Did the Dursleys ever actually abuse Harry?
none
abused by the Dursleys.
What do you all think? Did the Dursleys ever cross the line into
criminal treatment of Harry?
Dudley apparently beat him up several times, but I don't recall Vernon
or Petunia hitting him.
Keeping him in the cupboard under the stairs could be considered
abuse. But even that is iffy. Did they ever lock him in there for
extended periods?
I suppose it also depends on what country we're talking about. Some
countries have strict laws on treatment of children, some have no
laws.
Christopher Hortin
[snip]
>What do you all think? Did the Dursleys ever cross the line
>into criminal treatment of Harry?
>
sad thing. While forcing your adopted son to sleep in a closet for
11 years of his life isn't a kind thing to do, it's not actual abuse
according to the law.
>Dudley apparently beat him up several times, but I don't recall
>Vernon or Petunia hitting him.
>
There is no evidence by the book that Harry was physically hit by
Vernon or Petunia. He may have been spanked as a child, but I don't
necessarily equate a spanking with physical abuse.
~Chris, the Icicle Child~
--
[ "Buckets of water don't kill evil witches. ]
[ Little Kansas girls kill evil witches." ]
[ -dt King, rec.music.artists.ani-difranco ]
DAVID EVANS
AND as someone who experienced what I felt was abuse during my childhood, I
really feel that the treatment of Harry by the Dursley's is DEFINITELY
abuse.
He may never have been physically abused (I can't think of any strikings),
but mentally there is no doubt - to never have had a birthday celebrated -
to NOT be included in "family outings" unless there was NO way to get rid of
him, . . . these are abuses of the human spirit! This doesn't even MENTION
their inability to recognize his "unique-ness" and accept him for who he is.
RTJoby
I am on Chapter 2 and this same very question was what I was wondering about
when reading the books. I was actually surprised that there wasn't more abuse
from the Dursley's than there was since this was fiction---meaning the author
could have put in any type of exagerated abuse she wanted to in there.
Perhaps that was the whole point to keep the story on a realistic level.
The end result seems to be a sort of Cinderella-like abuse: cleaning, cooking
breakfasts, not allowed to do the things with family members, etc.
I was actually surprised the author had the boy going to school rather than
developing some sort of way of Harry teaching himself how to read in his little
room when nobody else was around. I think everyone has their own ideas to add
to the story. That is probably one of the interesting things about reading the
story.
Frank Wustner
In most U.S. states, the Dursleys would definately be deemed unfit
parents and have both Harry *and* Dudley taken away from them. I could
only speculate on whether or not this would descend into criminal charges
of neglect or abuse. For all I know, emotional abuse might not be dealt
with as severely as physical abuse.
But it definately would be enough for Vernon and Petunia to be declared
unfit parents.
--
The Deadly Nightshade
http://deadly_nightshade.tripod.com/
http://members.tripod.com/~deadly_nightshade/
|-----------------------------------|
|"I, too, believe in fate... |
|the fate a man makes for himself." |
|Lord Soth ("Time of the Twins") |
|-----------------------------------|
| Want to email me? Go to the URL |
| above and email me from there. |
|-----------------------------------|
Richard Eney
none <no...@none.none> wrote:
>A few times now I've seen summaries of the movie that said Harry was
>abused by the Dursleys.
>
>What do you all think? Did the Dursleys ever cross the line into
>criminal treatment of Harry?
>
>Dudley apparently beat him up several times, but I don't recall Vernon
>or Petunia hitting him.
We have no evidence of actual physical hitting by the adults, and Harry
does have some allowance for defending himself against Dudley. However,
Vernon talks about beatings - "Nothing a good beating wouldn't have
cured", if I recall correctly - and that can be almost as daunting.
>Keeping him in the cupboard under the stairs could be considered
>abuse. But even that is iffy. Did they ever lock him in there for
>extended periods?
Yes, they did. After the snake incident he spent several months in his
cupboard, not being let out until it was almost midsummer, probably so he
could do the yard work. This was not an unusual punishment; he had spent
time locked in it before, for incidents of unrecognized magic.
=Tamar
none
>I have to confess that I just started reading the Harry Potter books.
>I am on Chapter 2 and this same very question was what I was wondering about
>when reading the books. I was actually surprised that there wasn't more abuse
>from the Dursley's than there was since this was fiction---meaning the author
>could have put in any type of exagerated abuse she wanted to in there.
>Perhaps that was the whole point to keep the story on a realistic level.
I think maybe JKR didn't want to open that can of worms. Yes it's
fiction and she's the god of that world, but these books are aimed at
the younger market and true physical abuse would have been too
nightmarish (and sadly too real for some kids).
She also had to consider how the audience would see the Dursleys. As
it is, the Dursleys are uber-jerks. But some of their scenes with
Harry are great ones. The "Letters From No one" chapter is one of my
favorites. And it's fun watching them react to Harry after they know
he's a wizard and it's fun laughing at the Dursleys in a buffoon-ish
sort of way.
