Enigma codebreaker Alan Turing to be given posthumous pardon

[onehandle]

Source: The Guardian



Alan Turing, the Enigma codebreaker who took his own life after being convicted of gross indecency under anti-homosexuality legislation, is to be given a posthumous pardon.

The government signalled on Friday that it is prepared to support a backbench bill that would pardon Turing, who died from cyanide poisoning at the age of 41 in 1954 after he was subjected to "chemical castration".

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, a government whip, told peers that the government would table the third reading of the Alan Turing (statutory pardon) bill at the end of October if no amendments are made. "If nobody tables an amendment to this bill, its supporters can be assured that it will have speedy passage to the House of Commons," Ahmad said.

The announcement marks a change of heart by the government, which declined last year to grant pardons to the 49,000 gay men, now dead, who were convicted under the 1885 Criminal Law Amendment Act. They include Oscar Wilde.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/19/enigma-codebreaker-alan-turing-posthumous-pardon

[xocet]

1. It is about time! n/t

[RoccoR5955]

19. You beat me to it! n.t.

[awoke_in_2003]

23. Agreed. nt

[Divine Discontent]

2. honored to be the 5th Rec for a world hero, who was a Gay man!

It's about damned time they do this for him. Good grief, talk about disrespectful - the dude helped continue the codebreaking of the Enigma machine during WWII... "he's what? oh, no no no! we're trying that indecent man with a crime of being homosexual!" bastards.... he's the hero, and they're the losers.

Glad they're doing this for him, just took an awful long time. Congrats to those who have fought for this, on his behalf!

[sir pball]

47. Not nearly enough.

The former law needs to be retroactively overturned and every single conviction ever rendered under it must be vacated.

[Divine Discontent]

57. hear hear!

[Major Hogwash]

3. Marian Rejewski about 1932, when he first broke Enigma.

Here's some links to some recent articles ---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-14141406

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/9594403/Poles-launch-campaign-for-Enigma-code-breaking-recognition.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8158782.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Rejewski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptanalysis_of_the_Enigma

And a couple of YouTube videos --

[dipsydoodle]

14. Thanks for the fill in

I'm UK and I didn't even know that.

[melm00se]

48. There is more to the story

than what the British Press discusses in their articles.

A crate containing an early version of the Enigma machine was shipped by the Germans and it passed into the hands of the Polish Customs Bureau. They notified the Polish Cipher Bureau who carefully opened the crate, took the machine apart and documented it and reassembled the crate leaving the Germans none the wiser.

The Poles, through a series of cut outs, purchased a commercial version of the machine and compared it to the diagrams and documentation. From this comparison, the Polish Cipher Bureau came up with the theoretical (and to a certain extent practical) groundwork from which they built a machine that broke the German Cipher.

[SoapBox]

4. OMG!

I never knew the history of this story.

[delrem]

5. I''m not inclined to stand in line to pardon the gov't

for doing this to him in the first place.

In fact I think it isn't forgivable.

For one thing, Turing isn't just an "Enigma codebreaker".
His papers can also be thought of as laying down the foundation of computation as we now know it.
Turing's place in history is his, and his alone.
Papers such as that aren't produced by a deficiency of character.

Considering the *crime* against the man inflicted by the gov't, and a lethal crime was in fact committed against the man, a retroactive "pardon" for a "crime" that doesn't exist doesn't have any weight at all. None at all.

So fuck the "pardon", that assumes guilt on the pardoned part and a kind of unctuous righteousness on the part of the the presumptuous "pardoners".

[MADem]

6. I regard pardons of this sort as a way of the government saying "WE were wrong," not that

"These people were wrong but we're going to overlook that."

Otherwise, they wouldn't bring it up--the "wronged" are dead and gone; but the entity that is the government, the ones that did the "wronging," lives on so long as the governed consent to it. It's a way of trying to get correct on the issue.

[delrem]

7. If that were the story, it would be the lead.

But it isn't the lead.

[MADem]

8. Well, perception is a funny thing. nt

[delrem]

9. I suppose it is, MADem.

But we weren't talking about "perception", fer fucks sake.

*I* was talking about Alan Turing.
I don't know where the hell - and it seems to be hellish direction already - you're trying to go with comments about "perception". As if those comments had some kind of negative intensity.

