Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire discussion

Masha wrote: "Can someone who actually has the book confirm what Hermione was specifically doing? I remember her leaving caps around, so elves who wanted freedom could pick them up. She wasn't forcing them to ta..."

that seems to be it, she only really forced SPEW on Ron and Harry

"Can someone who actually has the book confirm what Hermione was specifically doing? I remember her leaving caps around, so elves who wanted freedom could pick them up. She wasn't forcing them to take clothes."

But she was eventually hiding the clothes under rubbish, hoping the elves would pick them up without realizing - which led to the elves refusing to clean Gryffindor Tower. Dobby was cleaning it by himself and wearing all the clothes.

Got it, thanks! It was driving me nuts that I couldn't remember.

Cassondra wrote: "Arti wrote: "Ethan wrote: "I think she should've at least asked the elves before doing that"

why should she have to ask the elves?"


Because. If she asks the elves, this movement is truly about..."

However poorly you think of politicians, slave owners are a different kettle of fish.

Which elf should she ask? Dobby or Blinky? Or one of the others? All of them? The enslaved ones? The ones who could be under orders contrary to their true wants and needs? Are you suggesting that it should be put to a vote? In a real life situation, the slave would expect to be beaten or killed for the wrong answer as soon as your back was turned. In the world of Harry Potter, the house-elves' owner could simply order them to say they're happy no matter what.

You might argue that clearly the house elves at Hogwarts are happy to be slaves, but think about it on a more world-wide scale. Dumbledore would be the exception rather than the rule in his treatment of them. Look at what we see in house-elf situations outside of Hogwarts. They're all suffering some sort of abuse, or even being forced into complicity with criminals (in the case of the house elf who casts the death-eater sign near the start of the fourth book).

Ultimately arguing that we shouldn't judge ethical problems by our own standards is just a way of shifting the responsibility onto someone else. It's true we can never understand the full context of another person's life in their decision making process, especially if they're from another culture, but where exactly do we draw the line? If someone else's "culture" demands that they commit an atrocity, do we just stand by? What if that atrocity is aimed at us? It's not always in our power to do the right thing, but at least don't argue against what we are capable of.

Yeah, Lincoln didn't ask the slaves either. Lots of slaves were comfortable in the life; some even fought for the South. This is not about modern social engineering like welfare. This is about fundamental human freedom. But I still think she should have educated the elves more first so they can appreciate freedom instead of being terrified of it. That's why her efforts ultimately backfired. According to JKR follow up info, Hermione pretty much dedicates herself to the cause once she gets a job at The Ministry, so presumably she'll have more success then.

Cassondra wrote: "Arti wrote: "Ethan wrote: "I think she should've at least asked the elves before doing that"

why should she have to ask the elves?"


Because. If she asks the elves, this movement is truly about T..."

Yah but the house elves at Hogwarts are already well treated so they wouldn't help her. Elves like Dobby, that had to got hrought he pain understand what hermione's doing

You can't say that Elves "love being slaves". There is a name for that...its called its called Stocholms syndrome! They love to serve their masters beucase its a means of survival, beucase it is the way it has always been. Second of all...at this time Hermione isn't famous, or elite...she is a young adult who thinks she can make a difference in the world. She stands up for her beleifs and for others who don't know that they deserve to have a voice too!

I'm not saying the elves liked being slaves, or really what the elves liked. Nor am I saying we should just stand by and let atrocities go unchecked. Slavery is evil, obviously.

But there is a difference between having the motive of ending societal evils and fighting for the victims of those evils.

Look at our (American) history. Almost every Earth-shattering civil rights case (Brown v. Board, Plessy v. Ferguson), regardless of the outcome, had a figurehead. Usually the ACLU recruited someone to do something illegal (against unjust laws, admittedly) so they could use his actions to start a civil rights suit. In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, Homer Plessy was recruited by the ACLU to do something he would not have otherwise done. In other words, he was a figurehead. He was not some guy who was trying to achieve freedom who first chose to do something and THEN set the case in motion, rather the ACLU had a case all set up and just needed someone to act the role. Was this a battle against societal evils? Absolutely! It may even have been the right thing to do, a good idea, but was it really for the sake of Plessy? Were those people fighting for Plessy or for the betterment of society?

