NO2ID

well..... where 2 start critisizing is a harder question then should we have them or not.



scanning this forum ive noticed alot of people bringing up Rights as an argument, without a proper explination of what rights are or why it matters if some are lost.
most people in my school, or down the pub (that that id be able to go if i had an id card) talk of rights as, they are material posessions. Which in my opinion causes for some strange arguments and leads to confusion. So my rendition with relevence to I.D cards:

The perpose of a governments control of rights, is, for the removal of one's rights to protection others.
simple but obvious example; i dont have the right to kill someone, protecting there right to live.

so to apply the same principle to I.D cards:
What rights do i loose from having an I.D card?
What rights are protect from having an I.D card?

1) if i loose more then i protect, then it is a bad scheme,
2) if more of my rights are protected then lost then its worth while
3) if its equal, well then whats the point (id rather the money be spent on me not paying tuition fees)

By the above, i mean the "value" of each freedom over the quantity of freedoms.
of course valuation of rights is all subjective so open to one's opinion, and how you answerd the above question should determine whether u want I.D cards or whether u use this argument to defend your opinion.


still Inkeeping with the whole Rights argument, someone said to me a couple of days ago

"well we live in a democracy so if u dont want I.D cards, then uv got the right to show the government this in the next election"

well, pointless me answering this question (excluding the fact that im not 18).


sorry about spelling, i really dont read enough.

Without wishing to be facetious and without wishing to discourage you from the debate, maybe you should read more about the scheme.

1 - yes, not least monetarily. What will we get for our money? the state encroaching into every inconsequential corner of our lives. How, exactly, will that protect the rights of others? Despite asking this question on numerous occasions, apologetics still have not come up with a satisfactory reply.

2 - what rights are protected. Again, none have been put forward.

3 - As the relationship between citizens and state is reversed, then it is not equal.

i delibratly didnt include a list of rights it violates. Mainly because it will be reiterating whats already has been written elswhere on the forum. As far as i can tell i didnt even suggest that it does protect anyones rights. The fact that the majority reading this post will be strongly opposed to I.D cards Would give even more reason for me not to bother, its not your opinion i want to change.


on your third point. im not sure on what you mean.

I can tell you what he means with his third point (sorry longrider).

Any country that claims to be a real democracy has in place rules, regulations, laws, constitutions etc to protect the citizens from possible executive abuse including a potential dictatorship. What ID cards will do is reverse the power in favour of those who run the state, thus openning up the possibility for executive abuse (South Africa, East Germany, Nazi Hitler, Stalin etc).

What kind of logic is this: you remove the rights of one person to protect the rights of another person !!! If more rights are protect than lost it is worthwhile!!! What is worthwhile? Dictatorship? Who makes the decision that some rights are more important than others? The politicians that send us to Iraq on faulse information?

Your point about elections and polls: The government did not have a proper debate on ID cards. For example compare it with the extensive discussion on fox hunting. You will find that people will change their mind when they realise how oppresive ID cards are.

- refusal to obey an order to register = £2500
- failure to submit to fingerprinting and biometric scanning = £2500
- failure to provide information demanded by the government = £2500
- failure to attend an interview at a specified place and time = £2500
- failure to notify authorities about a lost, stolen, damaged or defective card = up to 51 weeks in prison and/or a fine
- failure to renew an ID card = £1000
- failure to attend subsequent fingerprinting and biometric scanning when demanded = £1000
- failure to provide subsequent information when demanded = £1000
- failure to attend subsequent interview at specified place and time when demanded = £1000
- failure to notify authorities of any change in personal circumstances (including change of address) = £1000
- providing false information = up to 2 years and/or a fine


N.

I responded to your questions as put. Clearly that wasn't what you were looking for. So what exactly do you mean?

My response to point 3 has been thoroughly explained for you.

Visit a library and read the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. They are not perfect documents but they will give you a very good understanding of what rights are and why they matter. Also read the UN Declaration of Human Rights.



There are fundamental principles at stake here. If we cannot alter the system without violating our fundamental principles, the system should be abandoned - not our values.



