Slashdot Mirror
Alan Turing Apology Campaign Grows
chrb writes "Several British news sources have recently reported on the growing campaign that calls for an apology to Alan Turing for his persecution by the British government. The petition to the Prime Minister was started by John Graham-Cumming, who has also written to the Queen requesting a Knighthood for Turing, but admits that a pardon is 'unlikely,' saying, 'The most important thing to me is that people hear about Alan Turing and realize his incredible impact on the modern world, and how terrible the impact of prejudice was on him.'"
Try picking the next 20 people you see on the street and asking them who Alan Turing was. Then ask those same people who George Patton was. Then realize that Turing had about as much to do with winning WWII as Patton did.
I am officially gone from
It's true that it's just a symbolic act at this point. But symbolism does matter sometimes. Such apologies are a reminder of how we can lose our way, particularly in paranoid times. That's a not-unimportant lesson for our post-9/11 era.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
You also have to realize there is a fairly sizable percentage of our population who don't know even the basics about science history or history itself. Look at the Jaywalking segments on Jay Leno (a biased sample of course) and poll the people around you. There are plenty of people who don't know what major historical figures like Eisenhower, Truman, the Roosevelts, or even Lincoln really did. I bet not one person that I work with has even heard of Alan Turing or the ENIGMA machine.
It's not a literal apology to Turing. This wouldn't make sense, he's dead. This is an acknowledgment of wrongdoing. It goes toward making sure it never happens again. This apology is for living people. It's the UK government saying "Don't persecute gays, because they might be awesome and invent computers."
Escape Pod Films: Sketch Comedy and Web Series
How was that prosecution wrong?
No, seriously, this is not a troll. Far from it. Laws, at any point in time, are a reflection of society's values. So we think gay people are okay and should not be prosecuted. Are you truly willing to retroactively put a country through a guilt trip for having had a different opinion, what, almost a hundred years ago?
If so, will you be willing to pay the price should we ever come to the conclusion that paedophiles are just another natural part of human sexuality? Because that, my friend, is the very possible danger you are facing with that opinion.
Seeing as nobody responsible for those laws back then is still in power, how does it make sense to demand an apology of today's government and thus of today's society?
No, if you perceive your ancestors behaviour as wrong, you should honour their victims by making sure it DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN!
Just about every muslim country practiced slavery until 1960. The vast majority to 1970. And between 3 and 5 still practice it today. And everybody considers it laughable to demand an apology. ALL of them still consider any sexual deviance (and tons of quite normal acts) criminal offences, and the large majority applies the death penalty, and regularly execute homosexuals.
It goes further than that. Slavery was imposed on large parts of Africa by "the caliphate", the center of the muslim religion, and it's highest moral authority. Really the apology should come from islam itself, or it's politcal representation, and since the last caliph apostated, not from the caliphate, but from muslim religious institutions. Talk about a laughable suggestion.
Of course these people use violence against anyone who complains to loudly ... and guess what ... all "moral fighters" of the left shut up. They actually defend the people persecuting their compatriots. Being a liberal in Iran or any muslim country is of course not a job with the most huge of life expectancies.
One can only conclude that this is an issue pushed by cowards, and for the sole purpose of acquiring power.
Yeah, the hereditary guilt doesn't really make sense... on a personal level. But isn't there a legal principle of "continuity of the state" for which the (government of) England that harassed and prosecuted Alan Turing is the very same that still exists today?
I don't have a sig.
Turing was gay? Wow, surprised I haven't heard of that yet. Though, now when someone is homophobic, I can ask them if they like using computers and if so, tell them they have a gay man to thank for a lot of the theory behind them as well as the allies winning WWII. That should shut them the hell up.
-SaNo
Or, maybe, we could get over this notion that guilt is hereditary and stop asking people to apologise for things that were done by others often before they were born. If you want someone to apologise to Turing (or, rather, to you about Turing, because he's dead and therefore doesn't care) then why not go after the people who still persecute homosexuals. Better yet, get them to apologise to people who are still alive for things that they've actually done.
You filthy islamophobe !
(note, this is sarcastic, just intended to underscore the hypocrisy of people who demand apologies from those who saw their mistake and fixed it, like for example the English and Americans, and not demand anything from the people, like muslims for example, who still have not seen how despicable their behavior is, and still en-masse attack homosexuals, practice slavery, ... the works. The problem is, just about any religion except Christianity has always, for the whole of their history, practiced slavery, execution of homosexuals (note that christianity is the only religion where homosexuality is not punishable by death in it's law*, whereas both sharia** and hindu law*** prescribe stoning), or ... and that sort of stuff gets in the way of proclaiming how eeeeeeeeeeevil christianity is)
* the punishment for homosexuality in canon law is a mild form of banishment. You don't have to leave the country, but you can't be seen in normal society. Not abiding by the punishment rules, needless to say, does carry heavier punishment (though still not execution).
