Slashdot Mirror
Alan Turing Gets an Apology From Prime Minister Brown
99luftballon writes "The British government has officially apologized for the treatment of Alan Turing in the post war era. An online petition got more than enough signatures to force an official statement and Prime Minister Gordon Brown has issued a lengthy apology. 'Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. 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.'"
If only Alan was alive today...
It's nice to see a politician who can actually pass the Turing test.
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
Don't get me wrong, I feel the statement is fine and all that, just strikes me as weird to put those two concepts together.
Bullshit. The British Government happily ignores these online petitions whenever it doesn't suit them to agree. It's simply a matter of them saying something like "We expect the results of an investigation into this matter. We will make a decision in due course. Thanks for playing." They normally rephrase that last part though.
I'd say since about 24 hours ago or however long it was. Seems to have worked.
Why bother
Humility is an honourable trait.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Despite the awful treatment he was exposed to at the time, it is comforting to see him finally recogonized for what he really was.
This was long overdue, to be sure, but even now it means so much to so many people. I believe we all owe Turing, whether we know it or not.
Any time a government admits, "Ok, we screwed up," it's a big deal, and it's usually a sign of change for the better.
I suppose we should be pleased that Brown has issued this apology, just a shame he's part of a government that knew about torture of terrorism suspects under interrogation. I don't think chemical castration is any worse, and it was even legal at the time. How times have changed eh? Now the government only does awful things to you without evidence and when you've not even had a trial.
To stop this turning into a rant though, I salute you Alan Turing for bringing philosophy into Computer Science through all your pioneering AI work. You deserved far better.
"...thanks to a coalition of computer scientists, historians and LGBT activists, we have this year a chance to mark and celebrate another contribution to Britainâ(TM)s fight against the darkness of dictatorship; that of code-breaker Alan Turing."
Read: We got ganged up on and were forced to issue an apology for treating Alan Turing like shit.
I'm glad the apology was (finally) issued, but was it just me, or did it seem like it was given somewhat grudgingly?
It's a shame they didn't at least pay passing tribute to Turing's full accomplishments. Cracking Enigma and "quite brilliant mathemetician" don't do the man justice. I like Wikipedia's "often considered to be the father of modern computer science" as a starting point.
What they did to a human, let alone him... no, a simple apology just won't do.
I believe you mean "a puff".
Nothing more than a computer-theory-inventing-second-world-war-winning-hero puff.
NO SIG
"Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly."
It is not too late. Homosexuals still exist, even homosexuals that were alive back then.
Stop me if someone else has already addressed this point-but why not re-animate him as a zombie? Gay Zombie Turing would be amazed at the amount of rights homosexuals have today, although I assume he'd be more appalled at what passes for sophistication these days.
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Whoopdie Shit. Nothing quite beats apologizing for leading someone to suicide because they didn't love what your government decreed everyone should love...long after their death. Maybe next time the government will, I dunno, apologize in their lifetime! Better still, how about not doing something grossly inhumane to someone? Hell, Turing did good things for these assholes and all he got was shame and suffering from them. Any "deeply sorry" just comes off as "Well I guess I better do this before someone throws a rock through my window" in my eyes.
Its been a little longer than 24 hours.... I know that there have been hundreds of petitions over at least 30 years... I've signed a fair amount of them over the years.
Though those are the old fashioned in-the-rain gathering signatures on paper type....
Bah, this is just Labour trying to score a couple of brownie points since they're about to get trounced in the election next year.
Some PR drone probably stumbled across the petition and thought "Ok, this sounds like a good idea and it won't hurt the government's image, we might as well do it".
Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
about time! The man was a genius.
You mean just like all of the apologies and reparations for slavery in the US?
It's not even just that there are people alive today who were persecuted in years past -- 93 state governments still persecute homosexuals, 7 by the death penalty.
On many nights when I was studying Computer Science at Manchester University, I sat next to Turing's statue outside the college after going out in the village. The apology is "nice", but really means nothing at all..
Though at least our government made it. Finally.
True, but this is for Alan Turing personally. This statement should not be diluted to be more generally applicable. Let this one be for him alone, since he was the victim in this particular instance. Rather, if another public statement is required, then work toward that.
I believe you mean a "poof" not a "puff"
There's an excellent short story Oracle by Greg Egan imagining what would have happened if Turing's life had gone slightly differently. Egan portrays a very interesting world with heavy emphasis on how Turing might have interacted with C.S. Lewis. See http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/MISC/ORACLE/Oracle.html.
Nonsense. It's a symbol. Just like the apologies for slavery in the US, as brought up by another poster. The government of the UK is saying "the things we did to homosexuals were wrong."
Since when is an online petition worth more than a squirt of piss?
I'm pretty sure aiming a quart of piss at PM Brown wouldn't have gotten the same response.
Pretty sure, anyway. Ya never know with those Brits...
It makes nothing to the great dead man who suffered this injustice, but the acceptance, by the government, that it was a wrongdoing, turns it more difficult to happen again. And this is far from nothing.
"We can't put the clock back" sounds awfully inappropriate in an apology for chemically castrating someone.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
I read Spycatcher a long while ago. Wright seemed like a guy who made many solid technical contributions to the geekdom of spy craft. Clearly, later in life he had some axes to grind. One of which is the terrible way the Official Skinflint Act was used to deny benefits to long serving members of the secret service. Like what they say about Area 51: the only secret there is the massive waste of taxpayer dollars.
