Student: Carmel’s response
From the outset, Berg attempts to use logic to depict Brandis’ reforms to the race-hate laws as an invaluable component of Australian society. The fact that these reforms protect the “basic democratic virtue” of free speech positions his readers, particularly those who value democracy (good analysis of target audience), to perceive Brandis’ reforms to be worth adopting, as they protect the values of democratic government. Moreover, through referencing free speech as the “very foundation” of democracy, Berg seeks to convey (expression) that readers who are opposed to the laws are in fact challenging the very basis on which the nation was founded. Such a notion is reinforced by the authoritative tone, adopted with the intent of establishing an air of trustworthiness to encourage readers to be more willing to espouse his suggestions. (too generic) Here, the fact that the “High Court” is in agreement with Berg’s stance further lends credibility to his argument, a device designed to show readers that his opinion is deemed logical and correct by those who are considered the greatest authorities on the Australian constitution, thereby suggesting that his readership should indeed adopt his views to uphold Australian democracy. (too long-winded) In doing so, Berg heightens the notion that “everybody…should have an…interest”, challenging his potentially indifferent readers (good reference to target audience) to consider the new proposals, as they concern the wellbeing of the country’s foundation.
Having established the new laws as an integral part of Australian society, Berg transitions into dispelling any qualms in sceptical readers. In noting that “racial slur[s]” would still be “unlawful”, Berg reassuringly (good use of adverb/purpose) aims to show those concerned about the potential targets of racism that the proposed laws still protect the rights of people who are liable to being victimized. In doing so, Berg attempts to counter any preconceptions (good purpose) that any racial minorities would be susceptible to racial hate under the new laws, encouraging sceptics to believe that there is therefore no logical reason to uphold the status quo above the proposed changes. In addition, when noting that the proposition will “not rely” on a “judge’s feelings”, but rather on what “reasonable” Australian deems to be correct, Berg seeks to assure readers, particularly those who judges are not in touch with common Australians, that the new laws will be fair and equitable for all people. In this way, Berg tries to break down prejudices towards Brandis’ proposals to encourage his readership to support the new changes, a notion further reiterated by the fact that it is “surprising” to see human rights bodies opposing Brandis. Here, Berg positions any human rights advocates to perceive a protest against this legislation to be counter-productive to their cause. (good analysis of purpose) In doing so, Berg positions such readers to espouse the new laws as the best means to protect the rights of “the weak”.
Assessor’s comments :
- Carmel sets up the paragraph well with regards to main points/technique, target audience, tone and style.
- Carmel could do better at the “deep dive” level (see p. 30) to show a more thorough analysis. (Specifically, the reference to … ) In the first paragraph, why Mr Berg is so intent on presenting himself as a “friend” of minority groups. In the second paragraph, the specific example of Goodes to show that gratuitous racist comments will still be unlawful. Hence, this reassures the public and justifies the proposed reforms.
Carmel’s response: comparative discussion of Mr Berg and Ms Holly Winter
In contrast to Berg’s logic-based arguments, Holly Winter seeks to personalize the issue for readers so as to elicit their sympathy for the pain minority groups experience. The personable request to the audience to “just imagine” themselves as a member of a minority group is designed to humanize the issue for readers, particularly those who have never been victims of vilification. (good start to the paragraph; good explanation of the main concepts) In this way, Winter attempts to make her readers see the implications of the legislation from another perspective as she aims to establish a basis on which she can elicit strong emotions by encouraging her readership to mentally experience the suffering of those who are regularly victimized. (repeats previous sentence) Thus, the list of racist epithets, such as “filthy coon” and “little gook”, in conjunction with the humanization of the issue, is intended to outrage readers to oppose the new reforms by highlighting the bigotry that minority groups would endure. Here, the fact that it would be “impossible for you” to seek redress further appeals to readers’ indignation at the injustice that would be caused by Brandis’ new reforms. Coupled with the earnest tone, this serves as an urging plea for readers – particularly those considering the benefits of Brandis’ proposal – to align themselves with those who will suffer by depicting the grave inequity that the legislation brings. (becoming repetitive) This is reinforced by the concerned description that the “most vulnerable members” will be victimized, a device intended to further evoke sympathy from readers and, particularly as they have already imagined the pain that minority groups will suffer, encourage her readership to protect these people in need.
Assessor’s response:
- Carmel sets up the paragraph well, and sets up the terms of the comparison; also a reference to Ms Winter’s extensive professional legal experience and the legal points she makes.
- Carmel could do better at the “deep dive” level (See p. 30). Good students have an ability to conceptualise the “most important views and techniques” and then analyse a key cluster of techniques. A deep reading of this cluster anticipates, foreshadows and explains the author’s key persuasive concerns and purpose. For example, in this case, the student should reference the consequences of Andrew Bolt’s harmful comments towards Ms Mitsy Jenkins.
Mr Berg’s persuasive agenda: defend Senator Brandis’reforms (as in the best interests of freedom of speech and the protection of minority groups); attack those who seek to protect the current reforms.
Suggested response: two body paragraphs
From a rational standpoint, Chris Berg advocates the Brandis’ reforms on the grounds that freedom of speech should take priority in matters of “political importance”. Mounting a plausible and common sense defence of the reforms, Mr Berg seeks to present himself as a defender of the “weak” and of “minority” groups. Thereby he counters claims of bias or injustice, and seeks to earn respect from those members in the community who are concerned about the protection of minority groups. Not only does he protect himself from claims of bias (of one who could be deemed a member of the powerful majority), but he also defensively and high-mindedly, reminds citizens that human rights and “free expression” are a cornerstone of a plural society. Furthermore, Mr Berg encourages all fair-minded members of the audience to set aside their emotions and, invoking the High Court’s defence of liberty, and the possible introduction of an Australian bill of rights, he reminds us that anti-hate speech would be in such cases unconstitutional. The comparative reference to the United States’ First Amendment reinforces this point; by referring to this powerhouse of democracy, Mr Berg seeks to silence dissent and implies that those who support anti-hate speech laws are undemocratic and their views undermine freedom of speech.
Referring to two well-known test cases, the Andrew Bolt and the Adam Goodes’ case, Mr Berg argues that the former would be legally permissible while the latter would be unlawful. Relying on legal jargon such as “reasonable test” and the definition of “intimidation”, Mr Berg explains and justifies to the audience why Mr Bolt’s columns would be in the public interest. The implication here is that free speech must take priority and all “reasonable members” of the Australian community would recognise this. Those who do not are “unreasonable”. The author also reassures the public that harmful and purposeless public comments such as the “ape” comment directed at Adam Goodes would be unlawful. Members of the audience would infer from Mr Berg’s comments that there is sufficient protection against harmful hate speech without trampling on our freedom. Accordingly, he reinforces his support for the victims who would be unreasonably persecuted.
Back To “Turn to” Summary Page