h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

A No.10 petition has been created asking for the Prime Minister to apologise for the prosecution and treatment of Alan Turing for being gay.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/turing/

Whilst I right alongside recognising the injustice of how he was treated - both in an isolated way considering just the issues but also in consideration of his huge legacy both to the country and to computing and mathematics - is there really any point in asking for such apologies?

It depends entirely on how the press chooses to report it. Is the PM allowed to say "no" without being branded as a gay-basher?

Who is he supposed to apologise to? The petitioner doesn't make this clear.

RF

I think it is a generic apology for doing it, more important they say it than who it is said to.

Yes I think these retrospective apology things are pretty silly. Things move on, society changes. We no longer seize people off the coast of West Africa and ship them to Carribean islands; we no longer turf people off their land in the Scottish highlands and plonk them on the coast; we no longer shoot soldiers for cowardice, and homosexuality is no longer a criminal offence.

And yes who exactly is the apology meant to be given to? It's pretty difficult to apologise to a dead person.

I don't think there's anyone he could sensibly direct any apology to. Are there even any living relatives of Turing left? His father died before he did, his mother died in the 70s, but I don't know if his brother had any children...

Well presumably the apology would be to the gay community, since that was what he was 'guilty' of.

Um. Make that gay mathematicians.

Er, gay mathematicians specialising in cryptography.

Mmmm, during WWII.

For the allies.

Gay mathematicians specialising in cryptography during WWII on the allied side.

Make that *dead* gay mathematicians specialising in cryptography during WWII on the allied side.

Alan will be dead chuffed

I must confessed to be mystified as to why anyone would object to an apology?

I mean apologies cost nothing, can go some way to rectify and injustice, and can be seen symbolicly as standing against something wrong in the past, and possibly present.

I can see no logical reason why we should not offer this apology, I really can't.

Could do with a little help as to why this could possibly be a bad idea....

FB

I think an apology would be a good idea, and wouldn't hurt anyone. I think small gestures like this do a lot to reassure LGBT folks that their contributions to society are valued and that the people who presently hold political power don't wish to persecute them as politicians have consistently done in the past.

Here in America, the small gestures Obama has made towards the LGBT community, like posthumously awarding the country's highest civilian honor to Harvey Milk, or issuing a proclamation recognizing the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, are almost a form of apology for the assassination of Milk or the police brutality against the Stonewall protesters. It obviously wasn't Obama's fault that these things happened, any more than it's Gordon Brown's fault that Alan Turing was convicted of gross indecency, was subjected to hormone treatment, and killed himself. But it's a way of showing that, as the head of the government, you're now on the side of people whom the government once prosecuted, or did nothing to stop atrocities against. That, to me, is a very powerful message.

Not that I'm a huge fan of Labour or Brown, but if he wanted a more pragmatic, politicking argument for why it's a good idea, it would be a way to counter David Cameron's "More gay-friendly than thou" attitude over the past couple months.

But apologies should not be meaningless, and this one would be. It devalues the currency.

> I think small gestures like this do a lot to reassure LGBT folks that their contributions to society are valued and that the people who presently hold political power don't wish to persecute them as politicians have consistently done in the past. <

Well from a personal perspective as a bisexual person it would mean f all to me. Just some meaningless politically correct gesture.

I prefer to keep things as they are and look at history in its true context, accept the hard facts and be pleased that things change. We can look back now at Turing's life and celebrate his achievements, and yes know the story of his sexuality. But officially sanctioned pc gestures from a 2009 perspective are really pretty meaningless IMO.

A personal

I'm in two minds about this. I do think it's a good idea but why should it take a petition to make it happen? Obviously for people like Effers it doesn't matter much but for some people it may make a world of difference.

Could you explain more in what way it might make a *world of difference* to a gay person for Gordon Brown to suddenly apologise for what happened in the 1950s to Alan Turing?

Maybe a world of difference was a bit too strong of a phrase to use. It may show that people do care and that society is changing and that people who were gay and persecuted because of it aren't forgotten

Maybe they would like to apologise to the women who weren't allowed to be cryptographers at the same time? Perfectly able mathemeticians not allowed to do a job because they had the wrong chromosome combination.

Having said that - I don't mind either way if the PM wants to apologise. But surely there are more pressing current issues to campaign about?

<>

Yah probably but it can't too long to apologise can it? I dunno, i'm no politician*



*I still have my integrity

< apologies cost nothing, can go some way to rectify and injustice, and can be seen symbolicly as standing against something wrong in the past, and possibly present.>

Absolutely. We sometimes ask for nothing else to resolve a complaint. But for an apology to rectify an injustice it has to be accepted as well as offered. In this case, I can't think who would accept it.

But then I'm so clueless I'd totally forgotten that Turing was gay, never knew he'd been convicted of anything, and simply thought of him as that brilliant mathematician who died a tragically early death.

Mol

Ben, why would the apology be meaningless?

I've seen apologies given by governments in NZ and Australia to Maori and Aboriginal peoples. Those peoples say they mean something.

It depends on the apology of course. I think the person giving it needs to be sincere or not bother. John Howard was an ass for not apologising to Aboriginals but then if he had apologised I doubt I would have believed him.

Here's Kevin Rudd's apology if you want to see (or hear) how it's done:

http://www.pm.gov.au/node/5952


>>
Alan Turing was the greatest computer scientist ever born in Britain. He laid the foundations of computing, helped break the Nazi Enigma code and told us how to tell whether a machine could think.

He was also gay. He was prosecuted for being gay, chemically castrated as a 'cure', and took his own life, aged 41.

The British Government should apologize to Alan Turing for his treatment and recognize that his work created much of the world we live in and saved us from Nazi Germany. And an apology would recognize the tragic consequences of prejudice that ended this man's life and career.
<<

From the OP link. That's pretty bad

I think there is good to be done in addressing that. I'm not sure how exactly, and it would need to take in other people that the government persecuted for being gay. There is something quite particular about governments acknowledging where they have been grossly unfair and worse. If it is done well, it changes things for the better.

But Turing was not the only gay oppressed by that regime, not even the only gay who contributed to the war, or the only gay at Bletchley. Yes, he's the one who's famous. But apologising specifically for injustice to Alan Turing implies it was bad to treat him that way *because* he was a good and clever person and contributed to the war but ok to persecute other gay men who weren't so good or clever.

And if the reason for apologising to Turing is because he served his country, then what about Dr David Kelly - another government scientist who committed suicide because the government turned on him? Doesn't he deserve an apology because he wasn't gay even though he was hung out to dry by Blair and all. Who's going to apologise to him?

We need to be crystal clear what the apology is for - is it for treating people who serve their country badly - in which case adequately compsenating those injured in Iraq and Afghanisan would be a start, and then apologising to the widow of David Kelly. Or is it for institutionalised homophobia? In which case apologise to the whole community, and whatever you do don't make it ok to single out the "good" gays but persecute the others.

You see, institutionalised homophobia is only a decade old in this country. If the Tory party were to apologise for Clause 28 then that might just have some meaning. But they won't, because they still feel that way.

So it's a sweet idea, but incoherent. And if you try to make it coherent, it evaporates away.

Ben