Is Harry Potter a war criminal?
Is this the unlikely face of a criminal? human rights activist, director of Liberty and self-confessed Potter-head, believes that the boy-wizard commits a war crime in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the final installment of the Harry Potter books -- and she's stll wondering why J.K. Rowling permits the character to cross the line between good and evil. Shami Chakrabarti makes the claim in today's Independent on Sunday.
It all comes down to the Crucio curse, one of three "Unforgiveable Curses" which Harry learns about at wizard school. Crucio is a curse which inflicts significant pain on another person, and, according to Shami Chakrabarti, "is proper torture and that fits with article 3 of the ECHR [European Convention on Human rights] ... It's just wrong."
In Deathly Hallows, an irrate Harry attacks Amycus, one of Voldemort's henchmen, with the Crucio curse simply because Amycus spits on Professor Minerva McGonagall, one of the hero's favourite teachers at Hogwarts.
I'm not sure if the ECHR applies in Harry's world, but Rowling usually follows the normal conventions of morality in keeping her positive characters on the right side of the ethical line. Has she gone too far on this occasion? Harry is certainly no but he has acted aggessively in this scene. By hitting out in anger with an "Unforgiveable Curse", he has committed a crime in his fictional world which, according to one of his teachers at Hogwarts, is punishable with "a life sentence in Azkaban", the wizards' prison.
I do not predict riots at bookshops, nor do I think we are likely to see lines of right-on children in protests calling for a war crimes tribunal to investigate the Amycus incident. But Shami Chakrabarti knows her law, and it looks like a fair cop. Harry Potter is a war criminal.
Comments
Brilliant! Another reason to despise Harry Potter for! I hate the books and the whole culture around them. Yes it's great kids are reading but I am so bored with the Potter mania around the launches.
It's important that children are introduced to books that help to shape their moral world. I've enjoyed the Potter books and that's probably because I find Rowling's ethics similar to my own. The books lead children to think about choices they have to make, including the choice about whther to strike out in anger. If people read the Deathly Hallows book they will find I think that Harry regrets his action. That's an important lession for our young people.
Any Potter anorak may also recall another two instances, where Harry used an unforgivable curse. He tried, and failed to inflict the described Crucio curse upon a woman who'd just murdered one of his companions in the Order of the Phoenix.
Descriptions of the capabilities and effects of the crucio curse aren't too specific, I'm sure to underline Harry's moral stance. While it is evident that the curse is meant to cause unbearable pain, the efects are entirely dependent on the mindset of the caster. This is at least clear, as the symptoms suffered by those targeted with it in the books, are not always identical. For example, In the case highlighted in the article, Amycus is elevated and thrown backwards against a wall.
However, the intention of the Crucio curse is to cause the victim to writhe, uncontrollably, for as long as the attacker desires. So, while torture is a possibility and indeed the intention of the Crucio curse, it is not necessarily the result.
To expand on the relevance of the mindset of the attacker, we learn throughout the series that only one who enjoys the act of torturing may fully exercise the Crucio curse.
We also find out at least as far back as the third book that some spells require additional mentality than simply uttering an incantation. This is perhaps best demonstrated by the charm used to conjure a spiritual guardian to defend the soul from oblivion. Only an extreme will to live can summon the fullest protection, and only then while the person in mortal danger maintains exceptional powers of concentration.
Since Rowling goes to great lengths to emphasise Harry's righteous motivations, I would have to disagree with Shami Chakrabarti's allegations.
That's a bit of a strong emotion coming out there Cheryl. Why would you think it is brilliant to have a reason to despise a fictional character and the hype surrounding it? Books rarely receive this kind of attention, and I enjoyed being part of a celebration at the release of a book - When will that ever happen again?- and if it gets more kids in to the library - which I'm sure it has - then all the better.
Have you read any of the books Cheryl, I'd be interested to know how you came to your opinion. Or is it just a matter of - it's really popular so it can't be any good. Some of us just like a good story - I enjoyed the Da Vinci Code as well, Ben Elton is a good read and I think some of Coldplay's tunes are quite catchy - Does that make me a philistine or just more honest than some people.
Darren, you say that Rowling emphasizes Harry's righteous motivations in his use of the curse. That's like arguing that a particular incident of torture was legitimate because the torturer has moral motivations (eg to obtain information to save lives). Torture is never legitimate whatever the motives of the person inflicting the harm.
Shami's making a good point. We should encourage kids to think about issues like torture in a careful way and im not sure that rowling has got it right on this one. JK is a very decent person with very agreeable avlue so not sure what she was trying to do in the curse scene.
It's a novel! Not evidence for a tribunal! This is the most over the top overreaction i've heard in a long time. Shami should spend more time working out how to stop the UK government removing all our civil liberties. Instead she's attacking harry potter in the fictional and aggreeing with intercept evidence in the real world!
I just love the way so many HP fanatics didn't notice William called it Warthogs
Well spotted d.mcc. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Richard,
I agree, torture is never legitimate. This scene highlights the difficulty that exists with distinguishing acts of vengeance and unadulterated malice.
