Marrietta's betrayal (was Depression ... in OotP - Cho/Marietta)

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 110844

Alla wrote :
"According to the moral rules? Like it is wrong to betray your
friends? Your answer will probably be about relativity of morals, but
I strongly disagree with that, as you probably know by now. :o)"

Del replies :
:-)
But no, I don't even need to get there. I just have to point out that
"it is wrong to betray your friends" is a flawed rule. When your
friends do dangerous and illegal things, then it is actually *right*
to betray them, since they have betrayed you and your morality and the
law in the first place. If my kid, as a teenager, ever has friends
experimenting with firearms for example, then I *will* expect him to
betray them, for everybody's sake.

Now of course you're going to tell me that the *circumstances* were
special, that the DA were not kids playing with fire but courageous
kids putting up a resistance cell, or something like that, right ?
Then I'll answer that *we* know that, but that we have no proof that
Marrietta believed that. It took *Seamus*, who was *living* with
Harry, most of the year to shift his loyalty from his mother to his
classmate, so why should Marrietta know any better ?

Alla wrote : 
"I would agree that Cho should not have forced her to come, if she 
did not want to stay, but when she made such choice, she should have 
followed through. As all other members of the DA did. "

Del replies :
But the very circumstances in which the kids got to sign the parchment
are very sneaky. Here's what Hermione said :

"I - I think everybody should write their name down, just so we know
who was here. But I also think, " she took a deep breath, "that we all
ought to agree not to shout about what we're doing. So if you sign,
you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge or anybody else what we're up to."

I find this very manipulative and dishonest ! On one side, she's
saying that the list is only to know who was there. But on the other
side, she's saying that whoever signs agrees not to tell. She actually
*tricked* all of them ! She left them NO CHOICE.

I mean, imagine that you're invited by a friend to go to a political
meeting. That friend belongs to a rather extremist party, but he tells
you that meeting is only about giving out information about his party.
And then you go there, and you hear things that you don't like,
including hard criticism of the government and paranoid delusions. But
then at the end of the meeting, you're told that you have to sign a
register and that by signing that register you're agreeing not to tell
anyone about what you've heard. In effect, they are making you an
accomplice of their misdeeds and propaganda. How would you take that ?

Moreover, one very important thing happened after Marrietta signed :
the DA became illegal. That changes everything.

Alla wrote : 
" Was there anything "illegal" with what she did? Of course not. It 
was her right to betray her friends, but then she absolutely deserved
what she got at the end, IMO."

Del replies :
It was her friends who were doing illegal stuff. She did *not* deserve
to be punished for setting her own situation straight. *Especially*
since she had not been told that there was a punishment attached to
her telling. Cho is right : it *was* a horrible trick on Hermione's
part to jinx the list and not tell anyone. Practical, but horrible.

Moreover there's one issue that's never considered : in what
circumstances did Marrietta betray the DA ? Did she betray them of her
own accord, or did Umbridge exercise any kind of pressure on her ?
Umbridge apparently didn't use Veritaserum on her, but I wouldn't be
surprised if Umbridge had been blackmailing her. The fact that
Marrietta didn't straight out give all the details about the DA, but
only told Umbridge when and where she could find them seems to
indicate IMO that Marrietta was very reluctant in her betrayal. I
wouldn't be the least surprised if she had been pushed into a corner
so to speak.

Alla wrote :
"She was obeying the law? Well, any law put into place by professor 
Umbridge deserved to be sabotaged, IMO."

Del replies :
I understand the feeling, but I have to disagree with the statement.
Anarchy lurks around the corner when we start choosing which laws
we're going to obey.

Moreover, putting any morality over the law is terribly dangerous.
After all, isn't it exactly what LV and the DEs are doing ? Their
morality isn't ours, but if we claim the right to put our morality
over the law, then we automatically grant them the same right.
Dangerous, very dangerous.

Del