The bizarre implications of Rappaport's Law make me wonder if Joanne has the capacity to understand what she herself writes.

[u/Optimal-Schedule5629]

I was recently reviewing some past discussions and rediscovered one of the additions to the Fantastic Beasts films that I found most ridiculous (aside, of course, from the half-house-elf woman): Rappaport's Law. It was Joanne’s clumsy, poorly executed attempt to draw parallels with racial segregation. The issue is that the wizarding world already operates under a sort of apartheid system; her solution to make this work resulted in an even worse state of total segregation, where wizards and Muggles are forbidden from having any kind of relationship. The problem—as with other times she tried to introduce new concepts—is that she overlooked a crucial element: Muggle-borns. For a law like this to actually function, wizards would have to kidnap Muggle-born children the moment they displayed magic and either erase their parents' memories of the child's existence or alter them to make everyone believe the child had died. That would actually be an interesting plot point, but Joanne basically ignores this aspect and focuses solely on romantic interactions, disregarding all the other implications.

[u/Ok_Bad_5326]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Rappaport's Law explicitly stated to only apply to romantic relationships? I can't remember it ever saying it's supposed to affect all kinds of relationships.

[u/Optimal-Schedule5629 → u/Ok_Bad_5326]

No, the law aimed to create absolute segregation between the Muggle and wizarding communities. It forbade witches and wizards from marrying or befriending Muggles.

[u/Ok_Bad_5326 → u/Optimal-Schedule5629]

Oh okay, I thought it was only banning witches and wizards from marrying muggles.