Submitted by “His later life was overshadowed by his conviction for homosexual activity, a sentence we would now consider unjust and discriminatory and which has now been repealed,” said Mr Grayling.
“Turing deserves to be remembered and recognised for his fantastic contribution to the war effort and his legacy to science. A pardon from the Queen is a fitting tribute to an exceptional man.”
Finally.
In the final analysis a legally quirky, morally correct resolution; long overdue & to be universally commended.
While I think that this pardon is LONG over due, the wording is a bit sickening. It is veiled in obtusely structured language but the long and short of it, they don’t take any responsibility for a morally unjust conviction. Granted, the law that he was convicted under was pretty prevalent in England and the USA, but what would it hurt to acknowledge that they made a mistake.
Now there is just another few thousands wrongly convicted gay people to pardon too.
This!
He was convicted for something that was illegal at the time. I’m not saying it’s right, much like i don’t believe apartheid was right either. But pardoning one “criminal” means that every other person who committed that crime should be pardoned as well. I don’t see why Turing should get special treatment just because he was a great scientist.
Amnesty is much harder than a pardon. Pardon’s don’t work for large amounts of people.
let me tell you when, if ever, that’s going to happen: when they’ve all been dead for a good many years.
That way it’s not so embarrassing and there are no damages to pay.
There’s just no pleasing some people.
No, we shouldn’t stop at Turing.
Yes, we should be now pushing for more, now that we’ve got an important one under our belt.
No, it won’t be instantaneous. Try a little patience. It took us this long to get Turing. It will probably take some time to organize for the many others.
If you can’t get special treatment for being a great scientist who may have saved millions of lives, than what would qualify? Why shouldn’t someone get special treatment based on what they achieved? This isn’t a case of special treatment based on undeserved celebrity status. This isn’t a case of special treatment based on genetic relations.
We already reward living persons who go above and beyond in their actions today, but I don’t see anyone complaining about the special treatment there. Why doesn’t anyone complain (read: make up ridiculous arguments) about scientists getting the Nobel Prize as though it somehow magically denigrates the achievement of others.
This is a great first step.
Because, supposedly, we’re all equal in the eyes of the law. Pardoning one person, and not many others, for a certain crime sends the wrong message: the law does not apply equally.
“It wasn’t really wrong how we treated gay people back then but ok, Turing’s a famous scientist and helped fight Hitler so we’ll pardon him. Whatever, as long as it shuts people up.”
That’s completely different and you know it.
People keep saying pardon one person but not any others.
Has anyone have an actual, unimagined, quote from someone who has said “Now that Turing’s done, we’ll have no more of this”.
Anyone?
Anyone?
I asked this question last time and no one had one.
Anyone with a quote? Last chance.
The “special treatment” here is that he is the first to be pardoned. In this slow-adapting political machine, there is always someone (or a few) who are going to be first, by definition. What do you want to argue next? If they pardoned a whole bunch of people at once, will you complain that they wrote someone’s name first before the others? What if they tried to write it all on one line and run out of space on that piece of paper and some people had to be “DEMOTED” to the next line?
Even more ridiculous is that you are arguing anyone who wanted this pardon wanted others to shut up about the rest. The people pushing for this pardon are not all politicians, so there’s no “as long as it shuts people up”.
No, it’s not completely different. I have heard/read, from you and others in the older Turing threads, that this pardon somehow says the works of others are not as worthy. Anyone who basically uses the phrase “special treatment” with regards to this pardon has made that argument whether like it or not.
Not to mention when Neil Armstrong died, many people here said precisely the same kind of thing that recognizing him singles him out as more important than others who did the work.
Time and time again the faux cynic George Carlin wannabes of this website argues precisely that kind of logic. To you people, it is EXACTLY the same. If there are people here who didn’t know they were different, it’s people who argued the same thing whether it’s Turing or Armstrong.
Yes, that must be why the other victims, some even still alive today, haven’t even gotten a simple, official apology yet.
No-one in an official position has said it’s the first step either so where are your quotes?
That was obviously referring to how the government officials are approaching the matter.
If you don’t understand the difference between a selective pardon and winning the Nobel prize. or acknowledging Armstrong..well, I dunno what to tell you.
Edited 2013-12-25 06:05 UTC
The pardon is not just an official action. Anyone who is on the side of this pardon, if they consider this only a first step, have effectively said it.
Oh, so you DO recognize there are more than just officials that want this?
Also, that’s a pretty big accusation that ALL government officials are approaching the matter in the same manner you describe. What would be an effective way to shut people up would be the officials listening to the likes of you and not do anything because of cynicism. Yet a lot of “officials” and other people have continued to push for it despite people like you wanting to stop it. If anything, they are fully aware it won’t shut people up and they are going for it anyway.
