ACLU of Oklahoma Files Federal Lawsuit on Behalf of Student Accused of
"Hexing" a Teacher
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, October 26, 2000

TULSA, OK--In a case reminiscent of the Salem Witch trials, the American Civil
Liberties Union of Oklahoma today filed a federal lawsuit charging that school
officials violated 15-year-old Brandi Blackbear's rights when they accused
her of casting a hex that resulted in a teacher's illness.

"These outlandish accusations have made Brandi Blackbear's life at school
unbearable," said Joann Bell, Executive Director of the ACLU of Oklahoma. "I
for one would like to see the so-called evidence this school has that a
15-year-old girl made a grown man sick by casting a magic spell."

While the ACLU has defended students' religious beliefs in Wicca and other
minority religions, Bell said the Oklahoma lawsuit is believed to be the first
in the country involving actual accusations of witchcraft.

In its legal complaint filed today in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma, the ACLU said that school officials not only suspended
Blackbear for 15 days in December 1999 for allegedly casting spells, but also
violated her religious freedom when they told her that she could not wear or
draw in school any symbols related to the Wicca religion.

The ACLU lawsuit also accuses school officials of violating the young woman's
due process rights when, in the spring of 1999, they suspended her for 19 days
over the content of private writings taken from her book bag. Officials had
searched her possessions based on a rumor that Blackbear was carrying a gun,
although no weapon of any sort was ever found. To date, school officials have
not returned Blackbear's writings to her.

Before these incidents, the ACLU complaint said, Brandi Blackbear had no
discipline problems and had a perfect attendance record. Since being accused,
she has "suffered continuous ridicule and humiliation," and "become an outcast
among her fellow students," according to the complaint. She has also fallen
behind in her school work because of the suspensions. 

"It's hard for me to believe that in the year 2000 I am walking into court
to defend my daughter against charges of witchcraft brought by her own
school," said Timothy Blackbear. "But if that's what it takes to clear her
record and get her life back to normal, that's what we'll do."

The ACLU is seeking an undisclosed amount of punitive and financial damages
on the Blackbear family's behalf, a declaration that the school violated the
student's rights, an injunction preventing the school from banning the wearing
of any non-Christian religious paraphernalia and an order expunging her school
record.

"The actions of the school have inflicted severe emotional damage on a very
sensitive young woman. This lawsuit will allow her to reclaim some of her
self-esteem by vindicating the violation of her rights in a court of law,"
said John M. Butler, an ACLU cooperating attorney.

The case is Blackbear v. Union Public School Independent District No. 9, et
al. Defendants named in the lawsuit are Union Eighth Grade Center Principal
Jack Ojala, Speech Therapist/Counselor Catherine Miller, Union High School
Assistant Principal Charlie Bushyhead and Counselor Sandy Franklin. 

The Blackbear family is represented by ACLU cooperating attorneys John M.
Butler and Aundrea R. Smith of Tulsa.

Although today's case may well be the first in which a student has been
accused of actually using witchcraft against a teacher, the ACLU has defended
other students who have professed interest in Wicca. In March 1999, a Michigan
school settled a lawsuit brought by the state ACLU on behalf of a Wiccan
student who was not allowed to wear a pentacle, a symbol of the Wicca
religion.

The Wicca religion has been recognized in United States courts and by the
United States Army Chaplain's Handbook. It stresses individual enlightenment
and Celebrates the seasons and the four elements: earth, wind, fire and water.
Proselytizing is forbidden. 

The ACLU complaint is available online at
www.aclu.org/court/blackbear_complaint.html. 
  
===

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 


Case No.
ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED 
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

___________________________________________________ 

BRANDI BLACKBEAR a minor, acting by and through her guardians TIMOTHY
BLACKBEAR, her father and TONI BLACKBEAR, her mother, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

UNION PUBLIC SCHOOL INDEPENDENT DISTRICT NO. 9, Tulsa County, Tulsa, Oklahoma,
JACK OJALA, in his individual and official capacity, CATHERINE MILLER, in her
individual and official capacity, CHARLIE BUSHYHEAD, in his individual and
official capacity, SANDY FRANKLIN, in her official capacity, PHILIP BARR, in
his individual and official capacity, WILLIAM BRUNER, in his individual and
official capacity, DEREK RADER, in his individual and official capacity, FRANK
SPIEGLEBERG, in his individ ual and official capacity, and JAMES WILLIAMS,
in his individual and official capacity, 

Defendants. 

___________________________________________________ 

COMPLAINT 

I 

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Brandi Blackbear, through her guardians and next
friend, Timothy Blackbear, her father, and Toni Blackbear, her mother, by and
through their counsel of record, John Mack Butler and Aundrea R. Smith, for
the firm John Mack Butler and Associates, and for their cause of action
against the Defendants, would show the Court as follows:

Jurisdiction and Venue 

II 

This action arises under the Constitution of the United States, particularly
the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution
of the United States, and under the laws of the United States, particularly
the Civil Rights Act, Title 42 U.S.C.__ 1983 and 1985.

III 

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of Title 28
U.S.C. __ 1331 and 1343.