It is not just your spelling which is embarrassingly poor. You use the wrong words (e.g. loose does not mean the same as lose). Your grammar is appalling. Cute use of text message contractions looks ridiculous. If you want to be taken seriously, learn to write properly. If you can't be bothered to present your argument properly, why should we think that you have thought about it properly? If you haven't thought about it, why should we spend time reading and answering it?

I think it's an interesting question, so don't worry too much about your spelling.

Traditionally under our unwritten constitution, British subjects (citizens if you prefer, though they're not really citizens) have no explicit "rights". They are free to do anything that is not expressly forbidden by law. So historically you don't have a "right" to free speech, you can say anything you like except where you would be in breach of specific laws which prevent you from libelling or slandering another person.

In most of Europe the position is different. France, Germany etc. have written constitutions which explicitly grant rights to their citizens - the right of free association for example. We don't need that right, because there is no (or didn't used to be) law preventing free association. So the British constitutional model is completely the reverse of the Continental one.

Now in recent years, the Britsh model is being eroded. In my opinion deliberately in order to shift Britain towards the Continental model in order to build a European superstate, and continent wide "jurisprudence". Britain has adopted the European Human Rights Act, allowed the extradition of British citizens for crimes which are not an offence in the UK, and so on.

So how does all this impact on the issue of ID cards? As things stand today, I am able to go about my daily business without "let or hindrance" without being accountable to anyone but myself, without having to identify myself to anyone. Following the introduction of ID cards, "officers" of the state will be able to question me and at any time require me to identify myself to them. As I'm sure you recognise this is a 180 degree shift in the historic constitutional position. In the language of "rights" I've lost my "right" to privacy, and gained a "duty" of accountability to the state.

Now, this is not the whole arguement about why ID cards are a bad thing. Personally, I'm even more concerned about the opportunity to link hitherto unrelated databases. But this is a key constitutional issue which fundementally changes the power of the state and the relationship between the State and the British people. That's why the issue of compulsion to carry the card, and the right for (say) the police to demand to see it is so important. If the state manages to pass this legislation, compulsion to carry and produce the card on demand will inevitably follow.

I hope this helps, it's good to see you taking an interest.

I hope I'm not alone in feeling that the closing comments by our anonymous "Geust" are unnecessary, rude, and extremely unhelpful.

Surely the point of these boards is to encourage debate, with contributions welcome from all whatever their education or level of understanding.

I dissociate myself, and I hope the majority of contributors, entirely from these intemperate remarks. Perhaps as a "Guest" they should know better.

I thought they were fairly accurate, but more forthright than rude (I would have phrased differently myself).

I agree with you, it's good to see young folk (?) taking an interest. In the long run though, a bit of honesty might help him/her more. Poor spelling, and confused presentation, might reflect on No2ID don't forget.

I'm inclined to agree with john b. I didn't see the comments as rude, merely forthright and maybe lacking in tact. However, the point made is a valid one. If one is to make an argument, effective communication is a sound start.

It also says something about the dire state of education in the UK today. I can just imagine the reaction of my English language teacher had I used grammar and spelling such as this.

I'm a trusting soul. If 2young2vote claims so to be, my instinct is to believe them.

If they contribute to this adult forum I congratulate them, for their courage, for their awareness of the issue, and for their willingness to ask questions.

I'm not a teacher, but I do some voluntary work with Year 10/11s (15/16 year olds). The failings of the English education system over recent years are not the fault of the pupils. If you want to kick someone, kick the Government, the Education Establishment, LEAs, sometimes the schools and the teachers themselves, even the parents. But not the poor sods who are tying to make some sense of this, get some qualifications, and move on.

I went to a school so radically diferent from (almost) anything that exists today. The brutality (thankfully) has gone, as has (unfortunately) a wide-ranging "classical" education delivered by teachers who were enthused by their subject, and communicated their enthusiasm to the pupils. They had the freedom so to do!