It's obvious in this concluding novel in particular, that Harry is often ashamed when confronting his conscience. Though Amycus is indeed virtually guiltless himself on this occasion, we know from recent testimony of many brutal examples of torture, dealt out by his and his sister's tyrannical regime. We also know by now how easy Harry finds it to hold a grudge against someone.
Amycus was also present in another horrific scene toward the end of the sixth installment in the series, upon the top of the tallest tower of the school building. On that occasion, though he did not himself commit murder, he certainly encouraged others in their pursuit of it.
One last thing I would add in Rowling's defence, is that Harry is deliberately shown to be fallible. We are sometimes all too eager to embrace fictional characters and celebrities as infallible, perfect, model citizens, instead of the falible people most are. Yet an unspoken moral requirement made of a fictitious character, is surely more likely to be appreciated and adopted by an audience, able to personally identify with the circumstances of this said character, especially given that few of us would consider ourselves to be infallible. Relevance of a fictional creation expressed on such a personal level is infinitely more powerful and influential. It is surely no coincidence that any writer will do all they can to nurture a relationship between us and their tale, to try and encourage us to live within their story, instead of having us believe that we're merely reading words and phrases of little or no meaning.
One could also argue that the ending to the series is Rowling's acknowledgement of her failure to get across her intended message, though that of course we'll never know.
Bottom line.
I think Shami is the JK Rowling of human rights! She gets even the kids talking about these very serious issues. The debate here in the comments is intlligent, by the way, and encourages me to think Shami has a point. I agree with Will that Shami knows her law. Sometimes I've wondered if she wasn't a bit too eager at times to support the government's security policy. On this issue she is absolutely right about Harry and the Torture Curse. I just hope parents and teachers will talk to kids about that section of the book carefully and discuss the issues.
self defense? what would have happened to harry if he hadn't used crucio? far more than the minor concussion given to amycus, who wholly deserved a hard knock to the head.
It's a stinking book/movie!!!!!!!
it has no effect on normal life.
Harry potter is a fantasy story.
you are very handsome and we love you
I LOVE YOU HARRY POTTER (DANÄ°EL) I LOVE YOU.....
Any true fan who has read all the books would know that in the final book the wizarding world had descended into full on war of good vs. evil. It was stand and fight, kill or be killed. The regime the carrows inflicted on hogwarts was completely unforgivable, torturing innocent young witches and wizards for the sake of it. Did someone who did this so freely with no remorse desrve to be treated with respect and dignity? Harry was standing up for whats right. True HP fans would know that moments before amycus threatened to 'cruciate the lot of em' (hogwarts students) to find out who had stunned his sister. Surely a tactic against human right laws.
Harry had grown to see his teacher as much more than that, as a sort of mother figure if someone had just spat in your mothers face how would you react? And the reason he spat in her face was because she was refusing to let him blame the children of hogwarts and hand them over to voldermort for punishment we can only presume as worse than the crucio curse. She was standing up for what was right and amycus showed a sign that can only be described as blatent disregard for whats right. He therefore totally deserved what he got.
I think rowling wanted to show that everyone is flawed even harry potter. As this use of a forgivable curse was totally out of character. But i think she also wanted to purvey that desperate times call for desperate measures. The 'unforgivable curses' were being used throughout the book with more ease than in all previous books put together. This was to display how bad the times had got.
At the end of the day Harry potter is a fictional character and no more a war criminal than you and i. Believing that all people deserve to be treated with respect and dignity is simply not true people who have commitied unspeakable horrors (serial murderers, serial rapists, serial pedophiles)just dont deserve to be treated as such as they have never treated their victims aqs such this too applies to the carrows.
harry potter movies and books r the best they r very intersting and full of action and strange things and when u watch the movies or u read the books u'll feel like u r in another world ,world that full of dreams and magic
why do you say so?
as an idol of harrry potter,for me he is not a war criminal!how do you say so!how are you sure that he is a war criminal...
you are a stupid man,as a fan of harry potter you dont know what is our feeling to insult our idol.
I love you so much
another picture plz
hellllllllllllllloooooooooo
ho are you?what addres friendster you?what you phone number?
we love so much
Good point, I already had some thoughts about the issue aroung the book five (current film) use of the Crucio. In the buildng of the Ministry, to top it all! Should have been persecuted right there and then.
In a proper coutry under the rule of law, young Harry should stand trial for his acts.
However, being a Bloody Great Hero, Savior of the World and whatnot, he'd be acquitted in no time. War trials are not famous for being absolutely even-handed...
(I can already see the next book:
Harry Potter and the Previous Death Eater Exclusion Bill... more insight into the magical world of wizard politics :-))) )
Ok, peeps!! It is the 'Cruciatus curse, not the 'Crucio Curse'. You may say it 'Crucio', but it's proper name it 'the Cruciatus curse'!! And after all, it is A BOOK!! Authors can write whatever they want in books because if it offends you, then don't read. You do have a choice. Secondly, Harry only uses the curse for good- if you use a bad curse for good than it doesn't count because the evil person will end up dying so it all evens up. I'm quite sure that Jo would second my argument. Personally, Mrs. Shami Chakrabarti, you should keep you mouth shut and and stop insulting Jo, one of the worlds most BELOVED authors!!
