No Pardon For Turing 728
mikejuk writes "A petition signed by over 21,000 people asked the UK Government to grant a pardon to Alan Turing. That request has now been declined. A statement in the House of Lords explained the reasoning: 'A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence. He would have known that his offence was against the law and that he would be prosecuted. It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offence which now seems both cruel and absurd-particularly poignant given his outstanding contribution to the war effort. However, the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times.'"
It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
ensure instead that we never again return to those times
Then perhaps pardoning him would be a step in the right direction?
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Interesting)
Why only him? Many people were prosecuted along the same lines. I actually think it would be unfair to single him out in that respect.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Why change the verdict at all?
It make make us in the present feel better, but then we would be rewriting history.
It may not be a bad thing that Turing remains forever convicted for that "crime". Along with his outstanding contributions to his fellow man he will serve as a reminder of how we did things wrong, and how we can continue to evolve and grow into a more advanced society.
At first glance we might want to vilify the lords that refused and made that statement, but after further reflection, there might be some value in having him remain convicted for all time.
Just an opposing point of view to consider.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Informative)
The guy who successfully campaigned for the UK government to issue an official apology about the treatment of Turing (rather than a pardon) comments about this here:
http://blog.jgc.org/2011/11/why-im-not-supporting-campaign-for.html [jgc.org]
"I could get behind a petition for a pardon for all those people, especially since living people are still hurt by that law, but not just for Turing. Pardoning him doesn't help the living...But even that's unnecessary...Chapter 4 of the [Protection of Freedoms Bill 2010-12 - legislation in progress and close to completion] specifically allows for the disregarding of convictions under the old law that was used against Turing. Once disregarded the law causes their convictions to be deleted. It's not quite the same thing as a pardon, but its effect is to lift the burden of a criminal record from these living men."
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Interesting)
A pardon is symbolic confirmation that current government no longer supports the ideology behind what they are pardoning.
Thus the guy is wrong, a pardon very much does help the living - it gives them confirmation that government no longer supports that viewpoint. It closes the door on that part of our history and says finally once and for all, yep, we fucked up, never again. It concerns me that government isn't willing to close that door, it gives the impression they're actually not willing to close it.
For this to happen, it means that government does actually have to quite thoroughly be willing to disown that viewpoint, yet currently that's not the case, we still have far too many bigots in parliament. The fact people are even willing to argue this when it's such a trivial act to just carry out the pardon, and when Lord McNally's logic runs contrary to past pardons is illustration enough of this problem.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:4, Interesting)
A pardon is symbolic confirmation that current government no longer supports the ideology behind what they are pardoning.
Thus the guy is wrong, a pardon very much does help the living - it gives them confirmation that government no longer supports that viewpoint.
Doesn't the official apology do this?
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. Like most government "official" apologies, it'll always be tainted by the unspoken but undeniable appendix "We're sorry...that the victim turned out to be famous and we got called out for being dickheads"
Re: (Score:3)
A pardon has a bit more weight behind it because it has it's basis in law as a formal procedure. An apology is just talk.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
That does not sound right at all. A pardon is removing a conviction from someone's record. People get pardoned all the time, of all kinds of things that they still enforce. Someone cleared of murder would be pardoned of murder. It would not be a symbolic confirmation of anything, it just expunges the conviction from the person's record.
I think you're looking for "official apology". As you noted below, a pardon is a formal procedure, not symbolic.
The government has already disowned the viewpoint, it is clearly not legal to do the same thing these days. I think you may have an emotional investment in this argument, and it is clouding your argument. If you take a step back and think this through, and read all the comments, I think you'll see a pardon is unnecessary. And the official reply is legitimate - we can't go around pardoning people of things that were illegal at the time, and singling out one person for one crime is an affront to everyone who was considered guilty but not pardoned. Every person for every now-legal crime is not "a trivial act" so we just let it stand. Makes perfect sense, again unless you have a personal investment in this case.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Informative)
Because he's become a figurehead for the movement, and by saying yes, what was done to Turing was completely wrong, you're admitting that past stance on gay rights was completely wrong. It's symbolic acceptance of the fact times have changed, and a symbolic statement that we should never repeat that awful past.
I'd buy the Lord's argument if it weren't for the fact Britain has apologised and pardoned many a time for things like slavery in the past, which were also deemed right at the time, but wrong now. Discriminating on sexual preference is no better or no worse than discriminating based on race, so the fact we've apologised and pardoned over race related issues stemming from our imperialist past, but wont pardon over discrimination based on sexuality gives the impression that the Lords actually to this day do not actually take sexuality based discrimination seriously.