IV 

Venue is properly placed in this District Court pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C.
_ 1391.

Parties 

V 

The Plaintiff, Brandi Blackbear, is a fifteen-year-old female residing in the
City of Tulsa who is presently enrolled at Tulsa Union Public Schools. Timothy
Blackbear is the father of Brandi Blackbear, and Toni Blackbear is the mother
of Brandi Blackbear, serving as next friend and guardian ad litem for the
purposes of this action. The Plaintiffs are now, and at all times mentioned,
citizens of the United States of America and residents of Tulsa County,
Oklahoma.

VI 

1. Union Public School Independent District No. 9, Tulsa County is a publicly
funded school responsible for the education, welfare and well-being of all
of its students. It is also the employer of all of the other Defendants listed
herein. Defendant is also responsible for establishing its policies and
procedures and the guidelines established and followed by its employees and
is therefore a proper defendant in this case.

2. Defendant Jack Ojala is the Principal at the Union Eighth Grade Center,
and is sued both in his individual and official capacity, and is responsible
for establishing and implementing both official and unofficial procedures and
guidelines for the eighth grade at all times pertinent hereto.

3. Defendant Catherine Miller is a speech therapist and counselor at the Union
Eighth Grade Center, and is being sued in her individual and official capacity
and was directly involved with Principal Jack Ojala in violating the
Plaintiff's civil rights.

4. Defendant Charlie Bushyhead is Assistant Principal at Union Intermediate
High School, and is sued in his individual and official capacity as an
employee of Union Public School Independent District No. 9, Tulsa County, and
was responsible for making policy and determining procedure and the following
of the policies, both written and non-written, of the Union Public Schools.


5. Defendant Sandy Franklin is a counselor employed by the Union Public School
Independent District No. 9 and is sued in her individual and official
capacity.

6. Defendants Philip Barr, William Bruner, Derek Rader, Frank Spiegelberg,
and James Williams are members of the school board of Tulsa Union Public
Schools with the responsibility of public schools within Tulsa Union
Independent School District No. 9 and are empowered to oversee the
disciplining of pupils. They are being sued in both their official and
individual capacity.

Cause of Action 

VII 

1. For a considerable period of time prior to April 28, 1999, the Plaintiff
Brandi Blackbear had been an aspiring creative writer. She had spent a lot
of time studying the novelist Stephen King and wanted to be able to write the
same type of fictional horror stories that King writes. She had several
notebooks containing short stories that she had written, or ideas that an
aspiring young author would put down on paper and try to develop to further
her career and future as a fiction writer.

2. The first incident surrounding and giving cause to the Plaintiff's civil
rights cause of action occurred shortly after the Columbine High School
incident in Littleton, Colorado on April 21, 1999. Much of the school
administration was acting very fearfully although they had no reason to
believe that a similar type of incident would occur at the Union Public
Schools.

3. Sometime prior to April 28th, 1999, Catherine Miller, speech therapist and
counselor for the Plaintiff, and Jack Ojala, the principal at the Eighth Grade
Union Public School, had heard by way of rumor that the Plaintiff had written
some short stories and that she had written something about an incident at
a school. They then proceeded to interrogate and investigate the Plaintiff,
Brandi Blackbear.

4. Plaintiff carried a backpack with all of her school books and supplies
which had been left in a locked room. On April 28, 1999, Defendants Ojala and
Miller proceeded to open her backpack and search her personal effects under
the guise of looking for a gun. Unable to find a gun or anything that could
be considered a weapon, they confiscated all of her notes, school work, and
private notebooks, read through many of the stories, and eventually came upon
a story involving a fictitious shooting incident on a school bus. 

5. Upon reading the Plaintiff's fictional narrative, a literary work in
progress, Defendant Jack Ojala and Defendant Catherine Miller panicked and
assumed that Brandi Blackbear was going to create an incident, and that the
Plaintiff was a deadly threat to all of the students because of the incident
at Columbine High School.

6. After reading the Plaintiff's notebook, the Defendants Ojala and Miller
notified her parents and summarily informed them that she would be suspended
from school. 

7. On April 28, 1999, at approximately 10:15 a.m., the parents of Brandi
Blackbear received a call from an official at the Union Eighth Grade Center
advising them of their need to come to the school immediately because of
problems with Brandi Blackbear. They had no previous notice, nor were they
advised of the nature of the violation until they arrived at school. The
Plaintiff was suspended for nineteen (19) days beginning April 28, 1999, and
was not allowed to return to school until the first day of classes of the fall
term of 1999-2000.

8. On the 29th day of April, 1999, the school held a kangaroo-type court, due
process hearing consisting of school employees and including those that would
not be fair and impartial to the Plaintiff. At that stage, the Plaintiff, who
was basically denied due process, and her parents were advised that it was
a waste of time for them to appeal the case any further. The Plaintiff's
parents did not receive notice of the appeal deadline until the day of same.

9. As a result of the school officials' actions, the Plaintiff became an
outcast among many of her peers and suffered extreme ridicule and harassment
by other students, some even asking the Plaintiff if they were on her "hit
list."

