One Law

[kerravonsen]

Pondering a bit how Harry gets treated in canon... we come to the incident in Chamber of Secrets where Dobby performs magic and Harry gets blamed for it. Which is odd. The Ministry simply assumed that any magic performed in the vicinity of #4 Privet Drive had been done by Harry... and then compounded the problem by sending an owl instead of a human being to actually investigate.

If that is the standard way of applying that law, then the law is obviously biased against Muggleborns (and Muggle-raised) because the implementation of it does not detect who did the magic, it simply assumes that any magic performed at a Muggleborn's residence is done by the Muggleborn child, and any magic performed at a Pureblood's residence is done by an adult.

"There is one law for rich and poor alike, which prohibits them equally from stealing bread and sleeping under bridges." -- Anatole France

In other words, there is one law for Purebloods and Muggleborn alike, which prohibits them equally from performing magic not in the presence of a magical parent.

If that is the standard method of dealing with underage magic. We have the other data-point of Hermione having performed spells with her new wand after she got her Hogwarts letter but before she arrived at Hogwarts, without getting into trouble.
I can think of a few different reasons for that:
1) It was classed as "accidental magic" because she hadn't yet started at Hogwarts.
2) The Ministry can't be bothered monitoring everyone, but they would monitor Harry Potter carefully.
3) Dobby took extra measures to ensure that his magic would be noticed and blamed on Harry.

I wonder if that law was introduced by a Pureblood?

Comments

[tree_and_leaf]

I think it's option 1. Harry never hears anything about his accidental magic before canon starts, but Fudge knows that he blew up his aunt, so even though he's not punished for it, it seems to have shown up on the monitoring system.

[kerravonsen]

I agree, I think the first option is the most likely.

[watervole]

That's a good point.

I suspect they may be able to tell what kind of spell was cast, which may even it out a little as some spells are more likely to be done by children than adults. And there are probably established patterns to help (a bit like your bank knowing your patterns of credit card use and thus able to spot people who've stolen your card)

[cheyinka]

Maybe it's not only that she hadn't started at Hogwarts, but also that she was Muggleborn, while Harry wasn't - and the monitoring spell had no way of knowing (or, probably, caring) that he wasn't being raised by his parents or even by non-Muggle guardians?

[kerravonsen]

No, that doesn't make sense to me.

[jedibuttercup]

Don't they say something in Book 7 about the Trace being applied to magical children when they first start attending Hogwarts? And it's the Trace that notices magic performed in a child's vicinity, per that book. Accidental magic wouldn't show up before that on the monitors. And after they start receiving training, accidental magic is supposed to become much less common.

I'll have to dig up my copy of the book to check. But one of my plot points in BAH hinges on the Trace, and that's the impression I have of my thought processes on that. Hermione wouldn't get tagged before her first year, but after that, like Harry, any magic in her house would be interpreted as a violation. Ron, living in a Wizarding household, would have any magic attributed to his parents. (It probably was a law introduced by a Pureblood.)

[kerravonsen]

I found it a bit hard to follow how the Trace was used and applied in canon; it wasn't necessarily that consistent.

[rothas-writing.livejournal.com]

Very interesting, actually. I think it would have been written by a pureblood, yes. And that maybe Hermione was more careful because she knew it wasn't quite allowed but couldn't resist, whereas Harry was behaving and wasn't expecting it?

[jaxomsride.livejournal.com]

I think it far more likely they were monitoring Harry and jumped to conclusions that the magic worked was his, without checking the source. Unless Dobby could alter his magic to appear like Harry's, which rather begs how.

Another datum point Peter Pettigrew was responsible for the deaths by magic that Sirius got blamed for.The Ministry couldn't tell them apart either.

Conclusion they can tell magic was worked but tend to assume whom was responsible. Without a wand involved they have no way of telling who worked the magic.

As for Hermione's dabbling, no doubt she confined her efforts to less obvious magics than Harry was blamed for. After all, she would not likely cast a spell on any other person.

[kerravonsen]

Another datum point Peter Pettigrew was responsible for the deaths by magic that Sirius got blamed for.The Ministry couldn't tell them apart either.

Good point.

After all, she would not likely cast a spell on any other person.

But with the Dobby incident, the spell wasn't cast on another person either.

[jaxomsride.livejournal.com]

You are right, it was on the pudding!

Mind you the letters from the Ministry both state "We have received intelligence" That's not monitoring, that is spying. Someone was watching Harry.

[livii.livejournal.com]

I always thought it was a frame up - somehow manipulated by Malfoy within the Ministry. Almost worked again with the Dementors where all that evidence wasn't given to the Wizengamot and they seemed set on just convicting Harry pro forma - a very political act. So, IMO not based on real rules but back room shenanigans.

[kerravonsen]

Hmmmm. The thing with the Dementors was political shenannigans on the part of Umbridge and Fudge, true, but I'm not so sure about the Dobby incident, because Dobby was working against Lucius at that point. Are you saying he wasn't?

[livii.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I think you're right, it's been a long time since I read CoS. Never mind!

[persephone-kore.livejournal.com]

I lean toward #1, mainly, although I wouldn't necessarily dispute the possibility that something else is going on behind the scenes. As I recall it, none of Harry's own accidental magic pre-Hogwarts prompted any contact at all.

I get the distinct impression that all wizarding laws that govern interactions with Muggles refer (or are expected to refer) heavily back to the Statute of Secrecy. For instance, if I'm remembering correctly, Mr. Weasley's involvement in Misuse of Muggle Artifacts, while not a high-status or highly paid position relative to some of the others in the ministry, is partly a result of his own efforts at getting laws on the subject pushed through. I personally think it very likely that his real motivation was predominantly the protection of Muggles from magical pranksters, and his stated rationale was predominantly based on potential breaches of the Statute of Secrecy.

Which is all a roundabout way of getting to the point that yes, I think they probably don't bother to worry that much about underage magic done in places where adults are also doing magic. Although, now that I think about it, I have drawn a blank on how the "Trace" is supposed to work and whether there's an identifying component.