Peter Wright - Wikipedia
Because of the interest and because of the rancour following the pension, in 1985, he decided to publish his memoirs in Australia in order to make ends meet. The British government did all it could to suppress publication, under the pretext that such a publication would be in violation of the Official Secrets Act. They brought an injunction against Wright in Sydney. The Australian court, however, ruled against the British government, thus turning a book that might have had moderate success into an international best seller. Furthermore, the verdict not only vindicated Wright but also represented a victory for press freedom. The publication of Spycatcher temporarily unlocked the doors of official secrecy as far as former intelligence officers were concerned. With the enactment of the 1989 Official Secrets Bill, an absolute prohibition on revelations by serving or former intelligence officers was imposed.
The British governing class always seemed to care a lot more about that stiff upper lip thing, than rewarding those who toil in mandatory obscurity.
The other aspect that boggles the mind is the "gays are communist pinkos" circularity. If you castrate your war heroes, I think you might just be priming the pump for defection. It's not gays as such who are unreliable, but anyone who fears arbitrary persecution by their own government.
Another thing I've sometimes wondered: notwithstanding the official secrets act, where was Churchill when Turing could have used a solid character witness, such as "the official secrets act prohibits me from discussing the details, but in my opinion, if you do this, you'll shame the British empire for 100 years" or some distinctly British harrumph to that effect.
The real shame here is the amount of power held by the people who knew better.
Exactly like those, in fact. Meaningless, useless, and arguably immoral.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Yes.
Genuine progress and enlightenment does not require a political mandate.
Randroids don't pass the Turing test.
Apologizing or not- neither one helps Alan Turing now.
But this sets a precedent. By apologizing for this behavior in the past it cements it as being definitely not OK and that can help others.
Feel free to add more. 1. We are happy when anyone gets laid 2. The heterosexual geeks aren't threatened. I mean if we can't get girls to find us attractive no gay guy would. 3. Decreases denominator in available (girl/guy) ratio.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
As others have, I think, pointed out, the dead cannot hear apologies; but we, the living, can. The government's apology is a signal for today and the future.
You are completely right. Well, almost completely right. The only worse thing would be letting history roll on without even so much as an empty, belated, politically opportune token such as this apology. When an injury is done to someone that is beyond repair or restitution like this, even moving mountains won't fix things. But silence becomes an accomplice to the original act, and at least speaking out serves to break it.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
It only accomplishes nothing else if you dismiss it out of hand.
If it gives people pause to realise that they owe their way of life (and probably their actual life) to the actions of someone so persecuted it may give them pause to consider their own attitudes towards others today.
Societal attitudes rarely change greatly due to any one thing but through the slow action of good people pointing out injustice and trying to ensure it doesn't happen again.
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
You got your apology to a dead man from a man who did not wrong him. I hope you (the petitioners) feel better, because it certainly accomplishes nothing else.
It's hard to believe you're serious, but just in case... When a government acknowledges that something it did was wrong, it reinforces the notion that governments are supposed to do right. When there's a perception that it does so at the request or insistence of the governed population, it reinforces the notion that governments should or must be responsive to the governed population. Anyone who thinks that "merely" symbolic actions don't accomplish anything doesn't understand how important symbols are. If you really thing nothing was accomplished, I recommend a rigorous course of study in social and political theory, preferably in some place where the government can do no wrong, say, Saudi Arabia or North Korea.
But I rather think you understand all of the above all too well, and would like to minimize what has happened because you're perfectly OK with what happened to Turing in the first place.
Indeed. Magna Carta, Constitution for the United States of America. Worthless bollocks the lot of em!
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
+1 to parent. The point is that the man apologising represents the government of the nation, which is in a sense continuous. Apologies to dead men aside, as the parent notes it's the precedent that it sets which is relevant.
Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
Oscar Wilde
There's an interesting point - is there anyone still alive today who was prosecuted under the laws? Could they get any compensation, or will they only get just words too?
Still, Brown's tolerance for LGBT people and their sexuality probably doesn't extend as far as the Spanner case, where gay sadomasochists were imprisoned for consensual S&M. When the Labour Government passed the recent law on "extreme" consensual adult images, they cited the Spanner case as justification for the new law. I'm bisexual, and masochist - but despite the welcome improvements to gay rights on the one hand, overall I can't say Labour have made me feel better regarding my sexuality over the last twelve years.
On the one hand, they propose laws banning hate speech that could cover accusing gay people of being child abusers; but on the other, they themselves compare "extreme" adult images to child porn, and sadomasochism to pedophilia.
True, but this is for Alan Turing personally. This statement should not be diluted to be more generally applicable. Let this one be for him alone, since he was the victim in this particular instance. Rather, if another public statement is required, then work toward that.
This misunderstands the purpose of such things. They're never for the person they're "for". Heck, even funerals are for the sake of the living, not the dead.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Nice gesture. Now they should give him the honour he deserved while he was alive. Considering his contributions to the war effort and Computer Science, he should be knighted.
No. Laws that are unjust should be disobeyed.
You're missing the point. Brown is not apologizing for Britain having behaved *illegally*, or for having prosecuted Turing. The law was applied as written at the time (I'm assuming; I haven't checked). He's apologizing for Britain's treatment of Turing, period. The law was unjust, and the results horrific. Britain is recognizing this and doing the only thing it can at this point: express its regret.
