One problem with democracy

In 1952, he was convicted of \”gross indecency\” – in effect, tried for being gay. His sentence – and he was faced with the miserable choice of this or prison – was chemical castration by a series of injections of female hormones. He took his own life just two years later.

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.

All according to the law at the time and, if we are to believe those who state that democracy trumps all, all entirely righteous for such laws were enacted by those duly elected by the populace.

Of course, of course, we\’ve gone far beyond that now, such trumping of civil rights, of liberties, by democracy no longer happens.

Tell that to the guys who got four years for consensual homoerotic S&M.

7 comments on “One problem with democracy

  1. Indeed. The victims of Operation Spanner had their ECHR case heard and lost – the judgement was that moral issues like this are matters fir the majority to define. Tyranny of the majority.

  2. Oh do fuck off Tim , that extract is form the elephantine exercise in market placement from Comrade Brown ploughing the old and deeply mendacious patriotic progressive theme he has been lobbing about .
    That was 60 years ago for Christ’s sake closer to Queen Victoria than to us why do you assume that it was democracy that was responsible ? Perhaps Timmy you can point out the non democratic State of the time that had a better human rights CV then ? In non democratic War time Germany i wearers of the pink star were experimented on and then killed ? Better ?
    And annuvver fing Timbo god knows I love the gayers , but why exactly should my children be introduced to the concept of Johnny’s two daddies at my expense when I would prefer they learnt to read ? If you are suggesting , and I think you are , that certain philosopher princes are gifted with magical wisdom and foresight and they ought to have eight votes well ok , suppose I am one of them and you are not ? How d`you like them apples ? *

    ( Yhis is admittedly exceedingly unlikely as I am quite thick)

  3. If Gordon wants to see some gross unfairness in action, he should closely watch the “Independent” Safeguarding Authority in action over the next few years.

  4. Apology, according to the Longman Dictionary of the English Language: an admission of error or discourtesy accompanied by expression of regret.

    Those who would apologise today, for the wrongs done yesterday by someone else, place themselves on dangerous ground in a great many ways. For simplicity, I’ll refer to such an apology as an AARFUC (admission and regret for unowned crime), with associated verb. Some of the dangers of AARFUCing that have occurred to me include the following.

    It is much easier to say someone else is wrong than to admit your own faults. Following an AARFUC with silence on one’s own faults may well lead to a charge of hypocrisy.

    Subsequent failure to AARFUC just about anything may well lead to charges of inconsistency, especially from minority groups who are handed, on a plate, easy access to publicity.

    AARFUCing a great many things is a life-wasting policy (though it might be a useful way to keep stupid but powerful people away from activities more dangerous to the rest of us, and also may well present possibilities for humour).

    Selective AARFUCing in a politician is surely no more than a pathetic effort to buy votes, when one has run out of more substantive bribes (to say nothing of sound policy).

    Returning to Alan Turing, would it not be better for him to be remembered primarily as genius and war hero, rather than as victim of an over-zealous state.

    And, talking of over-zealous states, when is the Great Hypocrite going to see what is in the mirror?

    Best regards

  5. The thing is, the Big Lie here is the denial of who was responsible. The idea of “curing” homosexuals with hormones was just a previous stage of progressive ideology. As was eugenics, racial theories, and so on.

    They love bragging about the couple of good things that came out of the first Proggressive Era (we should recognise that we’re now in the second), like banning slavery and, er, ooh, the suffragettes[1] but they never own up to the rest of the torrent of shit they inflicted and blame it on “conservatives”. Historically we had a sodomy law, inherited from canon law when Henry VIII put the English Church under the Crown. Not a good law, but at least based on the common law idea of punishing a specific *act*. It was progressive quacks who thought they could cure gayness and invented the kind of quackish torture inflicted on Turing.

    [1] yes, the lovely Pankhursts, zealously handing out white feathers to young men to shame them into death in the trenches. How very fucking progressive. Give peace a chance, eh?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.