« Previous Post | Index | Next Post »
A bit of clarification, and some hopes of a cool-down.
I worry that we're veering dangerously close to the border of off-topic-land here, but if possible, I would like to try to keep this discussion within the bounds of this board. I think that there are some interesting and important on-topic issues lurking somewhere just beneath the surface here, and it might be nice if we could try to raise them up a bit, while turning the heat 'way, 'way down.
First, though, some apologies.
Bobby wrote:
I could not disagree more with your post... not necessarily the content, but the underlying tone inherent in it.
Yes. It's obvious that my tone really rankled, and I apologize for causing offense. I didn't mean to come across as sneering or contemptuous towards law enforcement, but I'm getting the distinct impression that I did, and that this was what angered you. Again, apologies.
You wrote:
What annoys me is that people who champion civil liberties seem to without fail give the benefit of the doubt to those that least deserve it, may that be Death Eaters, terrorists, what have you.
Okay. You are here making quite a few assumptions about my political biases and inclinations. In short, you've just presented an encapsulated summary of the negative stereotype of the "Bleeding-Heart Liberal." There is a certain justice to this, admittedly, as I myself pretty well did exsctly the same thing to Moody when I wrote:
He strikes me as the sort of person who would happily strip away all of my civil liberties, given half the chance, and I consider such men a serious threat to civilized society.
That was an equally harsh encapsulated summary of the negative stereotype of the "Law-and-Order Fascist," wasn't it.
Yes. I suppose that it was.
So, okay. Tit-for-tat, and turnabout is fair play, and all of that. I would like to point out, however, that while Moody is a fictional construct, whose tendencies and political inclinations are within the fair scope of discussion here, you and I are real people whose respective philosophies, while they cannot help but inform our views, really aren't.
But there's an interesting issue here that might bear some examining. On another thread, one about Hagrid, Mahoney made a few comments about her feelings for characters based not so much on whether they're Good or Bad people, but rather on whether they're "Types" that she happens to like in real life.
This is germane because—given that you admit that you pretty much agree with the content of my post, even down to its political elements—what I suspect you must have read that angered you so much was: "Moody's a law-and-order type, and I just don't like people like that, so I don't like Moody."
And so (being perhaps a law-and-order type yourself?), you quite reasonably took personal offense at this and retaliated with: "Oh yeah? Well, I don't like you bleeding-heart jerk-offs either. So there!"
Am I off-base here? (Suddenly, I feel that I can finally understand why those SHIPping types can get so heated in their debates. I never really understood that before!)
Anyway, again, sorry about that. I didn't mean to attack anyone personally, not even through analogy-by-stereotype. And for what it's worth, I don't dislike you.
But getting back to the Potterverse, where are the bleeding heart liberals in canon? Have we actually seen any at all?
Fudge is certainly a head-in-the-sand appeaser—but he also allows his dementors to perform summary executions on accused criminals, which absolutely disqualifies him for the Bleeding Heart Club.
Then we have the Pensieve mob who let off Ludo Bagman—but their behavior is motivated more by a starry-eyed worship of sports heroes than by any bleeding-heart tendencies; we later see that they are more than capable of turning hard-line, even when faced with a screaming pleading teenager in the dock.
Now, Lupin would initially seem to fit the profile well enough (he's so sensitive, don't you know, so...well, so pale and interesting) —but when push comes to shove in the Shrieking Shack, he is revealed to be no bleeding-heart. And the same goes for Hermione, who otherwise would seem to be the primary candidate.
Really, so far in the series, Dumbledore seems to me to be the closest thing we've got to the stereotypical bleeding-heart liberal—and he's still not all that close. Dumbledore may not like the dementors, and he may approve of giving people second chances, but he's hardly a softie.
So where are the Bleeding Hearts of the wizarding world? If they exist (and surely they do), then Rowling has not yet chosen to depict them within the books.
But back to your objections to my feelings about Aurors...
The people that are out there, fighting FOR YOUR SAFETY while you lie comfortably in your bed, however, are subject to incredible scrutiny and mistrust.
I do not think it unreasonable to subject people who have been granted special license to interrogate (even under torture, if they so choose)and to kill to a higher-than-ordinary degree of scrutiny. Do you? As you yourself say:
People who champion civil liberties DO serve a purpose because if a watchful eye were not kept on law enforcement, a "1984"-like world would soon develop, which is something that obviously no one wants.
And indeed, if Sirius is to be believed, wizarding society was very much in danger of becoming that sort of world in the last years of the war. Sirius goes so far as to say that some of the Aurors descended to the level of the Death Eaters, which I think we can both agree is pretty dire.
And that's where the "mistrust" comes in. If I seem to mistrust Aurors, that is because there has been significant indication that, at least at one point in history, they behaved in a highly untrustworthy fashion.
You then go on to say:
What bugs me to no end is that while you are watching law enforcement, you refuse to give them the same benefit of the doubt that you do those who readily and willingly break the law to harm the public.
I am going to continue to assume that we're talking about Aurors and the Potterverse here, although I kind of get the impression that we're not. ;)
I think that if you look back over my posts on this topic, you will find that I have, in fact, been more than willing to give the Aurors the benefit of the doubt. When Eric suggested that Frank Longbottom might have been "Judge Dredd on acid," for example, I disagreed with him, insisting that I refused to believe that Longbottom was a bad Auror. On the contrary, I defended the notion that he was a responsible Auror who did not abuse his power. Nor have I ever expressed any doubts that Moody really did try to avoid killing whenever he could, even though the only evidence we have for this is Sirius' claim. I don't think that I've at all withheld the benefit of the doubt from the Aurors.
Nor can I think of anywhere where I have granted extraordinary benefit of the doubt to the Death Eaters. I've never tried to argue, for example, that Lucius Malfoy really was under the Imperius Curse (of course he wasn't!), or that maybe the Lestranges were framed, or that perhaps Voldemort is just this nice guy who had a bad childhood and has simply been terribly misunderstood. I've not made any of those arguments, nor would I want to. So where do you see me granting more benefit of the doubt to the law-breakers than to the law-enforcers?
Thank God the magical world had someone like Moody to catch Death Eaters, because if the Aurors ascribed to your philosophy, Voldemort would have taken over even faster than he did.
Which of my philosophies do you mean, precisely? The political philosophy, which holds that Aurors who descend to the level of Death Eaters are Seriously Bad News? Or the personal philosophy, which states: "I neither like nor trust the sort of men who torture students, refer to their enemies as 'scum' and 'filth,' show no signs of remorse over killing, approve of the use of dementors as prison guards, and advocate breaking faith with captives?"
Because honestly, I can't see how either of those philosophies would prevent an Auror from the competent commission of his duties.
—Elkins
[Mod note -- Elkins has done a great job relating this rather political discussion to the Wizarding World. Please remember that this list is for canon discussion (i.e. the books), and reference your posts appropriately, using canon as evidence. If you find yourself doing otherswise, please contact the Mods for advice at hpforgrownups-owner@yahoogroups.com. If this thread starts getting any more flamey than it is, the Mods will have to think about taking action. Thanks,
—John, for the HPFGU Moderator Team.]
Posted to HPfGU by Elkins on January 23, 2002 4:48 PM
3 comments (link leads to main site)
« Previous Post | Index | Next Post »