Editors Note: Additional insights and updates are on the way. Return later this week to see what’s new.
Long before the world we are living in today, the Apostle John warned of a system that would control access to daily life: work, commerce, and survival itself. In Revelation, he describes a structure of power so pervasive that participation in society becomes conditional,
“So that they could not buy, or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.”
This passage has been interpreted for centuries in different ways: spiritual, symbolic, political. I am not offering it here as prophecy fulfilled, but as a framework that many people instinctively recognize when power, identity, and compliance begin to converge. Yes, I know what some readers may be thinking, “Here we go, religion.”
This is not about religion. It is about receipts.
The UK Precedent
The British government has announced that Digital ID will soon be mandatory for the right to work. This is not speculative; it is policy direction. Sir Keir Rodney Starmer, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, stated plainly, “Today I am announcing that this government will make a new free-of-charge Digital ID mandatory for the right to work by the end of this parliament. Let me spell that out. You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have a Digital ID. It is as simple as that.”
This marks a significant shift: employment access tied directly to a centralized digital identity system.
Why this matters for Canada
When asked what this has to do with Canada, the answer is simple: trajectory. According to The Global Digital Identity Index, Canada ranks in the Very High category for digital identity readiness, with a score of 81.5 out of 100. The report cites Canada’s advanced digitized identity records, online authentication systems, and integration across public and private services.
Efficiency is the headline. Control is the footnote. The unanswered question is not whether digital identity systems work, but who governs the governors of that data.
What civil liberties experts are warning
The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms has raised substantive concerns about Digital ID systems and their implications for privacy, autonomy, and dignity. Their analysis emphasizes that digital identity technologies enable the collection, tracking, and profiling of citizens’ personal data, often without meaningful consent or transparency. Privacy, the report notes, is not cosmetic; it is foundational to security, freedom of expression, and human dignity.
When privacy erodes, so does autonomy.
The report also highlights scale: approximately 2.3 billion digital ID applications are currently in use worldwide, with projections rising to 4.1 billion by 2027. Despite this expansion, the public is repeatedly assured that digital IDs pose no greater risk than traditional identification documents. Risks, when acknowledged, are framed as manageable by the state.
The transparency gap
Governments promote the benefits relentlessly: enhanced security, economic efficiency, intergovernmental coordination, and seamless service delivery. What is far less visible are the structural downsides.
According to the Justice Centre, some governments already use digital identity systems to restrict access to information, track behavior, and construct detailed personal profiles. These systems may impact freedom of expression, mobility, equality, and privacy, especially when developed through partnerships with entities outside Canada’s accountability frameworks.
When individuals do not know when their data is collected, where it is stored, or how it is used, informed consent becomes impossible. Combined with insufficient privacy laws and institutional indifference, the power imbalance grows.
The question Canadians must ask
This is about resisting unquestioned compulsion. When access to work, movement, or participation in society becomes conditional on compliance with opaque systems, citizens have a responsibility to pause, not panic, but interrogate.
Who benefits most from this control?
Who bears the risk when safeguards fail?
Who decides when participation becomes permission-based?
Stay in the loop with exclusive news, stories, and insights—delivered straight to your inbox. No fluff, just real content that matters. Sign up today!
