Occlumency

[nikkalmati]

No: HPFGUIDX 191694



> Shaun:
<huge enormous big snip>> 
> Blackstone first codified English common law in 1770, he included the 
> concept as an ancient one. And very importantly he makes the explicit 
> point that under the doctrine of in loco parentis, a teacher or 
> schoolmaster has the same powers over a child as a parent does for the 
> purposes of carrying out their duties as the child's teacher.
> 
> snip> 

> Example 1 comes from Philosopher's Stone/Sorcerer's Stone, Chapter 10. 
> Just after the incident where Harry, Ron, and Hermione have defeated the 
> troll from the dungeons, when both Professor McGonnagall and Snape are 
> questioning them as to why they were not where they were supposed to be, 
> but had instead wound up in a dangerous situation, and where they are 
> lying about what they did, Harry thinks Snape is trying to read his mind.
> 

snip>

> Example 2 comes in Chapter 13 of the same book. Harry wonders if Snape 
> can read his mind and knows that he knows about the Philosopher's Stone. 
>snip>
> 
> Example 3 - Chamber of Secrets, Chapter 5. Harry thinks Snape is trying 
> to read his mind to find out what happened to the car he and Ron have, 
> in defiance of both wizarding law and at considerable risk to their own 
> personal safety - flown to Hogwarts. snip>
> 
> Example 4 - Chapter 9 of Chamber of Secrets. Dumbledore may be trying to 
> read Harry's mind when Harry, Ron and Hermione are all lying about an 
> incident in which somebody has just petrified a cat and written a 
> message on the wall about a legendary Chamber of Secrets being opened 
> which Dumbledore knows is potentially extremely dangerous. snip>
> 
> Example 5 - Chapter 11 of Chamber of Secrets. Snape tries to read 
> Harry's mind while Harry is actively involved in an attempt to steal 
> supplies from the Stores Cupboard. Both dangerous, and definitely 
> breaking school rules. Again, I would say this is justified by Snape's 
> responsibilities as a teacher.
> 
> Example 6 - later in the same chapter. Harry has just spoken 
> Parseltongue - traditional mark of a dark wizard, not to mention Snape 
> does know a fair bit about Harry possibly having some real connection to 
> Voldemort. Again, this does not seem unreasonable to me.
> 
> Example 7 - Chapter 14 of Prisoner of Azkaban. Snape is interrogating 
> Harry after he has broken school rules by sneaking into Hogsmeade, and 
> by the same action has put himself in danger. Justified.
> 
> Examples 8 and 9 at the lexicon are further parts of the same 
> conversation and discussion. By itself I would not consider 8 
> necessarily justified - where Snape seems to be trying to find out more 
> about what Harry knows about the incident where James saved Snape's life 
> - but within the context of the overall questioning, I would forgive it. 
> Especially as with 9, Snape is back to what I consider a justifiable 
> 'search' of Harry's mind for information - trying to find out if the 
> Marauder's Map helped Harry sneak past the dementors thus endangering 
> himself and breaking school rules. I would consider example 8 to be 
> something that just came up in a justified search situation.
> 
> Example 10 - Goblet of Fire, chapter 37. Again, Snape does have reason 
> to suspect Harry of being involved in thefts from his stores and I would 
> consider that a legitimate search.
> 
>> 
> Snape is in loco parentis. Harry's 'right to privacy' if it exists at 
> all, is very limited. Especially when it comes to matters relating to 
> his safety.
> 
> snip>
> 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.
>
Nikkalmati

I am not getting much traction with my theory that Legilemency cannot be performed on an unknowing victim.  Oh well, it doees not make for as interesting a discussion.  

I would agree with Alla that mind invasion is a serious and severe invasion of privacy.  I would also agree with Shaun that the examples given are justified by the relationship of the parties and the situation Harry is in. The legal situation is probably pretty much as Shaun describes it.  I would point out that recent changes in the US give even parents less authority over their children than at common law and the limits of privacy are still being debated.  The WW is much more traditional, however.  

In support of my theory.  I would point out that Snape never seems to gain any information (about the car, the Mauraders' Map, the cloak, thefts from his stores etc.)  He never takes any action that could have been based on such knowledge.  In fact, if he had gained any knowledge, the car might have been retreved from the FF, and he might have figured out that Harry was hearing voices, or how the Map was used or that Mad Eye was a fake.  He knows none of these things even after supposedly reading Harry's mind.  In each of these examples, Harry was suffering from a guilty conscience and overactive imagination.  Note these incidets disappear after Harry learns what Legilemency really is like in OTP.  

Nikkalmati