Sadism or not ? McGonagall and her punishments

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 186719

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mesmer44" <winterfell7 at ...> wrote:
>
> "a_svirn" <a_svirn@> wrote:
> >
> > > Shaun:
> > > And the fact that Professor McGonagall chooses to reprimand a student on a 
> > > formal occasion for having something inappropriate in her hair, suggests 
> > > that Hogwarts does have such rules. Does it prove it? No, it doesn't. But if 
> > > people are going to base a case for attacking a teacher as having done 
> > > something inappropriate, then in my view the burden of evidence should be on 
> > > them to prove it wasn't something the teacher was allowed to do under the 
> > > school rules - 
> > 
> > a_svirn:
> > I fail entirely to see how it is my burden. Neither narrator, nor McGonagall herself says anything about any rules Parvati allegedly violated. Nowhere in the books are hairstyle regulations mentioned. You are the one who makes this claim, and the only thing you've come up with by way of supporting it is your own real life experience. Which, of course, cannot be convincingly cited as "proof" of anything Hogwarts-related. Sorry, but that burden is all yours. 
> >
> Steve replies:
>      I fail entirely to see why it isn't your burden. You are the one insisting that McG is to blame for scolding a student. That puts the blame squarely on McG and away from Parvati. 

a_svirn:
I do not accuse McGonagall of some sort of criminal offence, only of being petty. But if we are expected to uphold the sacred "innocent until guilty" principle, then those who accuse Parvati of violating an imaginary dress-code must prove their case. No one in the book accused her of breaking any rules; there is not a single mention of any hair-related regulations, instead there are tons of mentions of unusual styles and ornaments that Hogwarts students sport. The presumption of innocence does not concern teachers exclusively, you know. Students have the same rights under the law. If not always under the school rules.