1984 1/2
Well the debate in the Commons yesterday was dreadful, wasn't it? Labour seem intent on rushing the Bill through without showing any kind of sign that they themselves have really considered it. I quick glance through Clarke & Davis' addresses did seem to demonstrate that the Labour party haven't got a clue as to what they are doing or why. Davis, although in favour of the cards, outlined his five tests which were interesting in that they pretty much ruled out the creation of the system all together - given that they requested a level of database security that would rule out any possible breaches, from within or without, (improbable and expensive) and that the system should be brough in as cheaply as possible. But having listed his tests, failed to say exactly how his party would be instructed to vote were these tests not met. He also failed to instruct his MPs to actually turn up - I understand there is apparently a good reason for MPs not turning up to such an important Bill, a Bill, in fact that will effect every single voter in their constituencies, but it so far escapes me. Something about not embarrassing the party?
What angered me a little was the way in which civil liberties seem to have become a single issue, one that can more easily be ignored (as it is being ignored) by the Labour government - claiming that the civil liberty argument is overstated. It took some time before anyone mentioned the fact that one of the reasons people were opposed to the scheme (apparently only 20% of the population!) was that they didn't trust Labour. And, hey, the report on Blunkett came out a day later than expected, neatly avoiding the Bill's hearing. And to no real surprise it decided that Blunkett's office did indeed speed up the visa application, but as it couldn't say for certain whether Blunkett was doing so as a favour or, instead, to use it as an example of the problems with visa application delays; and despite the fact that the fax disappeared, and no-one could remember anything about the visa application, there probably wasn't a cover-up.
Naturally enough, those opposing the ID card Bill on principle spoke of the Big Brother state, but sadly the world of 1984[1] was an impeccably well run, organised system based around party integrity, which is hardly true of Blair's softly totalitarian approach to government. If you want to turn your attention to a fictional representation of the kind of dystopia we are fast heading towards it is Gilliam's Brazil, with its inept public service bureau's choked by their own adminstration and procedure.
The price of freedom cannot be freedom.
[1] Incidentally, Clarke said that in 1837, when birth certification was introduced, the people of the day too complained about the creation of a "'Big Brother' type" government. Which just goes to show what sort of foresight the people of 1837 had. And what a flawed argument! He used it to deal with us "thin end of the wedge" chappies, but surely this example goes some way to actually demonstrate the wedge we're currently being split upon? And when do the slow creep of measures stop? When laws are put in place allowing people to be incarcerated for not showing their IDs, will the government's argument against the TEOTW be "oh well, that's what people said about ID cards"? When we are placed under curfew, when the carrying the cards is compulsary and the technology put in place that allows us to be tracked, will those that complain be met with "oh, well, that's what people said about ID cards"?
What angered me a little was the way in which civil liberties seem to have become a single issue, one that can more easily be ignored (as it is being ignored) by the Labour government - claiming that the civil liberty argument is overstated. It took some time before anyone mentioned the fact that one of the reasons people were opposed to the scheme (apparently only 20% of the population!) was that they didn't trust Labour. And, hey, the report on Blunkett came out a day later than expected, neatly avoiding the Bill's hearing. And to no real surprise it decided that Blunkett's office did indeed speed up the visa application, but as it couldn't say for certain whether Blunkett was doing so as a favour or, instead, to use it as an example of the problems with visa application delays; and despite the fact that the fax disappeared, and no-one could remember anything about the visa application, there probably wasn't a cover-up.
Naturally enough, those opposing the ID card Bill on principle spoke of the Big Brother state, but sadly the world of 1984[1] was an impeccably well run, organised system based around party integrity, which is hardly true of Blair's softly totalitarian approach to government. If you want to turn your attention to a fictional representation of the kind of dystopia we are fast heading towards it is Gilliam's Brazil, with its inept public service bureau's choked by their own adminstration and procedure.
The price of freedom cannot be freedom.
[1] Incidentally, Clarke said that in 1837, when birth certification was introduced, the people of the day too complained about the creation of a "'Big Brother' type" government. Which just goes to show what sort of foresight the people of 1837 had. And what a flawed argument! He used it to deal with us "thin end of the wedge" chappies, but surely this example goes some way to actually demonstrate the wedge we're currently being split upon? And when do the slow creep of measures stop? When laws are put in place allowing people to be incarcerated for not showing their IDs, will the government's argument against the TEOTW be "oh well, that's what people said about ID cards"? When we are placed under curfew, when the carrying the cards is compulsary and the technology put in place that allows us to be tracked, will those that complain be met with "oh, well, that's what people said about ID cards"?
posted by Hamilton's Brain | 5:02 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home