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

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 155824

> Gerry
> "She deserved it," said Harry breathing fast 'She deserved what she got."
>
> Harry refuses to put it right. He can but he does not. He is certainly
> taking advantage of his status as a wizard now.

Magpie:
I don't remember that he can put it right (ironically, that would probably 
get him in trouble again, because he's not allowed to use Magic at all, 
though he should get off in that case because he would be helping her).  But 
regardless, Magic has been used on a Muggle and that is against the law. 
This particular bit of Magic was done unintentionally by Harry.  He's not 
sorry after the fact and does nothing himself to undo it, but he did not do 
it intentionally.  It happened.  The right thing for Harry to do would be to 
undo it, but he chooses not to use his powers to help Marge (if he can). Nor 
does he use any Magic after that. He just leaves the scene.  I don't think 
there's any rules about how Wizards have to help Muggles.  Harry's not 
making the good or kind choice in refusing to help, but did not make the 
choice to hex Marge.

Similarly, I think Hagrid's crime would be giving Dudley the pig's tail 
while trying to turn him into a pig.  It would have been nicer of him to 
undo it afterwards, but his not doing that is a slightly different decision 
than doing it in the first place.

> Gerry
> Harry used his superior powers on Aunt Marge. Aunt Marge in the past
> has used her superior powers over Harry (setting the dog on her and
> even now she has superior physical powers). Is the situation really
> that oneven?

Magpie:
Marge did not just use her superior powers on Harry "in the past," she was 
using them on him at the time.  And Magic in turn burst out of Harry--his 
powers used themselves.  Magic has been used on a Muggle, which is a wrong. 
A wrong which happened by accident, in a spontaneous defense, for which 
Harry was not consciously responsible.

Gerry:
OK next example: What about Dumbledore's behaviour at the Dursley's.Forcing 
entry, forcing them to sit on the couch, having the glasses of mead float 
around their heads. Was that teaching them a lesson? Was that Muggle 
baiting? Because the Dursleys are Muggles and Dumbledore has superiour 
powers.

Magpie:
I think it was Muggle-baiting, intentionally terrorizing them with Magic. 
He may have described it as teaching them a lesson, but he's teaching it 
through Muggle-baiting.  I don't think anyone would deny he's teasing and 
intimidating them with Magic.  The only disagreement in canon (as with the 
Twins) is whether it's good of him to do because they deserve it or not. I 
think he's also being careful in not hexing them--he can say he didn't do 
anything to them, just gave them mead and offered them a chair, but the 
intention seems clear enough. Rather sneaky of him.  For some people this 
saved Dumbledore as a character for him, because he finally went after the 
Dursleys.  For others this scene sunk the character in their estimation.

Gerry

You are being inconsistent here. If motive does not matter, than it does not 
matter. If it does not matter that Fred and George use magic on Dudley 
because he is a bully, it is equally unimportant that the
toffee they use is also a test for their joke shop.

Magpie:
I am not being inconsistent.  First, I did not say motive did not matter. 
Motive is a perfectly valid thing to talk about--and it can make a serious 
difference if there's a question of self-defense.  I just said that motive 
does not necessarily make something not Muggle-baiting. It can make 
something not Muggle-baiting, imo, in a true self-defense situation for 
instance. I don't think the Twins' motive in this case makes it not 
Muggle-baiting.

If we are going to talk about the Twins' motive, which is a valid thing to 
talk about since it's part of canon too, I'd just assume talk about what's 
actually in canon.

Festuco:
 If the last suddenly does matter, you have to prove that that was the 
reason why they gave Dudley the opportunity to eat it, and why their 
comment: that they gave it because he was a bullying git was not the reason.

Magpie:
Iirc, it's the reason they give.  They first want to hear how the toffee 
worked, etc.  It's a joke and so hilarious (they are consistently shown to 
love pranking people).  When Arthur yells about his being a Muggle then they 
say they chose him because he's a great bullying git.  Both reasons come 
into play, which I tried to say.  They' say they've been looking for someone 
to test their products on--that's canon.  They say they gave them to Dudley 
because he's a git.  That's canon too. I think Weasley's Wizard Wheezes is 
shown throughout canon to be the dominant motivation for the Twins, more so 
than any on-going anguish over little Harry's sufferings of the past. And of 
course there's also the ongoing fact that they like to prank people. Either 
way they planned and carried out a prank on a Muggle.  One they had reason 
to think was a jerk and who himself bullies smaller Muggles.

-m