[HPforGrownups] Re: Jo's Squib error? A Few Minor Points

[Vivamus]

No: HPFGUIDX 123891

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at y...>
> wrote:
> 
> > Carol responds:
> >
> > ... but the fact remains that she has unambiguously stated that Mrs.
> > Figg can't see Dementors. ...edited...
> 
> bboyminn: 
> <snip>
> 
> So, perhaps there is a different standard of /truth/ for a Hearing.
> Perhaps people merely gave statements rather than sworn 
> testimony. If that were true then, while it was certainly 
> unethical, it may not have been perjury for Mrs. Figg to 
> embellish her statements slightly.
> 
> Given that Fudge was trying to corrupt the whole legal 
> process and, as we say in the states, railroad Harry, 
> Dumbledore and/or Figg may not have seen this slight 
> adjustment to the truth as that big a deal. It pales compared 
> to the level of corruption that Fudge is engaged in.

Vivamus:
I fear I must disagree that it was "certainly" unethical for Mrs. Figg to
embellish her statements.  I think it was entirely ethical for her to do so,
facing a kangaroo court with a predetermined outcome that would most likely
result in the destruction of the entire WW.  It is not that two wrongs make
a right, nor even that the corruption of Fudge is greater, but that the
ethical thing to do in that situation is what protects the WW from LV's
victory.

You could, actually, also argue that because the "hearing" was a fraud, and
Fudge had manipulated the machinery to get rid of Harry rather than have an
actual hearing, that their right to the truth, even in testimony, is null
and void.  I think that's a weaker argument, but it does support that Fudge
did not deserve to be told the truth. 

Here is an ethical comparison.  Someone comes up to you, looking for someone
they are trying to murder, and asks you where their target is.  You happen
to know that the person is hiding behind the couch you are sitting on.  You
also know that the would-be murderer will kill you AND find the person
behind you if you say nothing or say you don't know.  So, what is the
ethical thing to do?  Do you save yourself, and tell him where the victim
is?  Do you lie, say you don't know, and be killed along with the victim?
Do you say nothing and be killed along with the victim?   Or, do you save
both of you, lie, and give some version of "he went that-away" that sends
the attacker in the wrong direction?  

To consider Arabella's testimony, she did not actually lie any more than
absolutely necessary.  She definitely did lie when she said she saw the
Dementors running, but everything else may have been true (including,
possibly, that Squibs can see Dementors.)  

She was there for the attack, and she could certainly sense something,
because she came charging into the alley immediately afterwards, going on
about Dementors.  She may never have seen one, but she must have been able
to tell what they were from her feelings at their presence.   

We know (from JKR's statement) that she could not see the Dementors (because
she did sense their presence but didn't actually see them.)   I'm wondering
if she could see the Patronus, or if that was also an embellishment.

Vivamus