MoM Elections: The Second Debate – Part 1
Yesterday, the Magical Business Association hosted this year’s second Minister of Magic debate at Gringotts Wizarding Bank. Read on to hear Bianca Blishwick, Reggie Stump, and William Waverly‘s views on marriage equality, the infrastructure tax, and in Part 2 banking sector reform. This recap is brought to you by the Daily Prophet.
There have been calls from the Magical Business Association to “axe the tax” – that is, the infrastructure and development tax put in place by Shacklebolt’s caretaker government succeeding the war. The association says the tax has gone on for too long and with Hogwarts substantially rebuilt, is calling for its removal. A petition from the council has gained over 1,000 signatures. Headmaster Macmillan states the superficial repair has finished but intrinsic magical strengthening is still needed and is estimated to cost 15 million Galleons. What are the candidates’ views on the continuation of the tax?
William Waverly: We need Hogwarts at its best to educate our youth! A thorough analysis of Hogwarts and its rebuild status needs to be conducted. Depending on the results, the future of the tax will be determined. I am prepared to keep the tax in place, if that is what’s required to restore Hogwarts and ensure our youngsters the brightest possible future.
Reggie Stump: Helping my Great-Uncle Argus Filch at Hogwarts during his later years gave me an appreciation for the damage that had been done to the historical castle. The magical damage is far more extensive than what we were originally told, and I believe that the tax, while necessary to make the repairs needed, should be reduced to a more manageable one – obviously, this measure would be introduced after extensive consultation with the wizarding public.
Bianca Blishwick: Educating young witches and wizards should be a top priority of any Minister candidate, and we cannot guarantee a good education without ensuring our children are safe from any potential harm while they are in the throes of learning. That being said, we are in dire need of multiple educational facilities for the magical youth of this country; if I am elected Minister, I will put that 15 million Galleons to the use of constructing a school for Muggle-born students, where they will be safe from discrimination due to their blood type. Safety will be promoted at both schools, eliminating the need for immediate magical repairs, and the savings we make in other areas of government will contribute to those repairs in the long run.
The highly publicized case of Firenze and Parvati has shone a light on the way marriage is defined in the Wizarding Constitution. What are the candidates’ positions on human and beasts’ with near human intelligence marital rights?
Waverly: Personally, I feel that this could bring in more danger to our magical society. Though I am not one to tell you who you can and can’t love. I would put a law in place, however, to ensure the safety of the wizarding community. All beasts with near human intelligence that want to marry a human must renounce their beast status for being status; this makes them fully aware of our laws and accountable for their actions if they break those laws.
Stump: I stand for marriage rights for all beings, human or not. Love is love is love, as a famous Muggle composer and musical star has said!
Blishwick: While I have no problems with marriage between a human and a beast of near human intelligence, I fear the legal allowance of such a union will open the door to demanding the legalization of more troubling commitments. Vampires, hags, and other non-humans known to prey on the vulnerable may coerce young witches and wizards into unions only to destroy them. They may then utilize their new status in society to take advantage of our children. Let them enter conditional legal partnerships, where the demise of their spouse will revoke their status as a being and the legal rights that come with it.
Stay tuned for the controversial Part 2 of this debate, and find out why the evening almost turned ugly after a particularly gnarly question that some of the goblins who had come to observe took offense to.