I have to agree with Peyton. Harry used a better recipe than the one his text offered. I look at it as using two different cookbooks to make a pie. If one recipe always makes a better pie, does that mean you are wrong for using that recipe over the other?

Would you still say that those 'short cuts' were wrong if Harry or Hermione discovered them?

Sectumsempra was obviously dark magic, but the other spells were not. They were unapproved spells, but that does not make them dark magic. Dumbledore created several spells. Do you think that means Dumbledore practices dark magic?

Not all short cuts are wrong, which is something any Slytherin should understand.

I think Im going to also have to agree. Just because it wasn't ministry aproved doesn't mean it was dark magic. This is especially true as it was a young boy that created those short cuts, something he did so that he could excel, just as much as to learn more. It wasn't an adult that was creating the spells and curses and writing them down for any child to discover.

Of course, all of this begs the question of what is dark magic. If somebody used those short cuts to create a potion to kill somebody surely that would make it dark magic? But what if somebody else used the same techniques- cheats if you will, to heal somebody? wouldn't that then be 'good' magic. Harry used the techniques to...cheat, but it was in the name of education.

Of course, some curses are obviously meant to hurt. The sectumsempra curse isn't the friendliest of curses, but when Harry used it on Draco, Draco was going to use an unforgivable curse. An unforgivable curse is ministry unaproved...so isn't it worse than something that hasn't been aproved or unaproved? therefore wasnt Harry performing 'good' magic? stopping somebody from performing an unforgivable?
I know...Im twisting the meaning and maybe taking this out of context, but who decides what is good magic and what is dark. Every Government is corrupt to some extent, and by looking at how long Lucius malfoy survived in the ministry and how many spies were in the ministry, not to mention Umbridge, the ministry of Magic is certainly corrupt. If somehow a curse was approved that would under normal circumstances would be turned down...

I guess it all comes down to who has power, and who's judgment is considered the most important.

But, with Harry, I think he could probably be more careful. Yes, I know Draco may have been about to use an unforgivable, but for all he knew the curse could have done absolutly nothing. I don't know why he didn't stick with the ones he knew. He not only had no idea what the spell did, he used magic which was...murky without hesitation, and he didnt know who wrote the notes...he was just plain stupid, but then again. Harry didn't make some of the best descisions in that book.

Now...Would a Slytherin of made the same descision there?
On one hand they may not have cared about the damage they did, but on the other hand they may have thought it through logically, would it be worth it?

Clara}~

Hmmm, I really think that it would have depended on the Slytherin. I think many Slytherins might have tested the spell before using it, say on a bug like Moody did in GoF. It seems to me that Slytherins don't really like surprises; that they like to be prepared when the time comes for action. Because of this I don't think many Slytherins would have used the spell without knowing what it did.

On the other hand, others might have taken the "for enemies" caption under the spell at face value and used it without knowing what it was simply because a spell meant to be used on enemies must not have a pleasant result and therefore what does it matter what exactly the spell was.

Hmmm, would many Slytherins have tested the spell before using it? Not unless they wanted to transfer to Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw, I think. Slytherins (and Gryffindors, for that matter) have a strong streak of daring. Couple that with Harry's age and gender and I'm not surprised he did what he did. Would Malfoy have done the same? Probably, and probably for all the same reasons. I don't believe either would have considered many "what if" scenarios. On the other hand, I think Pansy would have acted a little more like Hermione, but only a little. Whereas Hermione diddn't attempt any of the spells and probably was in no hurry to do so, Pansy would have been more curious, although I see her testing a few of them out first. I guess it's what seperates Slytherins from Gryffindors. There are always a few "cross overs", people who would do well in either house. In Harry's case, Slytherin, in Hermione's, Ravenclaw. Therefore, in quite a few situations, I would expect Harry to act like a Slytherin, Hermione a Ravenclaw.

So who gets to decide what is considered Dark Magic, the Ministry? Sounds like whatever is politically correct or in vogue is considered good and everything else dark. For quite a few people in the muggle world, the teaching of evolution is considered evil. Is it?

I agree that Slytherins do not like surprises. They are often described as shrewd and cunning, so I suppose they are daring to an extent, but draw the line when they know that they're going to jeopardise themselves. Gryffindors, as was the case with Harry's use of sectumsempra without thinking, tend to charge in and ask questions later. I don't doubt Malfoy would have done what Harry did, but I do think he would have tested it out first, to make sure it wouldn't cause too much trouble. You may have noticed that whilst Malfoy is malicious and misbehaving, he never crosses the invisible line that Fred and George always leap over, getting into spectacular trouble.