I think whoever wrote this has a rel problem.or isnt a big harry potter fan .i think this person should not read or watch any of the moveies anymore.SORRY NO OFFENSE MEANT!!!
How could you think that this is wrong, Amycus was one of Voldemorts followers so she deserved it. She probably did more wrong than any one else in the wizarding wold (besides Voldemort)! Harry was wright to curse her!!!
I LOVE YOU POTTER
I think Harry is a nice young man and the person who wrote this is not. SEE YA!!!!
i like the books.they're interesting.cheryl,it's a freakin book.just like some people said U DON'T HAVE TO READ THE BOOKS!!!!!!
Um... I happen to have read the Harry Potter books, and in Deathly Hallows, Harry Potter does NOT use the cuciatus curse in the instance you described. He used the stunning spell, to knock them unconcious. Get your facts right before writing an article please.
people of the world, harry potter is a fictional character. Geddit? he does not exist. so all this "war criminal" nonsense is nonsense. :) Everybody get a life. lol.
Okay, this is making me so mad! He is a CHARACTER in a FICTIONAL series! he is the GOOD guy! with the cruciatus curse: Harry DOES think of her as more of a mother. If someone spat on my mom, i'd wanna make sure he/she didn't get away with that! and J.K.ROWLING ROCKS I LOVE THE SERIES AND she can write whatever she wants, so you can't stop her! And anyway, Harry is a good guy, he is very nice, and Voldemort KILLED his parents, i'd want to do anything i could to get back at him, wouldn't you?
...I LOVE HARRY POTTER!!!!!!!!
Emma Rose, he actually does use the Cruiatus Curse. I think somebody else needs to get their facts straight.
Anyway, this is absolutely ridiculous. It's a freaking book. So what if Harry gets angry? HE'S A FICTIONAL CHARACTER.
Plus, Rowling has stated she wanted to make clear that Harry isn't a saint, he is a flawed person like the rest of us.
This is ridiculous. This article is screming with stupidity. This book has nothing to do with war! The Crutacius Curse is not used in war! Harry causes crimes yes, but the laws were created by madmaen because it was being ruled by Voldemort. Whoever wrote this needs to get their facts sraight because you can't hate something you don't understand.
ı can't handle even a word agaınst HARRY POTTER. j.k.rowling made the most powerful and magnıfıcent book series ever since. I LOVE YOU HARRY. YOU'RE NUMBER 1 J.K.!!!!!
Perhaps, since Harry has already experienced this curse, he doesn't find it quite so awful as others might Remember Jr. used it on him in the graveyard in Goblet of Fire..
harry potter is fine leave it alone u r scrooges if u think it is bad it is a book u idiots MAGIC is not real CHILDREN cannot actually HURT each other with it !!!!!
Harry makes mistakes. That curse he gave was an example of one of his character flaws - fury. He does not think before he performs an action. He does not pause to consider the consequences. It's this quality that has both endangered AND saved his life throughout the books. He shows regret later - it's just another dusplay of his rash behavoir.
I personally revere the books. How bad can it be when it's getting kids to read books*?
*Harry Potter makes most kids read a wide variety of books. This is a chance to show my hatred for Twilight: Twilight kids ONLY read Twilight, which isn't a well-written book to begin with, and nothing else.
Hi, i am maria, from Indonesia. Sorry to jump in, coz i kinda interested to..
i was not a big fan of HP, and i dont really like to read especially to read thick books.. but for HP novel, i completed it within 3 days in the midst of my busy time at home and work. it has made me to be not patient to read more to the ending of the book..I realized it is only fiction story, no harm can be caused. So, i think, we are real people and the option is in our hand to take. We cant blame on something not real or not move or even not alive. It's a creation of imagination.. really.. two tombs for HP novel and books
My GOODNESS! J.K.'s books are ONLY fantasy. People nowadays take everything so SERIOUSLY. Chill!
I'm an eleven-year-old girl who has read ALL of the books at least once, I enjoy them only for the fun of it.
Daniel is a beautiful actor and I love you, it's wonderfull!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree with Lunah. Harry isn't perfect... In fact, spends most of his time trying to persuade others that he is doing his best but can't always do exactly right the thing in a tight situation.
Harry isn't perfect... but who is?? We must remember of course that he defeated the most evil wizard ever...
AND we must also remember that HARRY POTTER IS NOT REAL. I'm a big fan of the books but after reading them I am no more likely to want to torture people than I was before. Doesn't that say something about how silly the whole argument is?
you do know its just a book. and if your going on about how it will tellchildren to do wrong well he spends about 7 books sayin you have got to be good and only one paragraph is bad.I SAY YOU NEED TO GET A LIFE. your complaning about the books as if they are real life.well i got news for you THERE NOT. people are always telling us to nread more and now we have found a book we like and are happy to read you saying we have done it wrong. so do you realise how stupid you sound.
;-)