Alan Turing, one of the Enigma code breakers has received a Royal Pardon.
Turing was convicted of homosexual activity in the days when such things were illegal. He subsequently committed suicide.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25495315
|
|
The 1950s seems like another world. What a way to treat someone who helped win the war.
|
|
Not a proud moment in our history.
|
There must have been more to it. His behaviour was commonplace and authority routinely turned a blind eye. Someone must have been out to persecute him or make an example for some reason.
A curious converse to the reasons that have now secured him a special pardon. Why hasn't everyone else convicted of unjust laws been pardoned?
|
>> There must have been more to it. His behaviour was commonplace and authority routinely turned
>> a blind eye. Someone must have been out to persecute him or make an example
>> for some reason.
There was intense official paranoia around the secrets of Bletchley Park, the fear mostly that Russia could do to us what we did to the Germans*. Most of the equipment, the Bombes, Colussus and the blueprints were destroyed.
I know someone who's parents worked at Bletchley. Both died within the last 5 years and both steadfastly refused to discuss anything about their work up till their deaths, despite the fact the work at Bletchley had become public domain.
Turing was a difficult man, with several psychiatric conditions. Given the official paranoia Turing became a security risk. He was officially housed to death.
Bletchley, and the work there is a tragic tale of lost future opportunities and world technological leadership, all because of the reds under the beds scares. *Ironic really that the Russians were much better at other aspects of espionage - Ie Blake, Philby and Blunt.
|
>> Turing was a difficult man, with several psychiatric conditions. Given the official paranoia Turing became
>> a security risk. He was officially housed to death.
how the hell did "hounded" become "Housed"? I blame Google.
|
Why hasn't everyone else convicted of unjust laws been pardoned?
I would imagine because he was high profile and did a lot for the country during the war. Many people knew what happened and could garner support for the over turning of his convection. Less well known cases means less support hence others not being pardoned.
|
>> Why hasn't everyone else convicted of unjust laws been pardoned?
>>
>>
>> I would imagine because he was high profile and did a lot for the country
>> during the war. Many people knew what happened and could garner support for the over
>> turning of his convection. Less well known cases means less support hence others not being
>> pardoned.
>>
But he ought not to be pardoned because of his outstanding war work. He ought to be pardoned because he was the victim of an anjust law and an unacceptable moral code.
Why is there not a blanket pardon for everyone? Why a different rule only for the famous?
|
>> But he ought not to be pardoned because of his outstanding war work. He ought
>> to be pardoned because he was the victim of an anjust law and an unacceptable
>> moral code.
>> Why is there not a blanket pardon for everyone? Why a different rule only for
>> the famous?
>>
Probably a bit of both.
Probably sets a precedent that no-one whats to go down the road of. As above.
|
|
It certainly does, unimaginable now thankfully.
|
>> unimaginable now thankfully.
>>
Not at all. Authority regularly makes examples of high-profile technical offenders, and hands out draconian sentences. It's the way we do things in this country.
|
|
I meant being chemically castrated for being gay.
|
>> I meant being chemically castrated for being gay.
>>
I know.
These offenders "volunteered" too, just like Turing:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9139845/Paedophiles-chemically-castrated-in-British-jail.html
It's a debateable ethical point whether it is acceptable to persuade people to be mutilated because they do not conform to the norms of the society they live in.
|
|
Thinking about this - it is in sharp contrast to the bigots in India, Russia and Zimbabwe (for instance) and any number of bizzare misshapen "religious" states you care to shake a stick at - where things seem to be getting worse for gay people...
|
I'm basically in agreement that Turing should receive a posthumous pardon; and that goes for everyone else who was convicted simply for being homosexual.
But it won't end there. Tatchell and his obnoxious Stonewall organisation are already demanding apologies, another step in their quest to ensure that homosexuals receive privileged treatment rather than the equal rights which the vast majority do not seem to have a problem with.
