The Political HP

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer" <jferer at ...> wrote:
>
> JKR doesn't seem to trust large, intrusive government, so I think she
> is taking something of a libertarian tack here. Libertarians believe
> governments will inevitably get into self-perpetuating mischief if
> they grow at all large or get involved in too many things.  Defense,
> though, is one of the government functions libertarians admit, so
> careers as Aurors are still valid in this view. I was always struck at
> how the MoM never seems to have to answer to anyone. The Minister is
> chosen by — who? We never learn, except that he's not elected. I
> thought of all the technocrats in Brussels when I thought of the
> Ministry bureaucracy.

No need to go to Brussels (don't get me started on them, just don't), 
the home-grown lot are perfectly capable of authoritarian tendencies.

How far one is prepared go in drawing parallels between Jo's take on
the perils of her fictional suppressive regime and developments in 
real life would largely depend on the reader's pre-existing views IMO.

For example, I've seen it suggested that since education at Hogwarts
consists mostly of mastering what is essentially a deadly weapon, 
then Jo is all in favour of an armed society. Laughed me socks off at
that one. Just can't imagine it. The plot requires the capability of 
individuals to fight, agress, defend, even kill, but I'd be stunned if 
this in any way reflected her RW view of how society should be.

However, for those beyond the Sceptred Isle, here in the UK during 
the period that she has been penning the tomes there has been 
a succession of assaults on long-accepted rights and freedoms, 
many of them at the boundary where the individual meets the State.
The Double Jeopardy rule has gone, as has the right to remain silent
without the prosecution being able, if they wish, to draw inferences 
from this. Habeas Corpus is no longer absolute, nor is the 
presumption of innocence. For certain categories of 'crime' goods 
and chattels may be confiscated on mere suspicion - no arrest, 
charges or conviction - just suspicion. The right to demand trial 
by jury is also under threat at both ends of the judicial spectrum 
- cases of complicated fraud (the jurors might not understand 
the evidence) and minor cases usually dealt with in the Magistrates
courts (these on the grounds of cost effectiveness). Previously if 
the accused felt they weren't getting a fair shake (or thought 
delay might be to their advantage) they had the option of a jury 
trial. Mind you, if they then lost, the penalties would be higher, 
so there was a deterrent to the frivolous. And over all is the 
onward, ever more intrusive creep of what not a few regard
as a panopticon state. 

All intended to protect the citizen, to ensure the nasties can be 
judicially clobbered without smart defences using to advantage 
those irritating legal restrictions that could stymie a prosecution. 
Funny that.
They used to be regarded as protection for the innocent.
Now irrelevant, obviously. That laws introduced to counter serious 
crime and disorder have been used as a hammer to smash quite 
minor and reasonable dissent - and protestations about this have 
been widespread - matters not a jot. 'They' tell us its for our own 
good.

All this lovely protection - but who will protect us from the State 
if/when it gets over-mighty? Can't help but be reminded of the
words of Sir Thomas More in 'A Man For All Seasons'.

Sorry about the rant, but as you can tell, it's something I feel 
strongly about. Hmph.

Now, where was I? Oh yes. 
As you can tell, I'd rush to draw parallels on this aspect of the 
books. And if Jo has strong feelings about such contemporary RW 
issues, that it's not just a useful plot device to be utilised as and 
when convenient, then it's very much to be welcomed IMO. 
Trouble is, we don't really know. 
SFAIK the Q & A sessions to date haven't touched on this 
possibility. But I'll be very interested in her responses if it does 
crop up.

Kneasy