What kind of guy says that Turing is most famous for breaking Enigma codes.
Someone knowledgeable.
Turing is famous for his contribution to AI and most importantly the Turing test and the Turing award (Computer Science's Nobel prize equivalent)...
As these are all things the average person has never even heard of, calling someone "famous" for them is invoking a limited definition of "famous", ala "famous amongst [some group]".
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Just to add a bit of perspective on this, from Brown's statement:
But even more than that, Alan deserves recognition for his contribution to humankind. For those of us born after 1945, into a Europe which is united, democratic and at peace, it is hard to imagine that our continent was once the theatre of mankind's darkest hour. It is difficult to believe that in living memory, people could become so consumed by hate - by anti-Semitism, by homophobia, by xenophobia and other murderous prejudices - that the gas chambers and crematoria became a piece of the European landscape as surely as the galleries and universities and concert halls which had marked out the European civilisation for hundreds of years. 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.
Considering that? I'm sorry, but his contributions to AI are utter trivia compared to his other contributions to humanity. Brown put the emphasis in the right place. Not that being the father of modern computer science is nothing, but it speaks a lot to how much we owe Turing that it is practically nothing compared to his other accomplishments.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
so his punishment was fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
You don't actually say anything that can be parsed as an argument, so it isn't clear what your point is other than the completely batshit insane statement I've quoted. However, assuming you have an argument, I think it would look something like:
1) What the law says is always 100% perfectly fair and reasonable
2) Everyone ought to be equal under the law
3) Alan Turing was the same as everyone
-----
Ergo, Alan Turing's treatment under the law was 100% perfectly fair and reasonable.
The reason why this conclusion is batshit insane is that your first premise is anti-empirical gibberish. What the law says is only moderately fair and reasonable most of the time, even in the most aggressively democratic countries, and it is completely unfair and unreasonable much of the time even then.
Moral judgement is higher than the law when it comes to, well, judging human action, and we can clearly see today that the law under which Turing was persecuted (yes, persecuted) was neither fair nor reasonable. It was vicious, stupid, pointless, hateful and small-minded.
Whether or not a formal apology from a politician today is warranted, the fact remains that the law was wrong by any sane standard, and the people brutalized by it might perhaps be forgiven for thinking they are owed a little bit of apology today.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
I was going to moderate, but decided to respond to this instead.
An apology never "changes" anything. Harm done is not undone by saying "I am sorry". But an apology is an admission that "I" if I'm the one who did the wrong, or "We" if it is an entity that still exists (such as a company, country etc) recognise the action committed by people like us is wrong and shameful.
An apology is always humbling, and one is humbled they end to listen better.
We recently had an, admittedly symbolic, apology to the "Stolen Generation" (http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2162035.htm) A lot of people in the previous Government scoffed at it as symbolic and will not change the plight of the indigenous peoples, but they completely missed the point. The point to the Indigenous Peoples is a "recognition of wrongs done".
The apology itself was didn't wind back time or give, now adults, the time they lost with their parents!
I was not born (I was not even a twinkle in my parents' eyes!) when these "legal" actions were taken, but I felt proud that we acknowledge wrong done to others by my country.
A previous post mentioned: Justice delayed is justice denied. This, imho, is BS. Justice should always be sought and welcomed when it is offered.
You got your apology to a dead man from a man who did not wrong him. I hope you (the petitioners) feel better, because it certainly accomplishes nothing else.
What it accomplishes is setting a new tone.. that the Government (or at least its current leader) has reflected on this subject and identified that the past actions were heinous in nature, that an apology is warranted. Offering the apology will set the precedent that G.B.'s leadership will not condone this treatment and will expect its agents to never commit the same action lest it make the leadership look hypocritical.
This reminds me of a trip I took to Venice, Italy. I was walking around and found myself in the 'Jewish Ghetto' and permanent plaque was put up by the people of Italy apologizing for the way the Jewish people were treated. This plaque helps both the parties involved to not forget history and be doomed to repeat it.
open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
I'm glad to see an apology for Turing's treatment being set straight. Alan Turing definitely didn't deserve the bad treatment that was inflicted upon him for his sexual orientation. He certainly deserves this apology.
One historical note is that several models of computers (or actual computers) preceded the more formal computer science, but naturally, the theoretical work of Turing (and related early CS pioneers such as Alonzo Church), and their rigour should also be highly regarded.
We have two eyes and ten fingers so we will type five times as much as we read. http://www.shlomifish.org/
Incest is a cultural and possibly biological bad thing... I suppose I could agree that they shouldn't be involved in that either. I do not think it would be common and the abusive stuff would still be a crime (one could classify it as abuse and get it MOSTLY illegal without messing the right to choose a partner.)
Multiple spouses? I suppose those happen already, just not in the legal system... Legally, its 1 at a time but that doesn't seem to change a whole lot. Again, normal people don't do it without cultural support for it. Women with rights probably are extremely unlikely to agree to other wives. For the most part, I think today we have about the same stats regardless of the legal system.
Age? Well its rather silly to put numbers on it. Every now and then I hear about some poor child (18 or 19) fooling around with a 16-17 year old and getting labeled a sex offender. Where has the purpose for judges gone??? (they are there to inject some "common sense" not brainless apply law by guidelines.)
