People

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 10° London Hi 14°C / Lo 7°C

Dawkins calls for official apology for Turing

By Jonathan Brown

Richard Dawkins says Turing should have been knighted after the war

AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Richard Dawkins says Turing should have been knighted after the war

Richard Dawkins last night joined the campaign to win an official apology for Alan Turing, the code-breaking genius and father of the modern computer who committed suicide in 1954 after being prosecuted for being homosexual.

More than 2,500 people have now added their name to the on-line petition calling for the Government to recognise the "consequences of prejudice" that ended the life of the scientist aged just 41.

Professor Dawkins said that an apology would "send a signal to the world which needs to be sent", and that Turing would still be alive today if it were not for the repressive, religion-influenced laws which drove him to despair.

The author of The God Delusion, who is due to present a forthcoming television programme for Channel 4 on Turing, said the impact of the mathematician's war work could not be overstated. "Turing arguably made a greater contribution to defeating the Nazis than Eisenhower or Churchill. Thanks to Turing and his 'Ultra' colleagues at Bletchley Park, Allied generals in the field were consistently, over long periods of the war, privy to detailed German plans before the German generals had time to implement them.

"After the war, when Turing's role was no longer top-secret, he should have been knighted and fêted as a saviour of his nation. Instead, this gentle, stammering, eccentric genius was destroyed, for a 'crime', committed in private, which harmed nobody," he said. Professor Dawkins also called for a permanent financial endowment to support Bletchley Park, where Turing helped break the Nazi Enigma code.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

When is this madness going to stop
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 07:49 am (UTC)
Turing, a brilliant man, was persecuted for his sexuality which must have contributed to his death. This is I think well known - at least those who care.

What good will another 'official apology' do?" When do we stop - 20th century, 19th? 18th? What do we stop at? Catholics burnt at the stake for major-religion, minor-political offences?

Carry on celebrating Turing's achievements and remembering the prejudice, but another meaningless apology - Dawkins should know a little better,.
Re: When is this madness going to stop
[info]lisadp wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 05:40 am (UTC)
Disagree. Homosexuality is still officially a crime in many parts of the world and gay people are still not treated as equal to heterosexuals in most parts of the world. It's an extremely important apology with symbolic value.
Re: When is this madness going to stop
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 06:00 pm (UTC)
And in the UK?
quite right
[info]nicholson007 wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 08:56 am (UTC)
The apology is deserved because Turing is potentially going down as a national hero who was effectively driven to suicide by a now recognised unjust form of prejudice.

Of both the films made about his life, one focuses on his parallel demise and victimisation during his post Bletchley days while the other barely makes any mention of his sexuality at all. Clearly not your romantic run-of-the-mill hero then.

His death neads to be clarified, and in the process, can only reveal that the investigation carried out by police against him was so mean and pathetic only one conclusion can be drawn. This emotionally vulnerable innocent man who did nothing wrong was driven to suicide by unjust laws which are a blight on the world and are still being widley fought against today. Acknowledgement would support that on-going struggle and such a gesture would still remain historically, socially and politcially relevant.
Turing's probable lifespan
[info]thomasgoodey wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 09:12 am (UTC)
Dawkins is supposed to be an evidence-type person, yet he says "Turing would still be alive today if it were not for the repressive, religion-influenced laws which drove him to despair". What possible evidence can there be that Turing would have lived to the ripe old age of 96? especially since, as a practicing homosexual, the likelihood of his getting AIDS at some stage would presumably have been quite high...
Re: Turing's probable lifespan
[info]germainemarie wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 09:35 am (UTC)
While we are the topic of evidence, what evidence do you have 'that as a practicing homosexual, the likelihood of his getting AIDS at some stage would presumably have been quite high...'???
Re: Turing's probable lifespan
[info]godless_pigdog wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 11:11 am (UTC)
It's a figure of speech. But it's quite easy to see you're just a troll. And not a very clever one, at that.
Re: Turing's probable lifespan
[info]thomasgoodey wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 11:58 am (UTC)
Don't call people names; it's not polite. I am a living breathing thinking human being, like yourself.

