Thursday, March 30, 2006

ID card compromise - my comments

I just don't get it. First off, the government tries to say that passports wont be compulsory because people don't 'need' to have passports. The opposition see it for the lie that it is, and rightly oppose it. Charles Clarke gets laughed at in the house of commons for uttering such a barefaced lie.

Fast forward a couple of weeks. Same situation, the government is now trying to convince everyone that everything about the ID card system is fine, because it will be delayed by four years. This time though, the opposition buys it, hook, line and sinker.

Why? Why, after opposing the bill for so long and forcing the government into ever increasing ridiculousness, after laughing at this country's Home Secretary for the length to which he was willing to lie for Tony and his bill, after it has been proven time and time again that ID card wont help to stop terrorism, wont reduce crime, will be abused by the police and the government, why did they cave in just like that?

I honestly thought this was going to go all the way to the Parliament Act, and at least to some extent I can hold my head up high and say that my party of choice did try their best to ensure this happened. I completely agree with the comments on Spyblog about the lack of trust over civil liberties from the Tories; slim chance though it was, David Cameron has just lost any chance of getting my vote.

I honestly do not think that I have ever got this riled up about any act or bill or law ever introduced, and that includes the fox hunting ban which I campaigned to be introduced quite passionately. This system will not only destroy a good deal of our 'civil liberties' and 'personal privacy', but it will almost certainly be a huge failure will gaping security holes which will compromise individuals across the whole country.

I will not carry an ID card, and I will not allow my personal information to be held on any register. I would urge everyone to follow Mat's ideas below and refuse to vote for any candidate in an upcoming election that will not vote to do away with the national identity register.


Ken said...

So much for binding a successor, then!

ContraTory said...

I thought that the Conservatives had already said that they would repeal this Act once they returned to power (hence the significance of "2010" as the effective start date.)

ContraTory said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Andrew said...

ContraTory: Indeed they have, but as with control orders and a whole host of other sunset claused legislation, or unrepealable stealth taxes, that promise to repeal this Act is worth precisely fuck all.

MatGB said...

Andrew, that's precisely why I think we need Liberty Central, and indeed other projects, keep the pressure up and the question asked.

I want the "will you repeal" question asked at every hustings next General Election. I reckon we can do it.

Devil's Kitchen said...

I honestly do not think that I have ever got this riled up about any act or bill or law ever introduced, and that includes the fox hunting ban which I campaigned to be introduced quite passionately.

That was masterly; you wrote the sentence above, and then complained about how ID Cards damage 'civil liberties' and I didn't spot a trace of irony. How do you get that deadpan delivery?

Seriously, if you campaign for something like the fox hunting ban, you are off the 'civil liberties' credible commenting list forever.


PaulJ said...

Fine, see if I care.

I don't think anyone has a 'civil liberty' to cause pain to another living thing, simple as.

Or, as a supporter of civil liberties, as I supposed to support the freedom to do anything I damn well please? In that case, people can have the civil liberty to hunt foxes, just so long as I have the civil liberty to hunt them.

If you think my comments on civil liberties carry any less weight because I supported the hunting ban, then you seriously miss what the most important aspect of the ban was. Civil liberties might have been on the list of reasons why the ban shouldn't have come into force, but it was far, far outweighed by the arguments for.

MatGB said...

My take on both the hunting ban and the smoking ban is that they're not essential liberties, but the bans themselves were wrong.

Both are economic problems; people do them because they enjoy them, the positive equity they gain outweighs the cost.

Hence, make them so expensive and/or difficult that people no longer feel they net benefit.

Not civil liberties. You don't (and should not) have a fundamental human right to kill other creatures. You should have the fundamental right to be your own person, and decide how you identify yourself and to whom.

I don't want the Govt tracking where I live, who I associate with or what my iris pattern is. I don't want it to be a crime to not present papers for simply walking down the street.

Differences in scale there DK. Hunting != civil liberty.

Guitar Master said...

I wish I could blog as good as you, but what I can do is give you a nice Guitar Lesson!