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.
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: (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, Informative)
The formal apology actually does extend to the many other homosexuals who suffered liked Turing. From the actual statement:
I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him. Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted as he was convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly. Over the years millions more lived in fear of conviction.
I am proud that those days are gone and that in the last 12 years this government has done so much to make life fairer and more equal for our LGBT community. This recognition of Alanâ(TM)s status as one of Britainâ(TM)s most famous victims of homophobia is another step towards equality and long overdue.,
But yes, we do tend to only apologize for the most famous examples of society's cruelty to its own members. I think we have a basic need as humans to create symbolic icons. In Britain, Turing was just that. It was in no way a suggestion that his suffering was worst, or that his story alone was regrettable. Oscar Wilde is another example, though I don't think he was castrated. In America, Americans use Rosa Parks as an icon of the civil rights struggle, though she obviously did not endure the worst simply for the fact that she survived.
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.
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:Why not (Score:4, Interesting)
I know it throws up all kinds of references to Gattaca, but the difference is simple. Brother and Sister is information readily available to everyone without violating anyone's privacy. Capturing genetic profiles and then basing marriage licenses on it, or "procreation licenses" would be far different and regardless of motivations, I find my own genetic profile to *deeply* and *profoundly* private. I can see 100 years in the future that we wear clothes designed to prevent DNA from falling off and being collected by little robots in restaurants for marketing purposes.
Siblings procreating has the highest certainty of genetically damaged offspring. 1st cousins next.
I think we can draw the line at siblings and 1st cousins. Genetic profiling is not required for that, and I would never support genetic profiling under any circumstances. Ever. The only person that should have access to your genetic information is your primary care physician and that information should be strongly protected by the most strenuous legal language possible with severe consequences for unauthorized dissemination.
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.
Re: (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 disabil
Re: (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
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: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: (Score:3, Informative)
Ummmm, right back at you.
I was asking a hypothetical question and the percentage was not meant to be accurate. Once again, hypothetical. You can see that I asked if it was 80% percent right after which implied that the 90% was not a statement of fact.
That being said, the chance for genetic abnormalities in 1st cousin offspring is 6-8% which is double that of the average 3-4%. However, brother and sister offspring already result in DOUBLE the chance of autosomal
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All of the studies are going to be very small by their very nature. That is not surprising, and I don't think it completely invalidates the study. Such incestuous relationships are rare for both biological and social reasons.
Conceptually, it is not that hard to understand why offspring from such incestuous pairings have much higher probabilities for severe abnormalities. We may be arguing about the exact percentage, but I think we both know, it is not less than 10%. Qui
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: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.
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!
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:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Interesting)
living in a world where our deepest-held moral convictions are set aside for technological progress sounds like a nightmare scenario.
Sounds like paradise to me. A society governed by reason rather than moronic superstitions.
it makes the world sane in a way to know that society's mores and taboos will be enforced.
Quite the opposite. Societies taboos should be shunned on principle. Mob-mentality instituted into law. Moronic superstitions codified and enforced by people in uniform. What makes the world insane is that our morals (which I assume is what you meant) and taboos are enforced.
that instinct is a very important part of how we interact as social creatures.
Instincts are what makes us animals. Reason is what makes us human.
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:It's about damn time. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Funny)
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: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:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Funny)
And while it doesn't help me directly, it seems this phrase will get modded up.
I genuinly appriciate it too.
ps. i prefer insightful over funny, i'm not just a joker, i'm a karmawhore too!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Indeed, and whilst many may think you only have reason to be thankful if you're gay because justice has been done, that's not the case.
My reasons to be thankful to Turing are because he was one of the founders of the field I work in and love so much, one of the most important contributors along with the likes of Godel to what I find one of the most fascinating and enjoyable fields of math, and because, most importantly, his work allowed my grandfather to cross the channel back to England safely for his wedd
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
What? Plato didn't say that. That's completely wrong. Plato explicitly defined justice in the Republic. I quote:
we affirmed Justice was doing one's own business, and not being a busybody
Citation: http://books.google.com/books?id=50SqFuH-4jQC&lpg=PA126&ots=O96UUppWV1&dq=justice%20not%20being%20a%20busybody%20republic&pg=PA126#v=onepage&q=&f=false [google.com]
Don't just make up quotes and attribute them to Plato. It makes philosophers really angry.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It makes philosophers really angry.
. . . and angry philosophers are waaay scary . . . especially dead greeks. Sorry, I mean, Greeks. You can't be too careful . . .
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You do *not* want to make philosophers angry...I did it once and I think I got away with it, others, not so lucky.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:4, Funny)
...so... humanities departments are basically a botnet executing a DDoS on the brains of unsuspecting undergraduates?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How exactly does
we affirmed Justice was doing one's own business, and not being a busybody
*define justice explicitly*??
All they say in this dialogue is that allowing people to go about their business is doing them justice, and interfering in people's business is an injustice, but it doesn't claim to give an ultimate definition justice. The whole dialogue tries to come up with a definition of justice, but mires down into a debate about self interest versus acting just and the quality of rulers. Having said that, I guess the original poster's comment is not a quote from Plato, so y
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:4, Funny)
- Aristotle, "On Memory and Reminiscence" (BC 350)
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Don't just make up quotes and attribute them to Plato. It makes philosophers really angry.