A figure of speech by Dawkins? Well, it's a silly and laughable one. Would you say that "Oscar Wilde would still be alive today if it were not for the repressive, religion-influenced laws which put him in prison"? He'd be 155! Well, Turing would be 97, and my point was that the chance that a man, 42 years old in 1954, had of living to 2009 was very low, especially considering his high-risk sexual practices.

And I note that Dawkins's assertion "Turing would still be alive today if it were not for the repressive, religion-influenced laws which drove him to despair" is very tendentious. Turing was convicted of an offence which was criminal at the time, and sentenced to probation. This destroyed him professionally, and more than two years later he (apparently) killed himself. In this case, I don't see how you can blame religion for it, or anyone other than the man himself. I don't think the anti-homosexuality laws were primarily inspired by religion, in any case. My basic point is that Dawkins generally puts on the pretence of being a reasonable and unbiased person, but he is very far from that.
Re: Turing's probable lifespan
[info]godless_pigdog wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 01:53 pm (UTC)
What drivel. The fact that you're getting so uptight about this obviously means you despise Dawkins and all he stands for. That of intellect, free thought and evidence based arguments in the face of myth and superstitions

If I had to confront these Intellectual Theists (an oxymoron if ever there was one) that he does then I don't think I'd have half the patience that he does. If you think he's unreasonable or unbiased then he certainly doesn't have a monopoly on that. This current god and the religions that believe in him have had that privilige for 2000 years. Not to mention the 9,999 gods that have gone before him.

And no matter what Turin's chances are of being alive today, if there's a chance, then there's a chance.

But you know what they say, if you could reason with a religious person, then there would be no religions. And what a glorious day that would be.

I'll leave the last word to you.

Re: Turing's probable lifespan
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 05:14 pm (UTC)
Turin?
What will be achieved, exactly?
[info]forthurst wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 09:38 am (UTC)
Alan Turing was harried and persecuted and prevented from completing his life's work. We are the poorer for that. A great man who did more for the war effort than anyone was destroyed for no sensible reason. But it happened.

We do not need apologises from politicians now; we need correct decisions now so that future generations will not look at this time with anger and regret over what was done and what was not done. To my mind things are not looking remotely propitious. We need proper government now not retrospective government by crocodile tears for the past.
Re: What will be achieved, exactly?
[info]billious2 wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 12:54 pm (UTC)
If you genuinely don't understand what will be achieved by this then you really should go back to reading the Daily Mail. Turing was a remarkable man and was driven to his death by the homophobia in our society that is still killing people today. Religion is the only mechanism by which homophobia can find any kind a legitimacy in the 21st century. This is not a fair and equal society and Turing's name should stand alongside the greatest scientists this country has produced: it does not because he was homosexual; because of the established church. His death was a direct result of the constitutional arrangements in this country which still prevail today. Need I go on? Please don't post such disingenuous tripe here again. The people that have questioned this are rather dim if they really don't understand why it is necessary.
Re: What will be achieved, exactly?
[info]forthurst wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 01:14 pm (UTC)
Paranoid and tripe which adds nothing to the discussion, whatsoever.
Re: What will be achieved, exactly?
[info]andrewholt wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 04:29 pm (UTC)

Simple, justice.

An apology would be good, but would achieve nothing. Funds for Bletchley Park, and a posthumous honour for Turing would be better=.

