UK to pardon thousands convicted under past anti-gay laws

By JILL LAWLESS

 

LONDON (AP) — Thousands of men who were convicted under now-abolished British laws against homosexuality are to receive posthumous pardons, the government announced Thursday. Those who are still alive can will be eligible to have their criminal records wiped clean.

 

The Ministry of Justice said the pardons apply to men convicted for consensual same-sex sexual relations before homosexuality was decriminalized several decades ago. Men living with convictions can apply to the government to have their names cleared.

 

Justice Minister Sam Gyimah said the government was trying "to put right these wrongs."

"It is hugely important that we pardon people convicted of historical sexual offenses who would be innocent of any crime today," he said.

 

Calls for a general pardon have been building since World War II codebreaker Alan Turing was awarded a posthumous royal pardon in 2013.

The computer science pioneer helped crack Nazi Germany's secret codes by creating the "Turing bombe," a forerunner of modern computers. His work helped shorten World War II, and he was an innovator of artificial intelligence.

 

After the war, Turing was prosecuted for having sex with a man, stripped of his security clearance and forcibly treated with female hormones. He died in 1954 at age 41 after eating an apple laced with cyanide.

 

A few other countries, including Canada and New Zealand, are considering pardons for people convicted under now-repealed laws against gay sex.

 

Gay-rights advocacy groups in the United States said they knew of nu U.S. state which had contemplated similar action.

 

However, the U.S. military — after lifting a ban that prevented gays from serving openly in the ranks — adopted a policy which enabled gay soldiers who had been forced out to upgrade their discharges from dishonorable to honorable.

 

Sex between men remained illegal in England until 1967 — and even later in Scotland and Northern Ireland. The age of consent for gay people was not lowered to 16, the same as for heterosexuals, until 2001.

 

Many gay rights campaigners welcomed Thursday's announcement. But some said the government should go further and issue a blanket pardon, rather than making men apply individually to have their criminal records vacated.

 

Others said they wanted an apology, not a pardon.

 

"To accept a pardon means to accept that you were guilty. I was not guilty of anything," said 94-year-old writer George Montague, who was convicted of gross indecency — then a commonly used charge for sex between men — in 1974.

 

"I think it was wrong to give Alan Turing, one of the heroes of my life, wrong to give him a pardon," Montague told the BBC. "What was he guilty of? Being born only able to fall in love with another man."

___

Associated Press Writer David Crary contributed reporting from New York.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-10-21

3 hours ago, webfact said:

Justice Minister Sam Gyimah said the government was trying "to put right these wrongs."

"It is hugely important that we pardon people convicted of historical sexual offenses who would be innocent of any crime today," he said.

"It is also hugely important that we waited this long so that most of those convicts have already died. We really don't have the budget for compensation and a rubber stamp on an old file may not be just, but it is cheap," thinks the Minister of Justice.

and this is the most important issue in the UK at present is it????

Oscar Wild must have turned in his grave.

2 hours ago, dieseldave1951 said:

and this is the most important issue in the UK at present is it????

You mean the UK is only allowed one issue at a time?  Or that the press should only report on one issue?

Sam Gyimah is under-secretary of state for prisons, probation, etc. He is not Minister for Justice, or in U.K. parlance, Secretary of State; that is Elizabeth Truss.

I think it is a good thing.  It is an indicator that we are far more enlightened now and this acknowledges that.  Some have said that the government should apologise as well but I don't think they should.  At the time homosexuals were breaking the law and they knew that, even though the law was morally wrong.  Wiping the slate clean seems a balanced response.

5 hours ago, dieseldave1951 said:

and this is the most important issue in the UK at present is it????

Its a distraction to keep your eyes off of the real problems. I think they should run Fred Flintstone for head of the conservative party. I read the post but could not believe what I was reading. Alan Turing was mentioned what a hero he was and he was treated like an animal in the end. Hail Brittania. 

6 hours ago, dieseldave1951 said:

and this is the most important issue in the UK at present is it????

sorry did you want something about Kim K.?

44 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

I think it is a good thing.  It is an indicator that we are far more enlightened now and this acknowledges that.  Some have said that the government should apologise as well but I don't think they should.  At the time homosexuals were breaking the law and they knew that, even though the law was morally wrong.  Wiping the slate clean seems a balanced response.

And in the German Reich, sheltering Jews was also outlawed. I guess the German Republic doesn't owe those convicted of that crime any sort of apology either.

11 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And in the German Reich, sheltering Jews was also outlawed. I guess the German Republic doesn't owe those convicted of that crime any sort of apology either.

 

You are comparing the German Reich at the time of war with normal British law in the fifties in Britain? Seriously?

26 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

 

You are comparing the German Reich at the time of war with normal British law in the fifties in Britain? Seriously?

First of all the Reich's laws preceded the war.  And they were deeply immoral. As were the laws against gay people. Of course the British Government should apologize. Gay people did nothing morally wrong in this regard.  The British Government did by criminalizing their activity.

About time. The criminalization of non criminal behavior of any sort has been a blot on civilized society. Someone mentioned Turing, the man that saved the world from Hitler. Those that prosecuted him are the criminals.

