Alan Turing Apology Campaign Grows 653
chrb writes "Several British news sources have recently reported on the growing campaign that calls for an apology to Alan Turing for his persecution by the British government. The petition to the Prime Minister was started by John Graham-Cumming, who has also written to the Queen requesting a Knighthood for Turing, but admits that a pardon is 'unlikely,' saying, 'The most important thing to me is that people hear about Alan Turing and realize his incredible impact on the modern world, and how terrible the impact of prejudice was on him.'"
just Turing? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about having the British apologize to everyone who was wronged by their hateful policies in the past?
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Funny)
Og want apology for Thag killing Og's pet mastodon.
Re:just Turing? (Score:4, Funny)
But mastodon hurted Thag's girl! Bad mastodon! Only Thag allowed hurt Thag's girl!
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, if you keep the parlament busy that way for the next few decades they at least won't have the time to pass any more idiotic privacy-eliminating laws?
Re:just Turing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey! Those privacy eliminating laws are important for being able to weed out the homo^Hcommu^Hmusli^Hdruggie^Hterrorists!
A real apology might be to name a privacy or anti-discrimination act after him. But we know that won't happen.
Re:just Turing? (Score:4, Funny)
Trust a slashdotter to skew the conversation around to robotic life partners eventually.
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, why don't the British, French, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese apologies for their empire-building past. The various European powers for their slave trade. The various African tribes who were already practicing slavery when the white men arrived and sold them slaves from other tribes should probably go on the list. The Mongols should probably apologise for their invasion of China too. And what about the descendants of people responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire? They definitely need to apologise!
Or, maybe, we could get over this notion that guilt is hereditary and stop asking people to apologise for things that were done by others often before they were born. If you want someone to apologise to Turing (or, rather, to you about Turing, because he's dead and therefore doesn't care) then why not go after the people who still persecute homosexuals. Better yet, get them to apologise to people who are still alive for things that they've actually done.
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:just Turing? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know there have been apologies for slavery, but it just doesn't make any sense.
As a former foreign minister of Denmark said on the issue: We do not apologize for things we haven't done, to people it wasn't done against.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know there have been apologies for slavery, but it just doesn't make any sense. As a former foreign minister of Denmark said on the issue: We do not apologize for things we haven't done, to people it wasn't done against.
Indeed I find it a little offensive. At the time Britain was involved in slavery, my ancestors were being somewhat oppressed by the system of land lords (and tenant farmers) that existed in England. They certainly didn't have the vote. And yet, apparently, I'm supposed to apologise on the grounds that more than two centuries ago, many of the people who were oppressing us also happened to be oppressing some other people.
Re:just Turing? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Symbolic acts" aren't worth the archetypes they're printed on.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see the point in saying guilt should't be hereditary, although the UK government is not a single person.
However, claiming injecting people with "hormonal treatments" was normal is like claiming that waterboarding is normal now. They all knew what they were doing was wrong then, just like we all know what we are doing is wrong now. We just make a pretense that it isn't.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Oh and all women should apologize to men for taking that apple.
There were no women in his life. That's why the government gave him so much hate, and he eventually ate that apple.
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you mistake organizations for the people who make them up.
Let us say a corporation takes an illegal action. Everyone within it who was responsible for that resigns and is subsequently replaced. That corporation is still on the hook as an organization, even though none of the individuals within it was responsible.
An apology to Alan Turing would be, in effect, an official statement that "We realize we were wrong to persecute someone because he was gay. We have learned that lesson and will not do it again." It's perfectly appropriate for the British government to make that statement, because the British government did the persecuting in the first place. It doesn't matter if its members have changed.
Awful attitude (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with this attitude is that we don't acknowledge that something was done wrong. Sometimes an apology is all that is needed to mend ties to some wronged group, and then healing can begin. The Mongols and the roman empire are poor examples. No one has memory of the emotional impact of the Mongols and the Roman empire. But there is still plenty of emotions over the european impact over Africa, the middle east, and southeast asia. Hell, a lot of what's going on in those areas, mostly bad things, are a direct result of the actions that were taken by those imperial powers. And yet most governments go along like "Oh really we did something wrong? Well that wasn't my fault that was someone else. I'd never do that to you." Oh really, then why don't you just apologize and get on with life? What, no apology? Gee, I guess you don't think it was wrong huh?
