Dutch Photographer arrested after shooting in public

[Mr_Flibble]

Freelance Journalist Emiel Elgersma was arrested yesterday and detained by Dutch police for 2 hours after taking street pictures on the public square in front of the Utrecht Central Station in the Netherlands.

Two police officers resolutely told him taking photos of people for publication was illegal without permission, to which Elgersma stated that he was in a public area and could do so.
He then refused to show his ID because he believed there was no valid ground for the police to request it of him. They then claimed that he was obstructing people and arrested him.


After about an hour, the assistant Officer-of-Justice came to his cell and asks him why he refused to ID himself. Elgersma repeats his story that there was no valid grounds for the request. But the officer states that the station is flagged as a security risk area, a potential target for terrorist attack. Which is a valid reason for the Police to ask for the ID of the people in that area. The police officers hadn't told him that.


After accepting to pay the fine for refusal to show ID Elgersma was released.


Thomas Bruning of Secretary of the Dutch Journalist Association (NVJ) calls it a typical case of Police Over-Reaction. Reitterating that it is perfectly legal to take photographs in a public area.

This particular Police Corps was involved in a similar incident in 2007 and had promised to better educate their officers to the NVJ.

Elgersma's arrest led to many questions and much anger amongst his journalist colleagues on Twitter. Elgerma himself considers legal action against the Police Corps.

Elgersma blog on the incident in Dutch (http://www.elgersma.info/weblog/2-uur-in-de-cel-vanwege-fotograferen-bij-utrecht-cs-en-niet-tonen-id/)

[Mr_Flibble]

In my opinion, the officers should have told him about the security/safety risk area. And not come up with it as an excuse after he was arrested.

[edit]Even with the security risk area excuse it would only have been a valid reason to ask for his ID if he had been acting suspiciously ...
But he would still be allowed to take pictures....

I hope he decides to go to court and ram the point home.

[exe163]

This reminded me of the "dancing around Lincoln memorial" incident. Expecting police to know law doesn't work. If they do, most of them probably switched career by now.

[certifiable]

Well being from Holland, i read this too.

I have mixed feelings about this, having read his blog.

There are multiple ways of telling a police officer that you refuse to show him your ID, the way he used is doubtfull/ not the best way in my eyes. ("I'm not showing you anything, you have no right in knowing what I'm doing, I don't have to tell you anything." )

Did they have the right in asking him what he's doing?
perhaps, perhaps not, I wasn't there.

Did they have the right to ask for his ID?
mostlikely not, the law is pretty clear about this here in Holland, they are only allowed in doing so when:
You're a danger to yourself or others,
You've allready broken the law or in the proces of doing so(i.e. caught red handed),
And when there is a reasonable doubt in you being a terrorist.

I highly doubt he was doing either of those: 1) taking a photo is not forbiddden here only posting them somewhere or using them for commercial stuff without consent of the person., 2) he wasn't in the station itself.(there are signs stating you're not allowed to take photos in the station itself)

Last part is tricky in my eyes: arresting the guy...
why is this tricky? because IF he is a terrorist he's not going to show you an ID (duh, that would be dumb) AND if he blows up the station a week later... the officer is going to be in trouble(to say the least).
On the other hand they mostlikely didn't have a good reason to even ask him...

The police is saying he's taking photos of multiple people with a camera shoved in their faces, the photographer is saying he only took photos of a single guy.(the street artist)
No clue in knowing who is telling the truth.

How would I react? probably in the sameway as the photographer in question...

[j j]

In my opinion, the officers should have told him about the security/safety risk area. And not come up with it as an excuse after he was arrested.

No one could argue with police acting out of concern for security/safety. But that in itself has caused a problem in my country where police and security guards state security risk where there is none. A good example is the South Bank area of London where people who use an SLR (private use and press) have been pestered when all around are people using compact cameras, video cameras and phones. The issue there is image rights (of the London Eye) yet risk of terrorism is the excuse.

