Something rather similar happened to one of our Lodges here in Washington a number of years ago. They regularly rented, unknowingly, to a really problematic group, because they didn't look into the group or what it was using the building for.
I don't think we need huge checklists when we are looking to rent out our buildings, but I do think we need to hold a few objective standards so that we know who is using our building and for what purpose.
We've had members of our legislature come visit on several occasions, typically from one side of the isle. We didn't really discuss politics. And no one batted an eye. No one picketed our lodge, or protested. Certainly didn't even make the local news.
Of course, there are certain groups we'd deny renting our hall, if we knew what they were beforehand. Nazi's holding a rally, or Antifa hosting a planning meeting for example. We have one person who manages the rentals, and I'd trust his judgement not to get us on the news.
I do agree, however, that caving to pressures from groups just because they dislike the political leanings is a recipe for disaster. We see this all the time, protests against (mainly) conservative speakers at college campuses - the one place that is supposed to be open to a fair and honest discussion between points of view - and the administration pulls permits in order to "keep the peace". Such moral cowards and showcases their biases.
We also suffer from caring about public perception a bit too much, IMO. For the conspiracy nuts, no amount of logic and reason will ever change their minds, much like the flat earthers, so why bother?
I don’t think you realise how badly regarded this McGregor character is in Ireland. And being associated with him is not really what an organisation which professes “making good men better” would want to be. This is not about politics but about values.
I can't claim to know much at all about Mr. McGregor, other than that he is a UFC champion (I've never watched the UFC, so that is the full extent of my knowledge) and that he and I seem to share a great affinity for Foggy Dew sung by Sinead O'Connor, so I won't argue against your point.
But, I will say that this entire situation could have been avoided had the Grand Lodge had reasonable, objective standards in place for outside rentals.
Two come to mind:
-Do we know who will be using the building?
-No political content within the building.
The Grand Lodge says that it did not know who would be using the building until just prior to the event. I have to wonder why that would ever be thought a good way of doing business.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me, given Freemasonry's prohibition on political discussion to bar outside rentals when the purpose is political. And this was, I didn't watch much of the interview, but it is clear in it that the interview is taking place because Mr. McGregor is considering a run for high office.
Had either of those objective standards been in place, the incident could have been avoided.
Had it gone off anyway, because someone rented it fraudulently, then having written, objective standards in place could have illustrated that fraud.
There is one other thing about this incident that really bothered me, but that I didn't include in the post:
This from the Guardian article, referring to the remarks of the Grand Secretary:
"Daley said he allowed the interview to proceed after an assurance from Carlson’s company that all of the backgrounds would be blurred and that there would be no reference to the Freemasons’ Hall."
If it was wrong to do it with clear backgrounds, it would have been just as wrong to do it with blurred backgrounds.
The argument made by the GS here can be compared to an argument claiming that 'stealing is only wrong if you get caught.'
But this moves away from my primary argument that all of this could have been avoided had there been objective standards in place for the consideration of outside rentals. We should, as Freemasons everywhere, be able to learn this lesson from this situation, to ensure that something similar doesn't happen in the future.
Brother, I appreciate you drawing attention to things like this, though I wish it had been avoided.
It is great to see this kind of topic and discussion taking place and drawing attention to the challenges of navigating public sentiment as an apolitical organization. I think that understanding the legal and social expectations that our organizations face will be critical in ensuring the continuity of our fraternity in an increasingly litigious society.
Getting involved in controversy is easy, and avoiding controversy is difficult. We serve together on our Grand Lodge Government Relations Committee, MW, and many a brother in our jurisdiction has been surprised when we decline to get involved in what appear to some as "motherhood and apple pie" causes in the name of avoiding controversy.
As a sometimes author of policies, the Temple/Masonic Building Association reserves the right to deny rentals to individuals and organizations that are the subject of public controversy. In my experience, this involves asking the renter about the nature of their event and the potential for heated public debate.
I believe that inviting elected public officials who are not currently active in reelection activities is an appropriate Lodge program, either during refreshments or before or after the tiled meeting. Elected public officials speak to nonpartisan community groups regularly, and in my experience, when reminded of the nonpartisan nature of Freemasonry, are willing to avoid partisan controversy.
In my 32 years in Freemasonry I have visited about 250 Lodges all over Canada, the USA and Mexico where I now reside!... all I don't need is more left wing nattering. We have many of all stripes both political and religious. Would these nut bags be screaming at hotels and arenas that host meetings that didn't please them?... I hope not! And the GL of Ireland is just as chicken kaka as can be.
I got into a discussion the other night about some folks that thought it was a good idea to keep their mouths shut about other people's religious choices and talk about more important things... I told them they should maybe find out a bit more what Masonry is all about and do the same thing with politics while they're at it!.
How can you do that was asked to which I answered that there are far more interesting things for people to talk about than sectoral religion and partisan politics... especially in today's world!
That's interesting. Neither of my lodges have an objective policy on rentals. Thank you for bringing light to a potential weakness.