[MADem]

10. My perception is that the government is embarrassed by the conduct of the leadership in the

past; that they don't regard those laws and those punishments to have been fair, which is why they are trying to "right the wrong" as best they can manage.

Gordon Brown offered an apology to Turing a few years back. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8249792.stm

(It is worthwhile to click on the link, IMO).


This is a formal way to underscore that.

That is MY perception of what's going on.

Your perception, plainly, is something different and I am getting the sense you'll never be pleased no matter what they do.

[delrem]

11. A "pardon" is different than a declaration that charge was *null*,

and it was *entirely* the gov't who should ask for *pardon*.

shhhhheeeew.

[MADem]

12. Whatever. I don't see Parliament doing that very often, or even ever. The Pardon is how they do it.

I take their meaning to be "shouldn't have happened in the first place; we were obtuse."

You don't.

There we are.

[delrem]

13. OK - gotcha.

[skepticscott]

15. Might be nice if they just came out and said that

Instead of all the vetting and political maneuvering, which resulting in their doing even what they did only after long-term, sustained pressure. Sincere apologies are simply made...they don't have to be run through committees, PR consultants and focus groups.

[MADem]

28. Well, Gordon Brown did say exactly that. We're sorry, you deserved so much better.

This "pardon" is the follow up to his apology, which was quite specific about how the government was wrong, treated him "inhumanely," they were "utterly unfair," that Turing was a "victim of homophobia," etc.

Full text here:

http://blog.jgc.org/2011/07/complete-text-of-gordon-browns-apology.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/6170112/Gordon-Brown-Im-proud-to-say-sorry-to-a-real-war-hero.html

..... I am both pleased and proud that, thanks to a coalition of computer scientists, historians and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) activists, we have this year a chance to mark and celebrate another contribution to Britain's fight against the darkness of dictatorship: that of code-breaker Alan Turing. Turing was a quite brilliant mathematician, most famous for his work on breaking the German Enigma codes. It is no exaggeration to say that, without his outstanding contribution, the history of the
Second World War could have been very different. He truly was one of those individuals we can point to whose unique contribution helped to turn the tide of war. The debt of gratitude he is owed makes it all the more horrifying, therefore, that he was treated so inhumanely.

.....Thousands of people have come together to demand justice for Alan Turing and recognition of the appalling way he was treated. While Turing was dealt with under the law of the time, and we can't put the clock back, his treatment was of course utterly unfair, and I am pleased to have the chance to say how deeply sorry I and we all are for what happened to him. Alan and the many thousands of other gay men who were convicted, as he was convicted, under homophobic laws, were treated terribly. Over the years, millions more lived in fear in conviction. I am proud that those days are gone and that in the past 12 years this Government has done so much to make life fairer and more equal for our LGBT community. This recognition of Alan's status as one of Britain's most famous victims of homophobia is another step towards equality, and long overdue.

But even more than that, Alan deserves recognition for his contribution to humankind. For those of us born after 1945, into a Europe which is united, democratic and at peace, it is hard to imagine that our continent was once the theatre of mankind's darkest hour. It is difficult to believe that in living memory, people could become so consumed by hate – by anti-Semitism, by homophobia, by xenophobia and other murderous prejudices – that the gas chambers and crematoria became a piece of the European landscape as surely as the galleries and universities and concert halls which had marked out the European civilisation for hundreds of years.

It is thanks to men and women who were totally committed to fighting fascism, people like Alan Turing, that the horrors of the Holocaust and of total war are part of Europe's history and not Europe's present. So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan's work, I am very proud to say: we're sorry. You deserved so much better.

[skepticscott]

30. What they said was not my point

It's how long it took for them to say it and how much careful political crafting went into the wording, timing and delivery of the "apology" even then. It's frankly difficult to take any "apology" delivered by a government as genuine, sincere or heartfelt. But I guess this is about as good as could be hoped for.

[MADem]

33. Well, you can go back and yell at every PM before Brown, it won't change a thing.

He made that apology four years ago, you know. This much more recent pardon is a way for the government to correct his official "criminal" record, to expunge it, to acknowledge that he did no wrong and the government erred.

