ID cards: ill-advised and illogical

By Kit Leary

Supreme Court Judge: Ahh, Dogbert! Always a pleasure. Why don’t you come to the meetings anymore?
Dogbert: I’m not actually a member of the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Judge: Really? Now I feel bad about letting you write those decisions.
Dogbert: I didn’t mind.
Supreme Court Judge: What brings you in today?
Dogbert: I want you to overturn the conviction of a guilty murderer named Dilbert. If you don’t mind, I’ll just write up your decision and sign all of your names to it.
Supreme Court Judge: Well, OK, but make me sound indignant. And throw something in there about fairness.
Dogbert: Do you want a copy?
Supreme Court Judge: I don’t see when I’m ever gonna read it.

Dilbert (TV Series), “The Trial”, Series 2, Episode 4.

I sometimes wonder if this is how Government policy is made.

After all, which bright bozo came up with the idea of being able to buy your shiny new ID card from the corner shop, when you buy your fags and booze? I mean, usually I get asked for ID before I buy fags and booze, not asked if I want to buy a new ID card at the same time. (Maybe they’ll do a three-for-the-price-of-two offer.)

I’m not going to go over the Government’s reasons for introducing ID cards, save to say that they’re all complete… proverbials (LabourList is a “family” website, apparently).

ID cards will combat international terrorism? Hmmm, Spain has ID cards, and they didn’t stop the tragedy of the Madrid train bombings.

Prevent fraud? Do these new ID cards have inbuilt polygraph machines or something? Public sector fraud is just as prevalent in Europe, where a majority of countries have national ID cards.

But I’m not going to repeat arguments – well, the reality of ID cards staring everybody else – when organisations like Liberty and films such as “Taking Liberties” (a film which, if Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith haven’t seen already, must be forced forthwith to watch, in a similar manner to Alex in A Clockwork Orange) have already said what needs to be said on this matter in a, quite frankly, far more eloquent (and less abusive) way than I can.

Still, it seems that not enough taxpayer money was spent on feathering the nest of Sir Fred Goodwin and his chums in the city to keep them in caviar and lax banking regulations, so the Government have decided to trial the new ID cards.

In Manchester.

My initial response to this was to ponder just what exactly has Manchester done to deserve this? Of course, you could probably ask this question of any city which could have been picked to launch this trial.

And, apparently, it’s going to be entirely voluntary. They, in all honesty it may seem, think that people will willingly pay £30 of their hard earnt to willingly hand over their biometric data to a state which can’t look after a couple of CDs properly without them going astray and get a nice shiny plastic card which, according to Dr Edgar Whitley of the London School of Economics, won’t be of any practical use at all until around 2015.

Think about it.

Think a little bit more about it.

Are you struggling to wonder how this is a good idea in the slightest? Me too.

The only possible use I can think of this overpriced and underthought fancy piece of plastic is that young people might be able to use it to prove their age when buying fags and booze. Except schemes like Proof of Age, CitizenCard and Connexions already issue cards which bear the “PASS” logo (that’s the one which proves that it’s bona fide) at a fraction of the cost and none of the massive invasion into civil liberties and the criminalisation of card holders that goes along with the ID card scheme.

Oh damn. I’ve just undermined the only practical use of this that I was able to think of.

The state already incurs into my life far too much in some places, and not enough in others. For example, it doesn’t incur into my life enough when, say, an employer hasn’t paid me, but does incur when I want to do something about it. It doesn’t incur into my life when I’ve been laid off and need help, but it does incur when I try to claim help that the law says I’m entitled to, by automatically thinking I’m lying dole scum for just filling out a claim form and saying how dare you apply for the dole, you layabout lazy scum, get a job, sod off you scrounger, and do you really have no money? Prove it.

Socialism does not mean having the state in your face and it having the most personal, most intimate, the most unique and most valuable, liberating thing they own – their identity. Let’s get this straight.

When the state has your DNA, you cease to be free. The citizens of Germany – both Nazi and Stalinist East – found this one out the hard way.

We still have time to throw out this mockery of socialist democracy. Socialism is supposed to be about freeing people from the tyranny of unregulated free market capitalism by making sure that collectively, all of our basic needs are met as a society. At a time when working people are being forced to pay the price for the recklessness of the bankers, we shouldn’t be wasting billions on this ill-advised, illogical scheme – and put the money into more useful public services instead. Not create a Department of Social Scrutiny.