WOMBAT Grade 1: Magical Law

[Petra Pan]

No: HPFGUIDX 151463

> 9. Which of the following wizarding laws, in your view, 
> stands in most urgent need of change? 

Of all the questions, this one is the most interesting to me.
The answers consist of areas of wizarding laws and what is wrong 
with each of these laws or with the enforcement of them in 
parenthesis.  The implication here is that *all* five laws are 
flawed and there is not a clear consensus as to which is in the 
most urgent need of being fixed.

Though this question is asking for a personal view and therefore 
any of the answers can be correct, the judgments of the laws as 
stated in the parenthesis here seem incontrovertible.  After all,
if the problems as defined in parenthesis are arguable, their 
inclusion in the answers would really muddy up the test taking.

For example, if a test taker thinks that c. stands in most urgent 
need of change but disagrees with the assessment of that law as 
implied in the answer, is s/he still to pick c. as representative 
of his/her view?  The parenthetical phrases here are worth closer 
examination.

So, can we consider the critical assessments of these laws to be 
JKR's criticisms of these Magical Laws?

Does this then contribute to our understanding of the themes in HP 
as JKR develops them?

> a. The detection of underage magic in all-magic households 
> (currently impossible) 

This problem with this law is not news, having already been 
established in canon during the exposition of how the young Tom 
Riddle had blamed the 3 murders on Morfin.

How might changing this law benefit the WW at this time

especially since detection remains impossible?

> b. The ban on goblin possession of wands 
> (ought to be lifted) 

Have there been mentions in canon that would support the lift of 
the ban on goblin possession of wands?  Under what circumstances 
might the ban have been imposed in the first place?

How might lifting this ban benefit the WW at this time?

> c. The re-classification of centaurs and merpeople 
> (ought to take their views into account) 

JKR has touched upon this in her depictions of the centaurs in 
the books and the discussion of the classification process in 
FBaWtFT.  Does this imply that others either are happy with 
how they are classified or have no views to be taken into 
account?

How might the re-classification of centaurs and merpeople to 
better reflect their views of who they are benefit the WW at this 
time?

> d. The guidelines on house-elf welfare 
> (need to be enforced) 

Have we heard about such guidelines in canon?  What might they 
be?  Under what circumstances might the guidelines have been 
set forth in the first place?  Why aren't they being enforced?

Not that it sounds as if it would enforce these guidelines, 
but in MoM there is that Office of House-Elf Relocation.  When
might that office actually take action?  Are the relocations
done on behalf of house-elves or on behalf of the owners?

How might the improvement of house-elf welfare benefit the WW 
at this time?

> e. Definitions of 'Muggle-baiting'
> (needs to be made less stringent) 

What might this imply about the consequences of Muggle-baiting?

We do know that convicted anti-muggle pranksters (ex.: Willy 
Widdershins) can be punished if caught, even if they are considered,
by the portrait behind Dumbledore's desk, to be merely 'petty
criminals'.  Remember also that the MoM/Umbridge traded Willy's
punishment for his info on the DA.

Does 'needs to be made less stringent' imply that *not* enough acts 
of Muggle-baiting are defined as being legally punishable at this 
time?

Would a *less* stringent definition mean that *more* acts would be 
considered punishable?  (My reading of this part seems to differ 
from Belinda's as published at the Lexicon quite a bit.)

What circumstances might have brought about the need to define 
this?

How might changing the definitions benefit the WW at this time?

Now for the rest of the post at 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/151138

> Which Ministry of Magic department(s) and/or committee(s) 
> would you contact to resolve each of the following 
> dilemmas?
>  
> 1. Your neighbour is concealing a stash of flying carpets, 
> some of which he is allowing to fly loose around his back 
> garden.

Is there an obligation to resolve this dilemma just because one 
lives next door?
 
> a. Wizengamot 

Would the Wizengamot deal with something as mundane as this?

> b. Department of International Magical Cooperation 

Though flying carpets are probably not native to the UK, does
dealing with them require multi-national cooperation?

> c. Misuse of Muggle Artifacts Office 

Why are flying carpets misuse but flying brooms not?  Does a 
magical broom in the hand of a muggle not have the potential
to cause problems for the WW the way a magical carpet might?

> d. Obliviators 

Unknown: did muggles see these flying carpets?

> 2. Your friend C possesses a Muggle Penny Farthing (old 
> bicycle) that has been enchanted to skim an inch above 
> the ground, achieving speeds of over 100mph. C did not 
> personally enchant the Penny Farthing, never rides it 
> and merely wishes to keep it 'for sentimental reasons' 
> as it was her grandmother's. 
> 
> a. Department of Magical Transport 

Does this dept. deal with any mode of magic transport except 
those sanctioned by the MoM?

> b. Improper Use of Magic Office 

Does keeping an improperly enchanted object constitute improper
use of magic?

> c. Obliviators 

Unknown: did muggles see the bike in action?

