Members of the organisation Say No to ID Card wish to show their protest on a larger scale. Meetings have been scheduled to convey their points of view to the Mauritian population at large. They have come up with a number of arguments to show that the new system is irrelevant to the needs of today’s world.
Ever since the new identity card system was proclaimed, some Mauritians had been hesitant towards the whole concept of it. Some even showed great disapproval to the new ID card. While many have already had their new card made, many others have not even gone forward with it, with no intention of doing so in the future.
Now, the question of the new identity card is in the limelight again, following the exposure of certain discrepancies on the website of the system of new ID card. As if backed up by the recent event, the organisation Say No to ID Card has spoken out concerning the issue of taking down fingerprints for identification purposes. Ivor Tan Yan, a member of the organisation, said that fingerprints belong to the individual, having nothing to do with identity. According to him, there is no use for having them imprinted on the identity card. He announced that they will mount a protest against the new ID card by the end of August.
The members of the platform wish to enlist the participation of the Mauritian population. Letters have been sent to people across the island and a meeting has been scheduled for next week. They intend to organise a major meeting soon to mobilise people from all over the country. They argue that information like first name, surname, date and place of birth are enough to establish the identity of the person. Why the need for fingerprints? According to them, this is not needed at all. They also argue that those who have already given out their fingerprints for the making of their new ID card had not even signed any document to show their consent for the procedure.
Their arguments against the new system abound. They also say that in case a person does not show his ID card, the police could compel him to do so, else, he would have to pay a fine of Rs 100 000 and 5 years of imprisonment, these sanctions being enough of a deterrent in their opinion.