I like the idea that someone else posted that apologies should be given to the entire community, and not just to Alan Turing. Alan in this case is a good poster child.
Western Countries still have plenty of people with lots of illogical hatred. I think that if Britain were to do this it would go a long way to further showing how backward the US is in it's own hatreds. If you tried this in the US there would actually be a huge political backlash. And an apology doesn't have to mean you are weak, an apology just has to mean you were too cruel in the past, and that the government by the people and for the people will try to do better to preserve your basic human rights.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or, maybe, we could get over this notion that guilt is hereditary and stop asking people to apologise for things that were done by others often before they were born. If you want someone to apologise to Turing (or, rather, to you about Turing, because he's dead and therefore doesn't care) then why not go after the people who still persecute homosexuals. Better yet, get them to apologise to people who are still alive for things that they've actually done.
You filthy islamophobe !
(note, this is sarcastic, just intended to underscore the hypocrisy of people who demand apologies from those who saw their mistake and fixed it, like for example the English and Americans, and not demand anything from the people, like muslims for example, who still have not seen how despicable their behavior is, and still en-masse attack homosexuals, practice slavery, ... the works. The problem is, just about any religion except Christianity has always, for the whole of their histor
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Informative)
It is interesting that you cite Sharia for Muslim law, but do not cite your references for Hindu law. Practices in India today, do not neccessarily have anything to do with Hindu law. By all accounts Hinduism has been generally liberal with sexuality and open and accepting of various different practices including homosexuality.
When Europeans arrived in India, they were shocked by Hinduism, which they termed idolatrous, and by the range of sexual practices, including same-sex relations, which they labeled licentious. British colonial rulers wrote modern homophobia into education, law and politics.
The Wikipedia entry on Homosexuality in India [wikipedia.org] also does not refer to any of the conclusions you have made. Sure, it might sound kind of cool to make up your "facts", but please cite your sources.
The creative reconstruction of history is exactly what is being discussed here and you do make a good case against it.
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Informative)
Canada has more than three times the land mass of India [wikipedia.org].
Additionally, the section of Manu Smriti that you cited is this:
That pertains to infidelity, not homosexuality.
Re:just Turing? (Score:4, Informative)
the punishment for homosexuality in canon law is a mild form of banishment.
The Christian punishment for homosexuality has traditionally been execution. The following extracts are taken from a document on Canon law and homosexuality [williamapercy.com]:
If a man lie with mankind as he lieth with awoman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20: 13, reinforcing the earlier prohibition in 18:22). From this dire injunction, which applies to male homosexuals only, stem all later Western laws prescribing the death penalty for sodomy. ...
After the Roman Empire's recognition of Christianity as effectively the state religion (A.D. 3 13), capital enactments against male homosexuality made their way into the Civil Law. One statute of 342 prescribed death by the sword, another of 390 indicated burning. ... ...
A new wave of hostile legislation emerged in the twelfth century, starting with the Nablus Council of 1120, which specified burning. The prevalence of this penalty is based in part on the Sodom story, but it also reflects the parallel with heretics who were usually burned. A somewhat later French law required execution only on the third offense.
Christian Emperors when they became heads of the church meted out savage penalties for unrepentant sodomites: the sons of Constantine the sword, and Theodosius and Justinian the avenging flames ...
the council of Nablus, preoccupied with sodomy, decreed in 1120 that guilty men should be burnt at the stake ...
at the moment when the Virgin Mary was giving birth to Jesus, all sodomites died a sudden death. From then on, canonists regularly cite Justinian's Novella 77 that disasters such as famine, pestilence, and earthquake, to which many added floods and other natural catastrophes, are divine retribution for 'crimes against nature." ...
Like the Scholastics, canon law treated homosexuality, bestiality, and masturbation as contra naturam, "contrary to nature," because they excluded the possibility of procreation, which thus became the touchstone of sexualmorality. Such crimes on the part of a religious constituted sacrilege, because his or her body was a vessel consecrated to the service of God. ...
the papal Inquisition in due course in certain regions extended its jurisdiction to sodomites as well, now viewed as allied with supernatural powers, demons, devils, and witches. The convicted were handed over to the secular authorities for punishment; in time the secular governments were to act independently of the Church in prescribing and enforcing the death penalty. Before execution, confessions were wrung from victims by torture.
