Ο ΠΡΩΗΝ ΥΠΟΥΡΓΟΣ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΥΝΗΣ ΤΗΣ ΑΓΓΛΙΑΣ ΖΗΤΑ ΤΗΝ ΑΠΟΣΥΡΣΗ ΤΩΝ ΝΕΩΝ ΤΑΥΤΟΤΗΤΩΝ

Στις 16  Ιουνίου του 2009 στο ευρύτατα γνωστό  site  http://www.politics.co.uk/ δημοσιευόταν μια σημαντική  είδηση  η οποία φυσικά "θάφτηκε" απο τα Ελληνικά ΜΜΕ τα οποία εκείνες τις ημέρες τρομοκρατούσαν τον κόσμο δείχνοντας τις ουρές στα ΚΕΠ για την παραλαβή του ΑΜΚΑ.

Η είδηση  αφορούσε τις δηλώσεις του πρώην υπουργού δικαιοσύνης της Αγγλίας  λόρδου Steyn ο  οποίος καλούσε την κυβέρνηση του Γκόρντον Μπράουν να ΚΑΤΑΡΓΗΣΕΙ   το υφιστάμενο καθεστώς των "έξυπνων" ταυτοτήτων.

Ευθαρσώς δήλωσε ενώπιον όλων των εκπροσώπων του τύπου ότι :
"Σε γενικές γραμμές η δέσμευση   να εφαρμόσουμε  τις Ευρωπαϊκές συνθήκες και συνταγματικές αρχές δεν υποχρεώνει τον Βρετανικό λαό να αποδεχθεί ένα  σύστημα ταυτοτήτων.Η άποψή μου είναι ότι δεν είναι απαραίτητο ένα εθνικό σύστημα  δελτίων ταυτοτήτων...Δεν χρειάζεται να σπαταλήσουμε περισσότερα χρήματα για αυτό  το θέμα .Η ΙΔΕΑ ΠΡΕΠΕΙ ΝΑ ΕΓΚΑΤΑΛΕΙΦΘΕΙ....Η αντιπαράθεση για το θέμα αυτό στην Βουλή  σίγουρα θα βλάψει την κυβέρνηση..."

Ο νέος Υπουργός εσωτερικών Alan Johnson αντέδρασε  "χλιαρά"  δηλώνοντας ότι ...σύντομα το ζήτημα των ταυτοτήτων θα επανεξετασθεί  σε πρώτη φάση όσον αφορά  στις "βασικές αρχές" του νομοσχεδίου.Στη συνέχεια  έδωσε έμφαση λέγοντας ότι "Στην πρώτη μου συνέντευξη ως γραμματέας δήλωσα ότι  οι νέες ταυτότητες αποτελούν μία δεσμευση- μανιφέστο για την κυβέρνηση η οποία με συγκεκριμένη νομοθεσία επέβαλλε το 2006..υποστηρίζουμε την πρόοδο και πιστεύουμε ότι σε αυτό έχουμε την υποστήριξη του Βρετανικού λαού.."
Είναι φανερό ότι το ζήτημα των νέων "υπερκαρτών", είτε αυτές  ονομάζονται ευθέως "δελτία ταυτοτήτων", είτε "Καρτες Υγείας", είτε "Κάρτες Κοινωνικής Ασφάλισης", απασχολεί μεγάλο τμήμα των λαών της Ευρώπης .Αυτό που  επίσης πρέπει να παρατηρήσουμε είναι ότι όλες αυτές οι κυβερνήσεις που προσπαθούν να αλλάξουν θεσμικά το σύστημα ταυτοποίησης των πολιτών ,αντιδρούν με τον ίδιο ακριβώς τρόπο χρησιμοποιώντας μάλιστα και την ίδια ορολογία.Θα νόμιζε κανείς ότι μαζί με τις "εντολές" που πήραν απο τους κρυφούς άρχοντες της "Νέας Εποχής" υποχρεώθηκαν να  καταπιούν και την ίδια ...κασέττα.
Δεν είναι επίσης τυχαίο που τα ΜΜΕ  προώθησαν με τον γνωστό  νεοταξικό τρόπο μια προπαγάνδα υπερ των "αντιπαροχών" που προσφέρει το νέο σύστημα της παγκόσμιας ταυτοποίησης των πολιτών και μια τρομοκρατία για τους κινδύνους που εμπεριέχει η μή παραλαβή των νεών ταυτοτήτων
Ολόκληρο το κείμενο με τις αντιρρήσεις και τα αντεπειχηρήματα του λόρδου  J.Steyn  στην Λονδρέζικη εφημερίδα   QUARDIAN (σύντομα θα σας προσφέρουμε και την μετάφραση):

Abandon ID cards

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/jun/16/id-cards-lord-steyn

The attempt to justify the ID card scheme on the grounds of the risk of terrorism is not sustainable – we simply don't need it

• 
• • Johan Steyn
  • guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 16 June 2009 12.00 BST
  • 
    