I really do think that a Slytherin like Malfoy would have researched a spell such as Sectumsempra before using it. I mean, look at how much effort he put into getting the Death Eaters into Hogwarts. He figured out the secret of the vanishing cabinents and he knew that the Hand of Glory would be the only thing able to penetrate Fred and George's Peruvian Darkness. This doesn't sound like the kind of person that would not do their research before trying something out. Just because you do your homework before trying something out does not exactly mean you are exibiting Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw tendancies. It's called being prepared so that you can have the biggest advantage possible in any given situation.

I'm guessing that maybe a Slytherin would've sort of tricked someone else into doing it first so that they could make sure it wasen't a bad spell or something they could get into trouble doing. *cackle* Not that I'd do this or anything. Heh.
I just thought about something. What if Lily and Snape did a Unbreakable Vow thingy too, and that's why Snape's keeping Harry alive? Or tries to keep saving him? Quirrel said that Snape didn't want Harry dead [or maybe I'm just overanalyzing, but it would make some sense. I don't know how he could've known that though]. I think that might be a little much though. He'd have two people he'd have to make sure didn't...die.

I don't think Malfoy spent much time "researching" how to fix the Vanishing Cabinet or even how to get into Hogwarts. He really didn't have lots of time. Credit must be given to Mr. Borgin for fixing the Vanishing Cabinet. In HBP we hear Malfoy threatening Borgin and we hear Borgin reminding Draco that he can't guarantee anything. I'll give Draco credit for paying enough attention to Montague's situation of being shuttled back and forth and realizing that there were ways into the castle that avoided all the charms and enchantments. But as far as fixing anything, he stood on the shoulders of someone cleverer than he. Your head is always in the stars when you stand on the shoulders of giants.

There's no evidence he tested it first with anything living, just Death Eaters. Fred and George always tested their experiments out on themselves first. By the time they were using First Years, they were pretty certain they weren't going to harm anyone.

And I'd have to disagree that doing your homework and researching something isn't necessarily a Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff trait. I believe that it is. There's nothing wrong with that, but I feel that Slytherins and Gryffindors tend to be more impulsive. They would be the Type A's of the wizarding world.

Fortune favors the brave. Sometimes you need to make decisions based on limited information. You don't have time to gather all the facts, or test out all the outcomes. You just have to gamble. I don't see that being a strong Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw trait, and I don't see it as necessarily a bad trait.

Hmm, I'd never really thought that Borgin was helping Draco fix the cabinents but it does make sense. I guess you would have to have someone on either side of the cabinents for you to know if they were working properly or not, otherwise you'd end up like Montague floating around for months at a time if something were to go wrong. I think I assumed that Malfoy fixed them himself because he was in the Room of Requirement for hours at a time by himself.

Draco did indeed work on fixing the cabinet. However, he was receiving instruction from Mr. Borgin. In Draco's Detour (HBP), we see him asking for help.



So the real genius behind fixing the cabinet, was Borgin, Malfoy was merely following instructions. And seeing as both had a deadline (that word takes on an entirely new meaning here), both were highly motivated to succeed. Kind of disappointing for Malfoy though. Imagine if Draco had applied that type of ingenuity and drive to his schoolwork? Better stop now, I'm sounding like someone's parent.

I'm afraid you've found one of my more irritating flaws I tend to skim forward to the more exciting parts of books, hence my lack of remembrance of that particular paragraph. Even if you think you sounded like someone's parent, I do agree that Draco could have amounted to much more if he had made different choices. However that seems to be one of the major themes of Harry Potter: how the choices you make in life affect not only your life but the lives of others.

All this talk about the Vanishing Cabinet and the consequences of our actions on the lives' of others reminds me of the first time we saw the Vanishing Cabinet. Nearly Headless Nick was the one who broke it in the first place. He broke it to help Harry escape Filch in Chamber of Secrets. How would the events of Half-Blood Prince have turned out if Draco never needed to fix the cabinet? Death Eaters could have entered Hogwarts much sooner. Maybe before Dumbledore was able to tell Harry about the horcruxes.

Oh, and I think there are people in any house who would use an unknown spell. We must remember that Harry probably trusted the Prince implicitly. The book had never guided Harry wrong. It is a bit like having a dog you love for years and it suddenly turns violent. You truly would have never expected it. I am much more disturbed by the fact that Harry uses it again in the cave.

