If parents don't allow their children to attend Hogwarts -- we saw exactly what happens: Harry Potter.
If there was a law allowing children to be seized, then Harry Potter was the case for its application, if ever there was one. Dumbledore and the entire magic community would have had every reason to simply compel Harry's attendance and overrule the Dursleys. They did not.
They did, however, use many methods of trying to convince the Dursleys to comply with the invitation to Hogwarts. It seems their permission (or at least acquiescence) was required. This seems to imply seizing of children by the Ministry of Magic on behalf of Hogwarts was not the norm.
One could argue that Dumbledore or the Ministry of Magic would have seized Harry if it weren't for the special magic protecting Harry's home till he was 17 because they realized that spell would be broken if they seized Harry but that seems like a stretch. After all, the Ministry remained little involved. It was Hogwarts (on direction of Dumbledore) that watched over Harry and encouraged his attendance.
As Harry's magic was already beginning to wreak havoc on the lives of the Dursleys we can imagine the case is similar for other parents. They quickly recognize they can't manage a child with magic and make their choices accordingly.
This seems far more humane than simply confiscating children.
As for what happens when you have an obstinate family, like the Dursleys, we saw that the magic community was persistent to a fault. I imagine the magical demonstrations would have grown more extreme the longer the guardians of a magical child refused but they would not have ever kidnapped a child.
No comments:
Post a Comment