10. The Plaintiff enrolled in the 9th grade at Union Intermediate High School
at the beginning of the fall term of 1999. She continued to suffer
embarrassment, ridicule, and comments from other students that had been at
the previous school, who had heard the rumors started by that school's
officials. There were no other problems except that because of the school's
suspension, the Plaintiff suffered severely in the area of math and could not
properly catch up the next fall in order to continue with her education
without making bad grades.

11. After the semester started in the fall of 1999, the Plaintiff discovered
a book that had a section on Wicca in the school library. She started to read
the book, make notes, and do some individual study. She was seen by other
students with the book and some comments were made jokingly about her studying
the religion of Wicca. 

12. On or about the weekend prior to December 13, 1999 one of the school
teachers, a Mr. Kemp, had to be admitted to the hospital on an emergency
basis. The nature of his illness or disability was unknown to the Plaintiff
at that time and is still unknown.

13. The second incident surrounding and giving cause to the Plaintiff's civil
rights cause of action occurred on or about the 13th day of December, 1999,
Defendant Charlie Bushyhead, the Assistant Principal for Union Intermediate
High School, along with Defendant Sandy Franklin, a counselor at Union Public
Schools, sent for Brandi and had her come into the office. When she arrived
at the office, Defendant Bushyhead started being hostile towards her and
accused her of being a witch.

14. Defendant, Sandy Franklin, was supposed to have been a counselor and had
been helping the Plaintiff, Brandi Blackbear, but instead at this time joined
in the interrogation. Defendant Bushyhead and Defendant Franklin repeatedly
accused the Plaintiff of being a member of Wicca, practicing Wicca, and
casting spells on other people. Plaintiff, Brandi Blackbear, repeatedly denied
these accusations until such point as she was not emotionally strong enough
to deny. She admitted that she had been reading books about Wicca and that
she could be a member of a Wicca coven, although she had been heretofore been
studying Wicca independently. Plaintiff Brandi Blackbear admitted this only
because of the continued hostility and oppression by the Defendants.

15. The Plaintiff had a star drawn on her hand in ink, similar to the star
that is printed on the flag of the United States of America, with a circle
drawn around it. Defendant Bushyhead accused the Plaintiff of having a
pentagram or a witches' symbol on her hand.

16. Plaintiff, Brandi Blackbear, was advised that she could not use any kind
of emblems or any other paraphernalia that even remotely pertained to the
Wicca religion, although numerous students openly displayed other religious
symbols including the Christian cross and other items of religious
paraphernalia inside the school.

17. The interview culminated with Defendant Bushyhead accusing Plaintiff,
Brandi Blackbear, of casting spells causing Mr. Kemp to be sick and to be
hospitalized. Based upon the unknown cause of Mr. Kemp's illness, Defendant
Bushyhead advised Plaintiff that she was an immediate threat to the school
and summarily suspended her for what he arbitrarily determined to be a
disruption of the education process. Apparently, Bushyhead believed this
alleged disruption was due to Mr. Kemp becoming sick because Plaintiff, Brandi
Blackbear, had supposedly cast a spell upon this school teacher.

18. As a result of the action of the Defendants Charlie Bushyhead and Sandy
Franklin, Plaintiff was suspended for a period of fifteen (15) days to begin
on December 13, 1999, and was allowed to return to school on January 18, 2000.
The suspension consisted of five (5) days at home and ten (10) days under a
supervised suspension program.

19. The conduct and the conspiracy of the various teachers at Union Public
School has caused and continues to cause the Plaintiff an extreme amount of
emotional upset in that she has suffered continuous ridicule and humiliation
from other students. Because of the conduct of the Principal and other school
officials, she has become an outcast amongst her fellow students and does not
feel comfortable at the school. These experiences caused by the school have
caused her a great deal of pain, suffering, and anguish, and an inability to
really obtain quality education.

20. The actions of the school have specifically violated Plaintiff's First
Amendment rights of freedom of speech, due process, and the right to privacy.
The school has destroyed her personal writings and has refused to return her
private literary works that she had worked on over a considerable period of
time.

21. The action of the school have been a deliberate attempt to suppress any
religious inclination toward or expression of the religion of Wicca which
Plaintiff may have or desire she may have, and have been an attempt to force
certain religious concepts upon her and keep her from exercising her
constitutional right to freedom of religion.

22. This has been an ongoing act in that the Plaintiff will continue to suffer
and be persecuted unless an order is entered by the Court restraining the
school district from interfering with her natural creative ability of writing
and her desire to study and exercise any form of religion she desires without
interference of the school, so long as it does not interfere with the school
process or pose a threat to the safety or function of the school.

23. The acts of the Defendants have been a conspiracy to violate the
Plaintiff's civil rights, and these acts are so outrageous that Plaintiff
should be awarded both actual damages and punitive damages. Plaintiff has
suffered past, present and will suffer future emotional and physical damages
for which all of the Defendants should be assessed. In addition the
individuals sued should be assessed punitive damages for their deliberate and
indifferent acts in an attempt to violate this Plaintiff's constitutional
rights and their wanton disregard of the Constitution of the United States.