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Informative)
Or, maybe, we could get over this notion that guilt is hereditary
The Head of State [wikipedia.org] is the same. It makes sense for her to apologize (or not).
Knighthood makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that apologizing for something that you didn't to to people who are no longer alive doesn't make much sense. I think that John's first suggestion of knighting him is a great idea. It's not an apology; it is honoring him for his tremendous contributions to the country, in spite of the horrible way he was treated.
It has much of the same social benefit that apologizing to him would. He should have been knighted while he was alive, and the only reason he wasn't was because he was gay. Choosing to do so now recognizes this fact and states that we will no longer overlook someone because of their sexuality.
If you want to apologize, apologize to the people who are still living that were put though this garbage. For Turing in particular the important thing is to remember what he accomplished and what he was put through, and officially honoring him is an excellent way to do this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because you think an apology from the people who didn't do it to the people it wasn't done to is pointless doesn't mean that you think that it should be forgotten.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about you just plain forget about living. The Jews keep the remembrance of the Holocaust alive because there are still many thousands of people across the world that wish to continue where Hitler left off.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That of course is the biggest problem with the petition. All should be treated equally under the law, so while they might call the petition under his name and as a memorial to his efforts, the petition should actually seek redress for everyone wrongfully persecuted under that legislation.
Re:just Turing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd just be happy to see the British apologize for their current hateful policies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To hell with apologies... (Score:4, Insightful)
... I want big $$$ compensation for what the Tories did to my Colonial ancestors! Cold hard cash in 100 Euro bills would be nice, but I'll settle for Paypal and lose that 2.9 percent if that's how it has to happen.
Re:just Turing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why don't we just have everyone apologize to everyone else for being short-sighted and only interested in their own goals? That pretty much covers everyone and every nation, ever. Both individually and collectively.
There's a certain point where it just makes the world a better place if you just go around forgiving people if they are genuinely sorry rather than trying to extract reparations and apologies from everyone for everything. I know that there are still open wounds in many places, but they don't heal as well if you keep picking at them.
Re:just Turing? (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought they invented history for a reason.
To make sure you don't have to apologize for your atrocities because history is always written by the winner?
Re:just Turing? (Score:4, Funny)
All this apology does is elevate one person above all the other countless people that would also deserve apologies.
Yeah, you're right - I'm sorry about that.
No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Bluntly? Screw it.
Screw an apology and a pardon, screw knighthood and whatnot. That man had no small impact on the outcome of the breaking of German codes and thus the outcome of the war. And the thanks was to prosecute him 'cause he was gay.
If that happened to me, I'd have wanted to kill myself for helping those hypocrites. Well, maybe he did. I couldn't care less about a half-assed apology half a century after driving him to suicide (or killing him altogether, depending on your point of view).
It's a bit like the history of Joan of Arc. Very popular and welcome in times of dire straits but quickly dumped once no longer useful and deemed a "security risk".
No thanks. I know what Turing did. For himself, for science, for "us" geeks. Whether you care about him, whether you apologize, frankly, it doesn't matter.
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether you care about him, whether you apologize, frankly, it doesn't matter.
Right, but Turing was homosexual and you're not ... or at least all accounts and his trial for "gross indecency" indicated it. I think that historically we need to not only recognize people who were homosexual but celebrate them. An apology from the British government and/or knighthood would not only be an apology to Turing but an apology to those that were tried for the same reason. Turing isn't alone in famous figures tried for "gross indecency" with Oscar Wilde [wikipedia.org] suffering the same charge. I'm sure there's a lot more. But if you had an uncle or aunt that was tried and jailed long ago for homosexuality, you could view this apology as an apology to every British citizen who was persecuted for the way they were born.
Also, I often find myself (an American) debating people who believe that homosexuality is a choice. Alan Turing is a great counterexample. Why would you "choose" to be gay if it meant this kind of punishment and drove you to take your life? And it's not like he was illogical, he's one of the greatest recent logicians.
I think the apology would mean a lot to a lot of people and be another reason to 1) learn more about the man Alan Turing and remember him as more than just a computer scientist and 2) celebrate gay culture and heritage.