Faux cynicism is just a losing position.
I completely understand the difference. My point is the people of this website don’t. They’re the ones who set themselves up to be completely dismantled by a simple reductio-ad-absurdum. The same logic runs through the different arguments argued here against Turing or Armstrong – that of recognition in any circumstance and how it negatively affects those who weren’t recognized one way or another.
As far as I’m concerned, it’s up to you lot to stop making this an issue about recognition or “fairness”, as though there’s no politics, time and space involved. By definition some people have to be first and is nothing more than misapplied cynicism to complain about there being such a thing as first.
Do you even understand what a pardon is!?!?! It’s by definition selective. The legal doctrine in UK is called “the Royal Prerogative of Mercy”(aka pardon) and is not the same as an amnesty.
All and any pardons have been, and will be, selective and subjective.
And just like a pardon is, the Nobel prize is selective. Pointing to one person of one of the missions around the moon(where every single mission and every single person have performed something objectively first) is an act of selective glorification.
So please! Arguing for an amnesty by arguing against a pardon is just inappropriate.
Maybe you should also argue against all and any other pardons, based on the same grounds.
Edited 2013-12-27 19:46 UTC
The law is very unequal. It’s quite heavily geared towards one party. Also, pardons are pretty much the exceptions to criminal law. And unless you consider that the built in system of pardons is incorrect, then by all means please do campaign against it.
Why Turing is getting the pardon? Queen should (not) be getting the pardon, not Turing.
Also, why the hell englishmen still have a queen? It’s 21st century, not middle ages.
The queen has no political power, so it’s not the middle ages. Also, the average American seems to like the idea of royalty and nobility. They don’t have any, so they put rich people into that position, and call the nobility the “job creators” who create jobs in very much the same way the rich nobility of the past didn’t.
Since we are talking about 21st century, we should really be thinking about what a group does, rather than what a group is called. It’s no use criticizing a country for having someone CALLED a monarch, when you have people who act with the same impunity as a monarch.
And speaking of the 21st century, it’s ironic an American would criticize the British for being backward when your country is being run by religions and quasi-religious group. Not even the Church of England has as much political power in Britain, even with their set quota of seats in the House of Lords for bishops, than the far-right Christian groups in your country.
* I’m Australian, and I’m for the getting rid of the symbolic monarchy in Australia.
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Asturias_Awards
“The prize was established on 24 September 1980 by the twelve year-old Felipe, Prince of Asturias”
And what do the rich kids of the US do with their power and money? You know your countries f–ked when your equivalent of the nobility act worse than your monarchy boogeyman.
Edited 2013-12-25 01:05 UTC
I like the fact that someone voted my comment down because they can’t handle the fact that they’re wrong. Go on, tell me why your situation is so much better than a monarchy when the actual results don’t match up to your precious theory.
I like the fact that you think I’m american when I’m actually a dirty eastern european peasant.
Down with the queen!
Edited 2013-12-25 05:00 UTC
Terrible post.
You really can’t tell the difference between a group of people with an ideology having power due to their votes versus a law that codifies a specific hereditary family a special place and a guaranteed wealth for no work?
Hmm… which one is Britain and which one is America in your question?
See, I judge people/groups by their actions, not their definitions.
Would I want to be living under a group of people who buy their votes and act with increasing impunity, or do I want to be living under a benign hereditary figurehead with almost no political power.
From where I stand, it only matters who controls policy making and implementation and how they go about it. In the US, corporate interests rules your country and they’re passed down from one rich person to another with connections. And no, wealth doesn’t trickle down, but pools where wealth already is.
How is that different from an aristocracy in practice?
Yeah, Can’t really discuss the important subjective issues you are raising, if you don’t understand the very basic objective point I made in the previous post.
You don’t seem to be arguing anything based on functional difference, so that doesn’t interest me. You can argue based on definitions all you want, but my issue with it is it’s not about functional behaviour.
A person/group that acts like monarchy is a monarchy in everything except in name, so whether that is hereditary or not doesn’t really matter.
Maybe you are trying to make a point, but you are replying to my comment making a point about functional manifestations.
The words, they are in English but yet they make no sense.
The words should (not) make sense.
Sorry, my native language is more prone to manipulation that still makes sence. I try to apply same techniques to more primitive and static languages like english, doesn’t seem to work tho, oh well.
Can I ask what is your native language?
I am asking because in brazilian portuguese (very bad formed but extremaly flexible grammar) the phrase DID make perfect sence.
