MISTAKE? As Government Reduces Pay of Judges

Georgina Woods, Chief Justice

By Dr. Michael J.K. Bokor

Folks, when the New Statesman revealed that steps were afoot by the government to “tamper with” the salaries for 49 Circuit Court judges and 145 Magistrates, we glossed over it in our discussions. The matter is too serious to be neglected. It has a negative sequel and must be understood in context.

According to available information, the government claimed that “a mistake was made in increasing their salaries.” Thus, in a letter to the Controller and Accountant-General, Finance Minister Seth Tekper requested that the payment of the new salaries be stopped and that the judges and magistrates will refund the “excess payment.”

BACKGROUND

Before his death, ex-President Atta Mills had set up a Presidential committee to review the pay levels for the Lower Bench. He couldn’t live to see the committee’s recommendations. On succeeding Mills, President Mahama accepted the Presidential committee’s recommendations for the increase.

The Finance Minister consequently wrote to the Controller and Accountant General on February, 27, 2013 for the new salaries to begin being paid with retroactive effect from 2009. Accordingly, appointment letters of new Judges and Magistrates employed about four months ago indicated that they would be paid the new salaries. The Finance Minister confirmed so in a letter that said, in part:

“Following His Excellency the President’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Presidential Committee on emoluments for Article 71 Holders and the Report of the Presidential Committee of Emoluments for Justices of the Superior Court of Judicature, approval is, hereby, given for the salary levels in Appendix A to be used to effect the payment of salaries of the Lower Court Bench.”

That letter further instructed that “the effective date of implementation is 1st January, 2009. The payment of the outstanding arrears is to be effected in one installment. We wish to reiterate that the new salary levels are consolidated and, therefore, payment of salary-related allowances should cease.”

Following this directive, the Judges and Magistrates were paid all the outstanding arrears accordingly and have been enjoying the new salary levels for close to a year now.

WHAT IS NEW AND SHOCKING

All of a sudden, the Office of the President has turned round to say that the approval for the payment of the new salaries was “inadvertently” done and that the government will revert to the old salary levels (which will slice off 50% from their pay). Worse still, the Judges and Magistrates are to refund the “excess salaries paid to them”. Reacting to the issue, the Office of the President wrote to the Office of the Chief Justice to explain matters.

The Office of the President, in a letter dated April 10, 2013, informed the Ministry of Finance about its decision to withdraw an approval by the Ministry for the payment of new levels of salaries for members of the Lower Court Bench, as approved by the late President John Evan Mills, after his administration had accepted recommendations by a committee set up to review the conditions of service of the judges and magistrates.

MY COMMENTS

I see a lot of mediocrity and dangerous incompetence here. On what basis did the Office of the President approve the Presidential committee’s recommendations to enable the new salaries to be paid to the beneficiaries? Don’t tell me that it was ex-President Mills who approved the recommendations.

Was any scrutiny done of the committee’s recommendations to weigh their impact on the national economy before being approved and implemented for four months now?

I strongly disagree with the manner in which the government is handling this matter. Not only is the government displaying gross insensitivity to the plight of the beneficiary Judges and Magistrates but it is also giving a very nasty account of how it is handling important assignments related to the management of the national coffers. Do we know if any other instance of shoddy work has been done to the detriment of the national economy?

What was the basis for the President’s approval of the new salary scale for the Judges and Magistrates? Putting aside any other consideration, how much diligent work did the Office of the President do in this matter? The sour taste wrought in our mouths by this flim-flammery can’t be neutralized with the lame explanation given by the Chief of Staff that  “the new levels of salaries members of the Lower Bench have been enjoying for close to a year now, and which was used to employ new Judges and Magistrates in July this year, “was inadvertently approved.”

