Alan Turing Gets an Apology From Prime Minister Brown 576
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.'"
It's about damn time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Insightful)
As they say, justice delayed is justice denied.
Not forced (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Online petition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Proud to be sorry, an odd concept (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Better late than never. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right On. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:1, Insightful)
Plato said that there is no true measure of justice, but it is important for a government to give the appearance of justice to society. This is a textbook example of that in action.
Re:Proud to be sorry, an odd concept (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that any worse than a conservative who's proud that he's not sorry when he ought to be?
Re:Not forced (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Proud to be sorry, an odd concept (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't do him justic (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:An Easy Apology (Score:5, Insightful)
"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."
Well yeah. The thing is, Turing's contribution to the great britain shouldve made him a hero. INstead, he got castrated.
The cases you point to, at least, were against "enemies" (however true that is). What they did to Alan was against a war hero, perhaps the most important life saver in the retake of europe from the nazis as his work allowed the allies to gather the information they needed to get the nazis out the countries they had invaded.
Not to mention, for christ sakes, that he was the inventor of computer theory. Not just europe or the brits owed things to him: my job and life revolve arround what he started because I work in computing. The computer revolution would not have been possible without his mathematical work (and that of many others like Von Neuman).
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Insightful)
It also apologizes for the discrimination he faced. A small, but meaningful token is this.
Consider that today, you can be gay and a programmer, and nobody cares except the bigots. That's as it should be-- except we need fewer bigots.
That's not good enough (Score:4, Insightful)
What they did to a human, let alone him... no, a simple apology just won't do.
Re:whatever (Score:2, Insightful)
I believe you mean "a puff".
Nothing more than a computer-theory-inventing-second-world-war-winning-hero puff.
Re:Right On. (Score:0, Insightful)
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.
Or a simple consequent-less way to divert attention and appease the (burgeoning) restless masses.
Re:TL:TL (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't benefit him, but it potentially benefits thousands like him who would suffer similar fates. It helps provide in some small way a defense against more of the same towards others. It's just the correct thing to do, even if it took them too damn long to do it!
I find it extremely offensive that any state would worry about that type of morality over the scientific/technological progress offered by such a man. Of course, in my world view, even if it was wrong or evil to be gay, I'd keep him around and happy just for the potential contributions towards turning humanity into an all-powerful machine society!
In the immortal words of Tom Servo: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:An Easy Apology (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you. We English have a history of persecuting our great men based on their sexuality (Oscar Wilde for example).
Still, hero or nobody I imagine that goverment will have a constant supply of things to apologise for in 50 years time to which they will say "I can't believe the abhorrent and barbaric treatment of people in those times".
Swings and roundabouts.
Re:Right On. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not "we screwed up", it's "our predecessors, who are long dead, screwed up".
And it's ridiculous to blame the British government exclusively for what happened to Turing. Anti-gay sentiment was not merely endemic, it was part of the everyday background social noise in almost all levels of society. The government of the day was just reflecting the morals of the day.
If anything, it's not the government but the people of Britain who owe Turing an apology. As such, it should probably come from the Queen, not Gordon Brown.
(Arguably, the peoples of the rest of Europe and America owe him just as much, but that's a separate issue. And they didn't actively persecute him, although doubtless they would've done so like a shot if he'd tried to take refuge there.)
Scoring brownie points (Score:2, Insightful)
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".
Re:Not forced (Score:3, Insightful)
Once the petition is signed by more than 500 signatures the government has to make a response.
Over here in the states we have in our constitution that we have the right to "petition the government for redress of grievances". Although, unfortunately, no one had the bright idea to make it a requirement that the government actually give a damn -- or even pretend to - when we do.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Official Skinflint Act (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re:Not really...Truth abou humility (Score:4, Insightful)
Randroids don't pass the Turing test.
something was accomplished (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Congratulations, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Congratulations, I guess (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Insightful)
As they say, justice delayed is justice denied.
They also say, "better late than never".
Re:Not forced (Score:3, Insightful)
They may have claimed this at one time, but I've seen plenty of petitions with over 500 still waiting for a response.
But yes, it's basically just an exercise for them to tell us why we are wrong.
However, to be honest I'd much rather that petitions were ignored, than listened to, as they are poor indicators of public opinion, and are often biasedly worded, and signed by people who haven't considered the facts. Plenty of bad lawmaking has come as a response to well publicised petitions.
The problem is that the Government ignores petitions it doesn't like, but will still wave the ones it does agree with as "proof" that it's listening to the people.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds good but on the other hand living in a world where our deepest-held moral convictions are set aside for technological progress sounds like a nightmare scenario.
