Freedom for House-Elves (Was: Kreacher the Plot Device Elf)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 162024

a_svirn earlier:
> > <snip>
> > > Even Harry went from being revolted to being noble and thinking
of slave-holding in terms of "responsibility" in a blink of an eye. <snip>
> > 
> > Carol responds:
> > But what choice does Harry have? He can't set Kreacher free. To do
so would be extremely *irresponsible* and dangerous. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Of course he can't set Kreacher free. I did say that sending 
> Kreacher to Hogwarts was a very good temporary solution. Provided, 
> that is, that Harry would have stuck to it. He didn't, though. As 
> soon as he found himself in a difficulty he used his power over 
> Kreacher without much ado. 
> 
Carol again:
If he can't set Kreacher free, how is Kreacher, whom Harry now owns,
*not* Harry's responsibility? How else ought Harry to think of him?
Doesn't an employer have a responsibility to his employees, both to
make sure they have good working conditions and to make sure they do
their work?

If you're saying that Harry *neglected* that responsibility,
conveniently foisting Kreacher off onto Hogwarts, Dumbledore, and
especially Dobby (who took over the task of watching him, either
voluntarily or on Dumbledore's orders), I agree with you. As for
"using his power over Kreacher," I would phrase that as giving
Kreacher a job to do. I'm quite sure he hasn't been helping out in the
kitchen, and I doubt that the other House-Elves would want him to,
filthy and eccentric as he is, with no sense of loyalty or obligation
to Hogwarts or Dumbledore. (Harry didn't say that Kreacher, or Dobby,
couldn't sleep or take a break. That's just how Dobby chose to
interpret the order.) Why, exactly, should Harry not give Kreacher
something to do, as long as Kreacher belongs to him? Isn't it better
than allowing him to plot mischief?


Carol earlier:
> He's in a position similar to that of Petunia when he was placed on
her doorstep <snip Granted, Kreacher isn't an infant, but he can no
more be set loose to fend for himself than Baby!harry could, however 
> different
> > the reasons. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Now, that's a strange thing to say. Kreacher can fend for himself 
> very good indeed. It is not the touching anxiety for his well-being 
> that stoped Harry (and indeed Dumbledore) from freeing him. The real 
> reason was that Kreacher was too dangerous for them to set loose. 
> Dumbledore made no bones about that, too. *He* didn't speak of 
> responsibility. He just pointed out that Kreacher knew far too much 
> and was far too deep in Bella's confidence. That makes him more like 
> a prisoner of war, than a defenceless infant. Except that Harry 
> would have afforded more courtesy to a Death Eater than to a house-
> elf. No Geneva Convention for non-humans.
>
Carol:
I'm not so sure that Kreacher could fend for himself since even a
House-Elf can't conjure food (JKR has said in an interview that
conjured items don't last), but that aside, I've already conceded that
Kreacher is not a helpless infant. I meant that, like Petunia, Harry
has been saddled with an unwanted person or being placed in his care
against his will. Bad as Petunia's job of caring for Harry has been,
she at least met his basic needs and kept him in the house when it was
essential to do so for the blood protection (assuming that it extends
beyond Voldemort to Dementors, etc.). Harry has neglected his
responsiblity to the person placed in his care--slave, POW, employee,
or what have you--he's too dangerous to set free, and willy nilly, he
belongs to Harry. That makes it Harry's responsibility not only to be
sure that he's treated well, but to be sure that he doesn't make trouble. 

The closest analogy I can think of is Gollum in LOTR. Sam hates him
and wants to be rid of him; Frodo insists on trusting him and treating
him decently. In the end, even though Gollum betrays them, Frodo's
trust pays off. Dumbledore says something similar about the way Sirius
Black should have treated Kreacher, with respect and consideration or
something of that sort. Even Black himself said something about
judging a man by the way he treats his inferiors though he failed to
follow his own advice. Harry has yet to learn that lesson.

Carol, who thinks that until Kreacher can safely be set free, he *is*
Harry's responsibility, and Harry needs to take proper care of his
unwanted "property" rather than foisting that responsibility onto others