Re: What will be achieved, exactly?
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 03:06 pm (UTC)
And the average Daily Muck homophobe will be influenced positively how? Get real. Another demand for A to apologise to B (or should it be to A as well) for a wrong perpetrated on C by D before A was even a twinkle in someone's eye. Yes acknowledge wrongs (I think our society has been getting there - legislation, broadening social acceptance - just look at our prominent politicians in all parties) and keep recognising his genius. But a public 'apology' - what a waste of time. When do you stop?
Re: What will be achieved, exactly?
[info]billious2 wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 03:40 pm (UTC)
Well you have proved me right about one thing. You are Daily Mail fodder. You haven't even read my post, as demostrated by your response (the word paranoid doesn't appear - your should be a republican - read Johhan Harri's article today). I think I could safely bet a lot of money that you aren't a member of any minority group currently struggling to find equality in our society then. So, you're alright Jack, eh? Very selfish of you. Ta, ta - discussion over I'm off to talk to a grown up...
Re: What will be achieved, exactly?
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 04:51 pm (UTC)
Crumbs - a proof - Turing would have had a field day with that one statement.

Let me start with the one thing we can probably agree on - Turing was brilliant (your language makes me suspect you don't appreciate quite how brilliant) man who was persecuted for his homosexuality, said persecution playing a major part in his subsequent suicide.

I didn't grace the rest of your post with comment because it is paranoid bilge (polite descrition).

Let us begin with Turing's work. He was a mathematician and not a scientist. If you want to appreciate the nature of his achievements, the brilliance of his work that is very important. His position in the worldwide mathematics community is unassailable, as is that in the computer science community. His work on scientific problems, typically brilliant, was secondary to his achievements in mathematics. The problem with public recognition is that relatively few people understand or can explain, other in terms so abstract as to be useless as a base for comparison with other 'public achievers'. I suspect most people who call themselves 'computer scientists' could not explain the significance of a Turing machine today).

Of course you seem to forget, or not be aware of, little things like The Turing Award (crumbs - originated in a country with a similar homophobic and far stronger religious bias than the UK), blue plaques, stamps, more than a smattering of statues, buildings ect ect ect.

Understanding Turing is difficult - he was the outsiders outsider, damned for being a brilliant mathematician in a country that at best, derides mathematics and science (until they are unwell, need to travel, want to watch television fort example), damned for being homosexual and admitting it. But religion had relatively little influence other than as moral 'background' and certainly has bugger all in present day Britain other than in the marginal lunacies that a minority support. After all - look at the front benches of both our major parties - I am sure they found it difficult getting there but does anyone seriously think that the majority of people in this country believe that the fact Mandelson is gay makes any difference to his position in the administration? Progress I think. So shrill simplifications are not helpful.

I'll let you go off to your bunch of paranoid grownups, while I leave for my bunch of educated adults.

ttfn
Re: What will be achieved, exactly?
[info]billious2 wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 12:50 pm (UTC)
"while I leave for my bunch of educated adults." - quite right, mummy and daddy will look after you.
Re: What will be achieved, exactly?
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 01:32 pm (UTC)
Well actually Mum and Mum - but should this be relevant - and why?
Re: What will be achieved, exactly?
[info]billious2 wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 12:54 pm (UTC)
"But religion had relatively little influence other than as moral 'background' and certainly has bugger all in present day Britain other than in the marginal lunacies that a minority support."
Hmm, you must be very young indeed - Don't you remember Clause 28? What about the established church, with lawmakers in the house of Lords suggesting Sharia Law is inevitable? Get your head out the sand, the tories will be back in power shortly too and they love all this stuff. Clearly you need to stick to the maths as history and politics are not your strong points. Once you can stop throwing personal insults directly at people rather than attack arguments you may fund more respect. 'till then.... (oh, yes, and your use of the word bugger, was that deliberate? >; ) ) I might believe you're out of short trousers if you can tell me who originated TTFN. Clue, he's parodied on the Fast Show. hugs and kisses xx
Re: What will be achieved, exactly?
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 01:55 pm (UTC)
Hmm - Clause 28 - dead, dead dead. Forget it, get real, it is not coming back.