The Identity Cards Act was introduced during the period of global insecurity following 9/11 – and during what some would say was the paranoia of the era of President Bush and his vice-president Dick Cheney. The rule of law in the US was under constant threat, the Patriot Act and the Homelands Security Act spring to mind. But it is noteworthy that even in the darkest days of the threats to the rule of law no attempt was made to establish a national identity card system in the US. The Anglo-American tradition of civil liberties remained strong. In our country New Labour, embracing the idea that the rules of law had changed, and, reinforced by a huge parliamentary majority, felt confident enough to introduce ID card legislation in 2006. But it soon became clear that on the most favourable view for the government the country was divided on the desirability of an ID card system. Prudence dictated, therefore, that the scheme should be introduced in a phased way to condition and soften up public opposition.
What was the rationale of the scheme as put forward by the government? Initially, the justification was squarely based on the fight against terrorism. However, the government has been forced to adapt that reasoning. On 23 April 2009 during a debate in the House of Lords the parliamentary under secretary of state, Home Office (Lord West of Spithead), explained the present policy of the government.

The prime reason for this scheme is not anti-terrorist. It will provide a single, safe and secure way of protecting personal details and proving identity. At the moment, we constantly have to show council tax bills, driving licences, electricity bills and so on as a way of proving our identity. This is one absolutely secure way of doing it: it is a universal and simple proof of identity, which I think will bring convenience.It helps to protect us against the use of multiple identities. We know that criminals, illegal immigrants and terrorists all make use of multiple identities; indeed, its training brochure shows that that is one of the things al-Qaida teaches its people to do. This will stop that happening. So while identity cards are not the complete answer to terrorism, they have an impact on it.

Liberty has correctly pointed out (most recently in its response to the Home Office of February 2009) that ID cards have no value as far as security is concerned. The attempt to justify the scheme on the grounds of the undoubted risk of terrorism is not sustainable.
ID cards and the national register are, of course, identity related but there is absolutely no evidence that they will improve security. That is no doubt the reason why the government has not tried to bring ID cards into effect earlier. It explains why Lord West had to resort to the argument of administrative convenience, which begs the question whether an invasion of English civil liberties is justified on grounds of mere administrative convenience.
The government has shifted to immigration as a reason for ID cards. It argues that all foreign nationals (except EU nationals who do not require visas) are required to obtain an ID card when obtaining a visa. The truth is that the information is already held on a person when they apply for a visa. All foreign nationals will also need a passport when in the UK which establishes their identity in the same way as an ID card. The immigration pretext is simply another way of getting the public conditioned to the use of ID cards.
The third reason advanced by the government, viz combating crime, is a Home Office fiction. We all subscribe to the fight against crime. But there is quite simply no evidence that the national identity register will serve to combat serious crime.
The Home Office is engaged in a concerted attempt to soften up public opposition to the ID card system by a phased introduction in stages. This explains the introduction of ID cards for foreign nationals and for everyone upon application for a passport and driving licence and the Manchester experiment.

A central concern about the creation of a national identity register must be the privacy implications that flow from holding the personal data of millions of individuals.

Now I question whether the government's competence in running an identity card system has been demonstrated. Within the last two years there have been many serious data breaches, including one in which PA Consultancy, a Home Office contractor, lost a memory stick containing the details of 84,000 prisoners including unencrypted names, dates of birth and expected release dates – PA Consultancy has now been named as the Home Office's "development partner" to "work on the design, feasibility testing, business case and procurement elements of the identity cards programme".
The Department for Work and Pensions has found that civil servants are colluding with organised criminals to steal personal identities on "an industrial scale".
These data breaches do legitimately prompt the question: should the British public have confidence in the scheme the government proposes to introduce?
One must also bear in mind the cost of an ID card system. The total cost of the scheme is apparently estimated at £3bn. I do not know what reliance can be placed on that figure. Given past experience I would not back it. One wonders whether, as we head into what may be a prolonged economic downturn, this is an opportune time for the introduction of an ID card system.
In the recent debate in the House of Lords to which I referred, Lord West stated on behalf of the Home Office that the public by and large support an ID card system. He said that research showed that 59% of people absolutely supported it. It may well be that it is a sharply contested matter. It may also be the case the supposed research is based on Home Office information to the effect (as the previous home secretary recently said) that ID cards will deliver real benefits to everyone including increased protection against criminals, illegal immigrants and terrorism. If that is so, I would not place great value on such fragile strands of information. I would place the word research in inverted commas. For what it is worth, my untutored view is that the debate on ID cards is on its merits progressively turning against the government.

I bear in mind that countries, such as France and Germany, and other western European countries have ID card systems in place. This is due to different historical and cultural developments from our own. Our heritage is different. In one of his English letters Voltaire said that the civil wars of Rome ended in slavery, and those of the English in liberty. He wrote that the English were jealous of their liberty. So they are. The commitment, by and large, of the British people to European constitutional principles and ideals does not require us to adopt an ID card system.

In my view a national identity card system is not necessary in our country. No further money should be spent on it. The idea should be abandoned.

This is an abridged version of the Lord Williams of Mostyn Memorial Lecture to be delivered by Rt Hon Lord Steyn this evening

.