Can anyone sign or only Brits?

"Pardon all of the estimated 49,000 men who, like Alan Turing, were convicted of consenting same-sex relations under the British "gross indecency" law (only repealed in 2003), and also all the other men convicted under other UK anti-gay laws."

Is a pardon the best thing to demand? It doesn't seem like justice to me. A pardon for what? They didn't do something wrong.

(Whom does the latter include?)

Harriet wrote:

"Pardon all of the estimated 49,000 men who, like Alan Turing, were convicted of consenting same-sex relations under the British "gross indecency" law (only repealed in 2003), and also all the other men convicted under other UK anti-gay laws."

Is a pardon the best thing to demand? It doesn't seem like justice to me. A pardon for what? They didn't do something wrong.

(Whom does the latter include?)

I have signed it, but I agree with you.  I wish there was a better option. This article, by David Allen Green, suggests a better one: 

A recent statute - the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 - provides a scheme where those who had been convicted of the section 11 offence (and similar offences) can apply for their entire criminal records to be removed if the facts of the case would no longer count as a crime.  It would be as if the offence had not been committed at all.  These are not pardons – they go much further: the 2012 scheme removes the taint of criminality altogether, and with no fussing about not affecting the conviction or the sentence.

I think people are more aware of the pardon option though (and there is a precedent with Turing), so the other isn't so likely to go through.

I think the other laws would include buggery (I believe anal sex was illegal in England up until the sex laws were changed in 2003.   It was illegal for anyone, but I don't think opposite sex couples tended to be prosecuted, so it was effectively an anti-gay law).   Even after 1967, when it was legal for men to have sex with each other, there were lots of restrictions - for instance, two men couldn't have sex if another person was present - and so people were still prosecuted.   There were also gay men prosecuted (and imprisoned) for actual body harm and aiding and abetting a crime, because they engaged in consensual SM activity. 

Last edited by Liberty (January 31, 2015 1:39 pm)

Thanks for the explanation, Liberty. 

Yes, I would wish for a better and more comprehensive option as well. But I think that they checked various possibilities and opted for the one that seemed most promising of success. 

Not sure if this applies here but as far as I know it is very difficult to reverse a judgement if it was made in accordance with law at the time in question. And it is a sad fact that these men were convicted under current law, i.e. that law valid at the time of their conviction. This being of course a purely legal argument, not a moral one. 

Last edited by SusiGo (January 31, 2015 1:34 pm)

Thanks for explanation, Liberty! 

Of course I signed this. 

In the 2012 Act the person concerned has to be alive and apply themselves. It cannot be initiated posthumously. They have gone for the best possible one. Nice the pardon is granted, which hopefully it will be, this will set a president and may in turn lead to other, or blanket, pardons.

Signed.

But wondering about one thing: The petition only refers to men. Were there no women prosecuted under anti-homosexual acts?
 

Schmiezi wrote:

Signed.

But wondering about one thing: The petition only refers to men. Were there no women prosecuted under anti-homosexual acts?
 

It wasn't illegal for women to have sex with each other.   (There's an apocryphal story that Queen Victoria just didn't believe it existed!)
 

Last edited by Liberty (January 31, 2015 7:40 pm)

Davina wrote:

In the 2012 Act the person concerned has to be alive and apply themselves. It cannot be initiated posthumously. They have gone for the best possible one. Nice the pardon is granted, which hopefully it will be, this will set a president and may in turn lead to other, or blanket, pardons.

I'm not knowledgeable about law, but the writer of the article does seem to think that it could be applied retrospectively. 

The problem with posthumous pardons is that they are practically - and legally - meaningless.  It is a gesture.(.
...)
But the 2012 scheme is only for those still alive.  However, there is no good reason why it cannot be applied retrospectively.  It would have the merit of consistency.( ...)
  a better posthumous gesture would be to simply extend the 2012 scheme to all those who are now dead.  Removing the criminal records completely of all those prosecuted who would not be prosecuted today on the same facts would be a better legislative gesture than a single statutory pardon, if there is to be a legislative gesture at all.

It sounds quite good to me, if it could happen.