The fact is, the LGBT community in UK made all this happen, and good for them. I don't think it's appropriate to shit on their effort, which most people regard as meaningful and important and a huge step forward in terms of recognition of both this man and the injustices suffered by the community down the years.

I don't think Gordon Brown minced any words in his apology on behalf of the government. He laid it out quite plainly, unless the word "inhumane" in regard to Turing's treatment is somehow insufficient?

Better late than never.

[skepticscott]

34. Well, don't fool yourself that every word and phrase

in that apology wasn't crafted and gone over carefully and vetted and approved by quite a few people before being delivered. Gordon Brown didn't just sit down and write it himself and then deliver it, you can be sure. And clearly the decision to pardon him took a lot of political maneuvering as well, and had to overcome a lot of resistance.

Yes, better much too late than never at all, but forgive me if I don't get too enthusiastic in my applause.

[MADem]

35. As a former speechwriter, I know this.

Bottom line though, is this--it's HIS signature, as Prime Minister, at the bottom of that document.

He owned the words. Not the speechwriters, not the vetters, not the fact-checkers, spell-checkers, typists and proofreaders.

I don't think the LGBT community in UK is too concerned about the enthusiasm of bystanders, or lack thereof. This whole process is THEIR baby; they regarded it as important and meaningful, and I applaud their initiative and I do happen to agree with them, even though I am not a citizen of that land (though I was a former resident for many years) . You don't have to agree or be enthused, though...it's about them and their struggle, in their country.

I'm glad for them. I think these kinds of "symbolic" things are important, because they transmit a sense of what is justice to generations that follow.

[skepticscott]

36. I never said I didn't agree

But enthused? No. No matter how you slice it, it was an apology forced by political pressure, and no such forced apology can ever be truly sincere. If an insincere apology is all that can be had at this point, then sure, take it. But take it for what it truly is.

[MADem]

44. I think it was heartfelt and entirely sincere. I think Gordon Brown meant every single word of it.

I think he was glad to do it, too.

The time is finally passing when people had to say things they didn't mean on this topic (e.g. civil unions, yes, "the sacred bonds of marriage" --in Las Vegas by Elvis--NO) in order to stay on the right (read wrong) side of their party platforms. We're not through the storm yet, but we can see the sun breaking out over the horizon.

I can't wait for the day when this is no longer an issue, anywhere. I don't think I'll live to see that day, but ya never know.

[skepticscott]

45. That still leaves unanswered the question of why

so much pressure and effort had to be expended to get him to make it. It is still a political apology and not a personal one.

[MADem]

51. Well, of course it isn't "personal." No one alive today was responsible for the reprehensible

treatment of Alan Turing. No one alive and in government convicted him, forced drugs upon him, stripped him of his clearance and his work, and drove him to despair.

I don't think anyone in government would recommend that sort of treatment today, particularly since Alan Turing's sexuality is not an impediment to service and high level clearance in the Armed Forces.

This isn't a "political" apology, though, either. It is a NATIONAL acknowledgement, made by the Parliament, saying that Turing was wrongly accused, shouldn't have been charged, shouldn't have been convicted--and that previous leaders in government fucked up. A national acknowledgment has more clout than a personal one--anyone can personally feel bad, but it's a different situation when the regret has the imprimatur of the nation (and not just one political party, either) upon it.

Do not underestimate the difficulties involved in pushing this thing through the Parliament. It has been a long haul to get to this point. They started four years ago, with the Brown apology, and it's taken this long. This may be "symbolism," but it is IMPORTANT symbolism; rather like drawing a line under a bad period in British history, and opening the door for even more introspection, expressions of regret, and acknowledgement.

Would you prefer they just skip it, because "it'll never be good enough?" I wouldn't. That gives the "win" to the "Hate Team."

How will subsequent generations learn, if they don't see the adults in the room do the mature thing, the right thing, the thing that honorable people do, and acknowledge when they screw up?

[skepticscott]

53. Which is exactly why

It can never really be seen as really heartfelt or sincere. No one doing the apologizing was actually responsible for the wrong that was done in any but a technical and political way. And even when it was done, it was against great resistance.

And no, as I already stated quite clearly, I don't disagree with the apology or think it shouldn't have been made at all, or pushed for. But an apology made many decades later by people who are apologizing under pressure for something that other people did is still a bit empty. As I also said clearly, accept it, but see it for what it is.