24. The Defendants have put much inflammatory and prejudicial language in
Plaintiff's personal school file which will continue to hurt and harm her
throughout the remainder of her life. That material should be expunged and
erased from Plaintiff's school records and the Court should enter an order
directing the school officials to erase and correct these erroneous entries
into her school record.

WHEREFORE premises considers Plaintiff requests:

1. The Court should enter declaratory judgments that the Defendants' actions
violate the United States Constitution, as set out in her petition.

2. Enter a preliminary injunction, later to be made permanent, enjoining
Defendants, its employees and agents from prohibiting Plaintiff from wearing
any religious item, including a pentagram in the form of a drawing or necklace
if she so desires.

3. Award Plaintiff her costs, reasonable attorney fees and such other relief
as the Court may deem just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,


SIGNATURE OF COUNSEL

John M. Butler , OBA #1377
Aundrea R. Smith , OBA #18470 
6846 South Canton, Suite 150
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74136
(918) 494-9595
(918) 494-5046 Facsimile 

FOR THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF OKLAHOMA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF BRANDI BLACKBEAR
  
===

Feel free to comment, rant, whatever.

39 responses total.

The source for the first half of that post:
http://www.aclu.org/news/2000/n102600.html
(the source for the second half is the link at the bottom of the first)

Let's put it this way:  If we lived in a world populated by wiccans 
whose magic spells actually worked, what do *you* think should be done 
to a student who casts a sickness spell on her teacher?  If the spells 
don't really work, then the girl is guilty only of having a little fun, 
and, by the way, you wiccans might as well toss out your newt-eye 
collections.  If the spells do work, then I repeat, what would you do 
with the girl?  

Also, if I understand it right, won't the girl's spell come back on her 
threefold?  Doesn't the school have some responsibility to the girl in 
this matter, knowing what danger she's in?  If she gets really sick, 
they're to blame.  I smell a countersuit.

        Would a Christian student be held accountable for praying a teacher
got sick?

#2> Let's assume that the spell was cast, and that it worked. That would be
equivalent of, say, a student putting something nasty in the teacher's coffee
thermos. What would happen in the latter case? I doubt the student would get
expelled right off the bat (recently, four high schoolers were accused of gang
raping a 14-year-old cheerleader; they weren't expelled immediately upon
accusation). There would have to be a fact-finding process, by which it was
determined if she had a motive, and so forth. From the legal documentation,
it appears that the Powers That Be saw a teacher get sick shortly after a
student started reading about witchcraft, and put 2 and 2 together, without
anything other than prejudice to cause that belief.

I don't have a newt-eye collection.

I doubt they know or care what "danger she's in."

Well, in a public high school hereabouts, a student was expelled for 
putting something in a teacher's drink.  I'm not sure I disagree with 
that.  

But I agree they did post hoc ergo propter hoc on the girl in this case 
with no real evidence, unless they were basing their action more on 
some actual physical danger to the teach they thought the girl's 
expressed attitude showed.

Was there EVIDENCE that the studnet put something in the drink?
If so, I agree with it too.

        I'm serious about my analogy;  dismissing the issue of whether magick-
with-a-k works for the moment, isn't the use of magick in a religious context,
whether it be for good or ill, equivalent to praying, for good or ill?  Would
a Christian be held accountable for their prayers?

I knew you were serious, and thought it a good point.
Actually, in discussing the article with friends, I think that point came up
fairly quickly in both (indepednet) discussions.

        What conclusions did you reach?

That the school board's being silly. =}
The point itself was just thrown out, without any real comment in either case.
The implication being that students pray all the time, and some of them
probably do pray for nasty things, and none of them are ever held accountable.

First of all, I find it horrifying that the adults who are suppposed to be
guiding, disciplining and educating kids, are so knee-jerk scared of them.
HOw can you create a safe environment for them to grow up in, when you show
them that they hold all the power- and none.

Beyond that, *if* the administration believes that spellcrafting is real and
effective, (and, one hopes, they beleive the same about prayer...), then
certainly anyone conclusively *proven* to be misusing it should be disciplined
for the result of their actions, same as if they'd used a drug or weapon, or
engaged in any other proscribed activity.  Proof here is the necessary and
impossible ingredient.

And if I were the parent or counselor of a teen who was praying/working magic
for the harm of a teacher or other authority figure, whether or not it was
proven to be effective, I'd certainly have a serious chat with them (not a
tirade against them) about ethics, boundaries, and what legitimate cause for
anger they might have, such that they can deal with it more directly.  But
then, I guess I"m a bit more rational about the capabilities of teens then
the Tulsa school board... <sigh>

        I'm of a right mind to hex the bastards, you know.

The bit about the schoolbus story puts me in the mind of Eminem's "Kill You":
To paraphrase, just because I *sing* about killing doesn't mean I actually
plan to kill anyone, but if you really think that, then fine, here's a song
just for you... I'm gonna kill you.

I just came across this.  Is there anything new on this case?