[Mr_Flibble]

I'm not a fan of messing with the police too much(I like to keep my fire-arms permit for one thing). And I would probably not have refused showing my ID.

I wonder what would have happened if he had show his ID, would have been allowed to continue taking pictures? (doubtful). Would they have sent him way? or wrote him a fine?

[certifiable]

Well mostlikely they would have just send him away...
in the audio you can clearly hear the officer say "why are you acting like this, if you would just show us your ID there would be no problem".

He didn't get a fine for photographing, he got a fine(and arrested) for not identifying himself....

[Neare]

I think rick makes a good point, that showing his ID would not have solved the situation, it would have resulted in the officers using other means to remove or arrest him.
When your mind's made up, it's made up.

[FalseDigital]

I think it's pretty foolish of him not to show his ID. It takes 2 seconds to pull it out and could have prevented this situation from going any further. Seems to me like he was just antagonizing them by refusing without a reason. If however they continued to pester him after he showed his ID that's another story. But I think the photographers actions were pretty stupid.

[Mr_Flibble]

The Dutch Compulsory Identification Act was introduced a few years ago with clear rules for those requesting the ID. The officers did not offer him a valid reason when he asked, eventhough there supposedly was one according to the Justice-department.

So he refused on principle and suffered the consequences of badly-informed police officers. I wouldn't go as far as calling him stupid....pointing a gun/toy at the police is stupid. ;)

[certifiable]

Jup that's why I would act in the sameway as he did... Only I would state my case more politely, 'cause stating it the way he did, probably wasn't his smartest move.

I don't mind showing my ID to a police officer(I would like to see his too though, he isn't allowed to refuse) BUT there has to be a good reason for it... the whole terrorist stuff is crap anyway, you can't see from my ID if I want to blow something up or not...

[FalseDigital]

I understand wanting to stand up for your rights. I get that, but really it's not such a big deal to show an ID. To me it does seem suspicious if you're taking photos of people on the street but unwilling to identify yourself. It just sounds like a matter of pride in his case us what got him in trouble. HOWEVER, if he did show his ID and they continued to bother him and he put up a stand then, I would support that decision.

As photographers we understand what he's doing is of no harm. However many non-photographers police or otherwise sometimes think street photographers look really suspicious. Most people are afraid of what they don't understand and therefore the cops might have been simply checking to make sure he wasn't a threat.

[certifiable]

True, showing an ID is not a big deal and a 2 second job... BUT how's that going to help any one?

What's the officer going to do with that information? he knows your name and the fact that you take photos, so now what?

There is no use for the information, that's why the created a law stating they are only allowed to ask when they have a good reason, i.e. when running the red light, so they know who to send the ticket to...

There's no point here, at the end of it all, all they know is that Emiel is taking photos.

[FalseDigital]

If they are worried about terrorist they may simply just want to find out if he's a citizen or not. Also his ID with a business card would prove he's a journalist. So that would make sense to an officer as to why he was taking pictures.

I've got asked by an officer why I was shooting on the street in washington dc. I pulled out a business card which clearly states I'm a photographer and an ID. Showed him both and he left me alone.

If they were still paranoid they could even call his employer or whatever. But I highly doubt they'd do that. As I said before, police just want to know why. Give em a simple to understand reason and they'll leave you alone (most of the time)

[silverbullet]

in the seventies I made nearly every weekend photographs in Amsterdam, due to my fathers boat in a harbour near by.

Making pics with a 28mm lens required a close distant to people.....

http://www.flickr.com/photos/36573929@N00/sets/72157594175682729/

One day two men asked me why I made photographs. They thought that I was from the police.......

[certifiable]

the whole 'worried about terrorists' is crap anyway, you could use that when ever you want, where ever you want... it's just a bullcrap clause in that specific law.

Don't have a good reason for asking? ah just say you're worried about terrorists...