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
I would see it as an apology to homosexuals for their treatment if it was an apology to homosexuals for their treatment. Not any moment sooner. What's the statement of an apology to Turing but no other person ever tried under anti-homosexual laws? "It's still not cool to be gay, but we might descend to apologize to you if you're a fag but just so happen to save the empire and we then drive you to suicide". What kind of an apology is that, especially to the others accused and tried under this law? It's a slap in the face rather than an apology. You may rest assured that, if (big IF) that apology is eventually uttered, we'll see a lot of stress on how much Turing did for the victory of WW2 and how "misunderstood" he was, and so many other beautiful euphemisms to cover up the stink that they essentially dumped someone who had more impact on the beneficial outcome of WW2 than any general or any politician just because he's not into pussy.
An apology to Turing without an apology to the others that suffered the same fate but just didn't manage to somehow save the Empire is a slap in the face. Not an apology.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, I often find myself (an American) debating people who believe that homosexuality is a choice. Alan Turing is a great counterexample. Why would you "choose" to be gay if it meant this kind of punishment and drove you to take your life? And it's not like he was illogical, he's one of the greatest recent logicians.
While I do love this as it gives me another argument against people who blindly thrash through life with no regard what so ever for logic, fact and common sense, I must say I disagree with you somewhat.
Why celebrate "gay culture and heritage"? You seem like you respect Alan Turing, ergo I assume you pride yourself in logic thinking and sense. Would you argue that from a scientific, logic point of view, homosexuality is not a flaw? I mean, if ever I saw a trait that evolution would suppress, this would be it
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you argue that from a scientific, logic point of view, homosexuality is not a flaw? I mean, if ever I saw a trait that evolution would suppress, this would be it.
Yet homosexuality is a widely observed phenomenon.
Ergo, either evolution is broken, or there is something going on that is more subtle and interesting than your naive notions of what is adaptive or "logical". Personally, I'm betting the latter.
"I can't make sense of this in evolutionary terms" does not mean "This does not make sense in evolutionary terms." It most probably means, "There are things that make sense in evolutionary terms that I don't understand (yet)."
Given the known correlation between homosexuality in male humans and birth order (men with older brothers are more likely to be homosexual) there is such a stunningly obvious evolutionary reason for it that I can't be bothered to explain it to you.
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
Why, yes I would.
Yet after millions of years, it didn't. Go figure.
The last theory on it I heard is that homosexuality frees up a lot of time that would otherwise be spent on breeding and caring for their own children. That means they have time to support their tribe/relatives, improving the group's chances of survival. And their genes still get passed on by their straight relatives.
Not all traits have to be always beneficial in all times and places. Sickle cell anemia is a well known example.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
homosexuality is not a flaw? I mean, if ever I saw a trait that evolution would suppress, this would be it.
And yet, homosexuality exists, and separated twin studies show convincingly that there is a genetic basis for it. So maybe there is a flaw in your reasoning? Various hypotheses have been proposed, that homosexuality may benefit the family group rather than the individual, that it was only recently in history that it became usual for homosexuals to not have a regular partner of the opposite sex, that homosexual men rank higher than straight men on various tests of agreeableness and other positive personality
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
An apology penned by the persons who currently constitute government in the UK would be utterly meaningless since those are not persons who had anything to do with Turing's treatment.
"The Government" is not some sentient, undying, collectively intelligent entity which can itself apologise for its behaviour. It is merely a label for a group of individuals currently fulfilling certain roles.
By all means seek out politicians and civil servants who had a direct hand in injustices of the past and pursue them for
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the evidence currently suggests that there is probably some neurological basis towards a predisposition to believe in religion. There is some evidence that tending towards belief in the divine would have benefited early groups of humans, thus creating an evolutionary drive towards belief. Studies of separated twins show that belief or not belief in the pair is not just random, inferring a genetic basis of belief. See for example Why do we believe in God? [guardian.co.uk] by Robert Winston, or Religion is a product [newscientist.com]
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I kind of agree with this to a great extent... but I find myself believing that he should get a knighthood. Not because of his treatment but because the guy earned it and saved a lot of lives with his code breaking work.
Pardon unlikely? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:5, Insightful)
If there are any conservative Christians out there who need an example of why their gay-bashing is idiotic and obscenely counter-productive, look no further than the case of Alan Turing.