Haven't heard.  Pretty weird, eh? <sigh>

I sensed an attitude among wiccans here that even if wiccan sickness 
spells actually work -- ie, even if the girl's spell truly is what made 
the teacher sick -- the girl shouldn't be punished for casting it 
because there's no *evidence* that the spell is what made the teacher 
sick.  But coming from a wiccan believer, that's a cop-out.  We're 
talking about spiritual stuff here: there can never be any physical 
evidence of the type admissible in court.  The ACLU's response to the 
girl's punishment (for the spell-casting part) can be reduced to "Oh, 
please."  Typical rationalist response, and nothing wrong with it, but 
absolutely not the response I would expect from a wiccan believer.  The 
only people who can rightly say the girl ought to be punished, in fact, 
*are* wiccan believers.  To everyone else, the school's overreaction is 
laughable.

But why?  I agree with the comment made about kids praying that a teacher got
sick, or that a test was canceled.  In the same light, you're saying that she
should be punished for something spiritual rather than physical.  She didn't
give him medicine, she didn't drug him, and if she in fact did a spell, which
there is no evidence of that I saw, so what?  The girl might be taught a
little more restraint and the reprecussions of her actions, but to expell her
from school for it?

If the school system were run by wiccan believers (and if it's true the 
girl did cast the sickness spell) then as a matter of fact, yes I would 
expect them to discipline her for it.  If they believe she caused 
physical harm to someone, they should make her accountable for it.  
Their action might look ridiculous to non-believers, but I don't see 
what choice they would have.

In the real world, where you know perfectly well that the school 
administrators don't believe wican spells work, their action looks 
ridiculous, period.

Okay, based upon that theory, IF it were run by wiccans, I would hope that
she wasn't being harassed.  However, take the converse.  If it was a wiccan
school, with a Christian child wearing a cross, who then prayed to god to make
the teacher sick, would you still take the same action?

If I believed that there were effective Christian curses, and that this 
student put one on a teacher, and that the teacher got sick because of 
it, I would want the student held accountable.

Either you believe wiccan spells work or you don't.  If you do think 
wiccan spells really work, then you can't just excuse people who cast 
them, with the excuse that there's no physical evidence.  That in 
effect is saying that wiccans can do any harm to anyone they please by 
casting spells, and yet never be held accountable because no one can 
prove in a court of law that they did it.  If that's your agenda, just 
say so.  I gots no problem with that at all.  (I think it's kind of 
cool, in fact.)  But don't go all moralistic and righteous over stuff 
like the Oklahoma case.

If I really were the Old Believer I probably am at heart, my response 
to the Oklahoma case would be something like this:

1. Making people sick by casting a spell isn't a child's game, so show 
me evidence that the girl did cast a spell and show me details of the 
spell she cast.  Until those things have been evaluated by a panel of 
wiccans experienced in the craft, who will also question the girl about 
it, no one can assume that she did it or that she was even capable of 
doing it.

2. If the panel are convinced that the girl actually did cast a spell 
that's known to be effective, then I will recommend that she be 
suspended from school until further notice.

3. If the panel conclude that there is not sufficient evidence, then 
the girl should be returned to school with an admonition not to tamper 
with that whereof she knows not, and with some mandatory classes in 
wiccan responsibility at her local coven.  Trying to cast a sickness 
spell on someone and failing only because you're incompetent is still 
pretty bad.

That's IF I were an Old Believer.  As it is, I don't believe any such 
spells are effective, ever, and I believe that the girl is not guilty 
of anything, and that the Oklahoma adults who removed her from school 
are rather sinister idiots.

I don't believe I personally said or implied anything along the lines of #16.
In fact, I rather agree with the preponderence of #20. The relevant point
(which I thought I'd made) is that the School Board showed no evidence of an
actual review of the facts or claims at hand. "There's a Wiccan student.
There's a sick teacher. Ergo, the student made the teacher sick."

I would agree that if, after careful study of the facts and claims at hand,
a panel of expert witnesses concluded that there was sufficient evidence (in
the broad, i.e., non-scientific sense of the word) that a hex had been cast,
and that that hex had some degree of efficacy, then the student in question
should be punished.

... which philosophy underlies our criminal justice system: Innocent until
demonstrated to be guilty.

As far as I know, there was no real intention on the girl's part, to perform
a spell or take any more positive action than "gee, I hope she gets sick so
we don't have to have the test". As a parent and a Wiccan, my response if she
*had* tried to use magic- or prayer- to make her teacher ill, would be to make
*damned* sure she had to take that test on the appointed day, that she would
have to make some practical amends for the inconvenience caused by her
actions, and that she demonstrated greater understanding of personal
responsibility and karma.  I don't think that a kid should be kicked out for
being childish, or that she should be made to feel that she has that much
power to frighten or influence her teachers. 
And if it were a Christian kid praying against a teacher in a Wiccan school,
I would take much the same approach- make sure they understand what's
theologically, ehtically and practically wrong with what they've done. Of
course, *most* people pray in a vague and hopeful way, not with any skill or
expectation of immediate concrete result, so there's even less reason to react
strongly to someone's efforts at prayer-magic.

