You’re the one that keeps sending me the traffic on that particular post (apart from one or two technorats). And of course you never check your referrer logs, do you? Oh, dear…

“If we have your DNA on file, and your GPS implant tells us where you were, and the voice monitor tells us who you were talking to and about what then we can prove you are innocent - only the guilty need worry”.

Now you’re reverting to science fiction and conspiracy theory to prove your point, this stuff belongs in the X-files. Where I’m from, everybody has ID cards and there are no plans for microchipping our citizens, believe me, we wouldn’t allow it.

The “database” argument is futile, they exist already anyway, starting with the birth registry. If you concentrated on keeping certain types of data out of these databases, you’d actually have my full support. Instead you’re fighting a rear guard battle.

As regards ID cards, I wouldn’t worry too much, 99% of the UK population are against them. It would indeed be undemocratic if they were pushed through by any government.

In fact it looks as though the quote I recalled was from Clarke not Blair:
Quizzed about alleged abuses against British nationals recently freed from Guantanamo Bay, Clarke made it plain he considered individual rights to come second to anti-terrorism in all areas of his role. “I am absolutely unapologetic in saying it, that anybody in my job has to have national security at the center of their concerns,” Clarke told BBC on Sunday. “I’m all in favor of human rights, but I’m even more in favor of our national security being protected.”
This is tantamount to Blair saying it since he is known to use his Home Secretary to parrot his views or float his more controversial ideas.

You have also fallen for the oldest rhetorical device known: when in difficulty reverse the argument;
Citizen: “ID Cards will damages civil liberties” -> Blair: “no, no. They will safeguard them - If we have your DNA on file, and your GPS implant tells us where you were, and the voice monitor tells us who you were talking to and about what then we can prove you are innocent - only the guilty need worry”. Really. A 5 year old wouldn’t fall for that one. Gert - please find a 5 year old for advice, you need his help.

There’s plenty of historical and contemporary evidence that tells us ID cards are a bad idea. That same evidence fails dismally to provide any substantiation for ID cards actually doing anything positive.

You said:

“You, incorrectly, berate me for not presenting arguments for my points but then fail to offer any for yours. In particular you don’t say what the arguments ‘for’ are, while saying that only the arguments against cards don’t cut butter.”

No, I didn’t present any arguments “for”: at the top I clearly stated I was going to debunk some arguments “against” cards, which is what I did.

As regards civil liberties: they’re as important to you as they are to me. The Government also claims that ID cards will lead to better protection of these same liberties, so we’re all in favour of protecting civil liberties.

You said:

“This is why in the US and Germany civil liberties are primarily policed against the state. In Germany it was the absence of effective formal civil liberties that led to the holocaust. The reason why it is so important that the rule of law and democracy is best protected by a vigilant citizenry pointing out abuses of civil liberties in times of crisis is because abusive governments point to a threat and say “if you wish to be protected be a loyal citizen: give up some of your rights so that you can be safe”. Recall that Hitler said that the Jews were a critical threat to the Arian race and so they should lose their rights and now Blair says “islamic terrorism is a fundamental threat to our way of life. Civil liberties must come second” (Hd did actually say those words or words very close to them).”

Keep the US out of it: they have a very bad record, when it comes to civil rights protection. They also have about the highest proportion of their population incarcerated of any civilised country, always a tell tale sign of poor civil rights. You might actually agree with me there.

“President” Blair would never say anything like “islamic terrorism is a fundamental threat to our way of life. Civil liberties must come second”. He’s far too glib, smug and Teflon coated for that. I don’t like him either, but he’s too smooth a communicator to make that kind of mistake and play into our hands.

You said:

“I suppose that when you are a chef making an omelette, cracking eggs is no big deal: your perspective as an egg might be rather different.”

Are you suggesting civil rights for eggs?

You said:

“He believes that he is impressing everyone by doing radical things that will be remembered. He is right and he will be remembered, but in a bad way but British society will be damaged in the process”

Waddaya know? We actually agree on something! (you twat!)

In fact there are very few credible arguments for ID cards: they will have no impact on crime, crime detection, terrorism etc. etc., they may have a minimal impact on immigration and health tourism if you ramp up the burden on small business and turn doctors and nurses into agents of the immigration dept. Balance this against the massive cost of the citizen surveillance database underlying ID cards and you have to ask, “would it not be better to spend ten billion quid on more coppers & nurses?”

You, incorrectly, berate me for not presenting arguments for my points but then fail to offer any for yours. In particular you don’t say what the arguments ‘for’ are, while saying that only the arguments against cards don’t cut butter.

Your view that civil liberties are capable of being abused by a private citizen is, at a technical level, a misunderstanding of what civil liberties are. They are rights of the citizen against the state. One individual cannot, usually, abuse the civil liberties of another. Civil liberties are the rights society gives the individual against those in power and that is usually the executive. One could logically extend that argument to companies and powerful individuals and this is sometimes done in some jurisdictions.

It is important not to devalue the primary definition of civil liberties because their critical utility is their protective function against the state. This is why in the US and Germany civil liberties are primarily policed against the state. In Germany it was the absence of effective formal civil liberties that led to the holocaust. The reason why it is so important that the rule of law and democracy is best protected by a vigilant citizenry pointing out abuses of civil liberties in times of crisis is because abusive governments point to a threat and say “if you wish to be protected be a loyal citizen: give up some of your rights so that you can be safe”. Recall that Hitler said that the Jews were a critical threat to the Arian race and so they should lose their rights and now Blair says “islamic terrorism is a fundamental threat to our way of life. Civil liberties must come second” (Hd did actually say those words or words very close to them).

I cannot be abusing civil liberties by pointing out that civil liberties must be protected. That is a total oxymoron. In fact at worst I would be wrong, but what I and others concerned for civil liberties are doing is protecting the very thing we are supposed to be doing to defeat islamic fundamentalism: exercising the democratic rights of any free society and holding the state to account, questioning whether what it is doing is right or even needed.

“In the face of terror and crime civil liberties can indeed suffer sometimes. Try making an omelet without breaking the eggs”

I suppose that when you are a chef making an omlette, cracking eggs is no big deal: your perspective as an egg might be rather different.

If ID cards were not expensive, if they were effective, if they did not result in minorities (i.e. not people like you and me) being targetted, if they stopped suicide bombers, if the technology worked, if they didn’t result in a surveillance society then I would have no problem with them: they aren’t and they won’t. However Blair hopes to sucker a non-critical and simplistic public into being impressed. You are demonstrating this is not an entirely misplaced strategy. The truth is that they are another of Blairs fetishistic symbols: like the Millenium dome. He believes that he is impressing everyone by doing radical things that will be remembered. He is right and he will be remembered, but in a bad way but British society will be damaged in the process.

There’s a lot to be said FOR ID cards and most of the arguments against amount to not much more than “pub argumentation”: they really don’t cut butter.

The civil liberties point is being abused as much by yourself as anyone else. In the face of terror and crime civil liberties can indeed suffer sometimes. Try making an omelet without breaking the eggs.

Being agains ID cards is fashionable in Britain, but that’s about as far as most arguments go: “we don’t want them, so there…”

http://developing-your-web-presence.blogspot.com/2005/07/british-identity-card-scheme.html