Right. Because it's only conservative Christians who "gay bash." Islamic fundamentalists, for whom gay bashing laws are still on the theocratic books, get a pass in the public consciousness, as usual..
Lookit, the Americans and Western Europeans did some bad things, and then we got over it! We moved on! We entered the 21st Century!! You want to get angry, you want to get fired up, you want to actually do some good and maybe save some lives, go after Sharia, today, not Britain 50-60 years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, we've moved on, but we all still have a long way to go with plenty of moving on to still occur.
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lookit, the Americans and Western Europeans did some bad things, and then we got over it! We moved on! We entered the 21st Century!!
Which is why same sex partners can get insurance covered the same as heterosexual partners. Which is why gay marriage is legal throughout the US. Which is why gay men don't get beaten and killed regularly by homophobes in the US. Which is why homosexuals can serve openly in the US military and be war heroes like Turing was without being punished if their homosexuality is discovered like Turing's was.
Sorry, but the US and many EU countries are a long long way from "over it". There is still a lot of work to be done and Turing is a good example to the world, both the west and east as to why we should be getting over it and moving on. Obviously the abuses in some countries that are not christian are as bad or worse, but that's the "we're not as bad as China" defense and it doesn't hold up. What happens in Iraq doesn't make what happens in Arkansas any less horrific and the poster you're responding to was right to point that out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. Because it's only conservative Christians who "gay bash." Islamic fundamentalists, for whom gay bashing laws are still on the theocratic books, get a pass in the public consciousness, as usual..
I was always taught to get your own garden in order before you go looking over the fence. Lead by example and all that.
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:4, Insightful)
People see what they want to see.
People that want PERSONS A to be evil hate filled monster will see everything that makes them evil hate filled monsters.
People that want PERSONS B to be perfect saints will see all the things that make them perfect saints.
People that try to point out that B has some parts of A or that A has some parts of B are told to shut up because A is A and it's the monster while B isn't the issue here it's A you goddamn monster. Stop trying to make it look good when A is filled with bastards like you.
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Because it's only conservative Christians who "gay bash." Islamic fundamentalists, for whom gay bashing laws are still on the theocratic books, get a pass in the public consciousness, as usual.
First of all, I never said it's only fundamentalist Christians who bash gays. Fundamentalist Christianity is, however, one of the last and greatest bastions of hatred and bigotry left in the first world. I absolutely do not give Islam a free pass on anything, it is a vile, barbaric belief system that subjugates women and preaches intolerance. Fundamentalist Islam, however, is much less of a problem in progressive societies, however, as most fundamentalist Islamic societies are otherwise backward dictatorships that would be suffering the same human rights abuses under a similar, secular dictator. In the U.S., it is more or less impossible to get elected to higher office without professing belief in the Christian God. Fundamentalist Christians have their finger on the button and have huge sway over the minds of the people. We let people like Jerry Falwell (well not him anymore; thankfully, the God I don't believe in felt fit to strike this particular hateful gasbag down) and Pat Robertson spout the worst kind of vile hatred live on television because they do it in the name of the almighty jeebus. Fundamentalist Christians are, by far, the biggest threats to equality and freedom in America and western Europe. Thankfully, the world is beginning to leave these idiots behind as they are proven to be wrong again and again by science, and our reason brings their bigotry and backwardness to the light of day.
Lookit, the Americans and Western Europeans did some bad things, and then we got over it! We moved on! We entered the 21st Century!!
I wish this were the case, but it is not. Homophobia is still rampant. Gays are not allowed to serve in the military. Gay marriage is gaining traction, but encountering severe resistance. Gays still feel pressure to stay in the closet for fear of repercussions. Society has come a long way, but it still has a ways to go before people can grow out of their prejudices.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Fundamentalist Christianity is, however, one of the last and greatest bastions of hatred and bigotry left in the first world."
As a Christian of the non-fundamentalist type, I'm sad to say that I agree with you on this.
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Fundamentalist Christianity is, however, one of the last and greatest bastions of hatred and bigotry left in the first world.
