Over 300 Masonic Membership Among Met Police Sparks Corruption Concerns and Legal Challenge

The Metropolitan Police Service (Met) enacted a policy that compels officers and employees to disclose membership in hierarchical societies such as Freemasonry.

The procedure has led to legal action by Freemason societies that triggered a question of privacy, prejudice, and the influence of secret societies in law enforcement.

To date, about 316 officers and personnel have already disclosed their association with Freemasonry or other organisations and admitted being members.

Transparency from the brotherhood or sisterhood

In December, the Met declared a new policy requiring all officers and staff to disclose whether they had been or still are engaged with organisations that have been described as exhibiting hierarchy, confidentiality, and a mutual support system.

Such groups include the famous Freemasonry, of which police officers have been a part of the members.

The policy will aim at enhancing transparency and consideration of issues related to integrity and influence in the force.

It has, however, been met with almost instant resistance by the Freemason organisations, who say that the policy has encroached on the privacy rights of the members and is a form of discrimination on the basis of religious or philosophical affiliation.

The court observed that this figure is a considerable percentage of members, yet the overall number of officers in the service is over 30,000.

Criminal trials and lawsuits due to religious discrimination

Of the Met, Freemason societies such as the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), the Order of Women Freemasons, and the Honourable Fraternity of Ancient Freemasons have also filed legal actions to have the policy stopped by injunction.

They claim that it is religious discrimination and is against the human rights laws, especially in the areas of privacy and free association.

UGLE said in a statement, 'While this policy stigmatises all Freemasons, it is deeply regrettable that those hardworking and honourable men and women that wish to keep their Freemasonry private are being threatened with disciplinary sanction if they do not comply with a policy that is clearly discriminatory, unlawful, and wrong, in violation of their right to privacy.'

One of the High Court judges, Mr Justice Chamberlain, recognised the current legal challenge and said that there was at present no sense of urgency in regard to interim relief, as most officers had already come out and said they were affiliated, and the Met had not yet said that it would discipline non-disclosure officers.

According to Chamberlain, the Met 'agreed to consider whether to withdraw the challenged decision in the light of representations.'

It is also in question in the court whether the Freemason organisations could withhold names during the proceedings, where the Met is arguing that some affiliations have already been exposed through some posts on social media.

Freemason groups have been against the policy, stating that it stigmatises the members of the group and denies them their rights to privacy and expression of their religious beliefs.

They argue that the officers surveyed to form the policy were only a tiny percentage of the total number and that Freemasonry membership is very personal and subjective, unlike being a danger to the integrity of the force.

Secret memberships may destroy public trust and transparency

The Met justifies the policy in the name of regaining the trust of people and bringing about transparency to the force. Authorities also point to a survey that suggests that a majority of officers are in favour of the ban since they think that covert memberships would destroy the perception of fairness and honesty.

Other investigations and misconduct alleging Masonic influence and practices are also noted by the department, and therefore, it could also help stop corruption or unfair influence in policing by disclosures.

Critics of the policy, however, say that the policy would have chilling effects on the privacy liberties of the officers and might discriminate against Freemasons on the basis of stereotypes and unsubstantiated links with corruption.

The Freemasons argue that their group is a fraternity that is charitable and social and not involved with criminal activities, and its members should be respected in their rights.

What the bigger picture says

Freemasonry is an old institution in Britain, and most police officers have a history of participating in lodges like Manor of St James's in the Met officers and Sine Favore of the Police Federation.

Whereas membership is seen as a harmless social or charity pursuit by others, there is concern among others that there might be covert influence in the social institutions.

The Freemason organisations claim that compelling the members to reveal their memberships violates the religious liberties and privacy legislation, particularly as the association is usually customary and an issue of self-conviction.

In the meantime, the Met focuses on the purpose of the policy, which is to support the integrity and confidence of the population. The result of the court proceedings may have a precedent for the manner in which the secret society memberships would be addressed in the UK in the context of the public service and law enforcement.