If the Dursleys had become dangerously abusive, we would hate them and
want them prosecuted and jailed (or worse). Not much fun there. We
need the Dursleys to be Harry's muggle nemeses.
tphile
And it was Dumbledore who put him there. On purpose.
But the Dursleys treatment play a very important part in shaping his
personality
and making Harry who he is.
His hardships made him a better person.
If he had been raised by the Malfoys for example his childhood would
have looked
more conventional but the end results would have been disasterous.
and he is going to need those strengths since Dumbledore is gradually
training
him for the final confrontation with Lord Voldemort
tphile
Melissa Houle
The Dursley's probably kept themselves carefully on the legal side of
the local child abuse laws. Was he ever actually hit by the adult
Dursleys? I'm not sure. It never actually says so in the books, but I
definitely get the impression that Vernon wouldn't have to be pushed
very hard before he hit Harry when the two of them have a
confrontation.
But you don't necessarily have to hit a kid to hurt them. Harry
certainly knew as soon as he was old enough to be aware that he was an
unloved, unwanted addition to the household, and his aunt and uncle
considered him both abnormal and undesirable. The Dursleys only keep
Harry because they have to, but they take out their frustration on him
in the form of verbal abuse pretty regularly. It IS stated in the
Sorceror's Stone that Harry is confined to the cupboard under the
stairs after Dudley's birthday trip to the zoo, and that it was his
longest punishment ever, so it must not have been the first time they
shut him in there. By the time Harry is allowed out again, the summer
holidays have started, so I'd guess the punishment lasted at least a
week. Harry has to wear Dudley's clothes, and at his first Hogwarts
meal we're told he's never actually been starved, but the Dursley's
didn't let him eat what he liked, and probably he never really got
enough of anything. Neglect is a form of abuse. It's amazing that
Harry is as well adjusted as he is.
So I'd guess that while Harry's treatment might not have crossed the
line into what could legally be termed abuse in a court of lawit was
miserable enough to FEEL like abuse to him. Ten years of that kind of
treatment would definitely sour a person on their guardians.
Melissa
--
Don't allow your mind to wander: it's too little to be allowed out by
itself.
RCLOVELY
>Harry is as well adjusted as he is.
When I first started reading the books, I wondered why Harry didn't grow up to
be a serial killer! But, I think this is where Mrs. Figg comes in. She makes
Harry eat dry chocolate cake. If chocolate is an antidote for the effects of
the Dementors, chocolate cake, with something more added to it, must be an
antidote for the Dursleys.
RC
RTJoby
That is what I also think.
< Yes it's
>fiction and she's the god of that world, but these books are aimed at
>the younger market and true physical abuse would have been too
>nightmarish (and sadly too real for some kids).<
I think that is why she made Harry into the Dursley's boy Cinderella in the
house: housework, cooking, mistreated, kept hidden away in a small room away
from the others,---& ya got to admit Dudley is practically all 3 of the
step-sisters rolled up into one.
>She also had to consider how the audience would see the Dursleys. As
>it is, the Dursleys are uber-jerks.>
Exactly. They condemned the Potter's for their way of life for practicing
wizardry---when in reality the Dursley's were worse people than the ones' they
were condemning. After seeing how mean Vernon is when Harry is age 10---it
makes you wonder how he ever cared for infant Harry that day he heard the
wizards speak Harry's name in passing.
< But some of their scenes with
>Harry are great ones. The "Letters From No one" chapter is one of my
>favorites. And it's fun watching them react to Harry after they know
>he's a wizard and it's fun laughing at the Dursleys in a buffoon-ish
>sort of way. >
When I was reading that chapter, the thought actually came to mind, "Gosh this
one is a more Fun chapter compared to the others."
They are all fun to read but this one seemed to be the one to make you laugh at
what is going on the most.
One thing I did not agree on was that in this chapter Harry suddenly becomes
overly-spoken to the Dursley's almost to the point of being smart ellic to
them. I just don't picture a real boy abused so much by them the way he had
being that way.
But then again, he hasn't been completely sheltered away so it's still possible
to maintain a certain level of boldness. He's growing and has reached an age
where enough is enough.
>If the Dursleys had become dangerously abusive, we would hate them and
>want them prosecuted and jailed (or worse). Not much fun there. We
>need the Dursleys to be Harry's muggle nemeses. >
After just finishing Chapter 4, I don't know what their demise is, but I was
hoping when reading that Harry ends up giving them their just rewards !
;)
(~Poor Dudley missing 5 of his favorite TV programs in one single day.~)
Jonathan Buzzard
Whatever you feel about the treatment of Harry, in the U.K. there is
nothing you can do about this. The one thing that the Dursleys would
be in trouble for is keeping Harry off school after the vanishing glass
incident. The implication was he was off school for a long time, and
that could get you into trouble.
