EnMasse

[Cartman]

I need some help. Sometimes people pose such simple questions that they are surprisingly difficult to answer.

The current Immigration Act allows for fingerprinting and detention of refugees. I was asked what is wrong with fingerprinting them. My response was that it is applied only to this group and thus it is discriminatory. I also said it was an invasion of personal privacy and makes the assumption that refugees are somehow more likely to be criminals. I admitted that many refugees do arrive in Canada and lack identity documents because they frequently flee persecution abruptly. The explanation seemed to fall on deaf ears. The idea was that if you have nothing to hide, then......

It seems obvious to me that fingerprinting is wrong. I suppose, however, that I am not explaining myself very well. Does anyone have another reason or a better way of explaining why this is inappropriate (assuming you believe as much)?

[Tehanu]

West Coast Tiger started a thread here about Japan fingerprinting all foreigners.

Probably the biggest single objection is the association with criminality (guilty until proven innocent). In our society, the vast majority of people who are fingerprinted are those who are arrested.

Another big objection is personal privacy. Knowing that the government has personal information, including biometrics, sitting in a database is disconcerting for those of us who are keen on civil liberties. So for example, the USA retinal scanning and fingerprinting for all and sundry entering the country, including those in transit at airports, is disturbing. Particularly if you don't trust government databases, their privacy, and the uses to which they could be put.

In Canada, the RCMP and CSIS have been accused with justification on more than one occasion of overstepping their bounds.

Yet another objection is that people who are leaving countries with oppressive governments can feel particularly concerned about the use to which their personal information will be put by the police or government.

Then there's the slippery slope question. If we're fingerprinting refugees, why not everyone? You never know when someone might commit a crime! How much more personal information are we comfortable with allowing the government to collect? How about a national DNA database of every person in the country? Would people be comfortable with that? If not, why not?

Initial thoughts, anyway.

[Cartman]

Thank you T.

[Tehanu]

And one could argue that having all that information out there is problematic as well ... weren't social insurance numbers, for example, only originally intended to be used to track income taxes?

I'm not one of those people who is super-careful about personal information, but I can see where the concern arises. And yeah, if the government wanted to start collecting the DNA from everyone, I'd be objecting, wouldn't you? The reason for that objection goes back to the point about presumed criminality, and also discomfort in that I wouldn't know to what use that information would be put.

Oh, and I'll add social control to the list. What if people are afraid to go to a protest or sign a letter (and lick the envelope) or do any kind of action that questions the government, because they're concerned about repercussions? We already have too much of that, in my opinion.

Shades of Gattaca (still one of the better movies I've seen).

[Cartman]

Devil's advocate again.

The younger generation is more comfortable with information being disseminated throughout society. The interweb generation (generalizing groups, not including all individuals here) is aware that much information is already out there. They google their own names, place information about themselves in Facebook and expect security to be salient in a post 9/11 era. This is not the same generation that once freaked out over the introduction of a Social Insurance Number.

[elmateo]

Why not put wireless microchips in everyone?

[Norse of 60]

[Cartman]

Doctor rejected for immigration because his daughter is ill and requires constant care. Meh, we have lots of doctors to spare here in Calgary.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2008/10/27/doctor-immigratio...

[Cartman]

Maybe there is a better place to post this? This is a scary decision IMO. The government does not need to explain its decisions or allow Canadians back into the country if they don't want to!?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090403.wabdel0...

[TS.]

My guess is that this is unconstitutional, and will be held to be such by the courts. S. 6(1) of the Charter guarantees to every citizen of Canada the right to enter, remain in, and leave Canada. S. 1 allows for such denials as are prescribed by law, and which are demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. This is a pretty clear case of denying a citizen permission to enter Canada, and I think the government will fail on the Oakes test for s. 1, especially given that CSIS and the RCMP have issued memos saying that they don't think he has any connection to any kind of criminal activity.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

[No Yards]

This is outrageous, how in the hell can we suddenly allow the constitution and due process to be superseded by having your name put on a fucking list by someone?

If this Canadian is a terrorist, then meet him at the airport, arrest him and put him on trial and prove it.
_________________
I follow, but more importantly, respect the Golden Rule. I fully and completely respect your right to be 'done on to' as you would 'do on to' others.

[Cartman]

That's what happens when you elect a party with no ideas at all. They just keep pushing the failed Bush agenda. Even during a recession where every other nation is considering how to stimulate the economy, these fools keep talking about tax cuts and state security concerns.

[TS.]

[Cartman]

In the meantime, the guy has been living in the lobby of the Canadian Embassy for months. I wish there were consequences for the Con government for this sort of thing.

[Hephaestion]

[Diane Demorney]