> d. Misuse of Muggle Artefacts Office 

Would the loophole in the law as written by Arthur keep C from
getting into trouble or might C face an inquiry someday?

> e. Committee on Experimental Charms 

What do we know of this committee?

> 3. Your sixteen year old nephew, D, has hexed his seventeen-
> year-old sister, E. E has retaliated with a Stunning Spell 
> that missed D and hit a Muggle motorist, who smashed into a 
> lamppost. 

(And surely this test is geared more toward adults than children: 
how many school kids have 16 and 17 year old nephews and 
nieces?)

> a. Department of Magical Accidents & Catastrophes 
> b. Department of Magical Accidents & Catastrophes and 
> Obliviator Squad 
> c. Department of Magical Accidents & Catastrophes, 
> Obliviator Squad and Improper Use of Magic Office 
> d. Department of Magical Accidents & Catastrophes, 
> Obliviator Squad, Improper Use of Magic Office and 
> Wizengamot

Well, pretty sure Department of Magical Accidents & 
Catastrophes is involved since it's a part of every 
choice we are given and is certainly called for.  
Obliviator Squad would be needed for the muggle(s) 
involved.  Since there's one underage wizard here, the 
Improper Use of Magic Office would be appropriate.

Would going to the Wizengamot be overkill for this 
situation?

> 4. Your Friends wizard A and wizard B are in dispute over 
> which of them owns a field in which Mooncalfs dance 
> periodically. A accuses B of using nightly a Summoning 
> Charm to collect the precious Mooncalf dung which is 
> rightfully A's. 
>
> a. Improper use of Magic Office 

Does the Improper Use of Magic Office deal with anything 
other than use of magic by underage wizards?  Is the magic 
here improperly used per se?

> b. Wizengamot 

The dispute here has been defined as being over the ownership 
of a field, which in turn seems to lead to ownership of the 
dung.  Would the Wizengamot be used to settle a property 
dispute?

> c. Pest Advisory Board 

Since mooncalf dung is considered to be precious, no pests are 
involved here.

> 5. Witch F fed love potion to a Muggle man, who has 
> married her. When you went around with a wedding gift you 
> discovered that she is using him as an occasional table. 

Hmm...safe to guess that the honeymoon is over.

(How often are school kids going around giving wedding gifts?)
 
> a. Auror office 

Are love potions considered Dark Magic?  Does turning a muggle 
into furniture constitute Dark Magic?

> b. Misuse of Magic Office 

On what occasion would transfiguring a person into furniture 
and the use of love potions *not* be misuses of magic?

> c. Obliviators 

For the occasional table, once he is no longer.

> d. Wizengamot 

Does this situation warrant the use of the Wizengamot?

Since I'd definitely call both b. and c., the only answer 
that include both of these groups is "e. All of the above" 
so does that imply that a. and d. are appropriate for this 
occasion too?
         
> 6. Which of the following should be most SEVERELY 
> punished by the Wizengamot? 
> 
> a. The injury of three Muggles due to a poorly performed 
> Forgetfulness Charm 
> b. The death of a chicken due to a poorly aimed Bat-
> Bogey Hex 

Both of these curses are trumped by uses of the Unforgivable 
Curses below.

> c. The use of the Cruciatus curse on a shark about to 
> attack a Muggle 

Is an Unforgivable Curse unforgivable when performed on non-
humans?

Does c. imply that the Cruciatus curse is effective on a
shark?

> d. The use of the Imperious curse on a Muggle mugger 

Unknown: is the Muggle mugging the witch/wizard doing
the cursing?  Aren't there plenty of alternatives to an
Imperious curse?

> 7. Which of the following should receive the LIGHTEST 
> punishment from the Wizengamot? 
> 
> a. Horns created accidentally on a culprit's mother, 
> caused by broken wand 

Does the fact that this was unintentional come into play?

What about the fact that the culprit used a broken wand which
s/he should have known would be unreliable?

> b. Jellylegs Jinx performed on threatening Muggle 

So much for keeping magic a secret from Muggles...

> c. Breeding fanged Puffskeins 

If Puffskeins are things expected to be completely harmless,
breeding fangs in them seems akin to planting a nasty surprise.
Besides that aspect, is this a serious breach of the Ban on 
Experimental Breeding a la fire-breathing chicken?

> d. Underage witch performs Cleaning Charms in privacy of 
> own home 

The idea of a child being punished for cleaning tickles me...

> 8. Which of the following does NOT require a Ministry of 
> Magic license? 
> 
> a. Crup ownership

Crup licenses are canon - see FBaWtFT.
 
> b. Sale of magical artefacts 

Probably requires a license but is there canon for assuming thus?

> c. House-elf ownership 

Does Harry have a license for owning Kreacher?

> d. Apparition 

Apparition licenses are canon.

Petra
a
n  :)



P.S. Is there anyone here up for coming up with discussion questions 
for the other 3 discussion posts on WOMBAT?

Please see

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/151140
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/151141
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/151142

and email PenapartElf @aol.com (minus that extra space).