Yes their convictions were way off the mark (our mark, not theirs) but it makes the world sane in a way to know that society's mores and taboos will be enforced. It's not a part of ourselves that we like, but nevertheless that instinct is a very important part of how we interact as social creatures. Like, probably the most important.
Re:Not really... (Score:4, Insightful)
No it's not. It's a credibility issue. (As an aside, to suggest that modern western governments arn't accused of denying equal treatment to gay people, which is what Turing's situation was all about, is whitewashing the issue altogether.)
All programmers have been faced with explaining how *that* programmer fucked up, but you're the *good* kinda programmer who will make things right.
Still, at the end of the day .. what would you prefer .. that *nobody* apologize to his descendants just because it *might* be construed as being done solely for political gain?
I mean, shit, in the grand scheme of pros and cons, who would honestly oppose such an apology supporting a still stigmatized sizable percentage of the population? I mean, what's next .. you only want politicians defending your shit because they "feel it in their heart", not because they're elected to represent the sentiment of the people?
I consider myself a cynic, but the kind of cynic that still knows its damn retarded want to cut off the nose to spite the face when it comes to government and politics.
Re:Proud to be sorry, an odd concept (Score:1, Insightful)
Allow Bill Maher to explain it to you [hbo.com] (here's the video [youtube.com]).
You see, conservatives think apologizing is a sign of weakness. It's what liberal pussies do when they're not busy driving electric cars and feeling empathy. When, in fact, it's the weak and the scared who are too insecure to apologize.
Re:TL:TL (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [wikipedia.org], where gay sadomasochists were imprisoned for consensual S&M. When the Labour Government passed the recent law on "extreme" consensual adult images [slashdot.org], 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 [oldham.gov.uk].
Knighthood (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Doesn't do him justic (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
To non-computer-nerds, that's a footnote... trivia compared to "cracking Enigma".
Of course, these days a lot of people wouldn't immediately grasp the significance of "cracking Enigma", either. At least in the US. I imagine knowledge of WWII history is somewhat better over on the other side of the pond...
Re:Not forced (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that's where the 2nd amendment was supposed to come in to play.
Re:You do the crime, you do the time. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:3, Insightful)
See, but my questions is this. How come the apology is only extended to Alan Turing? Surely many more homosexuals were mistreated and subject to injustice during the laws of this period of time. Alan Turing gets a special apology, but did the rest? Do we only apologize to those of our society who 'contribute' or who are unique and special? Even the least of people deserve fair treatment, do they not?
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't help Turing.
But it helps me, just a bit.
I genuinely appreciate it.
Re:Congratulations, I guess (Score:2, Insightful)
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' [wikipedia.org] 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.
Why not (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:2, Insightful)
You're completely right. Who modded this flamebait?
Why are so many victimless crimes still illegal in this day and age? Surely we can learn lessons from the past and fix up the laws today.
Re:Proud to be sorry, an odd concept (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you were being flip. However, in economics, a liberal is usually someone who supports free market economics - something that's typically considered a conservative view point in the US.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:3, Insightful)
I see your point, but there are strong biological reasons to keep that illegal. It's not a small possibility that the children could end up deformed or with other severe disabilities.
If we have scientific evidence that is highly probable that sex between siblings can result in terribly disadvantaged offspring, does society not have a motivation to prevent such a tragedy from happening?
To put it another way, do you support two people having children if there is a 90-100% chance of having a "flipper" baby? 80%? There is a difference between an "act of God" creating a mentally challenged child, and deliberately creating one.
I don't support euthanasia, but I don't support the deliberate creation of Down Syndrome children either.
You have a valid point to make, but your choice of example seems to be a bit of histrionics and is being modded as such.
That being said, I would too would prefer the governments to remove unjust laws with a higher priority than publicity stunts such as this. Not that Alan Turing did not deserve an apology, he sure as hell did. It just does not help the people being denied justice today.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Insightful)
If apologies are not significant, they wouldn't be so difficult to give. - That is as true for us on a personal level as they are on a national level.
Why this cynicism? (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:3, Insightful)
To put it another way, do you support two people having children if there is a 90-100% chance of having a "flipper" baby?
Yes, because its their choice to make, not mine. We don't disallow people with gene defects having children either and those can have an even higher chance of the children having the same defect. On top of that its not even the 'having children' part that its outlawed, its only the 'having sex' part, so making babies without sex (not really a problem with todays tech) would actually be ok with the law.
This really is just a mix of bigotry and eugenics at work and its quite disgusting that this is enforced by the law.