It doesn't matter if one doesn't like homosexuality; as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, it's not a crime, PERIOD.

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

About time. The criminalization of non criminal behavior of any sort has been a blot on civilized society. Someone mentioned Turing, the man that saved the world from Hitler. Those that prosecuted him are the criminals.

It doesn't matter if one doesn't like homosexuality; as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, it's not a crime, PERIOD.

 

It wasn't "non-criminal" behaviour at the time and the majority of people agreed with the law. Attitudes take time to change; the law takes even longer.

 

19 minutes ago, JetsetBkk said:

 

It wasn't "non-criminal" behaviour at the time and the majority of people agreed with the law. Attitudes take time to change; the law takes even longer.

 

I don't dispute that. But now that we know better, an apology is in order. Insofar as sex is concerned, gays may have done something illegal but they did nothing wrong.

Only sex between men is mentioned. 

 

Was lesbianism not a similar crime?

16 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I don't dispute that. But now that we know better, an apology is in order. Insofar as sex is concerned, gays may have done something illegal but they did nothing wrong.

 

I agree with that but at the time it was illegal and they knew the risks involved.  I smoke a joint now and then and have for the last fifty years. I have always known that if I got caught then I would have broken the law and faced the consequences.  Now if I am caught smoking a joint then nothing happens.  I don't expect the government to apologise to me because they have changed the law.

 

It is called progress and it is happening all the time

13 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

Only sex between men is mentioned. 

 

Was lesbianism not a similar crime?

Not sure if Lesbianism was even recognized to exist back then.  

2 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

 

I agree with that but at the time it was illegal and they knew the risks involved.  I smoke a joint now and then and have for the last fifty years. I have always known that if I got caught then I would have broken the law and faced the consequences.  Now if I am caught smoking a joint then nothing happens.  I don't expect the government to apologise to me because they have changed the law.

 

It is called progress and it is happening all the time

But you werent caught and your life wasn't ruined because of it.

12 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

Only sex between men is mentioned. 

 

Was lesbianism not a similar crime?

 

I suspect this law was enacted by homophobic men.

I don't know too many men who are put off by a pair of lesbians going at it.

 

 

 

I agree with that but at the time it was illegal and they knew the risks involved.  I smoke a joint now and then and have for the last fifty years. I have always known that if I got caught then I would have broken the law and faced the consequences.  Now if I am caught smoking a joint then nothing happens.  I don't expect the government to apologise to me because they have changed the law.

 

It is called progress and it is happening all the time

There is a big difference dude. You can choose to smoke dope. You can still live a full life without it.

You don't choose to be gay and you can't live a full life without expressing your natural sexuality.

That was some hard core oppression.

18 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Not sure if Lesbianism was even recognized to exist back then.  

Lesbianism wasn't criminalized in the UK because Queen Victoria refused to believe women did that. I don't know what excuse the US had.

1 hour ago, JetsetBkk said:

 

It wasn't "non-criminal" behaviour at the time and the majority of people agreed with the law. Attitudes take time to change; the law takes even longer.

 

You miss my point that those that seek to criminalize behavior that hurts no one else are IMO the criminals.

All your reply proves is that a majority were wrong.

It still goes on with the many TV posters wishing to criminalize consenting sex for money. Attitudes indeed take time to change.

Quite right to offer an apology and pardon. What happened to Turing ( arguably the most significant figure in the early years of computing, as well as a major player in Enigma/Bletchley Park) was disgraceful ( but no less so than the thousands of others who were persecuted).

Time for the Australian govt to get in line with the gay marriage thing ( with 70% public support) so that young kids growing up gay do not feel ostracised and second class.

An off topic trolling post has been removed. 

There is a big difference dude. You can choose to smoke dope. You can still live a full life without it.You don't choose to be gay and you can't live a full life without expressing your natural sexuality.

That was some hard core oppression.

For some peeps marijuana may be a choice, many probably, like sexual experimentation. For others the relief it brings IS NOT a choice, it is a daily requirement since puberty and until death. Some, cannot live a full life without it.

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

You mean the UK is only allowed one issue at a time?  Or that the press should only report on one issue?

 

There wouldn't be enough newspapers if all the issues the UK has was to be reported on.

I do recall someone I knew at the time, back in the 70s, being convicted...

 

Problem is as I recall he was caught in a public car park, and also charged with gross indecency in a public place,   I doubt that would be pardoned though if it had been with a woman I suspect he may have only got a caution.

7 hours ago, Zyxel said:

Oscar Wild must have turned in his grave.

 

Doubt it, he got peat up his... 

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

2 hours ago, JetsetBkk said:

 

It wasn't "non-criminal" behaviour at the time and the majority of people agreed with the law. Attitudes take time to change; the law takes even longer.

 

You miss my point that those that seek to criminalize behavior that hurts no one else are IMO the criminals.

All your reply proves is that a majority were wrong.

It still goes on with the many TV posters wishing to criminalize consenting sex for money. Attitudes indeed take time to change.

 

I didn't miss your point at all, I simply wasn't commenting on it. What I was commenting on was that you called homosexual behaviour "non-criminal" when it clearly was at the time.