It's not just the fact that Harry uses Sectumsempra again. Its the fact that there is so much anger in him that he chooses that curse over any other. If we are to suppose for the moment that Sectumsempra is Dark Magic, and there's some evidence that it is (its use is strictly for the harm of another), it's disturbing that Harry used it at all, even if it was against just dead people. It's also a bit worrisome that Harry, for the second time, has used, or tried to use an Unforgiveable Curse, in this case the Cruciatus against Snape. Harry is well aware that the use of an Unforgiveable Curse gets you a one way ticket to Azkaban, but for some reason, that doesn't stop him. And his anger has run away with him so completely that he wants to inflict pain on another individual. Is Harry becoming one of the people he despises? Remember in the first book, Slytherins were described as people who use any method to achieve their clever ends? This is unlike Dumbledore, who McGonagall points out in PS, that he is too noble to use Dark Magic. If Harry's making excuses to himself about using Dark Magic, then Voldemort has won already, regardless what happens to him in the future. The prophecy only says the one with the power to defeat the Dark Lord approaches. It never makes mention of the possibility that that person might simply replace him.

Replacing Voldemort as a Dark Lord is certainly an intriguing possibility, but I think that is impossible. We must never forget that Harry and Voldemort are such polar opposites due to their ability to love. Harry could never become as evil as Voldemort. Thus, he would not wish to dominate others as Voldemort does.

I think it is more probable that a person like Draco, who does possess an obvious cruel streak, would try to become more powerful. Still, I doubt anyone would. Voldemort is supposed to be the most powerful Dark Wizard for a very long time, if not of all time.

That was pretty cool about the whole vanishing cabinet thing in CoS . I don't think Draco would've thought of it if Peeves hadn't broken it. He got the idea after that one guy got stuck in it when Fred and George pushed him in. Plus I think the school might've been more prepared, the whole point was to kill Dumbledore, so they would've done it while he was still there I think.[?]
Also, I agree with EliasOsiris ^^.
Harry doesn't seem to think that the rules apply to him. [a certain disregard for the rules ] He could get in trouble later. I think that he thinks that the Death Eaters don't count as people anymore. Aurors are allowed to use the Unforgivable Curses against Death Eaters anyways. What about them??

Peeves did break the Vanishing Cabinet, but only after Nearly Headless Nick suggested to do so directly over Filch's office. He broke it to help Harry escape from Filch.

I don't beleive Aurors are allowed to use Unforgiveable Curses anymore. They were authorized to do so during the last war with Voldemort, but there has been no mention at all concerning whether or not they have been re-authorized to do use them. For my part, I don't think they have. Crouch was in command of the Aurors in the last war. He would be willing to use any means, but that does not mean Gawain Robards (the person who replaced Scrimegour as Head of the Auror Office) would authorize it. I am certain Amelia Bones would not have.

I guess it all depends on who makes that decision. If a Slytherin alum (or someone with a lot of Slytherin in them) gets to decide if aurors have those tools, then yes....the ends justify the means. If not, then aurors would not be allowed to use Unforgiveables again.

How would anyone know who used an Unforgivable Curse? The Ministry is able to detect the use of Magic, but not who performs it (CoS). So it stands to reason that in a duel with a Death Eater, how would the Ministry know that it wasn't the Death Eater who performed the curse? That would certainly be more believable to them, and if history has taught us anything, it certainly has taught us that the Ministry doesn't look further than it has to, to discover the truth. When Harry used the Cruciatus Curse against Snape, there were no reprocutions. Did the Ministry just assume it was Snape who had performed the curse? More than likely they did, given Snape's history and the crime he appears to have just committed.

All societies have rules that all citizens must obey in order for the society to remain in tact. It's when certain citizens are allowed to opperate outside or above those rules does the society began to crumble. The fact that in the last war Aurors were permitted to use Unforgivable Curses is a bad sign. Moody and Dumbledore even commented on it. The first reaction might be "But they're Death Eaters!". Remember, Stan Shunpike is accused of being a Death Eather, although no clear evidence exists against him. Allowing Aurors the use of Unforgivable Curses sets them up as judge, jury, and executioner.

Which is a very frightening thought that anyone would be given that much power and authority. During the last war, it made sense for the aurors to be given that authority.

