U.K. Apologizes to Alan Turing

[Rhysdux]

The Prime Minister has released a statement on the Second World War code-breaker, Alan Turing, recognising the appalling way he was treated for being gay.

Gordon Brown’s statement came in response to a petition posted on the Number 10 website which has received thousands of signatures in recent months.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20571

It sounds impossible that an Internet petition could have such a result, but it's true--and straight from10 Downing Street's website.

[chillas]

I just came here to post this. I'm very pleased to hear this.

[Silas Sparkhammer]

Little and late...but not too little nor too late.

Governments make errors, sometimes horrible ones. People sometimes learn from this. An uncertain kind of progress is thus made, as the climb of the frog from the well in the old arithmetic problem.

Silas

[Tarquin Farquart]

I'm pleased about this. Although it is too late really, it does at least raise awareness of him and the work he did.

[JoeBentley]

This is wonderful news. Alan Turing is a hero of mine. He basically was beyond influential in the development of Computer Science, its not too much hyperbole to say the man damn near won WWII for us, and his concept of a Turning Test is still one of the most interesting and thought provoking thought experiments of all time.

[Richard W]

Yeah, I was very pleased to read this too. And a genuine apology, for once.

I did see a letter in The Guardian saying that it meant nothing unless the names of the people who'd persecuted Turing were revealed, but that seems to me to be not only going too far, but also missing the point, in that it was the law itself that persecuted Turing back then. The letter-writer may as well have just looked up the Prime Minister at the time (Winston Churchill, in fact) and blamed him.

(eta) Also, surely the names are public record anyway, if the letter-writer meant the people who presided over the court hearings. I've not looked it up, but as an objection, this letter was a silly one.

[Jay Tea]

Originally Posted by Richard W

The letter-writer may as well have just looked up the Prime Minister at the time (Winston Churchill, in fact) and blamed him.

Indeed. The apology means little anyway, but that little still has meaning. Naming and blaming in this instance, as with many others, is pointless.

My Old Boy told me all about Turing when I asked too many questions when we watched Blade Runner together all those years ago, long before he told me about WWII and the roles various people played in it, both family and otherwise...

[Victoria J]

As a Turing fan I was pleased to hear this. Anything further to recognise him is good.

In general though I am not a fan of these retrospective apologies and pardons. Unless the action should have been considered wrong at the time (i.e something wrong in the process used etc.) then it's pretty meaningless. I hate the tendancy to try and pretend that attitudes have not changed throughout time (as in historic fiction where we tend to make a lot of people hold our own views - and as is suggested by "cleaning up" the past so we don't talk about the things we find offensive). I'd rather let these cases stand to be compared with our actions now and give hope that further changes will occur as time passes. Additionally it seems unfair that cases that catch the public imagination, such as famous people like Turing, get apologies, and thousands of ordinary people don't.

For me all that really needs saying is something along of the lines of "Today we would recognise this as an injustice. Lets try not to do similar things ourselves".

But as I say I like Turing - and have always felt a kind of tenderness towards him because of the mismatch between the humanity of the Turing Test which would recognise anything capable of behaving like a person as a person, and his having been treqated as less than a person merely because of his sexuality.

Victoria J

[Johnny Slick]

I don't see the problem with these too-late apologies. All the posters who say that they're largely meaningless are correct. Still, if it's meaningless, why not be meaningless in the defense of progress instead of meaningless in defense of the status quo? A government that acknowledges that hounding a guy out of his livelihood because he has the gay is wrong is a government that is less likely to do the same to someone else. They were already unlikely to pull another Turing, sure, but a statement like this confirms it.

And on a larger level, we need to understand the mistakes of the past in order to not make them again in the future. This generation may realize that the wrong thing about arresting Turing for gross indecency is having a law on the books that equates homosexuality with being indecent. Future generations may interpret this differently. Having something like this on the books forces future generations to deal with our interpretation as well.

[Tarquin Farquart]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

And on a larger level, we need to understand the mistakes of the past in order to not make them again in the future. This generation may realize that the wrong thing about arresting Turing for gross indecency is having a law on the books that equates homosexuality with being indecent. Future generations may interpret this differently. Having something like this on the books forces future generations to deal with our interpretation as well.

Couldn't agree more.

[Victoria J]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

I don't see the problem with these too-late apologies. All the posters who say that they're largely meaningless are correct. Still, if it's meaningless, why not be meaningless in the defense of progress instead of meaningless in defense of the status quo? A government that acknowledges that hounding a guy out of his livelihood because he has the gay is wrong is a government that is less likely to do the same to someone else. They were already unlikely to pull another Turing, sure, but a statement like this confirms it.