So also do we take exception to this aspect:: “The salary levels for the Lower Court Bench as conveyed in the Ministry of Finance letter No. ERDF/13/SAL.1 of 17th February 2013 was inadvertently approved. The approval has therefore been withdrawn. The members of the Lower Court Bench are to refund the excess salaries paid to them. However, in order not to impose undue financial burden on the members of the Lower Bench it has been decided that the excess payment should be recovered through regular monthly deductions over a period of time.”

What “undue financial burden” is Prosper Bani talking about again? Over the years, the Circuit Court judges and Magistrates haven’t been paid anything substantial to motivate others to join the Bench. The high degree of incompetence and mediocrity at the Ministry of Justice and Attorney-General’s Department can be attributed to lack of incentives to attract the capable hands needed to enhance the administration of justice in the country.

Now that the government has flip-flopped in dealing with the Lower-Court Bench, it has set in motion a troubling event that will have nasty consequences. Already, we’ve heard threats from the affected beneficiaries to resign if the government goes ahead to “punish” them through the withdrawal of the new salaries and their being forced to refund what they had already enjoyed. Others said they will remain at post and adopt lackadaisical attitude towards their work.

Won’t this situation create fertile grounds for bribery and corruption? Yet, everybody is complaining about the rot in the Judiciary. How will the Judiciary not be corrupt if the authorities disincentivate the Bench and rather incite them to use unorthodox means for survival?

Granted that the government sought to streamline affairs, its manner of handling this particular matter is disturbing. It lacks the “democratic element” for an amicable resolution of the matter and serves as a disincentive.

It is clear that the Office of the President goofed in approving the Presidential committee’s recommendation and going ahead to authorize the payment of the new salaries. Worse still, it has given a very worrisome account of its approach toward handling such human-centred problems, asking for a refund when the beneficiaries had no hand to play in the matter. I am highly disappointed!!

I shall return…

E-mail: mjbokor@yahoo.com

Join me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor to continue the conversation.

Editorial

Press Freedom

 The freedom of the media especially the print media is currently under threat by economic factors.

Although government does not interfere with editorial decisions there are very strong indications that pretty soon the only media which can survive will be those that are sponsored by powerful.

Over the last three months, the cost of production has shot up by more than 100 per cent.

 This cost cannot easily be passed on to consumers who have themselves been stretched to the very limit by the same economic factors.

Circulation figures are falling simply because readers are faced with the situation in which they have to choose between buying Kenkey and newspaper.

Obviously in that kind of competition Kenkey will always win over newspaper.

At The Insight our electricity bill has jumped up by as much as 300 per cent and the cost of newsprints has risen by close to 20 per cent.

 If the authorities fail to take appropriate action to remove the economic constraints to press freedom only the media which is beholden to powerful forces would survive and this would greatly undermine the independence of the media.

The problem is economic and it must not be allowed to bury us.

President Mahama confirms my worst fears

President John Dramani Mahama

By Dr. Michael J.K. Bokor

The news report under the heading “Ghana to deploy 850 soldiers to South Sudan” made it clear what President Mahama has agreed to do; and I am alarmed!!

Folks, I have already had my say on the deployment of Ghanaian troops to South Sudan and made it clear that I don't support anything of the sort, especially at the time that the situation is still unclear as to the real intentions of the rebels—to overthrow the Salva Kiir administration and install Riek Machar or to capture territories and form their own government.

The degeneration of the situation into a civil war is still threatening as President Kiir's Dinka ethnic group remains pitted against Machar's Nuer faction.

Negotiations begun in the Ethiopian capital have so far not given any firm hint that the hostilities will end soon for terms that may be agreed upon at the negotiation table to begin being implemented.

The government's forces have re-taken Bentiu in the Unity State and are marching on Bor in Jonglei State to attempt dislodging the rebels there. Meantime, it is unsure what is happening at Malakal, where the rebels have announced their over-running of government troops to re-take the town—a claim denied by a military spokesman for the government.

Peace is not in sight. Even though the US is doing some behind-the-scene work toward a political settlement of the conflict, neither President Kiir's government nor the rebels are listening to entreaties. They want a military solution, whose impact on South Sudan is anybody's guess.

