|
Benson
Guest
|
 |
« on: December 11, 2012, 08:04:36 am » |
|
Compose by Loke Lay, and perform by the Hong Kong YMCA Harmonica Orchestra with the soprano Eli Fung.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jimfin
|
|
« Reply #2 on: December 24, 2013, 10:58:47 pm » |
|
Let us remember that people are still being treated like this in many countries around the world, sadly. India, Russia and Uganda have all been either cracking down or recriminalising homosexuality of late.
|
|
|
|
|
|
guest2
Guest
|
|
« Reply #3 on: December 25, 2013, 01:46:06 am » |
|
. . . without the slightest apology for criminalising him in the first place, of course. Quite. That "pardon" is a most inappropriate gesture. It is condescending and insulting. I am disappointed in H.M. the Queen. An apology is what is required. And secondly, an apology is required not only for Turing, but for all the tens of thousands convicted for "indecency" and "deviant" sexual behaviour. Many are still alive and deserve recompense for the grievous harm done to them. |
|
|
|
|
|
jimfin
|
|
« Reply #4 on: December 25, 2013, 03:47:23 am » |
|
I do agree that 'pardon' is the wrong word, but it is just the legal term for someone having a conviction removed, and is even used when that person had not done that thing. I'm not sure that the Queen is able to offer apologies, but Gordon Brown gave a government apology to Turing a few years ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Neil McGowan
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 25, 2013, 04:11:55 am » |
|
Let us remember that people are still being treated like this in many countries around the world, sadly. India, Russia and Uganda have all been either cracking down or recriminalising homosexuality of late.
I'm afraid you are the victim of misinformation in some of the cases you mention. |
|
|
|
|
|
Jolly Roger
|
|
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2014, 10:18:20 am » |
|
One does not get "convicted" for being a homosexual, not then, and not now.
What did he actually do to break the law?
|
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2014, 10:59:00 am » |
|
One does not get "convicted" for being a homosexual, not then, and not now.
What did he actually do to break the law? One did not get convicted merrely for being a homosexual in those days - no, of course, not - but if you read the article you will find despite the importance of his work Dr Turing was convicted of gross indecency for having a relationship with a 19-year-old.
At that time homosexuality was illegal, and he chose to be chemically castrated with injections of female hormones rather than go to jail. He committed suicide two years later. If you want to have more detail about the "offence" for which he was convicted in 1952, you hve only to go and look. That the royal pardon has indeed come decades later than it should have done - particularly in the light of how long various changes in the laws affecting homosexuals in Britain had been in place at the time of its posthumous granting - is as obvious as it is shameful. That Turing was driven to suicide a couple of years after accepting a physiologically and psychologically damaging "medical" "solution" rather than being jailed ought in and of itself to have shamed the judiciary at the time, particularly given his immense gifts and his record in serving his country. |
|
|
|
|
|
Jolly Roger
|
|
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2014, 08:02:02 pm » |
|
One does not get "convicted" for being a homosexual, not then, and not now.
What did he actually do to break the law? One did not get convicted merrely for being a homosexual in those days - no, of course, not - but if you read the article you will find despite the importance of his work Dr Turing was convicted of gross indecency for having a relationship with a 19-year-old.
At that time homosexuality was illegal, and he chose to be chemically castrated with injections of female hormones rather than go to jail. He committed suicide two years later. If you want to have more detail about the "offence" for which he was convicted in 1952, you hve only to go and look. That the royal pardon has indeed come decades later than it should have done - particularly in the light of how long various changes in the laws affecting homosexuals in Britain had been in place at the time of its posthumous granting - is as obvious as it is shameful. That Turing was driven to suicide a couple of years after accepting a physiologically and psychologically damaging "medical" "solution" rather than being jailed ought in and of itself to have shamed the judiciary at the time, particularly given his immense gifts and his record in serving his country. thanks for the clarification..there had to be victims for it to be a crime.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