Just as Islamic fundamentalists play the racism card and then cry foul, you're either forced to agree with them or risk being labelled homophobic.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Tue 24 Dec 13 at 09:25
|
Point of order - Islam is a religion not a race.... :-)
Much as I have despised Thatchell over the years. I have a grudging respect for him and his anti-establishment ways.
|
>> Point of order - Islam is a religion not a race.... :-)
>>
>>
>> Much as I have despised Thatchell over the years. I have a grudging respect for
>> him and his anti-establishment ways.
>>
Point of disagreement; Islam is a culture in all but name.
|
|
I'd just like to point out that Peter Tatchell, like all 'extremists' for their causes, doesn't speak for the majority of those he purports to be defending.
|
>> I'd just like to point out that Peter Tatchell, like all 'extremists' for their causes,
>> doesn't speak for the majority of those he purports to be defending.
>>
I'm sure he doesn't, any more than Choudray speaks for all Muslims; unfortunately the silent majority in both cases are conspicuously mute, or ignored by the press for the benefit of selling newspapers.
|
Tatchell is a hateful man, anyone who supports "outing" is worthy of no respect at all. If someone wants to keep their sexual preferences quiet thats a basic human right (unless of course you are a paedophile or rapist)
Tatchell does more harm than good to his chosen cause.
|
>> Tatchell is a hateful man, anyone who supports "outing" is worthy of no respect at
>> all. If someone wants to keep their sexual preferences quiet thats a basic human right
>> (unless of course you are a paedophile or rapist)
>>
>> Tatchell does more harm than good to his chosen cause.
It seems that way now but people undoubtedly said the same about the Pankhursts and every other prominent social campaigner for decades.
Hypocrisy might be another reason for 'outing'. I wonder if any of the gay MPs voted for S28 or against gay equality measures?
|
>> But it won't end there. Tatchell and his obnoxious Stonewall organisation are already demanding apologies,
>> another step in their quest to ensure that homosexuals receive privileged treatment rather than the
>> equal rights which the vast majority do not seem to have a problem with.
>>
>> Just as Islamic fundamentalists play the racism card and then cry foul, you're either forced
>> to agree with them or risk being labelled homophobic.
Stonewall is a thoroughly respectable charity founded by, amongst others, actors Ian McKellan and Michael Cashman. Its work has included campaigning for repeal of the truly obnoxious section 28, equal treatment of LGBT people under the Equalities Act and for gay people in the armed forces.
I'll leave others to judge if it's obnoxious www.stonewall.org.uk/
You may be confusing it with Outrage!, a direct action outfit with which Tatchell has been involved.
|
Bromp, you are absolutely right, my apologies to anyone offended. It was indeed Outrage I was thinking of.
I'd be grateful if one of the mods could either delete or amend my post please.
|
An injustice rectified, but too late for this very intelligent man.
Without him and his team it is thought that the war may have gone on for another 2 years with the loss of (more) hundreds of thousands of lives.
Should all victims of unjust laws be pardoned? Yes, but it is an unjust world. Perhaps this famous case stands as a beacon for all of those that go unheard.
It is sad that some people are still bigoted. A very dear friend of mine is gay. You couldn't meet a nicer person, but she encounters bigotry regularly: Since coming out she is now not welcome in her local church and she was refused rental on a flat.
I more tolerant world would be better for everyone!
Last edited by: zippy on Tue 24 Dec 13 at 09:30
|
>> A more tolerant world would be better for everyone!
>>
>>
It would indeed; at this juncture I would point out that I too have gay friends, my BIL is a Muslim (though not a strict practitioner of the faith) and I don't have a problem with anyone's religion or sexual orientation provided neither are preached to me as being the one true path to the exclusion of all else.
|
>> It's a debateable ethical point whether it is acceptable to persuade people to be mutilated
>> because they do not conform to the norms of the society they live in.
>>
Would that include being forced to convert to Islam, and by definition being circumcised?
|
Lets not forget the important work he did at Manchester University as well with the Baby MK1, often regarded as the worlds first programmable computer. My grandad was friends with somebody work worked on that team and he found it all quite amazing this was going on in the 1940s just 1 mile from where he lived.
|
Our fine city has long recognised Turing's work. There is a statue in Sackville Gardens, near the gay village and the ring road in east Manchester near the Etihad is called Alan Turing way.