Re:I'm glad to see that apology (Score:2, Insightful)
People change. Institutions remain. Brown is the chief of that institution, he apologises in name of the institution.
Re:I'm glad to see that apology (Score:2, Insightful)
Ironic. Trying to get Turing straight is what got him suicidally depressed.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to be kidding right? According to your position you are endorsing the Island of Dr. Moreau.
It is not bigotry and eugenics to prevent brothers and sisters from having children. You are taking those definitions WAY to far to support a position, which is essentially, endorsing the *deliberate* creation of genetically damaged children.
We are not talking about little defects either. Serious genetic abnormalities are known to occur with offspring from siblings.
The kind of freedom you support, is not freedom at all. It's absolute anarchy. Can I create a mentally challenged person with great strength but nearly guaranteed to die of congenital defects before he hits the age of 25? Sure why not.
Puhleeze. There are limits in an advanced society and those limits don't imply the lack of freedom at all.
By your logic you would support yelling "fire" in a movie theater. Yes. It is the same logic.
Re:Theosophical Inquiry (Score:2, Insightful)
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).
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Insightful)
And while it doesn't help me directly, it helps a number of my friends just a bit.
I genuinely appreciate it too.
Re:Hmmm! (Score:3, Insightful)
No algorithm can tell for every algorithm whether it will halt in finite time. That means for each testing algorithm there exists at least one program which doesn't halt, but the algorithm cannot tell that it doesn't halt. Now, an algorithm where your example is such an algorithm is certainly possible, but would obviously be a very poor testing algorithm.
Re:Why not (Score:4, Insightful)
Brother and Sister is information readily available to everyone without violating anyone's privacy.
So is down syndrome, dwarfism and a ton of other gene defects, after all if a defect wouldn't have obvious consequences it wouldn't be that bad a defect to begin with. Should we stop all those people from having children too? Especially since the chance of defect in the children might be a good bit higher then with incest.
In Germany it is especially weird, doing embryo screening to check for defects is actually outlawed and incest outlawed as well. So you have one law passively encouraging defects and another trying to prevent them. And of course there is still the issue with the law not outlawing the baby making, but the sex, which today just seems out of date, as making babies without is doable just as having sex without risk of a baby is doable.
Good base for progress then? (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Insightful)
I can cite three sources after just a few minutes of research which seem to indicate anywhere from a 25% to 65% chance of severe defects in father/daughter-brother/sister offspring.
So in other words a 35%-75% chance of having a normal baby, thats more then good enough for me, especially since we have the tech to screen for defects pre-birth. But if you look at the law (64,65) [opsi.gov.uk], thats not even what is outlawed, there is no mention of making babies, what is outlawed is having sex, even if its the oral or anal or two brothers or two sisters that have no chance of ever making a baby.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:4, Insightful)
You bet your sweet ass I'm bigoted against bigots. And I can tell you why. Bigots and Zealots won't let other people go about their business. If I like taking it up the tail pipe, I don't see how this should be anyone's business.
And you bet your sweet ass I hate Christians. But then I don't admire other religions, because anyone who tends to believe in imaginary friends also thinks they're the coolest and only friends *anyone* should *ever* admire, so at the end of the day religion serves as a petri dish for growing whole cultures of bigots.
Five will definitely get you ten if you say I'm pro choice but against the death penalty. If I have to explain the morals of that one to you, this post would take more bandwidth than a Stevie Wonder discography so I won't bother. Suffice it to say that while I do think abortion is a question that deserves serious thought and shouldn't be considered trivial, the effects of legalize it on society are measurable (Crime rate, New York pre-Guiliani). Furthermore it is a statement about how far women's rights have progressed in any given society. The Death penalty on the other hand is barbaric, and cannot safely be executed (no pun intended). Just the other day, two men that were in the slammer for 10 years for a murder were acquitted in Holland because an error was made and the guilty party was found. In Texas, you couldn't release those innocent men, you'd have to send a posthumous apology note to their families. That possibility alone should prevent anyone from such a penalty.
With the whole brown good, white bad, men bad, women good you're just being silly. No "liberal" will say that, that's just bone-headed.
Stupid Southerners. They exist. As do oppressed blacks. And criminals. There is a correlation between stupidity, oppression, a lack of education and crime. Maybe y'all should legalize abortion, so that women (who are generally not that stupid, given the choice) can make some decisions that would curb that trend.
Now don't start about rural folk. The first thing I ever learned to drive was a Massey Fergusson from the 1950's, followed by a fork lift. I harvested potatoes on my knees on my uncle's acre and I cleaned tulip bulbs when I was 12 while listening to Tom T. Hall. So you may call me a flaming liberal, but you can't call me a city slicker.