People were so afraid of Voldemort and the Death Eaters that they were willing to do anything to remain safe. During the last war, what were the penalties for anyone who was suspected of being a Death Eater? Look at what happened to Sirius. It didn't matter if an auror judged you guilty, Crouch was sure to do so anyway.



With so much magic going on, would the Ministry even be able to differentiate between the types of hexes or curses being cast?

I know those are not Slytherins questions, but it seems unjust to blame your enemy as a scapegoat for your own failings. It bothers me that so many of the Death Eaters (and Slytherins) jump to the excuse, "It wasn't my fault."

This is where life starts to imitate art.

Made sense? To whom? The Ministry, the Aurors, the general population? Just exactly who felt safer AND were they actually safer or did they simply think they were safer? I'm not so sure about how things are in other countries but here in the United States there have been all sorts of restrictions on our personal freedoms (and pushes for even more) all in the name of keeping us free from terrorists. Are any of these restrictions actually keeping us safe from the terrorists or is just what our government wants us to think? In HBP, Stan Shunpike is thrown into Azkaban merely on some flimsy suspicion that he is a Death Eater, we see Scrimegour repeatedly ask Harry for his support all in the name of appearances. None of these actions are going to do anything, they just give the appearance that somehting positive is being done and the forces of "good" are winning.

Dolores Umbridge, under the authority of the Ministry of Magic, sent a pair of Dementors to destroy Harry Potter. How is that different from the actions of Lord Voldemort? Isn't it actually worse? At least Voldemort is honest about being an evil guy.

I agree, how is giving the Aurors more freedome helping? they could kill alot of inocent people!theyd be just like Voldemort and the Death Eaters. To me, thats a good thing, but to most other people, thats a bad thing, isnt it? I mean, they could kill someone like, scrimigour(sp?) because they think hes associating with voldemort, and he might not be. And saftey in a war is importaint but not that importaint that you give people freedome to go killing other innocent people!

I don't forsee the Aurors going around killing innocent people at all. They are trained in finding and fighting Daerk Wizards not to go after the innocent. So again, I don't see the Ministry allowing such atrocious actions coming from their Aurors.

Yes and I do agree that what Delores Umbridge did to Harry was unexscuable, she should have been carted off to Azkaban for what she did, but no as far as we know the ole toad is still working at the Ministry.

Marcey

I'm not so sure that in the heat of battle, even Aurors can tell who is innocent and who isn't and considering their actions in Dumbledore's office in OotP, I'm not sure all of them care.

As I've said in previous posts, quite a few innocent people were thrown into Azkaban. And Azkaban is more than just a prison, people are, well, tortured there. Being forced to relive their worst memories has to qualify as torture. It's not like they're being given rehabilitation or therapy or something. It's not surprising that Dumbledore hated the use of the Dementors.

And the Ministry does allow atrocious actions. Why was there no inquest about the Dementors and who summonded them? Hagrid was thrown into Azkaban merely on the suspicion of opening the Chamber of Secrets (whatever happened to due process?)

The Ministry is slipping further towards the Dark Side.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. Fight fire with fire. We have these sayings because they do make sense at times. During the last war, the Ministry was in way over its head. Voldemort gathered an enormous army before anyone knew of his plans. Without using Slytherin tactics, the Ministry would probably have been overwhelmed.

What was it that Sirius said in Order of the Phoenix (during the boggart attack on Molly)? They were outnumbered 20 to 1 last time. Against those odds, how many people would stand on absolute moral principle if it meant their destruction? Simply enough, not everyone.

Im going to delve right into the middle of this interesting discussion..

~ I have to agree with Elias that yes, whatever makes sense to certain people in power sometimes hasto make sense to everybody else, just because what the people in power say, goes. Yes, not all Aurors would chose to do the 'right thing', we can see that from the fact that there were Voldemort's spies in the heart of the ministry, Dolores Umbridge and co. were a perfect example of Ministry wrongdoings, and corruption is rife.

However, if you had to chose between a ministry that believed it was doing right, and a legue of mass murderers, many the elite of their generation, which would be the easier choice?
Here, it becomes difficult, especially when we think back to Dumbledore's chosing between what is right and what is easy... But what else could the ministry do? By giving their aurors power to use what the opposition was using, they were giving them the best chace of survival in the field as they could.
When we look at the wider picture...the more long term picture, a ministry with too much power would be disasterous, but would it be as disasterous as Voldemort 'in charge'?

