UK Government & Tea Party level of stupidity/despicable

[Irbis]

So, you're man with claim of altering course of WWII, making winning it for Allies that much simpler? You're the father of information/computing sciences, to the point machine every single one of us uses to read these words operates according to model bearing your name? Your ideas were so revolutionary 70 years ago that you're still referenced in science fiction stories written today?

Meh, who cares, we won't recognize you anyway, you homo-criminal

As mentioned here:

Government rejects pardon request for Alan Turing

The government has rejected calls for computer pioneer Alan Turing to be granted an official pardon for convictions for homosexuality dating back to the 1950s.

An online petition of over 23,000 signatures had requested the pardon.

Justice Minister Lord McNally dismissed the motion in the House of Lords.

"A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence," he said.

[evilsoup]

Ok..? I don't see how this is anything like 'tea party level of stupidity', or even that it is particularly despicable. What would be the point of pardoning him, exactly? Yes he was convicted of the crime of being homosexual, but its not like anyone holds that against him... I mean, everyone recognises it as a stupid and vindictive law now, and there's no stigma or stink attached to him for being convicted under it. If anything, a pardon at this point would smell of historical revisionism.

And it would be nice if you quoted the whole article, instead of using this little bit out of context to try to whip up raeg. I mean, Gordon Brown already apologised to Turing (posthumously of course), and you (I can only assume deliberately) quoted lordMcNally out of context:

Anniversary

Mr Turing was one of the key members of the staff at Bletchley Park that worked to crack the German's Enigma codes, and Lord McNally acknowledged that in light of this work he had been treated harshly by the authorities.

"It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offence which now seems both cruel and absurd, particularly... given his outstanding contribution to the war effort," he said.

"However, the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times."

Mr Turing committed suicide in 1954, two years after his conviction.

2012 marks the centenary of his birth. The occasion is being marked by a series of events around the world including a commemorative postage stamp issued by Royal Mail.

He's getting a commemorative stamp, I'm not sure how you can say he isn't being recognized.

[Sea Skimmer]

It does seem highly inappropriate to pardon one man for that conviction; that would literally be saying it was okay you be gay, if you made an outstanding contribution to the war effort. A campaign to have all such convictions pardoned is more justifiable, all the more so since some of those people might still be alive to see it.

[Irbis]

Ok..? I don't see how this is anything like 'tea party level of stupidity', or even that it is particularly despicable.

See below. But, basically, they are defending something on par with slavery by doing nothing to repair damage done, justifying something that can't be justified today and giving gigantic "fuck you!" sign to every homosexual in UK.

Hell, if something as rigid as uncaring as Catholic Church can pardon falsely accused (see: Galileo) doing nothing makes you worse than CC. Quite the achievement.

And it would be nice if you quoted the whole article, instead of using this little bit out of context to try to whip up raeg. I mean, Gordon Brown already apologised to Turing (posthumously of course), and you (I can only assume deliberately) quoted lordMcNally out of context:

*yawn* And? Words are cheap, it's the deeds that matter. Besides, Brown was left-wing, current UK government is anything but, and you *can* argue that doing 180 degree flip on predecessor position is Bachmann-level "gays are teh evul" faggotry.

"However, the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times."

I'll risk invoking Godwin's law, but imagine what would have happened if, say, Westerwelle said that to family of homosexual/jew sent to Sachsenhausen. "We were just doing lawful orders". Gee, you think it would fly?

And before you explode with more raeg he wasn't sent to concentration camp so comparison is totally invalid, the end result was basically the same - what government did to him killed him. In very inhumane way.

What would be the point of pardoning him, exactly? If anything, a pardon at this point would smell of historical revisionism.

Let me point you to the next thread over there, someone is getting fourth submarine due to this "pointless" revisionism. You know, guilt trip, reparation to victims. Tell me, what reparation was there in this case? They certainly don't feel guilt.

He's getting a commemorative stamp, I'm not sure how you can say he isn't being recognized.

Are you even serious?

It does seem highly inappropriate to pardon one man for that conviction; that would literally be saying it was okay you be gay, if you made an outstanding contribution to the war effort.

