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

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 162026

> Carol:
> 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?

a_svirn:
Well, Harry is not exactly an employer, isn't he? Neither an 
employer, concerned for his employee's well-being, nor a caring 
guardian thinking of his ward's happiness. He is a slave-holder. When 
one starts to obscure reality by applying more palatable names for 
it, one is being hypocritical. And Harry definitely shows tendency 
for hypocrisy here. 

> Carol:
> 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. 

a_svirn:
I am not saying anything of the sort. I did say that it was a 
compromise, and as compromises go not a bad one. 

> Carol:
As for
> "using his power over Kreacher," I would phrase that as giving
> Kreacher a job to do. 

a_svirn:
Well, you can of course phrase it like that, if you choose. I don't 
see how it makes any difference, though. When you give your slave a 
job to do you use your power over him or her. 


> Carol:
 Why, exactly, should Harry not give Kreacher
> something to do, as long as Kreacher belongs to him? 

a_svirn:
Because slavery is an abomination? 

> Carol:
Isn't it better
> than allowing him to plot mischief?

a_svirn:
That problem had already been dealt with, when Kreacher had been sent 
to Hogwarts. It wasn't an ideal solution, but at least, Kreacher 
didn't have to serve Harry directly nor did he have to do anything he 
didn't want. It is one thing to restrict freedom of a dangerous foe, 
quite another to use him as a slave. 

> 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), 

a_svirn:
Well, Dobby didn't die from hunger while he was unemployed. And 
Kreacher was practically expelled from the kitchen by Molly, so it 
looks like he fended for himself even while he was a Grimauld Place 
resident. 

> Carol
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. 

a_svirn:
Oh, yes. But that's not his responsibility towards *Kreacher*. That's 
his responsibility towards the Order. His responsibility towards 
Kreacher would have been to set him free. In this case he naturally 
chose the order over Krecher, which is fine with me. What I find 
revolting is that, instead of recognizing the "conflict of interests" 
so to speak, and treating Kreacher with respect, he accepts the 
situation as if it is a natural order of things and if though owning 
a slave is a noble occupation.