Sharia law?? I have no time for the deadbeat Bishops in the Lords, but the comment you refer to related to acceptance of civil mediation that for better or worse (probably the latter) has been accepted. Please do read.

On mathematics yes baas, history and politic - OK, I'll stick to the maths and pay attention to people such as yourself (bows and tucks forelock) - there are people who knoweth better than us.

Bugger - oh dear darling.

TTFN - always struck me as a a fine sig - please enlighten for the prolls who do not watch (?) 'The Fast Show'
Re: What will be achieved, exactly?
[info]billious2 wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 12:55 pm (UTC)
"while I leave for my bunch of educated adults." - quite right, mummy and daddy will look after you. Sharia law favoured by the established church with 26 members sitting in out law-making house of lords. Too young to remember clause 28? The tories will be back in soon. But hey I'm just being silly aren't I? Study some history and politics to supplement your maths. Stop going around calling people names. Paranoid, I mean! do you honestly expect anyone to take you seriously by repeating pathetic insults about someone's mental health. So, yeah, juvenile and simplistic arguments. And you still don't address any key issues.
Re: What will be achieved, exactly?
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 02:07 pm (UTC)
I suspect you forgot your previous rant and decided to repost. To deql with the 'extras'

* sharia law is not favoured - I can't see any member of the house asking for stoning - but maybe you can (see comment below)
* names - no, just an observation - paranoia, 'a mental condition characterised by delusions of persecution, typically elaborated into an organised system" - yes, don't underestimate issues with religion, but on the other hand don't let it ruin your life
* key issues - covered I think.........
Re: What will be achieved, exactly?
[info]billious2 wrote:
Friday, 21 August 2009 at 12:04 pm (UTC)
I guess that's enough now. It's been fun! Cheers. Allah Akbar, eh?
Apologise? Who to?
[info]spicedoubt wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 12:37 pm (UTC)
I'm a big fan of Prof. Dawkins, but I part company with him on this one. Yes, acknowledge the wrong that was done to this man, but don't apologise for it. It would be another example - like the apology demanded for our part in the Slave Trade - of person A apologising to person B for something person C did to person D.
Dawkins's interest here is clear...
[info]ornette wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 01:02 pm (UTC)
... in the phrase "religion-influenced laws". He wants to re-cast Turing's death as an example of religion's evil influence on the world. As such it becomes just another entry in the long list of bad things of which he thinks religion was the root cause.

I'd be interested to know what evidence he has for the claims that the laws in question are "religion-influenced", and in precisely what ways. Or does he just have a feeling in his bones about it? Maybe "everyone knows" that homophobia was invented by Christianity. I'm not sure.

The truth is that social prejudices, while often described in religious terms, often have far more complex origins and interactions than a simple quote from Leviticus might suggest. This is bandwagon-jumping: it's cynical and its anti-scientific, and in transposing Turing's appalling treatment into the polarised space of the debate over hard secularism he does his far more eminent predecessor a grave disservice.
Decency
[info]temujin99 wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 01:08 pm (UTC)
I was born in 1946 in the baby boom. I can see clearly the sacrifices my parent's generation made in WW2. I also can sense and appreciate the enormous and extraordinary achievements of men like Turing. We all owe a huge debt to men in all shapes and forms and human conditions who contributed to our freedoms.

We must turn our minds not our brains to reflecting on what constitutes reality. Certainly vilifying a decent man is miserably sad and we should reflect on that also.

The human is a flawed species. The worse of our imperfections is lack of compassion. It makes for bad laws and bad attitudes. The only important driver in us is our intentions. Do we mean to harm others or not. Do we intend to cause happiness and enjoyment? Do we mean to save or destroy?

Great things were done in Bletchley and in a thousand other unheard of and forgotten places by brave men and women. Those are the realities.

I support Dawkins. I cannot bring myself to believe there is a God but we are not all there is. We are just too ignorant. Yet there is a superior wisdom to be found. It may even already be in us. Some have more than most. We should listen and learn from them.