And on a larger level, we need to understand the mistakes of the past in order to not make them again in the future. This generation may realize that the wrong thing about arresting Turing for gross indecency is having a law on the books that equates homosexuality with being indecent. Future generations may interpret this differently. Having something like this on the books forces future generations to deal with our interpretation as well.

Because the apology doesn't really cover the offence. What message are we really giving to future generations ? That we'll be sorry if we persecute someone who is a genius ?

Turing was mistreated in the same way as many others - but only he gets an apology. Because he's memorable. Because he's special.

We either spend a huge amount of time apologising to everyone who is a victim of no longer current beliefs, or we should apologise to no one. Apologising only to famous people, or those with relatives who still fight generations later, is unfair. And it gives a very misleading view of the past. What happened to Turing wasn't an aberation - it was a particularly sad outcome, but the discrimination he faced was completely unremarkable in society at that time.

Some people were victims of miscarriages of justice - justice as it stood at the time of their trials. They may be due apologies.

Some people were victims of trends in society, and laws on the books at the time, that we now recognise to be wrong. Nothing wrong with acknowledging this - but can we actually acknowledge it correctly. Brown could have said that he was appalled by the story of Turing, which stands as an example of the damage predjudice can do (destroying a man's work, mind and eventually taking his life and costing our country who knows what in the contribution he could have continued to make). I'd agree with that 100%. I think there is a lot worth talking about here. A specific apology though seems beside the point.

Victoria J

[Johnny Slick]

No, it's not enough. We (the editorial we, since I'm not literally a part of the UK apology) ought to at least apologize to all homosexuals who were caught by that law. Perhaps some sort of reparations are in order. But it's better than nothing. It's a whole hell of a lot better than nothing. And perhaps it's a start. These sorts of things are often one and done sorts of things, but it's not inconceivable that this could be the beginning of an acceptance of wrongness done to all gays, not just famous ones.

[Victoria J]

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

No, it's not enough. We (the editorial we, since I'm not literally a part of the UK apology) ought to at least apologize to all homosexuals who were caught by that law. Perhaps some sort of reparations are in order. But it's better than nothing. It's a whole hell of a lot better than nothing. And perhaps it's a start. These sorts of things are often one and done sorts of things, but it's not inconceivable that this could be the beginning of an acceptance of wrongness done to all gays, not just famous ones.

And how much time and money (and time in parliament) do you assign to this when we have a frightening backlog of actual appeal cases where people are currently in prison ?

With infinite time and resources I think I'd go for the apologies for all.

Otherwise I prefer to concentrate on what we're doing now. ETA - I don't mean continue the status quo, I mean that we should concentrate weaknesses in our current justice system.

There's a current move to pardon all people convicted of witchcraft. If you do not believe in actual witchcraft (the prevailing belief in the country I suspect) then these must be incorrect convictions. But how much time would you spend on that, and how would you explain that to someone who claims they are innocent of murder and have probably spent longer in prison than all the inamtes they knew who accepted guilt ?

In that sense I guess I'm just trying to be pragmatic.

Beyond that I'd really like to live in a society where a public dialogue about these issues was possible without it being hung on these media friendly cases. Where people were encouraged to believe in the social change that is a reality, and preferably where politicians took an active part in this instead of seeing some nice easy publicity by giving in to a petition.

This strikes me as a good thing done for bad reasons, and in the least effective way possible.

Victoria J

[erwins]

Originally Posted by Victoria J

Because the apology doesn't really cover the offence. What message are we really giving to future generations ? That we'll be sorry if we persecute someone who is a genius ?

Turing was mistreated in the same way as many others - but only he gets an apology. Because he's memorable. Because he's special.

Personally, I think this bit covers those objections:

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. Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly. Over the years millions more lived in fear of conviction.

Admittedly, only Turing got the true apology, but I'm pleased and impressed by the mention of the thousands more who were also convicted, and the millions who lived in fear of these laws. It also recognizes that we can't go back in time and change what happened, but simply says that from our perspective here and now, we can view these events as tragic and unjust.

erwins

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by Victoria J

And how much time and money (and time in parliament) do you assign to this when we have a frightening backlog of actual appeal cases where people are currently in prison ?

With infinite time and resources I think I'd go for the apologies for all.

Do you really think this took more than a negligible amount of time? Either Parliament is much, much, much more contentious than the US Congress or else I think you're overstating the point.

[Victoria J]

Originally Posted by erwins

Personally, I think this bit covers those objections:

It's a nice apology. I was quite impressed.

As I say in the specific case I'm rather pleased, I just don't think this is the best way to generally deal with the problems of injustices in our history.

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

Do you really think this took more than a negligible amount of time? Either Parliament is much, much, much more contentious than the US Congress or else I think you're overstating the point.