Just to illustrate how full of bollocks Lord McNally actually is, take this example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4796579.stm [bbc.co.uk] ...or to sum up for those who can't be arsed to read the link, in 2006 we pardoned 306 World War 1 soldiers who were executed for cowardice. It was also perfectly legal action at the time. So the question is Lord McNally, why the hypocrisy?
Really, this has nothing to do with the philosophical argument cited by McNally, as his excuse is contradicted by many past pardons. This is entirely to do with the fact that even to this day both the Lords and the Commons are far too full of ignorant bigots and it unfortunately shines through not just in terms of homophobia, but by the repeated xenophobic views of many members of parliament and not just limited to the Tories is as often stereotyped but even people in Labour like Margaret Beckett.
So if you really want to know why Turing isn't getting a pardon, then it's because it's not too far from the truth that some politicians in the UK still to this day don't really think the law back then was even far wrong.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Informative)
Check here: http://blog.jgc.org/2011/11/why-im-not-supporting-campaign-for.html
A clear reason why the WW1 soldiers got pardons and Turing didn't, from the very guy who campaigned for the apology in the first place.
That article was linked in the very article that the Slashdot post linked to.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
See my comment here as to why I think this guy is wrong though:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2656331&cid=38942093 [slashdot.org]
I guess it comes down to your outlook on Turing's pardon. It depends on whether you see Turing's mistreatment as an absolute insult to someone who did so much for the world that must be rectified, or whether you see it as that, and also a symbolic low point of the ongoing fight for better civil rights.
I see it as the latter, we've made a lot of progress, and a lot of apologies over racism, but sexuality is still very much an ongoing battle. Whilst a church could never dream of discriminating based on race nowadays for example, it can on sexuality.
I could say I'm a straight, white male, so it doesn't effect me, but that's not true- I am white, I am straight, and I am male, but it does effect me, it effects everyone - bigotry is one of the most fundamental problems our species still suffers to an unhealthy degree. I don't expect to see us rid of it any time soon, but we've made a lot of progress on women's rights, a lot of progress on fighting racism, but sexuality related discrimination? not so much. Any amount of official additional condemnation of it is a good thing, because that's what's required to fight it. When people as great as Turing can be effected by it so negatively then it absolutely effects all of us.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
By "undo-ing" this awful thing, they would pretending like it never happened.
Erm... no, sorry, it doesn't work like that. If you are found guilty, sentenced and later acquited for some reason (trial errors, being proven innocent, etc.) nothing disappears. Reversing the sentence on Turing doesn't automatically make the original sentence disappear, it doesn't make the petition to reverse that sentencing disappear, and it doesn't make the reversal disappear. Nothing would vanish in a cloud of smoke. Of course this make the comparison to dismantling Nazi concentration camps tenuous at best as no information would actually be lost.
What they see as rewriting history I consider righting a wrong, and righting a wrong after the wronged one's death may not do much for him, but it does a non-negligible bit for us living ones (at least it stands as an example of willingness to do the right thing).
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, you could say the trial failed to consider the human rights issues and thus the verdict was based on lack of consideration of the validity of the law.
You cannot convict someone based on a law that is not valid, whether that is because it did not exist, was not signed into law or it was not within the powers of parliament to enact such a law.
Declaring the last of these would send a far, far more powerful signal than anything else, since it means that it gives the judiciary a clear mandate to act against laws that are not acceptable.
Upkeeping it on the other hand means that it is just fine to enact whatever cruel law comes a long just as long as it is formally valid.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
the human race should never forget the immensely awful things that we are capable of. To do so dooms us to repeat it.
FTFY.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not a choice (Score:4, Insightful)
So because the government shielded him for the war they were indebted to shield him forever?
Yes.
When someone saves your ass, you owe them.
People who turn on their benefactors the moment the danger is passed are, based on the history of storytelling, almost universally considered by cultures world-wide and throughout history as deserving of punishment or death.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
No. As some other poster already commented, apologizing to his family, or for that matter to all families of people that got persecuted for similar reasons, would go a long way towards the right direction, but a pardon is just silly. The man got convicted, and is dead as a result of what happened A posthumous pardon would just feel like a big wallop of mustard after the meal.
So at the end of the day I find the statement of the House of Lords quite correct, but would appreciate it if someone could apologize for this. Having said that, this is an endless cycle. In Holland, the Catholic Church needs to apologize for the Inquisition, but the protestants need to apologize for what they did to Catholics after the inquisition, the VOC people should apologize to the Indonesians, West-Africans, South-Africans (the black ones), the KNIL people should apologize to some Indonesians, the Japanese should apologize to some KNIL people I know, the English should apologize to us for taking Manhattan away, the Dutch should apologize to the English for giving them Manhattan, etc etc etc.
