Show_Trials;_the_Justice_Game

The Show Trials Key Phrases: ‘prove how legal systems, with their varying procedural rituals for emphasising objectivity and impartiality and apparent ability to extract the truth, can be vulnerable to political manipulation’ ‘the most fundamental right of all is the right to challenge the State, under a legal system which allows the possibility, occasionally, of winning’ Epithet Dialogue  establishes historical aspect of argument (as common, and occurring several times in history and hence injustice) Word choice – ‘conspiracy’ ‘deception’ ‘perfidy’ ‘treason’  establishes deceitful nature of the authorities and legal system Repetition of the word, ‘justice’ – ‘mockeries of justice’, ‘medieval principle of justice’ indicative of its subversion Ethos – establishing the righteousness and verity of the speaker  ‘I helped the dissidents in communist...’ Selection and omission  choice to include the crowd chorusing  adds to the gravitas of his case and the communal nature and importance of his argument Parenthesis ‘(I kick myself for not realising)’  adds to pathos with the audience developing a sense of pity for the speaker Selection and omission – adds the scene of paying with American dollars  exposes absurd nature of the charges against the defendant, portrayed as the victim of ‘show trials’ (those with a pre-determined outcome) Satire – irony, ‘Welcome to communist Prague, for all lovers of irony’ (supports above statement in relation to the ludicrous nature of trials) Selection and omission – inclusion of the anecdote of the criminal offence of possessing the song book  legal system as ridiculous Characterisation of Havel – ‘his politeness gets the better of him’ Rhetorical questioning – ‘What’s the difference between Gorbachev and Dubchek'’  appeal to audience, black humour (of content) Anecdotal  reinforces the fable of the ‘legal system’ as a fictitious representation of the truth by structuring his argument to be story-like Allegory of the game  ‘cat and mouse game’, ‘the justice game’, ‘litigation was a game in which Lee Kuan Yew, himself an able lawyer, regularly played and always won’ Manipulation of the audience to be the ultimate diviner of truth and guilt  protesting ‘we shall overcome’, ‘announced to the world as a fraud case ... no one was fooled’  emphasises the pivotal nature of the role the audience (and his readers) play in his aim to restore justice and equity in the legal system Colloquial comments (ethos) appealing to the reader by adding a sense of a common person to segment the historical facts: ‘I have never much liked jazz – you keep thinking it will turn into a tune, and it doesn’t’ Metaphor of the relationship between politics and music as conflicting – ‘I realised why totalitarians distrust jazz...’ Repetition of the word ‘irony’ – ‘...for all lovers of irony’, ‘through another exquisite irony’, ‘ironies became overwrought’, ‘it was both ironical and logical’  tool of satire, Robertson a satirist Characterisation of the dominant perspective, the authorities, - ‘the stupidity of the secret police’, ‘the ISD plots were, in their way, as silly as Stalin’s’ Ethos – characterisation of Robertson as the martyr ‘countries I have visited on human rights missions...’  establishes himself as noble, and hence fighting a noble and worthwhile cause  is reflective of his ultimate motive, which is to advocate the initiation of a Bill of Rights Segmentation (pg. 229) is the beginning of another story, before a prelude to the cause of HIS case  establishes precedent – structured in a legal manner similar to Robertson’s court cases Intertextuality – inclusion of the program opening ‘Tracing the Conspiracy’  establishes anti-communist society and popular opinion through the popular media (television) Parenthesis – ‘(no doubt)’  sarcasm (satirical) Selection and omission – detailed inclusion of the cruelty of the ISD in securing confessions, ‘they dressed their victims in cotton pyjamas, and stood them under the full force of an air conditioning unit, facing studio-strength spot lights’  establishes the inhumane nature of the argument countering Robertson’s (debunking and discrediting it) Above word choice of ‘victims’  subverting notion of the defendants as the perpetrators of the crime instead reversing that idea to portray authorities as the ones performing criminal behaviours (of torture and admitted ‘psychological pressure’) – ridicules idea of equality Sarcasm – ‘his secret policy targeted all Catholics preaching the poison of ‘liberation theology’ with its subversive concern for human rights’  appeal to pathos and emotion of reader Analogy of the television – controlling the views and perspectives of the truth divining audience as being government controlled and infiltrated  ‘ so the detainees underwent their trial not in a court of law, but in a television programme co-produced by the government-controlled media and the secret police’  exposes injustice The analogy of the television also adds to the fable nature of his structure and of his content as fictitious and merely for show  two dimensional where the truth and verity is compromised Selection and omission within selection and omission – ‘various sound-bites were extracted, often out of context, and carefully editing for their television trial’  introduces the idea that the techniques the Robertson uses to prove his argument are not dissimilar to those of the dominant perspective Characterisation of the victims – ‘Never had I acted for such good people’ Paralleling of the English legal system with the Singaporean legal system – with one exception of the secret police  indicates Robertson’s purpose of the Bill of Rights in all countries Pun (tool of satire) – ‘The State could not lose, even when it lost’ Colloquialism appealing to a wider audience stresses universal importance of this issues ‘double whammy’ Intertextuality – inclusion of the names of Western press that were attacked by the government  adds credibility and largeness of the situation Selection and omission – inclusion of the story of his pupil exposes absurdity and stringency of the Singaporean legal system ‘under interrogation for working without a permit’ Characterisation of Lee Kuan Yew  passage of dialogue (pg. 237), ‘I found an evasive and truculent witness’  scripted nature of opposing argument again reinforcing the idea of ‘show trials’ Selection and omission – inclusion of lengthy dialogue of the cross examination of Yew establishes dire situation of the trials Allegory of the theatre – ‘it’s not a theatre, it’s a court. These are serious proceedings’