Stand Up and Speak for Animals That Cannot

474 Words2 Pages
Stand up and speak for animals that In Michael Kirby's article in The Age in August 2011 "stand up and speak for animals that cannot", he discusses the issue of live cattle export from Australia to Indonesia and the terrible conditions that affect them when they arrive. He contends that the export industry should be ended and that "we have a historical opportunity to... act on a shared belief that grave cruelty to other sentient animals is unacceptable. Kilby uses the notions of patriotism and inclusive language to help convince the readers of his point and to make the readers see him as equal to him and him being the same as them. He begins by saying "Australia must decide" which makes people think it's their duty as well as everyone else's and also identifies himself as someone included in in this decision, and that it is not just the decision of the politicians and leaders. He later says "we have a historic opportunity..." which is another example of inclusive language, which again reaffirms the fact that Kilby is the same as the readers and that they are all a part of this. Kilby also uses emotive language to convince the readers of "grave cruelty" occurring once the animals are exported and to use people's emotions to sway their opinion of the topic. He says that "more than 500,000 cattle are sent to Indonesian slaughterhouse" with 'slaughterhouses' being a negative emotional term. The use of the word "scandal" has the same effect. Using another word in place of these would give off a positive vibe and convince the readers that the 'Abattoirs' were a clean and animal cruelty free environment. The use of appeal to common sense and the appeal to justice and fairness also appear in Kirbys article. He uses the term "the Australian public demanded change from their political representatives" to make readers identify with the people who said it to make
Open Document