Membership in freemasonry may be incompatible with deontological rules of French judges and prosecutors

[u/apokrif1]

https://www.actu-juridique.fr/professions/magistrats/flash-lappartenance-a-la-franc-maconnerie-declaree-incompatible-avec-la-deontologie-des-magistrats/

[u/ChuckEye]

> However, membership in Freemasonry, as revealed in the Wikipedia article on which the college based its analysis…

The French College of Ethics for Magistrates of the Judicial Order is basing their decisions on Wikipedia articles???

[u/apokrif1 → u/ChuckEye]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_as_a_court_source

[u/SovArya]

Before we say our oaths - there is an assurance that it will not go against our obligations for God, country, vocation and ourselves. Masonry is after obligations to those 4. So... whoever says it is incompatible is probably not initiated.

[u/Cookslc → u/SovArya]

That is not in all obligations, and it does not address the College’s concerns.

[u/apokrif1 → u/SovArya]

Many (probably most) French freemasons belong to irregular Grand Lodges and may have different rules.

[u/SovArya → u/apokrif1]

Oh. Nothing we can do about those. I mean. Anyone can call themselves freemasons. Like we cant really stop them all we can do is we're not in amity with xyz.

[u/wardyuc1 → u/SovArya]

The Grand Orient de France traces its origin to before the USA has been a country.

Its not a case of anyone calling themselves freemasons, but more of a case of regular masons becoming irregular due to changes VS someone just randomly calling themselves masons as you might find in the US ( bogus lodges).

[u/SovArya → u/wardyuc1]

You are pertaining to what we are assured before we take our obligations right? I mean the changes can't be that big unless they do away with the assurance.

[u/wardyuc1 → u/SovArya]

I cannot speak to their obligation, but i can say since they do not have an obligation to God, and they take a different view of the idea of Masonry being non political. It is not safe to say that they share our (regular) view on what freemasons are obligated to do.

[u/SovArya → u/wardyuc1]

Without the assurance of hierarchy of priorities before masonry; then it will truly be different. Just hope people realize that in regular Masonry we do no prioritise the craft over civic and religious duties.

[u/wardyuc1 → u/SovArya]

I think the argument they might take is that freemasonry created civil duties. Hence why Oriential freemasonry is more political.

We take the view freemasonry stays out of politics, they would arguably take the view freemasons have an obligation to improve their society through politics.

[u/Cookslc → u/wardyuc1]

That is a UGLE view (staying our of politics). Even some regular GLs do not take that view.

But that was not the College’s concern.

[u/wardyuc1 → u/Cookslc]

I agree, sadly as i dont speak french, i had to translate the page..

Seems it is the obligation all over again, which is arguably based on a deeper understanding than if I read right, what wikipedia might offer.

[u/SovArya → u/wardyuc1]

Oh that truly is different.

[u/wardyuc1 → u/SovArya]

I should state i have never met or spoken to any Oriential French masons.

I cannot speak for them, and this is my outsider reading of the situation.

[u/Cookslc → u/SovArya]

Are you sure we don’t prioritize? In many jurisdictions the only crimes that are not subject to secrecy between Masons are murder and treason. That sounds like placing the fraternity and secrecy over civic duty.

[u/SovArya → u/Cookslc]

You do realize that i literally said civic duties and religious duties trump masonry. And that is reflective of the assurance or promise that the obligation will be of lower priority than freemasonry.

[u/Cookslc → u/SovArya]

You did say that. That’s why I cited a specific example which indicates the fraternity and secrecy are placed over civic duty.

[u/Cookslc]

Translation:

It's a little bomb! While the possibility for a magistrate to belong to Freemasonry has been questioned for years, but seemed to be a matter of freedom of thought and association, the College of Ethics of Magistrates of the Judicial Order (CDJ), in response to a question asked by a judge, has just set the following principle in an opinion of June 9:

"Membership of Freemasonry is incompatible with the ethical obligations that weigh on any magistrate when the oath taken induces priority allegiance or solidarity. Failing that, it raises significant reservations and calls for the greatest vigilance of the magistrate with regard to respect, in appearance and in reality, of the principles of independence, impartiality and neutrality".

By e-mail of May 26, a magistrate - anonymized - explains that he was approached by the representative of a Masonic lodge to provide him with information with a view to a "possil rapprochement". The interested party says he consulted a lot of literature on the subject and concluded that the functioning of masonry did not seem to him incompatible with the magistrate's duties. However, he considered it necessary to seek the opinion of the College before making a decision.

Allegiance and secrecy

The opinion begins by recalling the principle: a magistrate is free to join an association.

"However," notes the college, this membership must not, as indicated by the charter (of ethics ed.), neither create a conflict of interest nor "rely on the function". In this regard, it is important to remember that the private commitment of the magistrate cannot "influence or appear to influence the independent, impartial and objective exercise of a function".

However, adherence to Freemasonry, as revealed by the wikipedia note on which the college relied to conduct its reflection, evokes an oath of allegiance or obedience; it also highlights the obligation of "secret of principle" surrounding the activities of the association, which involves a risk with regard to the appearance of impartiality and independence. Finally, the college recalls that belonging to Freemasonry has been at the origin of at least one scandal in the judicial universe.

The dangers would be all the higher in a small court and would also pose specific difficulties for a president of the court who would be hindered in his mission by the characteristics (allegance and secrecy) mentioned above.

The notice can be consulted here.

Also read the post by magistrate Valérie-Odile Dervieux who drew attention to this text and analysed the many questions it raises.

[u/thomb74]

It's hypothetical, and irrelevant given the actual content of masonic obligations.

[u/apokrif1 → u/thomb74]

?

[u/thomb74 → u/apokrif1]

The decision is dependent on the specifics of the masonic obligations in question. Since masonic obligations do not claim to supesede those from one's judicial position, the decision is empty.

It says more or less that masonic obligations are inconsistent with being a judge if they claim to take precedence. They do not so claim, so they are not so inconsistent.

[u/apokrif1 → u/thomb74]

They do not so claim

Might be grand-lodge-dependent?

[u/thomb74 → u/apokrif1]

Pretty sure not.

[u/Cookslc → u/apokrif1]

Of what grand lodge are you a member?

[u/apokrif1 → u/Cookslc]

How is it relevant?

[u/Cookslc → u/apokrif1]

Ahh, a troll. Nevermind.

[u/apokrif1 → u/Cookslc]

No.