Having said that, clinging to guns and religion is plainly unintelligent, whether you're from a city or a farm, the North or the South, black or white. By the sounds of it, you're a somewhat unintelligent gun lover with a homophobic streak and a chip on his shoulder because the US doesn't consist of only your kind right now, looking at the balance of power. "Him liking it up the butt would have been puzzling to me" already gives it away. It's a good demonstration of how one sentence transforms you from a liberal into a bigot if you repeat it at a 50 year interval.
Turing died, and people then were obviously not enlightened enough to distinguish jack shit, because otherwise they wouldn't tell a war hero and a brilliant scientist to choose between chemical castration and hard time for having a boyfriend.
Cynical image building exercise (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [tinyurl.com]
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)?
Re:TL:TL (Score:2, Insightful)
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 :) )
Re:Why not (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody is suggesting that two people that are dwarves cannot procreate. Just brothers and sisters. You keep wanting to expand the restriction, when nobody is agreeing to it in the discussion. I am not even suggesting that two people that have Down Syndrome cannot procreate either.
I think you guys need to go back to your basic assumption that "sex" and "procreation" are synonyms.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Britain was involved in the settlement and creation of modern-day Israel. Israelis and Palestinians often kill each other. It's not a real connection but I think this is what he's going for.
How do you define "often"? The total death toll of the israeli-palestinian conflict since the beginning of the first intefada [wikipedia.org] in 1987 is about 8000 people [wikipedia.org]. That's less than 365 per year (8000/22). (This figure includes both civilian and military casualties on both sides). There are about 10 million people living in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza. So the death toll from the conflict is 3.65 deaths per 100000 people per year. In the United States, the death toll from car accidents is 14.7 death per 100000 people per year. Maybe that's "often" but I just wanted to put it in perspective.
If you wanted to pick a conflict that the British were involved with a high death toll, the israeli-palestinian conflict is a pretty poor choice.
Re:Scoring Mod points (Score:3, Insightful)
So you're saying that democracy at work consists of some PR drone cherry picking the agenda of the government based on the views of a tiny minority of the voting population and only taking action when it involves the government not actually having to do anything significant but which makes it look good ?
Sadly I think Labour share, have always shared, this view and that is the tragedy that faces this country today.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Insightful)
To put it another way, do you support two people having children if there is a 90-100% chance of having a "flipper" baby?
The problem with your argument is that we are drawing an arbitrary line that is squiggly as all hell, in other words, it hits some people randomly but equally problematic situations are allowed. Lines must be straight (no pun intended) and they must not be arbitrary.
Examplification
What is "disadvantaged"? We know that a lot of people will, based on their current life-style, statistically (within 80% chance or so) have disadvantaged children one way or another. This includes, but is not limited to, people living in specific locations (some rural places have statistically terrible results), people with certain levels (or lack of) income, people in certain locations with certain cultural or racial backgrounds (for example there is a high chance that inner-city African-American children will be disadvantaged due to their parents actions or lack of such. Is it OK to make a law that says they need their tubes tied, at least until they're 25?
Where do we draw the line? Can a woman past 40 be allowed to produce children? It is far more likely that she has a downs-syndrome child than that a brother-sister relationship ends up with a disabled child. Do you want to tie the tubes on large numbers of inner-city Hispanic girls (and perhaps untie those tubes once they are past 25 or so)? What standards do we follow and why? Oh, and if you think I sound racist, please go and get your tubes tied before answering, you're already severely mentally deficient.
Consenting adults is a nice, straight line. It doesn't hit randomly. It doesn't hit some people who have "bad" children and not hit others with a similar profile. It allows for stuff that most people can not easily swallow today, but so what. Law isn't about morality and the government should not be in the business of enforcing any particular moral code.
You want to marry your sister - and she agrees, fine with me. Daughter? Ah, I'd like to see a competency test on her first. You want to marry a very young person? Well, not until we are sure that "consenting" is something that individual can actually properly do "informed" is an important part of "consent". Today we mostly say that consenting is something you are unable to do until your're 18. Fine by me. 16 is OK to, which is the case in other places. 13? Nah, nobody would agree that that is an age of informed consent.
You want to marry a same-gender person? Fine. You want to marry two or three people. No problem. As long as everybody is capable of "informed consent". You want to marry your dog? Sure, when he can prove he is capable of informed consent.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't even try that BS. Women past 40 don't have 1/4 to 1/2 chances of having severely genetically damaged children.
