Government rejects Alan Turing appeal

Gelsons Dad said:
SWP's back said:
Gelsons Dad said:
Whilst I have the utmost respect for Turning's work and contribution to computing, I have to say I agree with the lords on this. He chose to disregard the law and as such was prosecuted and convicted.
The specific law is not relevant to the discussion, only that it was law at the time and he knowingly chose to break it.
If you disagree with a law, campaign to change it. Don't just ignore it. Society evolves and so do it's laws but the principle must remain.
Bollocks. He chose no such thing. In the same way that you don't choose to need a drink or eat food.

Many people have taken vows of chastity over the years. The idea that the need for sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual is akin to the need to eat and drink is just not true.

This isn't a debate about homosexuality. Nor is it akin to the Nazi's. It is simply a matter of not imposing todays moral standards retrospectively. And the appropriate way to challenge and change law. The latter most definitely not by ignoring those laws that don't suit you.


So you reckon gay people should just stop being gay?
Are you in any way related to Sepp Blatter?
Sexuality is not a matter of choice,but in your opinion Turing should have denied his sexuality to conform with a ludicrous law that should never have been enacted.
Sometimes bad laws have to be resisted.
The law Turing 'broke' was one which denied him equality with the rest of society.
I take it you have heard of the suffragettes?
Or apartheid?
 
Skashion said:
I'd rather be chemically castrated myself than dare tell a consenting adult they shouldn't have sex with another consenting adult because it's the law.
Things like this really make my blood boil!
 
nijinsky's fetlocks said:
So you reckon gay people shoule just stop being gay?
No, he reckons the power of law is so strong that if it instructs you to be chaste then you must be chaste. For some reason this guy thinks a comparison to the Nazis is over the top. No, it is bang on, they believed the strength of Germany allowed them to trample on individual rights. Whereas this guy just quoted society's needs lets them trample on an individual rights. I see no difference.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
Gelsons Dad said:
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
It may have been the law of the land..... but that law did not allow two consenting adults the right to have a sexual relationship in private. If being in love was deemed as a crime then something was very wrong with it and needs addressing today.

You are missing the point entirely. Should we apply todays laws retrospectively to everyone who lived before us?

Do we need to go back throughout the archives and convict almost everyone of historical note for falling foul of todays laws?

You can't do it one way and not the other.

I imagine he wants pick and mix according to his current moral code, which is why it is such a bad idea - not a in relation to your moral code in particular, MES - but in general terms.

What would you do? Retrospectively prosecute Charles I for failing to provide a safe working environment for his soldiers in the Civil War? Or prosecute Enid Blighton for inciting race hate crimes in her Noddy books? Perhaps we could charge Scott of the Antarctic with animal cruelty while we're at it.

The past is the past. Don't try and change it - no matter how wrong the law was at the time.

Understand the point you make, I think the difference between this case (and others in the same boat) is they didn't do ''anything'' against another person - they didn't steal, they didn't break health and safety guidelines or incite race hate etc.
Look at Nelson Mandela, will he be remembered for being a terrorist or one of the greatest leaders of civil rights? Because he was in the eyes of the law a terrorist at the time the law of South Africa dictated it. But he isn't a terrorist today.
Turing will always 'officially' be classed as a criminal for merely being gay.
 
Skashion said:
nijinsky's fetlocks said:
So you reckon gay people shoule just stop being gay?
No, he reckons the power of law is so strong that if it instructs you to be chaste then you must be chaste. For some reason this guy thinks a comparison to the Nazis is over the top. No, it is bang on, they believed the strength of Germany allowed them to trample on individual rights. Whereas this guy just quoted society's needs lets them trample on an individual rights. I see no difference.


Frankly,neither do I.
His 'argument' has more holes than his countrymans legendary cheese.
The logic that dictates we follow the statutes set,regardless of morality,fairness and equality,is a very dangerous rationale indeed.
 
Skashion said:
nijinsky's fetlocks said:
So you reckon gay people shoule just stop being gay?
No, he reckons the power of law is so strong that if it instructs you to be chaste then you must be chaste. For some reason this guy thinks a comparison to the Nazis is over the top. No, it is bang on, they believed the strength of Germany allowed them to trample on individual rights. Whereas this guy just quoted society's needs lets them trample on an individual rights. I see no difference.

Take a deep breath and think about what you are saying. You have just excused everyone convicted of a crime which doesn't suit their moral code. The whole point is not one of homosexuality it is of law and order. You believe that everyone should be free to act in a manner that they consider acceptable. Do I need to list people who of sound mind, acted in a manner that they thought was acceptable despite it being against the law? There are many more monsters than martyrs.

I do not for one minute believe that the law in 1950 was correct. Just as I don't believe that all law today is correct. The law does however reflect the society of the day in a functional democracy.
 
Mad Eyed Screamer said:
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I imagine he wants pick and mix according to his current moral code, which is why it is such a bad idea - not a in relation to your moral code in particular, MES - but in general terms.

