³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

I guess that it has been 'a good thing' that Turing's sexuality has not been an issue over the years. I have been aware of his impact on modern computing since my first ham fisted attempts at coding a Spectrum in the early eighties. His name predomionantly crops up in association with artificial intelligence for those of us on the periphery of the science. In this respect, his influence and creativity are what we associate with his name.
I was deeply saddened but not surprised by his situation and would wholeheartedly support the quiet issuing of an apology to this great thinker and refreshingly flawed human being.

Really what is the point of post-humous apologies? I don't mean in this case in particular but all of them. People who weren't and aren't responsible for particular events apologising to people who are dead.

Discussing this particular point, ie post-humous apologies, would definitely be a much more worthwhile enterprise (close to home in post-conflict NI) than what i fear this thread is about to become - the usual ding-dong from the usual suspects about homosexuality. Can we not do so? Can we restrain ourselves?

Or maybe that was the intention...

rmnonedge - in what sense flawed?

On the main point, for once, I agree totally with mccamleyc.

My initial thought is that there should be no apology that neglects to mention all other homosexuals who were (lawfully) prosecuted.

But I think Turing would rather have the government maintain Bletchley Park, recognise the pioneering work done there, and fund new research. A tribute to his brilliant work, rather than an apology for the treatment his private life incurred. Which brings me to the reason for my post: I. J. (Jack) Good, who appears in the video, died this April. (There are obituaries online). All such men should be celebrated and honored.

An apology regarding Alan Turing would send out a strong message that marginalisation, criminalisation, discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation was a grotesque abuse of judicial power, and at least go some way towards making a better society in which all can feel equally valued.

On behalf of all right handed people I would like to apologise to anyone left handed who was forced to write with their right hand. It wasn't right and though we cannot right this wrong we can send out the right message that left handed people aren't really evil and mentally deficient.

Apart from Obama of course.

In this particulare case (Turing) it is an attempt to rewrite the historical reality that most cultures have been opposed to homosexual acts and to pretend that the right to engage in homosexual acts is and always was a human right.

And of course these gestures are almost always one directional - the Pope apologizes for the Crusades while jihadists continue cutting off heads with rusty blades.

Challenging questions raised Will.

And curious point about the Apple logo. If true it seems a poingant tribute.

Paul Robinson, raises an interesting point - why just appologise for Turing and not all other homosexuals? Might seem unfair.

And if such an apology is forthcoming, what further criminal sexual offences currently on the books might the Government of 50 years be apologising for?

We have recently seen W&T give a platform to someone who is reported to have admitted on RTE that he had sexual relations with juvenilles overseas.

Might the Government in 50 years be apologising to those criminalised for having a "sexual orientation" towards children ...or even animals?

What about incest?

Do we need any firm boundaries in these matters or is that just old fashioned?

Who decides and how?

Just asking.

OT

OT

There you go again with your nonchalant, ever so innocent "Just asking."

Just an innocent little question which happened to pop into my mind while I was watching the sunrise this morning, sipping freshly squeezed orange juice on my veranda.

Unfortunately, your comment "What further criminal sexual offences" reveals what you're really about here.

OT, as time goes by, we realise that certain laws and rules and regulations were stupid ideas, and we get rid of them. The people who have been harmed by such stupid laws deserve apologies; even if they are long dead, an apology in certain circumstances helps to underline how stupid we now realise the laws were in the first place.

As a Christian, I have quite an admiration for Alan Turing, who was not only a homosexual, but also apparently an atheist (albeit of the respectful kind). I see no contradiction between my Christianity and my admiration for this man, since we are all under the grace of God, and also since I refuse to serve a tribal god, who demands that I condemn those from outside "the tribe" (in this case "the Christian tribe").

Today I read the following challenging questions on another blog -


"Christians, are you thankful Alan Turing existed? Do you think he's burning in hell?

"Alan Turing was the man singlehandedly most responsible for defeating the Nazis in WWII by breaking the Germans' Enigma Code. And he also was responsible for laying down much of the groundwork for computers.

"But he was a homosexual. And eventually he committed suicide because the British chose to prosecute him just for being gay, despite all that he had done to help them win the war.

"So even though what he contributed to the world probably saved millions of lives back then AND has enriched your life now (you're typing entries on a device that he played a large role in developing), is he burning in hell because he was gay?"

I am not sure about the claim that he was "the man singlehandedly most responsible for defeating the Nazis", but nevertheless, these questions are perfectly valid. And if the government had attempted to prosecute Alan Turing for his homosexuality while he was involved in his work at Bletchley Park (with the result that he was relieved of his duties there) who knows what the consequences would have been? Certainly very many people would have died whose lives were saved. Taking a "principled" stand against homosexuality at that time would have been fatal (if the government had known about Turing's sexuality).

Whatever we may think about homosexuality, Alan Turing's life shows us clearly that there are far more important "problems" in life to worry about. And I am not convinced that the situation has really changed today.

