muggle baiting vs. muggle torture

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 155734

> > Alla:
> > 
> > I just think that Muggle baiting includes very specific act of 
> > causing harm to Muggles, not just any. I cannot support it with 
> > canon except the fact that **only** specific acts that Gerry 
> > mentioned are called muggle-baiting.

Irene:
> I don't get it, are you saying that since this episode didn't 
cause any 
> harm to Dudley, it can't be called muggle-baiting?

Alla:

Not at all. I am saying that it cannot be called "Muggle baiting" 
for two reasons. One of them is IMO well enough supported in canon 
and another one less supported. Additionally of course there is no 
**definition** of Muggle baiting, so all of it is not very precise, 
I suppose.

First reason is what Twins say why they gave the candy to Dudley - 
they say **not** because he was a muggle, but because he was a great 
bullying git. I choose to believe them, since I have no canon 
supported reason to think of Twins as liars, so to me the **intent** 
of causing harm to Muggles is absent.

One can argue of course that the crime of muggle-baiting does not 
require intent, but since as far as I remember we don't know one way 
or another, to me it is quite logical to assume that such crime does 
require intent by definition.

Second reason is that the **acts** which we know called Muggle 
baiting in canon are not similar to what Twins did IMO. Shrinking 
keys, etc. I think even in one of Lexicon essays the shrinking keys 
only are given as example of muggle baiting. Now this is of course 
an essay, but still I think it at least shows that this trail of 
thought is possible.

This **second** reason is of course a technicality, but it seems to 
me that in the court of law, I mean **Wisengamot** twins could have 
gotten off on that technicality.

Now, as I said it could be a different crime, if one takes such 
position, but IMO it is not **muggle - baiting**.

I also mentioned earlier that IMO JKR circumstantially supported the 
idea that only very few acts are included in definition of Muggle 
baiting, when she mentioned in one of the questions of her WOMBAT 
that definition of muggle baiting needs to be less stringent.

I actually read it initially in completely oposite way, but it now ( 
for some time now) reads to me that "more acts have to be included 
in this definition to be punished".

Does it make my position clearer?

 
JMO,

Alla