#'My brother's defining words again' ¬ Kit Snicket

[unfortunatetheorist]

Is Klaus' legal logic of The Bad Beginning sensible?

* Joint Theory: @unfortunatetheorist with @snicketstrange *

Klaus's speech to the audience during the events of The Bad Beginning had a carefully thought-out structure, anchored in deeply rooted legal, but more so ethical, principles. In defence of his sister, who was forced into a marriage, Klaus appears to have adopted a multifaceted approach to challenge the marriage's validity.

Firstly, John Locke.

John Locke was one of the first people to suggest that humans have natural rights. He also wrote a book about this called the 'Two Treatises of Government'.

Klaus likely invoked John Locke's arguments on natural rights to contend that the marriage was not consensual and, therefore, violated his sister's fundamental rights to life and liberty. The idea that the bride must sign "with her own hand" is interpreted here not literally, but as an indicator of action "of her own free will," supported by Locke's principles.

Secondly, Thurgood Marshall.

Thurgood Marshall was the first black Supreme Court Justice of the USA, who fought for the rights of black citizens against Jim Crow's extremely racist ideologies.

His defence of the 14th Amendment may have been used by Klaus to argue that, in cases of ambiguity or doubt, the judge's decision should lean towards protecting the more vulnerable party. This point strengthens the point that, if there is doubt about the how valid Violet's consent is, the legal and ethical obligation is to invalidate the marriage. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is crucial for establishing constitutional rights and consists of various clauses. The most relevant for Klaus's case is probably the Equal Protection Clause, which states that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Klaus may have leaned especially on this clause to argue that, in situations of uncertainty, i.e. his sister's forced marriage, the interpretation/application of the law should be done in a manner that protects (in this case) Violet. This would align with the principles of the 14th Amendment, using it for equal protection under the law to invalidate the marriage and protect his sister's rights.

Third, Ida B. Wells.

Ida B. Wells was, similar to Thurgood Marshall, an early civil rights campaigner, who campaigned for anti-lynching (a word which here means, opposing the brutally violent act known as lynching).

Klaus likely drew inspiration from Ida B. Wells to assert that everyone has the right to be heard and protected by authorities, regardless of their age or origin. This argument would serve to legitimize his own standing as his sister's defender in court, neutralizing any potential prejudice against him for being a child or, perhaps, belonging to a minority (he and his sisters are Jewish).

Moreover, the presence of a judge at the ceremony should not be viewed as merely a formality, but a control mechanism to ensure mutual consent, something that resonates strongly with Locke and Marshall's ideals about the role of government and law. Thus, if either of the spouses gave any evidence to the judge that the marriage was conducted under duress, the judge would be obligated to invalidate the marriage. Violet's chosen signal was to sign the document with her left hand instead of her right hand. As the judge explained, the marriage could be invalidated due to this discreet yet appropriate signal.

Lastly, the word "apocryphal" that Lemony uses to describe Klaus's argument suggests a non-conventional but insightful interpretation of the law, something that seems to echo Marshall's "doubtful insights" and Wells' "moral conviction." Instead of resorting to literalism ('literally' - with her own hand, i.e. Violet's dominant hand), Klaus's argument was much deeper and grounded, touching on the very essence of what legislation and the role of judges are. That's why Justice Strauss was so fascinated by the young boy's speech.

In summary, the historical references evidence that Klaus wove these diverse elements into a cohesive and compelling argument, utilising the legacy of these thinkers to question and, ideally, invalidate his sister Violet's forced marriage.

¬ Th3r3534rch1ngr4ph & @snicketstrange,

Unfortunate Theorists/Snicketologists

[badlydrawndrawnings]

ASOUE SEASON 3, Part 1

I binged watch it all from the afternoon of yesterday and last night. Eyes hurt.

I like it much better than season 2 (I’m still bitter how the Vile Village, my favorite book and the turning point of series, got fumbled in ways I will never forgive). Not as much as season one, but season 3 is rank two. There are some things that I enjoy, some things that bug me, and some of those things that bug me are thing I do enjoy but I have to question regardless. The post grew so long I’m cutting it into two parts, with TSS and TGG here, and The PP and The End on the next. Now with the first half of season!

Jacquelyn: She’s R. Duchess of Winnipeg and was put on a trip back to Winnipeg (yes I can finally draw R with my headcanon version!). Who would have knew? But was Jacquelyn planned to be R *thinking emoji*? After finishing the season I discovered her actress didn’t came back due to pay disputes. If Jacquelyn was plan from the start, I wonder if she was going be in...the opera flashback (oh believe me, I have words for it). If not, should we be lucky R got retcon into the show? They did took out Gustav’s sister as a VFD member (a supplementary character like R) and more importantly Captain Widdershins (while existing, he just...gone).

Quigley (And Quagmires to Extent): I’m sorry Quigley. Your siblings got so little screen time and I couldn’t make a good connection with them I couldn’t care that much when you showed up. Don’t get me wrong, I love the Quagmire Triplets they were one of favorites in the books, and I like how Quigley didn’t fall to the injustice Duncan and Isadora fell thanks to via limited screen time. I just...couldn’t care for them all as I did in the books. Shout out for Quigley for looking inside the sugar bowl and pretty much did our reaction when the contents were reveal in The End (got a bone to pick with that later. Also, related to The End but ask here since it relates to the Triplets: Did they reused footage when Quigley reunited with them because I swear Duncan and Isadora look the same as in The VV?).

