Maligning Lupin

[Renee]

No: HPFGUIDX 149904

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > > Pippin:
> > > 
> > > There are many Muggleborns and halfbloods who should
> > > understand that human fallibility, exacerbated by poverty and
> > > discrimination, can precipitate crime and terrorism without 
> > > any help from Dark Magic or mind-altering diseases. Those
> > > people are going to have more influence once Voldemort is 
> > > defeated, or so I hope.
> > 
> > Renee:
> > What makes you hope so? Voldemort was believed to be gone for fourteen
> > years, yet we've heard nothing about any Muggleborn wizards or
> > halfbloods breaking a lance for werewolves or any other
> > oppressed/shunned/mistreated minorities during this time.
> 
> Pippin:
> Umbridge's laws were new.
> She was not able to pass  anti-werewolf laws until
> Dumbledore and those supporting him were driven from power
> or in fear of losing their jobs if they disagreed with her. 

Renee:
And how is that an argument against the passivity of the Wizarding
community regarding werewolf rights after the first Voldemort War? 

Also, in the conversation Sirius, Harry and Ron have about Umbridge in
OotP we hear that her anti-werewolf laws were drawn `two years ago'.
That would be 1993/1994, the year Lupin was teaching at Hogwarts, and
before he was outed as a werewolf. Whereas Dumbledore wasn't driven
from power until August 1995. 

Obviously the climate Umbridge was working in at the time was such
that passing those laws didn't cause a ripple, to put it mildly. And
you seem to overestimate Dumbledore's political powers if you think he
could have stopped the laws from being passed (if he could, I'd be
hugely disappointed in him). He couldn't even secure an official
Hogwarts education for Lupin, but had to hide the boy's secret from
the WW.  
 
> Pippin:
> Purebloods and Slytherins don't
> have to prove that they're decent people before they're granted
> equal rights. Why should werewolves have to? 

Renee:
Because Purebloods and Slytherins don't ever have to turn Dark if they
don't want to? 

Apparently public opinion in the WW considers the answer `because they
have no choice becoming murderous Dark Creatures every once in a
while, unlike Purebloods and Slytherins' a valid one. Because of this
fatalist response, werewolves still can't get a Hogwarts education
like other wizards and witches and can be robbed of their right to
work for a living by Ministry toads in pink vests. 

During the first Voldemort War, werewolves sided with LV, and
afterwards nobody seems to have said `well, from now on let's consider
them decent people and give them equal rights to prevent this from
happening again'. There's no reason to think it would be any different
after the second Voldemort War - unless the WW would be presented with
a strong reason to reconsider its prejudice. If a werewolf can choose
not to succumb to the temptation of turning evil despite being fated
to turn into a monster each month, they may realise they have a
choice, too, instead of just sticking to their prejudice.       

       
Pippin:
> The very fact that Bill's injuries are unprecedented proves that
> werewolves  don't normally attack  people when they're
> not transformed.  If the WW also needs proof that werewolves aren't
> capable of transmitting full-blown lycanthropy except when
> they're transformed, Bill's case proves that too.

Renee:
But for all we know, the WW will conclude that the werewolves are
becoming even more evil. I can just see the Prophet headline:
WEREWOLVES FROM BAD TO WORSE; public opinion isn't known for it's
nuances. And for some reason I doubt the new prospect of disfigurement
and incurring cursed wounds will sound reassuring: it's added to the
danger of getting turned or killed during full moon. Nor does it
change the fact that Greyback and those of his ilk are supporting the
enemy.  

  
> > Renee:
> > You're comparing apples and oranges here by calling them both round
> > fruits. Lupin did not betray Dumbledore into the hands of his enemies.
> > So why would he betray his friends to Voldemort? 
> 
> Pippin:
> Dumbledore admitted Lupin to Hogwarts when no one else
> would take the risk.
> 
> Have you considered what would have happened to Dumbledore
> if Lupin had bitten someone in Hogsmeade? Do you think he'd
> have been able to keep his job?  What would have happened to
> everyone who was depending on Dumbledore to keep Hogwarts
> secure against Voldemort?

Renee:
If I'm not mistaken, criminal neglect and treason are different offences. 
I doubt very much Lupin was aware of this possible chain of events at
the time; realisation only came later. Sixteen, seventeen year olds
are notorious for overestimating themselves, which is exactly what the
Marauders did. They simply ignored the possibility of disaster. This
is far removed from deliberately telling Voldemort where to find your
friends so he can kill them, in order to save your own skin. 

Renee