WOMBAT Grade 1: Magical Law - definitions of Muggle-baiting

[Petra]

No: HPFGUIDX 151535

Alla, at first:
> 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. 

Then beating me to the punch, Alla corrects herself:
> It should be "I also read "less stringent definition" as "less acts
> of mugglebaiting will be considered punishable.

Ah.  Well, I beg to differ.  <eg>

There seems to be quite a lot of different readings and understandings 
of this.  Belinda Hobbs of the Lexicon says,

> I would think that Muggle-baiting guidelines would only be important
> to unscrupulous wizards, and therefore making them less stringent,
> not urgent at all (eek).

at http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizworld/wombat.html

But the text of the 9e is actually:

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

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

Guidelines to Muggle-baiting would make this activity one that the 
MoM sanctions.  After all, why provide guidelines on *how* to Muggle-
bait if this is something unlawful?

But in this question we are being asked to contemplate the need to 
change the definitions of Muggle-baiting so that they are less 
stringent.  Nothing here about guidelines.  Not that this is the same 
as what you are saying, Alla...

I think most of us can agree that the other options are within the 
themes that JKR is developing in the books.  To read this option as 
Alla or Belinda has read it makes this choice the anomaly since JKR 
would certainly not advocate that Muggle-baiting be in some way 
encouraged.  Would she?  <rhetorical question>  To read this option 
the way I suggest would bring this back in line with the other options 
given for question 9 as fitting in with JKR's various themes.

Let me recap (but better this time, I hope) what I said in 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/151463

Given: 
MoM punishes anti-muggle pranksters who Muggle-bait 
(we know this because of Willy Widdershins)

Also a given: 
MoM would have to qualify an act as being Muggle-baiting before 
punishing the perpetrators for committing Muggle-baiting

Then does it not follow that a strict definition of this crime would 
mean that *fewer* anti-muggle acts would qualify as being criminal 
acts of Muggle-baiting?

Alla:
> 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, 

You (and everyone else?) seem to have read the option as "we should 
be less strict about considering acts to be Muggle-baiting" which 
would indicate that Muggle-baiting-lite is to be considered 
acceptable.  This is a social attitude that we would not want to 
encourage, of course.

But remember, the subject here is "laws that require changing" so we 
need to pay attention to the likelihood that definitions of a crime 
that are too stringent (which I read to mean too narrow, too strict, 
too tight, etc.) could lead to people being let off the hook for 
committing acts that didn't *quite* qualify as being that crime.

IOW, the WW can get tougher on criminals engaged in acts of Muggle-
baiting by changing the law so that the definition is more
encompassing (read: less stringent) and would apply to more acts of
this nature.

Hmm...in canon, JKR has already explored the flaws of some of the 
other laws mentioned in question 9: the patchy detection of underage 
magic, the classification of centaurs as being less than humans, and 
the abuse that can happen to house-elves.

But have we been given to understand that the definitions of Muggle-
baiting has been so strict or exacting as to make convicting someone 
of that crime difficult or impossible?  Not really.

JKR seems to have this in the back of her mind as part of her concept 
of the WW that informs the structure of Harry's universe.  But she 
has yet to shine the spotlight on this part of the underpinning.

With that in mind, this question and answer should have been written 
to make the ramification of such a change more clear.

Petra, swimming against the tide here?
a
n  :)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com