One man is a start. Especially seeing in his case the punishment was far more severe than usual. My argument wasn't that it was okay to be criminal if you made a contribution (and you seem to suggest being gay is a crime still ), it was that the act was doubly heinous considering who it happened to.

A campaign to have all such convictions pardoned is more justifiable, all the more so since some of those people might still be alive to see it.

Yeah, except if they did not pardon Turing, I hardly see anyone else getting it.

You know, I just can't stop wondering where computers would be today if he was left alone back then. If there was an event that hold progress in that branch for years, this would be one of the best candidates, and certainly something that destroyed any chance of UK having independent computer industry.

[Serafina]

It does seem highly inappropriate to pardon one man for that conviction; that would literally be saying it was okay you be gay, if you made an outstanding contribution to the war effort. A campaign to have all such convictions pardoned is more justifiable, all the more so since some of those people might still be alive to see it.

This.

A retroactive pardon to everyone who was in the past convicted due to an unjust law (in this case for being homosexual) is commendable.
A retroactive pardon for just one (or several) person who was famous, but not others, who was in the past convicted due to an unjust law, is pointless at best. At worst it sends the message that this person was only pardoned due to being famous.

Now if the campaign was for pardoning everyone convicted that way, and Alan Turing was merely an example of such a person, great. In this case refusing such a pardon would be a clear sign of homophobia - as it is now it's much more ambiguous.

[evilsoup]

Irbis, do you have any idea how the British system of government works? Or any knowledge of recent British politics?

Gordon Brown wasn't really left-wing, the Labour party stopped being properly left-wing in 1997 and he was a part of that change. Now, he was left of his predecessor Tony Blair, and he's left of the current prime minister David Cameron. Now Cameron genuinely is homophobic, though not actively so (that would be political suicide at this point, or at least very damaging politically).

However the man you are accusing of homophobia is Lord McNally, a liberal democrat appointee (House of Lords isn't democratic, it has a complicated mix of political appointees, bishops, top judges, etc; it only fairly recently got rid of the last hereditary peers), and someone on the left-wing of his party (he was a member of the SDP, who split from the labour party in the 1980s and then later joined the liberal party to become the liberal democrats). He is probably to the left of Gordon Brown. I seriously doubt he is homophobic, and frankly his comments in this article support that.

Who gives a fuck what the Catholic church does? They are a bunch of paedophilic homophobes, who still enforce their retarded homophobic dogma on people all over the world; in comparison, the British government has enshrined equality for homosexuals to the extent that many Catholic adoption agencies had to shut down because they wouldn't deal with gay adopters.

The law Turing was convicted under was unjust, and directly contrary to the law as it stands today. A pardon for Turing alone would implicitly justify that law. Why is it worse if the injustice is committed against someone you've heard of? What, all the others don't count?

Since you brought up slavery and the holocaust: do you think that the current British government should retroactively free all the slaves? Do you think that the current German government should pardon the victims of the holocaust for their crime of being Jewish or Romany or communist or mentally ill? Of course not, because the former would imply that we have the right to declare people free or slave; while the latter would imply that, fundamentally, the law itself was sound.

[Akhlut]

See below. But, basically, they are defending something on par with slavery by doing nothing to repair damage done, justifying something that can't be justified today and giving gigantic "fuck you!" sign to every homosexual in UK.

Uh, proof of that? Again, simply pardoning only Mr. Turing sends an entirely different message from pardoning everyone (like SeaSkimmer mentioned).

Hell, if something as rigid as uncaring as Catholic Church can pardon falsely accused (see: Galileo) doing nothing makes you worse than CC. Quite the achievement.

Firstly, Mr. Turing most assuredly wasn't falsely accused of being a homosexual.

Secondly, to quote the guy you're RAEGING at:

"It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offence which now seems both cruel and absurd, particularly... given his outstanding contribution to the war effort," he said.

"However, the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times."

So, acknowledging the criminalization of homosexuality as cruel and absurd, while recognizing that the actions of the past cannot be undone but can never again be revisited is somehow vile and evil?

*yawn* And? Words are cheap, it's the deeds that matter.