The apology business is a never ending circle-jerk because if I had a dime for every group that has been maltreated somewhere on the planet during mankind's history, I'd never have to work again.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Informative)
So at the end of the day I find the statement of the House of Lords quite correct, but would appreciate it if someone could apologize for this. ....
As far as I know prime minister Gordon Brown did exactly that on September 10th in 2009.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
I am pretty sure the UK government did officially apologize for Turing's treatment (And I am sure they mentioned everyone else convicted of the same laws at the same time) like a year or two ago.
And I concur, while pardoning him does not really wipe the evidence that it happened away it is still a step in that direction and not something that should be done.
In a way, as a guilty man, he is a pioneering gay rights activist and that should be remembered not pardoned.
It is no "crime" to be convicted of breaking an unjust law, and it can be considered a virtue.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
And I concur, while pardoning him does not really wipe the evidence that it happened away it is still a step in that direction and not something that should be done.
In a way, as a guilty man, he is a pioneering gay rights activist and that should be remembered not pardoned.
It is no "crime" to be convicted of breaking an unjust law, and it can be considered a virtue.
Bullshit.
The issuance of a pardon can be done in the manner to indicate that the conviction should never have occurred because the law you were convicted under was unjust.
Which is better: An apology saying "well we're sorry you were convicted but you're still guilty", or a FULL apology acknowledging that the law was so unjust that it never should have existed, much less been the basis of criminal convictions?
Not only that - if Turing were alive today, do you have any question they would have granted the pardon long ago? If it would be important to grant the pardon to a living person, it's just as important to grant the pardon today, for the peace of mind of his family and for the improvement of society in the FULL acknowledgement that what happened, and the laws it happened under, never should have.
A man was harassed, persecuted, and driven to suicide by people enforcing an entirely unjust law. A pardon, posthumous or not, is in order.
Re: (Score:3)
After I'm dead, both are equivalent to each other (in a system which doesn't punish descendants for their parents crimes; in a system which did, there would remain a substantive difference, but that's more a problem with punishing descendants for the crimes of their ance
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Turing needs to be pardoned so that the British government can affirm that it does not consider its old judgments valid. It will not cause us to "pretend it never happened," any more than the Catholic church's pardoning of Galileo caused us to forget his mistreatment. No one is going to look up Alan Turing in a textbook, see he was pardoned, and go "oh, well that's that then" and forget the barbarism of his time. And to act like upholding Turing's guilt will remind the government to always reflect on the errors of the past, as if it were some sort of cross they were nobly bearing, is egregiously deceptive and a little nauseating.
Perhaps the most trenchant point people have made is that, by the logic that Alan Turing should be pardoned, all persons convicted of gross indecency for the practice of homosexuality should be pardoned. That is indeed correct. However, Turing is a fine place to start. If Amy fucking Winehouse can smoke crack on camera, and have the government twiddle its thumbs and look skyward, we can forgive someone who may be considered by no small stretch one of the architects of the modern world a little "indecency."
About his family (Score:5, Interesting)
Apparently his lab was such a mess and he was so sloppy that it would've been more in character to have been a tragic accident than suicide. These were the people who knew him best too.
For those who are interested, the BBC did a really good documentary on Bletchly park. Went into great detail about the code breaking process and, unlike most programs, actually showed in detail how the codes worked and how you could break them.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
John Paul II did apologize for Church's Inquisition. I don't know how many times it needs to be done for it to be done. If once is enough, then consider it done.
And it is certainly not enough. Waiting to apologize until everyone that remembers the great great great grandchildren of those that were alive during this time, so long that the "too soon" statute of limitations has expired and jokes are socially acceptable (you can choose between "Lets face it, you can't Torquemada anything!", or "Nobody expects!") and then brushing it off with an "our bad" is certainly not enough.
But now that everyone is long long gone there is nobody left to stand for the dead. At least in Turing's case there are people alive today that can remember the man and the injustice. Perhaps trying to do the right thing could help those that are still alive.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:4, Insightful)
And it is certainly not enough. Waiting to apologize until everyone that remembers the great great great grandchildren of those that were alive during this time, so long that the "too soon" statute of limitations has expired and jokes are socially acceptable (you can choose between "Lets face it, you can't Torquemada anything!", or "Nobody expects!") and then brushing it off with an "our bad" is certainly not enough.
Should we ask for an apology for waiting too long to apologize, as well?
Perhaps protestants should complain that we havent gotten an apology for the Catholic Church's treatment of Luther, Wycliffe, etc. Or we could, you know, not act like an apology from someone who didnt commit the wrong to people who arent the wronged, has any meaning at all...