HO
|
>> Would that include being forced to convert to Islam, and by definition being circumcised?
Enforced religious conversion of any sort would be an outrage. I'm not sure how prevalent circumcision of males is in Islam. It's consequences however are somewhat less serious than castration by chemicals.
Female 'circumcision' is of course a different kettle of fish, but it's an African cultural thing rather than and Islamic practice.
|
|
"Now for the other 50,000" leads The Huffington Post". If Turing, surely *everybody* thus convicted should be pardoned, including those incarcerated in Reading Jail?
|
"I'm not sure how prevalent circumcision of males is in Islam."
My understanding is that it is not mandatory, but is a firm tradition in most Muslim societies. In other words, not to be circumcised is regarded as defying the norm.
My own view? It is genital mutilation, with origins in ancient, barbaric and now outdated practices. I don't buy any of the hygiene/health/aesthetic arguments. I should add that one of my sons was circumcised as a young child, under anaesthetic, for medical reasons.
|
>> My own view? It is genital mutilation, with origins in ancient, barbaric and now outdated
>> practices. I don't buy any of the hygiene/health/aesthetic arguments.
I'm pretty much diametrically opposite. The medical evidence of health advantages certainly stack up, particularly in areas where AIDS is prevalent. The hygiene thing seems self evident. Aesthetically, I'm not in a position to judge.
While it's difficult not to see it as a form of mutilation it's low on the scale and, done properly, does no damage to the organ's functions.
Battles with religious custom need to be chosen carefully. This one's not worth fighting.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 24 Dec 13 at 15:39
|
>> medical evidence of health advantages certainly stack up, particularly in areas where AIDS is prevalent.
I'm not sure circumcision per se would make any difference, but I doubt it. What does cause easy transmission of HIV is any physical or infection-based sores or lesions, which may at some stages pass unnoticed for a bit longer on an uncircumcised organ, and are often invisible anyway. Obviously it's even worse for women. The reasons for the rapid spread of aids in Africa are to do with relatively widespread sexual freedom or promiscuity - not actually traditional but modern and driven by middle class men - and the resulting high rates of gonorrhea/NSU infection. Those can be cured with antibiotics, but people don't really understand that HIV is a virus and can't be killed that easily.
Basically circumcision is a label. A gentile (very obviously so) friend noticed when visiting Israel that men were glancing discreetly at his tackle in the beach showers to check that he was circumcised. He is, but only because circumcision was fashionable when we were children owing to the belief that it was 'more hygienic'. Apparently the doctor offered to do me at birth, but my mother wouldn't let him. Perhaps if you come from Malta you need to make sure people don't mistake you or your children for North African Muslims. Something like that.
|
>> Basically circumcision is a label. A gentile (very obviously so) friend noticed when visiting Israel
>> that men were glancing discreetly at his tackle in the beach showers to check that
>> he was circumcised. He is, but only because circumcision was fashionable when we were children
>> Apparently the doctor offered to do
>> me at birth, but my mother wouldn't let him. Perhaps if you come from Malta
>> you need to make sure people don't mistake you or your children for North African
>> Muslims. Something like that.
Pretty common in the English middle classes between the wars and into the baby boom era. The late Julian Critchley wrote amusingly about the difference between his companions in the showers at Public School and those with whom he had to communally drop pants for national service medical.
|
>> the difference between his companions in the showers at Public School and those with whom he had to communally drop pants for national service medical.
Yeah, prep school too... Cavaliers and Roundheads. Can't remember any rivalry or vainglory between the categories though. Everyone seemed happy with their condition. Ideologies and superstitions didn't loom large when I were a nipper. Britain seemed able to contain most things although any excessive foreign slackness was frowned upon...
|
>>
>> Would that include being forced to convert to Islam, and by definition being circumcised?
>>
It's a debateable ethical point.
That's not implying any particular conclusion to the debate, but perhaps the degree of real free "choice" might be relevant.
Turing was I think offered a choice - submit or be prosecuted - but you could argue that choice under pressure is no choice. My point was that to that extent, things have not changed so radically since his day.
|
Alan Turing Pardoned - CGNorwich
