![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ventaA while ago, I saw someone on my friends list posting something which basically said "here's what I think about this issue, and I'm a little confused by it, what are your thoughts?"
It's a very disconcerting thing to find yourself thinking something, but not to be sure whether you're entirely comfortable with your own opinions, or whether someone could easily shoot them down in flames.
Recently the sainted Stephen Fry brought to my attention the following petition:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to apologize for the prosecution of Alan Turing that led to his untimely death."
(Which is here, if you wish to sign it/read it/etc.)
Now, I think Alan Turing is someone to whom much more general accolade is due. I also think that his prosecution for gross indecency (read: being gay) and subsequent "treatment" were disgusting and shouldn't happen to anyone. But I don't think asking one G Brown to apologise for it makes any sense at all.
Firstly, I don't think[*] that the conviction itself is unreasonable. Turing was convicted of something which was, at the time, illegal - and would remain so for another fifteen years[**]. That later generations judge the law to have been unreasonable, immoral and wrong is neither here nor there. Appeals for - say - a posthumous pardon of Ruth Ellis have been denied on the grounds that although she might not now be convicted of murder; she was fairly convicted under the law of the time. You simply can't apply today's laws to history.
Secondly, I don't really understand the function of these post-dated apologies. When people called for Tony Blair to apologise to the French for Waterloo, I was just as nonplussed by that. (And, for the record, had the French won that particular round I'd have been as underwhelmed by the idea that M. Sarcozy should apologise to the English.)
Yes, Gordon Brown is the representative of the system that hounded Turing to his death. And yes, I presume there may be friends or relatives of Turing who might find comfort in the idea that that system admits it was wrong to do so. But isn't the changing of the law forty years ago just that admission ?
I think Turing was a genius; more people should (as the petition says) "recognize that his work created much of the world we live in and saved us from Nazi Germany". He should be more widely known, and his life and work should be celebrated. But if the PM is to make a public statement and draw people's attention, isn't it better to leave them thinking "Turing, father of computer science" rather than "Turing, bloke who was prosecuted for being gay" ?
That someone so brilliant could lose their job, reputation and, ultimately, life over their choice of sexual partners makes me very sad. I wish I could shuffle time forty years so Turing could live in a world that didn't mind what he did in between inventing universal machines. I wish I could reach back and tell him that he'd be remembered as a great man, not as a humiliated one. I wish that things had not happened as they did, and an apology written by an underling and read out by Gordon Brown will not change that at all.
[*] This is one of the bits I'm confused about. I can respect people who resist an unfair law, but I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to demonise people who obey it.
[**] I had to look up when homosexuality was legalised in the UK, and realised that although it was in 1967 in England and Wales, it wasn't til 1980 in Scotland. 1980! And 1982 in N Ireland. Maybe you're all smart people who knew that. I didn't.
It's a very disconcerting thing to find yourself thinking something, but not to be sure whether you're entirely comfortable with your own opinions, or whether someone could easily shoot them down in flames.
Recently the sainted Stephen Fry brought to my attention the following petition:
"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to apologize for the prosecution of Alan Turing that led to his untimely death."
(Which is here, if you wish to sign it/read it/etc.)
Now, I think Alan Turing is someone to whom much more general accolade is due. I also think that his prosecution for gross indecency (read: being gay) and subsequent "treatment" were disgusting and shouldn't happen to anyone. But I don't think asking one G Brown to apologise for it makes any sense at all.
Firstly, I don't think[*] that the conviction itself is unreasonable. Turing was convicted of something which was, at the time, illegal - and would remain so for another fifteen years[**]. That later generations judge the law to have been unreasonable, immoral and wrong is neither here nor there. Appeals for - say - a posthumous pardon of Ruth Ellis have been denied on the grounds that although she might not now be convicted of murder; she was fairly convicted under the law of the time. You simply can't apply today's laws to history.
Secondly, I don't really understand the function of these post-dated apologies. When people called for Tony Blair to apologise to the French for Waterloo, I was just as nonplussed by that. (And, for the record, had the French won that particular round I'd have been as underwhelmed by the idea that M. Sarcozy should apologise to the English.)
Yes, Gordon Brown is the representative of the system that hounded Turing to his death. And yes, I presume there may be friends or relatives of Turing who might find comfort in the idea that that system admits it was wrong to do so. But isn't the changing of the law forty years ago just that admission ?
I think Turing was a genius; more people should (as the petition says) "recognize that his work created much of the world we live in and saved us from Nazi Germany". He should be more widely known, and his life and work should be celebrated. But if the PM is to make a public statement and draw people's attention, isn't it better to leave them thinking "Turing, father of computer science" rather than "Turing, bloke who was prosecuted for being gay" ?
That someone so brilliant could lose their job, reputation and, ultimately, life over their choice of sexual partners makes me very sad. I wish I could shuffle time forty years so Turing could live in a world that didn't mind what he did in between inventing universal machines. I wish I could reach back and tell him that he'd be remembered as a great man, not as a humiliated one. I wish that things had not happened as they did, and an apology written by an underling and read out by Gordon Brown will not change that at all.
[*] This is one of the bits I'm confused about. I can respect people who resist an unfair law, but I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to demonise people who obey it.
[**] I had to look up when homosexuality was legalised in the UK, and realised that although it was in 1967 in England and Wales, it wasn't til 1980 in Scotland. 1980! And 1982 in N Ireland. Maybe you're all smart people who knew that. I didn't.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-09-04 09:46 am (UTC)There have been, in the past, a lot of unjust laws (there still are a fair few). Hopefully (Ha!) later generations will correct the mistakes of their predecessors. However laws are a writing of the societal norms of the time, and should be regrded as such...
I think an award to Mr Turing for services to his country would send the right message however.
on the other hand, if one was an immortal institution (say, the church) which had done some seriously questionable acts (e.g. spanish inquisition) then it appears reasonable for the church to say "yup, that was really wrong". On this basis it appears reasonable for another immortal institution (HMG) to state the same.
Unfortunately, unlike victims of the spanish inquisition, same of the victims of HMG might still be alive, in which case if they apologised it would be compensation lawsuit after lawsuit for years to come...
no subject
Date: 2009-09-04 09:52 am (UTC)The UK government has actively changed its position, and now officially doesn't care if blokes want to shag other blokes. Accordingly, an apology is less important because they're not still trying to prevent homosexuality.
I think apologising for a disproportionate response to something is quite different from admitting that, frankly, you just got that one wrong.
no subject
Date: 2009-09-04 12:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-09-05 04:28 am (UTC)I should have read the comments first
Date: 2009-09-04 03:32 pm (UTC)HMG - Parliament is immortal, government transitory(I think?)
no subject
Date: 2009-09-05 02:05 pm (UTC)Not if you stick to the principle that people cannot be retrospectively prosecuted under new laws (which is in fact a general principle of law and is almost always the case), but can be retrospectively pardoned where we believe the previous law was unjust.
That said, if Turing is to be retrospectively pardoned, then does this mean the Home Office should spend a lot of time and money investigating every conviction of "gross indecency" in the last 100 years, to figure out which ones were just for being gay, as opposed to which ones would still be illegal? The same problem exists where WWI deserters who were executed are inconsistently reviewed by the MoD.
I don't think that would be necessary, but can certainly argue that it's unjust for Turing to be the *only* gay man specifically named in any apology, and that apologising for one case opens a big can of worms. The counter-argument would then either be that individual cases will be reviewed if specific complaints are made, or else that this is in fact a can of worms worth spending time and money to open and deal with.