Hacker News Reader

Comment by ska | Hacker News Reader

I think you may have hit on the crux of it. If any stronger repudiation were offered, would that be the government opening itself up to 25000 expensive lawsuits?

View on HN

I hope so, it should pay, and heavily. If it was my tax pound I'd support this. The minimum amount of harm this discrimination caused is pretty high, and there is little than can be done to correct this. Financial compensation is about the best thing actually possible, so do it while the victims are still alive. The lame option of waiting until 99% of the victims are dead, then offering some kind of pardon is vastly more likely however.

"If it was my tax pound I'd support this."

Well that's easy to say when it isn't. It is my tax pound and I don't. I don't support the posthumous pardon at all, and those calling for the posthumous knighthood are getting ridiculous.

Everyone recognises the value of Turing's input to both the war effort and greater modern life, but sadly the man took his own life. Arguing over whose fault it was it pointless. Pardoning him now does nothing for him. It won't change the impact of his work and it won't produce the work that we lost because of this. Yes the law in the 1950 by todays standards was an ass, but that was the law at the time and the punishment was the punishment. Yes, through 21st century eyes it is abhorrent and I'm extremely glad that the law has changed and what happened to Turing doesn't happen any more, but... It's time that we move on.

I agree that the goal is moving on. However, I don't think the best way to bridge is to fail to acknowledge our history.

To me, it's important for a society to explicitly acknowledge mistakes.

FWIW, I'm American, and I wish that our government would formally acknowledge people who have clearly been affected by less than fortuitous circumstances.

Are there abused or disenfranchised groups you do support payments being made to as a form of compensation? Paying out clearly does nothing for Turing, I mean that payment to those still alive could be helpful. For example, the New Zealand government has paid out groups that suffered due to government action like land unfairly taken. I fully support this.

Sorry, I don't, because where does it end? IMHO, it's nothing more than a token gesture. Financial compensation won't change the wrong that has been done. It's superficial and ever so slightly patronising. It's symptomatic of the vile litigious happy culture that we find ourselves in.

It presumably includes us getting compensation from the modern day descendants of the Normans, Vikings and Romans.

Many people persecuted under the anti-homosexuality law are still living today.

A recent example of where the UK was, in my opinion, quite right in paying out to victims was to people who had been tortured by British colonial forces during the Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22790037

I would also support compensation for anyone who was a victim of extraordinary rendition through the UK and criminal prosecution of anyone who aided this ghastly practice.

The NZ government continues to make payments to Maori (an indigenous people lostlogin refers to). Maori are in a socioeconomically inferior position overall, partly (largely?) as a consequence of European misdeeds less than two centuries ago. I think most people who know of the similar (but much worse) socioeconomic positions of the Australian Aborigines and native American people will probably agree making compensation is the right thing to do.

Suppose however that the Maori had a socioeconomically superior position. Would it still be the right thing to do to pay them for past misdeeds? Technically, I would say yes. Practically, probably not.

As an illustrative example, consider the way Chinese immigrants were treated during the gold rushes ~1850-1900. Though the situation is somewhat different; I'd contend that if Maori were being compensated only for past misdeeds, descendants of Chinese immigrants from that time should be also. (But of course Chinese people are in a higher socioeconomic group than Maori).

[Warning: speculation rife in the following paragraph] So, the NZ government pays Maori because it's a politically acceptable (politically beneficial, probably) way to provide Maori with some stimulus to increase their socioeconomic standing. I expect that had Maori been able to summon the socioeconomic standing (and corresponding political power) earlier they would've received compensation earlier. Had they never had a relatively lower socioeconomic standing they may never have felt aggrieved as a result of wrong-doings and not pursued payment at all.

An aside: Another complicating factor in the NZ situation is that the legal basis of Crown ownership of NZ is somewhat shaky. There appears to have been some "mistranslation" that occurred in the Treaty of Waitangi, meaning Maori believe they are the sovereign owners of NZ, while The Crown believes it is.

How far back would you be willing to go? The UK has been around a long time. Witch burnings in the middle ages? Land confiscation in Ireland in the 17th Century? Abuses of The East India Company in India? The Harrowing of the North by William the Conqueror in the 11th century?

We haven't finished figuring out how to sort out the mess that was the colonizing of New Zealand yet, but once we have worked through that, it might be useful to refer to when sorting out the earlier messes that the Empire (and earlier rulers) created!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com