ChatterBank14 mins ago
Thousands Of Gay Men Pardoned For Past Convictions
http://
Great news for the families of these men. They should never have been subject to this bigotry in the first place.
Great news for the families of these men. They should never have been subject to this bigotry in the first place.
Answers
Absolutely appalling how gay people were treated in those years and many will say too little, too late, but if the families get some kind of closure over this, that can't be a bad thing I suppose. Doesn't change the fact that it should never have happened in the first place, as you quite rightly mention, mikey.
22:12 Tue 31st Jan 2017
"Why can't we fix all the other injustices in the world" is an excuse that is always brought out when this sort of thing is concerned, and it isn't helpful in any way.
The Ozzie affair was a very long time ago, but there are many thousands of gay men that are still alive now that will benefit from this new ruling.
The Ozzie affair was a very long time ago, but there are many thousands of gay men that are still alive now that will benefit from this new ruling.
Minty....not only was the old law "not a good one" it was wrong.
But laws didn't change overnight.....far from it.
It was first changed in 1967, and then chipped away further in subsequent years. As late as 2000, it was still an offence for two men between that ages of 16 and 21 to have sexual relations.
Anyway, there is nobody on here that still thinks its an offence, which goes to show how enlightened most have become.
But laws didn't change overnight.....far from it.
It was first changed in 1967, and then chipped away further in subsequent years. As late as 2000, it was still an offence for two men between that ages of 16 and 21 to have sexual relations.
Anyway, there is nobody on here that still thinks its an offence, which goes to show how enlightened most have become.
-- answer removed --
My analogy is very simple - that was the law then, this is the law now.
It is unreasonable to say that a law, albeit a bad law, and there is not arguing that it was a bad law, should be retrospectively changed because society's attitudes to the background of the law have changed.
The issue here is not the law itself - which was dispassionately applied as all laws should be - but the background of the formation of the law, which was rooted in bigotry and ignorance.
But that bigotry and ignorance is the result of 20-20 hindsight, from an enlightened viewpoint of 2017, when we are more understanding, liberal, and compassionate as a society, and amen to that.
But to take an emotive issue like the repression of homosexuality and bend the law to fit modern attitudes is wrong because it opens the gates to all manner of different attitudes and approaches.
There will be a list of laws a mile long that someone somewhere will judge as having been bad law, and they may well be, but they were the laws of the time, and the notion of 'pardoning' people convicted under the law of the time because we now decide that the law was bad law, is frankly unacceptable.
It says more about our need to assuage or social consciences, and try and place our modern views on past times, than the appropriateness of 'pardoning' people who were convicted under the laws passed at the time.
Bad law is not assuaged by faulty social conscious-salving - the two do not go together.
It is unreasonable to say that a law, albeit a bad law, and there is not arguing that it was a bad law, should be retrospectively changed because society's attitudes to the background of the law have changed.
The issue here is not the law itself - which was dispassionately applied as all laws should be - but the background of the formation of the law, which was rooted in bigotry and ignorance.
But that bigotry and ignorance is the result of 20-20 hindsight, from an enlightened viewpoint of 2017, when we are more understanding, liberal, and compassionate as a society, and amen to that.
But to take an emotive issue like the repression of homosexuality and bend the law to fit modern attitudes is wrong because it opens the gates to all manner of different attitudes and approaches.
There will be a list of laws a mile long that someone somewhere will judge as having been bad law, and they may well be, but they were the laws of the time, and the notion of 'pardoning' people convicted under the law of the time because we now decide that the law was bad law, is frankly unacceptable.
It says more about our need to assuage or social consciences, and try and place our modern views on past times, than the appropriateness of 'pardoning' people who were convicted under the laws passed at the time.
Bad law is not assuaged by faulty social conscious-salving - the two do not go together.
I hadn't realised that there were categories of Laws..good laws, mediocre laws and bad law, I thought we had just...Laws.
I agree with NJ, "pardons are given for miscarriage of justice...mistakes.....there was no miscarriage of justice for those who were sentenced under the Homosexuality law as it was then and hence, in my opinion, a "pardon" is unacceptable.
