Bigotry in the Potterverse/Hermione and her parents

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 188174

Magpie wrote:
> > Voldemort and the DEs weren't looking for them, so they weren't in danger. But that said, a memory charm doesn't make them immune from torture. As far as I can tell all it did was make them go to Australia, which they could have done with their own memories. 

Rick (I think) responded:  
> That should read, so they weren't in danger YET.  Just like the Weasleys had to go into hiding after it discovered Ron was with HP, so too would the Grangers.  Hg could foresee the issue and acted preemptively.

Carol notes:
No one that I know of is arguing that Hermione should not have anticipated danger to her parents and protected them or that they should not have been urged to leave the country. The objection is to controlling them and wiping their memories if she did so without their knowledge.

I agree with Magpie that they could have voluntarily gone to Australia, knowing the reasons and *choosing* to sacrifice their homes, possessions, jobs, identities, and (temporarily) contact with their daughter instead of being *forced* to make those sacrifices without even knowing it, and, worse, robbed of all memory of a beloved child because *she* thought that it would protect them to do so.

Yes, they would have been in danger if they stayed in England, especially after Hermione's being with Harry was discovered, but a Memory Charm was pointless and cruel as it would not have protected them from torture and they didn't know anything about her whereabouts, anyway (nor did she). I agree with Magpie that they'd have been safe in Australia with their memories intact. The DEs were all in England and Scotland, and you can't Apparate from Britain to Australia, even in stages, because of the long distance over water--even if they were known to have moved there. It would be obvious even to someone as dim as a Carrow that the Grangers could not know their daughter's whereabouts if no one in England knew where she was! 

As for staging a media "event" with Hermione Granger supposedly kidnapped as someone suggested, the DEs couldn't and wouldn't do that. Where would they find a Muggle TV camera and news crew? The Muggle media and the WW's pathetic substitutes (the Daily Prophet, the Quibbler, and the Wizarding Wireless) are completely unconnected. As someone said, the only reason that Sirius Black appeared on the Muggle news was that Fudge informed the Muggle Prime Minister, who presented him to the Muggle media, and from there to British (not Australian or American or Chinese) Muggles as a Muggle criminal who had escaped from an unnamed prison.

IMO, the Grangers would have had no more news, staged or otherwise, of Hermione's supposed capture than the Weasleys did of Ron's. (Luna's kidnapping was real, and the DEs must have presented evidence to Xeno that they had her--perhaps her captured wand or a lock of her hair.)

It's simple, really. Tell them their danger and let them weigh the risks for themselves. Give them the choice and let them act for themselves. And, especially, let them keep their precious memories of their daughter intact. If Molly Weasley can endure a year of not knowing where her teenage son is, the Grangers--mature, intelligent people as far as can tell--can endure a year of not knowing where their daughter is. It's an ordeal, true, but they're used to having her away from home and they're not helpless children. Hermione can offer to magically transform the names on their Muggle drivers licenses and passports and even, somehow, to protect the house. But she should not even suggest wiping their memories, and if she does it without their consent (cf. the examples of similar behavior that Kemper cited and add in the trapping of Rita Skeeter in a jar), I can find no excuse for her conduct except the conviction of an immature know-it-all that she, like the young Dumbledore, knows what's best for everyone and has the power to carry out her plans.

Carol, who agrees with the poster who said that Hermione and the young Albus DD are remarkably alike, the difference being that he was apparently conservative and she is radically liberal