Re:It's not a choice (Score:4, Insightful)
At this point they do have a point. Turing is dead. A pardon changes what? The damage is done. It is in the history. If a person still lives under punishment from those laws, yes, a pardon is deserved as those laws no longer exist. This would be a mere glorified apology.
That and I am not sure if the precedent would be a good thing. If they can pardon people for actions in hindsight for political motives, how long before someone gets the bright idea to try to retroactively convict?
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Interesting)
In the olden days they called a strong adherence to "procedure" something else, at least in the public sphere - the rule of law. The great thing about that ideal is that the law applies to everyone, popular or unpopular, powerful or not. England's been under some measure of "the rule of law" since the signing of the Magna Carta, and even the King was at least partially subject. It can be a powerful force for justice, peace, and prosperity.
Which isn't to say that it's entirely perfect, but rather that before you go piss on it, you ought to spare a moment to understand and respect what it is and nuance your opinion instead of making snide remarks about those stupid British.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Interesting)
Being gay, lesbian, trans, or straight is not a choice, but even if it were, that would still be irrelevant. If it *were* a choice, then it should still be respected. Just like gays and lesbians respect the *choice* of straight people to be straight.
But try explaining that to someone with their head stuck in the dark ages (or up their equally dark rectum), and when you ask them if they "chose" to be straight, they get all upset. They say it wasn't a choice - it was natural. So it's natural for them, but not for someone who is part of the GLBTt community - they're "teh EBIL ONEZ!" Unnatural. Despite more than 400 different species with same-sex behaviour, despite gender changes occurring spontaneously in species, despite cross-gender behaviour being normal, despite the male dog humping their male leg... no ... same-sex behaviour is a "choice" that cannot be respected.
The next step
Fortunately, times are changing, and this being the UK that we're talking about, there is a further appeal from this decision. Ultimately, the sovereign can issue a royal pardon, which would make a real statement. If this queen won't do it, you can be sure the next king will.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not a choice (Score:4, Insightful)
Um.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Doesn't Turing represent a flaw in your logic?
Being homosexual, he is still responsible for some of the greatest advances in recent human history. Thus he, by default, has done more and benefited humanity more despite his "notable handicap" than most of the straightest of men. This is in contrast to, say, (oh Godwin strike me where I stand) Hitler, a heterosexual enough man who has managed to actually thin the human herd quite a bit through systematic execution and warmongering.
Or, if we need an example of a person who HAD children, why not Joseph Stalin or Kim Jong Il? Or Mary, Queen of Scots? Baby Doc? People who were trusted in positions of extreme political power and preferred the company of the opposite sex have still managed to do spectacular damage.
I'm not saying that homosexuals are beyond such cruelty, but perhaps child-rearing is not as effective a primary motivator for human compassion as you would believe. Your absolutist philosophy on the subject has a lot of gaping, horrible flaws in it... maybe it would actually be a net benefit for the world if you too did not have children.
Re:Um.. (Score:4, Interesting)
maybe it would actually be a net benefit for the world if you too did not have children.
Well, I do, and I'll be having more, and if all goes according to plan, I'll offer them a small house to start a family in when they turn 21. If they want to borrow against it to go to university, that's up to them.
Hilarity ensues when they turn out to be gay. :-)
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps I misread the poster's intent, but I took the conversation as:
"It's not a choice, so pardon the man."
"What if it were a choice? Then the conviction should stand?"
To be convicted of a crime and chemically castrated for being a homosexual is inhumanly wrong. Whether that homosexuality is a choice or not bears absolutely no weight.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the religious martyrs die because they suffer from a debilitating infectious mental illness otherwise known as faith. Once their minds are corrupted by that memetic vector, they no longer have true free will and are subject to the will of the memes that pass through the hive mind. Consumption of a single host is insignificant to the hive, and may even provide vectors for infection of new hosts.
Wrong, religious martyrs die because they oppose the religious norm. Following the popular conventions of the popular religion is the safe bet that rarely causes you harm. The martyrs may be good or bad, but they are always independent thinkers.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Being host to a different competing hive pattern does not make you independent.
Nor does being host to a subset of a hive pattern that manifests in different behaviors that spread the larger memetic construct to new hosts.
Re:It's not a choice (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's StingRay02's statement:
To be convicted of a crime and chemically castrated for being a homosexual is inhumanly wrong. Whether that homosexuality is a choice or not bears absolutely no weight."
Here's your reply:
Sexuality, gay strait or bi, is biological and natural.
What I don't understand is why you bothered. He just said that choice or no choice, the origins of homosexuality are not the issue. And yet, you try to make it so.
Please don't.
I have to agree (Score:5, Interesting)
Alan Turing was outright persecuted for failing to conform to society's norm. The government owes Turing's family and the rest of the country, even the rest of the world an enormous apology.