But still the easiest solution would be just to show your ID.

[FalseDigital]

I agree, it doesn't make anyone safer and claiming anything in the name of terrorist is usually a joke. But when all you're asked to do is present an ID, just show it and most of these situations can be avoided. It just makes them feel better whether its logical or not :P

[dave lackey]

It is really easy to work with police...I wear a leather business card case on a lanyard around my neck with my business card showing through the clear face and my State-issued picture ID (not a driver's license) on the opposite side.

Not only are you more professional in appearance but it makes it very easy to give a card and ID to the police without a confrontation. It has happened to me and they wind up asking for photos of a movie production that occurred two weeks before.

Easy.;)

[cambolt]

If a policeman asked me for ID I don't think I would refuse to show it to them. If I have nothing to hide then why am I hiding my ID? It's just wasting both my time and the cop's time.

[FalseDigital]

^ ****ing exactly!

I can't believe how dense some people are.

[certifiable]

True, but the law clearly states they have to have a good reason... AND if anyone should abide the law, it would be the cops don't you think?

[degruyl]

if anyone should abide the law, it would be the cops don't you think?

Clearly you have never been outside of Europe.... (I'm joking, but I do NOT have that expectation. I agree with the "should" part of it, but reality is not on your side.)

I'd have tried to be cooperative. But I've never had an issue with police while photographing. I have been asked about the purpose of pictures, and I have handed out business cards.

[certifiable]

Clearly you have never been outside of Europe.... .

Because every police officer in europe is law abiding? Have you ever been here? ;)
It's not wetehr they are or not, I'm just saying they SHOULD. But if everyone in the world was law abiding, we wouldn't even need cops so...

[degruyl]

I have, yes. It is the expectation of them being law abiding that seems to be uniquely associated with western europe.

[certifiable]

I don't expect them to be anything, they are human after all so they suffer the same flaws as we all do, but I think they should be law abiding, but I think everyone should be law abiding, would make life a lot simpler...
Thinking someone should be something and expecting someone to be something are 2 different things in my opinion...

[Gabriel M.A.]

If I have nothing to hide then why am I hiding my ID? It's just wasting both my time and the cop's time.


A lot of people that had nothing to hide have been arrested, and many of those for many years. The "if you have nothing to hide" is a very weak argument, because whenever people in power have the power to arrest you, and once their mind is made up, they will find a way, whether you had anything to hide or not.

[jenhao]

Although in the short term, just showing your ID is an easy way out but long term, you're doing society (and yourself) a lot of harm. That is the practical reality. Standing up for your rights is not an idealist's exercise.

[Roger Hicks]

Confidence goes a long way.

In India once, somewhere I shouldn't have been...

Policeman (to our Tibetan minder)"Have they got permits to be here?"

Minder: "Of course they have. D'you think they'd be walking around with cameras like that if they hadn't?"

No ID shown.

Of course, it's a good idea to look like a tourist or casual visitor. Taping up your camera and being furtive is likely to make 'em suspicious.

Cheers,

R.

[sanmich]

It may be a question of perception.
In some parts of the world, Policemen are entitled to ask for you to ID yourself.
If you are used to it (I am) the behavior of the photographer may well seem unnecessarily confrontational.
If in Holland Policemen never ever ask anyone to identify unless after a crime is committed, I can understand the guy.

What amazes me is the common thought that fighting terrorism can be done effectively through random control by regular cops. What are the chances...

[Roger Hicks]

It may be a question of perception.
In some parts of the world, Policemen are entitled to ask for you to ID yourself.
If you are used to it (I am) the behavior of the photographer may well seem unnecessarily confrontational.
If in Holland Policemen never ever ask anyone to identify unless after a crime is committed, I can understand the guy.

What amazes me is the common thought that fighting terrorism can be done effectively through random control by regular cops. What are the chances...