Fiona: I like Fiona in the books, and frankly, I was blind like Klaus when she decided to join Olaf just to be with her brother. Here, she was...I don’t know, off. I think it’s due to removing Captain Widdershins. I do like her in the show, but I’m like ‘yo show you making it look like she gonna betray them sooner than later’. I know she just ‘asdfghjkl;helpmeidon’tknowwhati’mdoing’ on the inside, but it strange since she’s all ‘ya we’ll help you’ in the books and while there was hints she overall has a good heart in the right place. Also..how old is Fiona’s actress? Asking because she looks older than Violet’s actress and I just hope they got a teenager or I’m gonna Kermit at the writers (not going to lie as a kid I thought the kiss was off putting but a three year gap isn’t too bad and I brush it off because Fiona looks and acts like an teenager in my head).

Fernald/Hook Handed Man: Best Character of the show. You my favorite of the adaptation and I’m glad the show did you justice you are one of the few things I enjoy. The flashback of the fire was beautiful and sad because it’s the moment that pretty much ruined his life forever but defines him for years. I got to say, I’m happy that you and Fiona got a happy ending (which I will be talking about later) that will last more longer than the books. 

~~~love the photo got the sad coco flashbacks remember me~~~

Overall, I got to say these four episodes were good and I would watch again. I have issues that change that I won’t complaint to much (rip Hugo, Colette, and Kevin and yay that the Troupe hightail it out of there...The White Face Woman’s sister thing bugs me, which I’ll explain in the next post with The End). Still not getting over the fact Kit is the freaking youngest siblings or the writers expect me to push my willing of disbelief of her to be twins with Nathan Fillion put to the max (isn’t that the reason it’s J-K-L).

That being said, I tear up when Lemony pulled out that photo case. Oh god, why do the Snicket Family give me woes I didn’t want to see them together again like that!!! I wonder if they got that Jacques’ photo taken in season two filming knowing well they’re not getting Nathan Fillion for season three for a five second cameo (like it’s obvious they got someone else doing the the whistle in the opera flashback).

[snicketstrange]

It turned out really good. It was fun doing a joint theory about asoue's Netflix series. Thanks for the opportunity.

Is Klaus' legal logic of The Bad Beginning sensible?

* Joint Theory: @unfortunatetheorist with @snicketstrange *

Klaus's speech to the audience during the events of The Bad Beginning had a carefully thought-out structure, anchored in deeply rooted legal, but more so ethical, principles. In defence of his sister, who was forced into a marriage, Klaus appears to have adopted a multifaceted approach to challenge the marriage's validity.

Firstly, John Locke.

John Locke was one of the first people to suggest that humans have natural rights. He also wrote a book about this called the 'Two Treatises of Government'.

Klaus likely invoked John Locke's arguments on natural rights to contend that the marriage was not consensual and, therefore, violated his sister's fundamental rights to life and liberty. The idea that the bride must sign "with her own hand" is interpreted here not literally, but as an indicator of action "of her own free will," supported by Locke's principles.

Secondly, Thurgood Marshall.

Thurgood Marshall was the first black Supreme Court Justice of the USA, who fought for the rights of black citizens against Jim Crow's extremely racist ideologies.

His defence of the 14th Amendment may have been used by Klaus to argue that, in cases of ambiguity or doubt, the judge's decision should lean towards protecting the more vulnerable party. This point strengthens the point that, if there is doubt about the how valid Violet's consent is, the legal and ethical obligation is to invalidate the marriage. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution is crucial for establishing constitutional rights and consists of various clauses. The most relevant for Klaus's case is probably the Equal Protection Clause, which states that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Klaus may have leaned especially on this clause to argue that, in situations of uncertainty, i.e. his sister's forced marriage, the interpretation/application of the law should be done in a manner that protects (in this case) Violet. This would align with the principles of the 14th Amendment, using it for equal protection under the law to invalidate the marriage and protect his sister's rights.

Third, Ida B. Wells.

Ida B. Wells was, similar to Thurgood Marshall, an early civil rights campaigner, who campaigned for anti-lynching (a word which here means, opposing the brutally violent act known as lynching).

Klaus likely drew inspiration from Ida B. Wells to assert that everyone has the right to be heard and protected by authorities, regardless of their age or origin. This argument would serve to legitimize his own standing as his sister's defender in court, neutralizing any potential prejudice against him for being a child or, perhaps, belonging to a minority (he and his sisters are Jewish).

Moreover, the presence of a judge at the ceremony should not be viewed as merely a formality, but a control mechanism to ensure mutual consent, something that resonates strongly with Locke and Marshall's ideals about the role of government and law. Thus, if either of the spouses gave any evidence to the judge that the marriage was conducted under duress, the judge would be obligated to invalidate the marriage. Violet's chosen signal was to sign the document with her left hand instead of her right hand. As the judge explained, the marriage could be invalidated due to this discreet yet appropriate signal.

Lastly, the word "apocryphal" that Lemony uses to describe Klaus's argument suggests a non-conventional but insightful interpretation of the law, something that seems to echo Marshall's "doubtful insights" and Wells' "moral conviction." Instead of resorting to literalism ('literally' - with her own hand, i.e. Violet's dominant hand), Klaus's argument was much deeper and grounded, touching on the very essence of what legislation and the role of judges are. That's why Justice Strauss was so fascinated by the young boy's speech.

In summary, the historical references evidence that Klaus wove these diverse elements into a cohesive and compelling argument, utilising the legacy of these thinkers to question and, ideally, invalidate his sister Violet's forced marriage.

¬ Th3r3454rch1ngr4ph & @snicketstrange,

Unfortunate Theorists/Snicketologists