I beg your pardon?

Karen Pollock takes issue with the idea of a deeply queerphobic government issuing pardons for acts which should never have been crimes in the first place.

If you have ever watched a small child apologise for something they didn’t know was wrong, you have seen the beginning of the internet figure of speech “sorry not sorry”. They know the formula of words which is expected, and that if they go through the required ritual, they may even be praised rather than punished. Adults tend to play along because it is deemed important that children learn how to apologise and in what circumstances. We may be well aware the sorry is not truly meant or understood, but we let it pass.

When it comes to adults we tend to have stricter rules around the sincerity of apologies, and what might cause them. Many people will have read of fauxpologies, the idea that an apology which goes “I am sorry if…..” bears more relationship to a 5 year old whose hand was caught in the cookie jar than remorse and repentance. As adults we, quite rightly, expect more, and have more expected from us. Perhaps this is why so many people are less than enthusiastic about the proposal to pardon men convicted under the gross indecency act announced this week.

It is a fact that thousands of men were convicted of “gross indecency” by a homophobic law. Not all of these men will have identified as gay or bisexual, they all however were convicted solely because the morals of the time decided that sex between two consenting men should be illegal. This law was changed in England and Wales in 1967, Scotland in 1980 and Northern Ireland in 1982. I say changed because contrary to popular opinion the law still discriminated against homosexual men, only declaring acts in private, between those over the age of 21, to be legal. It took much longer for an equal age of consent to be brought in*, and it may be worth noting that our current Prime Minister opposed this move towards equality.

So, there are many men alive today, and many who have already died, who had convictions for something which today is not deemed to be a crime. As already mentioned they may or may not have been gay, but its largely the movement for LGB rights which has pushed first for Turing, and then for a more general pardon. In that word, pardon, lies so much of the problem. A pardon is defined as

noun

1.

kind indulgence, as in forgiveness of an offense or discourtesy or intolerance of a distraction or inconvenience:

I beg your pardon, but which way is Spruce Street?

2.

Law.

1. a release from the penalty of an offense; a remission of penalty, as by a governor.
2. the document by which such remission is declared.

3.

forgiveness of a serious offense or offender.(Free dictionary.com) 

The dictionary definition suggests a pardon takes place when there has been a serious offence. I can understand the anger of those who were convicted who reject the idea of a pardon. Although the law would never have criminalised me, I too would reject this pardon.

Last year, certain sex acts were declared illegal to film, or to view on film. They were largely queer/kinky or female sex acts. The campaign against that law is still continuing, against the idea that consenting adults should be deemed “gross” or “indecent”.