You need to get out more. There is plenty of hatred and bigotry to go around in the world, and if all the fundamentalist Christians disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow, that wouldn't change. In fact, that statement itself reeks of hatred and bigotry.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
fundamentalist Christians don't believe in translation from Old Testament to common law. They believe the new testament freed them from having to follow the law of the old testament, hence non kosher diets and not stoning your daughter for being raped. Attend a fundamentalist church and ask them what they think.
Now Islam, on the other hand, the old skool laws are still in effect, you can gleefully stone your children for being raped or gay or whatever.
Re:Oh, Those Evil Conservative Christians!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Lookit, the Americans and Western Europeans did some bad things, and then we got over it! We moved on! We entered the 21st Century!!
Yay the 21st century! Where we legalised torture, and turned a blind eye to torturers. Where doctors who perform legal services can be shot while serving as an usher in church. Where gay couples can have their marriage rights taken away from them.
Now, which country MIGHT I stand a chance of making some change in... the western democracy where I live, or some Sharia-ridden country where I am lucky enough NOT to live?
I know... I'll go after the guys living *over* *there*. Otherwise, I might actually change something here, and that could make YOU uncomfortable.
Why not a general apology? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not a general to all people who have been victims of unfair discrimination?
Chemically castrated?!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Chemically castrated?!? (Score:4, Informative)
Unless you were being deliberately ironic, don't be so quick to congratulate Western society for how wise we are "today." After all, Magdalene Asylums [wikipedia.org] were a roughly equivalent "treatment" for a similar "condition," and the last of these, in Ireland, wasn't closed until 1996.
Alan Turing Memorial (Score:4, Informative)
If you're visiting Manchester in the north-west of England, don't forget to visit the statue of Alan Turing: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=53.476722,-2.236028&spn=0.01,0.01&t=m&q=53.476722,-2.236028 [google.com].
Why is that in poor taste? (Score:4, Informative)
The location of the statue is very close to the gay village in Manchester.
They should and totally could, do this (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no reason why the current UK govt. wouldn't do this - after all, it's apologizing for something that a completely different set of leaders is guilty of. They will do it for no other reason but because it makes sheer political sense. No, not because it's the right thing to do.
Likewise, the Lockerbie bomber wasn't released because it's the right thing to do, but because Gaddafi all but publicly promised natural gas and oil at favourable prices, in return.
In other words: fuck it all.
To what purpose? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, Turing's been dead for 50 years. The politicians that made the laws he was convicted under are all dead. The judge who sentenced him is dead. The police and the lawyers and everyone else involved are most likely dead.
A corporate body cannot take responsibility, only an individual can, and our major moral problem is that we keep deluding ourselves into thinking that "corporate morals" means something. It doesn't. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT YOU DO, and "just taking orders" is never an excuse. Just as a bureaucracy cannot take the fault for a heinous act, it can no more offer real contrition, nor can it offer a real apology.
(Which is, incidentally, one of the major reasons our society is so screwed up. To paraphrase C.S. Lewis from an intro to one or the other edition of Screwtape Letters, the great evil done today is not done by thieves and criminals in the dens of crime Dickens loved to paint, but by well-dressed men in offices, acting behind the shield of a bureaucracy.)
Pardon em all and let gawd sort em out ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me spell it out (Score:4, Interesting)
A new style of Turing test (Score:3, Funny)
Simple test: Can a politician can deliver a heart felt apology for mistakes made by the British Government and convince someone hearing it that its actually sincere.
In 50 years nobody has passed the test, I won't hold be holding my breath for this one.
Be more consistent (Score:3, Insightful)
Have every government apologize for all cases of discrimination, murder, destruction, theft, pollution, pillage and enslavement that they have done in the past, and have them pledge to not do so in the future.
But that would be utopian, when the fact of the matter is that the electorate of all western nations in some form or degree wants the above. (Yes, that most likely includes you, the reader, as well.)
what's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, Alan Turing was really important to computer science. And he suffered because of a law that we currently find injust. But what's the point of this posthumous apology? The guy is dead. He's not going to feel any better if someone says they're sorry.
Is the point to get his name out there? To increase his fame? To get him the recognition he deserves? Why? Yeah, he's a big deal to computer scientists... But the world doesn't revolve around us. Why is it so necessary for the world to recognize his contribution specifically?
