Wednesday, August 02, 2006

EU children to be fingerprinted

The UK’s Euro-schizophrenia continues. A group of influential MPs are demanding that the Government have a Churchillian moment - the United Kingdom must once again save Europe from itself, and so it must lead the way in encouraging other member states to ditch the EU Constitution because ‘although (it) is not dead, it is comatose and on life support’. They believe the Constitution is unlikely to ever come into force, though they note ‘attempts may be made to enact some of its provisions by other means’.

It is these ‘provisions by other means’ that the Government is tacitly supporting. There is a move towards an EU foreign minister (in the present Middle East war, Javier Solana has been heard pontificating ‘above his weight’, purporting to speak with one voice on behalf of the eminently divided EU member states), and EU embassies with a diplomatic service are springing up all over the place (who is paying for John Bruton’s marble-clad mansion in Washington?). There is also a wholesale move towards the elimination of the national veto in justice and home affairs, which includes that vital function of the nation state - law enforcement.

It has been known for some time that the EU requires all its citizens to be numbered and placed on file. The move towards identity cards in the UK is simply in line with this harmonisation demand, all in the name of ‘the war on terror’. What is new, however, is that this ‘citizen database’ demands the fingerprinting of children, possible as young as six years old. Under laws being drawn up behind closed doors, all children will have to attend a finger-printing centre to obtain an EU passport by June 2009. Perhaps they should not worry. They can have it all explained now that the ‘Europe Minister’ has demanded that ‘EU lessons’ become compulsory in all schools.

There is something sinister indeed about some massive computer in Brussels containing the biometric details of every EU citizen, including children. Not only is this a fundamental change in the relationship between the child and the state, it is potentially a means of totalitarian intrusion and control. When the powers that meet in secret to examine the effectiveness of finger-printing, and decide that universal ID cards with biometric data are still open to fabrication and fraud, why not implant every EU citizen, including every baby from birth, with a microchip? Cranmer suggests the forehead, or the right hand. But only because they are the easiest parts of one’s body to scan in a supermarket…

UPDATE (4th August)

EU states will be free to fingerprint children from day one of their life as soon as it is technologically possible. A quote from the EU Council Presidency, June 2006:

- 'scanning of fingerprints: up to 12 years of age.. if provided for by national legislation... from 12 years of age: Compulsory' (EU doc no: 9403/1/06)

27 Comments:

Anonymous Rick said...

All persons who are non-US citizens, ie including Green Card holders are to be fingerprinted entering US ports. All persons crossing EU borders including EU citizens are to be fingerprinted.

All children are required to have their own passport ergo all children must be fingerprinted.

The lack of a fingerprint database means passengers must be fingerprinted at points of entry to reference against the digital fingerprint in the passport.

I wonder if Britain - which now takes DNA for every arrestable offence takes DNA samples from asuylum-seekers ?

2 August 2006 at 08:29  
Anonymous view from the solent said...

Why go to the cost of millions of microchips? Just tattoo an identifying number on everyone's wrist. It's a cheap, proven method.

2 August 2006 at 09:19  
Anonymous DavidG said...

Fingerprinting is not a logical extension of passports at all. And if it was, it couldn't be done on children so young as their prints are still developing. Children are supposed to be without responsibility - I guess that's part of the definition of a child - and their parents take responsibility for them. If the state begins to keep identification records, it is a shift in tradition and surveillance.

2 August 2006 at 10:51  
Blogger Thomas Fuller said...

All this behaviour by governments -- using computers to identify and monitor people -- presupposes that the technology works. The UK govt's IT record is lamentable: one expensive cockup after another.

What happens to an individual when something goes wrong with the computer and he becomes a non-person? It won't be quite as simple as reinstalling Windows, I'm afraid. It's not only sinister, but despicable. After all, why the hell should I have to prove who I am to a bunch of deadbeat politicians like David Blunkett, Charles Clarke, or the latest incumbent to preside over the catastrophe that is our Home Office?

To add injury to insult, I will be expected to pay!

I remember meeting, in California in the early seventies, a man who lived completely outside the system. He had no social security number, no bank account, nothing, and slept in the woods. His motive was avoiding service in Vietnam; how many avoidniks will the new regimes produce, people who have no identity and don't want one?