Times have changed, but please don't shoot the messenger.

im actually quite disappointed by the way people responded to this topic.
im sure that content is more important then how u spell something.
a point was made which i wanted 2 be criticised but all that was given back was a couple of people trying to gain some sort of superiority, by being rude. i made it clear that i couldnt spell or use grammer very well. i guess no one thought that i may have slight learning difficalties.

i just hope that those people who made these comments dont have a very active role in no2ID because many may not feel very welcomed.
i only used this site to gain some insite on the topic for a debate i had. so i shant be using this it again.

Guest, I assume that you are the Guest who originally posted as 2young2vote.

It's probably a good idea idea to register (there are no civil liberties implications of doing so) and then it will be clear to everyone who is posting what.

I'm sorry you feel let down by the forum. You'll see that I at least do not agree with the "rude, superior" responses.

I hope you don't give up on us. There are some intelligent people contributing to this forum, though you might have to sift your way through some dross.

Best wishes.

This is an OPEN forum and No2ID have no control over who posts what here.

I thought your question was interesting and had written a response only to lose it during a site update.

Still these things happen.

The short answer is that any minimal freedoms (not rights) the ID Cards grant us are dependent on third parties (eg. underfunded police) and untested technologies.
Our rights being withdrawn are:

1. Our right to privacy - everything stored about you on a computer will eventually be open to anyone who dislikes you.
2. Our right to be a citizen of this country without paying for the card and producing it whenever some faceless official demands and consequently...
3. Our right to freely live our lives.

Dave
Bristol No2ID

No one was being rude. The point about effective communication was a valid one - if a little terse in delivery.

Indeed, the failure to communicate effectively was demonstrated within the first couple of posts. It was not clear what precisely the original questioner was seeking in a response. I attempted to respond to what I believed was being asked only to receive a somewhat garbled reply making it even less clear.

Irrespective of who is responsible for the poor standards of education - all of us have a responsibility to the people with whom we communicate to make those communications clear. Pointing that out is perfectly reasonable. After all, if we're making a hash of it, it is better that someone tells us rather than muddle on making the same mistakes. It's also worth pointing out that in some forums using text speak will get a rather more acid rejoinder than the one given here. Many will flatly refuse to respond to people who use it.

Anyway - enough off topic.

This, along with Magna Carta, does set out our written constitution. It is simply not true to say that we have an unwritten constitution.
Among the rights re-affirmed by the BOR 1689 are: the right to petition the sovereign; the right not to be imprisoned except by the lawful judgement of our peers; no cruel or unusual punishments; the right to keep arms for our defence.
Most MPs will deny the existance of these, especially the last one, but then hide behind another, the freedom from libel or slander actions for anything said in Parliament - "proceedings in Parliament shall not be impugned in any other place" - which is also the resaon that licensing laws do not apply to Parliament, and MPs can get drunk whenever they like (and frequently do, maybe it helps them to forget their consciences.)

The 1269 amendments allowed, no, expected the citizenry to rightfully and lawfully uprise against the monarch and that the monarch and the crowns agents be restrained from persecution of the peasantry so that all wrongs were so addressed and the crown and the people could return to the status quo.

The commen men could not kill the monarch but they did have the right to defend themselves when they could claim that the situation was "untenable"

This set about the precedent that if the monarch or agents of the crown created such a situation then a man of Britain with his fellow men could address the monarch, forcefully if need be to have their wrongs arbatrated and was the first real instance of the common man being given protection against retalliation by the state.

Was this ever repealed or was it merged into later law?

It would be interesting if this still stood which means we could by law address HM QE II by this right of law and deem ourselves not subject to the comman laws until our grievances had been addressed by the Queen, not her agents and ministers.

As well as being pointlessly bullying, "Guest" was in any case being misleading. The documents concerned have entirely different conceptions of "rights".... a single reading of them out of context won't tell you this.

The "rights" that the US Founding Fathers wrote about were what we could call liberties to distinguish them from the rights against others granted by the state in continental traditions and the HRA. The difference is this: if I have a liberty to do something, then the state has no right to stop me; if I have a right to do it, then the state will assist me, even against the interests of others.