 

God knows there’s little enough happiness to be grasped in life at the best of time, to legislate in a way that caused a substantial number of people from getting a bit of happiness from a relationship was, is and remains obscene, but that is how it was.

 

Alan Turing? The man broke the law at the time.

 

IF an apology was due then that apology should be addressed to ALL people who suffered from cruel legislation enacted by a bunch of stupid menin the past who were guided by fashion and The Bible.

 

(Had it not been for Queen Victoria the legislation would have applied equally to women as well, but that’s another story)

 

So assumptions about my views so far have been very wrong indeed.

[Chinahand]

Martin Luther King put it well when campaigning against the racial inequality laws in the US.

 

"I hope that the ... moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and when they fail in this purpose they become dangerously structured dams which block the flow of social progress."

[VinnieK]

I don't think it brings to focus ways in which governments can be complicit in injustices, if anything it is the government saying "look how much more civilised we are today than we were back then", and thereby vaunting today's standards and morals.

 

Of course, and this is undoubtably the larger part or whole of the motivation behind this particular apology, but how it is received and what it signifies ultimately depends on the populace itself. Sure, the particularly naive can subscribe to the view that such apologies are a celebration of their own moral superiority, but equally it can be taken to weaken the certainty of morality as a justification for legislation by drawing attention to how things have gone wrong in the past which is why partly why governments have been historically reluctant to make them. Naturally, a majority of people will just take it as face value, or simply wont care either way, but, for the reasons above, I don't think this alone means such apologies are worthless.

 

You see you’ve assumed that I am in some way disapproving of people with a same sex attraction for each other.

 

I suspect it may have something to do with your previous posts on homosexuality (and hence homosexuals) being an abhorrent, selfish act, and of course referring to Turing as a 'sausage jockey' - such a pleasant, schoolyardish term of contempt for a man who, were we rewarded for our accomplishments and contributions to society with a proportionately sized banquet, would be sat at a table loaded with every delicacy imaginable whilst you fumbled around in the cloakroom with a half eaten packet of mini cheddars that someone had sat on.

[Vulgarian]

lol. Well put, VinnieK.

 

Although there's nothing wrong with mini cheddars. There would definately be a little bowl of them in the most sumptuous banquet.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

If he had been falsely accused of being a sausage jockey...

He lifted shirts and paid the price to be paid at the time.

You know, when you come out with stuff like this and you are just being a dickhead that's out trying to offend.

You appear to have a good understanding of things, why throw offensive terms into your post?

 

But words, meanings and how they change over time or with politics are themselves social constructs (as LDV would say)

Who is to say what the norm is Rog, you, me or LDV. Remember norm does not mean majority, it has nothing to do with numbers. It has to do with power and control and perception

Actually, Rog is right on this matter of normality. Heterosexuality is most certainly the norm and to simplify this is due to straight people (their identities) coming into existence and controlling the discourse of sexuality. There may be challenging to this dominance but no great changes. It is a concept based on majoritarian power. I'm gay, my sexuality is not normal but why should I care what normal is if it means heterosexual.

[jimbms]

It may seem strange but all I remember learning about Turing was that he was a brilliant mathematician, just seems to me the rest doesn't really matter unless you have some sort of complex over what he did in private.

[Bananaman]

It may seem strange but all I remember learning about Turing was that he was a brilliant mathematician, just seems to me the rest doesn't really matter unless you have some sort of complex over what he did in private.

 

 

In my mind - gheyer or not, at least it has brought to the surface what amazing work this mathematical genius has done for the British war effort and ultimately mankind and our technological advances.

 

Sadly I agree with what Rog says - at the time he broke the current laws.

 

But, I do see a pardon as a (normally feeble 'cos it's far too late) way of the government and it's laws saying - we fooked up. Lots! But we hope to learn from it. (Or am I being niave?)

[Rog]

You know, when you come out with stuff like this and you are just being a dickhead that's out trying to offend.

 

Being a dickhead, probably, but in this case more out of bad taste and poor judgment than looking to be offensive.

 

(mutters 'sorry')

[Chinahand]

Sadly I agree with what Rog says - at the time he broke the current laws.

Of course he did - as did those who broke the South African pass laws, Jim Crow laws in the US Deep South, or Nuremberg Laws in Germany.

 

There is nothing intrinsic to a law which makes it just and hence obligates us to obey it.

 

Governments often oppress the people they claim to rule - I firmly disbelieve the notion that governments have a right to punish people with unjust laws and that just because something is a law we have to accept it as if it is something intrinsic. I am firmly on the side of Ghandi, King and those who attempted to overwhelm the pass laws or whatever by peacefully breaking these dehumanizing laws.

 

Laws are made by people and are often flawed.

[VinnieK]

Laws are made by people and are often flawed.

 

Precisely, and this wasn't a law designed to protect it's citizens from harm, loss, or injustice, but one intended to coerce its population into acting according to its own view of moral probity and good taste via punishments entirely disproportionate to the offence. In effect, it was the government stating that it had the power and indeed the right to medically intervene in order to 'cure' or at least suppress behaviour it disapproved of, regardless of whether or not it caused others physical harm.

 

What's more is that the law was grossly hypocritical, not least because England has always indulged in the fantasy that it was a beacon freedom and fair play. Men like Turing were prosecuted with no thought for their good standing or character, or the severity of their 'offence'. There were no mitigating circumstances and no defence, because what the state referred to as 'gross indecency' wasn't so much a specific act as it was the mere fact of being gay. It didn't matter how discrete gay men were, or how dilligently they tried to live their public lives in accordance to the law, the moment they were found to be actively gay the details of their offence (which included any sexual activity between two men) were inferred from this fact and they were hung out to dry by the vast majority of society.

 

It was an unfair law based on prejudice and hostility, and the sentencing associated with it little less than barbarism. It criminalized otherwise law abiding men, and a great many who had contributed so much more to society than many of their heterosexual peers and defined them under the eyes of the law as inherently corrupt or diseased without so much as a shred of actual evidence that what they were doing harmed society in some quantifiable way. Such a law should strike us as repellant regardless of its historical context, but the fact that it was passed and upheld during an era in which Britain liked to trumpet itself as a beacon of the new age of enlightenment and scientific reason makes it all the more disgraceful.