by Richie Caldicott

Created on: March 25, 2007   Last Updated: April 19, 2007

I get the distinct impression that the articles written in this thread are referring to the idea of compulsory identification cards in the United States as opposed to any other country. I live in the United Kingdom and so can only speak on the topic of compulsory identification within my own country but I also believe that the issue at the heart of the matter are the same in both cases.

As a UK citizen with neither a passport nor driver's licence (I don't travel and do not wish to drive) I am already finding it particularly hard to prove that I exist. In the last couple of months I have stared a job with a new employer and attempted to open a new bank account and in both cases would have found it far smoother a process had I been in possession of one of the previously mentioned pieces of identification.

As I mentioned though, I am a citizen of the United Kingdom so why should I have to purchase a passport or learn to drive just to make it easier to prove my existence?

Likewise, why should I have to enter into a system of compulsory identification in order to satisfy politicians who aren't convinced that such a scheme would work in the first place?

Drivers licences can be forged as can passports so what will be so special about these knew pieces of identification?

Three questions that I feel are irrelevant and essentially sidestep the debate. Whether such a system could work or how it might better work or why another way might possibly be better are to my mind irrelevant.

As Benjamin Franklin wisely said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The issue is not would the system work but how dare the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom suggest imposing such a system upon their citizens.

Learn more about this author, Richie Caldicott.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.