Take a stand for civil liberties

The excellent folks at Stand.org.uk, who describe themselves as “a group of volunteers who originally came together in 1998 in a vain attempt to fix the worst aspects of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Act”, are mobilising efforts to oppose the imposition of ID cards in the UK. They enable you to contribute your comments to the ‘consultation’ process, which Downing Street is claiming shows Growing support for entitlement cards… We think you should go to Stand.org.uk website and let them show you how to tell the British government exactly how you feel about this. I did and left comments saying:

To put it bluntly, this is clear evidence, not that any more is needed, that the Labour government is as utterly inimical to civil liberties as the Tory party was. I shall never cooperate with what is clearly just a euphemism for a national ID card which will enhance the state’s ability to monitor and control its subjects. It is clear that any ‘voluntary’ system you offer up will just the thin end of the wedge for a mandatory system that will enable policemen to stop you on the street and demand “your papers”. I will never consent or cooperate with this.

Be polite but tell them what you think. Kudos to Stand.org.uk for their efforts to defend what is left of civil liberties in the United Kingdom.

The state is not your friend

Malcolm

January 13, 2003 at 12:20 pm

Perry writes:
“It is clear that any ‘voluntary’ system you offer up will just the thin end of the wedge for a mandatory system…”
The governments proposals are for a mandatory system. The government NewSpeak dictionary defines “compulsory” as meaning “you have to carry the card at all times” – and say they won’t do that. By contrast, they do want to impose a “universal” card, by which they mean “you have to obtain, possess and present the card on reasonable notice”.

mark

January 13, 2003 at 5:30 pm

Thanks for posting that link to stand.org.uk – I really think this matters. I both e-mailed and faxed my MP, and said this:

–

I am a British subject and am totally opposed to any national identity-card system in Britain.

I travel widely as a journalist and speak at least one foreign language to translator level, and my anecdotal experience clearly matches the published figures:
– countries with national identity cards have higher levels of fraud as well as of other crimes.

More fundamentally, it is not the place of anyone in any administration to introduce such a scheme to ‘register’ us, your employers and masters. It is only for us to register you, civil servants, our employees.

I will not carry an identity card under any circumstances in the country in which I was born, and have never carried a state-sanctioned identity card in any of the other countries in which I travel.

Despite recent British governments’ illegal attempts to remove the ancient rights to presumption of innocence until proof of guilt and silence under interrogation by officers of the state, rights confirmed in the Magna Carta agreement with John the 1st, and further confirmed in the Bill of Rights, those rights remain, of course, inalienable. Officials of the crown [particularly employees of the Home Office] who question them or pretend they are not in force are committing a treasonable offence.

Attempts to introduce identity cards are direct attacks on these two ancient liberties, since an ID system amounts to an artificial offence created solely as a pretext for claiming that unregistered individuals need to prove their innocence and establish their right to be registered.

Identity cards are designed to shift the burden of proof onto individuals, and create an offence in which the suspect must prove their innocence. An individual cannot be deemed innocent until proven guilty, and cannot remain silent under interrogation without prejudice, if they must show they have a predetermined status in order to be granted those rights. This is especially true when the state awards itself the unopposable right to decide on that status.

Claims that juries should not be permitted to throw out every case of a person not carrying a state-sanctioned identity card, as amounting to state officials illegally putting the burden of proof on the accused, are of course also treasonous.

Creating paperwork difficulties with identity cards are a highly effective way for manipulative governments to control innocent people in an uncontroversial manner by causing them inconvenience, cunningly avoiding the need to escalate to more obvious repression.

Last, of course, identity cards make life easier for criminals, by simplifying their lives while complicating those of law-abiding people. With only one master document to forge or steal, it is hardly surprising that almost every country with a higher crime rate than Britain has a compulsory national identity-card system already in place.

David G

January 13, 2003 at 8:02 pm

Please stop calling them entitlement cards – they are ID cards. I am totally opposed to the introduction of ID cards and will oppose and obstruct their use to the best of my ability.

This is an instrument of the state to further control and monitor its citizens.

I am not persuaded that the carrying of ID cards will not become compulsory in the future. I am not persuaded that they will gradually, insidiously assume a position of de facto standard in order to carry out everyday tasks.

I predict that it will not be long before that card must be shown before you are ‘entitled’ to a refund in a shop.

We have a history in this country of fighting exactly the kind of oppression that requires citizens to ‘show their papers’.

This is my country and my freedom. George Orwell becomes more prophetic by the day.

I am ‘entitled’ to go about my lawful daily business unmolested and unmonitored. This entitlement was handed to me by my forefathers and is not in the state’s gift.