But granting a posthumous pardon does not change the past. We were still robbed of one of history's brightest and greatest minds because of homophobia. I agree with their reasoning, granting the pardon ignores and whitewashes the past. We should remember and tremble at what intolerance and hatred produces, not pat ourselves on the back for being more forward-thinking than our predecessors since as a society I don't think we've actually changed. Sure, it's no longer as popular to hate on homosexual people as it was in the past, but we have all new forms of hatred and intolerance which our modern society deems acceptable, and which will be just as subject to the next generation's ridicule and derision.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, it's no longer as popular to hate on homosexual people as it was in the past, but we have all new forms of hatred and intolerance which our modern society deems acceptable, and which will be just as subject to the next generation's ridicule and derision.
Atheism is the new red-headed step-child [ft.com].
Re:I have to agree (Score:5, Informative)
Atheism isn't a religion.
Re:I have to agree (Score:5, Funny)
Here's two interchangeable phrases when someone says "Atheism is a religion!"
Atheism is a religion like "off" is a TV Channel.
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Re:I have to agree (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a lack of belief system.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is not the perspective of an atheist. If you really want to defend you stance as "a product of common sense", pledge agnostic.
Re: (Score:3)
Does this mean that you're agnostic to the invisible pink unicorn? After all, you have no evidence that it's not right there behind you, reading over your shoulder and counting down the seconds until it chews on your hair. (Invisibly and undetectably, except of course to the high priests of the I.P.U., who just KNOW when it's happened, and will share their knowedge with you for only $59.62!)
The logical position on any completely unsupported and unrealistic proposition that presents provably false claims as
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They wont kill people in the name of religion, or stop people from eating beef, or censor online content,etc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Of course it is. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think very many seriously intends to outlaw religion any more than you would outlaw superstition. The frustration usually comes when someone wants to make laws based on what the Bible, Quran or whatever says, because it defies any rational discussion. You can't argue if death by stoning is right if the logic goes "Stoning is in Sharia law, Sharia law is part of the Quran, the Quran is the exact words of Allah, Allah is perfect so his words can't be wrong. QED." I actually get annoyed the other way too, when you need to use religion to promote virtues. So Jesus was compassionate, does that mean it wasn't a good thing before Jesus? Without Jesus? Do you seriously need heaven and hell as carrot and stick? Can't you give me good enough reasons without invoking the invisible man in the sky? I'm more than happy to discuss ethics, society, law and almost everything else when it comes to how human beings should act towards each other. But when I hear of religious fundamentalists that want to replace evolution with God snapping his fingers 6000 years ago in the school curriculum, then yeah I'm almost ready to outlaw such stupidity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The important difference you are missing is that Atheists are right. If you don't agree with use then you are stupid and ignorant.
No it isn't (Score:5, Informative)
Atheism isn't a religion by any definition of "religion" that is in use today. Try it:
Wikipedia: "Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."
Atheism: no. There is no spiritual or moral component of atheism.
Wikipedia: "Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe."
Atheism: no. There are no symbols, no narratives, no creation myths, no attempt to explain the universe.
I could go on, but I think we've established that atheism does not match the (presumably generally accepted) Wikipedia definition.
Let's try another: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods." Nope.
Dictionary.com gives several definitions. Some don't apply because of the lack of gods etc. The rest don't apply because of the lack of practice - there are no religious practices associated with atheism. Some other definitions include a requirement of "faith" which could qualify, but when we define "faith" in a religious context the definition is something like "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof." Kind of a circular definition.
So, here's the thing: what is the definition of "religion" that would include atheism, and is this definition widely accepted? Would it make sense for somebody to say "Yes, I am very religious - I'm an atheist", or would people find that odd? Because if they would find it odd, then it probably isn't a valid definition. And if your definition is too broad, and just includes practicies, beliefs etc. and negates the need to believe in a personal god, then you are going to end up defining sports fans as being a religion (belief - "my team is the best", communal acts/practices - "watching the game" etc.) Apple fans ("Apple is the best", communal acts "queing for new iphone", group spirituality - "mourning of Jobs" etc.).
Re: (Score:3)
There are plenty of very religious agnostics. Look at Sam Keen, for instance. "Don't know" and "don't care" are not two sides of the same coin, as you have represented it in your comment above. The state of not knowing is an open invitation to find out more, thus the agnostic is often a seeker who lives a very devout life, even though he adheres to no particular institutional religion.
Re:Of course it is. (Score:4, Insightful)
+1 if i had it
They are no different.
Last year there was an article i think where the scientist described himself as a Possibilian, because no scientific evidence existed either way.
this should be the approach of any true scientific mind.
a hardline Atheist is no different from any other hardline religious zealot. given the chance they condemn those that don't see as they do.
