The Statute of Secrecy

[Mike]

No: HPFGUIDX 158973

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ken Hutchinson" wrote:
> > > Ken:
> > > 
> > > The issue isn't the use of magic, the issue is that Dumbledore
> > > in this scene is doing the same things that any conniving 
> > > Muggle schemer would do. He uses a forged document 
> > 
> > Pippin:
> > AFAIK, it's not forgery if there's no intent to defraud. Mrs.
> > Cole is not cheated of anything. That the same methods could 
> > have used  to cheat Mrs. Cole is irrelevant.
> >  
> 
> Ken:
> 
> That is an interesting attitude but I am quite certain that 
> forging an official document is in itself a criminal offense
> in most cases. Dumbledore uses his forged document to
> deceive Mrs. Cole into releasing a minor child into his 
> guardianship. How is that not fraudulent? How is that not
> a serious crime? As it happens Dumbledore is a real 
> teacher at a real school that really is offering Tom an 
> education but that does not justify the means he used to
> obtain Mrs. Cole's assent. He is using the methods a 
> pedophile might use to gain access to a child.

Mike:

Whoa, Dumbledore didn't forge anything. He used magic to convince 
Mrs. Cole that he had proper authorization to offer Tom a place 
at "his school", which he *did*. He used his magic to keep from 
revealing that "his school" was a school for witchcraft and 
wizaredry. Not to defraud anyone. 

You may call it being lazy. You may say that he should have 
convinced the current Minister of Magic to go to the present Prime 
Minister (would that have been Chamberlain? haha) to produce a 
different *false* document that claimed that Hogwarts is just an 
ordinary boarding school in Scotland. You may also blame Dumbledore 
for taking the easy way out for not affecting an endemic change 
between the WW and their RW. Sorry I'm not convinced that was or is 
a realistic expectation and, make no mistake, that is the scale of 
correction you are asking for. 

All to replace a little "confundus" (or the like) spell to protect 
the secrecy and, yes, to expedite matters. I just don't get this 
distaste for the use of magic by wizards. It's who they are, it's 
what they do, and if they aren't using it illegally or for dasterdly 
purposes, why do people find so much fault? This is the Potterverse 
after all, and although I'm sure JKR wants us to draw parallels to 
our world, I don't think it needs to be literal.


> Ken:
> 
> I am well aware that Mrs Cole bears the greater share of the 
> blame for her drinking problem. Dumbledore used her problem
> to his advantage and that is simply shabby. A man of his 
> intellect and charm does not have to use such a method to 
> present a win-win proposal to Mrs Cole. A man of his moral 
> standing should not use such methods.

Mike:

Yeah, I can see your point here. This may have been a little 
underhanded on DD's part. I was thinking of what the norms of the 
time were and taking those into account I'd excused DD's method. I 
believe it is only fair to allow for differences in societal norms 
in how people acted in 1938, or maybe unfair to hold people of 1938 
to our current standards. We may know better now, but maybe back 
then it was acceptable to have a few drinks over business.


<snip discussion of *perfect* DD. Agree with all of it>


> > Pippin:
> >
> > They are not going to repeal the statute of secrecy or
> > implement the rules you suggest just because Dumbledore
> > thinks it might be a good idea. He could  magic them into
> > it, maybe.  But that is what you object to in his treatment of 
> > Mrs. Cole, is it not?
> 
> Ken:
> 
> No repeal of the statute is necessary and I have never proposed  
> it. I never suggested that DD would have solved his ethical  
> dilemma by acting unethically towards the officials of the WW  
> either. DD may or may not have had an official MoM policy he  
> could have used to accomplish his mission with Mrs. Cole. We 
> simply do not know and I rather doubt the author has thought much 
> about the issue. <snip>

Mike:
Just for the record, I didn't think you were proposing this 
either. :-)


> Ken:
> We don't have to know to say that he acted unethically and
> possibly criminally in this situation. DD could have tried 
> to convince Mrs Cole to release Tom to Hogwarts' care without 
> using a forged document or a bottle of gin. He certainly could
> have obtained an offical document from Hogwarts making the 
> offer. Such a document did not have to mention anything about 
> magic. If the attempt failed, it failed. DD could have reported 
> the failure to the MoM and suggested that cooperation with the 
> PM's office would be helpful in such cases.
>
> They may or may not have taken his suggestion. It is entirely 
> plausible that they would follow up on a good idea from a field
> agent. This is common practice in many organizations. But if they
> didn't a perfectly good DD would have left the matter in their 
> hands and refused to violate his personal ethics if asked.
> 
> DD did not *have* to act unethically, he *chose* to act 
> unethically. He did not force Mrs Cole to drink gin at wand point, 
> true, but no one forced *him* at wand point to forge the document 
> or conjure the gin either. 

Mike:

I give you the gin (well not literally, it would make a mess of my 
keyboard). But, I disagree that DD was acting unethically and 
disagree that he forged documents. I find it both unrealistic and 
overly critical to expect DD to not use magic and to instead attempt 
to propagate all that you are suggesting above.