Fantastic Beasts (Spoilers probably.)

[FaxModem1]

I think everyone is forgetting that Wizarding Britain has a lock up people in soul-sucking prison without trial policy. It happened to Sirius Black, and it happened to Rubeus Hagrid(fortunately he was released quickly once exonerated). Magical society is rather messed up, and in Britain at least, they get to mess with muggles all they want unless caught. Harry only got in trouble for being underage and using magic.

In Wizarding Britain, playing harmful pranks on muggles is all fine and good as long as you obliviate them afterward or don't make yourself known. Harry received a light slap on the wrist for blowing up his great aunt. Goldstein was demoted for interfering with a muggle matter, and didn't seem to think it odd that she was demoted for it.

Britain is only progressive in that it allows marriages between muggles and magical people, as Seamus Finnigan proves since his dad was a muggle and his mom didn't tell him until after they were married.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think everyone is forgetting that Wizarding Britain has a lock up people in soul-sucking prison without trial policy. It happened to Sirius Black, and it happened to Rubeus Hagrid(fortunately he was released quickly once exonerated). Magical society is rather messed up, and in Britain at least, they get to mess with muggles all they want unless caught. Harry only got in trouble for being underage and using magic.

None of that makes what happens in Wizarding America any less repellent. It just means they aren't alone in having a shitty legal system.

I don't think imprisonment without trial is standard procedure, though (at least for Wizards-more on that shortly). Black was done in a situation where Wizarding Britain was just coming out of a war where they were more or less under martial law, and was ordered by someone who was portrayed as exceptionally authoritarian even by the standards of his society.

Hagrid's case doesn't have that excuse, but I'm willing to bet that that was allowed on the basis of his prior conviction for the same offence, and possibly his being half-giant.

Doesn't begin to excuse it, of course, but we saw in Goblet of Fire that even proven Death Eaters (as opposed to people who weaselled out of it, like Malfoy) were given their day in court (though how much that matters when their courts don't have lawyers is another question).

In Wizarding Britain, playing harmful pranks on muggles is all fine and good as long as you obliviate them afterward or don't make yourself known.

As I recall, the case in Order of the Phoenix with the guy being let off was due to him cutting a deal with the Ministry to act as an informant, and was portrayed as corruption, not standard procedure. Their are laws, as I recall, in Wizarding Britain against committing such acts against Muggles, obliviation or not.

Someone getting away with breaking the law is not the same as their acts being legal, or generally accepted. So I'm going to say this is explicitly false.

Harry received a light slap on the wrist for blowing up his great aunt. Goldstein was demoted for interfering with a muggle matter, and didn't seem to think it odd that she was demoted for it.

In all fairness, I don't think either of these are strong examples of a dysfunctional system or prejudice against Muggles, necessarily.

Harry's "crime" was unintended accidental magic, and since he was thirteen, seriously provoked, and no permanent harm was done, a "light slap on the wrist" seems appropriate. Expelling him would have both endangered him and made him less able to control magic in the future. What would you have wanted- throw him in Azkaban?

I mean... maybe they ought to have fined him or something. But anything more would have been counterproductive and disproportionate.

As to Goldstein's case, she didn't just "interfere"- from the sound of it, she basically committed a vigilante attack on a Muggle belonging to a group that was actively hostile to Wizards. Frankly, as much as I sympathize with her wanting to protect Credence and teach Ms. Asshole a lesson, what's out of place their is that she was only demoted, not fired outright or even imprisoned.

Britain is only progressive in that it allows marriages between muggles and magical people, as Seamus Finnigan proves since his dad was a muggle and his mom didn't tell him until after they were married.

Not the only distinction, but probably the most notable.

[FaxModem1]

My point being, Wizarding society, in general, is rather screwed up. Thinking that Magical America is more screwed up than its British counterpart is a bad premise. Especially as we don't how Magic USA of the 1990s compares to the Harry Potter world. Until we get a more detailed look at either 1920s Magical British society, or 1990s Magical American, we have an incomplete picture.

Unless, of course, magical society in America hasn't changed much, if at all, in nearly a century. which is very possible considering the level of cultural stagnation there is in Harry Potter.

[Crazedwraith]

My point being, Wizarding society, in general, is rather screwed up. Thinking that Magical America is more screwed up than its British counterpart is a bad premise. Especially as we don't how Magic USA of the 1990s compares to the Harry Potter world. Until we get a more detailed look at either 1920s Magical British society, or 1990s Magical American, we have an incomplete picture.

Fair point about the different time periods but...

The British Wizarding world didn't have summary execution on the whim of the head Auror. At least not in the 90s. So yeah America's is more screwed up. That is not to say the British Wizarding world is not Screwed up.


And I don't know where you're getting this idea that you can mess with Muggles so long as you wipe their memories in the UK. Doing magic in front of Muggles was part of the charges against Harry in books 2 and 5. The slap on the wrist you mentioned was only because a) It was Harry, the boy who lived and b) they were so worried that Sirius Black might have done him in; it was stated to be exceptionally lenient by several characters and Fudge and Dumbledore suggested it was legally action in book 5.

Muggle baiting is mentioned in Book with Arthur Weasley being all for the catching and prosecuting the offenders. And it's likely muggle protection was increased by his muggle protection act in Book 2 and again wehn Shacklebolt became Minister. By the letter of the law, you can't mess with Muggles. Culturally they may be a lot more lenient about it.