Re:Of course it is. (Score:4, Insightful)
...And while there are some raging tools in the put here any religiously discussed world view community, I think most of us are pretty content to live and let live
You replace atheist with anything else or leave it there and it is true (or not in case of nut case splinter group). The reason is that bigotry seems to be a general faculty of man. Something humans love to hate religion or atheism makes no difference good thing is that it gives a good reason to blame others for anything or just for a sheer fun of hating others. Atheists or otherwise - they activists of each genre are bigots and love to hate. The reason is important only on the surface.
Re: (Score:3)
Atheism, by contrast (and imho), is reviled not because a lack of faith is seen as inherently wrong by modern religious types, but because a disproportionate amount of outspoken Atheists are inflammatory jerk-offs with some misguided superiority complex (see Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, et al).
Right, because there are surely not thousands of outspoken religious inflammatory jerk-offs for each atheist one.
Re:I have to agree (Score:5, Informative)
Gordon Brown apologised a few years back -> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8249792.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Re:I have to agree (Score:4, Insightful)
Already done [bbc.co.uk]
Really, I think that's all the government can do. I suppose a pardon might make us feel better but it's not going to do much to help. I propose we simply recognise him as a pioneer and as an important part of the codebreaking at Bletchley Park.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Somewhat revisionist. Turing was a closest homosexual. That made him a prime target for blackmail at a time when most countries were extremely paranoid, and fixated with espionage. Turing was in an extremely sensitive position regarding his knowledge, something a foreign government would be desperate to get hold of.
Sticking his penis up a man's anus was not the issue. Try learning history instead of simply doing a dweeb sabre-rattling exercise.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not exactly. (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps equally importantly, the background was one of gay-bashing in the US Establishment, who regarded homosexuals as a security risk (because, in typical backwards thinking, the Russians might blackmail them...which could not happen if their behaviour was regarded as unexceptional.) The US was already very worried about UK agents with Russian links spying on them, and was demanding a purge of unreliable elements from the British security services. Turing was high enough profile to show that we were "doing something", but low enough status to be thrown to the wolves,
This is the real background: class solidarity and stinking hypocrisy. Not much has really changed in the upper echelons of British society; it still comes as a shock to them when the British public turns out to be years ahead in their attitudes. And the actual workers in the security services are still treated like shit - Peter Wright wrote his book, Spycatcher, because as a mere surveillance expert he didn't qualify for a pension, unlike the higher-ups with their Eton and Oxford backgrounds.
Re:Not exactly. (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you Kupfernigk, spot right on!
Sadly we now have a government composed of these aristo thugs. Americans can understand the class system intellectually but you have to have grown up in it to really appreciate its demonic force & antiquity. The 'old boy network' (and it is boys not girls) is alive & well and still runs post-imperial Britain with the same self-centred blinkers & mealy-mouthed hypocracies.
The sad thing about the Turing criminal case is that it was he who volunteered the information that he had a gay relationship to the police; this was in the course of reporting a burglary at his home; he was such an innocent, lovely man.
Re:I have to agree (Score:4, Informative)
It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offence which now seems both cruel and absurd-particularly poignant given his outstanding contribution to the war effort.
Maybe not an outright apology, but not saying "HE WAS A SODOMITE HE DESERVED EVERYTHING HE GOT". They admit that he was treated cruelly, but he was guilty of the crime he was accused of. They didn't pardon him so it would stay there, to show them that yes, they did do things like this, and to remind them not to do it again.
Plus, the Prime Minister said this:
While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time and we can't put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him ... So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan's work I am very proud to say: we're sorry, you deserved so much better.
So there's your apology.
Re:I have to agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlikely. As has been pointed out in about a thousand places every time there a comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia, two homosexual men (or women) are adults capable of informed consent. A child is not and never will be able to provide informed consent, so there is unlikely to ever be a situation where children are seen as acceptable sexual partners. There's nothing wrong with homosexuality unless you accept that the only purpose of sex is procreation. Anyone who has ever had sex with another consenting adult outside of marriage and without the purpose of reproduction has done the functional equivalent of homosexual sex. Only rapists have done the function equivalent of child sex.
Re:I have to agree (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
"A child is not and never will be able to provide informed consent, so there is unlikely to ever be a situation where children are seen as acceptable sexual partners."
Sure it is. If you are 17 you just step over an imaginary line from California to Nevada and you're OK. ....
If you're younger, the imaginary line is around Japan or Portugal or
Re:I have to agree (Score:5, Informative)
No, they didn't say he was "gay."