JAB.
--
Jonathan A. Buzzard Email: jona...@buzzard.org.uk
Northumberland, United Kingdom. Tel: +44(0)1661-832195
Donal Fagan
<icicl...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>none <no...@none.none> wrote:
>[snip]
>>What do you all think? Did the Dursleys ever cross the line
>>into criminal treatment of Harry?
>>
>Technically, no, at least not by US standards, which is kind of a
>sad thing. While forcing your adopted son to sleep in a closet for
>11 years of his life isn't a kind thing to do, it's not actual abuse
>according to the law.
Sleeping rooms are supposed to have natural light and ventilation, but
a lot of kids sleep in basement rooms that don't comply.
Donal Fagan
Donal@DonalO'Fagan.com
(Anglicise the name to reply by e-mail)
Cyber Scout
Mild Spoilers for GoF in the last lines:
> A few times now I've seen summaries of the movie that said Harry was
> abused by the Dursleys.
> What do you all think? Did the Dursleys ever cross the line into
> criminal treatment of Harry?
> Dudley apparently beat him up several times, but I don't recall
> Vernon or Petunia hitting him.
We don't know that they didn't. Just as we don't see every mouthful
of every meal every day, or detailed descriptions of
> Keeping him in the cupboard under the stairs could be considered
> abuse. But even that is iffy. Did they ever lock him in there for
> extended periods?
Could be? Why could be? Making him sleep there whether he is
locked in or not is most certainly abuse, even if the Social services
may not bother to prosecute. It is certainly not behaviour that
should be tolerated. Lots of Vernon and Petunia's behaviour toward
harry is worthy of the label abuse, even if it is not physical.
> I suppose it also depends on what country we're talking about. Some
> countries have strict laws on treatment of children, some have no
> laws.
Whether it would end up in prosecution is not the be all and end all
of what constitutes abuse. I think the only behavior Harry considers
to be neglect that isn't is the diet the whole family share.
Vulpixmaster
"none" <no...@none.none> wrote in message
news:fhbuttohppb7ogrmd...@4ax.com...
> abused by the Dursleys.
>
> What do you all think? Did the Dursleys ever cross the line into
> criminal treatment of Harry?
(Beware quoting from memory!) In the first book it said "The first thing you
learned from living with the Dursleys is never to ask questions." How they
enforced this rule it didn't say. Though in CofS Petunia DID seriously try
to hit Harry in the back of the head with a frying pan...
Vulpixmaster
"RTJoby" <rtj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011031040450...@mb-fv.aol.com...
> I think that is why she made Harry into the Dursley's boy Cinderella in
the
> house: housework, cooking, mistreated, kept hidden away in a small room
away
> from the others,---& ya got to admit Dudley is practically all 3 of the
> step-sisters rolled up into one.
In weight and cruelty.
RTJoby
>> step-sisters rolled up into one.
>In weight and cruelty.
LOL to the "weight" part !
The Fabulous Disney Babe
>abused by the Dursleys.
>Keeping him in the cupboard under the stairs could be considered
>abuse. But even that is iffy. Did they ever lock him in there for
>extended periods?
Yes, after the zoo incident, he was kept there from Dudley's birthday until
well after holidays had begun.
In the US, and I'm sure in the UK too, if a child were kept in a cupboard under
the stairs they'd be taken into foster care before you could blink.
Fab
http://www.laughingplace.com
NY Fire/Police Fund Donations: 800-711-3050
tphile
Yes and we have another stereotype of fat people being
stupid, selfish and subject to ridicule.
Unlike are heroes.
Its a pity that JKR had to resort to that in a book for
kids. As if Cartman of South Park wasn't enough
Now if HP had been overweight, that would have said something.
HP wasn't the only thing that got abused
tphile
RTJoby
Oh please, that is all garbage as if to assume that there are no pretty &
skinny characters ever depicted that way in literature. I can think of plenty
pretty & skinny ones who are totally into themselves even more than the
Dursleys.
Donal Fagan
>Yes and we have another stereotype of fat people being
>stupid, selfish and subject to ridicule.
Whoa, I thought fat people were *jolly*. Those bony, anorexic,
heroin-chic types are stupid and subject to ridicule.
John Fisher
<no...@none.none> writes
>I think maybe JKR didn't want to open that can of worms. Yes it's
>fiction and she's the god of that world, but these books are aimed at
>the younger market and true physical abuse would have been too
>nightmarish (and sadly too real for some kids).
>
>She also had to consider how the audience would see the Dursleys. As
>it is, the Dursleys are uber-jerks. But some of their scenes with
>Harry are great ones. The "Letters From No one" chapter is one of my
>favorites. And it's fun watching them react to Harry after they know
>he's a wizard and it's fun laughing at the Dursleys in a buffoon-ish
>sort of way.