Government needs more restriction on its power to enforce the belief systems of the majority onto minorities. This INCLUDES marriage! A standard contractual agreement is all that is required to give the benefits of legal marriage-- without any restrictions--- relatives, room mates, etc. should be possible. If you want marriage go to a private entity for it. It is a bad idea to mislabel civil unions "Marriage" and dilute the language.
---
Me, I find the behavior of the UK continually ironic. I think they should give Turning more than just a formal apology. He should be held up as an example of how flawed humans can be so that future generations have more examples to hopefully learn from. Given the size of his contribution, he should get a holiday.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
You crazy Yanks and your bizarre 'English' language. The correct UK spelling is B-U-D-W-E-I-S-E-R. And it comes in pints, not quarts.
~Idarubicin
Wish I had mod points. I think this comment pretty much sums up what I think is the heart of this matter. Obviously nothing can ever be done that will make up for what was done to Alan Turing, since he is dead. While it might seem that the government could have done more than merely apologize, I think it would have been a hollow gesture, since Turing has already been profoundly honored over the years by countless individuals and organizations. I believe that the government did the one thing that ONLY the government could do in his instance: issue a formal apology for actions that were taken by the government. I only wish that Brown could have at least attempted to demonstrate some humility when he gave the statement. "I am pleased to have the chance"? Somehow I think he could have found a better way to phrase that.
What was actually said:
Hey it seems that this Turing gay, uh, guy, made it possible to do all the snooping on our citizens. We are now able to store AND process all this data about everybody as Orwell intended it to be.
Thanks Turing. You were not that bad after all.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
I cannot really understand the cynicism in almost all the comments to this post. Despite the fact that Alan Turing deserved and still deserves a lot more than he got, I find this symbolic step still a positive one, not something to bash repeatedly in 90+% of all the comments. It was an online petition for an apology and it worked.
I actually see something special here: The petition was "online" - using a network of computers, all of which are essentially Turing machines. So in some sense, his legacy played a major role in bringing Slashdot-minded people together, in their creation of an online petition and thus the issuing of an apology - symbolic perhaps, but still deeply meaningful.
Constitutional documents are indeed powerful symbols used to unify groups of people and control their behaviour. To my mind, such symbols are used to acquire power and influence, not create respect for one's fellow man.
If you are suggesting that apologies and reparations to dead people are motivated by a desire to acquire or retain power and influence, then I can whole-heartedly agree.
I want to avoid casting governance and politics in an excessively negative light (they seem quite necessary for social stability), but I do believe such concepts are separate and distinct from ethics, which is the word I ought to have used in my first post in place of "Genuine progress and enlightenment".
I believe (and this is how I interpreted bigstrat2003's original post) that the reparations and apologies to the dead accomplish nothing of *ethical* importance. They quite obviously accomplish things of *political* importance.
The most eloquent comment on this site I have seen for a long time.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
Seriously, first the catholics come out and agrees the earth is round. Now the English come out and admit they were wrong about mistreating a man over his sexual preference.
This is a trend that I don't like! The day I see white hatted, "god fearing" Alabamans who spend most of their days sitting on their porch drinking cheap beer voting in favor of gun control and marrying into other races I'm going to just shoot myself because then we'll know the earth is coming to an end.
This world is just getting to crazy. If you can't depend on the stupidity of humanity, what can you possibly depend on?
Bah, this is just Labour trying to score a couple of brownie points since they're about to get trounced in the election next year. Some PR drone probably stumbled across the petition and thought "Ok, this sounds like a good idea and it won't hurt the government's image, we might as well do it".
Doing something because it's a good idea and the public approve. So it's like democracy then?
Let me ask, is there ever a time when you wouldn't think what you've put?
If this were really happening, what would you think?
This might be a first step, but the British government fucked over whole groups (and races) of people that deserve an apology at least as much as the venerated Mr. Turing.
LK
Yes, like homosexuals, like he did in the apology in TFA that you probably haven't read.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
Apparently the movement in Britain to legitimate homosexuality began as a rebellion against the infusion of Judeo-Christian ideals in society and the onerous ethical requirements of the Victorian era. That said, I argue that it is no accident that during the era it was said that the sun never sets on the British Empire, while these days other powers are in ascendancy.
Indeed. In an era when Britain would forcefully deny the rights of other nations and dominate them militarily all around the world, it also denied human sexuality and imposed an equally immoral view of "ethical requirements" on people regardless of how they felt about it. In the era when Britain stopped being so thoroughly evil to the core, it ceased both to impose empire on others and to enforce the most abhorrent of Judeo-Christian ideals upon its own citizens. Both the lack of an empire and the lack of Victorian standards are signs of an increasingly moral and ethical British society. I too agree that this is no accident, both are signs of increasing enlightenment among the British (and the world at large).
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Now its been recognized that hackers were witch-hunted, persecuted and even worse, maybe we can ask our governments to stop doing so (Reverse engineering lawsuits, DMCA, software patents, ...) and recognize the value of our work?
When it's good PR and doesn't cost the politicians any time, effort or deviation from their current plans.
Obama should do the same for Robert Oppenheimer
Does budweiser come in pints?
I thought it was just margarita glasses with a cocktail umbrella? Maybe bottles too.
In the UK there is an official government petition site where you can sign petitions based on your name and UK address.
When the petition reaches 500 signatures, it is passed to the government for a response.
So in fact they did act because of the petition, because had the petition not existed and reached a decent number of signatures (it hit over 30,000) this would not have happened.
It's not one of those pointless petitions from those petition farm sites you're probably thinking of because it has a direct link to government and commands a direct response from government.