Pardoning dead people is just words, you know. It's literally useless.

I'll risk invoking Godwin's law, but imagine what would have happened if, say, Westerwelle said that to family of homosexual/jew sent to Sachsenhausen. "We were just doing lawful orders". Gee, you think it would fly?

Except, you know, instead of just saying "just following orders!11!!11!", they're acknowledging that it was horrible and that pardoning Mr. Turing is, at best, a token effort that wouldn't accomplish jack-all-shit, while the best it could do is result in a round of back-slapping and saying "well, now we've proven we're good anti-homophobic people! no need to do anything else to ensure gay people are equal in society!"

Especially since he made the cogent point that it is altering the historical context and "trying to put right what cannot be put right," which seems to me to be an admission that it was a horrible event (for all people who felt the effects of being criminals merely for being homosexual).

Let me point you to the next thread over there, someone is getting fourth submarine due to this "pointless" revisionism. You know, guilt trip, reparation to victims. Tell me, what reparation was there in this case? They certainly don't feel guilt.

That's a lot more complex than what I would like to get into, but let's also be honest about Germany playing nice with Israel: there's also a large measure of self-interest involved with giving aid to the most developed and one of the wealthiest states in the Middle East.

Also, at this juncture with the UK economy as it is, would you honestly expect for a measure to give reparation money to homosexuals who felt the effects of this law and their kin to actually pass?

One man is a start. Especially seeing in his case the punishment was far more severe than usual. My argument wasn't that it was okay to be criminal if you made a contribution (and you seem to suggest being gay is a crime still ), it was that the act was doubly heinous considering who it happened to.

So, the act was not nearly so bad when it happened to other people as when it happened to Mr. Turing? Wow.

Yeah, except if they did not pardon Turing, I hardly see anyone else getting it.

No one's campaigning to get everyone pardoned, are they? Perhaps if Parliament saw a petition to pardon EVERYONE who was convicted of being a homosexual, that may have been acted upon because it wasn't picking a single person to pardon.

You know, I just can't stop wondering where computers would be today if he was left alone back then. If there was an event that hold progress in that branch for years, this would be one of the best candidates, and certainly something that destroyed any chance of UK having independent computer industry.

Yes, it was a tragedy that he died as a fairly direct result of being convicted as a criminal for being gay, but pardoning him does jack-shit.

EDIT: I'm a bit too lazy to retool this in light of what Evilsoup said, but his basic premise is very strong on why pardoning people for convictions under laws that are inherently unjust is a sort of recognition on the soundness of those laws. So, in light of that, I think that a blanket pardon of those convicted is not necessarily a great idea, while perhaps something more along the lines of a national day of recognition would be swell, as far as symbolic gestures go.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I have to wonder, Irbis. What would you be saying if they had pardoned everyone back in the 90's and now some paper accuses them of historical revisionism? Are you just looking to find something wrong with the government to complain about?

[evilsoup]

E_F, from his posts - couching things in comparison with American politics, apparant ignorance of the coalition government - I suspect that Irbis is actually an American who somehow got linked to this article and worked himself up into an outrage and thought we'd agree with him.

[Eternal_Freedom]

That works too. If I were looking at this article, I would actually say it shows the government in quite a positive light for deciding not to revise history for the sake of one (deceased) man.

I wonder if there is a comparable situation in American history?

[DudeGuyMan]

"However, the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times."

This seems quite reasonable. Posthumously pardoning convicted homosexuals seems a bit like posthumously freeing slaves. A gesture made with good intent, but sort of silly and pointless.

[Simon_Jester]

Surely there are a few people still alive today who were convicted under the statutes- the 1950s weren't that long ago, and I expect the law didn't change until the '60s or '70s. So a blanket pardon would be justified.

But a posthumous pardon only makes sense if you're trying to alter the way a person is remembered as a result of the crime- to remove the 'dishonor' of being on the books as a murderer or a traitor. In Turing's case that isn't necessary: no one alive today thinks that Turing's conviction reflects badly on Turing. If, say, he'd been wrongly convicted of selling computer secrets to the Russians, that would be different- but he wasn't.