You are here:   Columns >  Guest Speaker > ONLINE ONLY: ID Cards to be Labour's Final Fiasco?
 

In the final version of the Identity Cards Act some attempts to respond to objections can be observed. No longer will it be necessary to define one's "ethnic group". On all police charge sheets "ethnicity" is now recorded. Options are limited - Asian/Asian British, Black/Black British, Chinese, Arab, Mixed (you have to record what the mixture is), White British; Irish; Any other white background. This can easily cause distress. Indians do not necessarily like being lumped in with Pakistanis, and Kurds and Iranians can be distressed at being labelled Arab, although the average police officer cannot tell the difference. At present "ethnicity", or perhaps officialdom should be more honest and talk about "colour", is not required, but it was initially required in the Bill before it passed into law, and we may expect it make a reappearance once we are all suitably anaesthetized. A government so obsessed with "ethnicity" that it makes labelling oneself a compulsory question on the national census and insists on it being stated on any application for work in the civil service is likely to want it declared for ID cards too.

Also there is no longer a requirement to state all your addresses. People these days often have complicated living arrangements and an obligation to give all the addresses at which a person can be said to be living is not likely to be observed. Typically many of the people I have represented over the years have several places at which they could be said to live. A man - it is usually a man - will often give his mother's address to the police but will actually be living with his girlfriend, and for reasons not unconnected with the DSS would prefer not to say so. We can be sure that many of the addresses given on the Register will be bogus or out of date.

One of the worrying aspects of the legislation is the powers given to the Secretary of State to vary the information which will be required. The Government will no doubt point out that most variations will have to be laid before Parliament, but this gives little confidence. Baroness Shirley Williams on the radio programme Any Questions said she would rather go to prison than have an i.d. card. Sadly, going to prison will not be an option, since apart from a very few criminal offences created by the Act, most protests will only be liable to civil financial penalties. Opposition will be a source of revenue: there will be few martyrs. Baroness Williams only succeeded in showing us that politicians do not bother to study the legislation they pass.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Anonymous
December 21st, 2008
4:12 PM
Ref:'Jummy' - 'Irish' commit more crimes. So? 'Blacks' commit lots more still.Just helping your point.

Ivan
December 11th, 2008
4:12 PM
I can see no reason why for reasons of state security citizens should not merely be forced to have ID cards but to carry them with them at all times. Such things are necessary in the state of perpetual terrorism that has now engulfed us, a terror supported by a significant part of the population. The more information it contains the better and this should include religion as well as ethnicity. All our financial affairs have long been subject to surveillance but no one ever protested. It would seem that the state is more concerned to protect its revenues than our safety. I have never seen a human rights case about the level of taxation or the intrusiveness of the collectors or their use of anonymous denunciations. Why should we care about the rights of terrorists ? Are terrorists to be more protected than tax-payers or motor car drivers?

Anonymous
December 8th, 2008
6:12 PM
I think the whole business is appalling and invasive. Surely there's a better way?

Jummy
December 7th, 2008
1:12 PM
The ethnic categories are merely political.They are not useful ones nor do they have any social reality. This is true generally.If you are an organ donor it is useful to have a record of racial ancestry for matching the organ donated to a recipient so it will be accepted. But they ask you whether you Irish or British which is irrelevant.How much do the Irish differ genetically from the Scots? The category Irish is there to placate Sinn Fein not to help the NHS.The reason Irish ought to be a category on police forms is because they commit more crimes ( according to the prison chaplains and a Jesuit report there are twice as many RCs in jail as in the general population) but that is not why it is there.It is there because the Irish are defined as underpriveleged and discriminated against and need government meddling to put this right.

Cjno
December 6th, 2008
2:12 PM
Brianson, I vauguely recall that during the 1930s a one time German chancellor wanted people who his government classified as Jews to carry a form of identifiaction on their person, the better to effect 'social engineering'. However, I can't remember exactly what came of it. You may have better luck & be able to find a book or two about this episode in your local library.

Guy Herbert (General Secretary, NO2ID campaign)
December 6th, 2008
7:12 AM
At present "ethnicity", or perhaps officialdom should be more honest and talk about "colour", is not required, but it was initially required in the Bill before it passed into law..." This is news to me, and I lobbied against the bill at every stage. What is your source. Also there is no longer a requirement to state all your addresses. Not clear. The power remains in place, but the draft regulations for applications appear not to require all addresses. These could just as easily be added later, or even when the actual regulations are laid. The bill was amended by government to encompass all places of residence anywhere in the world, not just all UK places of residence.

Brianson
December 3rd, 2008
1:12 PM
This might worry me if I had ever seen an example of a European gov't using such information against its citizens for the purpose of social engineering in the last hundred years or so... This seems a little over the line. Are your politicians and civil servants that much more trustworthy than ours? Wow, want to share because there is no way Canadians are going to trust the ones we have do this. Not the ones I know anyways. There are no leading roles in a cage.

Dave
December 2nd, 2008
6:12 PM
It was reported recently that the Govt has not ordered any of the scanners required to read the biological data on the cards which are already being issued!

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.