THAT is the difference I am saying. It is the same with this SPEW thing. Hermione may be right, may have good motives and ideals, but in the end, she is not fighting so much for the individual elves, but rather for the betterment of society as a whole.

What's wrong with the betterment of society? Nothing. Is slavery evil? Yes. But does that mean I can take away another person's (or elf's) right to decide what they want to do with their own lives? No! In the end, we all have free will. And who is Hermione to tell the elves that they were just "ignorant, afraid, under the influence of Stockholm's syndrome" or anything else? I mean... how far do we take that. Taken far enough, anyone who disagrees with me must be "ignorant or just fearful." I know many people who think that of me. I have firm beliefs and many people at the university seemed to think that, because I believed something they thought was stupid, I must be ignorant and if they could only educate me...

For example:
Trans fat is bad for you, we'll make it illegal.
Cheeseburgers, pizza, chocolate, etc. is bad for you... etc.

Don't I have the RIGHT to eat things that are bad for me if I want to without worrying about the government telling me I should not do so? Don't I have the right to my own ideas about my own self and life? Yes. Is it inadvisable for me to eat chocolate at every meal every day for a year? Yes. But is it your right to stop me from doing so? No!

Now if I were to force YOU to eat chocolate every meal every day for a year, that would be infringing on your rights, and that's when I can see what you mean about not letting atrocities stand.

And while you might argue that wizards were oppressing the elves, and thus infringing on their rights (and this would be true), one might argue that Hermione is equally infringing on the rights of the elves by forcing them to do what they don't want to do.

NOBODY, not the enslaving wizards nor Hermione and SPEW, ever asked the elves what THEY wanted of their own lives. How would you like to be those elves, always having your lives decided by wizards who thought they knew what was better for you than you did.

Natalie wrote: "You can't say that Elves "love being slaves". There is a name for that...its called its called Stocholms syndrome! They love to serve their masters beucase its a means of survival, beucase it is th..."

As for Hermione's elite-hood, it is intellectual elistism with her. She thinks she is smarter and wiser than the elves, and thus is elite. She IS smart, yes, but that does not give her the right to decide the fate of the elves without considering the desires of the elves.

Cassondra wrote: "Is slavery evil? Yes. But does that mean I can take away another person's (or elf's) right to decide what they want to do with their own lives? No! In the end, we all have free will."

Yeah... except slaves. Slavery means NOT having the freedom to choose. That's simply the definition of slavery. You can google "freedom thesaurus" and you will find slavery under the antonyms.

In this particular debate I don't need to consider the question of how dissimilar banning slavery is to banning food or whatever. There's no need to argue the point of how unlike the ACLU Hermione is, or is ever likely to be. In the world of Harry Potter, forget about stockholm syndrome or ignorance or fear... elves can be ordered to protect their slave status at all costs. With a situation such as this, saying they should be consulted on whether or not they wish to be free is basically saying that their owners should be consulted on whether they wish to be free or not. There can be no true consulting of their wishes because their very ability to make a choice is compromised on a level that we don't have in the real world.

But as you pointed out, the houselves of Hogwarts had a different status. They could have been asked their wishes and been able to answer freely considering Dumbledore would have let them speak freely.

And actually, I was arguing how LIKE the ACLU Hermione was, not how unlike.

As for stockholm syndrome and ignorance and fear, it was others who brought them up, and I was responding. And many others have brought up real world analogies: Lincoln, slavery of African Americans, etc. In fact, I think JKR meant the wizarding world to be somewhat analogous to this one, since the deatheaters are so parallel to the Nazis and their bloodcharts are like the Nazis, etc. Harry Potter is full of social commentary.

Additionally, slavery DOES, in part, mean not having the freedom to choose... but I am advocating the freedom to choose for the elves. So, in essence, not giving them the freedom to choose as Hermione is doing is enslaving them again but in a different way, according to your own definitions.

Natalie wrote: "You can't say that Elves "love being slaves". There is a name for that...its called its called Stocholms syndrome! They love to serve their masters beucase its a means of survival, beucase it is th..."

But that doesn't mean what Hermione was doing was much better. She was taking away their right to choose. She tried to trick them into freedom. In her defense, she was young and idealistic. She saw this as a completely black and white issue without even caring about the ones who the issue really effected. Her heart was in the right place, but her ego and attitude were not. Hermione does become better about it though as she grows up. She encourages people to treat house elves better rather than trying to force something on house elves.

