The Statute of Secrecy

[Ken Hutchinson]

No: HPFGUIDX 159065

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "a_svirn" <a_svirn at ...> wrote:
>
> > Ken:
> > The Statute of Secrecy is a tough, tough law to enforce and obey, I
> > grant that. It does not *force* anyone to act unethically. Individual
> > witches and wizards and the Ministry collectively *choose* 
> convenience
> > over ethics. I won't let them off the hook for that.   
> 
> a_svirn:
> Although I agree with you on the question of forgeries I think that 
> stature of secrecy does force one to act unethically. Because memory 
> charms *are* unethical and it's impossible to maintain secrecy without 
> them.
>

Ken:

I don't think we can say that for sure since we are never given the
text of the statute. I agree that memory charms are unethical, I think
they are as bad as the unforgivable curses and should be numbered
among them. It certainly is true that the statute is frequently used
to justify the casual use of memory charms on Muggles and I agree that
this is unethical. Whether or not the statute itself mandates the use
of memory charms is unknowable, or else I just missed the reference in
canon that states this. In this scene Dumbledore did not appear to use
a memory charm on Mrs. Cole. The gin was at least sleazy and the
document may have been a forgery. There is nothing that I know about
the statute that *required* Dumbldore to use either. 

Ken