The Australian ID Card

[Shedhand]

Excuse me for being cynical but I would expect law enforcment officers to want to have more power.
Are you going to arrest people for not carring one?

Maybe not today but as the government gets more paranoid, they'll instruct you do so in the future.



A study of history will suggest that enforcing people to carry ids and the recent enactment of laws that diminish our civil liberties have a way of being turned around and used against us.

In the '70s, the Charlie Court government in WA enacted a law (54b) that made it illegal for groups of more than 3 people to congregate in public without a permit. It was designed to stop the Hari Krishnas from harassing people. 12 months later the the Court government used this law to instruct the police to arrest anyone who attended a union meeting.




I must be a idiot then.

Greenie for that Grunt. Agree wholeheartedly. In any case I don't recall terrorism being touted as a reason for introducing an Oz Card. IMHO its a simple answer to the vexed question of identity proof when its needed -as in natural disasters. Honest people should have no problems with it. I'm not interested in redneck conspiracy theorists. We don't live under a repressive regime (yet, though Ruddock would like us to). Our system of government lets us toss out governments who do things we don't like. Instead of grizzling about it we should get out and make much more considered votes than we do. The biggest danger australia faces is the repressive beliefs and policies of the god-bothering extreme right who have infiltrated governments - both state and federal. Rant off!!

[Gumby]

G'day,

DanP, I fully agree with you.

me too

Are you going to arrest people for not carring one?

Of course !

A study of history will suggest that enforcing people to carry ids and the recent enactment of laws that diminish our civil liberties have a way of being turned around and used against us.

Too vague. Please give some examples.

12 months later the the Court government used this law to instruct the police to arrest anyone who attended a union meeting.

Fair enough too. If we had no unions, we'd have less trouble and more jobs.

I must be a idiot then.

We already knew that.

[Grunt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grunt

Are you going to arrest people for not carring one?

Of course !

Hope you don't forget yours when you go down to the shop.

Too vague. Please give some examples.

Nazi Germany, Russia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grunt
12 months later the the Court government used this law to instruct the police to arrest anyone who attended a union meeting.

Fair enough too. If we had no unions, we'd have less trouble and more jobs.

Except if they decide to use the law to arrest anyone who gathered to protest about the government. The point is laws like this seem harmless but in fact they are insidious and can be used against the populus in all manner of unexpected ways.

We already knew that.

Yes but I can spell insidious.

[craigb]

Excuse me for being cynical but I would expect law enforcment officers to want to have more power.
Are you going to arrest people for not carring one?

Maybe not today but as the government gets more paranoid, they'll instruct you do so in the future.



A study of history will suggest that enforcing people to carry ids and the recent enactment of laws that diminish our civil liberties have a way of being turned around and used against us.

In the '70s, the Charlie Court government in WA enacted a law (54b) that made it illegal for groups of more than 3 people to congregate in public without a permit. It was designed to stop the Hari Krishnas from harassing people. 12 months later the the Court government used this law to instruct the police to arrest anyone who attended a union meeting.




I must be a idiot then.

Bloody Hell, agreeing with Grunt :eek: What next?
Have a greenie dogbreath.


Edit: Oh bugger I can't (usual reasons)

[bennylaird]

We haff vays of getting you to haff your cards!!!!!!!

Slap! Slap!

Stop slapping me while I'm giving you orders!!!!!!!

[E. maculata]

Nobody is contemplating the whatifs, what if an extreme roght-wing government gets in (is concieveable with the way spin doctorsdoctor things)
Whatif a large multi-national concern gets a contract to administrate such things, remember computers don't use this information people do, people with the same greedy, small-mindeness, and avarious ways that we see everyday in all walks, look at AWB fer chris' sake. Nah even if it was for real (it's not, look at what else is being put throught the senate atm, it's exactly the same paths that all past facists regimes and so-called "communist" represives have taken as Grunt boy stated, he's one smart pooch that.
It's dangerous to put your life in politicians or even the law enforcement (sorry Dan, but we both know it's true) agencies hands, cause they are only made up of people, same as us not super-ethical, but normal Blokes & Blokettes who will use any argument to justify an action.

Sorry this is not conjecture as I remember being a non- influential teenage union member in QLD during the JOH years, and while not ever proven it is highly suspected that members of the government and other authorities had people "disappeared" if they could be a problem. Check the newspaper articles from the time then the royal commission stuff.

Civil Liberterians are not anything more than people who have the conviction to stand up and fight for what they consider to be morally& ethically correct, they put themselves and their livlihoods in jeopardy everytime they publicly denounce popular opinion, can we say the same?