I personally think Hermione should have just confined herself to leaving the clothes out in the open so any elf who wanted freedom could take them. Tricking elves into "freedom" did defeat their free will and she should have done better by educating them first and making them ready. As I said earlier, I think the biggest analogy is not about slavery per se, but about people who are comfortable without freedom and can't conceive of its benefits. Just look around at the number of AMERICANS who want the government to take care of them at the expense of their freedoms, not to mention people in the rest of the world.

This discussion is much deeper than most....

Masha and Molly both make excellent points!

Cassondra wrote: "...in essence, not giving them the freedom to choose as Hermione is doing is enslaving them again but in a different way, according to your own definitions."

Actually no. They don't have that freedom to begin with, so she's not able to take it from them -- she's taking it from their owners. The irony of the house elves' slavery is that if the elves wanted to stay as slaves and their owner gave them clothes, their slavery would be the very thing that would force them to go free.

I did understand what you were arguing about the ACLU; I was the one disagreeing with that point. I don't know about that situation in the detail that you seem to, but Hermione sounds nothing like what you described, and as I said, the slavery in Harry Potter is much worse than in the real world, making it different from any non-fictional slavery. I disagree with how you interpret the real world stuff as well, but I was saying that the slave magic in Harry Potter makes it so far beyond the slavery that we have in the real world that I don't need to argue those more abstract, nuanced points in order to bring down any arguements against Hermione's actions, because the lack of freedom that the house-elf slaves are dealing with is so much more extreme than in any real world situation. Even in Hogwarts where it's relatively good, any errant comment by a student might have the effect of altering any decision that they might make. I seem to vaguely recall a scene where Malfoy picks on a house elf just to annoy Hermione. Let's face it, even if I'm remembering that incorrectly, there is plenty of potential for students more malicious than him to subject those house-elves to all kinds of abuse. I wonder if Tom Riddle ever spent some time with house elves?

Of course, I did notice that you said slavery is bad and that you disagree with it. I realise that you only think more care than Hermione takes should be taken. But to take the kind of care with freeing the slaves that you speak of would be to bury the whole movement under bureaucracy so thick as to never actually change anything. Let's not forget that Hermione isn't only working against slavery in Hogwarts here. She's working against an entire system, and the slave owners within that system would fight against the anti-slave movement every step of the way, and I think she already understands this. In fact, I think that you could be justified in calling Hermione an insufferable know-it-all in any number of situations that are not this one, but in this case she's entitled to act that way because she really does understand this entire situation much more clearly than anyone else in the book.

It's also worth pointing out that for the elves to be slaves, someone has to own them. Considering that this ownership of another sentient being is in itself immoral and that wanting to remain slaves is wanting someone to enslave them, the elves are attempting to force this immoral choice on someone. This is in fact an immoral act on the part of the elves themselves. So even if we could be sure that they had the freedom to choose to remain as slaves, which we can't be, then this particular choice would be an immoral one which they shouldn't be allowed to make anyway.

I am in partial favor of S.P.E.W. They (the house elves)should choose what they want to do AFTER they have learned about the wizarding world outside of servant-ness for them........

Emmalilly wrote: "I am in partial favor of S.P.E.W. They (the house elves)should choose what they want to do AFTER they have learned about the wizarding world outside of servant-ness for them........"

Unfortunately, most slave owners wouldn't allow such a process, especially someone like the Malfoys.

Also you gotta remember, they aren't servants, they're slaves. Hermione isn't campaigning against their servitude, but against their slavery, which is another matter entirely.

Josh wrote: "Emmalilly wrote: "I am in partial favor of S.P.E.W. They (the house elves)should choose what they want to do AFTER they have learned about the wizarding world outside of servant-ness for them........"

well i meant their slavery and you do have a point about the owners wouldnt

Well, I'm not sure what the rules at Hogwarts would be. In other words, are the elves the slaves of every wizard in the school or of Dumbledore, the professors, or what? Who, then, is the "owner." You're argument makes sense only if the elves have fear of their "owners." If it is only Dumbledore, the fear is at the least lessened. Especially given his treatment of Dobby. Because even if the students torment all the house elves, that is almost unrelated to their slavery. The students would do that anyway because of the views of wizarding society on elves. But in the end, the students who are mean would only have the power to torment the elves. This is bad enough, but it is not the total, absolute magical power the owners of the house elves would have over them.

