Jon Stewart meets Nobel peace prize winner Malala

Post Reply New Topic

Meanwhile.. in the press this week.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjGL6YY6oMs[/youtube]

Malala was shot a year ago.


'In a wide-ranging interview, Malala, who now lives with her family in Birmingham, recalled the shooting which nearly took her life but also restated her determination not to give in to fresh threats on her life by the Pakistani Taliban.'

"I'm never going to give up," she said.

"They only shot a body but they cannot shoot my dreams."

'She was so badly injured in the point-blank attack that her father was advised to prepare his daughter's funeral.

However, she made what close friends have called a miraculous recovery while her global profile has soared, with her first book, I Am Malala, becoming a bestseller after its release earlier this week.

At the start of the year she set up the Malala Fund, which awarded its first grant in April to put 40 girls from her former home province in Pakistan into schooling, saving them from a life of forced labour.'


Humanitarian award also goes to..

I'd rather meet Malala than Miley Cyrus any day!

OP, your title implies she won, but the press are saying she did not, although she was nominated for it.

It does not surprise me that she didn't win. It's fine to admire and applaud her for what she has endured and for what she is campaigning for, but it is not fine to try and imply that her cause falls into a category that it does not.

While I appreciate (and agree with) the cause she is championing, hers is not a cause relevant to peace. It is about women's rights to education.

Why should somebody be nominated for (or awarded) the Nobel Peace Prize for being shot in the head for believing that females have a right to an education? Her cause is not a world peace issue. It's a women's rights issue.

Quote from Wikipedia article stating the supposed criteria for this specific prize:

None of that criteria is even remotely related to "taking a bullet to the head because you want to go to school in a country where females are often denied the right to an education."

If they want to award her some kind of Nobel prize, they should invent a new category: "the Nobel Women's Rights Prize" or "the Nobel Education Prize" or even "the Nobel Inspirational Child of the Year Prize" and try nominating her for that prize instead. Trying to place her actions, however admirable, into the category of "the Peace Prize" is just plain silly.

Seconded



Disagree. She is working to end the oppression of women (as expressed by forbidding them an education). The peace prize has often been given to people who struggle against various forms of oppression.

Do not tarnish the image of Malala Yousafzai by comparing her to something as irrelevant as the Nobel Peace Prize.

Some of us actually respect her.

I'm sure it has, but the point is, it shouldn't have been. Not because such struggles are not worthy of recognition, but because they do not fall into the criteria quoted above.

Fighting for freedom in the face of opression is not the same thing as fighting for peace in the face of war. This is not a question of public opinion. It's a question of respecting and observing the criteria set by Alfred Nobel. It was his legacy, after all, and his money. Therefore, the Nobel prizes all ought to be awarded as per the criteria specified by him.

At the time when he specified the categories of prizes he wished to be awarded after his death, terrorism and tensions between the West and Islamic states were perhaps not such key issues in the West. Islamic countries have always been oppressing their citizens (as far as I know) but the West as a whole didn't really stand up and take notice of the way people are treated in those countries until after 9/11.

Since the money to fund the prizes is his money, left by him in his will, the prizes should continue to be awarded in accordance with Mr Nobel's instructions, regardless of the changing world we now find ourselves in. It would not be appropriate to "update" the Nobel Prize by adding new categories to the ones Mr Nobel specified (as I sarcastically suggested above). Fighting against oppression, terrorism, or standing up for women's rights to education are not categories of things that Mr Nobel specified that he wanted us to award prizes for. Therefore, his wishes should be respected, and people who deserve recognition for those sorts of things should be nominated for other sorts of prizes instead. There are plenty of other sorts of prizes in the world. It's just that the Nobel one happens to be one of the most famous, mainly because of the large prize funds associated with it.

The Peace prize is the only one of his prizes where the criteria of the late Mr Nobel are regularly ignored. It makes me angry on his behalf that the instructions in his will are regularly being ignored and his money dished out to people who may be very deserving, but do not meet the criteria that he specified. This should not happen. He wrote a will, and said how he wished his money to be given out, and left very clear instructions. There is no excuse for not following them, but sadly the Nobel Prize committee frequently fail to follow them at all.



If you can explain to me how Malala (or Barak Obama) falls into that category, then you will convince me that Alred Nobel would have wanted Malala to be nominated, or even have the prize awarded to her. But she does not fall into that category - and neither do people like Barak Obama, who was nominated a mere two weeks after being inaugurated, and hadn't even had time to do anything much at all. Sadly, the Nobel Peace Prize is becoming a bit of a farce.

Here is an article that will shed some light on the subject:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125509603349176083.html





This is really wrong! It makes me mad. If somebody else wants to set up their own legacy, and award prizes to people for being voted in as President, or award prizes to young ladies who fight for women's rights in countries under the grip of fundamentalist Islamist political gangs, go for it - but don't try to pretend that either of those things have anything to do with peace. Mr Nobel's will did not state that he wished any of his money to be awarded to such people, and I just think it's really disrespectful not to follow the instructions somebody has specified in his will.