Neither does children of consanguinuous parents. Where do you get your numbers? If your parents are siblings and they have a genetic defect, you have a 50% chance of getting it. Tat doesn't mean that there is a 50% chance that the child will have a severe defect. This applies obviously to recessively inherited defects, which are most. This is incidentally the same chance as if non-related parents of which one has a dominantly inherited genetic defect will have a child with genetic defects.
When you are so fucked up, you are confined to a hospital for the time that you survive it makes Down Syndrome look like a rash
What are you babbling about? There are a huge number of diseases that result from genetic defects and the vast majority have no such properties. Get a grip. Stop emoting so much. Engage your brain before you spout nonsense.
Oh, and if you have Huntington's, which is one of the few dominantly inherited genetic defects, there is a 50% chance your offspring will have it too. This is more than an order of magnitude higher than the chance that offspring from random consanguinuous (we do not know if they are carriers of a genetic defect or not, if they are not, there is nothing to inherit and no damage done) parents having genetically "defect" children. Maybe we should test kids in school and do a snip-snip on the ones who are Huntington's carriers.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Gordon Brown bears no personal responsibility for Alan Turings treatment.
However, he leads an organization which does bear responsibility for it. That organization owed an apology, and due to his leadership position, Gordon Brown was the correct one to deliver it on behalf of that organization.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Five minutes of fucking Google. Try it. Now where did you get your numbers?
Five minutes of Google, and I didn't even have to fuck her. I think the "official" number of defects in brother-sister relationships is about 30%. Still a little more than half of what is the case if one parent has a dominant genetic defect (such as Huntington's).
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds good but on the other hand living in a world where our deepest-held moral convictions are set aside for technological progress sounds like a nightmare scenario.
Welcome the the real world then. Wernher von Braun and his crew had their crimes overlooked so that we could win the space race vs. the Soviets. After 9/11, Dick Cheney said in an interview that we would have to make deals with some very bad people to stop the terrorists. In the real world, countries often overlook their morality to get ahead.
Re:Why not (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is that laws aren't (and probably shouldn't be) written as guidelines. They're written as rules. If the rules say you're an adult at 18, and that adults cannot have sex with children, then some pissed off parent is going to INSIST that this rule applies to his 17.85 year old daughter and her 18.25 year old boy friend he doesn't approve of; no matter what common sense says. This sort of problem has been mitigated in a lot of jurisdictions by modifying the rule slightly to say "18 year olds are adults, and adults cannot have sex with children, unless their ages are 2 or fewer years apart" or by lowering the age of consent to 16 or something along these lines.
Even with these adjusted rules you get stupid stuff that happens ("Ahh, but my daughter is exactly 2 year and ONE DAY younger than that boy."), but treating the laws as guidelines tends to create the opposite problem. Situations where legitimately bad things have happened, but people get away with them because of leeway in the law and influence. It's one of the great conundrums of civilization.
Re:TL:TL (Score:5, Insightful)
S&M is relevant to straight people too.
The problem is some people have a hard time understanding the concept of "consenting adults".
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:3, Insightful)
Lot's of what you say makes a lot of sense, so I don't mean to belittle that when I ask, how is "clinging to guns" unintelligent?
Also, you have a point on capital punishment (they could be innocent) but I wonder, what is the number of murders that would have faced capital punishment who are released (pardoned, good behavior, prisons too full, etc) or escape that go on to kill more innocents, and how does that compare to the number of wrongfully executed criminals? I think we should strive for the greater good, as a perfect justice systems is unrealistic.
Your self-righteous hate of Christians really, really undermines your moral high ground.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:2, Insightful)
Some people will never be happy with any outcome. If Gordon Brown made a statement along the lines of "Any apology now would be too late to make any difference, so we won't bother" There would be public outcry. The petition arose and was taken notice of because So Many People Wanted It. I label anyone saying that the apology is worthless as trolling.
That the current government is taking responsibility and manning up enough to apologize is a good sign that we have reached a point where we can accept of people's lifestyle choices.
Re:Eyes dry now (Score:1, Insightful)
I'm actually astonished at the number of people who think it was purely cynically motivated. Someone asked the prime minister, via an official channel, to apologise for the significant, shamefully, darkly horrible treatment of someone who should be treated as a national hero, and in short order he did.
If any of the current political party leaders (with the exception of one N Griffin, who I would be unlikely to believe) had said the same thing, I would have been similarly impressed by it.
Maybe it's because I studied CS and have always felt that we were robbed of an elder statesman, but tou have to be pretty hard-hearted to not see the attempt at kindness in this.