As for Hermione working against a system, I think that was partially my point. It is fighting a societal evil...a system... and all that goes along with it. But that is not necessarily in the best interest of the individual elves other than that it would be in the best interest for all society. For example, one individual elf in Hogwarts is presumably well enough treated by Dumbledore, comparatively. And if he were to pick up one of Hermione's hidden bundles of clothing by accident, he would be forced to be freed. Yes, he would likely retain his position at Hogwarts, given Dumbledore's treatment of Dobby, but he would be, like Dobby and Winky, a second-class citizen among the elves. He would not have friends anymore, and would be seen as a disgrace to elfdom. And would his situation have changed anyway? He would still be working in the same position...unless he wanted to try to find somewhere else to work. We know how that worked for Dobby, who didn't find anywhere until he came to Hogwarts, where this putative elf already is. So how does this help and individual elf?

This is why it matters. Hermione can fight the system all she wants, with the help of consenting elves who choose this and know what they're getting into.

Now, as for slavery being immoral and the elves not allowing that... brilliant argument. But again, an elf thinking only of himself (and not the fact that he's putting his "master" in the position to be immoral) might still choose slavery for the above reasons.

Cassondra wrote: "Well, I'm not sure what the rules at Hogwarts would be. In other words, are the elves the slaves of every wizard in the school or of Dumbledore, the professors, or what?"

For Hermione to be able to free them by giving them clothes she would have to be considered their owner. (Not just anyone can give a house elf clothes to free them, otherwise Harry could have freed Dobby himself.) So all the students must be considered owners by the spell. With the level of power that this gives students over the elves, it absolutely relates to any abuse they suffer from commands like "run into that wall over there". Also, back to my earlier point: an errant command from a student could counter the elves' ability to give honest answers about their wants, making it impossible to know if a elf slave wants to be one or not. Someone like the Weasley twins could have easily commanded a house-elf to only tell lies, just for laughs.

Cassondra wrote: "This is why it matters. Hermione can fight the system all she wants, with the help of consenting elves who choose this and know what they're getting into."

If Hermione is working against the system of slavery though, somewhere along the line she might be successful in toppling the system of slavery altogether. At that point elves everywhere (or in that particular country at least) will be freed, and some of them might prefer slavery. Just because Hermione doesn't deal with them herself doesn't make them any less individual. The only difference is that she doesn't have to witness the fallout.

Cassondra wrote: "... he would be, like Dobby and Winky, a second-class citizen among the elves."

This sounds like a good reason to free more elves so they won't be alone. If you think about that "...would his situation have changed anyway?" arguement, it works much better for me. If all the house elves at Hogwarts were freed, there's no reason for them to leave and their situation wouldn't have changed... except that they could choose to leave, or not to follow an order they disagree with.

Cassondra wrote: "...an elf thinking only of himself (and not the fact that he's putting his "master" in the position to be immoral) might still choose slavery for the above reasons."

Ah, but it would be selfishly immoral of them not to think of their master's morality according to this logic. (Thanks for the compliment.)

Masha wrote: "I personally think Hermione should have just confined herself to leaving the clothes out in the open so any elf who wanted freedom could take them. Tricking elves into "freedom" did defeat their fr..."

But she knew that the house elves wouldnever accept them because they didn't know how other house elves that aren't in Hogwarts were treated. Dobby did all he could to try to convince them. Only if they could work in a Malfoy's for a week or something they would see how it feels.

People wern't realizing how much house elves do for you. Take Kreacher. Sirius wasn't nice to him so Kreacher helped the bad guys. Harry was nice to Kreacher so Kreacher told him what he wanted and was nicer.

The point is not to take a "survey" of elves, most of whom were comfortable in their position at Hogwarts. The point is to educate them about the benefits of freedom and provide them with options of how to survive when they were freed. The elves were smart enough creatures to understand. They were just terrified of losing the secure life they had at Hogwarts, even with some mean students around.

