Rule-breaking/Father-figures

[finwitch]

No: HPFGUIDX 38126

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" <rusalka at i...> wrote:
> 
> While I'm with you on all the other examples, I have to disagree on
> this one.  Just because Harry has understandable emotional reasons 
for
> wanting to go to Hogsmeade, doesn't mean he's entitled to blow off 
the
> rules and go.  "I tried to get permission, couldn't, and went 
anyway"
> is not an excuse.

He tried to ask for help due to having been held by people who 
neglect him to the point of violating his human rights. His request 
was ignored. He wasn't even heard properly.

> McGonagall (and Dumbledore, on whose authority she's
> acting) is more than qualified to set and enforce the rules for what
> the students in her house get to do, and to decide what needs to be
> done to protect a 13-year-old boy who's in her care.
>  It *is* about
> Harry being exempt for his safety -- and not just his own safety,
> either; as far as the adults knew, he was being targeted by a 
powerful
> Dark Wizard who has already demonstrated a willingness to kill large
> numbers of innocent bystanders.

Why didn't McGonagall tell Harry that? Harry was protesting against 
rule - tried to explain about Dursleys neglect of him (denying him 
things every child is entitled to, like understanding) but he was 
ignored.

She just kept insisting on "permission of a guardian or parent" 
because it makes issues of responsibility smoother with the 
guardians/parents. While she *can* and perhaps should do that at 
times, she's handling it all wrong.

Harry's not heard properly - even if you stick to rules, the child 
you've enforcing it should be heard when they ask to.

In a way, Harry's now feeling much the same as when he left Dursleys. 
*Because* of not being even listened to. Going to Hogsmeade became a 
symbol of his right to exist, of *being* somebody. Recognition that 
he's just as valuable as others.

Emotionally, McGonagall told him: "Without guardians' giving you 
permission you're nobody. You're lower than others"...

>  Yes, the situation was painful and
> unfair for Harry.

"What isn't fair and just can not be law" - from instructions to 
judges in a Finnish Law-book. If we're judging Harry's behaviour, 
I'll take *that* on account.

  But there are times when saying "it's not fair, so
> I'll just do what I want" is not the appropriate response, and this
> was one of those times.  Even Lupin recognized that, despite his
> sympathy for Harry.

Saying it - no. This *was* an unfair situation. Lupin handled it a 
bit better -  but he, too, failed to notice the *real* problem. He's 
giving Harry an obligation: To pay up for his right to live to his 
parents who died to save him (by obeying rules unless someone's in 
danger?). This will give Harry someone's approval of his being who 
and what he is.

Of course, Lupin knew Harry's parents and had been more caring than 
any one else. But he's still expecting something. (As Harry sees it: 
Admitting he *has* no guardian by not going to Hogsmeade as payment 
for his parents' sacrifice so he could live. A bit better, but it 
doesn't fix the *problem*. It's saying Harry's obligated to *pay* for 
being loved).

Once Harry discovers Sirius is his godfather... *Sirius* immediately 
*gives* Harry what he really needed - expecting nothing, only asking 
that Harry accepts it. Sirius *gives* it all freely without Harry 
ever having to so much as ask. Hogsmeade note loses it's meaning as 
symbol to the letter from Sirius, saying he wants to be there for him.
Without Lupin and Sirius Harry would, as I see it, been in grave 
danger of deep depression (not only because of the Dementors) and 
probably suicide as after effect.

In this case- unjust rule was *causing* danger rather than preventing 
it. Sirius was only one realising it, having seen what depression can 
do - and did what he could to help Harry be happy.

-- Finwitch