Foreign News: Individualist

Peppery Yorkshireman Clarence Henry Willcock, 55, had no intention of making himself a cause célébre. He was simply fed up. When a burly constable armed with all the majesty of entrenched bureaucracy stopped him for speeding in a London suburb last year, Harry's reflexes crystallized. "All right, now," Police Constable Muckle told Harry, when he pulled to a stop, "let's see your identity card." Since the first days of World War II, all Britons have been required to carry identity cards and produce them on demand, but Harry's jaw was set. "No," he answered. Constable Muckle rubbed his chin. "Will you produce it within two days at a police station?" he asked. "No," said Harry Willcock.

In due course, Harry was summoned to court and told he must show his card. But the seed of liberty had taken root, and Harry was not prepared to let things go at that. Despite the fact that no penalty had been imposed for his willfulness, he appealed his case. Last week seven judges of Britain's High Court decided that Harry was technically guilty and liable for £500 in costs. However, said Lord Chief Justice Rayner Goddard: "For the police to demand an identity card from all and sundry except when looking for a stolen car or criminals, is wholly unreasonable." His words, most regimented Britons agreed, gave the moral victory to Harry. "Every man and woman in Britain," crowed the Daily Mail, "will soon share in the fruits."

Soon after the court's decision, five more Britons were charged with refusing to show their identity cards. The lower courts dismissed every case. As Liberals and Tories began clamoring for repeal of the registration act, the London Observer pronounced it "intolerable" that Britons should be required to show cards like some slave-unit in a totalitarian state.

Bowing before the rising wind of public opinion, authorities in London and Birmingham instructed police to stop asking motorists for identity cards.