2 August 2006 at 11:11  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Microchipping at birth (by law, just replacing the medieval 'birth certificate') will eliminate the avoidniks. All will be on a database. Everyone citizen will have a number. Every transaction monitored. Every movement observed. Welcome to 1984 (just a couple of decades late).

2 August 2006 at 11:16  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

Finger printing children is for one reason alone, to condition a new generation to the concept of total state control, and inded implantable microchips are next.
Good to see you keeping up with the lastest technology your grace, despite your having been dead for 500 years.

2 August 2006 at 12:41  
Anonymous David Aberdeen said...

Now strictly speaking as a christian I would not describe Cranmer as having been dead for 500 years but merely his mortal body...

Returning to the subject in hand it's certainly more than a little worrying. Oh well, I'll just have to join the rebellious hordes.

2 August 2006 at 14:37  
Blogger Thomas Fuller said...

Anon. 11:16 said Microchipping at birth (by law, just replacing the medieval 'birth certificate') will eliminate the avoidniks.

All well and good, but how long will it take to find a way to remove or reprogram said chip? About 3 minutes, if current trends in credit-card fraud are anything to go by.

Luckily, the impending eco-crash means we're doomed anyway and all this will be irrelevant ...

2 August 2006 at 14:45  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr David Aberdeen,

Cranmer welcomes you to his blog.

I would not describe Cranmer as having been dead for 500 years but merely his mortal body....

Indeed, indeed, quite so. It is for this reason that Cranmer said 'he hasn't been around much since (1556)'.

Dead he has never been, and for 450 years was more alive than ever. This anniversary year, however, seemed like a good opportunity to announce a return, if only to continue exposing the sort of politico-religiosity that used to condemn righteous people to the stake.

2 August 2006 at 15:06  
Anonymous anon e-mouse said...

Thomas Fuller said...
All this behaviour by governments -- using computers to identify and monitor people -- presupposes that the technology works.

Scene - full surgery, last week, northern location. Enter Old Gent. Reports to reception.
Receptionist: You can log in on the touch screen
Old Gent: No I can't, pet
Rec. (Humouring the elderly) Yes you can. Come this way.
Puts OGs finger on screen. Screen stays dead.
Rec: Have you registered?
OG: Yes. But it doesn't work on my fingers.
Rec: Yes it does.
Goes through entire registration process. Takes OG to screen. Puts his finger on pad.
Screen stays dead.
Rec: I'll just take your name then.
Retreats behind desk.
OG: I told her it didn't work with my fingers.
Entire waiting room resumes reading out-of-date magazines, quietly, deliriously, happy.

2 August 2006 at 15:17  
Blogger Croydonian said...

If His Grace will permit, another one of my anecdotes:

Some years back a free-born Englishman was going about his business in France when he was accosted by a gendarme who demanded 'Vos papiers monsieur'. Our hero had the wit to pass him his copy of the Daily Telegraph...

2 August 2006 at 19:16  
Anonymous Rick said...

'Vos papiers monsieur'. Our hero had the wit to pass him his copy of the Daily Telegraph...

Yes but in France it is not an offence not to have documentation with you - in Germany it is and subject to fine or arrest

3 August 2006 at 07:43  
Anonymous virtually anonymous said...

The authorities can drag me into prison, tie me to the floor and prop my eyelids open with matchsticks so they can take my iris biometrics. They still won't win.

Even if there's only half of one per cent ID card refuseniks in the UK, John Reid will have to carpet the Green Belt with new prisons to hold us all. And what about the illegals? How does he propose to scan and fingerprint them when he doesn't know how many there are or where they are? Madness.

Are all those veiled Muslim ladies going to trip merrily along to the registration centre and disrobe for the cameras, or will there be an exemption?

I think he needs to think it out again. Fast.

3 August 2006 at 08:42  
Anonymous Rick said...

I suggest you read the Home Office White Paper - I believe it is on the Home Office website

3 August 2006 at 10:08  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Sorry to spoil the party, but I see no problem here. There are already so many checks on our ID, fingerprinting kiddies is just another. If it stops kidnapping, decreases terrorist threats, or creates more of a sense of security, I'm in favour.