"I really said that" - Plato
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yep. Good apology, politically safe to make it, he's still dead.
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's about damn time. (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, just call him a Nazi and be done with it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He'd be screaming "Get me out of this box!!!"
Hmmm! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmmm! (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure the apology caused Alan Turing to halt for a moment.
Re:Hmmm! (Score:5, Funny)
You'll never prove it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (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.
Proud to be sorry, an odd concept (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Proud to be sorry, an odd concept (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Proud to be sorry, an odd concept (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not really... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Not really... (Score:4, Funny)
Its easy to say you are sorry for something that you didn't do and weren't accused of doing.
Yea you're right. I'm sorry :(
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Its easy to say you are sorry for something that you didn't do and weren't accused of doing.
Have you not being paying attention - it clearly is not easy.
This took thousands of people petitioning the government. Have a look at how long it took for apologies for the various hideous treatments to and of Australian Aborigines. Even then many people were still opposed to doing so.
If you can be proud of others before your time, then you can be genuinely sorry for acts done by others before your time.
Re:Not really...Truth abou humility (Score:4, Insightful)
Randroids don't pass the Turing test.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't get me wrong, I feel the statement is fine and all that, just strikes me as weird to put those two concepts together.
The BBC would like to apologize for the previous apology.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Is that any worse than a conservative who's proud that he's not sorry when he ought to be?
Re:Proud to be sorry, an odd concept (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"Liberal" means something entirely different in the US than it does in the Czech Republic.
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
You must have been overly educated if you believe Gordon Brown and his cohorts are not the real world implementation of modern social liberalism (as opposed to the fantasy that lives inside so many peoples heads).
And to be honest it *really* doesn't matter what Univerisities and academics and students claim is the perfect ideal in the class room and in papers. Over and over again the output of academia on any subject regarding political thinking bears absolutely no resemblance to what the ideal advanced by
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:Not forced (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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:Not forced (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that's where the 2nd amendment was supposed to come in to play.
Re: (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
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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].
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".
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: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.)
An Easy Apology (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
To stop this turning into a rant though, I salute you Alan Turing for bringing philosophy into Computer Science through all your pioneering AI work. You deserved far better.
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: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: (Score:3)
If we have to put up with Alan Green [wikipedia.org] and Colin Murray [wikipedia.org] then we're damn well taking Oscar Wilde as compensation.
And we'll have Van Morrison too while we're at it.
You can keep U2 though. Seriously.
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.
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.
Too bad things didn't happen Greg Egan's way (Score:5, Interesting)
Not the best choice of phrase (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Churchill was busy being Prime Minister at the time.
That should say a lot about Churchill's real character- if anyone could've protected Turing he could, and he chose not to.
Churchill made some great speeches during the war, but remember as soon as the war was over his government was kicked out, yes they got back in next term but only because his government was better than the, at the time, found to be even worse Labour government.
This view of Churchill as a great Briton is questionable, he talked a good ta
Why geeks don't care about homosexuality (Score:5, Funny)
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.
I'm glad to see that apology (Score:4, Informative)
I'm glad to see an apology for Turing's treatment being set straight. Alan Turing definitely didn't deserve the bad treatment that was inflicted upon him for his sexual orientation. He certainly deserves this apology.
One historical note is that several models of computers (or actual computers) preceded the more formal computer science [osdir.com], but naturally, the theoretical work of Turing (and related early CS pioneers such as Alonzo Church [wikipedia.org]), and their rigour should also be highly regarded.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Overdue, but still meaningful (Score:5, Interesting)
As a gay programmer myself, it often amazed the people I worked with that the two parts of my personality weren't in conflict. I very seldom ran into predjudice, though. In fact, often I was recognized as a good teacher and the other employees felt free to come and ask my help when they had a tough coding problem.
Alan Turing has been an idol of mine for a long time, and he was treated badly, yes. But more important than the apology is the recognition that there have been contributions of significance to the world by gay men and women and transgendered persons. Our history has been actively suppressed for centuries, but we are finally being recognized as having value in the modern age.
God bless Alan Turing, and Gordon Brown. Every little bit of kindness and generosity makes the world a better place for all of mankind.
Re:Online petition (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Online petition (Score:5, Funny)
Since when is an online petition worth more than a squirt of piss?
I'm pretty sure aiming a quart of piss at PM Brown wouldn't have gotten the same response.
Pretty sure, anyway. Ya never know with those Brits...
Re:Online petition (Score:5, Funny)
You crazy Yanks and your bizarre 'English' language. The correct UK spelling is B-U-D-W-E-I-S-E-R. And it comes in pints, not quarts.
Re:Congratulations, I guess (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was going to moderate, but decided to respond to this instead.
An apology never "changes" anything. Harm done is not undone by saying "I am sorry". But an apology is an admission that "I" if I'm the one who did the wrong, or "We" if it is an entity that still exists (such as a company, country etc) recognise the action committed by people like us is w
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes.
Genuine progress and enlightenment does not require a political mandate.
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: (Score:3, Funny)