eurealist.co.uk

27.11.2005

This has gone out to other MP’s, Lords and Ladies.

Dear Home Secretary,

The only time in living memory we have had a compulsory Identity Card was in 1939 at the start of World War II. The initial guide was the 1920 Census Act and the ID Card was free. There was however a fee for fresh identity cards in place of cards which had been lost, destroyed or defaced. There was no ‘fine’ or ‘civil penalty’ for any described above as lost, destroyed or defaced.

Under the ACT certain criminal offences/criminal proceedings are recorded of which a person may be deemed guilty of an offence under the Act, and for which they may be fined, sent to prison or both. Matters with respect to which particulars were to be entered in the Register were, Names, Sex, Age, Occupation, Profession, trade or employment, Residence, Condition as to marriage, Membership of Naval, Military or Air Force Reserves or Auxiliary or Civil Defence Services or Reserves.

During this time certain people of Italian, German nationality etc were gathered together (arrested) and sent to Internment Camps, even people that were married to British people were separated one from the other, one camp was on the Isle of Mann. It happened then and it could happen again now. Identification helped the Germans to separate the Jews from the rest, and that, or similar can happen again.

The Act was supposed to continue “until such a date as His Majesty may order in Council declare to be the date on which the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of the act came to an end”, but as we know the ‘emergency’ had finished some years before the carrying of ID cards was finally at an end. There appears to be no end in sight for the proposed ID card and at a guess it will go on until the end of time. Unless or until another different government comes in to repeal the whole Act the fundamental constitutional changes between citizen and state will be permanent. It changes significantly the constitutional relationship between the individual and the state because for the first time, the state begins to keep considerable intrusive detailed records of each person in what had previously been private information shared voluntarily with family and friends. This eventually-should it come into being- will commence at birth and continue until death.

Should the time come when the governing of this Country is transferred to the European Union and the ID Scheme and citizenship becomes an EU ‘competence’, as eventually it will either by this Government or the next, the citizens of this Country will become real citizens of the European Union, not the pretend citizens as per Maastricht. They will become true citizens of that new Country (State) of European Union and the United Kingdom will become just Regions of that new State. This is to be this present Prime Minister’s legacy.

However, this country is not the Governments to give away and the Government’s Oaths of Office and Allegiance will get in the way of that ever happening, in fact the time is coming when we will have to pull out of the Union, especially as the Union has chosen to ignore the NO votes of the people of two important members of the European Union

The role of the ID card itself is secondary to the Database, which will hold the personal history on a life long basis of every person on the Register, a register that can be checked without recourse to the ID Card itself. I have no doubt that the Data base will be ‘hacked’ into by those that can use any information from it to their own advantage.

It is proposed that foreign nationals would ‘have to’ have an ID card after they had been in the country for three months, (the ‘have to’ would make that compulsory). To get round the European Convention on Human Rights Act and possible challenges, it appears as long as there is a commitment to eventually make the “Voluntary” ID Cards compulsory for everyone and it says so in the present proposed ID Bill, then the matter should comply with the ECHR. It is interesting to note that Mr Blunkett, the then Home Secretary, called these foreign nationals “EU Nationals”.

The proposals for a “voluntary” (meaning of ‘ones own free will’, ‘not compulsory’) ID card and the inclusions of the proposals to eventually change to compulsory may give the impression that this massive constitutional change could be performed without Primary Legislation. I respectfully suggest that that ‘impression’ is totally incorrect. Primary legislation is indeed required, as I am sure any constitutional lawyer would confirm, particularly our Attorney General and Lord Chancellor. Should any form of compulsion be used when renewing a passport or driving licence when the system is supposed to be voluntary is certainly not wise when primary legislation should have been used. This makes a mockery of this Country’s once highly thought of Law making process. Who would ever have thought a Government of this Country would use such methods?

It is said that one of the reasons ID Cards are introduced, are to protect our identities. It in fact hands over our identities to the State; it puts our identities at the disposal of the State. It can be cross-referenced by numbers to medical records, tax records, criminal records and any other records. Knowledge is power and we are putting that power in the hands of a government (and European Union) that lusts for power.

We are told that the rest of “Europe” has some form of identity card so why shouldn’t we? Then ask yourself why this country has never before succumbed to fascism? The reason has something to do with the fact that we have had institutions and law based on a Common Law tradition which is utterly and profoundly different from the system of law that would be forced upon us by the European Union and to which this Government appears to run eagerly to accept. No other Common Law country in the world has an identity card scheme, and certainly would not have one that is backed up with such an intrusive Data base system. Is there any wonder that the people of this Country are prepared to defend their freedoms to the hilt rather than do as this Government is prepared to do, by giving our freedoms away, pandering to the terrorists that they once said ID cards were to be brought in for?

I look at why ‘civil penalties’ have been chosen as opposed to ‘criminal charges’ and the reason given is Mr Blunkett’s answer in the Minutes of Evidence, Home Affairs debate 4th May 2004, when he said, “I think it is very important that we do not have martyrs”. This is absolutely no reason for using “civil penalties”.

When people deliberately go against parliamentary legislation, it is a criminal offence and should be treated as such. “Civil penalties’ would be somewhat difficult to implement whilst the proposals are for a voluntary card. In fact, it would not be possible at all. This smacks of wishing to punish the people by imposing severe financial punishments without trial simply for protecting their rights to their hard won freedoms held in their Common Law Constitution. The latter is something any Government of this Country should be protecting.

The proposed ID card cannot possibly be as important as the one in the last war, otherwise it would be in operation NOW not in a few years time, and most certainly not voluntarily. If compulsory, we should not have to pay for it.

It is proposed that when people require a new Passport that an ID card is also provided, a kind of buy one and get the other at half price. People need to have a passport to meet the requirements of the various Countries that they want to visit with America being the Country that requires the most intrusive details. It is up to the people to decide whether to go on holiday to America or not, but they should not have a “voluntary” ID card forced upon them. They can and must say no to this enforced ID card and pay only for the passport. There should be two prices available, one for a stand alone Passport and one price for both. When what is proposed is voluntary, there should be a ‘yes’ or ‘no, I don’t want an ID card as well’. To propose both for a certain amount of money with no alternative is compulsory and the legislation does not allow for that that.

Although DNA, medical or criminal records may not be included to begin with, they may be accessible and a link-up between them making a full tracking record of any individual others may have an interest in, can and probably will be made by those organisations that is in their interests to do so. Isn’t there any thought that another “Hitler” will emerge eventually? Doesn’t history have a way of repeating itself? Actually it is happening already and this will be seen more clearly as they years unfold for far more people are already using the term “A Police State”, and where this once free country that was so proud of the freedom of being able, without fear, to have ‘free speech’, it is indeed now restricted in what it says in a ‘’politically correct’ State. The ‘conditioning’ has already commenced.

If the European Convention on Human Rights is to mean anything at all in this Country, the proposed ID cards and particularly “the Register” should be scrapped right now. I firmly believe that there is a strong case to be made that the proposed legislation is against more than one section of the ECHR and this should in time be challenged,

Yours faithfully,

Anne Palmer.

As this is about our Constitution, this is an open letter.