Royal pardon for codebreaker Alan Turing

Computer pioneer and codebreaker Alan Turing has been given a posthumous royal pardon.

This is a wonderful Christmas present for campaigners here and here. Our thanks to Justice Minister Chris Grayling for his initiative. Happy Christmas!

Alan Turing Pardon

Alan Turing (1912 - 1954)

In January last year  I posted "Alan Turing's stamp of approval and petition for a pardon". The petition closed in December 2012 with 37,402 signatures.

It is hard to believe that a government that was to push through unwanted gay marriage legislation dismissed calls for a posthumous pardon in 2012 arguing that one was "not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence". 

Latest reports suggest that attitudes have changed and that justice may at last be done. Thanks to all who signed the petition. A relative of mine worked with Alan Turing in Bletchley Park but such was the secrecy then and for a long time afterwards that nobody in the family knew of the connection.

The Lords debate here.

Out of touch...

... and out of town?           Photo: AP/EDDIE MULHOLLAND/GETTY

One of the themes running through yesterday's debate on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was that older people are out of touch with current opinion. Many MPs referred to correspondence they had received from their constituents which, allegedly, showed that younger voters were in favour of so-called equal marriage implying that senior citizens had no regard for equality. It is not unusual for younger generations to believe that they are blessed with wisdom that has evaded the elderly when in fact the elderly have a greater depth of experience bearing witness to changes over time, many of them step changes, each one presented as a small step but leading to the giant leap intended although not admitted at the time. Those familiar with this strategy who express opposition are frequently referred to as homophobes and bigots giving the accuser the satisfaction of feeling enlightened while wallowing in their own ignorance.

 Noted for his absence from the debate was the prime mover, the Prime Minister, along with the authors (above) of a letter to the Telegraph claiming that “attitudes to gay people have changed”. Of course they have changed but so have the attitudes towards people who do not bend the knee to the Zeitgeist, recognising self-interest masquerading as progress. The Prime Sinister Minister would have us believe that last night's vote is 'an important step forward' towards equality, 'making our country stronger' - see the video in this link - but not according to half his MPs who voted against the measure suggesting that Cameron is out of touch with his own party.

Deception is key to this Bill. It has nothing to do with equality, the implied primary motive of the Government when they launched their 'equal civil marriage' consultation in March 2012 because the Civil Partnership Act 2004 provides equality under the law; hence there is no reference to equality in the Bill other than a cross reference to the Equality Act 2010. Deception was used during the passage of the Civil Partnership Act with denials that it had anything to do with same-sex marriage. This question was put directly in the debate but the priest turned MP and member for Rhondda, himself in a civil partnership, excused himself by saying that things had moved on and he had changed his mind, a situation not dissimilar in the campaign for women bishops emphasising that assurances offered by revisionists are completely worthless.

Had the older generation not advanced the cause of genuine equality, MPs would not have been engaged in the current debate but we are where we are. What I find most irksome are the distortions employed to make a case. There were many worthwhile contributions to the debate but often the arguments advanced in support of the Bill had nothing whatsoever to do with equality or prejudice as claimed. For example the sad case of Alan Turing's death was used to justify same-sex marriage but the unjust persecution of homosexuals in the past cannot be used to justify the re-definition of marriage. It was also suggested by a number of members that marriage has evolved over the years citing as examples the treatment of women  involved in property transfers and wives being raped by their husbands but such examples have nothing to do with redefining marriage, they are examples of women's rights in a union between a man  and a woman.

These are not a unfamiliar tactics. In the other big debate on women bishops, what is the relevance this statement if it is not a deliberate attempt to smear the opposition by association?
"On 16 December 2012 a young woman was beaten and gang raped in the suburbs of Delhi. She died 13 days later from the brain and gastrointestinal injuries she suffered as a result of the assault." According to the Chair of WATCH, everything. She writes: "Many of us will have studied, at school or university, some of the great freedom movements of history such as the abolition of the slave trade or the dismantling of apartheid in South Africa, movements which have revolutionised, restored and redeemed the relationships between human beings." 

