Rhetoric And The Art Of Persuasion By Weinrib And Wells
Most writers, both old and new, have one thing in common: their use of rhetoric. Rhetoric is a tool that writers use to appeal to their audiences and convey their message. The recent issue of Doug Ford’s use of the notwithstanding clause in order to push Bill 5 has been a topic of great controversy. Lorraine Weinrib, a law professor at the University of Toronto, and Paul Wells, a prominent journalist for Maclean’s, wrote Doug Ford can’t apply the notwithstanding clause retroactively to impede democracy and Adventures in better government with Doug Ford to voice their opinion on the issue. Though both authors share the same perspective on this political issue, Weinrib and Wells differ in the way they convey their arguments. This can be seen through their tone, and use of rhetorical devices.
To begin, one can see that Weinrib’s tone, or style of writing, in this text is very formal and assertive. In the text, Weinrib develops complex and sophisticated sentences and is firm about her ideas. This can be seen on two occasions when Weinrib describes that the government using the notwithstanding clause to override the judge’s ruling and that this decision is “overly simplistic” (Weinrib) and may lead to “retroactive government nullification” (Weinrib) in the future. This suggests that her ultimate purpose is to persuade the audience, comprised of intelligent people, due to the complex diction the article being published in a prominent newspaper.
Weinrib appeals to the audience through logic and often uses her reputation to convey her ideas. At one point, she mentions how she “successfully argued, on behalf of the province of Ontario, before the Supreme Court of Canada,” (Weinrib) about the clause and its potential ‘retrospective effect’. By doing this, she appeals to the audience using her reputation, as people are more likely to listen to those with a prominent place in society. Contrastingly, Wells’ tone is sarcastic and mocking. Wells uses short simple sentences and conveys his ideas in a seemingly playful manner. An example of this is in his conclusion where, instead of ending with his main point, he ‘praises’ everyone for their “excellent work” (Wells) – a statement that is meant to be ironic. His informal diction suggests that his audience is of varied intelligence, and rather than intending to persuade like Weinrib, his purpose is to inform and entertain, as the publication of the article, a magazine, may suggest.
Similar to Weinrib, Wells appeals mostly to the audience through his use of facts and logic. However, Wells does not rely on his reputation alone. Instead, he appeals to the audience's sense of humor, and those who enjoy irony and sarcasm.In addition, one can see that both authors generally rely on parallelism. Weinrib predominantly relies on parenthesis while Wells relies on irony and allusions to convey their opinions. Essentially, both authors describe that the use of the notwithstanding clause impedes democracy and the rights of Ontarians. Weinrib describes that the use of the clause “suspends [the rights of] Ontarians to free expression, to a free press, to freedom of association, to religious freedom, to freedom of conscience…and to equality under the law”(Weinrib). Similarly, Wells ‘congratulates’ Ontario Conservatives for using the notwithstanding clause after four decades of absence in addition to any other government that “finds free speech, free association, peaceful assembly or religious freedom to be silly obstacles” (Wells). These two excerpts from both texts are examples of parallelism where both authors emphasize all the rights the current use of the notwithstanding clause impedes, making them equally importance. This greatly supports their opinion against the clause’s use by the Ontario Conservatives.
Furthermore, Weinrib forwards her argument using mostly parenthesis. She illustrates that when the government forces a change mid-election where the candidates “precious resources – time, energy, money, volunteer engagement – previously invested in winning their votes” (Weinrib) go to waste. The use of parentheses in this quote helps persuade the audience by emphasizing the significance of the change, that the wasted resources are not simply items with monetary value, but a variety, such as time and energy. Weinrib ends her article by suggesting that the government’s “intended use of the override – retrospective, routine and without specification of the rights in play – ” (Weinrib) should be questioned rather than be left alone. This suggestion strengthens her argument, as she did not merely argue against the issue, but provided a solution as well.
On the other hand, Wells uses irony and allusions to voice his opinion. Wells’ title for the article, Adventures in better government with Doug Ford, demonstrates verbal irony, as his opinion about the Ford government is the opposite of what is stated. This, in a way, ‘mocks’ the Ford government while entertaining the audience and keeping their interest. Wells also uses a variety of allusions to both people and texts. An important example is near the end of the article, where he describes that Ford is “acting like the captain in Moby Dick” (Wells). Wells compares Ford with the captain in Herman Melville’s, Moby-Dick, who is blindly consumed in seeking revenge on a whale who bite off his leg. This comparison is important in conveying his opinion and in helping the audience comprehend it better.
All in all, the articles by Weinrib and Wells both share the same perspective, but contrast in their methods of conveying it. They differ in tone, and use of rhetorical devices. In this, they can appeal to their separate audiences, conveying their ideas in a more coherent and comprehensive manner.