>
>If the Dursleys had become dangerously abusive, we would hate them and
>want them prosecuted and jailed (or worse). Not much fun there. We
>need the Dursleys to be Harry's muggle nemeses.
I think this is very much their function in the book. We are meant to
see Harry has having a pretty unpleasant time with them, and that's it.
But from a real-world point of view his treatment is appalling; he
spends his entire childhood from 1 (?) to 11 without a single breath of
affection. At the end of GoF when Mrs Weasley hugs him, we're told that
he can't remember being hugged like that, as by a mother, ever in his
whole life (he's 14).
Even when he gets to school, it's not much better in many ways. He has
friendship from his peers and protection and even respect from some of
the adults, but that's it. The adult he feels really close to, Sirius,
is never allowed to be with him for more than about half an hour. The
other adults seem to go out of their way not to let him get close or
dependent. The only exception is Hagrid, and he's really just a big kid
himself.
I think all this is the way in which the books are most like children's
books, in fact. I think kids like to read about kids who are strong and
independent. They get rather bored and let down by soppy stuff. But I
feel sorry for Harry throughout. Ron should think again; it's no
picnic being a Great Hero.
--
John Fisher jo...@drummond.demon.co.uk jo...@epcc.ed.ac.uk
Gringotts Goblin
etc'
Obviously the definition in law can be different and the definition can
change from country to country and in ways actually more broader.
I would say that JKR was right in calling how he was treated as "abuse".
Telling people that he was from a correctional school, keeping him in a room
full of spiders, talking to him like he was the lowest creature in the
world. Basically not only not allowing him to experience what it is like to
be a normal kid, but experience what it is like to be a respected human
being.
As a child he has been subject to verbal abuse which can emotionally harm
him even now as an older child. Children can relive that pain in many more
ways than a punch in the tummy, or a spnaking.
He was and has been treated unfairly, "maltreated" and definitely attacked
verbally. It doesn't matter whether or not there is a law in a country to
say whether or not a person can be charge due to abusing a child, what
matter in this book is whether Harry was abused, and as what happened to him
fits the definition then yes I believe he was abused.
"none" <no...@none.none> wrote in message
news:fhbuttohppb7ogrmd...@4ax.com...
Venya
news:3BE0700D...@texoma.net...
Dudley "hates exercise", his favourite foodstuffs are "fizzy drinks and
cakes, chocolate bars and burgers", and he "complains about the long walk
between the fridge and the television in the living room". He is fat because
he is greedy, lazy, and his parents indulge him; this is made quite clear in
the books. Or do you believe that being overweight is a perfectly valid
lifestyle choice for a child?
- Venya
Gringotts Goblin
Absolutely. Look at the veela and that half veela girl. Okay sure the half
veela girl was nice to Harry later on but hey she'd be a bitch and a half if
you saw her down the street today, "totally" self absorbed. JKR hasn;t
stereotyping fat people as being stupid, selfish and subject to ridicule.
Okay maybe Neville Longbottom and hagrid are "large and ridiculed, but I
won't call that character selfish esp in comparison the the veela.
Richard Eney
Jonathan Buzzard <jona...@buzzard.org.uk> wrote:
<snip>
>Whatever you feel about the treatment of Harry, in the U.K. there is
>nothing you can do about this. The one thing that the Dursleys would
>be in trouble for is keeping Harry off school after the vanishing glass
>incident. The implication was he was off school for a long time, and
>that could get you into trouble.
It isn't really clear whether he's kept out of school, or only let out
of the closet to go to school and shut in again when he gets home.
I think it would have been too much trouble for the Dursleys to have
kept him out of school, and besides, they knew he didn't have any friends
in that school anyway, so it wasn't any treat to be allowed to go.
In point of fact, aside from the lack of light and fresh air and all,
being in the closet might have been a great relief - while he was in
there Dudley and his pals couldn't get at him.
=Tamar
Chris Share
(gringott...@hotmail.com) said...
GoF spoiler...
>> >Yes and we have another stereotype of fat people being
>> >stupid, selfish and subject to ridicule.
>> >Unlike are heroes.
>> >Its a pity that JKR had to resort to that in a book for
>> >kids. As if Cartman of South Park wasn't enough
>> >Now if HP had been overweight, that would have said something.
>> >HP wasn't the only thing that got abused
Cartman isn't always bad. Sometimes he's really nice... oh sorry, that
was the ep where they got the mirror universe cartman. Yep, the normal
one's a bastard :)
>> Oh please, that is all garbage as if to assume that there are no pretty &
>> skinny characters ever depicted that way in literature. I can think of
>plenty
>> pretty & skinny ones who are totally into themselves even more than the
>> Dursleys.
Petunia is skinny, so it's not limited to fat people.
>Absolutely. Look at the veela and that half veela girl. Okay sure the half
>veela girl was nice to Harry later on but hey she'd be a bitch and a half if
>you saw her down the street today, "totally" self absorbed.
And how about the Malfoys? And I'd hardly call Moldywarts fat, would
you?
>JKR hasn;t
>stereotyping fat people as being stupid, selfish and subject to ridicule.
>Okay maybe Neville Longbottom and hagrid are "large and ridiculed, but I
>won't call that character selfish esp in comparison the the veela.
Large and ridiculed? Yes in Hagrid's case until you get to know him. As
HP etc say in GoF, it's onyl ppl that don't know him (and Malfoy) who
think that Hagrid being half giant is bad. Neville isn't ridiculed
really - just sometimes a bit for his awful memory, but he is good at
some things, especially Herbology. His atrocious record in Potions is
just because of Snape really.
chris
Chris Share
said...
>On Wed, 31 Oct 2001 15:41:33 -0600, tphile <tph...@texoma.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Yes and we have another stereotype of fat people being
>>stupid, selfish and subject to ridicule.
>
>Whoa, I thought fat people were *jolly*. Those bony, anorexic,
>heroin-chic types are stupid and subject to ridicule.
Yeah, and that goes back a loong way:
CAESAR. Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o' nights:
Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.
That's from Julius Caesarr, about 1599 IIRC. However modern times seem
to be getting more against fat people. Probably mainly because we know
about the health problems..
chris
The Fabulous Disney Babe
>Neville isn't ridiculed
>really - just sometimes a bit for his awful memory, but he is good at
>some things, especially Herbology. His atrocious record in Potions is
>just because of Snape really.
>
>chris
You know what would kill? Neville's standing there, and Snape rounds a corner
or comes out of a door and Neville thinks it's his boggart and....
Klaus Winkler
>>Neglect is a form of abuse. It's amazing that
>>Harry is as well adjusted as he is.
>
>When I first started reading the books, I wondered why Harry didn't grow up to
>be a serial killer!
It would also be a great oppurtunity for Voldy to do a tempt Harry to
switch sides. "Do you really want to defend those "Muggles" that
abused you, neglected you etc"
Regards
Klaus Winkler
--
Ash nazg durbatulūk, ash mazg gimbatul,
ash nazg thrakatulūk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul
John Fisher
<klausw...@foni.net> writes
>It would also be a great oppurtunity for Voldy to do a tempt Harry to
>switch sides. "Do you really want to defend those "Muggles" that
>abused you, neglected you etc"
I think something like this will be the climax of the whole series, when
V. leads Harry to the top of the mountain and offers him the world...
his parents brought back to life, maybe? We're told that magic can't do
that, but maybe the Dark Arts have a way.
Of course by then it will have to seem to Harry that all his friends
have deserted him and he has to face the test alone...
Gringotts Goblin
Hagrid, Neville, Crabbe, Goyle are all big boys that are not heroes of the
book, heroes in comparison to say Harry or Malfoy. But in saying that I
don't think you can say the below:
> >> >Yes and we have another stereotype of fat people being
> >> >stupid, selfish and subject to ridicule.
> >> >Unlike are heroes.
> >> >Its a pity that JKR had to resort to that in a book for
> >> >kids. As if Cartman of South Park wasn't enough
> >> >Now if HP had been overweight, that would have said something.
> >> >HP wasn't the only thing that got abused
Petunia is skinny as was rightly said before and the Veela girls (half or
whole) are very ego centric (or at least appear to be) and obviously the
Malfoys.
I think JKR has a good mix of characters.
> Large and ridiculed? Yes in Hagrid's case until you get to know him. As
> HP etc say in GoF, it's onyl ppl that don't know him (and Malfoy) who
> think that Hagrid being half giant is bad. Neville isn't ridiculed
> really - just sometimes a bit for his awful memory, but he is good at
> some things, especially Herbology. His atrocious record in Potions is
> just because of Snape really.
I don't believe that Neville is really that well liked in the book, but then
again that is only the impression I get. Hopefully we will find out some
more in the next book
cheers.
Oliver Gassner
>A few times now I've seen summaries of the movie that said Harry was
>abused by the Dursleys.
>
>What do you all think? Did the Dursleys ever cross the line into
>criminal treatment of Harry?
Whar do you cal someone locking in a small spae or in his room with
almost no food?
OG
Ina Blous
don't you?
It seems that the Dudleys treat to Harry fairly, until something that
has to so with magic pops up- and then is when they break the line.
Plus, Dudley was always Petunia's and Vernon's favorite (no way!).
Let's just say that they can be abusive- whenver it comes to the m
word. (if u don't know-it's magic)
Candy1966
>>criminal treatment of Harry?
Of course they did! These characters are some of the most vile in literature
and they are both nutcases!
Candice
Jonathan Buzzard
Actually they almost certainly did not. While their treatment of Harry
would probably give people cause for concern, it would appear never
to have broken the law as it exists in England, in the time frame of
the books, and even today.
.
<cand...@aol.comNoSpam> writes
When I started the first book a few weeks ago this part put me off for
quite a while. It reminded me too much of Grimm`s fairy tales.
I really love the Harry Potter books, but the way the Dursleys are
written is over the top. I am sure, in the real world they would have
been arrested a long time ago for child abuse.
>Candice
Baerbel Haddrell
.
<jona...@buzzard.org.uk> writes
>
>Actually they almost certainly did not. While their treatment of Harry
>would probably give people cause for concern, it would appear never
>to have broken the law as it exists in England, in the time frame of
>the books, and even today.
Locking somebody up in his room with bars at the window and barely
enough to eat is no abuse? Even prisoners are treated better than this.
>
>JAB.
>
Baerbel Haddrell
Cyber Scout
>In article <20011119165434...@mb-fc.aol.com>,
> cand...@aol.comNoSpam (Candy1966) writes:
>>>>What do you all think? Did the Dursleys ever cross the line into
>>>>criminal treatment of Harry?
>> Of course they did! These characters are some of the most vile in literature
>> and they are both nutcases!
>Actually they almost certainly did not. While their treatment of Harry
>would probably give people cause for concern, it would appear never
>to have broken the law as it exists in England, in the time frame of
>the books, and even today.
Although "there's no law against it" doesn't mean it's not wrong.
Jonathan Buzzard
It would unlikely be sufficient grounds for social services to do anything,
and is not breaking any English law even today (can't speak for Wales
and Scotland). The law only protects a childs physical well being, and
Harry's never appears to be in danger. Reasonable smacking/physical
punishment of children by parents continues to be legal in England.
Reasonable is generally taken to mean nothing producing any injury
including brusing. Locking a naughty child in their room is perfectly
reasonable. Many childrens rooms have bars or locks on the windows
anyway, and for good reason. It stops them climbing out; it does happen
and children have died this way. As long as Harry never became
malnourished and their is no evidence he does, they would be fine.
You might not like them as people, and consider what they are doing as
wrong. However it would not fall outside the law.
Jonathan Buzzard
Maybe, but the point it someone was claiming that they did, and they
almost certainly did not.
JAB.
Klaus Winkler
Which wasn't the question...
Regards
Klaus Winkler
--
Looking for a FAQ? http://klauwin.20m.com/hphome.html
Ash nazg durbatulūk, ash nazg gimbatul,
Cyber Scout
>
>On Tue, 20 Nov 2001 12:02:43 GMT, cyber...@coooool.co.uk (Cyber
>Scout) wrote:
>>>> Of course they did! These characters are some of the most vile in literature
>>>> and they are both nutcases!
>>
>>>Actually they almost certainly did not. While their treatment of Harry
>>>would probably give people cause for concern, it would appear never
>>>to have broken the law as it exists in England, in the time frame of
>>>the books, and even today.
>>Although "there's no law against it" doesn't mean it's not wrong.
>Which wasn't the question...
I know.
The answer was wrong because the question was based on a false
premise. Although I'm sure many courts would take a dim view of
locking somone in a space 1m by 2.5.
Oliver Gassner
>I have to confess that I just started reading the Harry Potter books.
>I am on Chapter 2 and this same very question was what I was wondering about
>when reading the books.
It just occured to me that this is a rather American way of thinking.
Is this also the way you read 'Lord of the Rings' (is it legal for
Frodo to have the ring?) or Grimm's Fairy Tales (Did Snow white ingest
drugs? Is she promoting Cocaine? Were Haensel ans Gertel abused? *) )
*) tis question was indeed asked in germany.. in the 70ies by a
satirical writer...
OG
Richard Eney
The situation is different. TLoTR is in a different world, Grimm's Fairy
Tales are set in the past. But HP is set in our universe, in our time,
and so our concerns may be applied as a legitimate literary criticism: "Is
the part of the story set in our world written believably?" My answer is,
that part of the story is as believable as the this-world part of many
other children's books, such as _Matilda_, in which there are abuses that
would not be permitted if anyone knew about them. The premise is that
nobody in authority finds out.
And yes, many writers have considered such questions quite seriously.
Look at _Politically Correct Fairy Tales_ (that's the title), or
at all the variations that have been written by modern fantasy authors
that put characters with modern attitudes in a standard fairy-tale setting
to show what would happen. Andrew Lang's "Prince Prigio" in _My Own Fairy
Book_ is only one example. You could fill a fairly large bookcase with
examples.
=Tamar
Oliver Gassner
>>Is this also the way you read 'Lord of the Rings' (is it legal for
>>Frodo to have the ring?) or Grimm's Fairy Tales (Did Snow white ingest
>>drugs? Is she promoting Cocaine? Were Haensel ans Gertel abused? *) )
>The situation is different. TLoTR is in a different world, Grimm's Fairy
>Tales are set in the past. But HP is set in our universe,
It is? Tell me more ;) (No, it is NOT!)
>in our time,
OK, time I agree, but not Universe ;)
>and so our concerns may be applied as a legitimate literary criticism: "Is
>the part of the story set in our world written believably?"
You find it unbelievable that children are abused and no one goes to
prison for it? Aha.
>And yes, many writers have considered such questions quite seriously.
>Look at _Politically Correct Fairy Tales_ (that's the title), or
This exists as a satire in germany, yup. and the Germnan term for
'politically correctz' is: 'politically correct'.
OG
Nanny Ogg
>It would unlikely be sufficient grounds for social services to do anything,
>and is not breaking any English law even today (can't speak for Wales
>and Scotland). The law only protects a childs physical well being, and
>Harry's never appears to be in danger.
I don't know the exact wording of the law, but I _do_ know that Social Services
can become involved over emotional abuse or over neglect, and Harry certainly
seems to have suffered both. In RL, if Social Services got wind of the
Dursleys Harry would be on the at-risk register very quickly.
All the best,
Sarah
--
`If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you'll be
taller than everyone else.' Kipling and _I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue_
`Unfortunately Real Life lacks a decent tourist information service' Adrian
Morgan
Espen Berntsen
>On 22 Nov 2001 23:51:39 -0500, dic...@Radix.Net (Richard Eney) wrote:
>
>>>Is this also the way you read 'Lord of the Rings' (is it legal for
>>>Frodo to have the ring?) or Grimm's Fairy Tales (Did Snow white ingest
>>>drugs? Is she promoting Cocaine? Were Haensel ans Gertel abused? *) )
>
>>The situation is different. TLoTR is in a different world, Grimm's Fairy
>>Tales are set in the past. But HP is set in our universe,
>
>It is? Tell me more ;) (No, it is NOT!)
>
>>in our time,
>
>OK, time I agree, but not Universe ;)
How do you know? Most muggles are unaware that magic exists :)
--
Name, the fame
Karen
<swhi...@aol.com> wrote:
> Jonathan Buzzard wrote:
>
> >It would unlikely be sufficient grounds for social services to do anything,
> >and is not breaking any English law even today (can't speak for Wales
> >and Scotland). The law only protects a childs physical well being, and
> >Harry's never appears to be in danger.
>
> I don't know the exact wording of the law, but I _do_ know that Social
> Services
> can become involved over emotional abuse or over neglect, and Harry certainly
> seems to have suffered both. In RL, if Social Services got wind of the
> Dursleys Harry would be on the at-risk register very quickly.
>
As mentioned, the Dursley's take care of Harry's physical needs just
fine. Soical Services is in no position to evaluate his emotional
situation as long as he doesn't complain to someone outside the family
or misbehave in public. He is doing as much as the Dursley's to avoid
being noticed, that may be a weakness in the system. But SS has enough
to deal with with kids who are truly violent and criminal.
--
Karen
"But let's also remember that there was a moment, way back in the mists
of the late last century, when Harry Potter was a cool club you could
join only by reading." Tracy Mayor, Salon.com
Ina Blous
And, the Dursleys do abuse Harry, although they have their moments.
But they could gey a few good years for what they did to him.
These guys are CRUEL!! And cheap. When it comes to Harry.
Highway of Death
What a stupid question. The way they treated him was very abusive!
There are other kinds of abuse besides extreme physical violence.
Verbal abuse does a lot of emotional harm, especially when it's done
on a regular basis by parents. Also, you'd have to be an idiot to
think that locking up a kid in a spider-filled cabinet isn't abuse. It
really pissed me off when I read what they did and said to Harry in
the books. As far as I'm concerned, Harry would've been more than
justified in killing the whole miserable step-family. I had a really
mean father, so it makes me mad and distressed when I read the
beginning of each Harry Potter book where he is abused by his
step-family and is almost helpless to do anything about it.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
*** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! ***
http://www.usenet.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
8-Bit Star
Highway of Death wrote:
> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>
> What a stupid question. The way they treated him was very abusive!
> There are other kinds of abuse besides extreme physical violence.
> Verbal abuse does a lot of emotional harm, especially when it's done
> on a regular basis by parents. Also, you'd have to be an idiot to
> think that locking up a kid in a spider-filled cabinet isn't abuse. It
> really pissed me off when I read what they did and said to Harry in
> the books. As far as I'm concerned, Harry would've been more than
> justified in killing the whole miserable step-family. I had a really
> mean father, so it makes me mad and distressed when I read the
> beginning of each Harry Potter book where he is abused by his
> step-family and is almost helpless to do anything about it.
I agree. If keeping him a virtual prisoner in his room, and even putting
bars on his window (Chamber of Secrets) isn't abusive, what is?