You may want to read also this article by Mark Mardell of the BBC for more insights: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25738492).

Now, President Mahama has confirmed my earlier fears that Ghana would be rushed into this conflict. He said on Tuesday that Ghana will contribute 850 troops to the war-torn South Sudan to help restore peace and stability to the North African country.

He said the deployment of the Ghana battalion to the restive country followed a request from the United Nations Secretary-General to Ghana to help in keeping the peace and assist with the humanitarian efforts.

President Mahama said so when Dr Tedros A. Ghebreyesus, Ethiopian Foreign Minister, called on him at the Flagstaff House, Kanda.

He indicated that the National Security Council met on Monday to ratify the troop deployment.

Here is something from him that makes me cringe: “When I received the request from the UN Secretary-General, I did not hesitate to give my provisional approval,” he added.

It is one thing for President Mahama to justify why he wants Ghana to deploy 850 troops to South Sudan (as he explained: "... as a young independent country that is facing development challenges, South Sudan needs stability to develop and not conflict.")

Do the political leaders of South Sudan not know the status of their country before pushing their person political ambitions ahead of national interests?

I am more concerned because this decision to send Ghanaian troops into that war zone was taken by the Executive (regardless of the involvement of the National Security Council which is nothing but an appendage of the Executive, though).

In such a serious situation, why has our Parliament not been involved? In other words, shouldn't the direct representatives of the people charged with oversight responsibilities play an important role in decision-making before anything rash is done to create more problems for the country?

You see, folks, our democracy is not growing at all. The United States President cannot push the country to that point without Congressional approval (even though an Act exists granting him some executive powers). Obama tried it in the case of Libya and had problems. Then, he learnt how not to side-step the people's representatives in making decisions of military importance without seeking approval from the direct representatives of the people.

Are we in Ghana really thinking hard about counter-balancing the forces that shape our country's destiny? I am not really surprised that the Executive won't involve Parliament because Parliament itself has proved to be grossly incompetent and useless at this point.

It is the tax-payer's money that supports Ghana Military and anything to involve the military must be thoroughly deliberated upon by all those that matter, particularly Parliament, which is where the direct representatives of the people (the real producers of the national wealth) are. No two ways about this!!

I am waiting to see how this issue pans out because I am still not convinced that rushing Ghana into this crisis in South Sudan is acceptable. I am waiting to know which other countries have been approached by the UN and what they are prepared to do; then, I will come up with more viewpoints.

But for now, I am highly disappointed!! Deploying Ghanaian troops in conflict zones should not be the sole prerogative of the President, more so when President Mahama's own utterance gave me the impression that he had a pre-meditated intention to send Ghanaian troops to South Sudan, which was why he didn't hesitate at all in accepting the request from the UN Secretary-General. Too bad for our democracy. I have said it and have no regrets for saying so.

I shall return…

E-mail: mjbokor@yahoo.com

Join me on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/mjkbokor to continue the conversation.

First GMO labeling law in US

The governor of Connecticut hosted a ceremonial signing outside an organic restaurant in the city of Fairfield on Wednesday to commemorate the state’s passing of what could be the first GMO labeling law of its type in the United States.

Voters in Connecticut decided back in June to approve a bill requiring that all foods meant for human consumption that contain genetically-modified ingredients be properly labeled. Unless some neighboring states in the region follow suit, however, the status of that law remains in limbo.

The Connecticut bill requires at least four other Northeastern states with a combined population of no fewer than 20 million to approve similar acts before it can officially go on the books. And while so far proponents of a GMO labeling initiative have found allies in one adjacent state, it could very well be a long-time coming before the proper support is rallied.

Voters in Maine have already elected to pass a near-identical measure, but residents in a region that includes Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont must come together to do the same in at least three other locales.

Outside the Catch A Healthy Habit restaurant in Fairfield on Wednesday, Gov. Dannel Malloy implored his counterparts to consider joining in their fight.

