Friday, April 30, 2004
Thursday, April 29, 2004
If I Was In LondonI would most certainly be attending The Nearness Of Doings That Be Things. The Audience AlkaSeltzer in Water anecdote posted here not too long ago is enough to convince me of its sonic if not performic (and therefore monetary) worth. That and the Kill The King re-issue I recently picked up (and the resulting evening privy to views of an altered human future; decisions made for, by and about machines; sounds lulling, learing, pushing and following).
This is advanced warning of an event the month after Re:Tg in London. From June the 21st until June 27th The Horse Hospital shall be possessed by The Hafler Trio. Within the confines of that week shall be 3 concert performances, on the 21st, 24th and 27th, the spaces between these gigs shall see the horse pistol given over to an "instalation" which, if recent live activity is anything to go by, should prove quite an experience. Fine details still being worked out, watch this space...
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
Monday, April 26, 2004
We have a tradition of living in a free and open society and we are used to taking people at face value, trusting them to be who they say they are.
Living in a free and open society is not a “Tradition” it is our birthright, and our fundamental and absolute right. It is not something that can be taken away by a Home Secretary who has a fetish for control. It is not something that can be given to another country. The birthright of all British children belongs to the present and future generations. It is a sacred, fragile and precious thing. We cannot let a single generation of milk blooded lap dogs give it away in an era of wild and foolish ideological experimentalism.
Recent events have brought home how, in today?s rapidly changing world, the need for trust and confidence actually require us to move beyond this and take the opportunity of new biometric technology which allows for a completely new level of verifying identity.
We cannot “move beyond” our fundamental rights. No matter how much the world changes, we cannot, on a permanent basis, throw away our fundamental rights. If anything, as technology reveals to us more and more opportunities, we should be enshrining and solidifying our new rights, such as the right to telephone privacy, which only became real with the invention of the telephone, and which is the natural extension of the right to privacy in your letters. The government, in its proper role of the servant, has no business creating a system of this nature, whose sole purpose is to gain absolute control of the good people of the United Kingdom. If this proposal were honest, if its goal was to fight terrorism, it would be first of all explained why it was needed, and how specially, it would achieve its goal. It would also be limited in its scope and duration. What we have been presented with is an open ended scheme that has no demonstrable ability to solve the problems for which it is being created.
The threat of global terrorism, the ease with which large numbers of people now travel around the world, and the proliferation of identity fraud make secure identification more vital than ever.
This is a lie. The “threat of global terrorism” could be ended in a day if the USA and the UK would stop interfering in the affairs of the Middle East. This reasonable request would put an end to Islamic extremism forever, and this is the stated truce offered to the USA and the UK by the representative and spokesman for this international resistance. I call it this because reasonable people understand that the jihadists are in every way identical to Americans and the British. They are desperate men, pushed beyond human tolerance to the point where death is better than life. These people are educated and serious. If they could make political progress simply by debate and the vote, they would do so. The facts are that for generations, the international political process has failed them through the blatantly unfair and one sided control of the UN by a handful of states. No reasonable human being, American or Englishman would consign his heirs to perpetual enslavement; this is why the original Americans became terrorists and freed themselves from the yoke of the British. This is why the original Israelis used terror bombs to free themselves. The “threat of global terrorism” has been literally manufactured by the USA and the UK governments. When shown a way out, they have refused to take it. This is the proof.
We all need greater certainty about whether people are who they say they are - whether travelling, or in business, or in ensuring that free public services are accessed only by those who are entitled.
This is a lie. We have been doing very well, without any measures of this type - experiencing unprecedented economic growth and freedom without these measures. We do not need these measures. No country that has had the misfortune of introducing them has experienced greater prosperity than the countries that have not; in fact, the exact opposite is true; the US and UK economies are 1st and 4th in the world, precisely because they are free. The Soviet Union fell in no small part because of the absolute control of identity imposed by the state. The once beleaguered black South Africans experienced biblical levels of suffering as a direct effect of state controlled identity. The fact of the matter is state control of identity damages populations; it saps their freedom at a fundamental level, renders them partially inert and ultimately harms economic prosperity.
Not only that, but we are right to expect greater security and protection of our own identity. That is why there has been a steadily growing interest in the introduction of identity cards in the United Kingdom ? and a growing recognition that, rather than threatening our vital freedoms, they would actually help preserve them.