Masha wrote: "The point is not to take a "survey" of elves, most of whom were comfortable in their position at Hogwarts. The point is to educate them about the benefits of freedom and provide them with options o..."

What made you think they would have lost their comfortable position at Hogwarts? Free all the elves there, and the main thing that's different is that they all have more choices. After that, what better educator would there be than experience? As I said earlier, the degree of care everyone's talking about for freeing the elves would virtually bring the movement to a standstill.

Anyway, pretty sure Hermione tried to do just that. Did she not go to talk to the elves in the kitchens? She might not have said exactly what you think she should have then, but there's every reason to believe that she went down there when we weren't looking. Also, did she not try to help Winky? Incidentally, if Winky is the bad example you're thinking of that shows how house elves react to freedom, she does actually sober up later... probably by that education by experience thing I was talking about. Note also that Winky was not an elf that Hermione freed herself. In fact, for all the discussion about Hermione tricking or forcing the elves into freedom, she never actually succeeds in freeing any of them herself that I recall.

Yeah, Winky only acted like she did cause she didnt know the meaning of what freedom meant.nshe was probably ashamed of being free since she loved to serve Crouch

Yes, I too get annoyed when celebrities tell me I'm not allowed to own slaves. Who do they think they are? I'm not beating them. Live and let live, I say!

In all seriousness, she could get a bit annoying with it, but I think that has more to do with her age than the actual activism itself. She may be a genius, but she's also a 14 year old girl and would attack a social ill like this with all the maturity and forethought of a very young teenager. Which isn't bad. It just is what it is. So I'm all behind Hermione's "Free the House Elves" plan, I just think she'd be a lot better at organizing it in ten years or so. Although I *loved* the leaving socks everywhere idea. It was the best/most efficient idea she could carry out and so that's what she did. I've always appreciated Hermione's ambition moreso than her smarts.

Yah, but if she did do it ten years leater, house elf rights would be CA-BOOSH!

Fadhilah wrote: "Would it really"

yes, yes it would

Additionally, do we know the average lifespan of a house-elf? Perhaps the house elves were literally hundreds of years old and would live another hundred years. Which might mean Hermione had time to grow up and refine her efforts.

However, I still think she should have consulted the elves. At the very least, they should have had input in their own futures. Perhaps this is what I've been trying to put into words. Yes, Hermione is a child and has no access to the minister of magic, etc. etc. however: Hermione is trying to fight a system of societal ills through individual elves. Kind of like "freeing the house elves one elf at a time." (Since she was leaving clothes around for the individual elves to find.) I think, using individuals like this, she should have consulted them. Perhaps it would not have bothered me so much if Hermione had not consulted the elves if she had been fighting the whole system as a whole instead of using individual elves to slowly break the system down. While I understand that this would have been unfeasible for her to do at the time, I think that she should have consulted the individual elves and that this action would have been feasible. :)

Fadhilah wrote: "Would ten years really matter when house elves had been treated horribly for like a hundred years or so before Hermione was born????"

YES

Cassondra wrote: "Additionally, do we know the average lifespan of a house-elf? Perhaps the house elves were literally hundreds of years old and would live another hundred years. Which might mean Hermione had time t..."

they wouldn't have agreed cause they don't know what it's like to be tortured! they didn't know what Dobby went through. hermione on the other hand, knew. And she did ask them to join Spew. Dobby was the only one who joined cause he knew what it felt like

Right, but after she asked, then she resorted to hiding clothes hoping the elves would accidentally pick them up and find them. As for tortured... wasn't Winky tortured? I mean, she was afraid of heights and had to sit up in the top booth, always taking care of Mr. Crouch's son (who, being a death eater, probably wasn't the easiest wizard to get along with, even if he was imperiused), and probably wasn't treated well. Yet, she STILL felt shame when freed.

And just because they weren't "tortured" doesn't mean they didn't know things. (Although, given the presence of Slytherin, how do you even know they weren't tortured?) I mean, you're using the argument that the poor house elves are just ignorant and "if only they knew what we know, they would choose what we chose." As if their choices are not valid because of who they are. As if they're just stupid and uneducated (two different things) and it is our, the smarter and more advanced people's, jobs to take over their lives so we can help them improve. Hey, that could even be how slavery started! How many slaveowners (real or imaginary) said something similar. "How could they take care of themselves without me?" "Their lives are better with me." "I'm just HELPING them!" etc. It all amounts to the same thing: They are lesser beings. We are higher beings. Therefore, in the name of "compassion" we will "help" the lesser beings by taking over their lives.
(SPOILER BOOK 7: This is the same argument Dumbledore used when he and Grindelwald talked about "helping" the poor muggles.)