Gosh, Ayn Rand was awful!
I am cynical as to the government's motives in issuing the apology (timing, it's cheap to do etc)
However
as of today, as a result of the apology, there are two outcomes I am delighted with, firstly, Turing's family have seen his name cleared, and secondly, an enormous number more Britons since yesterday are aware of the great man who we were fortunate to have, and a few bigots will have had their prejudices challenged by their possible recognition of their need for gratitude to a gay man.
It would be good for Tommy Flowers name to get its recognition too though, the apology we should make to him is 'sorry we made you scrap Colossus and pretend you never built it'.
As a gay programmer myself, it often amazed the people I worked with that the two parts of my personality weren't in conflict. I very seldom ran into predjudice, though. In fact, often I was recognized as a good teacher and the other employees felt free to come and ask my help when they had a tough coding problem.
Alan Turing has been an idol of mine for a long time, and he was treated badly, yes. But more important than the apology is the recognition that there have been contributions of significance to the world by gay men and women and transgendered persons. Our history has been actively suppressed for centuries, but we are finally being recognized as having value in the modern age.
God bless Alan Turing, and Gordon Brown. Every little bit of kindness and generosity makes the world a better place for all of mankind.
Nitewing '98
Everything works...in theory.
Except the response to most of the petitions on that site is "What do you think this is? A democracy?" or a generic statement about something unrelated.
You speak for everyone apologized to, do you?
Ah, but getting Gordon Brown to actually admit to a mistake, even if it wasn't his own, is an achievement in itself.
Being a Jew and owning a business was made illegal in Germany in the '30s. I guess there's nothing to apologise for there, either.
Here have some fish to go with that chip on your shoulder.
"sadomasochism to pedophilia [sic]"? That PDF says nothing of the sort.
No one cares about your "orientation". They only think about it because you preach it day in, day out.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
It's good that the establishment have repudiated their former behaviour, but it was a mistake to campaign to demand one - that implied that the ruling class's had a right to dictate people's personal behaviour, but that that right had merely been misused in Turing's case. Also, Gordo refers approvingly to the fight against fascism. What a pity that this anti-fascist fervour on his part wasn't in evidence when he voted in favour of the invasion of Iraq, a decision that led to mass civilian deaths, imprisonment without trial and torture on a scale that any fascist would have been proud of.
It's never good enough for you. If it was my choice I would have never apologized because the man died 50+ years ago and because I a democratically elected government cannot be held responsible for what predecessors 15 administrations ago unless there is action that can be taken to correct it. If you cannot even apologize to their face because they are dead, then move on. Maybe you should dig up some old skeletons and demand they reconcile their differences. It would make as much sense and be as much use.
As for clearing his name, doing so publicly seems rather forced. A discreet apology where you have nothing to gain personally has far more sincerity behind it, and it is actually so easy to do. Standing up and making declarations because the mob forced him to do it doesn't endear me to Brown. Those who take direction from the mob can even be dangerous, US president Jackson's genocidal legacy comes to mind of when it can go all wrong.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Exactly, and there are few cases that merit this kind of apology more than A. Turing. This guy was a great scientist, and has helped tremendously defeating the Axe during WWII, so UK should really be grateful. Typically the kind of guy that bring more that it takes from society....Yet he was judged under a disgusting law (one that condamned people for private action where all participants where willing and free), one law that lowered UK exactly to the same level as the Axe itself. State ingratitude and hypocrite morality at it's finest...
Imho apology is more than deserved, comes much too late (but better late than never), and is much too lenient as a mea culpa (but again, better too little than nothing...especially from governments, as they are notably reluctant to make any apologies... )
Amen. Such a contrast, eh?
As someone else's sig says around here, never forget.
[Slashdot Comments We Liked]
A woolly woofter
Jay Wiseman (author of SM101) said it best:
"Being into S&M is like being gay 25 years ago"
More true now than ever.
In other news, the Prime Minister also apologised for the burning of Joan of Arc and Bishops Ridley and Latimer.
"Apologising" for things other people did is a great way to look good without any risk of admitting your own faults and mistakes. Indeed, it can be a subtle way of rebuking those people for their shortcomings, with the implication that you yourself are free from them.
By apologising for the witch-hunt Turing was subjected to, Brown manages to give the impression that he is unprejudiced, not a bigot, modern, and humble enough to admit past mistakes. To quote the brilliantly-worded title of Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson's book, "Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)". http://tinyurl.com/mlmjt6
Why do I have the feeling that plenty of people in Brown's 21st century Britain are being persecuted - right now - for beliefs and characteristics that our leaders find just as frightening and alien as earlier British politicians found Turing's homosexuality (and intelligence)?
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
To be honest I really doubt Mr Brown engaged in any reflection at all other than to think, "Is this something I can do which will make me look good, generate some positive PR and make it look like I'm 'in control' and 'doing good'"
There are dozens of petitions on that site which Mr Brown has taken no notice of whatsoever, not least the one asking him to resign for the good of the country, and the continuing actions of his government demonstrate there is actually a gaping moral hole at the centre of his party and his government.
No one cares about your "orientation".
Actually, they do. GPs "orientation" (and mine too) is grounds for dismissal or denial of jobs such as teaching (because we will obviously be a threat to the children) and we are the target of one of the most fucked up laws ever to be passed (Im not affected yet, Kenny McAskill has still to get his trainwreck me-too law passed up in Scotland). 3 years in jail and life on the sex offender register for possessing a photo of an act which is perfectly legal to do. This is not a "chip on your shoulder".
