As you say, the current government is in some ways responsible for the actions of previous governments, over which it had no control or even influence. There is a continuity of the institution, regardless of the personnel. Just for an extreme example, if this were not the case, then governments would not be able to borrow money with any credibility, because the other party wouldn't have to pay it back.
So an apology "by Gordon Brown", on behalf of the government, is significant inasmuch as the government saying anything about the past is significant. Me apologising for slavery would be rather different - I didn't do it, and neither did any person or institution whom I represent (although arguably I have benefited, so I could somewhat apologise for that).
At some point, some UK government should acknowledge that what happened to Turing was wrong. Quite aside from Turing's nearest and dearest, *I* would draw comfort from knowing that my government is willing to admit firstly that Britain institutionalised homophobia within living memory, and secondly that they're conscious that things should be otherwise. Gordon Brown himself was raised in a society which designated gay men criminals. The established church of this country has great difficulty with the concept of gay men being fit to hold positions of responsibility within it. If Brown can't state an opinion on that, surely it means something whether or not our Prime Minister can even bring himself to describe Turing's prosecution as wrong?
I don't think that changing the law automatically achieves the same as an active effort to address the past. And I don't even know whether any previous government has made statements about Turing. If you're right that the desired apology has already been made, then Number 10 could perhaps respond to the petition saying, "the UK government certainly has apologised and continues to do so - the Act which changed the law made it clear that prosecutions for homosexuality of Turing and others were barbaric and would not continue, and we stand by that". Easy, as long as they really are happy to stand by that position. If they're worried that such strong language would offend governments where homosexuality is still illegal, then IMO all the more reason to at least say something.
Even within the UK, those who actually approve of Turing's prosecution (or other sanctions or prejudices against gay men) can think to themselves, "he broke the law, he was punished, he was not a victim, nothing at all wrong with that, and the government agrees with me". Whereas I feel (granted, largely on the evidence of a sympathetic biography) that Turing was driven to depression and suicide via a drug-based "punishment" for a victimless crime which we now believe to have been criminal only as a reflection of the bigotry of the society of the time.
I think there is something very wrong with that. Interpretations of historical events are normative for how we interpret current events, both regarding homosexuality and regarding the possibility of current laws being considered unjust. The position that "if it's the law, it's OK, if it's illegal it's wrong" abrogates responsibility for trying to change the law where we don't agree with it, and also for disobeying unjust orders and shaking off institutionalised prejudices.
So I do think that it is fair--even a responsibility--to criticise individuals for participating in bigotry, and society for collectively choosing criminal law as the means to enact bigotry. I'm happy to criticise those who participated in systems we now consider unjust, and I'm resigned that I will be criticised in turn by future societies (or, for example, by those Americans who think I'm participating in an oppressive regime which unjustly denies British citizens access to firearms). I just can't be bothered to apply either total moral relativism ("witch-burnings were fine, society just didn't trust women in those days, and such executions were the natural and lawful result") or total moral absolutism ("the current law of the UK is perfect, and it goes without saying that any past differences were unjust"). It shouldn't go without saying.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-09-05 01:34 pm (UTC)So an apology "by Gordon Brown", on behalf of the government, is significant inasmuch as the government saying anything about the past is significant. Me apologising for slavery would be rather different - I didn't do it, and neither did any person or institution whom I represent (although arguably I have benefited, so I could somewhat apologise for that).
At some point, some UK government should acknowledge that what happened to Turing was wrong. Quite aside from Turing's nearest and dearest, *I* would draw comfort from knowing that my government is willing to admit firstly that Britain institutionalised homophobia within living memory, and secondly that they're conscious that things should be otherwise. Gordon Brown himself was raised in a society which designated gay men criminals. The established church of this country has great difficulty with the concept of gay men being fit to hold positions of responsibility within it. If Brown can't state an opinion on that, surely it means something whether or not our Prime Minister can even bring himself to describe Turing's prosecution as wrong?
I don't think that changing the law automatically achieves the same as an active effort to address the past. And I don't even know whether any previous government has made statements about Turing. If you're right that the desired apology has already been made, then Number 10 could perhaps respond to the petition saying, "the UK government certainly has apologised and continues to do so - the Act which changed the law made it clear that prosecutions for homosexuality of Turing and others were barbaric and would not continue, and we stand by that". Easy, as long as they really are happy to stand by that position. If they're worried that such strong language would offend governments where homosexuality is still illegal, then IMO all the more reason to at least say something.
Even within the UK, those who actually approve of Turing's prosecution (or other sanctions or prejudices against gay men) can think to themselves, "he broke the law, he was punished, he was not a victim, nothing at all wrong with that, and the government agrees with me". Whereas I feel (granted, largely on the evidence of a sympathetic biography) that Turing was driven to depression and suicide via a drug-based "punishment" for a victimless crime which we now believe to have been criminal only as a reflection of the bigotry of the society of the time.
I think there is something very wrong with that. Interpretations of historical events are normative for how we interpret current events, both regarding homosexuality and regarding the possibility of current laws being considered unjust. The position that "if it's the law, it's OK, if it's illegal it's wrong" abrogates responsibility for trying to change the law where we don't agree with it, and also for disobeying unjust orders and shaking off institutionalised prejudices.
So I do think that it is fair--even a responsibility--to criticise individuals for participating in bigotry, and society for collectively choosing criminal law as the means to enact bigotry. I'm happy to criticise those who participated in systems we now consider unjust, and I'm resigned that I will be criticised in turn by future societies (or, for example, by those Americans who think I'm participating in an oppressive regime which unjustly denies British citizens access to firearms). I just can't be bothered to apply either total moral relativism ("witch-burnings were fine, society just didn't trust women in those days, and such executions were the natural and lawful result") or total moral absolutism ("the current law of the UK is perfect, and it goes without saying that any past differences were unjust"). It shouldn't go without saying.