“I am proud that leaders from each of the legislative caucuses can come together to make our state the first in the nation to require the labeling of GMOs,” Malloy said, according to Fairfield’s Daily Voice. “The end result is a law that shows our commitment to consumers’ right to know while catalyzing other states to take similar action.”

Tara Cook-Littman, the director of GMO Free Connecticut, applauded the efforts by advocates in the state and country working towards new laws.

“As the catalyst for GMO labeling in the United States, Connecticut residents should feel proud,” she told reporters. “We are hopeful that legislators throughout the Northeast will follow the lead of Governor Malloy and all our legislative champions by passing laws that give consumers transparency in labeling. It is a great honor for all of us to stand with Governor Malloy as he signs the first in the nation GMO labeling law.”

More than 60 countries across the world have approved mandatory labeling laws for GMO foods already, and polling suggests that the vast majority of Americans are in favor of doing the same. So far, in fact, almost half of all US states have introduces bill that, if approved, would either require labeling of GMO foods or prohibit them altogether.

"Surveys have always found 80 to 95 percent of people wanting labeling," Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen told the Rodale News health site back in April. "People are paying attention to food, and because of that they're more interested in GMO issues and buying food that's more local and food without pesticides and other added ingredients."

Now with Connecticut taking the lead, Gov. Malloy hopes other states will do the same.

"This is a beginning, and I want to be clear what it is a beginning of," he told the Fairfield Citizen before Wednesday’s event. "It is a national movement that will requiring (food) labeling."

"People need to demand GMO labeling," Malloy told WFSB News on the day of the ceremonial signing. "Some companies are doing this and we need to move in that direction."

"This is the time," he said to the Citizen. "You better get ready; people are coming and this is not a movement you are going to stop."

Malloy was flanked by state lawmakers from both the right and the left at Wednesday’s event, and Republicans and Democrats alike are now aligning themselves in the fight.

“This bill moves forward and reinforces our fundamental right to know what is in our food so we can make informed choices about what we feed our families,” said Rep. Tony Hwang (R-Fairfield-Trumbull), according to reporter Christina Chiarelli. “Consumers may or may not wish to purchase foods that they know to be genetically modified, but they need the information made available to them to make those informed choices.” 

“Passing this bill is courageous and monumental,” added Rep. Philip Miller (D-Essex). “It is an affirmation for healthy, sustainable agriculture and responsible stewardship of our food supply. The ever growing grassroots efforts of Connecticut citizens has come to fruition with the passing of this legislation. I thank Governor Malloy for being a champion of our right to participate in building our economy as fully informed consumers and citizens.”

Currently 15 nations in the European Union require labels on GMO products, and Zambia, Benin and Serbia have all instated prohibitions against products. Just earlier this week, China for the fifth time blocked a cargo shipment of US corn from entering the country, citing concerns of GMO contamination. 

COCAINE

By Christian Kpesese

An ex-convict, Mr Kofi Osei Boateng who was arrested at the Kotoka International Airport in 2005 and subsequently jailed for ten years for illegal possession of Cocaine en-route to the U.K has accused the Narcotics Control Board (NACOB) of disobeying court orders.

Narrating the basis of his claim to The Insight, Mr Boateng said, per the judgment of the Court that sentenced him in 2005, all his personal belongings that were ceased by NACOB at the time of his arrest should be given back to him upon the completion of his jail term.

  NACOB has failed to return his ceased items to him even though he has completed his jail sentence since 2012. He lamented that several attempts made to reclaim his properties have proved futile.

The ceased items include; a Ghanaian passport, a German resident permit card, a suitcase containing other valuables, clothes and shoes, bunches of door and car keys, an air ticket to Britain and a cash amount of 50 pounds. 

According to him officials at NACOB kept giving him flimsy excuses that they are still trying to locate his items two years after his release from prison.