Random control, virtually zero, but I have seen it alleged that of terrorist attacks known to have been thwarted, the vast majority have been averted via old-fashioned police work via police forces, NOT via expensive 'specialists'.

Of course real figures are impossible to come by, and of course it's in the interests of the 'specialists' to keep the rest of us frightened via assurances that "if you knew what we know, your blood would run cold."

As far as I know, you are required to carry (and show) ID in France, but the only time I've been asked is once at a routine vehicle check (licence, registration, insurance...) I've never been asked in the UK or anywhere else in Europe, even in the old Soviet Union.

Cheers,

R.

[tom.w.bn]

Although in the short term, just showing your ID is an easy way out but long term, you're doing society (and yourself) a lot of harm. That is the practical reality. Standing up for your rights is not an idealist's exercise.

Thinking that showing your ID is a risk for democracy is as paranoid as excusing every police action with terrorism.

[Richard C]

Is this the building by any chance?

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/13090236.jpg

Why would a terrorist bother to photograph it when it is on Google Earth?

[Roger Hicks]

Thinking that showing your ID is a risk for democracy is as paranoid as excusing every police action with terrorism.

Except... I don't mind until it becomes the default position. A policeman in the UK is essentially a citizen in uniform. His only extra right is to arrest on suspicion. He should not be encouraged to have too high an opinion of his own importance: as the old English saying has it, "Give him an inch and he'll take a mile."

Cheers,

R.

[sanmich]

As far as I know, you are required to carry (and show) ID in France.


That's what I remembered from being a teenager in Paris in the 80's.
I think it's mandatory from the age of 16.
I was controlled a few times, including once a physical search where I had to explain why I had a small ruler in my pocket (forgot to put it in my bag).
I was really dangerous back then :rolleyes:

[edit] Roger, I don't know if you were in France at that time but there was a whole story around Policemen asking only darker skin people for their paper (Mostly Africans and Arabs). Anti-racists groups acted against the "delit de sale gueule" yielding the Police to also control the papers of grandmothers and nuns to be politically correct.

[tom.w.bn]

Is this the building by any chance?

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/13090236.jpg

Why would a terrorist bother to photograph it when it is on Google Earth?

Because images in Google Earth are ooold and do not show security cameras and emergency exits, etc. in detail. In movies like Mission Impossible or Bourne Identity they always look for the security cameras :rolleyes:

[Roger Hicks]

That's what I remembered from being a teenager in Paris in the 80's.
I think it's mandatory from the age of 16.
I was controlled a few times, including once a physical search where I had to explain why I had a small ruler in my pocket (forgot to put it in my bag).
I was really dangerous back then :rolleyes:

Probably afraid you were going to measure his willy...

Cheers,

R.

[Mr_Flibble]

Is this the building by any chance?

Why would a terrorist bother to photograph it when it is on Google Earth?

Only the main entrance I think, Utrecht Central Station "Hoog Catharijne" is a much bigger complex.

[séamuis]

Except... I don't mind until it becomes the default position. A policeman in the UK is essentially a citizen in uniform. His only extra right is to arrest on suspicion. He should not be encouraged to have too high an opinion of his own importance: as the old English saying has it, "Give him an inch and he'll take a mile."

Cheers,

R.

this is exactly my position, and abiding by a request despite the fact that it is an unlawful one is just the start to giving the citizen officers more power than they need. its a slippery slope. on that I think officers in the united states have well slipped down. our officers are none better than military soldiers on the streets who view everyone as the potential enemy as opposed to citizens in which he /she has sworn to protect and defend. its a sad state of affairs, and something as small and seemly insignificant as this is use the first steps in such a thing. always stand up for your rights, no matter how insignificant your rights may seem in such a context. if you aren’t willing to stand up for them, you don’t deserve them. they are there in part to keep the citizens ‘in check’ as n law abiding, and its your job as citizens to keep them in check on the same level. just like government. its a balance. if its unlawful for an officer to ask and ID and he does I would refuse. period. maybe some of you don’t care much for your personal rights and are willing to give them, but not me.

and just to clarify, I have nothing against the police. or the idea of police officers in general so I don’t want anyone to get the wrong idea about my position on this.