Is the point to make the British government apologize for treating people badly in the past? Again - why? They don't do that anymore, do they? Homosexuality isn't currently on the books as a crime, is it? Isn't that enough then? And if it isn't, where do you stop apologizing? Are you going to ask for a formal apology to every single person who was convicted of a crime that we now disagree with?
The past is the past. Bad things happened, innocent people suffered, but it is over now. Time to move on.
I'm not suggesting that we sweep all this nastiness under the rug, hide it, or forget about it... By all means, let's learn from our mistakes... But apologizing to dead people just doesn't get you very far.
Gay?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Do e-petitions have more sway in UK? (Score:4, Insightful)
As I see it, (Score:4, Informative)
Turing desserves an apology because any security lookup done during wartime certainly had already uncovered this aspect of his personality, but the brits were more than happy to turn a blind eye on it in spite of the already existing laws.
The later prosecution was application of a double standard in this regard.
Re:What the? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What the? (Score:5, Insightful)
Be lenient. He might on the other hand know Beckham's first name (frankly, I don't). Every group of people has their heroes...
Re:What the? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Be lenient. He might on the other hand know Beckham's first name (frankly, I don't).
Victoria.
Re:What the? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What the? (Score:4, Funny)
Achilles? (Though he couldn't win a foot race with a tortoise, so I don't know how great he was)
Re:What the? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not that I'm a big sports fan, but plenty of people remember sports figures from the last century. Audio and video recording has much to do with that. Mozart, Galileo and Aristotle had the means to record their accomplishments, the athletes of their time did not.
Re:What the? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your views might not align with that of others. That does not mean that we should consider with different views to us as weak-minded.
I consider athletic achievement on par with intellectual achievements, along with military, monetary and political achievements. Why? Because they are all attained by people who dedicates their life to a single goal. In my view, that is the most important thing.
Now, coming to your view, you have considered only scientists and artists. The point, I guess, being that the world is the way it is now only due to scientific achievements. I disagree on that. Politics and military has played a far far bigger role in shaping the world as we see it now. Again, much of athletic achievements and military achievements go hand in hand. Also, when survival was at stake - which was the case for majority of human existence, athletic capabilities played as big a role as intellectual capabilities. Similar is the case with monetary and artistic achievements too.
I am also more inspired by intellectual achievements than others, but let us not denigrate others based solely on that. Judging others by our morals is not always correct.
Re:What the? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What the? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've heard of Turing, but did not know about his "persecution" by his own government. These types of things often don't make it into the textbooks, just like over in Europe you probably never heard of the U.S. government's nuclear experiments on non-whites (second-class citizens in the 1950s).
Democracies often kill their best and brightest, simply because they are "odd". The most famous example is Socrates who had committed no crime, but was killed with a simple majority vote by his Athenian neighbors. T
Re:What the? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not age. Turing is fairly obscure outside of computer science. Everyone on Slashdot has heard of him, of course, but has your barber? Butcher? Regardless of their age.
He contributed a lot to computer science, but scientists don't usually get much press. He was also a war hero, and those DO sometimes get fame, but most of what he did was secret until long after the war.
Re:What the? (Score:5, Interesting)
You also have to realize there is a fairly sizable percentage of our population who don't know even the basics about science history or history itself. Look at the Jaywalking segments on Jay Leno (a biased sample of course) and poll the people around you. There are plenty of people who don't know what major historical figures like Eisenhower, Truman, the Roosevelts, or even Lincoln really did. I bet not one person that I work with has even heard of Alan Turing or the ENIGMA machine.
Re:What the? (Score:4, Insightful)
Has Jay ever shown a segment where everyone shown got the right answer?
Re:What the? (Score:5, Funny)
My barber and butcher is the same person, he just flips the apron. I am too nervous there to ask any questions :(
Re:What the? (Score:4, Funny)
Sweeny?! (Score:4, Funny)
This guy...his shop isn't on Fleet Street, is it?
Re:What the? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What the? (Score:5, Informative)
Often, GLBT-issues get completely ignored by the history books.