I don't think this even went through parliament. It's just a statement from Brown.

Probably not a lot of time. Though he is the leader of the country, with only the normal amount of time to work in and it's kind of odd that this figured as a priority, when for days he wouldn't make a statement about the release of Megrabi (I'm not someone who has a particular problem of the handling of that - but it serves as an example of some of the more urgent political issues he could have been dealing with). But no - I don't worry about the time taken for this case.

My point was that either everyone or no one should have apologies (or some criteria is needed to decide which are injustices and which are not). Also that there are many many issues where people want past actions questioned (as with the witchcraft example).

You suggested that they could issue apologies in all cases - that does take time and resources. Either you seriously misunderstood my post or it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that one case doesn't take much time.

And we do appear to be struggling with day to day cases.

Average time for a case to go to appeal following a criminal conviction is around 11 months (2007 figures), but the complicated second teir appeals take longer (see this article for example). Our government has so many immigration decisions that are dragging (6 years plus for asylum claims is common) they are known as "legacy" cases, with an aim to clear them all by 2011. The probably won't meet the target. At least some of those people will be refugees from appalling conditions unable to make thier new life because of that delay.

And thinking about that I am starting to feel it to be rather hypocritical to be putting right the injustices of the past as we continue to commit new injustices with such frequency.

Victoria J

[Dactyl]

Originally Posted by Jay Tea

Indeed. The apology means little anyway, but that little still has meaning. Naming and blaming in this instance, as with many others, is pointless.

It may mean little to Turing, but it means a lot to gay men and women all over the country. To isolate the issue of LGB rights, the Labour government has done a lot for us over the past twelve years.

Originally Posted by Victoria J

AIn general though I am not a fan of these retrospective apologies and pardons. Unless the action should have been considered wrong at the time (i.e something wrong in the process used etc.) then it's pretty meaningless.

To repeat me point, it's not meaningless to large number of gay men and women in the UK. Labour may have lost voting base over the past couple of years but one thing they can be very proud of it their attitude towards gay rights. Perhaps I'm being cynical in saying that this is just an opportunity to reiterate that.

I woudl love it to be completely meaningless. That would mean that the issue of homosexuality was entirely behind us, unfortunately that is not the case. While society in general may accept homosexuality as part of the norm, homosexual bullying in schools is still a major issue and problem.

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

I don't see the problem with these too-late apologies. All the posters who say that they're largely meaningless are correct. Still, if it's meaningless, why not be meaningless in the defense of progress instead of meaningless in defense of the status quo?

As mentioned previously in this post, I don't see it as meaningless due to gay bullying in schools issue. Remember, it was as little as ten years ago that the government expressly prohibited the promotion of the homosexual lifestyle in schools.
[/quote]

Originally Posted by Victoria J

Turing was mistreated in the same way as many others - but only he gets an apology. Because he's memorable. Because he's special.

He doesn't only get apology though. The statement apologies to all who were prosecuted. Turing is mentioned specifically due to his notoriety.

We either spend a huge amount of time apologising to everyone who is a victim of no longer current beliefs, or we should apologise to no one.

Originally Posted by Johnny Slick

No, it's not enough. We (the editorial we, since I'm not literally a part of the UK apology) ought to at least apologize to all homosexuals who were caught by that law. Perhaps some sort of reparations are in order. But it's better than nothing. It's a whole hell of a lot better than nothing. And perhaps it's a start. These sorts of things are often one and done sorts of things, but it's not inconceivable that this could be the beginning of an acceptance of wrongness done to all gays, not just famous ones.

[quote=Victoria J;1052313]And how much time and money (and time in parliament) do you assign to this when we have a frightening backlog of actual appeal cases where people are currently in prison ?[/quote[

I expect very little time and money went into this statement.

With infinite time and resources I think I'd go for the apologies for all.

...for whom these issues were still relevant. Can you supply a list of offences which were on the books in the 1940s but not now, for which people are still being physically and mentally assaulted in our education establishments across the nation?

[here's a current move to pardon all people convicted of witchcraft. If you do not believe in actual witchcraft (the prevailing belief in the country I suspect) then these must be incorrect convictions. But how much time would you spend on that, and how would you explain that to someone who claims they are innocent of murder and have probably spent longer in prison than all the inamtes they knew who accepted guilt ?

And how many people are bullied in school for being a witch?

Originally Posted by Victoria J

It's a nice apology. I was quite impressed.

As I say in the specific case I'm rather pleased, I just don't think this is the best way to generally deal with the problems of injustices in our history.

I don't think this even went through parliament. It's just a statement from Brown.

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by Victoria J

As I say in the specific case I'm rather pleased, I just don't think this is the best way to generally deal with the problems of injustices in our history...