Even if some innocent people were accidently killed by aurors in the heat of battle, wouldn't eliminating an enemy that could kill thousands be worth it?
Its near impossible to weigh up the value of human life- impossible to find a general rule, and I know it is like walking on a knife edge- giving that power to somebody as suceptable to corruption as anybody else, but its a matter of survival.
To be honest I dont really know what I would do, were I in that position, you would really have to weigh up the odds of lving and dying. Every Auror would have to be under strict instructions, no death eater would have an unforgivable performed on them unless proved beyond reasonable doubt.. but then who gives out the instructions?

Clara}~

That is the question isn't it? In that question lies perception. Maybe it is the Slytherin in me, but I am a firm believer that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Although some people find it harsh, short term collateral damage is worth the price to end a struggle that would continue much longer otherwise.

That's not to say that I want that to be my first course of action, but why would I stick with a strategy that doesn't work?

Ah, AtB, the question of perception. Therein lies the rub. How less safe is wizarding society because Voldemort is back? A lot, or do people just think a lot? How much collateral damage is considered worthwhile and how are we affecting a society by it?

Years ago (before most of us were born) the general feeling was that completely destroying the enemy was the only way to truly win the war. Even in ancient Roman times, the discussion of collateral damage was brought up. Down through the centuries however, it was discovered that the beaten, the victims of "collateral damage", harbored an unreasoning hatred of their conquerers. Wouldn't people who were thrown into Azkaban unfairly permanently hate the Ministry and society as a whole? How about people whose families or friends were the victims of collateral damage? Wouldn't they become resentful of the society they once embraced? Is there any chance that one (or more) of them would rise up to punish that society in a way that would make even Voldemort blush? Where there was once Lord Voldemort and his Death Eaters you might get the Wizard's Liberation Army or something.

I might be experiencing a nasty streak of humanity with this one, and I know the rules change during warfare (not that I like them), but I'd want to be very careful of whose needs were being met, the many or the one. Sometimes the one has a lot of friends. I certainly wouldn't want to make them a martyr.

Let’s just say I don’t feel safe with a Dumbledore! Everyone has this sense that nothing will go wrong when he’s around. Where’s the balance in that? I’m not surprised there’s a Voldemort around to challenge the limits of authority.

Escalating the violence doesn’t work. Giving Aurors permission to use the unforgivable curses just lets the opposition feel justified in getting more vicious themselves.

What’s missing is exactly what everyone wants out of this that they would go to such lengths. I know Jo said it’s ‘rule the world’, but how, why and for whom?

For me the running theme in all the books is poor communication. No one is asking the questions. There’s too much assumption going on. Not much interaction. I’m very disappointed that Hogwarts didn’t initiate programs to get the houses together. That’s my biggest gripe about the books- the irresponsible adults.

Vortext, I couldn't agree more with your statements. Not only is the violence being ratched up on both sides, with each side feeling justified in their behaviour, but it's not really clear what is being accomplished when either side wins. If Voldemort wins, what happens? Pure-bloods are in charge? Muggle borns can't practice magic? Regardless of what practices Voldemort implements, no matter how cruel or unfair, even he has to realize that there will always be a resistence. That his tenure is limited.

Okay, so let's say Harry wins Everything does back to normal and everyone is happy? Not a chance. In OotP, Sirius said (regarding his family) that a lot of people thought Voldemort had the right idea about things, putting pure-bloods in charge, etc.. They only balked at Voldemort's methods; what he was willing to do to accomplish his goals. People in the wizarding community are very unhappy with the way things are. Whichever sides loses will be very unhappy (to say the least) with their new lot in life. Voldemort might be gone, but his ideas won't die with him. Harry will find it a lot more difficult to kill and idea than a wizard.

In any political system there will be unhappy people. I am not bothered at all that there are many witches and wizards that want to get rid of muggle-borns in Hogwarts, as long as these same witches and wizards do not want to kill them. Those people are the minority, so the majority will keep them from getting their way. I am bothered if these people resort to killing. Lets face it, those people are basically all Slytherins and Death Eaters. I don't mind the Death Eaters being gotten rid of. I don't mind the Slytherins, Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws being got rid of if they advocate killing people either (to some extent...there must be a balance of power).

yes, there are always unhappy people, in any situation- people are different and thats why a utopian world will never exist. The only thing that comes close to flushing out individuality- of course in the name of the people themselves- is communisim, and apart from the fact that it destroys the whole point of being human- having immagination, individuals and freedom- its never going to work.