What would you do? Retrospectively prosecute Charles I for failing to provide a safe working environment for his soldiers in the Civil War? Or prosecute Enid Blighton for inciting race hate crimes in her Noddy books? Perhaps we could charge Scott of the Antarctic with animal cruelty while we're at it.

The past is the past. Don't try and change it - no matter how wrong the law was at the time.

Understand the point you make, I think the difference between this case (and others in the same boat) is they didn't do ''anything'' against another person - they didn't steal, they didn't break health and safety guidelines or incite race hate etc.
Look at Nelson Mandela, will he be remembered for being a terrorist or one of the greatest leaders of civil rights? Because he was in the eyes of the law a terrorist at the time the law of South Africa dictated it. But he isn't a terrorist today.
Turing will always 'officially' be classed as a criminal for merely being gay.

I equally take your point and it isn't without a deal of merit, but one problem is where do you start and end?

If you're going to retrospectively amend Turing's verdict then what about Oscar Wilde? Someone else that brought joy to millions who was punished by the state because of his sexuality.

But hang on, those two were famous. Why should they be different from anyone else? Ok let's reverse any convictions whatsoever for anyone who was convicted of similar offences in the last 200 years. I could go on.

The fact that Nelson Mandela was a convicted terrorist is a reminder of why apartheid was such an evil system and hopefully a lesson to us all.
 
nijinsky's fetlocks said:
Skashion said:
nijinsky's fetlocks said:
So you reckon gay people shoule just stop being gay?
No, he reckons the power of law is so strong that if it instructs you to be chaste then you must be chaste. For some reason this guy thinks a comparison to the Nazis is over the top. No, it is bang on, they believed the strength of Germany allowed them to trample on individual rights. Whereas this guy just quoted society's needs lets them trample on an individual rights. I see no difference.


Frankly,neither do I.
His 'argument' has more holes than his countrymans legendary cheese.
The logic that dictates we follow the statutes set,regardless of morality,fairness and equality,is a very dangerous rationale indeed.

Would that be Cheddar or Lancashire?

Who's morality? Who's measure of equality or fairness?
 
Gelsons Dad said:
nijinsky's fetlocks said:
Skashion said:
No, he reckons the power of law is so strong that if it instructs you to be chaste then you must be chaste. For some reason this guy thinks a comparison to the Nazis is over the top. No, it is bang on, they believed the strength of Germany allowed them to trample on individual rights. Whereas this guy just quoted society's needs lets them trample on an individual rights. I see no difference.


Frankly,neither do I.
His 'argument' has more holes than his countrymans legendary cheese.
The logic that dictates we follow the statutes set,regardless of morality,fairness and equality,is a very dangerous rationale indeed.

Would that be Cheddar or Lancashire?

Who's morality? Who's measure of equality or fairness?

Exactly. The only answer to this is contemporary ones. But what if, heaven forbid, liberal values were reversed at all. Would they then be calling for Julian Clarey to be arrested for crimes he committed (and not just the crimes against comedy) in the past? Of course they wouldn't and quite right too.

It is totally wrong and faintly absurd to impose your views and beliefs today on the past.

I hear this guy abused some of his wives. Anyone up for charging him?

220px-Hans_Holbein_d._J._074.jpg
 
Gelsons Dad said:
Skashion said:
nijinsky's fetlocks said:
So you reckon gay people shoule just stop being gay?
No, he reckons the power of law is so strong that if it instructs you to be chaste then you must be chaste. For some reason this guy thinks a comparison to the Nazis is over the top. No, it is bang on, they believed the strength of Germany allowed them to trample on individual rights. Whereas this guy just quoted society's needs lets them trample on an individual rights. I see no difference.

Take a deep breath and think about what you are saying. You have just excused everyone convicted of a crime which doesn't suit their moral code. The whole point is not one of homosexuality it is of law and order. You believe that everyone should be free to act in a manner that they consider acceptable. Do I need to list people who of sound mind, acted in a manner that they thought was acceptable despite it being against the law? There are many more monsters than martyrs.

I do not for one minute believe that the law in 1950 was correct. Just as I don't believe that all law today is correct. The law does however reflect the society of the day in a functional democracy.


I feel you are missing the point here.
Nobody is calling for non-compliance with the legal framework.
But Turing's 'crime' was to fall in love with someone of the same sex,and express that love physically.
Just as black South Africans considered it a 'crime' to be banned from beaches/buses/restaurants/schools for their colour.
Just as women in this country considered it a 'crime' to be banned from the electoral roll for their gender.
Do you think that these groups should just have sat back,shrugged their shoulders and said 'well,we are getting a bad deal here,and this is grossly unfair,but hey ho - the law says we are second class citizens,so there's fuck all we can do about it'.?
Turing was a genius and a hero,yet he was hounded to his death for being true to himself.
He broke no law worthy of the name.
To treat him in this way is shabby and mean.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.