Black Immigrant Daily News
Readers are asked to note that the below is a summary of viewpoints shared by the Christian Association and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of Loop Cayman.
Viewpoint
A group of concerned citizens, including representatives from the Christian Association, a retired attorney and business owners, met with the Leader and Deputy Leader of the Opposition on Friday, November 18, 2022 to voice concerns regarding the proposed Cayman Islands Identification Card Bill, 2022 and the Identification Register Bill, 2022 (the “Digital ID Bills”).
One of the main outcomes of the meeting was that the period of time given to the public is too short and more time is needed for a proper public consultation process to take place, in particular, to enable a wider cross-section of the public to educate themselves as to the pros and cons of the Digital ID Bills and to have their voices heard.
Concerns raised
Regarding the specifics, the Christian Association said that some of the concerns shared by the wider cross-section of Caymanians, permanent residents and work permit holders include the risk of privacy rights violations and future restrictions by government on fundamental freedoms if the Digital ID Bills are passed into law in their current form.
Speaking more about these matters and addressing her view of the government’s rationale for the Digital ID Bills, Kattina Anglin, a representative of the Christian Association said:
We understand and even appreciate what the government is trying to do with immigration controls, avoiding voter fraud and the other protective measures it is attempting to achieve. However, these are already provisioned for under various laws with their own identification measures, and each process has yielded its own successes.
Regarding these existing provisions, Anglin pointed to drivers’ licences, voter ID cards and Immigration cards issued to work permit holders which already have detailed identification information on Caymanians, permanent residents and work permit holders.
As to the push for the digitizing of these services, Anglin noted that “It is not that digital services are evil per se or pose no benefit, but governments have, as we have seen throughout history, tended to abuse their powers if sufficient checks are not implemented.”
Giving examples of such abuse, Anglin highlighted the following:
mask mandates, quarantining and the number of successful lawsuits that have come before the courts in various jurisdictions that challenged the lawfulness of governments for forced vaccinations and unlawful detentions in connection with Covid-19 lockdowns (even here in the Cayman Islands there is a case pending before the Court on the lawfulness of the quarantines here)other examples, like the US still stopping unvaccinated travellers even though they acknowledge the vaccine does not stop infection or transmission and, latest studies, able vaccinated are far more likely to contract covidthe abuse by the Nazis in Germany, Cambodia under Pol Pot, China in the Cultural Revolution, Stalin, to name a few.
Anglin elucidated that, without proper public consultation and public input, a system such as the one being proposed provides the means for future misuse and can easily become a tool to control the population.
This is not idle speculation. There is currently a global push to implement digital IDs orchestrated by the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organization, both unelected bodies, and the UN.
Furthermore, the G20 group of world leaders have just signed a declaration to introduce COVID vaccine passports linked to digital ID.
Travel will only be permitted by those who are vaccinated and have had their latest boosters which, as we now know, have caused considerable harm and injury across all age groups, and have failed to stop infection or transmission.
This is an absolute power grab by those who are meant to be protecting peoples’ freedoms, not taking them away.
What guarantees do we have that a person’s vaccine status and other private medical information will not linked to their digital ID and shared with other countries and international organizations in the future?” None. In fact, this seems to be the plan.
Anglin warned.
Consultation process needed to understand complexities
In order to appreciate the complexities of these issues and the longer-term impacts on the public, Anglin suggested that the Digital ID Bills should not be “pushed through in 21 days.”
Instead, the she indicated that the government ought to consider a longer period to allow members of the public a chance to properly air their concerns, be properly heard and have those concerns acted on.
According to Anglin, while it may be the case that, as a result of a longer consultation process, members of the public may conclude that they are content with the proposed the Digital ID Bills and that they can be passed into law, she noted that “we cannot reach that juncture without the proper process being executed.”
Process should not be a tick-the-box exercise
Anglin also intimated that, without an in-depth process where the views of the public are collated, the danger is that the mechanics for consultation suggested by the government may amount to no more than a “tick-the-box” exercise.
Based on Anglin’s statements, some members of the public may take this view because they are convinced that the proposers of the Digital ID Bills only wish to demonstrate that they have complied with notice periods applicable to public consultation rather than seek in-depth, public input.
Such a “tick-the-box” exercise may not appropriate because, according to Anglin, the “proposed laws are controversial or [may] affect constitutional rights.”
Anglin added:
This data control regime was being discussed from as far back as 2017; the framework for it was built over the past few years. 5 years later (2022) the Minister of Financial Affairs called for a public consultation with the MINIMUM consultation period allowed – 21 days. That is offensive to any reasonable individual and to the spirit of participatory democracy. This is not how the legislative process operates in a democratic society. It is utterly disrespectful to every registered voter and especially to the elderly who the government claims it is acting in the interest of.