He reported the burglary of his home to police, and the british police used it as an opportunity to get him to admit to a homosexual relationship [wikipedia.org], then used that as the basis of a charge of "gross indecency", and the resulting conviction was used to force him to decide between jail or chemical castration.
Your "they said he was gay" is so far from the truth that it's ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How is that not saying he is gay?
That's "saying he is gay" in the same sense as describing a Gojira attack on Tokyo as "a delay in the morning commute."
But times change, and now all that document says is that he was gay and they didn't think they could get a sodomy conviction. ... you're kidding right? The point of the lack of a pardon is they are refusing to make the change to the document. There is STILL a document on the books, unamended and un-appended with pardon, saying that Alan Turing was a sexual
Well yeah (Score:5, Insightful)
They are actually spot on with this. What entitles Alan Turing to a pardon above all others that endured the same fate? The statement is clear and regrettable, and effectively a pardon to all rather than a select few - it's just not a formal pardon. If they had to do it with every past law that was deemed unfair by modern standards they would waste a lot of time, especially in the United Kingdom.
Attainting? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have no idea if this ever came to bear or not, but I remember recently, I was reading up about "Bills of Attainder", and one of the things about British Law, apparently, was that if someone was "attainted" because of a criminal prosecution, they could in some cases be forced to forfeit all property/wealth, and so their family would be effectively "dis-inherited".
I don't know if anyone ever had forfeiture because of those particular laws, but I should think that *if* anyone was subject to that, that it would be appropriate *today* to posthumously pardon those people and give reparations to the families (it might not be possible to give lands back, as they presumably long since been given/sold to someone else, but they could at least compensate those people for the seized assets).
Something in the HoL statement makes sense: (Score:5, Insightful)
rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times
This train of thought is not so stupid at all. "Pardoning" Turing would help no one, and would not increase his glory. The glory he has, he has in our minds.
QFD
Here's a beter idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of retroactively correcting the injustices of the past, how about we look at who is suffering injustice today? What are we doing today that future generations will be appalled at? We still persecute people for making harmless personal choices. Let's stop.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OTOH, our descendants may be amazed at the amount of ignorance we displayed with regard to certain "harmless" personal choices, which turned out not to be as harmless as all that.
Nowadays it's obvious that smoking is bad for you. 60 years ago, some doctors and scientists said it was good for you. It took a long time to change the official attitude to tobacco, and even longer to change the public attitude, because smokers and corporations resisted change at every step, insisting that smoking was a right and
Turing complete? (Score:3)
They are going to use Turing to represent how bad it is to pass judgment on someone based on an unjust law? How... Turing complete.
It's always problematic (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
OMG you clearly dont have kids. Or at least, ones that will grow up with some sense.
somebody doesn't understand "pardon" (Score:5, Insightful)
The term "pardon" means forgiveness of a crime, so the fact that Turing was properly convicted under the law back then isn't an obstacle to a pardon it is a requirement; if he hadn't been convicted, he couldn't be pardoned now.
Furthermore, you pardon someone when you find that his positive contributions have outweighed the harm he has caused. For Turing, that is true not only because of his immense positive contributions, but because what he was punished for then is now not even considered worthy of punishment.
If anybody ever was deserving of a pardon, it is Alan Turing. And you really have to wonder about the motivation of the UK government for denying it.
Re: (Score:3)
I think most people would be offended if you told them you "forgive them for being gay". It implies that it's something that needs forgiving.
What the U.K. government is saying is that Alan Turing did not do anything that requires forgiveness. The law was "cruel and absurd" and shouldn't have existed in the first place.
Homophobia is powerful (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about all of the things that Turing accomplished in his life. Father of computer science. Father of artificial intelligence. Incredible at code breaking. Brilliant mind with exceptional talent. A genius. Patriot during a time of war. Marathon runner. A leading and formidable intellect he had.
But all of that didn't matter because he was gay.
A pardon is a joke and whitewashes history and puts a false Disney happy ending on a horrific story. "Oh yeah he was persecuted for being gay but at least after he died he was pardoned so we get to feel good about ourselves". This isn't a fairytale. This is history and it wasn't nice.
He was one of the smartest people alive and majorly contributed to the war effort and none of it mattered against him being gay. And after being humiliated and stripped of his security clearance he killed himself. End of story.
And how did he kill himself? Just like Snow White was poisoned in his favorite fairytale. He poisoned an apple with cyanide and then took a big chunk out of it and waited to die. That's his fairytale ending. A pardon is an empty gesture in my opinion.
Re: (Score:3)
Replace "gay" with "black", "female", "uneducated", "from a third-world country", "Muslim", "Christian", "Jewish", "foreign", "weird", "Down's", etc. or any other of a million adjectives and the same has been true throughout history.
