Since the British wartime identity has been an ongoing debate over the idea of introducing a new National Identity Card. In 1995 Michael Howard, then Home Secretary, argued that such a scheme would help to tackle crime, though this was hotly contested.
In 1998, Jack Straw made a similar proposal but opted instead to put 5000 more police officers on the streets. Now, with arguably the most right-wing Home Secretary in British history, David Blunkett, we are being told that ID cards will somehow help us fight terrorism, fraud, and illegal immigration.
Types of card being considered include iris scans and fingerprints. In other parts of the world, cards often denote race, religion, and occupation. Some must be carried at all times, others are purely voluntary. Issues of privacy and social control make cards controversial in most societies, and they have been challenged in other parts of the world.
When Australia tried to introduce a national identity card in 1987 it was met with massive mobilisation which almost brought down the government, leading to the withdrawal of the proposals. In 1991 the Hungarian Constitutional Court ruled that a personal ID card violated constitutional privacy; while a similar scheme in the Phillippines was halted when the Supreme Court found that it violated the right to privacy.
The British government's current proposBig Brother Blunkett is gearing up for further attacks on your civil liberties als are for a voluntary' card, which will nevertheless be 'universal and will be required to 'entitle' people to use of the NHS and state benefits.
Leaks suggest that all of the Cabinet's lawyers, except Blair, are opposed to the scheme, as is Gordon Brown. In his 2003 conference speech Tony Blair made reference to a mandatory ID card scheme, but the Queen's Speech saw some back-tracking to an indefinite postponement of the scheme.
Between now and 2013 biometric information will be added to existing identity documents such as passports and driving licences. Cards will be compulsory for all foreign nationals as of 2008
The government document "Identity Cards - The Next Steps' will be voted on by both Houses some time after that However, Blunkett seems determined to introduce the scheme even sooner, and it seems that only the determined opposition of colleagues is holding him back. Paul Boateng has stated that there must be a full debate in the Commons
What is clear is that such a law will be extremely expensive and be of little value to society. Analyses of European countries that have ID cards show no benefits in terms of cutting crime, fraud or terrorism.
ID cards are easily forged and have an adverse effect on community relations There is also a real danger that we will see an updated version of the 'sus' law, where the police target ethnic minorities disproportionately for proof of ID.
Any ID scheme will require the creation of a national database of every UK citizen. In the current climate of fear and xenophobia we cannot be confident that this information will be stored securely or used sensitively.
Current rhetoric about being a 'soft touch for terrorists' is designed to appeal to readers of the gutter press, and a rational debate is difficult in such a climate
The idea that these proposals could help to deter suicide bombers is obvious nonsense, as evidenced by the fact that Spain has had such a scheme for years. All of the Madrid bombers had legitimate identity cards.
Public opinion is contradictory. While 60 percent are currently in favour of an ID scheme, 50 percent do not have any faith r the government's ability to manage the datz base adequately
Such 'soft support' means that the debate can still be won by those of us who value ovi liberties. We must make the case that this kneejerk reaction cannot prevent terrors and will instead be used to further erode ou alread le privacy and ovi ma
page 20 of the scan
20 soclalst resistance May 2004