But about control, I really dont think that Voldemorts ultimate goal is to be in charge of the wizarding world. To be in control of the masses very rarely means to be in control of the individual, and for all of his mass murdering, Voldemort is all about the individual. He will de humanise human life, torture main and kill it, but its still about the individual.
People like Lucius Malfoy want control, people like Bellatrix want magical power, Voldemort... He wants a passtime, maybe a bit of revenge and power thrown in there... a bit of knowledge and a bit of control... but he wants loads of things. How would he ever be happy with complete power, or complete control? I think he likes the journey, likes proving that he can do it, and likes the fact that people, finally, fear him.

well... he's a comlicated character, and I dont think any of the Death Eaters really know what they are heading towards, what their final goal is.
Again, It comes down to communication. I know its different, Voldemort's not exactly the chating type, but at Hogwarts?
I heartily agree, working together just doesn't seem to exist there, between houses. Even when the hat warned them to stick together, everybody assumed it meant groups of friends, and nobody really thought about the fact that it meant between houses. I cant help wondering if that was one of Dumbledore's, among others, failures, not seeing that if they could get the next generation to unite, they might just save the wizarding world.

Clara}~

Interesting discussions here...As always while I am away the little Slytherin mice like to play lol ...I see Voldy as being one, who in comparison with Hitler, enjoys total power and control, and he wants to rid the wizarding world of what he feels are "lesser people" than himself, just like Hitler did during WWII when he committed major genocide. Voldy does not care who he hurts or destroys on his way to the top....His Death Eaters are merely followers of his, like Hitler's Army were to him...The Death Eaters follow Voldy out of fear, and also because they feel that they will be awarded by him somehow for all of their dirty deeds that they commit for him...But in the end Voldy is all about himself once his band of Death Eaters commit the acts for him, he will do away with them just like he has everyone else who gets in his way. They are merely pawns in his evil game of chess and thats it, he cares no more for them or their well beings than he did for Dumbledore when he asked Draco to knock Dumbledore off...
I think that once Voldy is "vanquished" for good, his Death Eaters (if they survive that is) will all either go to Azkaban or run off into hiding somewhere...
A good point was made about the Ministry allowing certain things to happen in or around Hogwarts, again the question is why was Dolres Umbridge not punished for her atrocious actions she did against Harry in OOTP? She should have been left to rot in the walls of Azkaban, but no, she was allowed back at the Ministry and even had the audacity to show up for Dumbledore's funeral! The nerve!

Marcey

wow very very very interesting discussion

I agree with DracosLady in her comparing the Dark Lord to Hitler. he convinces everyone to go along with him and they do expecting rewards. but once the lose they're usefullness he disposes of them. so its basicly one big rip-off.

I also agree with EliasOsiris. no matter what happens, it will not be a fairy tale ending. someone is going to be unhappy.

but I hope voldy bites the dust because he has killed so many people, I completely disagree with his ideas and methods, and I think 2/3 of the HP characters will be much happier (government and society vs Death eaters/Voldy supporters)

and I will be happy

It does seem most Death Eaters gave up once Voldy went down. In some ways they’re like DD’s supporters. Both sides felt nothing could go wrong with a powerful wizard supporting them. What is up with that?! Is JKR a monarchist?


Hem-hem. I bet the Ministry put out a dreadful romance version of Umbridge’s year at Hogwarts. A lonely teacher trying to reform the rebellious students. She is constantly thwarted by the now insane DD and his malicious army of children. But lo! A centaur falls in love with her and sweeps her away to the good life in the forest. Nothing like a good spin-doctor…


I with you on that clara_morgue. There was an attempt with other schools in GoF. Yet Hogwarts itself is still divided. Go know. Jo will probably shelf the Sorting Hat in Deely Heely. So party up while we can Slytherins!

I wonder how many of her actions were truly illegal. Certainly, sending the dementors after Harry would have been illegal. Even if it wasn't, she hid her actions on doing so. That must have been illegal. After that, how many other acts were?

She was cruel, but cruelty is generally not a crime. I suppose she could have been charged with assault or something for making students write with their blood.

She tried to use veritaserum, which is supposed to be strictly controlled by the Ministry. Given that they were changing the rules every day, and that they had named her Headmistress, I would not be surprised if Fudge had granted her that authority.