``One day, when I went there as usual to demand for my items with a copy of the court order, a lady in room No. 36 asked me whether I brought money, when I said no because I don’t have some?  She went into the room and brought me a photocopy of my passport to use for the mean time’’. He alleged.

Mr Boateng wondered where the photocopy of his passport came from if NACOB did not have the original copy.

He is therefore appealing to the relevant state authorities to release his properties to him to enable him take care of his family.

Health alert: Caffeine during pregnancy is harmful

Caffeine

By Cristina Pinto

Researchers from the University of Coimbra, Portugal, integrating international research conclude that caffeine consumption during pregnancy is harmful. The study has just been published in Science Translational Medicine

Caffeine consumption during pregnancy is harmful to the developing baby's brain, concludes an international study which involved a team of researchers from the University of Coimbra (UC), through the Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology (CNC) and the Faculties of Medicine (FMUC) and Science and Technology (FCTUC).

The research resulting from a partnership with the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale - INSERM, of the Université Aix Marseille, has just been published in the prestigious Science Translational Medicine, Science group (http://stm.sciencemag.org / content/5/197/197ra104), and also involved scientists from Germany and Croatia.

Caffeine being the most consumed psychoactive substance in the world, including during pregnancy, the team assessed the impact during the gestation period and described for the first time, the harmful effects of caffeine consumption (in female mice) during pregnancy, on the brain of their offspring. This study, although conducted in rodents, suggests that careful studies should be performed to evaluate the effects of caffeine consumption by pregnant women.

To evaluate the effects of caffeine, the researchers reproduced in mice, regular consumption of coffee in doses equivalent to drinking three cups of coffee daily throughout pregnancy and until weaning of pups.

The young mice "showed greater susceptibility of developing epilepsy, and when they reach adulthood, have detected problems of spatial memory," explains Rodrigo Cunha, coordinator of the Portuguese team.

The research team was able to identify the mechanism responsible for the harmful effects of caffeine in the brain under construction. During development, "caffeine alters the migration and insertion of GABA releasing neurons - the main chemical mediator inhibitor in the brain; these neurons are formed in a particular region and then migrate to, among other places, the hippocampus, a brain region which plays a key role in memory formation, "describes Rodrigo Cunha.

The team, continued the investigator, "found that caffeine directly influences the migration of these neurons, by blocking the action of a specific receptor, called A2A, slowing migration of neurons. Thus, the cells will reach their destination later than planned. This late migration affects the construction of the brain with effects observed after birth (changes in cellular excitability and increased susceptibility to seizures) and, during adulthood, neuron loss and memory deficits."

This study "is the first demonstration of the harmful effects of exposure to caffeine on the developing brain, and while questioning caffeine consumption by pregnant women, it is necessary to emphasize caution in extrapolating the results obtained in animal models to the human population without taking into account differences in brain development and maturation between species", says the researcher from Coimbra University.

The Wrong Kind of Foreigner

Ghana Foreign Affairs Minister Hannah Tetteh

By Nilanjana S. Roy

The Africans — Nigerians, Ghanaians, Ugandans — began leaving my neighborhood in New Delhi around December. Each week, more and more families exited. Some went to parts of Delhi considered more accepting of Africans; others to areas where the residents were thought to be less interfering in general. I have heard that some of the Ghanaian families had gone back to Africa, but I don’t know that for sure.

For years, they had been a part of the swirl of cultures, languages and races that makes up this part of the capital. The Nigerian women in their bright dresses out for evening strolls and the Cameroonian family with the curious-eyed baby at the ice-cream van had made a life for themselves alongside the Afghans, Tamils and Iranians.

On Oct. 31, about a month before the departures started, a Nigerian national, rumored to have been in the drug trade, was found dead in Goa. Nigerians in the coastal state protested his murder as an act of racism, while posters read: “We want peace in Goa. Say no to Nigerians. Say no to drugs.” One state minister threatened to throw out Nigerians living illegally. Another equated them with a cancer. He later apologized, adding that he hadn’t imagined there would be a “problem” with his statement.