Okay when you compare Dobby's old life to Winky's what do you see. Winky never had to burn her fingers. Get extra torturing. She was treated okay. She had to do what her master wanted but she never ironed her finger or anything. She never shut her ears in the oven.

Hermione knows that they are un-educated. She was the one who recognized that house elves are taken for granted. They have to do everything. Lots of people had house elves, but not many treated them as equals. It was always, "Omigod, go away losers," It was barely "Would you like some water before you do are chores?"

Arti wrote: "Okay when you compare Dobby's old life to Winky's what do you see. Winky never had to burn her fingers. Get extra torturing. She was treated okay. She had to do what her master wanted but she never..."

How do you know she never endured such abuse? Winky's past is not really talked about. I am sure if you asked any house elf if they were mistreated, they would probably tell you no. Becuase to them, they deserved those things, beucase it is a punishment, meaning they probably think it was deserved. Becuase the enslavement goes back through so many generations, the elves have a twisted and misguided view of their own self worth. Remember that the abuse and rule over the elves runs so deep that the masters don't even have to lift their own hand to punish or abuse them, they don't even have to know that their elves did something wrong,but can still trust that they were punished if they did. (Example being when Dobby went to HP and had to beat himself for disobeying.)
Living under those conditions....under magical enslavement is abuse in itself.

Hermione wanted to make so house elves could go where they wanted without beating themselves up. if they did something wrong then they wouldn't have to self-beat-themselves up.

@Cassondra: You keep distinguishing between the system and the individuals, but the system is made up of individuals. It's not like change is a matter of finding the right switch to be flipped. A movement like this starts small and gets bigger. This is also why Hermione shouldn't wait ten years until she's more mature. Slavery is a highly immoral situation which needs to be fought against ASAP, and waiting ten years would mean an extra ten years of house-elves suffering. That might seem fine to you and most people in the world of Harry Potter, but it's not as far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure Hermione would feel the same if she weren't fictitious.

I disagree with the poeple saying that the house-elves have trouble understanding anything... I just think that they're in a situation where it might be impossible for them to say what they really want. But suppose you're right Cassondra. Let's suppose that house-elves at Hogwarts don't have any instructions to keep themselves as slaves or that the spell doesn't work that way. Looking at it from that angle the elves at Hogwarts with their cushy lives are no better than the humans who don't think it matters how house-elves are treated. There's not really a huge difference between Hermione trying to trick them into being freed and nagging her friends into joining SPEW. No doubt the house-elves in Hogwarts know exactly how badly house-elves suffer outside of Hogwarts, just like the students, but they're happy to just ignore it as long as they're safe. Worse than that, the one time they meet with elves who have suffered and gotten free, what happens? They shun them! How awful of Hermione to try to trick these elves into doing the right thing -- they might have been forced to face the same treatment that they themselves had been dishing out!

Even without that though, I don't see what the big deal is with her tricking them into such a situation anyway. I doubt Hermione would be using them as any more than a group that she could send other ex-slaves to, and ultimately it wouldn't be any worse than the slavery itself. Hermione and her friends would probably be looking forward to worse treatment than them from pro-slavery humans.

Incidentally, you were asking earlier how far do we carry this "forcing to do the right thing", and giving examples like banning fatty foods... let me turn that back on you. [EDIT. Changing the rest of this paragraph to what I hope is a better comparison.] How far should we carry the whole "people can choose not to do the right thing" idea? Maybe the ministry of magic were right to ignore the war brewing? I mean, they were just clerks and government people, and the real fight was between Harry and Voldemort, right? Was Dumbledore wrong to try to get them to take steps against Voldemort when it might have made them targets for the Death-Eaters? (I actually think this is a bad arguement though, because once again it's not really a similar situation.)

