Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 163 posts

Re: Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing

#71

Post by alan_cx »

This is politically motivated nonsense. At right wing government trying to prove its not homophobic. Yes the Queen issued the pardon, but it wont have been done without the government being consulted. Pardoning one person like this when thousands suffered is an insult. They should have either pardoned everyone who was convicted under these laws, or none of them. Favouring one man because of his historical significance is creating a two tier justice system.

And frankly, I find the whole thing problematic. Judging the past by todays standards is just wrong to my mind. He did break the law as it stood, right or wrong. Its not like we now have evidence he was innocent of the charges. What do we do, go over all the past laws that have been repealed, pardoning every one who was convicted along the way? That would be insane. What about the reverse? Surely if we are to pardon people who got convicted under laws that we have now repealed, we should go back and try any one in the past who has committed acts which are now crimes but were not then.

Yes, Turing is of huge historical significance. What happened to him was awful and tragic. If the notion that he wiped 2 years of WW2 is not over exaggerated, millions owe him their lives and freedoms. There for not just a great scientist, but a world figure of huge significance. But, this is not the right way to honour him. And from what I can see, is shameless political points scoring by a weak government concerned with its gay credentials.

If it were me, I would have left the conviction alone, let it stand as a reminders of our stupid homophobic past (1), and perhaps done something like having a national Turing Day, which could celebrate science and open humanity. Or something like that.

(1) Not so stupid. Problem back then was that the vast majority of people were disgusted by homosexuality. So, obviously they kept it quiet. If they got found out, they suffered. Problem for organisation concerned with secrecy, is that the social pressure placed on gay people made them easy and obvious targets for espionage. They were easily black mailed. Now a days, most people have no problem with homosexuality, so the threat of being outed is weak. The problem back then was not government, its was the social attitude in general to gay people. There for, to me it is wrong for the public to point fingers at the government. Had the public not been so prejudiced, the government could have kept their genius employed, and alive. Its our fault as a society. Government had to operate in that context. It had no choice really. And of course many people in that government would have had the same attitude as the public. But in the end, it was our fault, our shame, as a society. And that is what we should remember.

Re: Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing

#72

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

cperciva wrote: post #70
Steko wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia gives estimates on differences between anal and vaginal transmission are about 8-1 but also admits the numbers could be off by a factor of 10. What we know is that the AIDS epidemic was at it's worst in Africa where it was largely spread through heterosexual transmission.

I was going by Health Canada numbers -- either way, there's a difference. What we know is that the AIDS epidemic was at it's worst in Africa where it was largely spread through heterosexual transmission. Agreed.

It is spread by widespread heterosexual sodomy in Africa in addition to homosexual sodomy.

Re: Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing

#73

Post by saalweachter »

acheron wrote: post #18

75,000 men were convicted under the same law, of whom 26,000 are still alive. [1] Only Turing has been "pardoned". My understanding [2] is that the "pardon" implies there was nothing wrong with the law as such, just that Turing is forgiven for having broken it. So while I guess this is better than nothing, I don't know if it's really the way to go about it. [1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhans…

I don't know what the legal definition is, but the popular usage definitely implies guilt. EG, when the President pardons a crony, everyone knows he's totally guilt of whatever he was convicted of and more.

Is there a word which means a government acknowledges their laws were wrong and the people prosecuted under them were guiltless victims? If not, we could really use one.

There's a lot of that going around, and it'd be nice if governments had a word they should do more of.

Re: Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing

#74

Post by auctiontheory »

pandaman wrote: post #53
WA wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Red cross (in the US) doesn't want blood donations from people who lived in Europe for long enough. Because they have HIV? No. You got something wrong with correlation and causation there in several ways.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts... FDA is pretty clear on why they don't want blood donations from men who had sex with other men.

What they say may seem clear, and yet not reflect what they really believe.

I give blood every two months. As I recall the questionnaire, you can do almost anything imaginable (sex with prostitutes, accidental needle stick, receiving blood transfusion, etc.) and get a one year deferral. But if you are a man who had oral sex with a man one time twenty years ago, that's a permanent "deferral." No science behind this.

Re: Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing

#75

Post by pandaman »

auctiontheory wrote: post #74
pandaman wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/BloodBloodProducts... FDA is pretty clear on why they don't want blood donations from men who had sex with other men.

What they say may seem clear, and yet not reflect what they really believe. I give blood every two months. As I recall the questionnaire, you can do almost anything imaginable (sex with prostitutes, accidental needle stick, receiving blood transfusion, etc.) and get a one year deferral. But if you are a man who had oral sex with a man one time twenty years ago, that's a permanent "deferral." No science behind this.

Did you read their explanation at all?