But Kami, you're missing the point. If Wiccans truly believed their speels
had efficacy, then putting a hex on a teacher that they get severely ill would
have the same ethical consequences as physically putting poison in the
teacher's coffee. Should it not also carry the same legal consequences?
[speels->spells]

If putting a hex on someone has the same power as merely saying, "I hope you
get sick!", then what's the point of spellwork? Then, a money spell would have
the same power as merely saying, "I hope I get money!". Why go through all
the asthma-producing fun of candlework if it's that weak?

I don't believe it's necessarily legally necessary to prove that a hex is
totally effective. Rather, I think it's necessary to prove that (a) the hexer
fully BELIEVED that the spell was effective[intent to do harm] and (b) the
spell had its intended effect -- regardless of WHY (perhaps the teacher found
out they were being hexed, and allowed that fear to get the better of them,
or perhaps the spell worked, or perhaps because the student felt empowered
by the spell, they did something else to cause the malaise). OTOH, I doubt
issues like these have ever been seriously tried in American courts. Were we
to explore this seriously in the judicial system, however, I would expect that
(a) and (b) would be the gauges used to determine whether punishment was in
order, and to my knowledge, neither was in this case.

But Paul, aren't you assuming that the kid did it?  Lets take the candle work
and ritual spell.  Are they claiming that she did that, or are they claiming
that she hexed the teacher by saying "I hope you get sick" kinda like the
"evil eye" being put on someone by looking at them funny.  

IF the girl went through the ritual of trying to make the teacher sick, how
would the school know unless she did it in front of friends, at the school,
or bragged about it.  And if she bragged about it, how do you know if she did
it, or if she was just saying she did, like the boys who claim to have had
sex with girls but never did.  Yes, there is a time and a place and a mature
way to handle it, but how do you prove based upon the school's word that she
did something?

I'm not assuming anything of the kind. #23 was meant to be hypothetical.

HYPOTHETICALLY:
IF magick works (as Wiccans and others purport to believe), 
THEN an act of magick should be identical in the eyes of law as any other
effective act

I'm not making any claims in #23 to what I do or don't believe about the case
in #0, but rather responding to Kami's comments that individuals should not
be held accountable for acts of magick in the same way that the would be held
accountable for analogous non-magickal acts. The ethical issue is easily
resolved; the legal issue is not so easily done, because opinions about the
efficacy of magick differ from individual to individual, and because it's much
more difficulty to "prove" that a spell was done, and that the spell-working
was directly and primarily responsible for the negative effect.

I'd actually modify #23 now, in that light, and be harsher about it: Intent
is moot. If I read a spell from LaVey, even if I'm not sure that the spell
will work and I don't intend for it to be successful, and it is so, then I
am ethically and legally responsible for the repurcussions of that spell. the
analagous situation: I find an old crossbow in my attic. I load it and fire
it, assuming it won't work. I injure a passerby. That's not an "oops," that's
reckless behavior on my part and carries with it legal penalties (less that
if I'd done it with malice or intent, but penalties nonetheless).

So if a magick spell works, then the caster of that spell carries the burden
of any ill effects of that spell. And if it's to be just scoldings and
lectures about karma that's to be the punishment, then I agree with MD: Anyone
who believes that believes that magick does NOT work, and that it's just
whimsy.

But how to handle this in the courts? Since opinions differ on the efficacy
of magick, it would be up to the courts to decide what constitutes "proof"
in the eyes of the law.  The most effective way to do that is to call upon
magickal experts, a mix of theologians, occultists, and magickal
practitioners, for their opinion. Calling upon scientists would be as
inappropriate as calling upon a theologian for expert testimony on Einstein's
theory of relativity. None of this expert consultation has been done, either
in the case in #0 nor in any case of which I'm aware (although I won't claim
complete knowledge of legal precedent).

Either magick in and of itself could be examined, or a case-by-case
(suit-by-suit) approach could be taken, each judicial decision expounding on
whatever precedent exists. In the latter scenario, in the case in #0, Wiccan
and affiliated experts would examine the materials which the student had ready
access to, the knowledge and experience level of the student, and so on, and
report to what degree they feel the student could cast an effective spell.
Based on that, the courts could be directed in a ruling.

This is the due process that has been laid out in this country's legal
heritage for determining such issues. It has clearly not be followed in the
case at hand, regardless of what the student did or did not do.

But again, if we'd rather take the "we'll scold our own" attitude, then we
are doing the following: (a) Implying that magick does not work with enough
reliability to hold individuals fully accountable for any ill effects; (b)
creating a mindset that magickians are above the law [and, in so doing, make
ourselves at the same ethical level as LaVey]; (c) perpetuating fear against
Pagans generally and Wiccans specifically, since we can do mumbo-jumbo things
and not be punished by society for them.

You're leaving out an possible opinion in #23, and it's the opinion that
most pagans I know seem to hold:  that magic isn't 100% effective, but it
isn't 100% ineffective either.  I've never heard anyone claim that they
could unerringly make something happen by casting spells.  More often,
pagans seem to me to hold the belief that they can give events a little
nudge in the desired direction.  