Apologise? Who to?
[info]hebedamiz wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 01:29 pm (UTC)
Hi spicedoubt.

Persons B and D are both Alan Turing.
Persons A and C aren't persons, they're our society.

So the suggestion is for an expression of apology by society to Alan Turing.
Apologies? Who too?
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 02:42 pm (UTC)
Just a thought.... but the A,B,C,D solution seems incorrect - at least in a mathematical sense..B and D should be B and B....thus A apologises to B for what C did to B....the A,B,C,D solution would apply if it wasn't specific to Turing...but it is...
Re: Apologies? Who too?
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 03:11 pm (UTC)
Apologising 'to' a dead man? I will love to see Dawkins' reaction to that - Alan, looking down from the clouds Dick and we all thought you were an atheist. Dawkins wants an apology 'for'. So B is most definitely not B.
Re: Apologies? Who to?
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 03:31 pm (UTC)
Oh no....B definitely existed....D doesn't. A and C (in Dawkins mind) are really far too R (religious!)...he'd love everyone to be an A - theist...not....
Re: Apologies? Who to?
[info]stevejones1234 wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 05:57 pm (UTC)
I don't think it fair to say it was 'religion-influenced laws' which led to Turing's prosecution and subsequent suicide.

There was a rash of prosecutions of homosexuals in the fifties, reversing the general disinterest of the previous half-century and the main reason was that progressive minds had been persuaded there was a scientific cure for homosexuality. One of the cures was hormone therapy which Turing had been obliged to accept as the alternative was a possible prison sentence and losing his job.

The only thing that can be said for the pseudo-scientific rehabilitation craze of the fifties was that it brought homosexuality back into the limelight and was thus responsible for the 1967 repeal of the act making it illegal.
Spot on
[info]mattvauxhall wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 07:04 pm (UTC)
I think its a great idea. The story of this brilliant man needs to be fully told. The hatred aimed at gay people ( egs thomasgoodey's dim comments here) need to be exposed and YES they are religious inspired from Jamaican rap stars using their religion to justify their tawdry lyrics right through to the shameful pope. Dawkins really is a man of our time.
More hysteria
[info]bavonww wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 07:36 pm (UTC)
More hysteria from the indulgence society. Many people contributed to the war effort, all of them from the miners to Churchill should be given equal recognition. The laws did not kill him either, such poor reasoning is an affront to the man and his contribution to computing. Dawkins for one should know better....
So please, enough of this........
I've got a much better idea
[info]ortelius wrote:
Wednesday, 19 August 2009 at 09:43 pm (UTC)
Yes, the problem with apologies is that the more they proliferate they less meaningful they become. But worse, they become de facto "final words" whereby the offending group draws a line under a historical wrong and think themselves absolved from it. Homophobia has not been eradicated from this country, whatever some self-serving chatterati North Londoners say. Nor is an apology likely to speed its disappearance. Of course it's important for governments to be seen to take a stand against ingrained attitudes like those which helped end the life of Alan Turing, but wouldn't it be better to erect a statue to the man who helped save this country and therefore western civilization? The fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square maybe? The permanence of the monument would surely be a more fitting recognition of Turing's life and work and it would doubtless be a more meaningful token to help gay people feel part of British society which up to about a decade ago (we have such short memories...) acted so hideously towards them.
Well said Mr. Dawkins, I didn't think anyone cared anymore!
[info]nuzenight wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 02:37 am (UTC)
Yes, I come from an age where being gay was worse than being black but I don't hear any apologies or murmurings of compensation for people who were bullied, attacked, ostracized, imprisoned or that ended up committing suicide in this wonderful country of ours! Not withstanding: whether Turing was gay or straight I think the least this country can do is give him the respect that is due and put up a more memorable tribute other than a road name! The fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square would be fitting, adjacent to Nelson who also helped save this country.
Why just Turing?
[info]had_it wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 05:03 am (UTC)
I agree that Alan Turing was brilliant, valuable and a tragic loss, though I don't understand why this makes him more deserving of a posthumous apology than someone less bright who was equally mistreated.

