Date Posted: 13:39:01 03/27/05 Sun
Author: Forum Admin.
Subject: Plans for " resurrection" of Civil Rights movement?

Informal discussions, are at an early stage, arising from politically-connected murders in Belfast and Derry, so-called "punishment-beatings", and other matters affecting 'both sides' of the community on a 24/7 basis. The IA-PL Newsroom has learnt, these have been going on for some weeks now. But at this stage not a large number of individuals, or groups, are engaged.

It is believed that these discussions involve some civil rights veterans, and at least two founding members of the Provisional movement, have expressed their support for the proposed "resurrection" of a grass-roots civil rights movement.

However, these "chats" have as yet not been reflected on any civil rights forum. A key forum that we watch, linked to the some pivotal veterans, has not been updated for some time. We can only hope and pray that from such infant "stirrings" at a grass-roots level, more voices, old and new, will emerge. The IA-PL Network will whole-heartedly endorse such moves, for what that is worth? We are told that nothing will be made public until some more prominent civil rights veterans are canvassed, and agree to attend private meetings to discuss, on a more formal basis, the best way forward. It is known that there are frictions between a minority of veterans, but sure what's new or novel in that?

One civil rights veteran however did venture opinions to our newsroom, on an off-the-record basis; "The terrible 39 or so murders etc, stretching back to both phoney "cease-fires", and other matters have not only disturbed many civil rights veterans, but whole communities, and these issues are now known of globally. But any agreed programme on the way forward should not be narrowed down to these, and related matters. There are many other issues to be faced, on the social and economic fronts, tap tax, MRSA linked to privatisation of cleaning in the hospitals, private-public funding rip-off, or what have you ? Any new grouping will undoubtedly proclaim that the best way forward is through grass-roots political activity, not militaristic eletism on the part of latter day versions of self-appointed, party-blessed or specifically delegated "faceless men". Any new association must aim at the emergence of a mass movement if it is to succeed and should agree a remit aimed at tackling the day to day problems faced generally, but specifically by working-class communities. Witin such, many are crying out for a new form of politics and a new popularly elected leadership, as in the aftermath of Duke Street, in 1968. Threats have already been issued, even to people's front doors in recent times, for speaking out privately or publicly. As in the late 60s', there will be a price to be paid, and individual and collective fear are the first barriers that must be crossed. And that's only the first, brave, step, that for many will be a leap into the dark, but at this juncture, such is very necessary step"

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Date Posted: 17:02:34 03/08/05 Tue
Author: Richard
Subject: British ID Cards

http://www.studentnewspaper.org/view_article.php?article_id=20050307142120
THE STUDENT INDEPENDENT VOICE
Identity Crisis



Set to roll out in 2007, ID cards can be seen as an intrusion of daily life and a step towards an Orwellian state or as a convenient and necessary part of modern life. Mark Thomlinson argues the former while Michael Windmill says we have nothing to fear
Great cost, no benefit
Yet another instance of the sweeping away of Britain’s ancient civil liberties: the ID card scheme, and it is perhaps the worst of them all. The government will soon know where we live, where we used to live, have our fingerprints, photograph and even our eyes on record, and all at great value: only £85. And it’s VAT-free. Think of the benefits, too. A small £1000 fine for failing to notify the government of a change of address. Alternatively, you could go to jail for two years. But never mind that, it is a small price to pay to stop the terrorists. Also remember that this super-card will end benefit fraud and identity theft, not to mention health tourists who come to Britain, scrounge off the NHS and leave.
It is natural to desire both freedom and safety. There is a balance to be struck between the two, because typically more of one means less of the other. ID cards will ignore this balance and remove our liberty without providing a corresponding increase in safety. The level of terrorism is at its lowest for 25 years (so says the US State department), but if we do accept our government’s claim that the threat of it is ever-present, we cannot accept the idea that ID cards will help us. The Madrid and September 11th bombers all had valid forms of identification. Unless the new high-tech cards come with flip-out shields, they will not prevent any deaths should a terrorist decide to walk onto a train with a bomb in his bag. David Blunkett himself said that “it is important that we do not pretend that an entitlement card”, as they were euphemistically called at the time, “would be an overwhelming factor in combating international terrorism.”
As for benefit fraud, these cards will make little impact, if any. 39 out of 40 cases of benefit fraud are due to people lying about their earnings, not their identity. But by all means, if you believe that being forced into buying a licence to walk down the street is worth the small benefit of ending Sneaky Joe’s unworthy dole-stealing, then accept the three billion pound scheme and your consequent erosion of privacy.
Often people will argue that ‘if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear’: why not have ID cards? But the question should really be ‘why ID cards?’ While the card-o-philes of this world point out that lots of European countries have some form of identity card, they forget or are unaware of the fact that places like Germany also have strict privacy laws written in their constitution. Portugal, Spain and Italy have only had ID cards since they were ruled by fascist governments. To suggest that all these countries endorse their schemes just because they have them is wrong. But this highlights another problem: once we have them, there is a slim chance of going back. After the huge, no doubt hacker-proof and crash-proof (remember the pensions crash in November?) database has been constructed, politicians will argue dismantling it will be too costly, too arduous, too time-consuming.
ID cards will remove our liberty without providing a corresponding increase in safety
But there won’t be a need to dismantle it, of course. Identity theft is on the increase, so ID could hardly have come at a more opportune moment to whisk us away from this emerging peril. Unfortunately, the emerging peril will be the ID cards themselves. Ignoring the obvious intrusion on private life that the scheme will introduce, there is yet another trouble which people often overlook. The only people who will truly benefit from these cards are the criminals who learn to forge them. Firstly let there be no doubt that in time they will be forged. It is an inevitability. The crux of the problem lies in the inherent ‘security’ that these biometric cards will provide: it is assumed that since iris scans and fingerprints are involved, the cards will be most difficult to fake. Enter the criminal with his false ID, and everyone assumes - because these cards are too high-tech to forge - that his ID must be real. The scheme brings with it an in-built complacency.
To suggest that the ID plan will be the answer to identity fraud is ludicrous. How does someone get their card? They prove their identity to the authorities using currently existing documentation - a passport, driving licence or birth certificate. If current documentation is too easily forged, though, what is to stop someone forging these in pursuit of a ‘reliable’ ID card?
These licences to citizenship - for that is what they are - are an infringement of our most basic right to freedom from interference. A licence is understandable for something like driving. If you are not properly qualified, you are a threat to yourself and to others. Forcing the population to carry ID cards is equivalent to assuming anyone and everyone is a threat to everybody else. It is tantamount to removing a presumption of innocence that so underlies (or used to) the principles of justice in this country. If I am free I should not have to justify myself to anyone unless I break the law. The day following the elections in Iraq, the headline of a news poster read: “Iraqis put freedom before fear.” If only our government shared those priorities.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

S t o r m o n t W a t c h