|
Pleasant Dreams My England
Last year the prime minister wrote a response to the 28,000 people who signed an e-petition calling for the government to abandon plans for a National ID Scheme...
http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page10987.asp
Though ten years earlier opposed to the idea, the governement u-turned. Mr. Blair justifies the governments aims of introducing compulsory ID cards by saying, amongst other things, that we need not worry about the amount of information on them because
"they will contain less information on individuals than the data collected by the average store card"
and
"I also believe that the National Identity Register will help police bring those guilty of serious crimes to justice. They will be able, for example, to compare the fingerprints found at the scene of some 900,000 unsolved crimes against the information held on the register."
and
"The National Identity Register will also help improve protection for the vulnerable, enabling more effective and quicker checks on those seeking to work, for example, with children. "
I could be wrong but I didn't think store-cards generally carried either criminal record information or biometric data. Although it's true that Debenhams do sometimes appear to know more about me than they are letting on.
I digress. Mr Blair also added that
"If national ID cards do help us counter crime and terrorism, it is, of course, the law-abiding majority who will benefit and whose own liberties will be protected. This helps explain why, according to the recent authoritative Social Attitudes survey, the majority of people favour compulsory ID cards."
This social attitudes survey in question being the one of which found that:
7 in every 10 people think compulsory identity cards for all adults would be "a price worth paying" to reduce the threat of terrorism.
And which also found that...you see it coming don't you...
"people were less inclined to support civil liberties when asked questions mentioning terrorism."
Do you see what he did there? Quick., You got to watch him.
Conor Gearty, professor of human rights law at the London School of Economics and joint author of the report's civil rights chapter, said:
"The very mention of something being a counter-terrorism measure makes people more willing to contemplate the giving up of their freedoms. It is as though society is in the process of forgetting why past generations thought these freedoms to be so very important."
It would be funny if it wasn't history.
The survey also found that
1 in 3 people would accept a ban on peaceful protests and demonstrations.
The government themselves say:
"The right to protest is a fundamental feature of a democratic society, encompassing the rights to freedom of assembly and expression, amongst others. These rights have long featured in British legal tradition, and are protected by Articles 11 and 10 respectively of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). "
That one in three people would give all this away is 'troubling' to say the least.
It's the stuff of nightmares.
Protest is the only means by which people may communicate to government.
People. The plural is deliberate.
Without the right for people to protest, there remains only the rights of the individual left.
Have you ever tried to communicate personally with a member of parliament or a government department?
Have you ever met the person who represents you politically?
Or, like me, do you feel you're somehow representing yourself, siding with no one.
The problem with siding with no one, is that if things do get bad, not that they will, not that they could, not that any of it would really affect you, but if they did…you'd be on your own.
But it's not like they would use the laws they pass to do anything other than what they say they're for is it? That would be deceitful and, well...wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7369543.stm
Smile.
Yet there are still some shreds of the democratic process left. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has decided to inquire into the human rights issues arising from policing and protest. It's worth reading.
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/joint_committee_on_human_rights/jchrpn070832.cfm
It might even be worth responding to.
7:46 PM
-
0 Comments - 0 Kudos
- Add Comment
|