If we're comparing Hermione to a celeb/politician who's not considering the individuals, then what do we compare everyone else to? I'll tell you: people who know something wrong is happening right under their noses, but who aren't willing to lift a finger to do anything about it. Sometimes with that kind of thing in the modern world I can see that people disagree with what's right because of complications in the issue (although usually I think they bring up the complications to justify not doing anything) or it's not real to them because it's not in front of them. In this situation though, it's not like this is some complicated moral issue -- being anti-slavery should be a bit of a no-brainer, and the evidence of how and why it's wrong is right in front of their faces in the form of Dobby and Winky. Seems to me like your arguement is suggesting that slaves aren't as morally invested in opposing slavery as the rest of us.

Fadhilah wrote: "Well, I think Hermione should have talked with the elves' owners. That would be much more fairer. How would you feel when somebody let your beloved canary out? You would feel rather sad...or angry...."

Most people have this idea that there's a bit of a difference between animals and sentient beings. I guess in this post-modern world you're entitled to your opinion though.

Fadhilah wrote: "Maybe if owners treat the elves nicely having them to help you is ok "

Having a servant who helps you is one thing, having a slave is something completely different. I consider it immoral to own a sentient being, and so yes, if some magical spell made someone my slave, then I would be happy if someone freed that slave. But on the other hand, I'd probably do it myself before it came to that.

Fadhilah wrote: "Well it doesn't mean people always treat slaves badly."

True, but slavery is wrong in and of itself, and if a slave is really happy with how they're being treated, then there's no reason for them to leave if they get freed anyway. The only thing that changes is that they have the choice to not do something they don't want to do.

Incidentally, try imagining how Dobby felt being owned by the Malfoys. If you had to choose between the Malfoys' feelings and Dobby's feelings, who would you choose?

@Josh

In regards to your examples of the war brewing and the death eaters... those are obviously not things that should be left alone to just let happen. Actually, it is the same with slavery. Because people can choose to abuse themselves and the government has no right to stop it (though that individual should CERTAINLY stop it, and I am in no way saying it is right for them to do this), but a person has no right to abuse others. In your examples, wars and death eaters obviously abuse others, which means "Your right to swing your hand stops at my nose." In other words, they have no right to infringe upon the rights of others to live and be happy. Indeed, technically the death eaters even have a right to believe that death-eating is a good idea, (though I do not agree with the belief). But once they enact the "torturing people" thing, their rights end. SHOULD the death eaters believe that death-eating is right? NO! But is it the government's right to stop them from inactive belief? Also no. My problem is that the government, Hermione, elite celebrities, etc. all think they have a right to interfere in other people's business when their business harms no one. (Which is why I clarified that death eaters can think something, but not act on it.)

Since slavery is inherently a system in which one sentient being harms another, this is obviously reprehensible. Hermione is right to attack the system! But tricking the house elves is not attacking the system so much as undermining the elves rights to choose to be slaves. I think it is the slave owners who are doing wrong, not the elves. Though, again, brilliant argument that the elves are selfishly helping promote a system of slavery... that, technically, I can agree with an thus I can see your side of this. In fact, I do not have as much of a problem with Hermione and SPEW as I did when I started this debate, which is honestly the first time I have changed so far from my original position in a debate, so Kudos!

My issue is extrapolating the SPEW idea to extend beyond slavery. In the fatty food example, we can see in real life how the government (contrary to lassiez-faire policies) is trying to force people to eat better by banning trans fat (NYC), forcing McDonald's to remove toys from Happy Meals (California), and removing obese children from the custody of their parents and putting them in foster care (according to the news article I read on Yahoo! yesterday). Even the First Lady is on a campaign for healthy eating. Though this is fine (campaigning to change someone's mind), telling people in California that, if they so desire, they cannot buy their children a meal at McDonald's that has a toy in it with their own hard earned money and free will is infringing on the rights of the customer and the business. But, you might argue, the business is promoting something obviously unhealthy by allowing people to eat Happy Meals. And the people are supporting this business in this promotion. But I see a difference... both groups (customer and business) are agreeing to enter into a business arrangement (exchanging $ for food) of their own volition and no rights have been violated unless the government steps in to violate them.

