Skip to main content

Posthumous pardon of Alan Turing

It has been a while since I published an article. For that I apologise. I have been unwell. But as we enter 2014 I hope to once again give the world the benefit of my observations, for whatever they are worth!

I am struck by the diversity of views about the posthumous pardon of Alan Turing. Some have said it is wrong because it does nothing for others who suffered the same injustice under the same laws against homosexuality. No, that does not make the pardon of Alan Turing wrong. It highlights the injustice not just to Alan Turing but to all convicted under the same obnoxious laws. It is right that Turing should be pardoned. It is wrong that all others so convicted have not been pardoned.

The pardon has been given to Turing because he was an exceptional man. It should have been said that it was given because the law was wrong and unfairly persecuted those who we now recognise should not have been criminalised because of their sexuality. The simple thing to do now is to apologise and pardon all those so convicted.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba...
7 comments
Read more

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. A...
4 comments
Read more

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown

Post a Comment
Read more