The more structured and less ambiguous the language is the more advanced it is. English tends to be one of the least ambiguous languages. With Spanish and Japanese being even less.
They made sense to me. The implication was that the Queen/Monarchy/Government is the entity that unjustly punished Alan Turing. Therefore its not his pardon we should be considering but the punishment for those responsible for writing and enforcing the unjust law.
Here’s the thing… The Queen is a figurehead and has almost no real power. She has figurative/ceremonial rights to veto law, but has hardly ever used them, in fact it’s almost never heard of that she does. She doesn’t get the right to change a new law, she can just refuse to sign one off. Other than that, law and justice is handed out by the government and legal system. Exactly as it is in the US. I assume you’re not British, so not understanding this is probably not your fault, but you really do sound like you drank too much of the US centric anti-Monarchy cool-aid.
The orignal poster was using the Queen as the figure head of the British government. That’s all that sentence meant. Its the government that unjustly punished Alan, not Alan that did something unjust.
In other countries, people who have been treated unfairly have recourse in courts of law. Does anyone know the laws of the UK well enough, to comment on this? Could the victims of these types of laws sue the government?
PS: I’m not arguing something as basic as elementary arithmetic with people who refuse to admit numbers exist. You’ll have to go else where for a senseless argument.
As he was found guilty of breaking a law, & no-one seriously imagines he might not have broken it, there isn’t going to be any recourse in courts of law.
For that to work judges & juries would have to have the right to strike off laws retroactively. No legal system works like that so far as I know.
On the other hand pardons are extra-judicial, so far simpler to implement.
The best way for a family member to pursue justice a case like this would be to petition the Home Secretary or, more ambitiously, petition their MP to raise a private member’s bill in the Commons.
[Edit, as a forgot to answer your question straight up]
I don’t imagine the Govt had much to do with the original ruling. I suppose there might be a case to be made about allowing chemical castration in the legal system, but as it was voluntary, that probably wouldn’t work either.
In general its not easy to sue HMG. It only tends to work if it was complicit in something outside the legal system, such as ‘extraordinary rendition’ (helping the CIA kidnap people), or torturing suspected Mao Mao terrorists (during the uprising in Kenya, in the 50s).
Edited 2013-12-28 19:29 UTC
Because they want so. By far the vast majority of the population is in favour of the monarchy. Or should you dictate them that they should have a president instead?
Shouldn’t the British government be pardoned, rather than their victim?
Let’s just simply be happy and proud about our selves, that the majority of us don’t consider Homosexuality as something “gross” or “dirty”. All hail to evolution, compassion and intelligence <3
I think Turing can be viewed as representative for all people treated this way and that the government admits that it has made mistakes even if it’s done through a symbolic figure like the queen.
That is another good way to see it.
While many here would like to argue the legal/moral/philosophical fine points… What this is, is a actual public recognition of a gross social and legal error by a large power powerful body.
It’s a shame we can’t pardon everyone who was convicted for a criminal act in the past, which was later decided to be acceptable.
As society evolves these things will happen, and it is pleasing to see large gestures like these so future generations don’t forget! A large powerful body or system can’t move forward without these gestures.
For the record, try as I might, I can seem to find any public apology from the Catholic Church about its treatment of Galileo…
A pardon for one person is still better than a pardon for no one.
To put in terms of the current generation: one dollar is better than zero dollar.
That’s some hilariously flawed reasoning, regardless of if we’re talking about Turing or something else. You do realize that under many circumstances getting one dollar is pretty much an insult and no better than getting none.
First of all, whether you consider something an insult or not does NOT constitute flawed reasoning. Reason has nothing to do with feelings or ego, thus making your argument the flawed one.
Second, only in the eyes of fundamentalist ideologues is nothing better than something if you can’t get exactly everything you want. You may as well argue that because the US does not have legal homosexual marriage, they may as well have no equal rights for homosexuals.
This all or nothing crap is really getting old. You already have the nothing you desperately want, so why do you even bother?
Yes… and feeding one starving person is an act of insult rather than letting them starve on.
I don’t necessarily agree. If this truly is just a first step like that kwan_e keeps insisting and all the other will be pardoned too, then sure, but on the other hand if they don’t pardon all the people who didn’t achieve great things the government is basically just saying “Hey, we’re only pardoning Turing because he is famous, not because the laws were wrong or anything, and the rest of you don’t deserve our attention whatsoever.” It’d be a total slap in the face and pissing on their graves.
And unlike kwan_e I do not believe everyone will be pardoned.
From what I’ve read in newspapers, news sites etc, the general attitude is that the pardoning should continue and so it’s reasonable to conclude that people will continue to push for more.