If this is what you believe, then casting spells (or praying) against a
teacher might be analagous to housing someone in a building with radon in
the basement, or feeding your child unhealthy food.  None of these has a
solid, reliable, tangible effect on the victim:  plenty of people grow up
healthy in houses with radon, or on diets of fried chicken, just as I'm
sure plenty of victims of magic never feel any effects.  But each changes
the odds a little:  living with radon boosts your risk of cancer a few
points, and a spell cast against you may well boost other risks. 

If this analogy is accurate, then that puts spell-casting in a big legal
gray area.  As a nation, we seem not to be sure how we feel about holding
someone liable for putting another person at risk.  You can have someone
arrested for firing a crossbow at random; you can sue a car company for
selling cars that are more likely to roll over; but we've yet to see
someone successfully sue their parents for serving fatty foods, much less
have them arrested.  

Is this an accurate reading of the situation (either of pagans' attitudes
towards magic, or of the law)?  I should probably ask, being a mainstream
atheist with no legal knowledge and all.... <g>

Agreed that it's a legal gray area. Your analogies were decent enough. But,
truth is, there's little that's 100% effective. I could shoot a gun at your
heart at point-blank range, and fail to kill you for a variety of reasons (two
obvious ones being gun/bullet malfunction and a kevlar vest). That's one edge
of the slippery slope... if we're only to be held responsible for 100%
effective things, then we're not to be held responsible for anything at all.

One way of measuring effectiveness is by actual effect. Sounds tautological,
but it isn't, really. If I shoot a gun in your general direction and happen
to kill you with it, then I'm responsible for having killed you, because the
direct effect of my action is your death. If I DON'T kill you, then I'm not
responsible for having killed you (obviously), although I may be held
accountable for TRYING to kill you.

Likewise, if I chain smoke around my child and my child doesn't develop any
health problems as a result, I can't be held accountable for the effect of
my smoking ... there's nothing to hold me accountable FOR. 

That's one spot in which I feel your analogies fail. *IF* I feed my child
fatty foods and nothing but, and *IF* my child develops health problems due
to the ensuing obesity, *THEN* I AM at least partially responsible for that
obesity. If nothing happens, in contrast, there's nothing negative for me to
be held accountable for.

So if a hex is cast and there's no result, there's no "harm done." If a hex
is cast and injury is effected, there's "harm done."

The second issue I'll explore is "raison d'etre." Fried chicken serves a
purpose other than to make people obese -- it serves the purpose of
sustenance. Some (minimal) amount of fat is considered necessary by most
dieticians. Radon gas is incidentally -- it exists, not because someone piped
it into the basements, but because it simply exists. Hexes, on the other hand,
exist for one purpose and one purpose only: Magick does not exist outside of
itself.

For that reason, hexes and prayers, like swearing, are different than serving
up fried chicken or living in radon-infused houses. The ill effect of the hex
is not an ancillary to the main purpose, it IS the SOLE purpose.

that said, what is the PURPOSE of name-calling, for instance? To harass, to
threaten, to make someone feel bad. If it accomplishes that, it's accomplished
its purpose. If it doesn't, it hasn't. Saying, "I hope you die!" may be a form
of hex -- if it's sincere -- or it may just be a form of name-calling.

What is the PURPOSE of binding a voodoo doll in a private ceremony, which
nobody else knows about, tying someone's name to it, then setting it afire?
Certainly only the practitioner would know their intent (and even then, maybe
not consciously), but one POSSIBLE intent is to bring harm onto the person
identified with the doll. If that intent is effective -- or even merely
affective -- then the practitioner is accountable.

There's also a fine, underlying distinction that needs to be made on the topic
of efficacy. Sure, more magickians than not would probably claim that magick
is much less reliable than, say, shooting a gun. Why do magick? Because it
COULD be effective. I think that the claim that magick is about nudging --
or, in smarmy Wiccaspeak, ...bending... [like a willow's branches beneath a
gentle spring breeze, trala] -- is a cop-out. We practice magick if we think
it's effective (to some degree or another); our sole purpose in practicing
magick is to bring about events (perhaps events ancillary to our stated
intent); when we're asked to be accountable, we talk of nudging and bending
and unreliability, then mutter about taking care of our own. When Christians
do that, the BATF bombs them. When we do it, we sound self-satisfied and
justified.

Either magick works, which is why we do it, in which case, we're accountable
for what we've done, or magick doesn't work, and we're not accountable. Is
someone who hexes their teacher to become ill as accountable as someone who
pours arsenic in their teacher's coffee? Probably not. Are they accountable
nonetheless? Yes.

What's the BATF?

No, we talk of "nudging and bending", in part, because it *does* work that
way.  In larger part, to cover our own skepticality (skepticalness?) or doubt
concerning the effectiveness of our own/any magic, but I've never seen that
language used as a disclaimer of guilt for a deliberate and effective action.

As I remember is described to me and my way of looking at it presently, is
that it is similar to dropping a pebble in a pond, by focusing and ultimatly
changing onesself, the area around them is effect, and it ripples through.
But I agree, if you go by that theory, it either relieves everyone or no ones
guilt for anything that happens around them

Kami, you write: "I don't think that a kid should be kicked out for being
childish, or that she should be made to feel that she has that much power to
frighten or influence her teachers," and then go on to compare spells to
prayer (a common Wiccan comparison, which leads atheists like Ori and MD to
conclude that they can't perform magickal spells *because* they're atheist
-- a comparison that forgets that spells do not HAVE to be related to external
conscious agencies other than the caster to be effective, while prayers DO).