[jenhao]

Thinking that showing your ID is a risk for democracy is as paranoid as excusing every police action with terrorism.

In normal times, I would agree with you but these are not normal times! Our world is changing and things that were formerly trivial are now taking on more significance...

[Roger Hicks]

In normal times, I would agree with you but these are not normal times! Our world is changing and things that were formerly trivial are now taking on more significance...

Of course they're normal times! Believing otherwise is (a) pandering to terrorists (b) pandering to authoritarian governments and their minions and (c) betraying a severe lack of historical perspective.

Cheers,

R.

[retnull]

If they are worried about terrorist they may simply just want to find out if he's a citizen or not.

Hello! Norway and Oklahoma City prove that citizens can be terrorists, too.

[tom.w.bn]

but these are not normal times!

Hm. Perhaps I'm naive or just living in a small spot that's too far away from the real world, but I consider the small world around me pretty normal. I don't think that anything changed significantly in the last 10 years when I leave aside all the things I changes personally (have a daughter, not married anymore, different job, ...)

The only thing I noticed is that police officers now wear those thin bulletproof vests all the time when they are outside because violence against police was going up. I didn't recognize a change in behavior towards normal people like me though.

[Bobbo]

I'm so glad I live in upstate New York. The only time you need to show ID is when stopped by a cop while driving (driving on public roads is considered a privilege, not a right). They can't stop you if you're taking pics in the middle of the street. If they do, you call the NPPA and the ACLU and they make sure the cop at least gets suspended and screamed at by his boss. If you're a minority, then the cop is going to be working security at Toys-R-Us, if he's lucky enough to get a job ever again. By comparison, they have to give me their full name and badge number on request.

The Dutch people should be livid over this sort of thing and try to get the law changed. Prove how many terrorists have been caught by the law, and I'm sure some liberal legislator will take up the cause.

That said, I've never been stopped while shooting. Mostly because I try not to act skeevy (I'm unemployed now, and I'm still wearing button-down shirts, non-cargo khakis and dress shoes to go get coffee and use the Internet to job hunt). Cops don't even get upset when I'm carrying what are obviously scoped, high-powered rifles to the rod and gun club (the one time I was stopped for that, the cop just wanted to fondle my 1919 Enfield No. 1 rifle).

... oh, and I'm also white. Unless you're acting like a drug dealer or are obviously drunk, nobody bothers you if you are white in my town. I have a few choice words on racial profiling, but I'll save them, as small children might be on here wanting to learn about cameras.

[j j]

Thinking that showing your ID is a risk for democracy is as paranoid as excusing every police action with terrorism.

I live in a country without ID cards. It pleases me that I do not have to prove who I am to walk down a street in my town. Am I paranoid?

[certifiable]

I'm not sure what's worse...
Not being stopped because you're white or being stopped for taking photographes.

Btw you're required to carry your id here(and be able to show it) BUT, and that's the whole point here, they NEED to have a GOOD reason to even ask you.

[MartinP]

Strangely I have been past Utrecht station many times and never felt the urge to photograph it. There are some nice canals etc. towards the older part of town though. Another problem for me, living in Holland, is that I don't have a dutch identity card to present when asked - and nor do I carry my UK passport everyday either. Ooops.

[tom.w.bn]

Am I paranoid?

Don't know. I'm not your doctor.

[certifiable]

Strangely I have been past Utrecht station many times and never felt the urge to photograph it. There are some nice canals etc. towards the older part of town though. Another problem for me, living in Holland, is that I don't have a dutch identity card to present when asked - and nor do I carry my UK passport everyday either. Ooops.

