Following a European Court of Human Rights decision, Justice Secretary Jack Straw has reversed a decade-long policy that required new judges to declare whether they were Freemasons upon being appointed.  Current statistics show that 5.4% of judges and 6.4% of magistrates are recognised as brethren.

Even though it was Jack Straw himself, at the time Home Secretary, who helped initiate the policy to begin with: he now believes that it 'would be disproportionate to continue the collection or retention of this information.'  Given that the requirement was intended to give the public confidence in the judicial system, the fact that there are many other avenues and safeguards to ensure against such dishonesty makes the policy unnecessary.

It is good to see that this needless, and prejudiced, requirement has been revoked.  Not least of which because it shows that the fears about conspiracy amongst Freemasons in the judicial system is completely unfounded (although, this will only raise more suspicion from the dedicated anti-Masons), but more for the wider implications that relate to our freedom of association.

There are many judges and magistrates who are very open about their affiliation with Freemasonry, but that should be their own decision.  Given the rather hostile nature with which many people still treat Freemasons, it is not surprising that there are many in the public eye who do not wish to open themselves up to prejudiced attack.

Not only this, but the policy itself was brought about because of a hysterical attitude towards Freemasons that was not founded upon any documented abuse of fraternal bonds by a judge.  This last point seems to be one that many people overlook, and it just goes to show that the fact that there was a policy at all is cause enough for people to feel justified in their suspicions towards Freemasonry.   

You can read more about this latest change in policy over at The Times Online.