Should the government apologise for its treatment of Alan Turing? I don't know. But we should certainly learn the lessons of his life.

Should the churches apologise for promulgating the repulsive fiction of hell, that has blighted so many lives?

RJB, Helio

Both of you choose to ignore the very real issues I raised.

Please read again.

I actually applauded the apparent apple tribute to Turing.

RJB, you are ever so keen to play the man when he holds a differnet opinion to you.

And ever afraid of trying your skill with the actual ball.

This smacks of a fundamentalist attitude so much more than you realise, even though it is a label you can only see as applying to me.

;-)

I read last night that it has been a very real tradition in India for men to marry trees.

Are we just putting our heads down and committing ourselves through gritted teeth to eternally ad hoc legislation, or is it in any way viable or even moreally justifiable to reflect on the source of our values for legislation and the long term implications?

I thanks God for the life and work of Turing.

No, I dont approve of homosexual practise, just like I dont approve of respectable heterosexual sins like mental adultery and serial divorce.

But there is a world of difference in asseting to traditional Christian values and using them to assassinate individuals as a matter of routine practise.

OT

Helio

Surely to be certain about hell as you appear you would need to carry out an observation, testing and repeat type experiment.

Wouldnt that entail dying before you come to as certain a conclusion as you have drawn.


OT

PS As for Turing's eternal destination, it is only God that has the ability to make a final and complete judgement on any individual.

Nobody else has access to all the facts, events and motives from a person's life.

You propose it, baby, you provide the evidence. You have none. It's mince.
OT, you are quite right - you are in no position to judge anyone else, or to offer your "approval" or "disapproval". Some matters are private, and simply not the business of self-righteous ninnies. Indeed, they are not even the business of any gods that may hypothetically exist.

OT

Were the trees consenting trees? If they were, leave 'em alone!! (Excuse the pun.)

And since you're in no position to judge, OT, you are quite entitled to your faith in your gods, and I am entitled to disbelieve them, safe in the assurance that any gods that might hypothetically be in a position to determine my eternal fate, if they are worth holding in any regard at all, will be rather more reasonable than their earthly sycophants. Which is another reason why I am an Atheistic Christian.

-H

"NO"

Chippy, good to see you back, and as wrong as ever :-)

Helio

It was you that called Hell a "fiction".

I was justing pointing out that this was your unproveable assumption!

OT

William - you asked in response to my post #4 "If it makes sense for contemporary governments to make apologies for wrongs committed by previous administrations (and all governments seem to accept that principle), then why not an apology in the case of Alan Turing" - if I conceded that point then Turing would certainly merit an apology.

I question, however, the use of the apology for quite a number of reasons.

First, if policy is clear what is the need for signals? No one asks the Danish monarchy to apologise to the people of Ireland for Viking raids to signal that rape and pillage are no longer core elements of Danish foreign policy.

If policy is not clear then a signal is often a cheap alternative to action: it would be politically cheaper to apologise to Turing than it would be, say, to legislate to turn civil partnerships into full marriages eliminating one of the last discriminations against gay people. Which would send the stronger signal?

Secondly I think apologies are undesirable because they turn us to the past and that is always a bad thing. They seem to be a relatively modern phenomenon and they certainly embody a very modern concern - control. As humanity has extended its control over the natural world, illness, our environment our need for that control has intensified and our fear of what we cannot control grown.

One of the great truths of life is that:

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it

The political apology is an attempt to diminish the absolute pastness of the past. There is a subtext that suggests by doing the 'right thing' now we can right old wrongs, that we can take a sad song and make it better. The reality is that we can not. We do not have that control. The political apology is bread and circuses for the credulous in the modern world.

It is great news that Gordon Brown has issued an apology, the full text on Number 10,s web site is worth a read.
I would like the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ to re-broadcast the 1996 film "Breaking The Code" with Derek Jacobi in the lead.
Interesting the Apple logo speculation, if it were true?

Hell a fiction? Well, technically I cannot of course disprove such an absurdity, but I can say with unchallengeable certainty that it is a silly proposition with not a shred of evidence. But fiction sums it up just as well. Is that any better?

Personally I think the apology is useful because it sends out a message; it categorically declares that UK society has - at least in words - moved beyond the legalised homophobia of the past.

Parrhasios

I'm not quite sure how I missed your post #22, but I did; now having read it I wonder if I might add just one more layer to your comments, and those of mccamley, #2.

I find your comments generally persuasive and am unconvinced that present apologies can 'right old wrongs'. If something is right today then the best course of action is to ensure that what is right is done today, signals are irrelevant.

However, as you might expect, I look forward to a day when when those sad songs we sing now will be rewritten, when the great multitude who sing will sound like roars of rushing water, like peals of thunder. A day when apologies will be given, when all will, eventually, be untangled, when wrong will be right; it is, rightly, I think, called hope.