Similar comparisons were made in the debate. We are all appalled by such events but to use such examples to taint opponents serves no good purpose and shows the accusers to be out of touch with reality.

Minority madness

Oscar Wilde was imprisoned for it and died penniless in exile. Alan Turing killed himself after providing our nation with unparalleled service in our greatest need. Just two tragedies illustrating that prejudice against homosexuality does humanity no credit. But is there a line to be drawn? Estimates suggest that just 1% of the population consider themselves gay or lesbian, only some of whom would like the opportunity to be 'married' rather than to be bound by a civil partnership. This is seen as a step too far, particularly in a religious context. The debate about same-sex marriage appears to be out of all proportion to the numbers involved but an injustice is still an injustice if it is legitimate. But what of justice for whom marriage is a sacrament which joins man and woman together for the procreation of children in biological and spiritual union as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer:

At the day and time appointed for solemnization of Matrimony, the persons to be married shall come into the body of the Church with their friends and neighbours: and there standing together, the Man on the right hand, and the Woman on the left, the Priest shall say,

   DEARLY beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God, and in the face of this congregation, to join together this Man and this Woman in holy Matrimony; which is an honourable estate, instituted of God in the time of man's innocency, signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he wrought, in Cana of Galilee; and is commended of Saint Paul to be honourable among all men: and therefore is not by any to be enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly, to satisfy men's carnal lusts and appetites, like brute beasts that have no understanding; but reverently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly, and in the fear of God; duly considering the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
      First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
      Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.
      Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.


Government assertions that churches will not be forced into conducting same-sex unions have already been dismissed. There is a cautionary warning from Canada here.


The Rt Rev Tim Stevens, Bishop of Leicester, summed up the position in this piece in the Guardian: the CofE had been supportive of civil partnerships when the legislation was introduced eight years ago. But he added: "I think the difficulty we have here is the substitution of equality for uniformity, that is to say that there can be no distinction at all between men and women. The government is seeking to meet what it perceives to be the needs of the gay community. I would say that the Church of England is sympathetic to those needs, we want to see a society in which gay people are fully included and their needs are fully provided for.""But this does not amount to a basis for introducing a complete redefinition of the concept of marriage based on a consultation process which is at the very least rapid
"From a standing start within three months to arrive at a fully considered, weighed and articulated redefinition of a fundamental social institution which has been thought about in one particular way for centuries and which is broadly accepted as a social institution in the same way internationally - to change all that on the basis of a consultation like this seems to be at the very least unwise and ill considered."



What I find remarkable about this debate (which seems to have arrived from nowhere and has become such a divisive issue when there has been no mandate for change) is the supposed drive for justice for a tiny minority view which confuses equality with uniformity. Why is it that those in the Church of England who now see themselves in the majority do not have the same regard for those of us who, through synodical procedure, find ourselves in a minority as we seek to uphold our traditional belief in the priesthood in common with the wider Apostolic church?  The Church of England at last sees the writing on the wall with the threat of exclusion. Many of us already know what that means!  

Alan Turing's stamp of approval and petition for a pardon.

Alan Turing (1912 - 1954)

One of the greatest tragedies of all time is the avoidable death and consequent early loss to civilization of Alan Turing, the master codebreaker and visionary responsible for the computing technology we have today. The most gifted man of his generation, regarded by some amongst the most gifted in the history of the world, he committed suicide after being punished by the state for his homosexuality despite everything he had done to help win WW2, saving millions of lives in the process and giving birth to the computer age.

In November last year, Channel 4 broadcast a moving TV documentary drama which I hope will be repeated for the benefit of anyone who missed it. Today the Guardian has details of stamps to be issued by the Royal Mail in February illustrating ten prominent people in their 'Britons of Distinction' series. Alan Turing is among them.

In 2009 Gordon Brown issued an unequivocal apology to Alan Turing, saying the country owed him a huge debt but that is not enough. He deserves a pardon. An e-petition has been been raised with a closing date of 23/11/2012. You can sign it here - but only because Alan Turing made it possible!