And if tagging it alongside microchips is some allusion to the Mark of the Beast (which I suspect), you need to get out more, Cranmer!

3 August 2006 at 13:55  
Anonymous Rick said...

Ulster Man tell us about the ID cards in Northern Ireland supposed to cut down on electoral fraud

3 August 2006 at 18:39  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

ulster man ... you do not stop kidnapping, decrease terrorist threats, or create a sense of security by fingerprinting innocents. I think your deductive reasoning has been scrambled or infected somewhere along the way.

Pardon me, but I really do think you need to sit down and re-think your expectations and mental associations. You might start by throwing your TV set out of the window.

We restore sanity, right across the board, simply by unravelling the "great Marxist project" that has been creeping through our institutions for nigh on 30 years (or is it longer?).

This pathetic 'shower,' New Labour, are steeped in it. All one needs to do is understand where their philosophical moorings are located to see that.

Restoring the autonomy of the family, the restoration of a Father's authority in each and every home, and the restoration of male discipline in our schools would achieve 90% of what you claim biometrics would.

But an important prerequisite would be the closing down of the BBC. BBC television and radio has long been employed to spread soft radicalism (in Britain, and increasing around the world through its satellite BBC-World service) and whilst people continue to trust it for sentimental reasons, no return to sanity will be possible.

We are already living under a soft totalitarianism. Can't you see that? The Welfare State has been transformed from a safety net, into the means of control. Please go back and re-read your George Orwell.

By "soft" I mean a Marxist radicalism with strong feminist theological underpinnings.

For example, Norway has recently announced it will shut down private companies that refuse to recruit at least 40 percent women to their boards by 2007 under an unprecedented equality drive. Apparently, all state-controlled firms have already complied with this directive.

Britain (along with Sweden, Norway, Belgium, and France possibly) in the early 21st century IS Oceania.

4 August 2006 at 06:04  
Anonymous Rick said...

For example, Norway has recently announced it will shut down private companies that refuse to recruit at least 40 percent women to their boards by 2007

It cannot do this - it breaches the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to private property.

There are not a lot of major Norwegian private sector companies and they just move their boards out of Norway as Swedish companies have done.

Board Members represent shareholders and their investment. Interestingly it was not the loony left that proposed this:

In February 2002, the Minister of Trade and Industry in the centre-right coalition government, Ansgar Gabrielsen of the Conservative Party (Høyre), caused significant debate when he called for more women on company boards. Mr Gabrielsen expressed a wish to turn words into action, and stated that he was willing to introduce radical measures to achieve greater female representation on company boards. The minister also pledged to bring more women onto the board of Norway's largest bank – Den norske Bank– in which the state holds a significant ownership share.

The minister's proposal was met with considerable opposition within his own party, where a majority do not want to see any restrictions put on company owners' rights to elect their own board members. However, the other parties in the coalition government, in particular the Christian Democratic Party (Kristelig Folkeparti, KrF), which is in charge of the ministry responsible for gender equality issues, support affirmative action in this regard.


Something for the Cameron-Cons no doubt

4 August 2006 at 08:24  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Ulster Man tell us about the ID cards in Northern Ireland supposed to cut down on electoral fraud

Anyone who observes the complexities of Ulster's electoral system will know it is among the most advanced in the world.......

The identification of voters at the polling station in Ulster is already more carefully controlled than elsewhere in the UK. Every voter must present one of a number of specified identity documents at the polling station before he or she is given a ballot paper. This measure was introduced in 1985. It didn't work so the Government decided to issue a voter ID card on behalf of the Electoral Office, carrying a photograph of the holder as well as essential personal data. It includes a number of security features to make it hard to forge and impossible to alter. The voter ID card is not a universal ID card; it is entirely voluntary, and it has no purpose except to prove identity at the polling station. It is intended that the new voter ID card will be added to the list of specified documents on introduction and that it will eventually replace the non-photographic ID on the list of specified documents.

Voting fraud here is a rare occurrence, and nowhere near on a par with fraud in the rest of the UK since the introduction of postal voting. So yes, ID cards have their uses, even of children.

