I’ve cited this example before, forgive me. Sunday Times
readers were asked to say whether marital infidelity was a “sin” or a “temptation”.
I really thought that this was the lowest we could possibly have sunk in our
national debate on things moral.
In words which a five-year-old could understand: a
temptation means an inclination to sin. I know that wanting to take my sister’s
teddy bear is a temptation; taking it is a sin. The Sunday Times was being
morally illiterate to pose the question thus.
We continue to sink.
Clarification: sins and crimes are not the same thing; but
the same terminology, regrettably, appears.
With respect to sin, the word “pardon” has a very clear
meaning. I did something bad. I can only be pardoned if my good intention (or,
perhaps my good action) outweighs my bad action. I did something bad. Somehow
it got cancelled by my intention or my action. In Catholic theology, I may be
pardoned because my bad action was cancelled by God’s Grace – He took my bad
action and cancelled it. It was still a bad action.
With respect to law, the word “pardon” has got badly
muddied.
What does it mean? You didn't do what you were accused of
(and punished for?) So, the legal system betrayed you. The judges got it wrong.
But there is a meta-legal system implicitly in operation. Perhaps you did do something which was “wrong”; it
was against the law. But, then the law changed its mind, what you did was
against the law, at the time. We decided, the law decided, that doing what you
did should not be illegal – we changed
the law. Pardon? How so? Did we decide that your intentions (or even the
effects of your actions) were innocent in view of our new legal view?
Alan Turing is a national hero. He helped us to defeat the
Nazis. You and I might think that we owe him a huge debt – I do! He was a
queer; he was prosecuted for it. He committed suicide as a result.
Nowadays being queer is not only not a crime – there is no
societal reprobation attached thereto. How can Turing’s supporters possibly
want him to be “pardoned”? Pardoned for what? The “offence” for which he
suffered is no longer an offence. In legal terms, it is surely grounds for
disallowing all anti-gay prosecutions, back to infinity. So, it is ridiculous
to suppose that Turing needs a pardon. In legal terms, surely, everyone ever
prosecuted under anti-gay legislation gets not a “pardon” but a total dismissal
of all charges.
Do I think that Turing’s sexuality is what I espouse for my
grandchildren?: I don’t. He suffered unnecessarily. Being beastly to people is
bad news.
No comments:
Post a Comment