Occlumency

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 191683








--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Shaun Hately <shaun.hately at ...> wrote:
<HUGE SNIP of canon examples>
.> I think Snape's use of legilemency can be seen the same way. If somebody 
> can point to an example (outside of the Occlumency classes which I would 
> argue Harry is agreeing to by their nature) of Snape apparently 
> legilemensing Harry without a reason relating to the safety of the 
> students or the rules of the school, I'd reconsider my position, but if 
> Snape *was* using legilemency in that way, I'd expect such an example to 
> be found. The only examples that I've identified so far (with the 
> Lexicon's help) are ones where safety and rules were genuine issues.
>

Alla:

Hi Shawn, I understand your perspective. Please note however that I am coming from a different perspective. First and foremost, while I certainly agree that "coming of age" comes with a lot of additional freedoms in WW and rights to decide things, I disagree that young wizards just do not have that right. The most obvious example is of course Occlumency lessons where more or less expressly Harry agrees to participate. Do you think Snape would have done it anyway if Harry would have screamed no, no, no? I mean, I would not put it past him, but I am not absolutely sure. Now you claim that all the other occassions you quote were justified. I take an issue with some of them (especially number seven), but even if Snape honestly believed that ALL of them are justified due to the issue of safety, I would still be saying it does not really matter. Yeah, schools here allow teachers to search students and do some other stuff due to issue of safety. Some of it I consider completely justified and some crazy and over the top and applaud the parents who take it to court. But we are not talking about any of this stuff, right? We are talking about the stuff which to me is ten times more invasive than rights to search students, we are talking about reading *everything* that is in their mind. I repeat, everything that is in their minds, stuff that has no relation to the issue of their safety. While Snape protected himself from Harry's reading his most shameful memories, Harry could never do that - no pensive for him. Sure, there is some evidence that Snape does not have to read every thought in Harry's mind, but my point is that he can.

If that would have happened in real life, well,as a teacher who may have read your student's mind you may have been justified in it, you may have not, but you bet I would have had a huge issue with that.

Obviously we are constrained by the fact that "mind reading" is a fictional constraint, however I think there is a reason that in so many scifi books that I have read (the first that comes to mind is "The demolished man" by Alfred Bester) ordinary citizens are awarded humongous protections against the fact that the group of people can read their minds. I think it tells me that writers understood how invasive and violating it has the potential to be. In this book for example, police officers who can read minds cannot use that evidence in court, they have to obtain the evidence the hard way - do the work and all that.

To me, mind reading is an invasion, a violation, and I honestly do not care that some of it may be justified by the issue of child's safety. Nor am I sure that it is spelled out that WW kids cannot consent to that (see above example about the lessons). I do not believe that Severus Snape would have stopped at that and *of course* I do not consider mind intrusion *after* the fact to try to find the evidence to *punish* the child justified. Go look for an evidence old fashioned way Snape, but of course Lupin smacks him in the face with taking the map away from him, so he cant really do that.

Hopefully my position is clear too.

Alla.