That *does* sound like you're exonerating any youth who uses magick of any
real guilt. Perhaps the point of confusion is reflected in a liberal stance
on punition in general -- you say in the same post that the extent of the
repurcussion for doing hexwork should be to have to do whatever was being
avoided through the hexwork anyway, and to make whatever amends. This would
be akin to making a child who has stolen a car radio give it back and
apologize. Knowing you, that may well be your stance to the latter situation.
But, for one, that's not generally society's stance; and, for another, how
DOES one make amends for making someone physically ill? The standard,
socially-agreed-upon punishment for deliberate (lethal or otherwise) poisoning
is, at best, expulsion for minors and, at worst, significant incarceration.
By not recommending that in a case such as this, you *are* exonerating the
youth... whether you're doing so because you don't really think magick works,
or because you don't think she's mature enough to be held truly accountable
(or some of each), I don't know.

After talking to Valerie, I wanted to clarify and (to some extent) amend my
stance. I don't think that it's necessary, or even preferable, that we have
a formal system for dealing with allegations of supernatural malevolence in
our legal system. I feel that, given the generic lack of scientifically
demonstrable cause and effect with regard to magick, it would be difficult
and capricious to seriously explore that route. Also, opening the door to
allegations of magick in the courts also opens the door to allegations of
negative prayer, and I seriously doubt many highly faithful Christians would
tolerate prayer being used as a recognized civil crime. My intellectual
purposes for exploring this topic are two-fold: One, to recognize what is for
me a valid complaint that too often practitioners of magick take a
high-and-mighty attitude of "we'll take care of our own," rather than even
entertaining the possibility that society at large would like some sort of
recognition of accountability; two, to reinforce that IF society at large were
to explore some sort of legal accountability for supernatural accusations,
that there is a serious, robust judicial mechanism for doing so, not
innately subject to the whims of either the superstitious or the
practitioners.

#29 isn't magick, it's living. Note in my last post that I specifically
referred to my *intellectual* purposes. One of my non-intellectual purposes
is rooted in my sense that Wiccans have an inordinately flaky perspective on
magick and cause-and-effect. the pebble-in-the-pond mentality is a fine one,
and one I hold about life in general, but that's about construction and
reinforcement of energy spaces, not magick. One doesn't do a binding spell
because one wishes to put out the generic energy into the universe that the
bindee should be restricted from action, with the hope that that energy will
pool up around the bindee; one does a binding spell to prevent a specific
person from acting.

[Oh, and Kami: BATF = Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fire-Arms, aka ATF, the
fine folks who brought us Waco.]

Okay, but then don't we get into a discussion as to how magik works?  If you
do a binding spell, and you do as instructed, don't you do exactly as
described above with putting out the energy to stop that person, and honestly
hope that it does stop them?  We aren't talking about making chains appear
and binding them to the wall.  

We're not talking about ripples in a pond, either, though.
We're talking about the parallel of physical chains on the spiritual level.

But how do the physical chains on a spiritual level correspond to a physical
response on the tangible level?  ie...if I wish not to take a test and the
teacher is sick, did I do that?  and at what point do you say it was
coincidence?

The judicial system makes no real distinction of how things are done. The
basic principle is, Agent A did Action B. As a direct result of Action B,
Effect C happened. Effect C violated Recipient D's rights in some way, and
therefore Agent A is accountable for having violated Recipient D's rights in
some way. The real issue is not whether Action B was on this plane or that
one, but rather whether it can demonstrated (to the satisfaction of the
adjudicators) whether Action B really did cause Effect C [whether Agent A
*meant to* do Action B, *meant to* cause Effect C, and *meant to* violate
Recipient D's rights can be mitigating factors in determining degrees of
guilt].

The reason why this is treacherous legal ground is because, in the absence
of scientific evidence, the reliability of magick is a matter of opinion, as
is the reliability of prayer.

"And at what point do you say it was coincidence?" At the point that I say
that magick doesn't work.

But the law also requires willful intent or neglegence.  

Casting a hex doesn't involve intent?
Casting a spell without full regard for the negative outcomes doesn't involve
negligence?

You're not presenting a coherent argument. You're just throwing random stuff
at me and hoping it'll make whatever case you're trying to mke, which is no
longer clear.

Whoops!  I'm losing track here- are we now talking about generalities, or
about a specific hypothetical case, or about the particular case which sparked
the discussion in the first place?
Do we *know* that the kid in question did actually cast any sort of hex or
spell?
Speaking of which, does anyone have any further information about this case?

I haven't been talking about the specific case in quite some time.
I've been oscillating between generalities of magick use and specifics of
magick use by a youth hexing without full knowledge of what they're doing.

As a sidebar about the specific case: From what information I have, it
certainly doesn't sound to me that any hex was involved, but the information
I have is mostly what's in #0. The ACLU had not updated the information when
I visited the site last week, so I assume there's nothing new they're willing
to share.

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss