[Newsbot]

Title: Alan Turing gets his royal pardon for 'gross indecency' � 61 years after he poisoned himself
Category: World
Posted By: Curtman
Date: 2013-12-23 22:31:19

[Curtman]

$1:

He was the father of modern computing whose work on the Enigma code at Bletchley Park is said to have shortened the Second World War.

But he was also gay and in those less enlightened times was chemically castrated by an ungrateful nation after being convicted of “gross indecency” with a man in 1952.
...
Announcing the change of heart, the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling said Turing deserved to be �remembered and recognised for his fantastic contribution to the war effort� and not for his later criminal conviction.

�His later life was overshadowed by his conviction for homosexual activity, a sentence we would now consider unjust and discriminatory and which has now been repealed,� he said. �A pardon from the Queen is a fitting tribute to an exceptional man.�

[Freakinoldguy]

A different time and viewing it with our current moral ethics is somewhat misleading especially since our laws were no better.

$1:

Changes to the criminal code in 1948 and 1961 were used to brand gay men as "criminal sexual psychopaths" and "dangerous sexual offenders." These labels provided for indeterminate prison sentences. Most famously, George Klippert, a homosexual, was labelled a dangerous sexual offender and sentenced to life in prison, a sentence confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. He was released in 1971.

So, now that they've pardoned Turing is the Queen going to pardon every homosexual in the Commonwealth that was arrested and incarcerated or, is this belated reprieve just for dead former British War Hero's?

I'm glad he got his pardon but it still doesn't change the fact that the past is the past and you can't just change it to suit your new found political and moral outlook with the stroke of a pen

[Jabberwalker]

$1:

it still doesn't change the fact that the past is the past and you can't just change it to suit your new found political and moral outlook with the stroke of a pen

So, it was okay that we burned "witches" back in the 17th century? The law was the law, after all.

[DrCaleb]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

$1:

it still doesn't change the fact that the past is the past and you can't just change it to suit your new found political and moral outlook with the stroke of a pen

So, it was okay that we burned "witches" back in the 17th century? The law was the law, after all.

Which laws are you speaking about? And we didn't burn witches back then.

[Freakinoldguy]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

$1:

it still doesn't change the fact that the past is the past and you can't just change it to suit your new found political and moral outlook with the stroke of a pen

So, it was okay that we burned "witches" back in the 17th century? The law was the law, after all.

Did I say that?

Given today's standards Turing should never have been sentenced but, by the standards of the day, unenlightened as they were, in hindsight, he was legally convicted of a crime and punished for it. No pardon, reprieve or gift from the Queen can change that so giving him this pardon especially since he allegedly committed suicide years ago is small compensation for a crime that only became morally acceptable nearly a half a century later and does nothing to change peoples perceptions of his legacy.

The article's headline makes it sound like he got pardoned for gross indecency which would have made him innocent but, that's not really the case. As it stands now they pardoned him because his contribution to the war effort was overshadowed by his gross indecency conviction and not because being gay isn't criminal anymore which makes the pardon really mean squat when you think about it. But it does leave history somewhat intact with no attempt to alter it to suit today's moral compass which is debatable in itself.

This decision is also little solace for the thousands of others especially the living ones who were charged for the same offense but will never be granted a pardon because they aren't dead former war hero's which, since people seem to want to apply today's standards to everything from the past would appear to be morally wrong also.

[BartSimpson]

From Wiki:

$1:

In January 1952, Turing started a relationship with Arnold Murray, a 19-year-old unemployed man.

At the time Turing was 39 years old and that the police no doubt saw this as an older man predating on a young man likely contributed to the prosecution. I doubt that the police back then would have been as interested if Turing was with someone his own age.

[Jabberwalker]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

$1:

it still doesn't change the fact that the past is the past and you can't just change it to suit your new found political and moral outlook with the stroke of a pen

So, it was okay that we burned "witches" back in the 17th century? The law was the law, after all.

Which laws are you speaking about? And we didn't burn witches back then.

In Oliver Cromwell's Britain they sure did and there were most certainly anti-witch ordinances (NOTE: I SAID 17TH CENTURY!!!)
We didn't do it in Canada because there wasn't a Canada ... burned a few Jesuits, tho.

Anyway, the guy who invented binary-based eleectonic computing should be up for an posthumous Nobel Prize (if there is such a thing) for his invention is transforming the human race. As far as persecuting gays to their deaths ... how collectively cowardly of us.

[DrCaleb]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

So, it was okay that we burned "witches" back in the 17th century? The law was the law, after all.

Which laws are you speaking about? And we didn't burn witches back then.

In Oliver Cromwell's Britain they sure did and there were most certainly anti-witch ordinances (NOTE: I SAID 17TH CENTURY!!!)
We didn't do it in Canada because there wasn't a Canada ... burned a few Jesuits, tho.

You did say 17th century, but you also said 'we', not 'they'. Salem was also a British colony back then, and 'we' burnt no witches. Hung a few. Crushed one. No McNuggets.

Turing was a great man who's had an enormous influence on modern society, and the law against homosexuality was unjust by today's standards - but it was the law. He broke it knowing it was the law. If Her Majesty wants to pardon him for that crime, it's her perogative but I don't see the point.

[BartSimpson]

What's wrong with killing witches? After all, the muslims in Saudi Arabia kill witches and sorcerers all the time!

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/salem-comes ... di-arabia/

[Curtman]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Turing was a great man who's had an enormous influence on modern society, and the law against homosexuality was unjust by today's standards - but it was the law. He broke it knowing it was the law. If Her Majesty wants to pardon him for that crime, it's her perogative but I don't see the point.

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

Consider it official reinforcement of that idea.

[Jabberwalker]

$1:

, but you also said 'we', not 'they'.

I'm quite sure that my Roundhead ancestors probably lit a few witches afire (after determining if they were lighter than ducks). The "we" is the collective "we" of the culture that I come from ... but witch-burning was far more widespread than in the British Isles and even the Slobbovians did it, I'll wager.

[BartSimpson]

Curtman Curtman:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Turing was a great man who's had an enormous influence on modern society, and the law against homosexuality was unjust by today's standards - but it was the law. He broke it knowing it was the law. If Her Majesty wants to pardon him for that crime, it's her perogative but I don't see the point.

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

Consider it official reinforcement of that idea.

The Baptist Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. would not have endorsed gay rights and you're misusing the man's memory in appropriating his words for a movement that he absolutely never endorsed.

New Black Magazine posted an article on this topic that's been referenced as giving fair treatment to the issue:

http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.aspx?index=477

[Gunnair]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Curtman Curtman:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Turing was a great man who's had an enormous influence on modern society, and the law against homosexuality was unjust by today's standards - but it was the law. He broke it knowing it was the law. If Her Majesty wants to pardon him for that crime, it's her perogative but I don't see the point.

“One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”
― Martin Luther King Jr.

Consider it official reinforcement of that idea.

The Baptist Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. would not have endorsed gay rights and you're misusing the man's memory in appropriating his words for a movement that he absolutely never endorsed.

New Black Magazine posted an article on this topic that's been referenced as giving fair treatment to the issue:

http://www.thenewblackmagazine.com/view.aspx?index=477

He might have smoked pot though.

Just sayin'....

[Curtman]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The Baptist Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. would not have endorsed gay rights and you're misusing the man's memory in appropriating his words for a movement that he absolutely never endorsed.

It's equally true though. People are born gay, they don't choose it any more than someone chooses to be black.

If he hadn't realized this then, he would today.