As for the "house elf analogous to canary" thing. This issue only arises because house elves aren't real. As humans are truthfully the only sentient beings in this visible realm, the issue of comparing fictitious creatures to decide whether slavery is moral in regards to their race is not one that can be extrapolated to reality (as almost all other issues in HP can), but basically if they can think and talk and feel like humans, it is probably wrong.

I suppose the real issue is extrapolation of any point in this debate can go too far. Like the trans fats is to far in the direction of the government interfering in a person's civil rights. But if the government were to legalize the sale of all illegal drugs, that might go too far in the "anarchy" direction. The reason I'm so passionate about this SPEW thing, I guess, is more the extrapolation people can take from the position. "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile." So to speak. The problem is, with government and bureaucracies, extrapolation is the norm.

Fadhilah wrote: "Well, I think Hermione should have talked with the elves' owners. That would be much more fairer. How would you feel when somebody let your beloved canary out? You would feel rather sad...or angry...."

yah she would talk to Dumbledore? What?! Even Sirius agreed when they were in the cave in the fourth book. And what would DUmbledore do?

In the cave wen they were talking about Quiditch World Cup, Ron said "Oh Hermione's obbsessed over house elves" Sirius shushed him and agreed with Hermione

Annalisa wrote: "I don't think Rowling agrees with Hermione's efforts but demonstrates how absurd and over-the-top she gets. I take it as a little social satire on campaigns that end up doing more harm than good an..."
I totally agree with this comment. The fact that her group ends up being called SPEW should be the tip-off that this is satire and wonder why any reader would take it seriously. Harry and Ron didn't.

I FULLY SUPPORT HERMIONE AND SPEW AND I DONT CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE SAY!

Yes, I know Rowling uses a lot of satire and makes a HUGE amount of social commentary through the books. I mean, the entire series is against prejudice and such.

So it is ok to beleive in something, as long as we only half-way beleive and folow through with it? You should stand up for soemthing, but only if it is politically correct? Lets try soemthing new, and create some real change in the world...but lets do it the old way? I am sorry, but your examples of banning trans fat has nothing to do with abbolishing hate. And I don't think that freeing slaves has anything to do with a pet cannary! Which I personally would not own either. Having a pet kept, fed and watered in a cage (though not ideal for a bird) is not the same as keeping someone and working them and beating them for their entire existance! "Here is a pillow case to wear, now go wash my floors you filthy beast, if your lucky I might even give you a few crumbs to eat!"

Wow. Way to put words in my mouth. I completely believe in standing up for what is right! You haven't been reading my posts very closely if you missed that. What I am talking about is the WAY one stands up for what is right. Don't you want to stand up for what is right in a WAY that is right... in a way that will be effective and will replace the wrong you are trying to abolish with something better? Fighting fire with fire just leaves everything burned. Hermione was fighting fire with fire. Or at least an incomplete idea as to how to bring about change. She is young. I get that.

As for "let's do it the old way," while I don't necessarily advocate an "old" way, I also don't dismiss them completely out of hand. I don't know why, but everyone seems to think the old ways don't work. Granted, sometimes they don't, but why dismiss them without first looking into it at least?

Also, I did not bring up the canary idea. I was responding to someone else's idea.

As for trans fat and hatred, I was not comparing the two ends (fat and hatred) but the methods in which people attempt to abolish those ends (SPEW and government taking unwarranted control of our rights). Again: the WAY. The means.

The ends never justify the means. If the means are wrong, then you are doing wrong just as much as the people whose ends you abhor.

As for what Sirius said about agreeing with Hermione, wasn't that addressed later in which Sirius was shown to be a bit hypocritical in regards to his own treatment of Kreacher and acceptance of wizarding norms. Like many people who talk about "fighting the system," he was only willing to go as far as his own comfort was not affected.

Though I honestly liked Sirius for the most part. He was young when he went into Azkaban and did not have time to really grow up from there. Yes, he had flaws, but he was also fiercely loving and loyal. And he did, in the end, give his life for Harry's, finally stepping out of his comfort zone and really fighting the system.

Which brings up another point. One must calculate the costs before he engages in battle.

Natalie wrote: "So it is ok to beleive in something, as long as we only half-way beleive and folow through with it? You should stand up for soemthing, but only if it is politically correct? Lets try soemthing new,..."

I NEVER SESAID ANYTHING ABOUT BIRDS!