The fact that he left such a huge amount of money makes it even worse. If it were only a question of, say, one thousand pounds (or dollars), it might not be so bad, but irrespective of the amount of money involved, the principle (of ignoring the wishes of the deceased) is equally bad.

If the deceased person were a little old lady who had specified in her will that she wished all of her money to be left to a home for retired cats, nobody would be allowed to administer her assets by instead donating them all to a home for retired dogs. Yet in the case of Alfred Nobel, his instructions are frequently being ignored. More and more people are being awarded (or nominated for) one of his Peace prizes when they do not meet the criteria he specified at all. His money is gleefully being thrown around and awarded to people that he would not have wished it to be given to, and I think this shows great disrespect for the deceased. It makes me really angry on his behalf. That is all.

On topic: I agree with Fnord that it would be nicer to meet Malala than to meet some young person famous for nothing but posing and wearing precious little clothing. However, I feel worried for Malala's future. She is currently a celebrity, but what will her life turn into later on? Will she always be "the girl who was shot in the head?" Will she even make it into adulthood? I hear the Taliban have said they want to track her down and kill her for real this time. That makes me very sad. It could be just empty threats, but on the other hand, it could be very real. Goodness knows there are probably enough of them living in the UK (where I think she has been granted asylum) so it would be easy for them to track her down and kill her if they really meant it.

With reference to the interview in the video: unlike the interviewer and the audience, I don't buy into the sentimental idea of Malala hitting a talib with a shoe, or lecturing him on her views on education. I did not find those things amusing at all. The impossibility of her innocent fantasy makes me sad. I don't know why the audience laughed. Those thoughts are all very well as an idealistic fantasy, but the reality (as she sadly found out) was far more brutal. The Taliban guys are not the sort of people to stand there politely and listen while a young woman tells them her views. They are the sort of people who come to torture or kill.

Now that she has so much media exposure she can, of course, talk about her views on education to her heart's content, but will it do any good? The people in the West will all invite her onto their talk shows, and stand her up on stages to hear her give speeches, but it's not the people in the West she needs to convince. It's the Taliban. Even if she convinces Western charities to start setting up more schools in rural areas of Pakistan, the schools still remain under threat of closure due to bombings and other forms of terrorist attack as long as the Taliban remain opposed to female education.

I watched that interview when it first aired. Incredibly brave girl.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I saw the interview with Stewart. She is so well spoken and mature. And only 16 years old. I can see why the Taliban wanted rid of her - she will be a force for them to reckon with.

Agreed.

I pray that she will never be silenced.

She has so much to say to all of us.

Could every teen-ager in America meet her, talk with her for one hour?

She could change a generation, if they would listen.


Sylkat

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion LogicalMolly, but your opinion is irrelevant.

There is one, and only one, body that has the authority to decide the terms under which the Nobel Peace Prize is to be awarded and that is the committee selected by the Storting that is entrusted with that responsibility by Nobel's will.

One of the first two laureates received his prize for founding the ICRC. How is the Red Cross any more involved in fraternity between nations, abolishing or reducing standing armies or promoting peace congresses? From its very inception, the Peace Prize has taken a large and liberal interpretation of its ambit.

To take too restrictive a view on what properly constitutes a barrier to peace is, I think, counterproductive. Gross violations of human rights and civil liberties can be significant contributors to conflict. By focusing on organizations like the ICRC, the Nansen Organizations, the Quakers, Amnesty International, Solidarity, the Pugwash Conference, Medecins Sans Frontieres and Grameenbank; and on individuals whose efforts have been focused on democratic and non-violent resolution of political disputes, the prize has--more often than not--done creditable work.

Indeed, I would suggest that the Prize's failures have generally involved its attempts prematurely to recognize efforts to end specific armed conflicts.

You are wrong. That committee is supposed to be selecting prize winners using the criteria specified by Mr Nobel, not their own criteria. I am talking about facts, not opinions. Your opinion, mine, and the opinion of the committee all ought to be irrelevant in carrying out the instructions in his will - which is exactly my point.

The committee is entrusted with the task of selecting nominees who best meet the criteria specified by Mr Nobel, but they do not have any authority to determine (or alter) those criteria. The critera were set down by Mr Nobel in his will, as quoted above, so they ought to be selecting winners based on Mr Nobel's criteria, not their own criteria - but they are not.

If you read my post again and do a bit of research on the subject you will find that that statement (that they are not following Mr Nobel's criteria for a Peace Prize winner) is not my opinion. It is (sadly) a fact. Analysis of the achievements of many previous Peace Prize laureates will reveal that their actions (when compared to Mr Nobel's specifications) do not meet his criteria. Citing one of those laureates and saying "well, if that person or organisation was wrongly given a prize, then it must be OK to wrongly award a prize to this person, too" is not a logical argument. You cannot justify awarding a prize to a person who does not meet the criteria by pointing to yet another person who did not meet the criteria, yet was (wrongly) awarded a prize.