[MADem]

55. So, let's just skip it, then. Don't bother. It'll never be good enough. No apologies. No

recognition. No respect for the man.

I don't "get" your point, bluntly.

Who do you think is pushing for this? God? Superman? Santa? A few busibodies, for shitz-n-giggles?

THE PEOPLE are demanding this. Overwhelmingly. This guy is one of the most respected people in 20th Century British history. That's why it is happening. The Parliament is fulfilling the will of the people by offering this pardon as an expression of regret for the despicable behavior of the government.

I think you are being obstinate, and not seeing the big picture. You're acting like this is happening in a vacuum, when it isn't. There's a lot going on around this.

You can't heal if you pick at a scab, and then leave it to scar over again.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. Here is the flaw in your thinking and the UK government's extreme hubristic bigotry:

" the government, which declined last year to grant pardons to the 49,000 gay men, now dead, who were convicted under the 1885 Criminal Law Amendment Act. They include Oscar Wilde."
They are allowing their bullshit bigot charges to stand against 49,000 people and each is an insult to every living LGBT person and any straight with half a monkey dish of ethics left. In addition, those still left slandered by the Crown are a continued indictment of Turing himself.
They smugly offer 'pardon' when they should be begging forgiveness for vicious, horrific actions very similar to those of the Nazis Turing helped to defeat.
Like Germany pardoning Ann Frank.

[MADem]

25. What was it that Confucius said about a journey of a thousand miles?

NOT like Germany pardoning Ann Frank, but you got to the Godwin quick...

[delrem]

27. Here's how it's done

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017133211

[MADem]

29. I invite your attention to POST 28.

Which happened when Brown was PM, FWIW.

[delrem]

32. That *is* better.

[secondvariety]

16. Good for Turning.

Tough shit for the other 49,000 who were convicted under a hateful law. I realize the pardon is just a mea culpa, but how about a blanket pardon for the rest?

[Bluenorthwest]

18. Leaving the rest indicted is their way of slapping Turing and all of the rest of us

while posturing and posing as modern people with ethics. This Parliament is hypocritical, bigoted and has failed to do the right thing. The Crown is, was and remains at fault for vicious and inhuman actions against innocent and even heroic people.

[KittyWampus]

38. it just seems so petty and regressive. I searched for more news on this as I wondered-

could they be this tone-deaf?

Why not "pardon" all those persecuted including Turing?

But it sure seems it's limited to only Turing.

I did find a lot of news items on scientists etc who lobbied for pardoning Turing in recent past..

Maybe they just bowed to the pressure to do that and thought it was enough or just lacked the awareness of how mean-spirited they end up seeming by excluding all others?

IIRC, Gay marriage will become legal there in the near future.

It just seems so stupid.

[Laughing Mirror]

20. So the government apologizes to itself and gives itself a pardon

Pardoning somebody decades after they're dead for a crime you did to them seems to me to be just as grotesque a situation as having a trial and finding guilty somebody who's long dead and not there to defend himself. We saw this happen the other day in Russia and the news of it seemed so bizarre.

Of course it is impossible now, but the only person who should be doing any pardoning can only be Alan Turing, should he have lived and decided to pardon the British for what they did to him, in the way Christ forgave his torturers ... "Father forgive them for they know not what they do."

[MADem]

31. The pardon is a legal thing--what it means in this case is "You committed no crime."

Your slate is wiped clean, you should not have been convicted, you were treated inhumanely (which was precisely what the PM said).

When people are alive, a pardon is often regarded as "forgiveness" but when they are dead it is a way of correcting the legal record, particularly when the government also apologizes (as they did four years ago, see post 28).

Turing would be the one to offer forgiveness, if he had a mind--but he's gone now, too late for that.

[malthaussen]

21. And a fat lot of good it will do the bloke.

I've always thought "pardoning" someone after they have been dead half a century is one of the better definitions of "futility."

-- Mal

[toby jo]

22. Good Turing had class. Govvies need to stay on their toes.

[grantcart]

24. They should make a staute of this great man and put it in a prominent space so it can inspire others

who can identify with him to be inspired.