Hehe not the smartest thing, but the fine is only 35 or 50€ for not being able to id yourself and (unless they've changed it) if you're able to show it within 24 hours it's ok...

[MartinP]

Hehe not the smartest thing, but the fine is only 35 or 50€ for not being able to id yourself and (unless they've changed it) if you're able to show it within 24 hours it's ok...


Hmm, interesting to know. I'll go along to the Vreemdelingpolitie on Saturday and check what the law is. Being foreign I am specifically not allowed to have an ID card, but maybe they really do expect everyone to carry a passport when they jog round the park.

[certifiable]

Well you're not really required to carry it with you all the time, you're just required to show it when they ask... If you get my drift ;)

But I just always have my id in my wallet, the advantage of an id I guess.

[emraphoto]

If a policeman asked me for ID I don't think I would refuse to show it to them. If I have nothing to hide then why am I hiding my ID? It's just wasting both my time and the cop's time.

The whole 'if you aren't doing anything wrong...' arguement is of a singular focus. The laws apply to a society, not just you. We, as said society, have an obligation to ensure they (laws) are just and protected as well as the justice system. Regardless if he is a baker, candlestick maker or police officer the law is clear and should be protected as such. I certainly consider it my duty regardless of 'the hassle' it may cause my day.

With that said, I don't quite get the 'turn on your own citizens' approach to security. Why aren't we asking the folks dropping jdams and white phosphorous on civilians, in the name of security, to halt their activities instead? Seems like it would make a bigger dent in our 'terrorist' problem.

[chrismoret]

The Netherlands always were a fairly liberal place to live. It is sad to experience that since a few years a lot of that famous/notorious liberal climate is changing for the worst.
The incident and reaction of the police are a illustrative example.

[taskoni]

...With that said, I don't quite get the 'turn on your own citizens' approach to security. Why aren't we asking the folks dropping jdams and white phosphorous on civilians, in the name of security, to halt their activities instead? Seems like it would make a bigger dent in our 'terrorist' problem.

Well, without seeing an ID it might be hard to tell who is "your own citizen" and who's not... :bang: Or the Dutch people are so unique :confused:

[emraphoto]

Well, without seeing an ID it might be hard to tell who is "your own citizen" and who's not... :bang: Or the Dutch people are so unique :confused:

i think the laws remain fairly balanced towards citizens AND visitors.

[seakayaker1]

You get on a plane and you show your ID several times to many people who are not police without hesitation. Asked by a uniformed police officer for identification in the street and it upsets people.

Times have certainly changed in the last decade and we are all still learning to adapt. I have only been asked by a police officer to show ID when stopped for a traffic violation. If asked on the street I would probably comply. If I thought it was an abuse of power I would file a grievance. As someone mentioned above a police officer has to give his name and badge number if requested to a citizen. In these crazy times I do believe everyone is doing the best they can, some are overzealous while others may be to lax in enforcing and/or interpretation of the law. Cool heads can prevail and a free society will come into balance.

The bottom line is I have to believe that a trained professional is doing the best they can with the information they have in hand on any given day of the week. . . . . . and we all have bad days.

If I thought otherwise, I would be one paranoid sob . . . . .

[emraphoto]

It isn't about being paranoid. It's about laws, rights and us as a society doing our part in making sure they are adhered to. Regardless if you are a cop, you are expected to follow the letter of the law just as we are. The idea that somehow police officers should be afforded some sort of leeway or be able to ignore an established law is far more frightening to me than any 'terrorist'.

again, if we are so afraid of this idea of global terrorism that we are prepared to surrender our rights with little hesitation then perhaps we should address the whole 'dropping bombs on people thing'. the total percentage of civilians amongst all casualties in the past 10 years of warfare is staggering. perhaps we could ask our representitives to start 'the war on terrorism' there and leave us alone. much like many of our constitutions stipulate.

[ampguy]

I like the Netherlands, and don't like getting hassled by street photographers. I'm glad they nailed the bastid. Let's keep this country a nice place to visit and relax.

