Skip to main content

harry potter - Can doing magic in front of a Muggle get you expelled or not?


This question is heavily inspired by this one, asked just a few hours ago, but takes a different angle. In particular, this comment by NKCampbell was what made me ask, and the inconsistency noted by Slytherincess in this answer further fuelled it.


In Chamber of Secrets, when Dobby hovers and smashes Aunt Petunia’s wobbly pudding, he immediately receives a missive from Mafalda Hopkirk of the Improper Use of Magic Office that reads as follows (emphasis mine):



Dear Mr Potter,
    We have received intelligence that a Hover Charm was used at your place of residence this evening at twelve minutes past nine.
    As you know, underage wizards are not permitted to perform spells outside school, and further spellwork on your part may lead to expulsion from said school (Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery, 1875, Paragraph C).

    We would also ask you to remember that any magical activity which risks notice by members of the non-magical community (Muggles) is a serious offence, under section 13 of the International Confederation of Warlocks’ Statute of Secrecy.



Three years later, when Harry conjures a Patronus to fight off the Dementors that Madam Toad sics on him (and Dudley, presumably inadvertently), he receives an even more strongly worded letter from Mafalda Hopkirk (emphasis mine again):



Dear Mr Potter,
    We have received intelligence that you performed the Patronus Charm at twenty-three minutes past nine this evening in a Muggle inhabited area and in the presence of a Muggle.
    The severity of this breach of the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery has resulted in your expulsion from Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Ministry representatives will be calling at your place of residence shortly to destroy your wand.
    As you have already received an official warning for a previous offence under Section 13 of the International Confederation of Warlocks’ Statute of Secrecy, we regret to inform you that your presence is required at a disciplinary hearing at the Ministry of Magic at 9 a.m. on the twelfth of August.



Naturally, Dumbledore intervenes and Harry remains safe until his hearing. At the hearing, Dumbledore states (to the entire Wizengamot, nonetheless):




‘The Ministry does not have the power to expel Hogwarts students, Cornelius, as I reminded you on the night of the second of August,’ said Dumbledore. ‘Nor does it have the right to confiscate wands until charges have been successfully proven; again, as I reminded you on the night of the second of August. In your admirable haste to ensure that the law is upheld, you appear, inadvertently I am sure, to have overlooked a few laws yourself.



These two statements (taking the first two letters as one, as they essentially say the same thing) directly contradict each other, as far as I can tell, and are completely incompatible if taken at face value:



  • The first letter states that Paragraph C of the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery (DRRUC) at least makes it possible to expel students for breaches of it, and the second letter seeks to carry this out, actually expelling him.

  • Dumbledore’s statement (which is a repetition, apparently, of what he said to Fudge on 2 August, and which Fudge evidently accepted as true) states that the Ministry, and thereby also its laws and decrees, does not have the authority to expel Hogwarts students.


Now, the wording “may lead to expulsion” could theoretically just be hedging, meaning that the Ministry will suggest that the Headmaster expel the student… but that would be a highly uncommon and misleading use of directly citing a legal decree as the source of a statement that something may lead to expulsion. Depending on how exactly Wizarding laws work, it could even be illegal in itself, if that were the correct interpretation of this “may”. And the second letter definitely seems to bear out the fact that no such scenario is implied, hinting that it is the severity of the breach (Patronus > pudding) that has caused the expulsion, and that “may” therefore means “may, depending on the severity of the breach”.


So who’s right? What exactly does Paragraph C of DRRUC say, and what does it authorise the Ministry to do? Why do the warning letters (seemingly) state something that the Ministry itself recognises to be false?



Canon answers preferably, though I’m fairly sure at least the books are mum on the subject—or, if there is some logical flaw in my reading that fully explains and reconciles all the statements given, that will do fine for an answer, too.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

futurama - How much time is lost in 'Time Keeps on Slippin''

In time Keeps on Slippin' , Farnsworth creates a basketball team which he matures by abusing Chronitons. This leads to time skipping forward by random, but ever increasing amounts. How much time was skipped in this way? Answer Unfortunately, I don't think a good estimate can be made for this, for two reasons: Many of the time skips move forward by an indeterminate amount of time. At one point, the Professor mentions localized regions of space skipping forward much more than others. We then see two young boys on the street below complaining about having to pay social security, only to suddenly become senior citizens and start complaining about wanting their money. Thus, each individual could have experienced a different amount of time skippage.
Post a Comment
Read more

aliens - Interstellar Zoo story

I vaguely remember this story from my childhood: it was about an interstellar zoo that came to Earth with lots of bizarre and unusual species, and humans would file through and gape at all the crazy looking creatures from other planets. The twist came at the end when the perspective shifted to the other side of the bars and we discovered that the "creatures" were traveling through space on a kind of safari. They thought they were the visitors and we were the animals. Neither side knew that the other side thought they were the zoo creatures. Answer Got it. Zoo, by Edward D. Hoch. Published in 1958. Link to Publication History Link to PDF
Post a Comment
Read more

harry potter - Did Dolores Umbridge Have Any Association with Voldemort (or Death Eaters) before His Return?

I noticed that Dolores Umbridge was born during the first Wizarding War, so it's very likely she wasn't a Death Eater then (but she is pretty evil -- who knows?). After that Voldemort was not around in a way that could affect many people, and most wouldn't know he was planning to rise again. During that time, and up through Voldemort's return (in Goblet of Fire ), did Umbridge have any connection with the Death Eaters or with Voldemort? Was she doing what she did on her own, or was it because of an association with Voldemort or his allies? Answer Dolores Umbridge was definitely not a good person. However, as Sirius points out, "the world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters". Remember that he also says that he doesn't believe Umbridge to be a Death Eater, but that she's evil enough (or something like that). I think there are two strong reasons to believe that: Umbridge was proud to do everything according to the law, except when she trie...
Post a Comment
Read more

harry potter - What is the difference between Diffindo and Sectumsempra?

In the Harry Potter books, Diffindo is called the 'Severing Charm' and it’s most commonly used to cut ropes and the like. However, in the last book Hermione uses it on Ron but misses, creating a 'slash in his jeans' and his knee gets cut, causing him to 'roar in pain'. We've only seen Sectumsempra used once on screen when Harry directly uses it on Malfoy in the sixth book, but there it's mentioned that he is 'waving his wand wildly'. Wouldn't Diffindo, if used in such a fashion also cause a similar effect? Similarly, if it was able to cut Ron, it would also be able to, say, chop off an ear (George's)? In that case, how are these two spells different, except for Sectumsempra seemingly used exclusively to hurt humans? Answer While Diffindo and Sectumsempra both can be countered by other spells, Diffindo is far more easily countered. Reparo, a relatively common spell, can completely reverse its effect when used once. “He pulled the old cop...
Post a Comment
Read more