Intro:
Premier Daniel Andrews's criticism of the display of a swastika flag in a remote Victorian town has recently sparked media debate about whether are not the swastika should be banned. The editorial addresses the issue and is followed by an image illustrating the swastika flag flying over a Victorian townhome. Using an assertive and demanding tone, The Age alleges that the display of the swastika flag should be prohibited across Australia. On the other hand, in the comment posted the next day, Erno suggests that the swastika shouldn’t be banned as it is not a symbol regularly seen and restricts freedom of expression through explicit wording.
Body paragraphs:
The age claims that other countries have already banned the representation of
…show more content…
The writers’ list “vilify, offend, intimidate and, indeed, terrorise” highlighting what the flag now represents when advertised. What was once a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck to most is now insulting to most Jews. Additionally, using emotive language through “anger and revulsion, and renews traumas” brings to the readers' attention the lingering effect of this flag on people even years after WWII. Through the use of evidence and the expert opinion of New York magistrate Louis Brodsky, stating that “‘all that is antithetical”’ to cherished human rights of life” as well as the swastika representing “war on religious freedom” the writer to able to remind the reader of the negative and loathsome meaning that the swastika carries with it now. In the end, this argument appeals to the readers’ compassion, encouraging the reader to think of the feeling of those who get seriously affected by this flag due to past experiences or just cultural background. While appealing to fairness, The Age aims to endow the readers to want everyone living in Australia to be able to walk around the streets freely without the concern of seeing the symbol that has traumatized