Here's one that has major implications for the Slashdot crowd: One person was responsible for two of the major revolutions in computing in our era: Lynn Conway [wikipedia.org], a transgendered individual. Back in the 1960s, "he" worked at IBM, where "he" invented multiple-issue dynamic instruction scheduling, the way-ahead-of-its-time idea of executing multiple instructions at the same time in a single CPU that was to make the performance boom of the late '90s and the '00s possible. Conway was fired by IBM in 1968 for stating her intent to transition from male to female, and had to rebuild her career up from scratch a second time around with a blank slate (starting out as a contractor and building up to ultimately heading the LSI group at Xerox PARC). And from this work, she and Carver Mead [wikipedia.org] invented VSLI -- the Mead and Conway Revolution [wikipedia.org] that lead to the boom of CPU advancements of the '80s.
Re:What the? (Score:5, Interesting)
Try picking the next 20 people you see on the street and asking them who Alan Turing was. Then ask those same people who George Patton was. Then realize that Turing had about as much to do with winning WWII as Patton did.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How was that prosecution wrong?
No, seriously, this is not a troll. Far from it. Laws, at any point in time, are a reflection of society's values. So we think gay people are okay and should not be prosecuted. Are you truly willing to retroactively put a country through a guilt trip for having had a different opinion, what, almost a hundred years ago?
If so, will you be willing to pay the price should we ever come to the conclusion that paedophiles are just another natural part of human sexuality? Because that
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How was that prosecution wrong?
No, seriously, this is not a troll.
If not a troll, it is a seriously unconsidered argument. You are essentially arguing that if something is the law, then prosecutions under that law can't be "wrong". Are you seriously trying to argue that prosecutions under the Nuremberg Laws [wikipedia.org], which resulted in people being sentenced to death for the "crime" of belonging to a certain ethnic group, were not wrong, because they represented the laws of the prevailing government of the day?
Re:Appology for a wrong thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok this opinion might be unpopular here, but the British Government has nothing to apologize about when talking of persecution of Alan Turing. The fact is: Alan Turing broke the law that was on the books at that time. The people knew of Turing's sexual orientation, but he did not have to act on it, if that was against the law.
Are you telling me that, if you lived in a country where your having sex was made illegal, that you would just stop having sex? Seriously? Do you think you could do that? Do you think that the average guy could manage that for any length of time? Because that's what it was. Turing was just a guy, living in a place where having sex with his chosen partner was illegal.
Some laws are just plain unjust. There is absolutely nothing wrong in breaking such laws.
NOW: What British government should apologize for, is persecution of all gays in the UK and the rest of the (now) commonwealth, which includes Alan Turing. The persecution in itself was wrong, not a treatment of the particular individual.
Agreed, both because the persecution in abstract was wrong, and the treatment of the individuals (Turing and the nameless others) was also wrong.
i hearby declare urination illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
hold your bladder until we change the law, or its your fault your pants get wet
sound absurd? that's what you are saying
"The people knew of Turing's sexual orientation, but he did not have to act on it, if that was against the law."
acting on your sexual orientation is not only your essential human right, it is IMPOSSIBLE not to act on it
Re:Appology for a wrong thing (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is: Alan Turing broke the law that was on the books at that time.
So did: Oskar Schindler [wikipedia.org], The Suffragettes [wikipedia.org], Galileo Galilei [slashdot.org], the Founding Fathers of the United States [wikipedia.org], and Jesus Christ [wikipedia.org].
Breaking the law is not necessarily a bad thing when you live in an unjust world.
the apology isn't for turing you moron (Score:3, Insightful)
the apology is for us. if you have a conscience, you feel bad about something done wrong, and you try to make amends for it. it doesn't matter if you are the perp, or some other guy is, or its something wrong that happened 1000 years ago
its a simple, healthy, normal, human instinct
why the retarded antagonism to a simple human impulse?
Re:FACT: Homsexuality is WRONG! (Score:4, Informative)
> writings in the Bible show us it is evil and wrong.
Just like weaving two kinds of cloth. You evil blends you!
Re:Sorry but no.. (Score:4, Insightful)
So the Vatican was wrong to apologize for the treatment of Galileo? I mean, Galileo was disobeying edicts of high-ranking church officials, which, in southern Italy at the time, was the law.
As others have pointed out, the Brits were happy to employ Turing, and surely must have known about his personal life. When the war was over, they threw him to the wolves. They were quite happy to ignore the anti-sodomy laws when it suited their needs. So this isn't just a matter of Turing disobeying the laws of the time, it's an issue of the British Government permitting to happen so long as Turing could help them win the war.