Thou shalt not question the wisdom of Stephen Fry

[venta]

A 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.

Comments

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

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.

[onebyone.livejournal.com]

For the record, I don't think this constitutes "easily shooting down your opinions in flames".

I do think that an apology would do more good than harm, and that worries about whether it's appropriate or meaningful are down to confusion what a corporate apology is. I think it should be understood that asking Gordon Brown to "apologise" for Turing's prosecution isn't the same as asking Tony Blair to "apologise" for lying about WMDs.

[jiggery-pokery.livejournal.com]

Thank you! That's an argument that I consider convincing. Previously I was vaguely sympathetic but didn't consider my feelings either way to be well-reasoned; you have made a strong case, towards which I was naturally inclined, and I have signed the petition.

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Coming to this late, and lots of good stuff already written so I won't spout off at length myself, just say "IAWTC". And maybe we need a new word that distinguishes this sort of apology from the more personal kind. "Corporate apology", while accurate, is unlikely to catch on.