Google for "Consenting Adult Action Network" and they have the details. Oh, its mildly NSFW (in case you didnt guess already :) )
Ah hah ha hah ! The current largest petition on that site with over 70,000 signatories is one asking for Gordon Brown to resign. Despite having over twice as many signatures as the Alan Turing one there is still no response at all from the government, not even a statement explaining why Mr Brown believes he shouldn't resign.
I know, but I don't see what your point is exactly? The government does not have to respond at the 500 mark, they do sometimes, sometimes a little later as in this case, or sometimes when the position ends.
If they do not respond they may face public criticism from the opposition for not responding causing them further political harm.
The government still has time to respond to that specific petition, and again, if they don't they will face the consequences so it's pointless having any concern over the response of that petition right now.
Besides, personally I'd rather he didn't resign anyway - he'll get replaced with a weasel like Mandelson or Milliband, both of which are more evil and more dangerous. Brown staying in power is our country's best hope of thankfully saying goodbye to Labour for a long long time next election.
Hello troll! You alone show that this kind of bigoted attitude is alive and well today. You're the kind who ridicule bisexual and gay people for "preaching", when all we want there too is to be left alone in peace.
No I don't preach it daily, anymore than you preach your sexuality daily, or anything you complain about here on Slashdot. I do however have the right to contribute to a discussion on a public forum. If you have a problem with that, go somewhere else where opinions aren't welcome.
No one cares about your "orientation".
Did you even read my post (not sure why you put the scare quotes - and I didn't even say "orientation", so please go back and read it)? I only wish they didn't care. When they stop criminalising it, then you can get back to me.
They most certainly do care - why not go whine about them instead?
That PDF says nothing of the sort.
It's not direct, but it does specifically list sadomasochism and pedophilia as things that should be excluded. Anyhow, that's not the main issue, and was more an example - there's plenty more issues, as I listed in my post.
Here have some fish to go with that chip on your shoulder.
Get back to me when you actually can construct an argument. What are you, 12?
You're setting up a false dichotomy between silence and issuing an apology. You can apologise for something you did, directly or via delegation, but an expression of disagreement with something your predecessor's predecessor's ... predecessor did shouldn't be termed an apology. By saying that he apologises, Brown is pretending that he was to blame, which is a pointless fiction.
It's worth noting that the Brits obviously drink it anyway. Funny thing that, but I guess if you can stomach British cuisine then Budweiser isn't so bad.
I am officially gone from
That's how it's served at the bar. However, the receptacle it's collected in prior to bottling holds a pint of liquid, and can usually be found on the end of a catheter.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
And I'm so fucking sorry for the way we treated the Neanderthals. There's a symbol of reconciliation for you.
As many people have said before me; a rather helpless statement made by a politico who's certain to be out when the next election comes. Yet reading this reduced me to a slobbering blob of pudding in front of my monitor when I read it.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
There's a Turing machine for that.
If I were on a desert island, and had one nutritious mod point left to eat, I would give it to to you sir.
Reply to That ||
Gosh, Ayn Rand was awful!
I have thrown one book into the garbage, in my 35 years of life, and it was Atlas Shrugged. Normally I would have given the book to a thrift shop or a friend, or placed at my front curb for a passerby, but something in me knew that copy had to just disappear, vanish, never to be seen again. I didn't want to be the one responsible for passing that poison on to someone else. Didn't even make it past 45% of the story.
Any post-Anthem Rand, is pretty much trash worthy.
Reply to That ||
It isn't closed yet. And anyway that probably hasn't been responded to because there is a much larger petition it will be superceeded by.
If this were really happening, what would you think?
Meanwhile, somewhere off the coast of England, a colossal killbot picks up the news headline from a radio transmission and pauses to reconsider its mission of vengeance.
At least Budweiser is served COLD.
Is that true? Do they really drink imported American beer in the UK? I would think they drink something that is brewed there and *called* Budweiser. (Most Kirin beer in the US is actually brewed in Canada, you have to hunt for the Japanese stuff.)
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
physical death closes the window for justice. If there's something beyond, then, I'm not sure..
It is unwise to ascribe motive
I know - 0.001% of the world does, and hurray for them.
For the rest of us; he's gone, for a loooooong time. Now move along.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Many to go. Whereas Turing's contributions are laudable, they do not justify him being singled out. Many of other innocent, nameless people suffered under the same law. What about them?
Indeed. In an era when Britain would forcefully deny the rights of other nations and dominate them militarily all around the world, it also denied human sexuality and imposed an equally immoral view of "ethical requirements" on people regardless of how they felt about it.
Said era was the apex of human civilization. Indians and Chinese of sufficient family background and educational level acknowledge the benefits British colonialism brought to human civilization in excess of the costs. It's only hella dumb, inferior, and physically ugly, low-class monkey-ass ooga-booga people who have a problem with it. (i.e. you) > Both the lack of an empire and the lack of Victorian standards are signs of an increasingly moral and ethical British society. The lack of empire and moral standards are signs of an irrelevant and backwards dadaist society that has no morals or ethics. The UK is nothing but a bunch of God-damned degenerate shits these days. (i.e. you)
I too agree that this is no accident, both are signs of increasing enlightenment among the British (and the world at large).