** yes technically there are differences about how homosexuals should be executed. 50% of muslim scholars (2 schools) believe in stoning, and the other muslims are split 50-50 between throwing homosexuals of tall buildings and letting walls collapse on top of them
*** again there is no uniform agreement on how homosexuals should be executed, and there is little agreement on who should do it. There is no doubt, however that it should be done (versus sharia, where killing homosexuals is a duty of every individual muslim****)
**** only the western concept of law has the idea of the government-violence monopoly, neither sharia, nor hindu law have such a thing. Hindu law, however does prescribe who are "police" and a "normal" hindu should not try, according to his religion, to execute homosexuals, his duty limited to aiding in their capture. By contrast it is a muslim's "sacred duty" to not only capture, but execute any homosexuals they find, everywhere, anywhere, even in foreign countries for example. Muslim states attempt to execute this demand of islam by letting normal people participate in islamic executions. In Iran, you can literally go and participate in the execution of a woman or a homosexual, which occur on regular basis. Or, these provisions of islam are used to justify mob-executions of homosexuals within western states, and are translated in a duty of muslim to protect gay-killers from any western police force.
Why, yes I would.
Yet after millions of years, it didn't. Go figure.
The last theory on it I heard is that homosexuality frees up a lot of time that would otherwise be spent on breeding and caring for their own children. That means they have time to support their tribe/relatives, improving the group's chances of survival. And their genes still get passed on by their straight relatives.
Not all traits have to be always beneficial in all times and places. Sickle cell anemia is a well known example.
Actually, the evidence currently suggests that there is probably some neurological basis towards a predisposition to believe in religion. There is some evidence that tending towards belief in the divine would have benefited early groups of humans, thus creating an evolutionary drive towards belief. Studies of separated twins show that belief or not belief in the pair is not just random, inferring a genetic basis of belief. See for example Why do we believe in God? by Robert Winston, or Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests. There are many other papers in a similar vein.
So, maybe people don't choose to be feel religious after all, in much the same way as people don't choose to feel homosexual.
>whereas both sharia** and hindu law*** prescribe stoning
Would you care to quote any references where "Hindu Law"* prescribes stoning as a penalty for homosexuality?
I am sure you are unaware of explicit depictions of homosexuality in stone sculptures in Hindu temples** in India.
Here is one:
http://www.kamat.com/database/cd-roms/erotic_arts/3670.htm
*There is no such a thing as "Hindu Law". There is no single religious text in Hinduism like the Koran or Bible. There is no religious law book that a majority of the Hindus follow.
**Yes, temples.
I think you mistake organizations for the people who make them up.
Let us say a corporation takes an illegal action. Everyone within it who was responsible for that resigns and is subsequently replaced. That corporation is still on the hook as an organization, even though none of the individuals within it was responsible.
An apology to Alan Turing would be, in effect, an official statement that "We realize we were wrong to persecute someone because he was gay. We have learned that lesson and will not do it again." It's perfectly appropriate for the British government to make that statement, because the British government did the persecuting in the first place. It doesn't matter if its members have changed.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
(note, this is sarcastic, just intended to underscore the hypocrisy of people who demand apologies from those who saw their mistake and fixed it, like for example the English and Americans, and not demand anything from the people, like muslims for example, who still have not seen how despicable their behavior is, and still en-masse attack homosexuals, practice slavery, ... the works. The problem is, just about any religion except Christianity has always, for the whole of their history, practiced slavery, execution of homosexuals (note that christianity is the only religion where homosexuality is not punishable by death in it's law*, whereas both sharia** and hindu law*** prescribe stoning), or ... and that sort of stuff gets in the way of proclaiming how eeeeeeeeeeevil christianity is)
* the punishment for homosexuality in canon law is a mild form of banishment. You don't have to leave the country, but you can't be seen in normal society. Not abiding by the punishment rules, needless to say, does carry heavier punishment (though still not execution).
Dude, do know anything about the history of the christian church? Prostitution, slavery, persecution of all manner of individuals (include torture and murder), purchasing "indulgences" in case you, say, wanted to murder someone, the christian church had it all. There's a small and shrinking minority of christians that still believe this kind of crap. You know what? That's true of the Muslim religion also. Saudi Arabia, as a fundamentalist state, is no worse than Spain and the Spanish Inquisition which wasn't abolished until the early 19th century. Given that the muslim religion is about the same age as the christian religion during the worse of it's persecutions I would say they are on schedule. The muslim religion is shifting to a much less intrusive doctrine and if you compare the timelines at about the same time and rate as the christian religion did.
Ask yourself this: What do you think was the basis for those laws for persecuting (and including castration) people like Turing? It sure as hell wasn't science or for the overall good of society. It was christianity.
Who is John Galt?
That's a lame excuse, Japan would have shitted their pants even if the USA had thrown the bomb on a non populated target, or at least a non civilian target. I don't know what happens with slashdot today, but tagging you insightful is too much.
It's not about legality, it is about morality. As somebody stated on this thread (and was modded flamebait!) an apology from a state, church or organization for something they did in the past is a big symbolic thing. Specially if the wound is still open. This is about what the British government did to homosexuals in the not so far past (there are still people alive from that time, you know), and guess what... what they did was legal, that was the point.
An apology means "we acknowledge that the laws we enforced in the past were wrong, we are aware of that and will try to not repeat that in the present".