Lodge objection
Sir: Mr Matthew Parris's delightful tirade against the importunate questions which now appear on official forms (Another voice, 29 August) echoed a little more som- brely for those of us who are Freemasons and who discover that a unilateral and covertly determined decision of Her Majesty's government has had the result that in what is now a wide variety of areas of public appointment we, and we alone, are required to account in writing for what we lawfully do in our private time.
As with the questions Mr Parris objected to, the answering of the question 'Are you a Freemason?' does not give us the least dif- ficulty, but we feel less sure than he that the inquiry is innocent, and greatly troubled that merely as a result of mistaken precon- ceptions concerning a perfectly conspicu- ous, law-abiding, well-intentioned and hugely charitable organisation, an improper and unjustifiable question is now being put to Freemasons which is not, as it were, put to anyone else.
The starting-point of Mr Parris's article was discrimination: 'Race: please tick box.' Our concern is not dissimilar.
Geoffrey Lee
9 Beech Court, Liverpool
Previous page