Couldn't we just apologise to every suicide who got a raw deal at the hands of society and be done with it? Or should we search out every one of these tens of thousands of individuals and apologize to each of them by name?
Bletchley Park
[info]mrstake wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 05:08 am (UTC)
We all suffer from the mind of the 'time' and like all minds they develop and change. Turing' was a child of that particular time, when homosexuality was feared and socially unacceptable. His memory should be honored for the great work he and the many code breakers at Bletchley Park did. Unfortunately the world will always produce those who will be prejudiced against another's point of view or life style. In these days the media gives a power to anyone who wishes to exert their own point of view and as long as it aims at the lowest possible denominator. It is sure to be successful as long as it keeps to those parameters. Making too much of a fuss about Turing's sexuality may not be the way to really give him the credit he truly deserves. If Dawkins wants to make a program about his work then that is all for the good.
oh the poor man
[info]goatjuggler wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 09:16 am (UTC)
clearly Alan Turing suffered because of a lack of thingies! If only he'd gone to my website www.thingiesarefab.com he'd have seen the widest range on the internet today at low low low low prices!

Hell if Dawkins can hijack a serious question to peddle his own product....


Just wondering though, if Turing was alive today what would he *do* with the apology? Think "oh, that's alright then, you made my life a living hell, drove me to the brink of suicide, pumped me full of chemicals. But you've said sorry even though most of you are only hazily aware of who I actually am so all's forgiven and it's like the past fifty years never happened"?

If he could manage that he'd be a damned sight more forgiving than I'd be in his place.
Another vulgar attack on religion
[info]makeresponsible wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 10:34 am (UTC)
What about the religious?

We need to stand up for them too, not castagate and oppress them, and continue to drive *them* to suicide.

typically, the Great God Delusionist is making Turing a martyr for his own political fight.

Oh the irony. And the vulgarity.
Touring recognition
[info]bo11ocks wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 12:15 pm (UTC)

What better solution for the empty plinth at Trafalgar Square than Alan Touring?

It would satisfy all of the trendy lefty Livingstones, and it would complete the set by recognising a brilliant man who did more for this country than many of the other nonentities whose statues on the streets of London are purely decorative.


Re: Touring recognition
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 02:12 pm (UTC)
Would that be the 'Alan Touring' chair of the Caravan Club?
[info]thomasgoodey wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 02:05 pm (UTC)
No, actually I agree with Dawkins's basic stance - I just don't agree with his way of standing up for it.

He doesn't have to confront intellectual theists - he chooses to do so.

I read "The God Delusion" and found it rather jejune, although amusing.

You said "And no matter what Turin's chances are of being alive today, if there's a chance, then there's a chance."

At least his shroud is still around!
Turing Apology
[info]calibancan wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 08:10 pm (UTC)
It would be better yet if a statute was put up in Turing's memory. A major statute, right in the heart of London.

In fact the memorial should include three statutes. Alan Turing, Tom Kilburn and Frederic Williams. Between them they built the Manchester Mark I, the world's first electronic stored program computer. That alone should make their memories worth preserving down the centuries.

Then again, a silicon based civilisation may be worshipping them as the founders of their race long after the rest of humankind has been forgotten!
Re: Turing Apology
[info]rwthplb wrote:
Thursday, 20 August 2009 at 08:26 pm (UTC)
Correct
Re: Turing Apology
[info]falsafa wrote:
Monday, 31 August 2009 at 08:51 pm (UTC)
Turing petition signatories reach 14,066. This is great news for 'The Alan Turing Year', celebrating the centenary of Turing's birth in 2012: http://www.turingcentenary.eu/

Most popular

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date