Now, what other crimes did she commit? She was ruthless like many Slytherins, but she did not break too many laws that I can think of (that I can think of right now anyway).

maybe attempted murder id say sending dementors after an underage wizards is means to kill him (what if harry didnt have his wand he wouldve been dead)

then the writing with the pens must be some type of child abuse

cruelty to animals (she attacked the centeurs, thats not very nice)

The centaurs attacked her first. She walked into the forest, but did not do anything to attack them. Didn't one of them fire an arrow into a tree next to her? That would probably qualify as a reason for self-defence.

Dementors and the pen aside, did she really break any laws? She almost used the Cruciatus Curse, but did not actually do it. We don't know if attempting to use an Unforgiveable is also illegal.

What Umbridge did to Harry is illegal! She sent Dementors after him in a muggle neighborhood...To me that qualifies right there for expulsion from the Ministryu permantly. And as far as the the writing with the "cursed quill" that was pretty nasty to. I would consider that to be abuse, she had it out for Harry from the begginning. It makes you wonder is she too secretly working for Voldy? I mean all of the atrocious things she committed were like things Voldy would do as well.

I still can't believe that the Ministry kept Umbridge in their employment after all of the stuff she did!

Marcey

does Minstry acctualy know that Umbridge send Dementors after Harry?

She said that everyone in Ministry was talking against Harry and how they need to show Harry his place (something like that, I do not remember exactly). And she was the only one that attempt to do something.

minister for magic (I do not know how to spell his name so I won`t even try it) turned up red when DD said that Ministry doesn`t have Dementors under control.
I believe that he turned up red because he interpred that DD`s note that he (minister) isn`t competent enough for the job.

Hi, I have just been sorted, and I am new to veritaserum. I have no idea how these threads works or stuff. Can ppl explain?

I agree with After The Burial, not that many of her actions were illegal. While just being cruel couldn't have gotten her arrested, I think she did deserve to loose her job. Besides, she should have been arrested anyway for sending the Dementors and for the pen.



I think that I remember in one book Snape says that it's illegal for a teacher to use Legilimency on a student, so it would make sense if the same rules applied for veritaserum. Fudge probably would have granted her permission, but can't he be overruled or something? I mean, in the US, even if the President tries to make a law, he can be overruled by Congress. Couldn't the school board step in and do something? In CoS, they had the power to remove DD from the school. Why didn't they do something about Dolores?

Him, how these threads work, ummm, well, somebody posts something, and then someone else posts a reply, and that just keeps going on. Does that answer your question?

After the Burial, you are quite correct about actual illegal actions of Madam Dolores Umbridge. I did go back and check, and the closest to actual illegal acts was her attempting to use the Cruciatus Curse on Harry (she was part way through the spell when Hermione interrupted her). Is that illegal? Well, in the non-Magical world it would be considered illegal. Pointing an unloaded gun at someone carries the same penalty as pointing a loaded gun at someone. Even pointing a toy gun painted to look like a real one carries the same penalty. Dolores had the intent to perform an illegal act, which by definition, is conspiracy. [I had the opportunity to sit on jury duty, so I've been hearing about conspiracy, intent, knowledge, and pocession a lot].

I disagree with the notion that Dolores was attacked first by the centaurs. Dolores ignored the culture of centaurs, believing them to be savages and therefore not have one. The forest is their home, no different than the Hagrid's hut, or Hogwarts castle. When Dolores entered the forest, she invaded the centaur's home and they had every right to defend themselves. In essence, she attacked them first.

What bothers me most about the Ministry is they never bothered to investigate further into the issue of the Dementors near Privet Drive. Clearly, there were Dementors there, and unless they wandered there on their own (a serious health and safety issue), someone must have sent them. Even Hermione commented that the Dementor attack should have been front page news, but it wasn't. Unless we want to accept gross incompetency as a cause for this inaction, we are left with no other explanation other than the Ministry knew how the Dementors got there and chose to overlook it.

Her own creepiness aside, Dolores failed to achieve the Ministry's goals at Hogwarts. By her own definition, she should be sacked, and yet she's still at the Ministry. Does Dolores have embarrassing information on the inner goings-on at the Ministry that kept her from getting fired? I wonder.

This reminds me of burglars. If a burglar enters your home, do you have the right to attack him or her? The law changes depending on where you are. Some places say yes, others say no. I don't know the law in Britain, nor do I know what the law is in the magical world. For the sake of arguement, Hagrid seems convinced that Grawp has every right to be there as other creatures. The centaurs regard the Black Forest as theirs (and I think Magical Beasts and Where to Find Them says that centaurs live in designated areas...which would not indicate ownership), but it may not be considered theirs according to Ministry of Magic law. In that case, a Ministry employee would have every legal right to enter.