The controversy has reverberated across the country, including in Delhi, 1,200 miles away, where the tolerance of African neighbors has turned into suspicion and even hostility.

One night, a police constable rang my doorbell. “Have you seen any man from the Congo entering and leaving the building?” he asked. “African man,” he clarified. He said he had received a report that a local resident was friendly with Africans, and he wanted to know, was this true? The question surprised me; neighborhood battles here are waged over water and parking spaces, not over ethnicity. Now neighbors had become nervous of neighbors.

Once the African communities had been singled out, complaints against them bubbled up like filthy water, in Jangpura, in Khirki Extension, in the alleyways off Paharganj, anywhere in Delhi they lived.

The fragile hospitality gave way to a familiar litany of intolerance: They were too loud, exuberant and dirty; the women were loose, the men looked you directly in the eye, they were drug takers and traffickers, and worse.

Residents of Khirki Extension, whose rambling lanes had seen an influx of artists, journalists and migrants, conducted their own investigation of their African neighbors, which they called the “black beauty” sting.

Coinciding with the city’s darkening mood, the newly elected Aam Aadmi Party in Delhi started a wave of clean ups as part of its mission to control “lawlessness.” The city’s law minister, Somnath Bharti, led a raid into Khirki Extension, claiming to be acting on residents’ complaints that Nigerians and Ugandans were involved in prostitution and drug trafficking. Media reports suggest that on the night of Jan. 15, he entered Africans’ homes with a group of vigilantes, without a warrant. In the fracas, a Ugandan woman was allegedly forced to give a urine sample, on the street, in the middle of the crowd. After she filed a complaint, Delhi’s court ordered the Police Department to pursue her case against Mr. Bharti.

These recent events have awakened dormant prejudices against Africans in India, aggravated by our tendency to prize fair skin over dark. “Habshi,” derived from the word “Abyssinian,” has become a common epithet for people of African descent.

So, on one hand, the racist turn in Delhi and Goa is unsurprising. On the other hand, we have a long, and neglected, history of cross-migration with Africa. While Indians have been settling on that continent since at least the 15th century, African roots in India run even deeper. Africans were brought over in numbers around the 13th century as slaves, but also as generals, guards, merchants, bodyguards and craftsmen. Many never went back. Now tens of thousands are here to study, and others work as chefs and in the garment and textile businesses, among other industries.

Despite our close ties and the shared history of colonialism, Africa doesn’t figure on the Indian map of curiosity and desire. Our admiration of China’s economic prowess is commonplace and unabashed; we are obsessed with the West, in terms of education, ideals of beauty and economic might. But Africa is invisible. Racist views can be spouted without consequence. Africa simply doesn’t matter.

There will be few repercussions for the Aam Aadmi Party if it continues with blanket policies against Africans. The party won on the promise of change, yet here it is, proving that it shares the same blindness as other, older parties.

These days, the Afghans and Indians stroll in my neighborhood park, enjoying the winter breeze. The Ghanaian and Cameroonian families moved away when their landlords doubled the rent only for them; the young Nigerian women left after one police visit too many.

Delhi’s residents say that the city belongs to everybody, because it belongs to nobody. As Bangalore and Mumbai became insular possessions, with political parties often driving out anyone who was from elsewhere, the capital claimed that it had room for all kinds of migrants, expats and outsiders. If the Aam Aadmi Party continues the divisiveness that older parties have excelled at, we’ll soon find reasons to go after all the people who live differently from “us,” who don’t belong here, who should go back to the places they came from.

Nilanjana S. Roy is an essayist and critic, and author of the novel “The Wildings.” 

The Americanization of the Devil

Today’s Satanists are not engaged in the worship of evil. What they are engaged in is a classical American exercise: civilizing something that was originally anything but civil.

