
Petition to the UK government to apologize to Alan Turing - jgrahamc
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/turing/
======
ErrantX
I think it is wrong that modern society/government should apologise for the
transgressions of it's predecessors (I feel the same way about the whole
apologising for slavery business).

IMO a _better_ way is to not hold those prejudices any more. At the end of the
day that is greater than any apology could ever be :)

~~~
ionfish
I'm generalising here from your particular view on state apologies to a more
general one about state responsibility. If that's not an accurate appraisal of
your view, my apologies; I hope this post will at least spur you to clarify
this point.

Disavowing the continuity of the State through time might, perhaps, be a
defensible position, but let's be clear as to the ramifications.

To begin with, states shouldn't have to pay the debts incurred by previous
governments: those debts were incurred by a totally different set of people,
perhaps with wildly different motivations and ideologies.

If a government signs a treaty, then when they lose power, the next government
is under no obligation to honour that treaty.

People do, generally, consider that governments must abide by the obligations
of their predecessors. They may be wrong to do so, but an argument is surely
required as to why we are all wrong when we think that.

An apology might seem like a minor thing, especially when the object of that
apology is deceased. We should resist this view. An apology is an admission of
guilt and an acknowledgement of moral responsibility: "We did that thing, and
we were wrong to do it, and we are sorry for it." An apology is required
because the British state, while having a different government and different
citizens, is an entity with continuity through time that retains some element
of responsibility for its actions in earlier ages. With time, and the change
that happens over time, this responsibility may diminish or lapse entirely.
But Alan Turing's death is not long in the past, and the spectre of homophobia
still lurks within our society. An apology is past due.

From a utilitarian viewpoint, we might argue that apologies better allow
people to "not hold those prejudices any more". By apologising for the
mistreatment of gays, or ethnic minorities, or colonial subjects, a state sets
out a position: this mistreatment is not acceptable. Such apologies endorse a
particular social norm, giving it a weight it might not otherwise have had.

~~~
ErrantX
In a way I agree with you.

But in another I dont. Those things: treaties etc. are honours of state. BUT
the prosecution of Turing was simply the application of law - a law adopted by
an even earlier generation and inspired by societies homophobia.

In that sense the role of the government isnt quite the same.

If the aim of such an apology is the start of a wider work against homophobia
then I am 100% behind it. But it isn't really - so it's just empty words.

------
dtf
Not wanting to nitpick, but shouldn't we be apologizing for his persecution,
rather than his prosecution? Homosexual sex was illegal at the time, and his
prosecution seems fair even if the law was not. Many others fell foul of this
law, and to apologize solely to Turing because he was a war hero and a genius
of the first order seems rather unjust. I find the story of Turing's
subsequent persecution - the inhumane chemical castration and his treatment at
the hands of an institutionally bigoted civil service - far more disturbing.
Homosexual acts are no longer illegal, but this kind of institutional
prejudice and bullying is still very much a problem.

------
J_McQuade
As a typical cynical Brit, I think it'd be a good exercise to one day make a
list of _all_ the people to whom the UK technically owes an apology, but not
to actually say sorry until we get an apology from everyone that we feel owes
_us_ one. And yes, that includes you, Italy - don't think we've forgotten that
little hoo-ha between Boudicca and Paulinus! It may have been the first
century AD, but some scars just never really heal.

Oh, and if I come across as crass, it's because the whole notion of the thing
is absurd. History is history - we all routinely did some horrifically awful
things, but we don't do them now and no-one's seriously suggesting that we
should.

------
StrawberryFrog
What purpose would it serve? either in the weak form of acknowledging that his
persecution was wrong, or in the stronger form of apologising for it.

------
keefe
Reading about the case again, it's certainly sickening. As a whole, it's a
relatively tame instance of what a government has done in the name of
"national security". It's the government after all, their job is to kill
people. I wonder what was really going on here? Why did this guy report the
theft at all, perhaps some actual security breach occured during the robbery?
If not, why did he admit to it and admit to being gay? I mean, I understand
the value of telling the truth and all but if something is unjustly illegal in
your culture and you get caught, isn't your primary goal getting away with it?
Especially if you have security clearance...

