Labour, the party in government, is a pretty bad lot, but the Tories, whose supporters traditionally read the Torygraph, are no better.
I have to live in this country, but I fear for its future. About the only party I can stomach voting for is the LibDems, but it's been a long time since they had a hand in government (assuming continuity with Liberal Party).
We know that Gordon Brown has no personal moral responsibility for the prosecution of Alan Turing but has nevertheless apologized to Turing, a person who no longer exists. But now everyone feels better and at no cost to themselves. This is a great bargain whereby one can score brownie points to promote one’s moral stature. The urge to prepare a list (it'll be a long one) of suitable future recipients of our moral largesse.will be irresistible.
Wow. That's got to be a record for cynicism. I see where you're coming from, but don't you think that it might actually be helping people that are discriminated against for their sexuality, race, gender or whatever people use to identify others by some irrelevant characteristic in order to prosecute them ?
The fact that there is 'no cost' is great, that means that it got done. The church took 400 years in some cases to recognize their wrongs, the British Government (at the prodding of John Graham-Cumming) took 'only' 50 years and change.
I'm all for pressing governments to admit their wrongdoings, and I'm all for shortening the time it takes them. The great news here is IT WORKED. They took notice, and within a fairly short time.
They stopped short of what was asked, but they didn't exactly do nothing either, that's the prime minister speaking in person there, not some two bit flunky.
Gordon Brown personifies the British government, in this case that could have gone only one step higher (the Queen) but apparently she couldn't be bothered, or Brown decided that it might help his re-election chances if he did it himself.
Whatever the truth of it is a cause for rejoicing.
Now let's hope some of this rubs off on his underlings, some of who are in a perfect position to show that they too understand that discrimination is wrong.
Government in a parliamentary democracy is a continuity. That's fundamental to the concept. Gordon Brown did not apologize as an individual, that would make absolutely no sense. He apologized as a representative of the very same British government that treated Alan Turing so badly.
That is my point exactly. Did Gordon Brown kill him or condoned his killing? Furthermore, if he apologised on behalf of the government, is it the same government that killed him (seeing as how the parties/people in power changed).
If the latter is true, aren’t there bigger things he can apologise about? The UK government did quite a few dastardly things during its long rule (as most governments did). It would be nice if they start apologising to every country and group that they oppressed during the colonial period.
It's a tad more symbolic than that since there are still many gays still being ostracized and systemically punished. I suspect the larger point is that discriminatory action is not right.
That is my point exactly. Did Gordon Brown kill him or condoned his killing?
No, and if you read the statement, Gordon Brown took the opportunity to blow his own trumpet - "my how far we've come, things are so much better now" (I paraphrase). Quite a politically astute response, actually, since it makes them look good from a number of angles.
Brown is a very smooth operator, and for sure he would try to do everything to spin this to his own benefit.
That does not mean that nothing was achieved however.
In my opinion, now it is time to press on and demand a formal pardon in light of this apology I don't see how it could be refused. He's pretty much admitted they got it wrong, a pardon is the next logical step.
The language is ambiguous: If by "he" and "they" you are referring to the same entity, then no, no such admission has been made. And it's not clear that it should be.
More like "thousands of other gay men who were convicted under homophobic laws were treated terribly ... I am proud that those days are gone ... " In other words "they got it wrong in the 1950s. We're better."
'He' refers to Brown today, the head of the current government, 'they' refers to the British Government in the past.
Apologies for being ambiguous. Not sure what the downvote was all about, whether that was because of Brown being a smooth operator (he is), him trying to spin this in such a way that he benefits from it (he did, especially some of the words could have been a lot better chosen for an apology), whether they disagree that nothing was achieved (it was, there is an apology where there was none before) or whether they disagree with that this in my opinion is a first step (it is, it's my opinion, I should know ;) ).
Yeah, for instance they could apologize for aerially bombing various colonial cities. They could apologize to China for the Opium War. You have to wonder what contemporary issues they were trying to distract people from, with this.
Well perhaps 'gimmick' is a loaded word; what I meant was that a full pardon would have been more fitting, and also that he's apologising for something done by someone else long ago - I can't think of a better word, but I do take your point.
A full pardon IMHO is more of a gimmick than an apology. The guy is dead - pardoning him won't do him any good. On the other hand, a heartfelt apology communicates something explicitly, and might do some good for people who are facing similar discrimination today.
Not to split hairs, but a pardon is an action & implies regret - ie communicates something tangible explicitly. Whereas an apology without pardon is 'just words' & implicitly declines the opportunity to pardon. I can't speak for those who are facing similar discrimination, but my guess is that a pardon would be a more tangible comfort.
Being a USian I am not an expert on UK law, but I don't think the Prime Minister has the power to pardon. The Queen would have to do it (though presumably at the advice of the government).
Congratulations to all of us who bravely rallied around the cause of a dead man, persuading the British government to do something that has no real meaning to it and then celebrating our common victory over, er, something-or-another. I'm not sure what we defeated or cause we moved forward, but it sure felt great!
Let's keep up the good work! We have a long list of horrible deeds done in the past to dead people by other dead people, and there's no limit to the amount of patting ourselves on the back we can achieve. After all, we are so morally superior to all of those folk, and it's time we told ourselves that.
Never mind that slavery still exists in the world, or imprisonment for gays, or genocide, or female genital mutilation. No point in addressing or doing something about actual, real evils that we can make an impact on. Nope! When you can score easy symbolic points, all of that real action seems kind of silly. Let's hear it for symbolism over substance! </sarcasm>
As a person of European descent, I would like to take this opportunity to request that the Italian government apologize for the Romans keeping so many of our ancestors as slaves. This is a wrong that's gone on way too long, and something superficial and symbolic must immediately be done so that I can feel better about it.
(It was his campaign to effectiveness of which many, including me, were sceptical.)
Further discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=816217