Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 11:18:09 pm

Author Topic: Language Analysis - A sorry state?  (Read 1142 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Camo

  • Sir President Father Professor Sergeant Admiral Grandmaster Camo OAM
  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 776
  • I love you like the little taco's.
  • Respect: +62
  • School Grad Year: 2011
Language Analysis - A sorry state?
« on: July 20, 2011, 12:26:04 pm »
0
A sorry state? – Analysis

In the opinion piece, ‘A sorry state,’ Professor Janice Stevens contends in an alarmed and critical tone that David Hicks treatment in Guantanamo Bay is a clear violation of human rights and that Australia’s response only shows that other citizens should be fearful of themselves being presented in such a situation. Use of the pun, a sorry state represents the situation the Australian Government found themselves in regarding this issue, as well as the treatment of David Hicks. She directs the article at an educated adult audience, but to a further extent those who are concerned about the treatment of human beings and their own liberty at risk.

Stevens invokes a feeling of concern at Hick’s treatment, with use of the dysphemism ‘barbaric’ to alarm readers to the fact that this man is an Australian, and his ‘human rights are being ignored.’ She gives reason to why American forces placed him in Guantanamo Bay but allows them to place their own decision onto whether he was guilty or not, by stating that he was accused. For someone to allow any human to live in ‘solitary confinement for up twenty-two or twenty three hours a day and restrict their access to others is in clear violation of the Geneva Convention, and the author clearly demonstrates Hick’s state by the accompanying image. A dehumanised prisoner similar to the appearance of what we expect of Hick’s shows characteristics similar to that of a prisoner of war, unkempt and messy that we can only assume would have no sense of individualism whatsoever. Furthermore the use of the Australian flag to gag the man, and the American man to blindfold him demonstrates to a wider extent how this is an ongoing political concern between the two countries.

Maintaining her stance, Stevens signifies that ‘Australia’s response to his plight was no less then shameful’ and the fact that he is an Australian citizen makes the situation even more shameful. The author’s scepticism to how the Government response to his imprisonment that looks to invoke a sense of remorse in the reader for a man they should have tried to defend. As Australians, Stevens invites readers to feel patriotic about their country, yet shameful at what was done to this man by use of euphemisms such as ‘quickly, morally, and justly’ to signify our actions were the exact opposite.  The writer demonstrates her patriotic views that this country had a reason to act, and yet did not decide to involve themselves in removing David Hicks. This may invoke a sense of concern in readers, to whether we had taken every precaution to ensure his fair treatment.

Stevens makes use of other similar events such as that of Dr Haneef’s debacle to further public distress on how much their liberty has been put at risk, and to evoke a feeling of possible anxiety to a reader that may be stereotyped as a threat to our country similar to Hicks or Dr Haneef. Readers are invited to consider that in their own fears we saw our dwindling liberty and make suggest the reader to be made of aware of what would happen if we found ourselves in a similar situation. Ultimately this is intended to raise attention to the fact that ‘support for Hicks was heartening but it took five years and significant campaigning’ for this man to be released.

The crux of the article ‘a sorry state?’ resides in use of the facts presented to show that the unfair treatment against this man. Although it is likely to persuade most of its intended audience, those who take notice of the fact that he supposably helped the enemy at a time where fear of terrorist activity was high may be infuriated that Stevens believes that this man should walk free.
‎"We divert our attention from disease and death as much as we can; and the slaughter-houses and indecencies without end on which our life is founded are huddled out of sight and never mentioned, so that the world we recognize officially in literature and in society is a poetic fiction far handsomer and cleaner and better than the world that really is."
- William James.