WOMBAT Grade 1: Magical Law

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 151522

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Petra Pan" <ms_petra_pan at ...> 
wrote:
>
> > 9. Which of the following wizarding laws, in your view, 
> > stands in most urgent need of change? 
<SNIP of the interesting ideas about the test>
> 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?

Alla:

Hehe. I told you earlier that my answers to WOMBAT were often 
intuitive guesses, so I was not sure how much my answer would 
contribute but I could not resist trying.

See, I don't know if those answers are JKR's critique or not. I mean 
obviously it is her critique as the creator of the Potterverse OR 
those reflect the unhappiness of the different population groups in 
Potterverse and JKR as an author does not really share this 
critique. I mean, I think it can be true at least for some answers. 
I for example really doubt that JKR thinks that  definition 
of "mugglebaiting" needs to be made less stringent.

I am thinking that she is more likely to think that "mugglebaiting" 
should be punishable more severely not less, but some "outstanding" 
citizens of Potterverse ( like dear Lucius and others) may think 
differently, no?

 
> > 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?

Alla:

This is a great example of course of how changing this law may 
benefit WW. I mean, to prevent framing of the innocent person sure 
is worth the trouble.

The funny thing is that I did not even for a second consider that 
this law needs changing ( I think I remember this one correctly, 
hopefully, because most of my answers I forgot by now. Oh well).

The first thing that came to my mind was the mischief twins and 
Ginny and maybe other Weasleys kids were able to create because 
Ministry cannot catch them doing magic. And I was thinking that more 
Weasleys mischief is good. :)


 
> > 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?

Alla:

I speculate that it was emposed after another Goblin rebellion. I do 
think that it will benefit WW a great deal if not now, maybe in book 
7 if that happens. That is if Goblins will join humans in the fight 
against Voldemort.


 > > 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?

Alla:

Oh, I have no clue. I guess it all goes towards  the unity of all 
races at  the end of the books, or at least the beginning of the 
such unity, since if all races join together in the happy dance at 
the end, I would consider it to be quite unrealistic, but I have no 
idea how that may play out.



> > 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?

Alla:

Oh, the house elfs. I was not surprised to learn that such 
guidelines exist, since IMO it goes towards the argument that house 
elfs actually are enslaved and not just really like serving humans.

I mean, if serving humans was in house-efs nature, why would 
guidelines needed to be there in the first place?

On the other hand, I have to think about it.

 
> > e. Definitions of 'Muggle-baiting'
> > (needs to be made less stringent) 
> 
> What might this imply about the consequences of Muggle-baiting?
><SNIP>
> 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?
>

Alla:

Actually I also read "less" stringent definition as "more acts will 
be considered punishable", I mean less stringent means less strict, 
right? That would mean that more acts of Muggle baiting would be 
allowed, IMO, that is why I think that it would only benefit DE and 
DE wannabes. IMO of course.

Thanks for a great post.