So what is the best way to deal with it other than recognising the injustices, and apologising for them? The only alternative is to sweep it under the carpet, or at least refuse to publicly and officially recognise that the injustices happened. Which will not lead to any progress. As Dactyl put it.

Originally Posted by Dactyl

It may mean little to Turing, but it means a lot to gay men and women all over the country. To isolate the issue of LGB rights, the Labour government has done a lot for us over the past twelve years.

We made a good start in the late 1960's when homosexuality was taken off the books as a crime. There was, and still is a lot of work to be done. There have been anti-discrimination laws passed over the years - wasn't there a new one passed a few years back about workplace discrimination on the grounds of sexuality amongst other things?

However legislating bigots against openly expressing their bigotry in certain ways only goes so far. That doesn't really change the thoughts in their heads. Possibly it makes them resentful and even more bigoted, because their hate group of choice is getting "special treatment". As Tom Robinson sarcastically put it:

#The buggers are legal now, what more do they want?#

A message like this from the PM is not a magic wand; it might be a bit lame, but it does send a message that the society the Government is trying to build does not condone homophobia. I doubt it'll change the minds of many homophobes if any, but as part of an attempt to create a shift in attitude it might well do some good. It certainly can't do any harm.

It is slightly akin to the drink driving attitude. I know I've mentioned this before. 30 years or so ago g-you were a hero if you boasted to your mates how you'd driven home steaming drunk without being caught - they might even buy you a drink to celebrate. Today, tell your mates that, and they would at best call you a fool (but in much ruder terms) or ostracise you completely. It took time to convince us (mostly) that shame rather than joy was the correct reaction.

So if there is an overnight cure for homophobia, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise I suspect we've just got to keep chipping away at it.

[Victoria J]

Originally Posted by Dactyl

Labour may have lost voting base over the past couple of years but one thing they can be very proud of it their attitude towards gay rights. Perhaps I'm being cynical in saying that this is just an opportunity to reiterate that.

I'll agree with you on the first. I'm pretty proud at some of the changes - legal and in social attitudes in many ways - that we've made as a country.

Why should we need to have an opportunity to reiterate and talk about this though. This shouldn't require a petition, it shouldn't require a famous face to hang this on, a healthy society should be discussing these things anyway. In that sense there seems something wholly artificial about these apologies.

It's an "apology" from someone who had nothing to do with the events, who represents a country which has changed hugely since that time, and which would recognise so many things from that time as wrong.

Turing died in 1954. We didn't have equal pay for women then (1970), it's pre race relations act (the first version dates from 1965), the law only recognised rape within marriage as a crime (or even really as a possibility) in my lifetime (1991). There's a hell of a lot of apologies owed - and a hell of a lot of issues that still resonate. Let's overturn cases, issue pardons, and issue formal apologies, where there were failures in due process as expected at the time. Then lets all act like grown ups and discuss history and the amazingly (wonderfully) changing society we live in.

Originally Posted by Dactyl

I expect very little time and money went into this statement.


I don't think this even went through parliament. It's just a statement from Brown.

I said this myself.

Originally Posted by Dactyl

...for whom these issues were still relevant. Can you supply a list of offences which were on the books in the 1940s but not now, for which people are still being physically and mentally assaulted in our education establishments across the nation?

I don't know about offenses (though given more time I think I'd bet on being able to find at least one example) but I've already given some examples of legal and governmental failures to protect which still give rise to similar issues now.

Originally Posted by Dactyl

And how many people are bullied in school for being a witch?

I don't know but I bet there are plenty being bullied for their religious beliefs - at least one of the intolerances at the basis for all prosecutions where the accused was actually believed to be a witch (as opposed to being a fraud). I can't think life at school would actually be that comfortable if you had a self-identified witch as a parent (or even a pagan parent who other children might label as such).

But at the end of all that I think you are missing my point - I am absolutely not against the discussion of this issue. I just hate the really artificial way it's being done - and the fact that such discussion needs a special occassion rather than being a normal part of political / civic life. I want more talk, more publicity for the issue.

I feel very strongly about gay rights. I'm a huge fan of Turing*. In a wider sense I get absolutely made that we have this terrible tendancy to sit around feeling sorry for ourselfes because our world is so flawed and "nothing really changes" when everything has changed unimaginably in such a short period. My aunt was thrown out of the Wrens because she's gay - the government wouldn't employ her because of that. Now our government has made sexuality a protected class for employment in all cases. Change is very real.

*I also think Turing should be held up as an example of the stupidity of discrimination and mistreatment at every opportunity. It led to his death, and that led to (at a guess) a huge loss for the country.

Victoria J

[snopes]