Agreed. I think a pardon from the Queen is a nice gesture. Of course, it can't take back the wrong. But it is a nice gesture.
> "We can’t change Turing’s experience with a pardon. But his legacy mandates that we emulate, create, and codify humane and humble bodies politic, whether with law or with software, to steward and respect bodies natural."
> "According to Buzzfeed’s Jim Waterson, 75,000 men were convicted under the same law as Turing, some 26,000 of whom are still alive. (The law was repealed in 1967.) We might start by pardoning, or apologizing to, all those other men."
The British government's apology in 2009 was an apology to all affected by these laws, not just Turing. I'm not sure how the author missed that, having quoted directly from the apology earlier in the article.
Gordon Brown's, while somewhat ambiguous, reads as though Gordan Brown is apologizing only to Turing. He does acknowledge the injustices suffered by others, but states, "So on behalf of the British government, and all those who live freely thanks to Alan's work, I am very proud to say: we're sorry. You deserved so much better." [1]
The legislative apology starts off, "A Bill to give a statutory pardon to Alan Mathison Turing for offences under section 11 of the Criminal Amendment Act 1885 of which he was convicted on 31 March 1952.", which strikes me as extremely specific to Turing, and wasn't even approved. [2]
[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/617011...
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/uk/the-northerner/2012/jul/25/ala...
Noting that Elizabeth was reigning when Turing was charged [ and later convicted and sentenced], there is some fair criticism - at least from the foundational American political perspective - that the lack of any personal acknowledgement of the injustice lessens the measure and the pardon's praise of its own beneficence, in light of its power to declare itself the very writ of pardon, is inexcusable.