Hate crimes (was Re: muggle baiting vs. muggle torture)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 155785

> >>Tinktonks:
> > The idea of being racist is not hating someone who is black, it 
> > is hating someone BECAUSE they are black. 

> >>Magpie:
> > Yes, this is the concept you keep trying to frame the question 
> > with, and I keep refuses to agree to it.
> > <snip>
> > We're not talking about what they think or what they feel, but   
> > what they do.

> >>Alla:
> Sorry, but I am **definitely** talking about what Twins think or 
> feel. I take it that for you this action itself constitutes Muggle 
> baiting and  Twins' intent does not matter.

Betsy Hp:
Exactly!!!  Yes, yes, yes!!  *Motive*, in this case, is 
*meaningless*!!!  No one who thinks the twins did a bit of muggle-
baiting *cares* what the twins feelings were in the matter, we're 
talking about their *actions*.  (Sorry for the emotion. I feel like 
this has been stated several times already so I'm very excited that 
it's finally being understood. <g>)

The twins don't hate muggles, from everything we're shown.  But in 
this scene they do take part in Muggle-baiting.

> >>Alla:
> Unless JKR clarifies it and states that **this** action, or I will 
> even take a **similar** prank on Muggle constitutes muggle-        
> baiting, I will continue to make my determination based on Twins' 
> intent, which IMO is non-existent.

Betsy Hp:
Frankly, I think JKR is too clever to come right out and say "this 
is what this scene is."  I think she's purposefully set up a tiny 
little ethical dilemma for everyone to work out on their own.  I 
think she does this quite a bit, which is why there is so much for 
us to discuss.

Though we *do* have Arthur, who specifically works to stop the 
mistreatment of muggles, not only telling his sons that this is what 
they did, but that their intentions do not matter.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/155772
> >>Alla:
> Well said. I mentioned several times in the past that I grew up
> experiencing what antisemitism is, just as vast majority of jewish
> kids and adults in former Soviet Union, so I have no tolerance for
> that whatsoever.
> But does it mean that I would call two non jewish kids playing a
> prank on jewish kid who mercilessly bullied their younger brother 
> an act of antisemitism? Of course not, ever. Unless of course I   
> will have reasons to suspect that this was one of the reasons why 
> prank was played, which in Twins' case I do not.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
How would you feel if the prank played consisted of attaching a note 
saying "Dirty Jew" to the back of that child's shirt?  Would the 
excuse, "We didn't do it *because* he's a Jew" work for you? IOWs if 
the prank specifically took advantage of the fact that the child is 
Jewish and the prankers are not, would you still think it okay?  
Because the twins specifically target the fact that Dudley is a 
Muggle.  They don't just prank him, they use magic to do so.  And 
that is what makes Arthur so angry and that is what turns the prank 
into Muggle-baiting, IMO. 

> >>Gerry:
> > <snip>
> > How to call what Harry did to aunt Marge? aunt Marge is a       
> > Muggle. Harry used magic on her, and not to bait her. Surperior 
> > force, willfully. 
> > <snip>

> >>Magpie:
> Interesting comparison, given it seems it contains all the things
> that keep getting added to the Twins scene when they're not there.
> Harry is provoked, and up until the moment his Magic bursts from   
> him is the person with the least power in the scene. He tries to   
> ignore the provocation. He's in a state of emotional distress and 
> doesn't even consciously hex her iirc. So less power imbalance,   
> more self-defense and less intent to perform magic, much less     
> perform it on a Muggle.

Betsy Hp:
I agree with Magpie.  Harry didn't willfully hex Aunt Marge; he 
didn't even have his wand.  This was an unconscious response to 
extreme provocation. And it was very much an accident.  So no, this 
incident is not one of Muggle-baiting, IMO.

Betsy Hp