Enlightenment amongst the world at large? No there isn't. The world is filled with hideous, backwards-caste shits. It is imperative that your type be reduced in number by 90% or more because the brand of retardation you spread is the last thing the world needs more of.
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods
S&M is relevant to straight people too.
The problem is some people have a hard time understanding the concept of "consenting adults".
I really don't care about the queen because she isn't an elected anything. She is just the byproduct of a decadent age.
I do care about elected governments talking on behalf of the state they represent and their people.
I don't mean to troll, but can Gordon Brown please apologize for even more serious crimes against humanity? Such as this one?
Have you? Turing seems to have been a fairly public minded man (Never having met him, it's tough to be sure). It seems reasonable, even quite likely, that Turing would have preferred this to a victory both for himself AND LGBT community. Though he would probably have had no idea what I just said (both LGBT as a demographic and the idea of their being a community of such people being after his time), I thik he probably would have agreed with the sentiment.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
How can a law be "homophobic"? Phobia is an attribute of a person. It may have been restrictive to the legal activities of consenting adults but not does not mean it was homophobic. The law was against buggery specifically and indeed at least from the 1956 Sexual Offences Act buggery between any persons was a felony.
Turings activity that he was arrested for would still have been illegal here in 1994 as the age of consent for homosexual buggery was 21 until then when it was reduced to 18. If he'd buggered a girl a few years later it would have still been illegal. So the offence of government in this specific case was either not allowing any member of the population to take part in buggery or allowing homosexuals an alternative option of hormone treatment?!
I wonder why he chose not to go to prison (2 years was noted in the 1865 Criminal Law Amendment Act, not sure if this was changed in the 1912 Act) - that would seem to be the action you would take if you felt your actions were justified; being in prison is entirely reversible. Instead he apparently chose the alternative hormone treatment. Perhaps he felt himself that his actions were inappropriate? Curious.
You seriously misunderstand that sentence. What it means is: this legislation defines sexual orientation narrowly, as meaning one of straight/gay/bi. It doesn't compare S&M with pedophilia, except to make the wholly accurate statement that neither of them are covered by the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
It is a homophobic law because it was a law that discriminted against homosexuality, even in private.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_turing#Conviction_for_gross_indecency
IANAL (no pun intended), but I don't think it is related to anal sex in particular but "gross indecency" between males:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Law_Amendment_Act_1885#Section_11
Finally, about the word "homophobia". A word's meaning goes beyond its etymology. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia
and she gets $35 mil a year. Turing revolutionizes the way we think and he gets convicted for NOTHING and ultimately dies early. I'd have to say our culture is pretty F'IN INSANE!!!
"all those who live freely thanks to Alan's work"
Huh, that's a very cryptic statement!
-- thinkyhead software and media
As a recent college graduate, I have to say that's about the best description of the humanities departments at my university that I've ever heard. I'm so glad I'm an engineer and don't have to deal with all the fluff and wishful thinking posing as reality anymore.
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
Galileo is not impressed.
3A 4E 22 05 C1 83 0B 7A
It's random, but my posting it here is probably considered illegal to someone.
Etymology is often pushed by those with an axe to grind, "homophobia" or "homophobic" is just a stick like "bigot" that people use as a replacement for an argument. The law was not homophobic unless you redefine homophobia, in which case the law was also cheesecake.
The proper argument the GP should have made was Turing "[...] was convicted under laws that discriminated unjustly based on sexual preference and was treated terribly.".
Any insight into the prison question?
The GP, i.e. myself, was just quoting the exact words of the formal apology. The point I was trying to make is that I think this apology has a great symbolic value for homosexuals.
And I'm not redefining anything, I provided a link to the dictionary entry which shows that "homophobia means discrimination against homosexuals" is a valid statement. Then, saying that a law is homophobic because it discriminates against homosexuals is also valid.
I've heard the worst arguments using etymology (my native language, spanish, has many words with latin roots, which leads to many stupid arguments). For example, I could argue that, since homo means "the same" in Greek, "homophobia" is "the fear to those who are equal". Which of course is nonsense. Also, homophobia is not even a Greek word, as it was coined in modern times.
And I have no insights on why Turing chose chemical castration over prison (or if this was even a choice). One possibility is that he thought prison was worst, even more if he went to prison for being gay.
The other possibility, that he thought he was a deviant himself, is not to be discarded. I know that I had a hard time coming to terms with my own homosexuality. Having strong figures around yourself telling you that homosexuality is a sin or inherently wrong is a force to be reckoned with.
I'm not sure if there is anyone alive who was prosecuted under that law. But the victims of these kind of laws are not only those who were prosecuted, but also those who had to live their lives in secrecy and shame.
I recommend you "A very British sex scandal". There you'll see interviews with people who were alive "back then"
If somebody preaches sexuality, that's heterosexuals. Preachers literally preach marriage and their views on sexuality.
It's about fraking time.
"I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me." --Hunter S. Thompson
Yes, like homosexuals, like he did in the apology in TFA that you probably haven't read.
I was speaking about the Jewish people that they refused to take in from the rest of Europe who ended up incinerated. I was speaking about the Africans that were enslaved while England turned a blind eye in some cases and participated in others.. I was speaking about the Native Americans and the holocaust that they endured in part because of the British hunger for empire.