[craigb]

Civil Liberterians are not anything more than people who have the conviction to stand up and fight for what they consider to be morally& ethically correct, they put themselves and their livlihoods in jeopardy everytime they publicly denounce popular opinion, can we say the same?

Well said Bruce.

[silentC]

I don't know. I tend towards the conservative side of things. I'm in favour of a tough stance on crime, terrorism, illegal immigration etc. I'm not without compassion and I'm a bit sceptical that any government ever has our best interests at heart.

However, I do believe that a lot of the problems we are facing at the moment are occuring because we have gone soft on a number of things. A crack down is required every now and then to put things back on an even kilter. I doubt that an ID card is going to help at all in that regard though, for many of the reasons mentioned above. Neither can I see that it will be a tremendous invasion of our civil liberties.

If you earn an income (legally) they already know who you are. If you don't you probably have a social security number. I can't see an ID card being any more revealing than these two things. Whether a future government might or might not abuse it at some point in the future is speculation. Perhaps they might - is that enough reason to kybosh the idea? I suppose there are a great many things that a future fascist dictatorship might use against us - including the defence force and the police.

At the end of the day, there are pros and cons. Perhaps the potential cons outweigh the known pros?

[DavidG]

I have not yet and don't think I will hear a sensible and coherent argument against the ID card.

Cost.

Think how much easier it would be if a natural disaster such as the tsunami were to hit, to identify people killed. Or car accidents, or any number of things.

I am no more likely to be carrying my ID card than I am my drivers licence. Invalid argument.

Those who say that civil liberties are curtailed by an ID card are idiots (as are all civil libertarians).

Invalid argument - Emotional.

The only people with something to fear from being identified are those who deserve to have their liberties removed.

My g...d. This from authority. NO wonder we are worried.

If you do nothing wrong, you will never have your DNA see the light of day.

Until the Gov has a new interest in it. (disease profiling. Reduce pensioners.

Generally, so-far, there is NO valid argument in favour of a card that justifies the cost.

Please provide valid arguments. No emotions.

1. Identify terrorists - Invalid. Terrorists use their real ID.

2. Identify the dead and injured in a disaster. Invalid. Card may not be on owner. Still have to do all tests. ps How many times would this be required???

3 Identify victims of crime. Invalid see 2.

4 Identify illegal immigrant workers. Valid but at what cost.$

[silentC]

Regarding civil libertarians, I think there is a rabid ratbag element there but it's like everything else - you need a balance and these guys are there to oppose the hardliners at the other end of the spectrum. Somewhere in the middle, we should have enough control to be secure and enough freedom to be happy.

Except for that guy on the pedestrian council (Harold Scrooby). We could do without him.

[Grunt]

However, I do believe that a lot of the problems we are facing at the moment are occuring because we have gone soft on a number of things.

I believe a lot of our problems are due to certain decisions that our govenment made in blindly following the U.S.

Canada which is demographically close to Australia does not have a problem with terrorism.

[silentC]

I wasn't really thinking of terrorism. I don't believe we have a problem with terrorism in this country either. There have been one or two bombs over the years and some people accused of planning things. No-one has attempted to run a container ship into the Opera House or anything yet though.

I was thinking more about crime, gang related violence and so on. You know, boring day to day stuff.

[Andy Mac]

I say no. We have enough in the way of cards to carry around to prove or disprove who we are, and all of them are open to forgery anyway. A bit the like saying that by banning all firearms less people will be shot...maybe by law abiding folk, but the criminal element will still obtain one. Does any learned forum member know the stats on firearm-related crime before and after the nationwide ban on firearms? My bet is it hasn't changed a thing.

Cheers,

[Bodgy]

[quote=silentC]

If you earn an income (legally) they already know who you are. If you don't you probably have a social security number. I can't see an ID card being any more revealing than these two things.

Why do they want it then?

I'd make two points, firstly it is a lot easier to lose a right or a freedom than to re-gain one. Anyone fancy their chances of getting rid of the ID card if it is abused?

Secondly, whats the rationale? Anti-Terrorism? Oh please! Remember Hawke's attempt to introduce the Australia card? As if an ID card would make any impact on terrorism. Would the 'occupation' field say 'loony, rag-head suicide bomber'?

I think this is just another factor in Government getting bigger and wanting more control over the punters. We are already atrociously over regulated in OZ. Having to carry and produce an ID card is just another freedom out the window and another intrusion by the Government - left or right - they all want more power.

[silentC]

Why do they want it then?

I don't know and don't pretend to. If I was to hazard a guess, I would say that someone in the public service has been waiting for a good opportunity to dust the idea off and try again. They probably have entirely different reasons for wanting it to what most people are assuming here.

Still on the fence. Don't care if they do or they don't.