I agree with NJ, "pardons are given for miscarriage of justice...mistakes.....there was no miscarriage of justice for those who were sentenced under the Homosexuality law as it was then and hence, in my opinion, a "pardon" is unacceptable.
-- answer removed --
Mikey - //Andy....we agree about most things but not on this issue.
My point is the Sexual Offences Act of 1967 was a prime mover of public opinion. Once sexual acts between two consenting men ceased to be an offence. it gave very little excuse and reason to continue with the bigotry. //
Indeed.
But my point is this - the reason for the 'pardons' being issued is because of the emotion surrounding the notion of bigoted and unacceptable repression of sexuality.
The entire premise of the 'pardon' system is rooted in emotion and regret, based on more liberal and compassionate attitudes.
My point - when debating any aspect of law with anyone, including on in here - is that the law takes no account of emotion or compassion. It cannot - the law has to be dispassionate in order to be applied properly and without favour.
If you start to power your legal system with emotional regret, then your legal system starts to fall apart.
If we are going to bring emotion into punishment, then we had better place a large order for pincers, braziers, racks, thumbscrews and so on, ready for all the current sexual offenders because, emotionally, prison is too good for them, so we must indulge our emotions and provide the pain they have inflicted on others.
That is the scenario you embark on if you start allowing retrospective emotion to formulate your legal processes.
The law is outside emotion and regret - it is the only way it can be in order to function - and this notion of 'pardons' is based entirely on emotion and regret, and as such, it has no place in law.
My point is the Sexual Offences Act of 1967 was a prime mover of public opinion. Once sexual acts between two consenting men ceased to be an offence. it gave very little excuse and reason to continue with the bigotry. //
Indeed.
But my point is this - the reason for the 'pardons' being issued is because of the emotion surrounding the notion of bigoted and unacceptable repression of sexuality.
The entire premise of the 'pardon' system is rooted in emotion and regret, based on more liberal and compassionate attitudes.
My point - when debating any aspect of law with anyone, including on in here - is that the law takes no account of emotion or compassion. It cannot - the law has to be dispassionate in order to be applied properly and without favour.
If you start to power your legal system with emotional regret, then your legal system starts to fall apart.
If we are going to bring emotion into punishment, then we had better place a large order for pincers, braziers, racks, thumbscrews and so on, ready for all the current sexual offenders because, emotionally, prison is too good for them, so we must indulge our emotions and provide the pain they have inflicted on others.
That is the scenario you embark on if you start allowing retrospective emotion to formulate your legal processes.
The law is outside emotion and regret - it is the only way it can be in order to function - and this notion of 'pardons' is based entirely on emotion and regret, and as such, it has no place in law.
mikey4444
/// ignorance and bigotry ///
Out roll your usual insults against those that don't toe the liberal thinking line.
/// Anyway, there is nobody on here that still thinks its an offence, which goes to show how enlightened most have become. ///
Thank goodness it is deemed no longer a criminal offence, but that does not mean that it is not deemed offensive for some.
A change in the law or total acceptance of homosexuality does not mean that to some the thought of perpetration sex between two males is no longer thought repulsive and no matter how liberal thinking one may be, it won't alter that fact.
We all have certain individual tastes and distastes, and one also cannot alter that fact.
/// ignorance and bigotry ///
Out roll your usual insults against those that don't toe the liberal thinking line.
/// Anyway, there is nobody on here that still thinks its an offence, which goes to show how enlightened most have become. ///
Thank goodness it is deemed no longer a criminal offence, but that does not mean that it is not deemed offensive for some.
A change in the law or total acceptance of homosexuality does not mean that to some the thought of perpetration sex between two males is no longer thought repulsive and no matter how liberal thinking one may be, it won't alter that fact.
We all have certain individual tastes and distastes, and one also cannot alter that fact.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles60 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles77 mins ago
What Did The Conservatives Achieve In...
Politics80 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles93 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.