manonabus.com

After I blogged ID cards below, I noticed an ad in the Google ads on the right of this page from MI5, advertising MI5 careers. Now what keywords triggered that?

Oyster cards (http://www.tfl.gov.uk/oyster) are really quite popular amongst people I know. People really like how convenient they are. Yet they have to be one of the most intrusive tracking systems ever effectively imposed on a large population in modern times. They are actively used by the authorities for reasons other than transport efficiency (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4800490.stm). But that doesn’t seem to bother people. I think it’s because they’re the nearest thing you can get to a membership card for London - they kind of betstow a London ethnicity, and identity.

So if the government’s plans for ID cards are to gain popular acceptance they’ll have to promise more than entitlement to services. They’ll not just have to verify your identity, they will have to give you an identity. I wonder if the Home Office have got a branding consultancy on this yet?

Actually, having thought about it more, what irks me about the cartoon thing is the way in which both sides seem to be playing roles in their clash of civilisations fantasy. Having knocked out Christianity, the Enlightenment warriers are now looking to take out Islam. Likewise, the extreme response suggests there are plenty of Muslims ready to take up the challenge. Now if they were to keep their role-playing to themselves that would be one thing. But all of the more reasonable, and reasoned, people caught in between are cajolled into taking sides. This sort of things stiffles dialogue, and that is what is intended by ideologues on both sides.

Is it hypocritical to defend free speech and to wish that cartoons of Muhammad had never been published? Without too much reflection, this seems to be my natural position. I have little empathy with those who are offended by the cartoons. At the same time, I have no idea why someone would see their publication as a great defence of free speech. They just simply offend one group of people, titilate another group by crossing a boundary, and make little impact on anyone else. I can’t help the feeling that the publishers are at best creating controversy to sell newspapers, and at worst trying to whip up hate.