Harry Potter: Wizard or War Criminal?.... (An April Fools' blog)

The answer may be both according to British lawyer Shami Charkrabarti.  That's right, children of the world, it's time to pick a new hero (and it's slim pickings kids, Twilight? Seriously? No.) Is this a lawyer's idea of an April fools' joke you ask?  Of course not! Find me one legal text with a joke and we can reconsider, so let me continue analyzing the 'Crucio curse' as a war crime...enjoy…

So how can anyone profess to put dear Harry in the same category as the likes of Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Darth Vader and other evildoers?  Shami Chakrabarti CBE is a former British Home Office lawyer who has been outspoken on many civil liberties issues including Britain's role in extraordinary rendition.  She is also a self-professed "Potter-head," claiming to be the "biggest Harry Potter fan over the age of 12."  Yet Chakrabarti was willing to come forward with a very serious allegation against the young wizard. In a somber statement to the press she said: "Yes, Harry Potter has tortured someone. That was a war crime."

The prima facie case is strong.  In "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," Mad Eye Moody explains to his class that there are the three Unforgivable Curses. "The use of any one of them on a fellow human being is enough to earn a life sentence in Azkaban." The first, is the "Imperius curse" which makes one dance like a puppet on a string.  (I welcome any suggestions as to the real world equivalent of this. American Idol?) The third curse, "Avada Kedavra," kills the victim, an act which may be legal depending on the situation, such as in self-defence or combat.  It is the second curse which is our main concern here: "Crucio," is effectively torture. A crime that is never legally acceptable in the wizarding world or in the muggle world where it is universally accepted as a war crime.

"The Order of the Phoenix," the fifth book in the Harry Potter series, begins with a kangaroo court appearance and later Harry is a victim of torture.  So it appears that the overly authoritarian state is the only bad guy here right?  Well Harry himself casts the Crucio curse against Bellatrix Lestrange as he tries to avenge the death of his godfather, but the curse fails. Bellatrix taunts him: "'Never used an Unforgivable Curse before, have you, boy? ... You need to mean them, Potter! You need to really want to cause pain - to enjoy it - righteous anger won't hurt me for long...'"

I'm not incriminating Harry just yet, however, let's move on to the seventh book.  In Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Harry sees one of Voldemort's accomplice spit on Professor Minerva McGonagall, again he casts the Crucio curse, and this time it works. "'I see what Bellatrix meant,' said Harry, the blood thundering through his brain, 'you need to really mean it.'"

Professor McGonagall responds with:
"...'Potter, that was foolish!'
'He spat at you,' said Harry.
'Potter, I - that was very - very gallant of you - but don't you realise -?'
'Yeah, I do,'
And with that, the matter is dropped."

After setting out a clear series of unforgivable crimes, it is interesting and puzzling that Rowling decided to have her hero commit one of those very crimes. What are we supposed to think of Harry from this?  Is Harry the British version of Jack Bauer?  Is "Hogwarts: The War Crimes Tribunal" a potential lawyer's sequel? (Watch this space).

There we go, my new year's resolution of destroying a beloved childhood role model is done. Next up: The Tooth Fairy: Communist Traitor? Me thinks so.  :-)

CLICK HERE to act to stop impunity against War Crimes