4 August 2006 at 09:33  
Blogger Thomas Fuller said...

Mission Impossible --

I agree with you completely about the BBC. I threw out my TV set last year and am much happier as a result -- except for the dubious attentions of TV Licensing, a bunch of unreconstructed thugs hired as bagmen by the BBC. They seem to have the idea that one must prove one's innocence: i.e. that one must prove one does not have a set.

Their tactics are quite Orwellian and discussion thereof does not come entirely amiss in this, His Grace's thread. They claim to have "detector vans" which can see through walls (black propaganda: they don't exist). They keep a giant and very flaky database called LASSIE. This holds every address in the UK. Any address that is not licensed is targetted with an endless supply of threatening letters. Trying to reason with TVL is pointless. If you have no licence you must be an "evader". Their usual threat is to get a search warrant and kick your door down, then conduct a search of your house for incriminating equipment capable of receiving TV transmissions.

This, then, is the source of funding for the BBC, which should be closed down forthwith; or made to compete in the real world.

P.S. TVL is an arm of Capita, whose boss, Rod Aldridge, is implicated in the cash-for-peerages row.

4 August 2006 at 09:33  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Incorrect. Norway is not part of the EU.

On November 28, 1994, they held a 2nd referendum on the issue of EU membership. For the second time membership was rejected: 52.2% opposed membership and 47.8% in favor. There are currently no plans to file another application.

Norway has not signed The Treaty of the European Union (TEU), also known as Treaty of Maastricht. Therefore, it is not bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Although had it been, I very much doubt if the human rights of company boards would have trumped the need to enforce the human rights of a so-called "discriminated against" group; namely the female gender.

As for the suggestion it was not the loony left who proposed the the board gender composition change. Your explanation might be seen as an illustration of the extent to which all people's brains have been imbibed with Marxist doctrine, through constant propaganda and other methods of mental conditioning ... such as implied threats to one's financial well-being.

That is the main thesis of Peter Hitchens' argument against believing the Conservative Party are real Conservatives!

In terms of compliance, the communist, Trotsky once remarked:

"In a country where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle - who does not work shall not eat - has been replaced by a new one - who does not obey shall not eat."

4 August 2006 at 09:38  
Anonymous Rick said...

Therefore, it is not bound by the European Convention on Human Rights

Oh yes it is ! The Convention is a condition of Membership of the Council of Europe....and Norway's Ambasador is
Mr Torbjørn Frøysnes, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary

http://www.echr.coe.int/echr

http://www.coe.int/DefaultEN.asp


Norway has not signed The Treaty of the European Union (TEU), also known as Treaty of Maastricht. Therefore, it is not bound by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Absolute Twaddle. The Council of Europe predates The Treaty of Rome

4 August 2006 at 17:51  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Ref: Norway and European Convention on Human Rights.

rick ... can't argue with that. Good work! Good job! I shall file that one away for future reference. Thanks and regards.

5 August 2006 at 04:53  
Anonymous Rick said...

You are most welcome.

5 August 2006 at 05:58  
Anonymous PaulB said...

DavidG said... "[Fingerprinting] couldn't be done on children so young as their prints are still developing."

Actually your fingerprints do not alter throughout your life. The ridge pattern on your fingers, palms, toes and soles of your feet does not alter throughout your life. It is the main basic plank of fingerprinting as a forensic tool for solving crimes. The fingerprints of a day year old baby will be the same as those of a 100 year old pensioner - the only difference being that the spaces between the ridges increases as your fingers grow. The actual ridge pattern does not change. (Coincidentally, it is also why scars are never used in fingerprint analysis as they can be temporary and alter throughout a person's life).

One reason people put forward in favour of ID cards is that "if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear." Actually, I much prefer the argument that if I have nothing to hide then do the authorities need to know who I am, unless I want something from them, for which I am entitled? By all means provide ID cards to claim benefits, use services (library card anyone?), etc but do not make it compulsory.

6 August 2006 at 12:50  
Blogger Prodicus said...

I wrote to my MP, relevant government ministers and their shadows about this. http://www.leavethemkidsalone.com/index.htm

The government response was what you would expect: waffle about guidelines, but the opposition MPS are all angry. Boris John immediately put a link to it on his website.

11 August 2006 at 09:14  
Blogger Prodicus said...

Whoops - meant Boris Johnson

11 August 2006 at 09:14  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older