On December 14, 2013, The Economist published a short piece which definitely qualifies depiction as a religious curiosity. The Economist does not often deal with religion (though its editor John Micklethwait, with Adrian Wooldrige, who currently writes the column “Schumpeter” in the magazine, co-authored an excellent overview of the global religious scene – God is Back, 2009). This piece is titled “Religious Pluralism: Beelzebubba”. It deals with a new candidate for First Amendment litigation, The Church of Satan.

Here is what happened: In 2009 the Oklahoma legislature passed a bill authorizing the erection of a monument inscribed with the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the state capitol. Anticipating possible challenges on constitutional grounds, the bill stated that the Ten Commandments are “an important component of the moral foundation of the laws and legal system of the United States of America and of the state of Oklahoma”. The costs of this project were not borne by the taxpayers but by private donors. The legislators relied on a precedent: In 2005 the US Supreme Court ruled that a similar project in Texas was constitutional, because the Ten Commandments had “an undeniable historical meaning”—in other words, a state-sponsored history lesson is okay, state-sponsored religion is not. Trust some lawyers to argue that the Oklahoma case is profoundly different from the Texas case and therefore in violation of the constitution. Not surprisingly, the American Civil Liberties Union, that noble band of Kemalist legal warriors, brought suit against the Oklahoma history lesson.

But as of this month, a new wrinkle has appeared in this episode: A campaign of the New York-based Church of Satan (the story refers to it as “the Satanic Temple”) announced its intention to place a monument to Satan next to the Ten Commandments. The CoS promised that the monument would be “public-friendly” (whatever that means), “something that children could play on.” (“Mommy, I think Satan took my ball!”) The Satanists are obviously worried about possible litigation, and hope that the Supreme Court would take their side.

The Church of Satan was founded in San Francisco in 1966; in 2001 it moved (tongue in cheek. I would think) to Hell’s Kitchen on the West Side of Manhattan. The founder was Anton LaVey, author of The Satanic Bible. The website of the CoS defines its basic worldview as “acceptance of Man’s true nature—that of a carnal beast, living in a cosmos that is indifferent to our existence”. All religion is an illusion, a flight from the “acceptance”. Satan is not to be understood as a real being out there in the cosmos (that would be another illusion), rather is “the symbol that best suits the nature of we who are carnal by birth”. (English syntax does not seem to be part of this nature.) But then, rather surprisingly, the manifesto goes on to say that Satan represents “pride, liberty, and individualism”.

LaVey himself describes his movement as “Ayn Rand with trappings”LaVey himself describes his movement as “Ayn Rand with trappings”. I doubt whether Rand, that rigorous rationalist, would have approved the ritual practices of LaVey’s “individualism”: Imitations of the legendary Black Mass, performed in darkness, with black candles, a naked woman lying on top of an altar, the officiating priest performing a ceremony over (or on) her body.

The naked woman is apparently optional, as is a “lust ritual”, the details of which are not described (though mention is made of another optional activity, “masturbation to climax”—mercifully to be undertaken, if at all, solo). The preferred time for this liturgy is on April 30, supposedly the date of the traditional Walpurgisnacht, or “witches’ Sabbath”. Speaking of which, the CoS has an elaborate priestly hierarchy, with “witches and warlocks” in second place right after the high priest (LaVey and successors, both male and female).

The mention of witches reminds one of another new religion, that of “witchcraft”, renamed Wicca. There are some similarities, but the two movements are really quite different (though both resemble the way children dress up for Halloween in scary outfits). Wicca was founded in the 1950s by Gerald Gardner, a retired British civil servant. Its website uses the full title “Church and School of Wicca”. It emphatically states that its adherents are “not Satanists”. The supposed roots of the movement are in the pre-Christian paganism of Celtic Britain, which has left its most impressive monument at Stonehenge. I don’t think that LaVey would have approved of any of this. 

However, at least in that respect similar to his community, the Wiccan ethic is similar in its radical individualism. Emblazed on the website is its basic moral maxim: “If it harms none, do what you will”. I have not explored just when and how Wicca came to America, but it seems to me that it found fertile ground here, prepared by the more radical feminist and environmental versions emerging from the late-60s counterculture. To paraphrase LaVey, Wicca might be called “environmentalism with trappings”. Its worldview is a kind of nature mysticism.