[Riverman]

In the UK (my home country - though I am currently living in the US) there is no compulsory requirement to carry ID at all times and unless a police officer has reasonable cause to arrest you, a citizen (sorry, 'subject' of the crown ;-)) is under no obligation to identify himself or herself to a police officer. There are of course some exceptions to this: for example, noone may lawfully drive without a photo ID driver's license and a traffic cop can require you to present it if pulled over.

Since the introduction of more intrusive anti-terrorism legislation in the UK, police are able to conduct 'stop and search' in certain designated areas (likely terrorist targets, stations etc) entirely at random. Normally, police have to have reasonable grounds to stop and search.

I have been randomly stopped and searched on such basis once at a major London railway station. When the junior police officer conducting the search had finished rifling through my camera bag, he asked for my personal information - name/address etc. to record in his log book. I politely told him to get stuffed unless he had reasonable grounds to suspect that I had committed or was about to commit a criminal offence, in which case he could arrest me. Furthermore, I asked junior plod to identify himself to me by his badge number and station and I diligently recorded the details in my notebook. He was quite ruffled by all this and went to speak to his sergeant. I'm pleased to say that the sergeant confirmed that I did not have to personally identify myself to junior plod, who instead took down a physical description of me in his book.

Cling to your liberties. All this compulsory identification is largely useless as far as I can tell. They're quite obsessed with it in Spain (where I was living and working in 2007) but it didn't seem to thwart to atrocities that took place there in '04.

[Keith]

In the UK (my home country - though I am currently living in the US) there is no compulsory requirement to carry ID at all times and unless a police officer has reasonable cause to arrest you, a citizen (sorry, 'subject' of the crown ;-)) is under no obligation to identify himself or herself to a police officer. There are of course some exceptions to this: for example, noone may lawfully drive without a photo ID driver's license and a traffic cop can require you to present it if pulled over.

Since the introduction of more intrusive anti-terrorism legislation in the UK, police are able to conduct 'stop and search' in certain designated areas (likely terrorist targets, stations etc) entirely at random. Normally, police have to have reasonable grounds to stop and search.

I have been randomly stopped and searched on such basis once at a major London railway station. When the junior police officer conducting the search had finished rifling through my camera bag, he asked for my personal information - name/address etc. to record in his log book. I politely told him to get stuffed unless he had reasonable grounds to suspect that I had committed or was about to commit a criminal offence, in which case he could arrest me. Furthermore, I asked junior plod to identify himself to me by his badge number and station and I diligently recorded the details in my notebook. He was quite ruffled by all this and went to speak to his sergeant. I'm pleased to say that the sergeant confirmed that I did not have to personally identify myself to junior plod, who instead took down a physical description of me in his book.

Cling to your liberties. All this compulsory identification is largely useless as far as I can tell. They're quite obsessed with it in Spain (where I was living and working in 2007) but it didn't seem to thwart to atrocities that took place there in '04.


'Cling' being the operative word! :D

The Queensland police are currently about to be given powers to randomly search minors (under seventeens here) if they are supected of carrying alcohol or anything else elicit.

:rolleyes:

[seakayaker1]

. . . . . if we are so afraid of this idea of global terrorism that we are prepared to surrender our rights with little hesitation . . . . .


I don't believe that everyone has or is surrendering rights with little hesitation.

There is a choice to get involved, vote, write letters to elected officials at all levels in government and volunteer time to a charity/social program each month within your community.

If there is any issue that is disturbing is the apathy that people have towards government and social issues.

Change is constant and we all need to be vigilant.

Life is real, but it is not reality TV.

Think Globally, Act Locally!