Anglin continued:
Under the parliamentary principles on public consultation, it is the government’s duty to meet people at their level. The only means of “consulting” on this Bill is to make a written submission. This essentially excludes a great percentage, if not the majority, of the elderly who would be better able to participate in the democratic process at Town Hall meetings. There they would express their views and ask their questions. Pray tell: how many “average”, “intelligent” and “elderly” people in our society can read and interpret these Bills then make written submissions?
“Written submission” has eliminated much of the [potential] opposition to the Bill and sidestepped the voicing of any legitimate concerns that a question-and-answer session might allow. It is a farce.
Other implications of the Digital ID Bills
Compulsory compilation
The Christian Association also cited concerns that every person’s information will be compulsorily compiled into a government-controlled register.
Regarding this, Anglin said: “There is no opt-in for this program. The individual is forced by law to provide their personal data, even that which is irrelevant to identification, such as personal telephone number and email address; those pieces of information enhance government’s potential for monitoring/spying on its citizens and encroaching on one’s private affairs but have nothing to do with national identification”.
Future expansion of compulsory data requirements
Anglin added that a further concern with the Bills is that they propose no restraints on, but allow for, additional categories to be added “as may be prescribed”.
This, Anglin says, could lead to an unending personal data grab.
Expanding on her point, Anglin stressed:
This is gravely concerning – what other categories are they intending to add? Vaccine status, for example, as outlined above? Government access and control of an individual’s personal data, including financial and medical information, creates an imbalance in power between the government and the individual.
Case law, such as the India Supreme Court judgment in Justice K S Puttaswamy (Rtd) v Union of India and others and Robinson v Attorney General of Jamaica has determined this.
Anglin argued that an imbalance in power between the government and the individual in society could lead to the government having unrestricted access to information about individuals, an outcome which may not be consistent with current laws where the consent of each individual is required in certain instances.
“This cannot be justified in a democratic society,” Anglin underscored.
Safekeeping of information and hacking
Anglin noted that another key area of concern is in relation to the safe storage and management of personal information compiled on the register.
Regarding this, she said that the Bills allow for the recruitment of one of more goods and services providers and allows for the maintenance of the register outside of the jurisdiction, however, the public needs to be advised on what security measures are in place and what the government’s backup plans are in the event of a data breach.
In connection with this, Anglin noted that a data breach “will leave persons vulnerable in more ways than one,” pointing out some recent examples of data breach in the United States where the United States government was hacked more than once.
World Economic Forum
Speaking of vulnerability, Anglin questioned whether the government was pursuing its own initiative for the public interest or whether it was adopting the idea of the “Great Reset,” a concept which she said is being promoted by certain stakeholders.
In particular, Anglin referred to an advert by the World Economic Forum (WEF) dated November 18, 2016 stating that:
You’ll own nothing.
And you’ll be happy.
Whatever you want, you’ll rent.
And it’ll be delivered by drone.
Regarding this, Anglin said: “Guessing by the pin on our Premier’s lapel, he supports this movement and intends to push Cayman along this path regardless of whether we are aware or agree to it. Those of us who have been following these entities’ pronouncements and news publications, (WEF, WHO, UN etc) are very much aware of the implications of digital ID, social credit scores linked to digital ID and central bank digital currencies which, when combined, will serve to control the masses.”
Anglin concluded, saying:
We are hopeful that the Opposition, who provide the main check and balance on the government, will embark on two or three public consultation meetings before 2nd December, when this short consultation period ends, to enable citizens to voice their concerns. We also hope to meet with the Minister of Financial Affairs in person to discuss our concerns about the process and to discuss in greater detail our objections to the Bills.
Fact-check: Reuters, in an article dated February 25, 2021, said that that they fact-checked the foregoing statements in connection with the World Economic Forum (which appeared in the below video) and Reuters noted that “The WEF does not have a ‘stated goal’ to remove everyone’s private property by 2030.”
Reuters added:
Danish politician Ida Auken, who wrote the prediction in question (here), said it was not a “utopia or dream of the future” but “a scenario showing where we could be heading – for better and for worse.”
In a written update, she clarified that the piece aimed to “start a discussion about some of the pros and cons of the current technological development. When we are dealing with the future, it is not enough to work with reports. We should start discussions in many new ways. This is the intention with this piece.”
2016 Video from WEF:
NewsAmericasNow.com