Though the government are treading extremely cautiously, they are never denying that he worked wonders - see their statements on this issue from the BBC and other news outlets. That's an unusual step - they would normally avoid the superlatives when discussing things like this
Bishops (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe a simpler explanation has more to do with the fact that there are still 26 bishops sitting the the House?
Ref: http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/the-church-in-parliament/bishops-in-the-house-of-lords.aspx/ [churchofengland.org]
I don't think we'll see much in the way of progressive/human thinking here...
Keep /. focused on science (Score:3, Insightful)
This topic is an obvious cheerleading piece for political correctness.
We all know what we're "supposed" to say.
As a result, it is not only boring, but works as a form of oppression to exclude any opinion which does not agree with the "correct" one.
This is in contrast to science, where we explore experimental results, make tentative conclusions, and explore those through a heuristic process.
What a bunch of complete and utter smegheads (Score:5, Insightful)
What a bloody disgrace.
Re:What a bunch of complete and utter smegheads (Score:5, Interesting)
And thus the difference between law and science (Score:4, Insightful)
In law, respect for the process is paramount, even when the process produces results that are obviously absurd or unjust. There was no procedural problem with Turing's abuse by the system, so there is nothing to change.
In science, respect for results is paramount. If there is a reproducible result that shows the textbooks to be wrong, they will eventually be changed.
There is one thing the UK government *could* do (Score:4, Insightful)
Make public domain all his works. And I don't mean his manuscripts which are poorly catalogued and barely readable (and unpractical to read, as they are scanned as bitmaps). What I mean is, make public domain his published papers - all of them. It's a damn shame that in 2012 we still can't access his last paper "Solvable and unsolvable problems", published in Penguin Science News 31, in 1954!
And for those who don't know, "Solvable and unsolvable problems" may be Turing's most important work, one that casts a dark cloud over our misplaced certainties.
Re:In short (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because a posthumous pardon would sort out his soul.
It is a sensible and consistent approach in the UK justice system that pardons are not issued if the person in question was fairly convicted by the laws of the time. Pardoning him would not undo what was done, he's long dead and unlikely to get better, the government has already apologised for the way he was treated and all this would really do is help to assuage our guilt.
Re:In short (Score:5, Interesting)
In retrospect the semantic hairsplitting and tying of legal precedent in knots that enabled the Nuremberg Military Tribunals to sentence high-ranking Nazis to death and imprisonment for doing things that weren't illegal when and where they were done seems indefensible. To retroactively pardon Turing because the case seems crazy in hindsight is to open the door for pardoning those Nazi fuckers because we can now look back and see that the deck was stacked against them in court.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course it would. Didn't you know that God answers to the Queen?
Re:Unjust laws (Score:5, Informative)
However, the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times.
Re: (Score:3)
By letting his good name remain sullied, they are somehow making sure they don't make unjust laws in the future?
I say the opposite. By leaving that as a crime on his record, they are saying that they could return to having that as a crime at any time. They have not legally acknowledged the wrongness, despite their public apology.
Grant a blanket pardon to everyone they convicted of this 'crime' that was not a crime and they WILL send the message that justice is their goal.
Re:Unjust laws (Score:5, Informative)
The right thing to do is to pardon anyone and everyone who is convicted of a victimless crime.
I'll be testifying on a bill [nhliberty.org] on Thursday that would allow this as a defense in a trial.
If you care about this kind of stuff, c'mon over to New Hampshire [freestateproject.org] where we're actually making some progress. A thousand activists have moved so far (to join those of us already here) and 19,000 more are waiting for the mass move.
Re: (Score:3)
How is it in any way inconsistent?
It has nothing to do with the integrity of the law, as they say in their statement "which now seems both cruel and absurd" and everything to do with acting in line with established procedure for dealing with posthumous pardons where the person(s) in question were fairly convicted under the laws of the time.
If you were to attempt to restrospectively pardon every person who was convicted under a law that has since been repealed or replaced, you would be doing it as a full tim
Re:WAAAT (Score:5, Interesting)
For more than a few people, most likely. Britain alone has a reasonably complete record of courts, laws and trials going back some thousand years or so, and for huge swathes of that crimes which we would now consider absurd were regularly prosecuted. Witchcraft, homosexuality, minor debts, "treasonous" activities that basically amount to free speech issues: just a small partial list of activities that could have gotten a person imprisoned or even executed at various time in British history... just the cases that are on record probably number in the hundreds of thousands.
Re: (Score:3)
Still, it seems reasonable for the government to acknowledge the law was unreasonable, and that it was their mistake, not his.
Which is exactly what this statement does. What more do you want ? A law ? For a single person ? De minimis non curat lex [wikipedia.org]