A C Grayling, writing in the Times, makes the case against the ID Cards Bill that is about to receive its third reading in the house this week. Despite my writing to my MP, he voted in favour last time and provided me with the same weak excuses trotted out by the home office. I was mildly surprised at his response. I’ve written to him again, but fully expect him to vote in favour for a third time. Disappointingly, this is a man who has been prepared to rebel against the government on other occasions, yet when faced with its increasingly authoritarian stance, simply repeats the dogma as he trots obediently into the "aye" lobby. Hopefully, he will read – and take note of – the article in the Times.
"TOMORROW the ID cards Bill returns to Parliament for its report stage. It is surprising that this profoundly ill-conceived measure has got this far, so unanimous has been the opposition to it from every qualified organisation in the country, apart from the police and the biometric data companies who stand to make billions of pounds if it becomes law – anything from £5 billion (the Government’s estimate) to £18 billion (The Financial Times’s estimate), all to be borne by the public."
Even those people who are not concerned unduly by the privacy arguments should be worried by this. I am inclined to place more faith in the Financial Times’ estimate than that of the government. Government have been proved to lie, so why should I believe them now? The cost – whatever it turns out to be – will be a staggering waste of taxpayers’ money that could (and should) be better spent on health, education or policing.
Then of course there are the shifting sands of purpose:
"Arguments against the scheme relate both to practical matter, and to principle. Consider the practicalities first. At various times since David Blunkett first introduced the idea, different reasons for ID cards have been suggested: chiefly, that they will help to catch illegal immigrants, that they will reduce identity fraud, and that in some unspecified way they will reduce crime and prevent terrorism. This last claim has since been dropped by the Government, which acknowledges that ID cards would not have stopped either the 9/11 or 7/7 atrocities."
Terrorism, benefit fraud, immigration, identity theft… All are trotted out without an ounce of thought. If there was thought, it would demolish all of these as the bunkum that they are. In response to my letters, my MP trotted out the identity fraud argument, citing cases that have occurred to his constituents as a rationale. Except that government does not seem clear about what constitutes identity theft in the first place. They produced a figure; £1.3bn lost every year on identity fraud. Yet this figure is itself a fraud and most of it has nothing to do with identity fraud, rather, it is credit card fraud. More precisely, cardholder not present fraud – which is not identity fraud. And, significantly, identity cards would have no effect on this whatsoever. My MP has chosen not to respond to this point.
Grayling goes on:
"The objection of principle, which is that ID cards are a gross violation of civil liberties, is related to the lazy argument that people use when they say, “I have credit cards, store cards, a passport, a driving licence – why would one more card make any difference?” But the difference is great. All those other documents are voluntary; you do not have to have them, even though they are very convenient. Moreover, they each represent a relationship with just one other body – your bank, a retail outlet, or the vehicle licensing authority.
ID cards are wholly different. They carry comprehensive information about you, stored on a microchip connected to an Orwellianly-named “National Identity Register”. This changes your relationship with the State entirely. You are no longer a private citizen, but in effect a number-plated unit who can be monitored by the authorities for any purpose. In fact, ID cards would be better named “surveillance cards”, because they provide central authority with a means for monitoring all your activities, and give it permanent access to all your personal details."
Herein is the big objection. The one people decry as being nothing more than airy fairy civil libertarians whining about concepts that are theoretical rather than real. They change the relationship between citizen and state – that, is the significance. The state exists to serve us, the electors, not the elected. We, the electors are the masters and the elected are the servants. The government seeks to reverse that relationship. We own our identities, the government seeks to franchise them back to us. Those who choose to think little of these things, presuming that we live in a liberal democracy and that "it couldn’t happen here" will do well to ponder upon the words of Karl Jaspers immediately after the second world war:
"What has happened is a warning from history. To forget it is guilt. It has been possible for this to happen. It remains possible for it to happen again at any minute."
To suppose that it couldn’t happen here is to indulge in naivete to the point of gross negligence.
I fully expect this bill will pass its third reading. I hope, as do those who share my concerns for our liberties, that the government’s war on liberty will receive a setback in the Lords.
—–