Human beings are part of nature, and should experience themselves as such. The feminist angle is that both gods and goddesses are revered. There is a great variety of rituals, only some with an overtly sexual dimension. All of this is a long way from the witchcraft that surfaced here and there in pre-modern Europe and so upset the Inquisition. These primeval witches would not have disavowed Satanism; indeed, Satan played a significant part in their rituals.

Satan is a very old figure in the history of man’s religious imagination. He almost certainly originated in Iran and was at the center of the teachings of Zarathustra (who is better known by his Hellenized name Zoroaster).  The world is seen as the arena of a cosmic struggle between between two powerful  supernatural beings, one good, one evil—Ahura Mazda and Ahriman. Human beings are enjoined to take the part of Ahura Mazda against his adversary. For several centuries Zoroastrianism was the official religion of the Persian state. It was dislodged from this position by the Muslim conquest. Little of it survives in its home country, though its emigrants, now known as Parsis, are a small but influential community in India. But it seems that Zoroaster’s archaic dualism has left a profound imprint on Iranian culture and religion.

(Perhaps all the way to our own time: Is it lurking behind the Ayatollah Khomeini’s favorite name for America, “the Great Satan”?) Some centuries after Zoroaster, Mani, another Iranian prophet, founded the religion named after him. It spread far beyond Iran and was a serious rival of Christianity in the late Roman Empire. Manicheanism morphed into the various strands of Gnosticism during the same period, then spread into different parts of Europe. A climax of this diffusion was the Albigensian heresy. In the High Middle Ages it flourished in the territory of the Counts of Toulouse, then known as Langue d’Oc.  We now know this area as the south of France; it became that as a result of the crusade which exterminated the heresy and with it the culture in which it was embedded.

This is an exceedingly long and complex history. I cannot possibly pursue it here. I just want to make one point about it: Satan, in all his incarnations, has been very serious business. He figures in the Hebrew Bible as shatan, (“accuser” or “adversary”)—most memorably in the Book of Job, where he tries to turn a righteous man away from God. The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, called him diabolos (“slanderer”), from which our English “devil” is derived. The same diabolos reappears in the New Testament, where he tries to tempt Jesus.

The three monotheistic religions have never quite known what to do with Satan. I would think that he features, however marginally, in the “theodicy” that always haunts monotheism—the attempt to reconcile belief in an omnipotent and benevolent God with the pervasive presence of evil in the world. The adversary of God is then the personification of evil, whose final overthrow will be the fulfilment of the creation. If we look for Satan in this (as yet) unredeemed world, I don’t think that we will find him dressed up in the costumes of contemporary Satanism or witchcraft. More likely he will wear the uniform of Hitler’s SS.

Satan is serious business, because evil is serious business. Contemporary Satanism or witchcraft is not engaged in the worship of evil (as the SS definitely was). What they are engaged in is a classical American exercise, civilizing (if you will, defanging) something that was originally anything but civil. The late sociologist John Murray Cuddihy spoke about the Protestant smile, that expression of post-Puritan niceness that is the outward sign of the inward grace of American civility. This Protestant smile can even be pasted on the face of Satan: If we are going to have a devil, it had better be a nice devil. Thus, as we have seen, both American Satanists and witches claim to be “churches”. That, of course, is a claim for First Amendment protection. 

If (heaven forbid) I were a federal judge, and a case came before me involving such a claim from either the Church of Satan or the Church of Wicca, I think that I would be compelled by the constitution to accept the claim. That would obviously be different if the First Amendment were invoked by an organization that incited the killing of Jews. That would be a violation of the basic values on which the constitution is based, a real evil that the courts have the duty to suppress. A federal judge is not in a position to decide what is or is not a serious “church”. A blogger is not under such a constraint.