Therefore, I completely agree with you that the Red Cross did not meet his criteria, but the fact that they did not does not justify nominating Malala or awarding a prize to President Obama. That's not to say that the Red Cross is not a deserving cause to receive funds. Clearly, it is. However, it does not meet Mr Nobel's criteria, and should not have been given any of his funds.

If you want my opinion, personally I think it is a shame that Mr Nobel decided that his money should be given away to people who may already have quite enough money of their own. If somebody has a large amount of money to leave in his will, I believe it would make more sense for them to donate it to the poor, homeless, starving, and needy, rather than giving it to scientists and would-be peacemakers. However, it was his money, not mine, and therefore his instructions should be followed, not mine (or anyone else's) and our opinions have no say in how his money is given away. But his will is being ignored. That's the point I was making.

His will does not say "if no candidates can be found that meet my specific criteria for the recipient of a Peace Prize, I leave it up to the persons charged with administering my will to modernise and broaden my criteria, and look for any person that seems vaguely deserving of my money." On the contrary: he was very specific. Therefore, this is not an issue of opinion. It's an issue of the law.

A person's last will and testament should be legally binding. The fact that his is being tampered with is a legal scandal. That is what I am trying to say.

I hope you understand. Maybe you do not agree that his will is being tampered with, because you think his words were merely a vague guideline and should not be taken too literally, but being autistic I tend to take everything literally - and I believe that the law is one of the few professions where things are taken literally as well.

Example: if somebody states in their will "after my death, I wish for you to give my house to person A, and my car to person B, and the sum of £1 million to person C, but nothing at all to person D" then the lawyers will be forced to do exactly that. No matter how angry person D is, and how much s/he tries to argue that the deceased didn't really mean what s/he said, if the deceased was of sound mind, then their words are always taken literally and carried out to the letter. Why should that be any different in the case of the will of Mr Nobel?

The unique thing about his will is that he did not name specific beneficiaries. Instead, he stated certain criteria for selecting beneficiaries - and they should be respected and observed to the letter, and not be open to interpretation, opinon, or debate. Example: if I wrote a will saying "after I die, please walk out into the street and donate £1 million of my money to the first person you see who is wearing a blue sweater" I'd like to think that my lawyer would be forced to do just that, no matter how eccentric he thought my instructions to be. But in the case of the Nobel Peace Prize committee, they aren't giving away the money to people in blue sweaters. They're giving it away to people in red and yellow and orange sweaters instead - and some of their chosen recipients aren't even wearing any sweaters at all. (The "sweater" is an analagy. If anyone's read this far, I hope they get it)!

Anyway I will shut up now and let this thread get back to the topic of Malala.

She is amazing,an inspiration to all young people,well,really to people of all ages.A wonderful example of the best humanity has to offer,maybe we will evolve.

You clearly know nothing of testamentary law. Because the testator is not available to provide clarification of his intention, the trustees have the authority to stand in the testator's shoes and interpret the terms of the settlement. Courts will invariably defer to the judgement of trustees unless it can be demonstrated that trustees have committed a reviewable error (which specifically excludes errors of fact).

If you are so sure of your facts, by all means launch a judicial review before the Swedish courts. But failing that, your opinion and your so-called facts are valueless in the face of the work of the Peace Prize selection committees, the Nobel Institute and, indeed, the surviving members of Nobel's family. All of whom speak with greater authority than you.



It is not a fact; it is an opinion held by many people. But not held by people who count.

There have been cases where the opinions of people who count have diverged from the opinion of the selection committee, the most notable being the selection of the 1973 laureates. However, if we conclude that Henry Kissinger and Le Duc Tho were wrongly awarded the prize, it is not because they did not fit the criteria. Their actions fell four-square within the plain reading of Nobel's will that you espouse.

So given the choice between a "qualified" Laureate like Henry Kissinger, and an "unqualified" winner like Medecins Sans Frontieres, I'll opt for the latter.



See above. If you have not studied testamentary law, now might be a good time to take a refresher.



I understand completely. And I have also studied the several centuries of legal development that have created the corpus of testamentary law.

Any first year law student can tell you the folly of documentary literalism. No document which must, necessarily, speak in the present tense can ever possibly hope to encompass all circumstances. One of the primary reasons that courts exist today is that no legislature can ever predict every circumstance in which a piece of legislation can be expected to apply. The same holds true with settlement of trusts or the creation of wills. Interpretation is always--always--required, and people study for many years to learn how that interpretation is properly undertaken.

Praise Malala, Malala be praised, Praise Malala .

Considering the Nobel Peace Prize was being given to the EU at the same time that neofascist parties are on the rise in Southern Europe, I consider it discredited.

Not to mention giving it to that disgusting arch-terrorist Arafat.



I don't think she's particularly safe in Birmingham (where she's living now) either, to be quite honest with you.

Lots and lots of disgusting things being written about her on Facebook, apparently. But also many thousands of Pakistanis and others praising her immense courage and wishing her all the very best.

We need more people like this in the world.

Also: apparently her mother told her that now she is getting older and that men are looking at her, she should veil. She told her mum where to get off and the route her mum had to take to get there. Good for her!