Something rather similar happened to one of our Lodges here in Washington a number of years ago. They regularly rented, unknowingly, to a really problematic group, because they didn't look into the group or what it was using the building for.
I don't think we need huge checklists when we are looking to rent out our buildings, but I do think we need to hold a few objective standards so that we know who is using our building and for what purpose.
We've had members of our legislature come visit on several occasions, typically from one side of the isle. We didn't really discuss politics. And no one batted an eye. No one picketed our lodge, or protested. Certainly didn't even make the local news.
Of course, there are certain groups we'd deny renting our hall, if we knew what they were beforehand. Nazi's holding a rally, or Antifa hosting a planning meeting for example. We have one person who manages the rentals, and I'd trust his judgement not to get us on the news.
I do agree, however, that caving to pressures from groups just because they dislike the political leanings is a recipe for disaster. We see this all the time, protests against (mainly) conservative speakers at college campuses - the one place that is supposed to be open to a fair and honest discussion between points of view - and the administration pulls permits in order to "keep the peace". Such moral cowards and showcases their biases.
We also suffer from caring about public perception a bit too much, IMO. For the conspiracy nuts, no amount of logic and reason will ever change their minds, much like the flat earthers, so why bother?
I don’t think you realise how badly regarded this McGregor character is in Ireland. And being associated with him is not really what an organisation which professes “making good men better” would want to be. This is not about politics but about values.
I can't claim to know much at all about Mr. McGregor, other than that he is a UFC champion (I've never watched the UFC, so that is the full extent of my knowledge) and that he and I seem to share a great affinity for Foggy Dew sung by Sinead O'Connor, so I won't argue against your point.
But, I will say that this entire situation could have been avoided had the Grand Lodge had reasonable, objective standards in place for outside rentals.
Two come to mind:
-Do we know who will be using the building?
-No political content within the building.
The Grand Lodge says that it did not know who would be using the building until just prior to the event. I have to wonder why that would ever be thought a good way of doing business.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me, given Freemasonry's prohibition on political discussion to bar outside rentals when the purpose is political. And this was, I didn't watch much of the interview, but it is clear in it that the interview is taking place because Mr. McGregor is considering a run for high office.
Had either of those objective standards been in place, the incident could have been avoided.
Had it gone off anyway, because someone rented it fraudulently, then having written, objective standards in place could have illustrated that fraud.
There is one other thing about this incident that really bothered me, but that I didn't include in the post:
This from the Guardian article, referring to the remarks of the Grand Secretary:
"Daley said he allowed the interview to proceed after an assurance from Carlson’s company that all of the backgrounds would be blurred and that there would be no reference to the Freemasons’ Hall."
If it was wrong to do it with clear backgrounds, it would have been just as wrong to do it with blurred backgrounds.
The argument made by the GS here can be compared to an argument claiming that 'stealing is only wrong if you get caught.'
But this moves away from my primary argument that all of this could have been avoided had there been objective standards in place for the consideration of outside rentals. We should, as Freemasons everywhere, be able to learn this lesson from this situation, to ensure that something similar doesn't happen in the future.
Brother, I appreciate you drawing attention to things like this, though I wish it had been avoided.
It is great to see this kind of topic and discussion taking place and drawing attention to the challenges of navigating public sentiment as an apolitical organization. I think that understanding the legal and social expectations that our organizations face will be critical in ensuring the continuity of our fraternity in an increasingly litigious society.
Getting involved in controversy is easy, and avoiding controversy is difficult. We serve together on our Grand Lodge Government Relations Committee, MW, and many a brother in our jurisdiction has been surprised when we decline to get involved in what appear to some as "motherhood and apple pie" causes in the name of avoiding controversy.
As a sometimes author of policies, the Temple/Masonic Building Association reserves the right to deny rentals to individuals and organizations that are the subject of public controversy. In my experience, this involves asking the renter about the nature of their event and the potential for heated public debate.
I believe that inviting elected public officials who are not currently active in reelection activities is an appropriate Lodge program, either during refreshments or before or after the tiled meeting. Elected public officials speak to nonpartisan community groups regularly, and in my experience, when reminded of the nonpartisan nature of Freemasonry, are willing to avoid partisan controversy.
In my 32 years in Freemasonry I have visited about 250 Lodges all over Canada, the USA and Mexico where I now reside!... all I don't need is more left wing nattering. We have many of all stripes both political and religious. Would these nut bags be screaming at hotels and arenas that host meetings that didn't please them?... I hope not! And the GL of Ireland is just as chicken kaka as can be.
I got into a discussion the other night about some folks that thought it was a good idea to keep their mouths shut about other people's religious choices and talk about more important things... I told them they should maybe find out a bit more what Masonry is all about and do the same thing with politics while they're at it!.
How can you do that was asked to which I answered that there are far more interesting things for people to talk about than sectoral religion and partisan politics... especially in today's world!
Bro. Francis Dryden