debut: 2/16/17
39,750 runs
Colm Imbert’s Convenient Outrage: Are ID Laws Really “Draconian” in Trinidad and Tobago?
Choosing a government policy, tweeting about it, and hoping for public outrage is practically a rite of passage for politicians who are leaving office. Former Finance Minister and current Diego Martin North/East MP Colm Imbert made the decision to take up the cause of civil liberties this week, vehemently opposing the government's plan to require identification in Trinidad and Tobago. "Draconian," he described it as "Intolerant." But is this just another instance of selective outrage, or is this the authoritarian overreach he claims?
Let's be clear: there is reason to be concerned about government overreach. A police state is not a place anyone wants to live. However, Imbert's performance as a recently appointed champion of individual liberties merits a critical examination, particularly in light of global standards.
ID Laws: A Global Perspective
Imbert paints a picture of Trinidad and Tobago descending into a surveillance dystopia—one beach jogger’s ID at a time. Yet, in the so-called “First World” countries he alludes to, mandatory identification isn’t exactly unheard of. In fact, carrying some form of ID is a legal requirement in many European nations. Germany, Spain, and Belgium, for example, require adults to possess and produce identification upon request by authorities. Even in the United States, which is frequently hailed as the epitome of "personal freedom," it is common for citizens to carry identification, and in certain states, police have the authority to detain people in order to verify their identity.
Furthermore, the purpose of these laws is not to harass joggers on the Savannah but rather to combat crime, expedite law enforcement, and stop underage drinking and gambling—a situation that is not all that dissimilar from what is being suggested here.
Selective Memory, Selective Outrage
Where was Imbert's outrage when previous administrations, including his own, implemented or endorsed policies involving heightened surveillance, stop-and-search authority, or national identification systems? When you are not the one creating policy, protest politics are simple.
The realities of Trinidad and Tobago's worsening crime situation further erode Imbert's remarks. People who are fed up with lawlessness are calling for more accountability and enforcement measures, not just power-hungry bureaucrats. Is it truly "oppressive" to demand that you provide identification as proof of age in order to buy alcohol or gamble? Or is it a logical step to enforce the law and safeguard youth?
Balancing Rights and Responsibilities
None of this is to say that the government’s plan should go unexamined. Civil liberties are important, and it is important to examine the specifics of how such a law would be implemented. Do hikers and joggers have an exception? How might police discretion be controlled to avoid misuse? Rather than inflaming fears of tyranny, a responsible opposition would be asking these kinds of questions.
Let's have a serious discussion about civil liberties if Imbert is interested. But let's not act as though requiring identification is a particularly "draconian" step or that Trinidad and Tobago is the only country thinking about taking such a step. Implementation, checks and balances, and safeguarding individual rights and public safety should be the main topics of discussion.
In the interim, the former minister might want to brush up on international standards and possibly keep some identification on hand just in case.
Sarge
Choosing a government policy, tweeting about it, and hoping for public outrage is practically a rite of passage for politicians who are leaving office. Former Finance Minister and current Diego Martin North/East MP Colm Imbert made the decision to take up the cause of civil liberties this week, vehemently opposing the government's plan to require identification in Trinidad and Tobago. "Draconian," he described it as "Intolerant." But is this just another instance of selective outrage, or is this the authoritarian overreach he claims?
Let's be clear: there is reason to be concerned about government overreach. A police state is not a place anyone wants to live. However, Imbert's performance as a recently appointed champion of individual liberties merits a critical examination, particularly in light of global standards.
ID Laws: A Global Perspective
Imbert paints a picture of Trinidad and Tobago descending into a surveillance dystopia—one beach jogger’s ID at a time. Yet, in the so-called “First World” countries he alludes to, mandatory identification isn’t exactly unheard of. In fact, carrying some form of ID is a legal requirement in many European nations. Germany, Spain, and Belgium, for example, require adults to possess and produce identification upon request by authorities. Even in the United States, which is frequently hailed as the epitome of "personal freedom," it is common for citizens to carry identification, and in certain states, police have the authority to detain people in order to verify their identity.
Furthermore, the purpose of these laws is not to harass joggers on the Savannah but rather to combat crime, expedite law enforcement, and stop underage drinking and gambling—a situation that is not all that dissimilar from what is being suggested here.
Selective Memory, Selective Outrage
Where was Imbert's outrage when previous administrations, including his own, implemented or endorsed policies involving heightened surveillance, stop-and-search authority, or national identification systems? When you are not the one creating policy, protest politics are simple.
The realities of Trinidad and Tobago's worsening crime situation further erode Imbert's remarks. People who are fed up with lawlessness are calling for more accountability and enforcement measures, not just power-hungry bureaucrats. Is it truly "oppressive" to demand that you provide identification as proof of age in order to buy alcohol or gamble? Or is it a logical step to enforce the law and safeguard youth?
Balancing Rights and Responsibilities
None of this is to say that the government’s plan should go unexamined. Civil liberties are important, and it is important to examine the specifics of how such a law would be implemented. Do hikers and joggers have an exception? How might police discretion be controlled to avoid misuse? Rather than inflaming fears of tyranny, a responsible opposition would be asking these kinds of questions.
Let's have a serious discussion about civil liberties if Imbert is interested. But let's not act as though requiring identification is a particularly "draconian" step or that Trinidad and Tobago is the only country thinking about taking such a step. Implementation, checks and balances, and safeguarding individual rights and public safety should be the main topics of discussion.
In the interim, the former minister might want to brush up on international standards and possibly keep some identification on hand just in case.
Sarge
- edited -