[MADem]

26. There's a spare plinth in Trafalgar, why not? nt

[msanthrope]

37. I agree. nt

[skepticscott]

41. He deserves a spot

In Westminster Abbey. He was as great and important in his field and for England as many there. But I wouldn't hold my breath for that.

[MADem]

43. He was cremated, and his ashes scattered, so one can't dig him up.

I think, even if his remains were available for interment in Westminster, that it might annoy atheists, as I believe that group claimed him.

There is a statue of him at Bletchley, made of bits of slate, very impressive:

http://www.stephenkettle.co.uk/turing.html



There is also one of him holding the fateful apple,

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/alan-turing-legacy/



He also strolls the grounds at the University of Surrey:



...but I do think a plinth in Trafalgar would do. Unload one of those old generals that no one has heard of, re-site them somewhere nice so their descendants don't pitch a fit, and slap old Alan up on one of those pedestals.

[skepticscott]

46. Trafalgar wouldn't be bad

But a memorial in Westminster would still be appropriate, even if the actual remains weren't there. And Westminster Abbey is not simply a church and enshrinement there does not necessarily carry the kind of overtly religious message that most atheists would find offensive. To be buried there is to be honored among the great of England, regardless of religiosity.

[MADem]

49. I dunno....I think some would regard it as hypocritical.

I think it would cause more agita than it would "good feeling." Trafalgar, though, is where the Big Guns live on -- and he was a Big Gun, so he deserves a spot there. Also, more tourists visit Trafalgar than Westminster.

There are a few military leaders in Trafalgar who could be safely moved...they aren't taught in school, no one cares. Find a good maritime museum or whatever and give them pride of place.

Or they could appropriate the 4th plinth (but that might tick some folks off--that one is a revolving art show).

[skepticscott]

50. Well, Charles Darwin is buried in Westminster

And that doesn't seen to cause evolutionists or atheists too much grief. And while Turing may be a "big gun" in certain circles, how many people even in Britain learn or care about him these days? Perhaps it's different over there, but you'd find lots of people in the US who know of Darwin, but virtually none who have a clue who Turing was or why he was so important.

[MADem]

52. That was before the A Team was so "active" re: their disdain for religion.

In Darwin's day, atheists just said "Naaah, not my thing" and left it at that. They didn't get angry at the introduction of religion into cultural events like they do nowadays.

All you have to do is visit the religious forum to see what a reaction that some elements of religiosity get from the atheist community when they're introduced into public events or memorials. The "It does no harm" argument tends to not fly. I imagine you'd get all sorts of arguments "against," from "It's an insult to his memory," to "Why should we have to go to a house of worship to honor this great man?" I don't see it ending well.

Turing is HUGE over there, FWIW. He's part of the school curriculum. He saved Britain from the Nazis, he ensured they didn't starve because his codebreaking enabled convoys of food to avoid Nazi subs and arrive safely in the British Isles. I know he's rated in the "Top Hundred of All Time" UK historical figures, and I think he's closer to the top of the list than the bottom.

He's not as big over here because we were fighting a war on many fronts, and we didn't worry about being cut off from our food supply, and we weren't being bombed to shit by Hitler's crew. We also had plenty of heroes ourselves.

He did plenty for all of us, certainly ... but not as much as he did for them.

Most importantly, though--he was THEIRS, not ours. Local boy makes good, and all that--even if the recognition is a half century and then some late in coming.

[skepticscott]

54. As noted, Westminster Abbey is much more than a church

It is a historical monument to all that is England. To be buried there is not to be honored by the Church of England in any meaningful way but by the nation of England. Sure, there may still be some shrill atheists who will have a hissy, but intelligent people understand that.

[MADem]

56. But it IS a church. I'd be interested in hearing how the "A" Team here on DU would

feel about it. I don't think they'd go for it. Further, WA is not the ONLY "hallowed ground" in UK.

Also, since there's no body--he was scattered in a garden--it'd be just a statue in a church. Or a plaque. Or an engraving on the floor.

Trafalgar is a better bet.

[xfundy]

39. We need someone of his intelligence now

To break the enigma of people voting repig against their own interests.

[TroglodyteScholar]

40. This can't happen soon enough.

It's shameful the way he was treated when he was alive.

[daleo]

42. Imagine if his sexuality had been accepted by society and he had lived 40 more years

Who knows what math and computing discoveries he might have made.