The writer argues that the Jewish community should not â€œsuppress the screening of the David Irvingâ€™s film.â€ The film is named the search of truth and history and received extensive media attention to the banning of this documentary. Jackson believes that the film â€œshould be openly and freely debatedâ€. The writer accuses the â€œJewish groupsâ€ for trying to force and place pressure on the censorship authorities to stop the viewing of this film to the public.
The writer has used an aggressive and strong tone when he states, â€œShould be openly and freely debatedâ€ this enables the audience to receive a response towards the issue of censorship. When Jackson writes that the documentary is about a â€œremarkable man sufferingâ€ he is giving his own opinion and what he believes will have no major effect on the viewers in Australia. Jackson has used certain persuasive techniques to convince the audience that is argument on censorship is valid. The writers use of emotive appeal when he states â€œwhy has there been silenceâ€ and â€œsufferingâ€ allows the reader to feel a sense of guilt and sorrow ness to this issue of censoring David Irvingâ€™s film. This also allows the reader to picture a man who has suffered during the holocaust whose remarkableness does deserve to be viewed to an audience.
Jacksonâ€™s use of evidence when he says â€œthe circumstances of his arrest in the US in February and the conditions of his incarceration smack of medieval crueltiesâ€ permits the reader to reflect on the more horrific events that have occurred than Irvingâ€™s film â€œthe search for truth and historyâ€, that is currently being debated. The writerâ€™s use of Nonspecificity and vague terms like â€œJewish groupsâ€ does not allow the reader to blame one member of a community but a group of members that have publicised this issue of