Language Analysis

Changing to an agitated tone, the use of inclusive language and repetition of ‘’we do not think,’’ unifies readers and attempts to reaffirm that ‘’our laws should [not] take precedence over [other] laws.’’ Australian citizens are painted as people who uphold harmony, integration and ‘’support multiculturalism, cultural diversity,’’ rectifying our stance against the extreme requests of ‘legal pluralism’ by religious leaders. The examples of ‘’Muslim man whipped 40 times, Muslim inman sending offensive letters to dead Diggers’ and innocent children holding up beheading signs, appealing to reader’s moral values as these are not ‘’benefits of living in a vibrant, diverse society enriched by people from many cultures.’’ Readers may react angrily at the Islamic Councils of Victoria’s submission stating ‘’ overwhelming majority of Australian Muslims want nothing more than to make meaningful contributions,’’ which is in direct contrast with its former dismissive attitude to Australian law, implying that dire consequences of ‘legal pluralism’ are hidden behind a facade of manipulation.

The visual depicts a young child holding up the sign ‘’Behead all those who insult the prophet.’’ The text symbolise what O’Brien believes as religious extremism and highlights the ‘’barbaric practises’’ that we do not accept under Australian law. The image complements the article by emphasising that beheadings and other extreme actions will become accepted in Australia if ‘legal pluralism’ is allowed. Readers may feel shocked at the exploitation of children in promoting violent behaviour in the nature of religion; an act which suggests the religious leaders are preying on the children’s innocence. The visual attempts to instil fear within readers as it suggests that their children are vulnerable to the extremist mindsets of some religious leaders and are encouraged to condone violent behaviours. Readers are thus urged to oppose religious practises that violate Australian laws and values.

The submission to the federal inquiry from AFIC claiming that ‘’suggestions that muslims in Australia are not integrating are just examples of ‘’racism,’’ ’’ is disproved by their ‘’continue to press for their own laws to trump our own,’’ implying to readers that it is actually ‘’muslims that don’t want to integrate.’’ The phrase ‘’muslims are not the same as the rest of us,’’ attemptes to segregate immigrants and highlight the polar differences between cultures and values, urging readers to oppose to the disintegration of Australian laws in order to accommodate for laws that endorse extreme practises and are the opposite to our moral values. The negative words ‘’lying, deceitful and dangerous’’ are attacks on religious practises and appeals to readers’ fear as ‘’this religion is a plague on Australian and world society.’’ The evidence from everyday people’s comments on the blog urge readers to see that this matter will not just affect decision-makers, but also the wider community and no immediate action may result in the ‘’suffring of our kids.’’

The list of ‘’legitamite ’’ barriers facing migrants such as ‘’prejudice from employers, a lack of English language tuition, housing affordability and difficulty finding jobs’’ urges readers to see that these ‘’concrete and practical issues’’ that immigrants are facing are the problems that should be addressed-not legal pluralism in order for them to become ‘’fully functioning members of our society.’’ Appealing to readers moral values by implying that our justice system which is expected to epitomize justice and righteousness be undermined by the laws of other cultures. Readers may react fearfully to the disintergration of legal laws as it may result in the loss of their safety and rights under legal pluralism. Australia’s ‘’stable democracy, personal freedoms are ‘’reasons many people from different countries want to come here to live,’’ implying that we would be enforcing the very laws that many have fled from in the first place.

The article uses the change of tones and language techniques to persuade readers to oppose ‘legal pluralism.’ The addition of the visual complements the article by highlighting violent behaviours that are not welcomed in Australian society will be accepted, resulting in the disintergration of Australian laws.