But then again, some people here don’t even like the idea that there could be a such a thing as a first person in line, so who knows what kind of complaint* or goalpost shifting they would come up with in the future.
* One complaint I can imagine is that anything not happening magically within their internet concentration span means they were right all along.
People are always pushing for this or that, doesn’t mean the government will care. What’s more, the government often pushes for things people don’t ask for, like e.g. Cameron’s too wide Internet-filters.
I would like to be proven wrong, but for now I retain my opinion that nothing will happen wrt. all the Average Joes that were persecuted under that silly law.
What I find interesting is that the Queen herself had no trouble with approving the pardon. The next few in line for the throne also seem to be quite liberal minded. It would seem to me the next time round may be slightly easier in fact.
Or pissing in their face, as the case may be.
That seems to be even more likely when you consider that the first person to be pardoned, and still the only one afforded an apology, is someone who’s been dead for almost 60 years. If the first person would have been one of those who are still alive I’d have held much more faith in the goodwill of the British government to do the right thing.
Just as no one has an actual quote that officially no more pardons for this repealed law would be allowed, no one has an actual quote from someone who is alive and has been recorded as saying they feel insulted by this pardon.
Please explain this to me then. If the pardon is really due to the government admitting that the law was wrong and great injustices where committed than why is only ONE single person (who’s dead) being afforded an apology and a pardon. Why not add Oscar Wilde or at least the people still alive as a sign of good faith?
The government apologized to Turing (and from the wording it seems it was only unfair to him, not to others) in 2009 but to this day not a single other person has been given an apology, not even those still alive. Why would this pardon be any different?
Sorry, didn’t realize we all have to act on your preferred timeline. Have you got any argument that isn’t a just complaint about how and how fast you would like things done and imagined insults on behalf of others?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-alan-tur…
“Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly. Over the years millions more lived in fear of conviction.”
Explain how you could twist this sentence, for example, to mean what you claim the apology means.
“This recognition of Alan’s status as one of Britain’s most famous victims of homophobia is another step towards equality and long overdue.”
What’s this, a mention of a step? The horror!
“But even more than that, Alan deserves recognition for his contribution to humankind … It is thanks to men and women who were totally committed to fighting fascism, people like Alan Turing, that the horrors of the Holocaust and of total war are part of Europe’s history and not Europe’s present.”
*Gasp* More mention of people who are not Alan Turing.
I guess all of the people on the following list shouldn’t be pardoned as well? I mean, if pardons are like a slap in the face of all other offenders…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_by_Barack_Obam…
Considering that pardons are not a mass affair, you are 100% correct. Next step is an amnesty, not X+Y thousands of pardons.
Does it really matter he got his pardon?
I mean, we agree he was a hero and a pretty clever on. What they did to him we can also agree upon was rather evil.
Our opinion does not change with or without an official pardon. The whole thing is just embarrassing for the British government for (a doing what they did to him (b being so late with a pardon and (c making sure it won’t cost them any money.
A pardon for Turing can be considered a pardon for all homosexual victims, but if you dig around you can probably find many more cases of the government being evil, to this very day.
So why should we care what they say or any government says?
Snowden will never get a pardon in our lifetimes, but do we consider him wrong? We don’t, nor did we consider Turning a dirty man.
But if you do, or if you don’t, no government can copy its judgment on to you.
He can be awarded a lot of things he deserves as a result. You know… there are a lot of awards that are not given out to criminal offenders.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/20/uganda-mps-laws-homose…
Uganda’s law against Homosexuals. Nations will rage against Uganda after Turing’s pardon?
Late and symbolic “pardons” are just a silly attempt by an institution at having it both ways.
Turing’s ideas and contributions to the human experience are allowing information and knowledge to be generated, and distributed, at ever increasing speeds and degrees of connectivity.
This in turn is bad news for archaic and useless institutions, like the monarchy, which depend on their ability to hide their irrelevance from the public at large. At some point it becomes impossible to deny that “winning the sperm lottery” is a moronic way to select a head of a state regardless.
Edited 2013-12-27 03:05 UTC
The *Queen* has the nerve to pardon *Turing* for being gay? And that is good news? Well, thank you, Your Unbelievably Rightful Highness for condescending into such lowly human matters, but you can take your condescension and stuff it.
This is totally outrageous. It is her, as the head of the state, who should be begging for pardon for all the damage done. It is her who should be dropping to her Knees, begging for pardon from all those who were so unjustly mistreated.
You kind of lost the argument right from the beginning with this ill informed bollocks.
Who defined JUST AND UNJUST anyway?
There is plenty written about that. Read up.