This is completely illogical. The protection of your identity can be done without a state implemented identity card. The system of the type being proposed by David Blunkett is designed to share your information all over the world. This has nothing to do with protecting your identity, and has everything to do with controlling your movements both of your person and of your money. If David Blunkett was truly interested in securing the identity of the British public, he would allow individuals and the state to develop their own systems that suit the needs of each situation. Your bank can require certain forms of ID and it might offer you a service where it issues you with a bank ID. You can either choose to accept it or reject it. There are ways that secure passports can be created that do not rely on a centralized database, but which are just as secure as the system propose d in this draft bill. David Blunkett is not interested in these counter proposals for new passports because they do not offer him what he desires; absolute control over your entire life, via a unique identifying number tied to your fingerprints, retina scans and facial profile. The fact of the matter is, the control of identity is the sole preserve of the public and the market, and is not the business of the state.
Following a public consultation, I announced in November the Government?s decision to build a base for a compulsory national identity cards scheme.
That public consultation was a sham. The overwhelming majority of respondents were opposed to the introduction of an ID card scheme, and the opposition was eloquent and technically literate. The opposing views were simply ignored because David Blunkett wants to introduce ID cards, no matter what the British public want, no matter if they will work to solve the problems that he says he is pushing them through for.
I made clear then that we would proceed by incremental steps, building first on existing, widely held voluntary identity documents, and only taking a final decision later to move to compulsion.
The reason why this is being done in incremental steps is because the British people need to be pummeled into submission. A human being by its nature can become adjusted to any situation; David Blunkett, by saying he is doing this in incremental steps, what he really means is that the British people need to be conditioned until they accept ID cards.
Eventually everyone lawfully resident in the UK would be required to register for a card ? but there would be no compulsion to carry the card or to produce it
This is completely absurd on first examination, but the fact is that when the police and all the services in the country, including chemists banks and any private enterprise have terminal access to ID reading machines ( a fingerprint reader) connected via the ubiquitous internet to the government ID database the physical card will be an irrelevance. Your ID can be checked at any time by the compulsion to look into a police eye scanner, or fingerprint reader. Refusal to do so will have to be made a crime of course, and without reading the bill I am willing to bet that this provision is in there. If it is not, then it will be quickly added. The fact is, we do not need physical cards in this new biometric ID system your body itself is the card.
without good reason. This move to compulsion would only happen once the initial stage of the scheme had proved to be successful and following a further debate and the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
This is why everyone must refuse to accept both biometric passports and these ID cards. It is the only way that they system can be made to fail. The only way it can work to control the British public is if a tipping point of enrolled people is reached. Everyone must refuse point blank to enroll in this system. It will then die of its own accord, if not by legislation.
Although the process will build on existing documents, such as passports and driving licences, we need a clear additional legal framework before we can introduce a national identity cards scheme.
And in here will be the removal of your rights to opt out or refuse to be enrolled in the system.
The next step is therefore to publish, for consultation, our proposals for legislation in the draft Identity Cards Bill. That is the purpose of this document. I want us to be able to test and refine these proposals before legislation is introduced finally into Parliament.
Who is “us”? and judjing from the last consultation excersise, Blunkett, Shlumberger Sema and his yes men will ignore the opposing views and push ahead anyway, just as they did with Iraq.
Their absurd, undemocratic polls via which they justify this awful card scheme (80% of 1000 people asked saying yes to ID cards to reduce immigration fraud, a clearly weighted question) is being touted as the definitive proof that the British Public want ID cards. These people are manipulators murderers and liars and they cannot be trusted with a bottle of tap water much less the administration of a system like this, which should not be created in the first instance.
The Cold War against the Soviet Union was not a war for freedom. It was a war to see who would create and control the World Soviet System. All the egregious and evil devices, ID cards, mass surveillance, financial slavery are all being introduced incrementally in the west, to finally replicate law for law, the former Soviet Union. We all know that the propaganda machine is already well in place :]
I am inviting general views as well as specific drafting comments on our legislative proposals.
So that you can ignore them, yet say that you heard them. If we are lucky.
In particular, I am looking forward to receiving comments from the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee which has been undertaking an inquiry on Identity Cards and is set to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Identity Cards Bill. We will take full account of all the comments we receive before going ahead with the legislation.
This is a lie.I want everyone who is living lawfully in the UK to be able to assert his or her true identity and to protect that identity against fraud, as well as protecting their freedoms against new threats from global terrorism and organised crime. We can all do this without you David Blunkett. We can assert our true identity with all the organizations that we interact with, we can protect ourselves against identity fraud, and we certainly will protect our freedoms against the new threat that you and you blind, hair brained ID card represents.
The scheme we are building will do this ? but I want to work with all interested parties to make sure we get it right.
The scheme you are building ? or trying to build - will not do this. That is a lie. You do not want to work with all interested parties. That is a lie. You will not get it right, because the whole proposal is wrong. That is the truth.