EU states have agreed to incorporate into EU Law, a system which will allow its members to view DNA, fingerprint and car registration data of criminal suspects. There is one glaring problem with this system: There are over one million British citizens on that DNA database who have never been convicted of any crime.
Professor Bob Hepple QC, chairman of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics has asked whether people not convicted of crime should have their details stored on the national (now to be EU) DNA database. Prof Hepple said the main question was whether the UK would "become instead of a nation of citizens, a nation of suspects".
Professor Alec Jeffreys the inventor of DNA fingerprinting has voiced concerns that his invention is not being used in the interest of the public. Along with civil liberties groups, Professor Jeffreys believes that innocent people should have their details removed from the DNA database.
Unsurprisingly the Home Office Minister, Joan Ryan, has welcomed the agreement. However, Conservative MEP Syed Kamall, has, in my opinion rightly said: “In forcing it through, the Germans have ignored the views of the European Parliament and the concerns of the EU data protection chief. We are sleepwalking into a Big Brother Europe while our government stands idly by."
This system was incorporated into EU law without any consultation of our Parliament or the European Parliament. Do you remember giving your consent to share our country’s confidential data with foreign Governments? No, I didn’t think you would.
Not only will the new ID Card enable foreign Governments to view our personal details, now they have access to many of our innocent citizen’s DNA and fingerprints.
Professor Bob Hepple QC, chairman of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics has asked whether people not convicted of crime should have their details stored on the national (now to be EU) DNA database. Prof Hepple said the main question was whether the UK would "become instead of a nation of citizens, a nation of suspects".
Professor Alec Jeffreys the inventor of DNA fingerprinting has voiced concerns that his invention is not being used in the interest of the public. Along with civil liberties groups, Professor Jeffreys believes that innocent people should have their details removed from the DNA database.
Unsurprisingly the Home Office Minister, Joan Ryan, has welcomed the agreement. However, Conservative MEP Syed Kamall, has, in my opinion rightly said: “In forcing it through, the Germans have ignored the views of the European Parliament and the concerns of the EU data protection chief. We are sleepwalking into a Big Brother Europe while our government stands idly by."
This system was incorporated into EU law without any consultation of our Parliament or the European Parliament. Do you remember giving your consent to share our country’s confidential data with foreign Governments? No, I didn’t think you would.
Not only will the new ID Card enable foreign Governments to view our personal details, now they have access to many of our innocent citizen’s DNA and fingerprints.
UPDATE: Lord Justice Sedley is calling for compulsory DNA testing of all UK residents and visitors. Lord Sedley said: "everybody, guilty or innocent, should expect their DNA to be on file for the absolutely rigorously restricted purpose of crime detection and prevention." And that the current system was "indefensible." In a government statement, they made it clear that there are no plans to make it compulsory for everyone to be on the national DNA database. However there was no mention of stopping the rest of the EU having access to our DNA database.
Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, could think of "no earthly reason" why innocent people should be on the database - "yet the government is shoving thousands of innocent people's DNA details on to the database every month." Bloody Hell! I've found something a Liberal has said that I can agree with.
3 comments:
When senior judges opine that the liberty of the citizen is 'indefensible' we can be certain that we are living in a police state.
Surely there should be a sell-by-date on Judges. Or some kind of body that can be used to weed out the ones that have lost it.
What worries me is that the government said they would not go ahead with a compulsory database, because it would be overly expensive. No mention of rights or freedom. Does this mean that if Brown gets a bit more of our cash from Green Taxes, we can expect it to go ahead?
When is Parliament going to hold the government to account on civil liberties?
Backbench MPs who if they thought about it would be against this proposal just let the cabinet steam-roller this cr*p through.
Post a Comment