Though the statement made reference to one of those groups, it falls far short of the apology that they deserve as well.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
...Alan Turing has still living relatives. Last time I checked, 1952 wasn't that long ago and there could still be plenty of victims (and perpetrators) still living in England. And, of course, while Turing is gone, the the government remains.
But you, apparently, can read people's minds.
Yet he was judged under a disgusting law (one that condamned people for private action where all participants where willing and free
Paedophiles could argue the law still DOES do this.. do you believe preventing adults from having sex with children is a "disgusting law" ?
I am the maverick of Slashdot
In this context, "willing" implies that one is both old enough and mentally competent to give informed consent. Most societies say 18 years old is "old enough." Arguments could be made (not necessarily by me) to lower it to ~16 in cases when the older partner is ~20 years old, but only child predators like NAMBLA members want to significantly change the definition of implied consent.
Don't conflate gay rights with pedophile rights. They're not even remotely similar.
But I rather think you understand all of the above all too well, and would like to minimize what has happened because you're perfectly OK with what happened to Turing in the first place.
Bzzzzt. Wrong! In fact, I think that what the government did to Turing was detestable and wrong. And it would have some meaning to apologize, if the apology came from the men/women who wronged him. It's meaningless for someone who did no wrong to apologize for something someone else did. It's even more meaningless when the apology is to someone who is dead, and therefore won't care a bit if the apology is ever rendered. The apology isn't even a valid one. You have to at least have done wrong to apologize for it. If I apologize to a murder victim's family for the murder, it is utterly without meaning. The man who did the murder has to apologize for it. Similarly, the men and women who wronged Turing are the ones who must apologize, not an innocent third party.
Further, even if it was a valid apology, symbols are highly overrated at best. Dr. Manhattan put it well in the Watchmen movie when he remarked that a symbolic doomsday clock had as much value as a picture of air given to a drowning man. Symbols change nothing. They never have, and never will (the idea that is symbolized can be very powerful, and change much... but the idea would have done so with or without the symbol).
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
...with all due respect it is highly unlikely that any other homosexuals contributed more to Britain than Turing did.
Your mistake is in the assumption the laws exist due to logical reasons and that they were made by people aware of the other laws.
Its an emotional illogically based law stemming from pop culture and nothing else. The rest is merely rationalization to make it sound legitimate.
Eugenics was ok in the USA until the push against it which reached its peak during WW2 where the ideas were taken too far (and not based on reason either.) Now you can't have a serious discussion without WW2 extremities killing it.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Reproduction has almost nothing to do with Civil Unions or much to do with sex anymore; especially for gay people! The world is 2/3 over populated, reproduction is now a problem not a need. Religions promote procreation to increase membership and thereby power and influence; therefore, adding to the problem. They politically control the issue which is why its void of logic and reasonable debate is dead.
Many people confuse Marriage with Civil Unions; I find a vast majority confuse those with procreation.
Everybody (even religious nuts) considers a childless marriage a marriage; so therefore, its not a mandatory part of its definition. The secular and legal definitions are even more lax.
Your culture's concept of family is not universal. Some cultures have defined family by cohabitation not by sex and offspring. Some separate sex from coupling; some are not as stuck on THEIR kids but feel the children are the community's responsibility. Elements are in all, but some stress parts differently with profound outcomes.
It is ethnocentric to impose the marriage; specifically the Jewish/Christian concept upon others - EVERY BIT as much as its ethnocentric to discriminate against GAY people. (At least the majority no longer stones gay people.)
"Marriage" (for lack of a non-charged term) is about relationships not solely for the purpose of offspring. You can regulate reproduction without touching marriage.
I agree that logically, if you can regulate incest for genetic reasons you surely can regulate genetic diseases far more likely to cause troubles for the exact same reasons. Its not a slippery slope (which BTW is a fallacy not a trend.) The incest laws are irrational and pre-date the science; its cultural based; any attempt to rationalize them leads to contradictions.
Here is a bigger question:
You need a license to drive a car; why don't you need one for having a child?
Adoption is heavily regulated; why isn't procreation? (sex is not procreation BTW)
I have a fist, yet I can't bash in your face despite having a "natural right" to do so.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
The problem is people unlike the parent poster who do not understand you can never legislate solutions to these conundrums.
The reasons judges and juries exist is to insert some interpretation and sense to the rigid rules. They are flawed people as well but they are nearer the situation than those writing the laws; its a simple logistics problem.
Too many people do not understand that the law IS a strong guideline and is not absolute!
Their politicians then add to the bloat of the system with pointless guidelines, mandatory sentencing, and complex laws trying to control all future situations is a futile attempt that hurts society.
Somebody gaming the system isn't too hard to spot but by the letter of the law they get away with it. For some reasons we don't want juries to know about jury nullification or to recommend punishments outside the prescribed options.
In the USA, common sense largely died off long ago. For example:
We now have to buy insurance just in case some fool hurts himself on our property. Its one thing if you put bear traps in your yard... and another if a stupid kid drowns at your cabin when you are not there.
Some countries have Judge duty. The entry point is there- you can spent money to go deeper into the system but for small claims and stupid claims it works cheaply and educates the people being judges. Yes, bad timing could cost you-- but now you are screwed $$$ either way. Fear of the overly complex system that has turned into a exclusive club terrorizes citizens as much a farmer in a showdown with hired gunfighter.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
What duress? A petition is hardly the point of a gun.0 In this case "do nothing" was a clear alternative but Brown chose to do the right thing even there were no huge consequences for doing otherwise.