IMS_Blog

I seem to be getting quite political in my old age. That’s to be excused I think, when the Queen’s speech allows a barely elected government to reintroduce such concepts as ID cards. Presumably Labour now dislike Thatcher so much because she caused them to miss their 1984 target date.

The government, via their queen puppet, talked a lot about respect. Yet they seem to have forgotten that respect is something earned, and is a two way street. They are showing little respect for the populace they are supposed to represent, nor for the traditions and fabric of the society they claim to be protecting. That is a society which isn’t changed by legislation, however hard you try, but by cultural and popular shifts of opinion and education. Indeed, good legislation reflects the beliefs and desires of the people, not the other way around. Having been given a clear signal by those people that there proposed policies are not popular, the government have responded by disrespectivly reintroducing them.

Of the measures proposed in Blair’s Orwellian government the most worrying must be ID cards. They seem pretty determined to make sure they have control. Hiding behind a shield of new technology will solve all ills (no, it won’t) and you’ve nothing to hide, they try and convince us that it’s all for our own good. Despite the fact they can’t produce a hard, good theory as to why this would help at all. Don’t be fooled by being told they won’t be compulsory to carry either. You won’t need to. The power of the scheme lies not in the card itself but the huge, all seeing database behind it. That database will carry biometric information on all citizens. That’s fingerprints (and possibly iris scans/facial features—well, why not, DNA). They won’t need the card, they’ve got you, and you carry all that biometric data around.

It doesn’t stop terry either. Countries with similar cards have been subjected to terrorist attacks (ETA in Spain for example). Not only that, but this was never felt necessary when the IRA were a clear and present danger. It doesn’t help with illegal immigration. The point of illegal immigrants is that they are outside the systems anyway.

It does pave the way for the government to do whatever the hell it pleases, in your best interests of course. Remember, if you’ve done nothing wrong you won’t mind a policeman outside your door, watching you not do it.

I won’t even begin with the idea of compulsory lie detector tests (no matter what the crime, far to easy to extend an idea once it’s in place), or effectively “means testing” legal aid (with all means testing there are always those just on the border who slip through cracks). And exactly who “incitement to religious hatred” pans out in terms of free speech is worryingly unclear.

This government does not have a mandate for such sweeping, police state (and yes, the term is justified) legislation. It must be opposed.