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

[Renee]

No: HPFGUIDX 155901

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>

>> Pippin:
> 
> 
> It strikes me that the Muggle-baiting laws are for
> situations where the Statute of Secrecy doesn't apply because 
> ordinarily the Muggles wouldn't know or would never admit that
> they were given a magical object. The Twins' case is ironic, because 
> the one time that Arthur has a Muggle witness who could testify that he
> was fooled by an enchanted object, it's his own sons that are the
culprits. 
> Arthur prefers, naturally to let these offenders off with a warning.

Renee:
Which to me raises the question: is it Muggle baiting when the Muggles
both 1) know they're dealing with wizards and magic;
and 2) have the chance to avoid the object and remain unaffected?

Many people argue that Dudley was on a diet and therefore sorely
tempted to eat the toffee. In itself, this is true. Does that mean he
was helpless? I don't think so. This series is about choices. The
whole point of a diet is that you change your eating habits and learn
some self-restraint. If it was impossible to resist temptation, no
diet would ever work. IMO, unless Dudley had no free will whatsoever,
he is partly to blame for the predicament he gets himself in. And it's
not as if he's completely unsuspecting: he knows he's dealing with
wizards here.  

That doesn't mean the Twins go scot-free. Arthur's anger is justified:
his sons have just confirmed the Dursleys' idea that magic is nasty
and wizards are untrustworthy. But I the fact that Dudley chooses to
pick up a possibly magical object of his own free will may change this
incident from outright Muggle baiting into something else. 

Renee