They chose to overlook it because Fudge chalked it up to Dumbledore's 'trickery.' They hushed it up because it would indeed lend support to Dumbledore's assertions. No matter what, if dementors were in Privet Drive, then it would be a very bad thing for the Ministry. They needed to keep it quiet. Slytherin tactics often require a Slytherin-worthy cover-up.

OK! Pop. I dont think I'll be on again for a couple of weeks [read that little section under my name] but I've been thinking about the whole pureblood-mania thingy. I can understand how being pureblood can make you feel important I think. I like that I know for sure that I'm 100% Eritrean and I'd be disapointed if I found out that I'm part Ethopian [not because I don't like the country. My mom's never been to Eritrea ever, she's lived in Ethopia her whole life, but she says that she prefers it after what she's heard and I think I do too]. It makes me kinda proud. And if it was with the whole magicky thing I'd like being pureblood too. I wouldn't get all obsessed with it though or feel any more important then my peers, but it's intresting anyway. Like my obsession with the Zodiac and stuff, and I am really intrested with who my ancestors were and stuff [more then some people]. Anyhoo just saying. Wallah

I do not consider having pride in one's heritage to be a good or bad thing. Each person stems from a line of their ancestors (of course). I do not consider the ancestors to be nearly as important as the person. I feel that your actions and your decisions should determine your outcome in your life, not those of ghosts in the past. Each person should have control over what opportunities they are provided.

Which is interesting when you consider that the wizarding world is based on exclusion. Those that cannot do magic (or have family that can), are completely excluded from the magical world. For this reason, I must admit that the Slytherin tendency to place emphasis on the purity of blood (or lack of exclusion) makes sense. Although the prejudice is wrong, there is a historical basis to illogically justify the belief.

That makes sense completely. Obviously, their way of thinking involves the fact that non-magic people cannot do magic. Why would you want people who can't do magic? Although there are other circumstances, such as Hermione and Filch. Hermione is probably a better witch than Draco is.. (well, she's better than a lot of people, haha) even though she is half blood. But Filch is a pureblood, yet he can't do magic (Squib). But I do understand and agree with you, After The Burial. The prejudice is wrong, but the emphasis on being pure blood does make sense.

It seems like there is always such an emphasis on being a "pureblood", it seems like this ideal has been passed down through the generations in the wizarding families. Yes Hermione is "muggle born" and probably is a better witch than Draco is a wizard. But now you look at someone like Neville or Ron who are purebloods, vs Harry who is not a pureblood and their wizarding skills are far less superb than Harry's. There may be alot of pride about heritage, but it seems more prevalent in some pureblood families than others (The Malfoys vs The Weasleys for example)

Marcey

yes, i agree. we shouldnt judge others because of where they came from. but you have to admit, Draco is cute. so maybe good looks is a pureblood trait?

Well i was recently sorted into this house I understand the responsibility i am taking being part of slytherin

Welcome LilTuck91, welcome to the best house that there is! I don't know if "cuteness" is a pureblood trait or not...Look at Crabbe and Goyle they're purebloods and are far from cute.

How does everyone see Draco doing in "Deathly Hallows"? Does everyone feel that he will go through with his father's wishes and become a Death Eater? Or will he take another path entirely, like help Harry destroy Voldy?

Any ideas on this one?

Marcey

Wonderful topic Marcey

Whatever happens, I'm thinking Draco probably won't become a Deatheater. Besides the fact that he didn't kill DD, he left Hogwarts with Snape. Assuming Snape is still loyal to the Order, I have a feeling he might try to bring Draco over to the light. However, if Snape is actually loyal to LV, he's still bound by the Unbreakable Vow to "protect [Draco] from harm." I think Draco would more than likely be in harm's way when LV finds out that he didn't actually kill DD himself. The other Deatheaters present during DD's death wouldn't have an Unbreakable Vow over their heads to keep from telling LV about Draco's failure.

I don't know if I can imagine Draco joining the Order (although that'd really bring back the whole thing about the world not being split into good people and Deatheaters bit!); however I really don't see him being able to rejoin LV after the events of HBP.

All that aside, I'd love to see Harry and Draco attempt to work together...