  A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an
  increased risk for exposure to and transmission of certain 
  infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes 
  AIDS. Men who have had sex with other men represent 
  approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the   
  population 
  most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for at
  least 61% of all new HIV infections in the U.S. and an 
  estimated 77% of diagnosed HIV infections among males were 
  attributed to male-to-male sexual contact.
Looks like science, namely statistics and medicine. If 61% of new HIV infections are coming from MSM then it's higher chances than then other criteria you've listed combined (i.e. non-MSM new HIV infections are only 39%, which is much less than 61%).

Re: Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing

#76

Post by Houshalter »

pcrh wrote: post #27
acheron wrote: post #18

75,000 men were convicted under the same law, of whom 26,000 are still alive. [1] Only Turing has been "pardoned". My understanding [2] is that the "pardon" implies there was nothing wrong with the law as such, just that Turing is forgiven for having broken it. So while I guess this is better than nothing, I don't know if it's really the way to go about it. [1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhans…

Something in what you wrote reminds me of the many men shot for "cowardice" during WWI, some of whom were pardoned[1]. Many of those shot were suffering from PTSD (then called shell shock). It is painful to consider the unjust fate of many people in the past, and even those alive today (would you care to take a walk in the Congo or Rwanda and discuss justice with those you might meet? Or perhaps take a walk in Syria?…

That's only a fraction of the number of people killed in WWI just from being forced to fight, or stupidly run at enemy trenches.

Sort of relevant; something about "injustice" elicits stronger emotional reactions than the exact same (or even worse) situation happening to someone just by chance (not unjustly through someone's actions.) On top of that we have a stronger emotional reaction to just imagining a single victim suffering, than being told "x number of people are suffering this fate".

Re: Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing

#77

Post by golergka »

Houshalter wrote: post #76
pcrh wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something in what you wrote reminds me of the many men shot for "cowardice" during WWI, some of whom were pardoned[1]. Many of those shot were suffering from PTSD (then called shell shock). It is painful to consider the unjust fate of many people in the past, and even those alive today (would you care to take a walk in the Congo or Rwanda and discuss justice with those you might meet? Or perhaps take a walk in Syria?…

That's only a fraction of the number of people killed in WWI just from being forced to fight, or stupidly run at enemy trenches. Sort of relevant; something about "injustice" elicits stronger emotional reactions than the exact same (or even worse) situation happening to someone just by chance (not unjustly through someone's actions.) On top of that we have a stronger emotional reaction to just imagining a single vict…

> "injustice" elicits stronger emotional reactions than the exact same (or even worse) situation happening to someone just by chance

Because injustice implies the unjust decision made by someone in charge, and having an unjust law or person in charge is much worse then having an accident. Not only that, but it's something we have more control over, so it's rational to get more emotional about it.

Re: Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing

#78

Post by golergka »

edw519 wrote: post #10

How ironic, coming the same week as LGBT education sites are blocked by British "porn" filters. The best pardon to someone who is dead would be to stop doing similar misdeeds to those who are living.

Can we please stop calling them "porn filters"? It's not what they are, it's "censorship filters". The label matters.

Re: Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing

#79

Post by bshimmin »

acheron wrote: post #18

75,000 men were convicted under the same law, of whom 26,000 are still alive. [1] Only Turing has been "pardoned". My understanding [2] is that the "pardon" implies there was nothing wrong with the law as such, just that Turing is forgiven for having broken it. So while I guess this is better than nothing, I don't know if it's really the way to go about it. [1] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhans…

The pardon does not imply the law (the Labouchere Amendment, 1885) was wrong, but the Sexual Offences Act 1967 which repealed it certainly does (or did).

Re: Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing

#80

Post by auctiontheory »

pandaman wrote: post #75
auctiontheory wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What they say may seem clear, and yet not reflect what they really believe. I give blood every two months. As I recall the questionnaire, you can do almost anything imaginable (sex with prostitutes, accidental needle stick, receiving blood transfusion, etc.) and get a one year deferral. But if you are a man who had oral sex with a man one time twenty years ago, that's a permanent "deferral." No science behind this.

Did you read their explanation at all? A history of male-to-male sex is associated with an increased risk for exposure to and transmission of certain infectious diseases, including HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Men who have had sex with other men represent approximately 2% of the US population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, MSM accounted for at least 61% of all new HIV infections i…

Exactly what conclusions do you draw from those stats? Yes, I remember from my mathematics degree that 39(Especially) If a man has not had sex with another man for a year, and has tested clean during that time, the stats you cite do not support excluding him from donation. Again, this is considering that blood transfusions, sex with prostitutes (!!), and accidental needle sticks only earn a twelve-month deferral.

Do you see a stat that says a gay man is more likely to be HIV+ than an active prostitute? Because that seems to be a relevant comparison.

I donate blood to save lives. No blood transfusion is risk-free, but there is also a risk/cost to excluding healthy willing donors of clean blood.

Post reply on HN