[pvdhaar]

All this compulsory identification is largely useless as far as I can tell..
Ah, but it does serve a purpose; it's not for nothing that it's called the boeteverdubbelaar.. (i.e. the fine-doubler).. ;)

[Mr_Flibble]

Ah, but it does serve a purpose; it's not for nothing that it's called the boeteverdubbelaar.. (i.e. the fine-doubler).. ;)

And here we get to the financial aspect of the Dutch Compulsory Identification Law.

A 'Volkskrant' article from 2006 mentions the Identifcation law is mainly used to double fines for simple transgressions: riding without a working light on your bicycle, urinating in public (hehehe: "Wild Peeing" in Dutch) etc.
The law mainly hurts beggars, hobos and teenagers according to the newspaper's investigation.

The new law was designed to improve safety and increase crime tackling efficiency and combat terrorism. But in truth it barely seem to have had any effect.

The DA has no examples of big crimes being prevented because of the Identification law.

But the new law has caused a rash of stolen or lost passports and IDs in the year after it was introduced. Of all the new passports issued in 2006 1 in 10 was because the old one was stolen. that was 24000 more then in 2004.

Between January 2005 and April 2006 the Police have issued 80000 fines based on this new law. This is equal to 3.8 million Euros that went into the government coffers.
Teenagers were fined 4 times more often then adults and the initial transgression for the fine were usually insignificant.

Further transgressions the fine is added to:
Softdrugs use, drinking in public, riding a moped without a helmet, driving without safety belts, running a red light, and not being able to show a moped certificate.

In Amsterdam the fine is usually reserved for beggars and loitering youths for begging, urinating in public, sleeping beside the road and drugs abuse.


We knew it didn't work 5 years ago, yet it is still in place.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Thinking that showing your ID is a risk for democracy is as paranoid as excusing every police action with terrorism.

That is an Absolute statement. No: it's not that "showing your ID" in itself is either "offensive" or "bothersome" or "beneath you". It's that whenever a person of authority uses it as an excuse to bait you into a situation for arresting you, specially when you are within your right not to show one, that's when it becomes "a risk for democracy".

Given that everyone, including the police, is human, and we all make mistakes and judgements (whether right or not), we need laws and rights. When police demand actions from you which you have the right not to obey, and they arrest you for exercising your rights, that is what is wrong. Again, it depends on the situation. Little dumb things like this really water down police's actions (and authority). Little petty alpha male tug-o-wars do nobody good in this sort of cases.

Looking at this as black-or-white is precisely one of the sources of the problem.

[Roger Hicks]

I'm so glad I live in upstate New York. The only time you need to show ID is when stopped by a cop while driving (driving on public roads is considered a privilege, not a right).
.

Which is in itself curious. How is it distinguished from a right? If you pass the necessary driving tests and obey the relevant laws, you are entitled to drive. How is this not a right?

In fact, the word 'privilege' means absolutely nothing in this context. My wife is from upstate New York, and as she said, "I was told this [the 'privilege' quote] too, but it doesn't bear close examination."

This is something of an aside, but it is also an insight into what we allow ourselves to be told by those in 'authority'. She forgets where she first heard it, but believes it may well have been in school. Then, in her 20s, she thought about it for a second or two and realized that it was nonsense.

Cheers,

R.

[Gabriel M.A.]

It is true: in DMVs (Department of Motor Vehicles) in the U.S., there are signs that make it a point of letting you know that driving is (their emphasis) not a right but a privilege. I think you can argue that it's not protected in the U.S. Constitution.

You have the right to request the privilege, though. It's a head-scratcher, alright.

[Roger Hicks]

It is true: in DMVs (Department of Motor Vehicles) in the U.S., there are signs that make it a point of letting you know that driving is (their emphasis) not a right but a privilege. I think you can argue that it's not protected in the U.S. Constitution.

You have the right to request the privilege, though. It's a head-scratcher, alright.

We are not obliged to believe them, however. This is pure nonsense.

I don't think that the right to drive (once won, as of right, as described above) can be taken away except by due process of law. That looks very like a right to me...

Cheers,

R.