Jonathan Buzzard
8-Bit Star <nes_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
> Highway of Death wrote:
>
>> **** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
>>
>> What a stupid question. The way they treated him was very abusive!
>> There are other kinds of abuse besides extreme physical violence.
>> Verbal abuse does a lot of emotional harm, especially when it's done
>> on a regular basis by parents. Also, you'd have to be an idiot to
>> think that locking up a kid in a spider-filled cabinet isn't abuse. It
>> really pissed me off when I read what they did and said to Harry in
>> the books. As far as I'm concerned, Harry would've been more than
>> justified in killing the whole miserable step-family. I had a really
>> mean father, so it makes me mad and distressed when I read the
>> beginning of each Harry Potter book where he is abused by his
>> step-family and is almost helpless to do anything about it.
>
> I agree. If keeping him a virtual prisoner in his room, and even putting
> bars on his window (Chamber of Secrets) isn't abusive, what is?
>
Bars on childrens windows are *far* from abusive. In fact with young
children they are often a very prudent safety measure. Tradgically
a number of children die each year in the U.K. falling from Windows.
I would be surprised if this was not the case in other countries as
well.
Tim Howe
their families for abuse, truancy, whatever. What the Dursleys do the
Harry (in the US mind, but US an UK laws seem to be similar from what
I have read) would be borderline. _IF_ the authorities knew the
extent of the abuse he probably would be removed, but how would they
find out? Harry has no visible bruises, he is a decent student, he is
fed and clothed adequately if not fairly. His teachers, who would be
the most likely to report any abuse, probably don't have any reason to
believe he is abused. The neighbors probably don't know or care
enough to have serious concerns and call the authorities. Locking him
in the cupboard for months on end (execpt for school apparently) would
qualify as abuse. Locking him in the bedroom and starving him would
certainly qualify but that ended quickly enough to not be discovered.
Really though, at least in the US, the constant THREAT of violence,
even if it is rarely or never delivered would be sufficient to cause
an investigation. Of course how do you find out about that?
The only person who probably has a real clue as to what is gong on is
Mrs. Figg. Both because she is probably Dumbledore's spy and also
because Harry always goes there instead of anywhere fun. OTOH we have
reason to believe from the books that Dumbledore wants Harry there for
security reasons, so Mrs. Figg is unlikely to report to any Muggle
organization.
I do suspect however that if Harry was ever in real physical danger
from the Durselys, Dumbledore or Figg or Hagrid or someone would step
in. Now I suspect the Weasleys might have a thing or three to say
about it. I can just imagine Mrs. Weasley apperating in the Dursleys
living room and letting them have it.
It should be interesting what happens when Harry turns 17 and is
allowed to use magic outside of school. "Happy birthday to me,
STUPIFY, Happy Birthday to me..."
-Tim
Andy Platt
> It should be interesting what happens when Harry turns 17 and is
> allowed to use magic outside of school. "Happy birthday to me,
> STUPIFY, Happy Birthday to me..."
He could still be got under the Muggle Protection act! Much better would be
to have Harry abandon all morals (and risk a life imprisonment in
Azkaban!!!) and put them under the Imperius curse. He could have Dudley
walking down the street naked singing, "It's raining men", Uncle Vernon
going into work and calling all his clients "stupid morons" and have Aunt
Petunia go round to all her friends and neighbors saying, "My sister was a
witch you know".
Andy.
--
I'm not really here - it's just your warped imagination.
Chris Share
>It should be interesting what happens when Harry turns 17 and is
>allowed to use magic outside of school. "Happy birthday to me,
>STUPIFY, Happy Birthday to me..."
>
>-Tim
Nah.
Happy birthday to me (tarrantallgra)
Happy birthday to me (furnunculus)
Happy birthday dear me (jelly legs jinx)
Happy birthday to me (turn them all into bouncing ferrets)
Much more fun... :)
chris
Igenlode
> Highway of Death wrote:
>
> > What a stupid question. The way they treated him was very abusive!
> > There are other kinds of abuse besides extreme physical violence.
> > Verbal abuse does a lot of emotional harm, especially when it's done
> > on a regular basis by parents. Also, you'd have to be an idiot to
> > think that locking up a kid in a spider-filled cabinet isn't abuse.
[snip]
>
> I agree. If keeping him a virtual prisoner in his room, and even putting
> bars on his window (Chamber of Secrets) isn't abusive, what is?
>
It's a fairy-tale world, that's all... one might as well say that
turning people into pigs (Hagrid) or canaries (the Weasley twins) is
abusive...
--
Igenlode
'The Day the Stories Went Dark' - story now on-line at
http://curry.250x.com/HoedownII/
Rugrat
>> putting bars on his window (Chamber of Secrets) isn't abusive, what
>> is?
>>
> Bars on childrens windows are *far* from abusive. In fact with young
> children they are often a very prudent safety measure.
Yes, but they weren't put there as a safety measure, were they?
Rugrat