Slashdot Mirror


2014 Nobel Peace Prize Awarded To Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzay

An anonymous reader writes: This year's Nobel Peace Prize has been given to Kailash Satyarthi and Malala Yousafzay for fighting to protect the rights of children and further their education. Yousafzay, at the age of 17, is the youngest recipient of the Peace Prize. Born and raised in Pakistan, she actively campaigned for girls' rights to education. In 2012, the Taliban shot her in the head, but she survived and continued her struggle. Satyarthi, a 60-year-old from India, has led many peaceful protests to fight against child slavery and illiteracy. "Satyarthi estimates that 60 million children in India, or 6 percent of the population, are forced into work. This, he believes, has nothing to do with parental poverty, illiteracy or ignorance. Above all, children are enslaved because employers benefit by getting their labour for free or for a pittance." This year's Nobel Peace Prize awards are also notable for bringing together an Indian and a Pakistani while their respective governments sustain a military conflict along a stretch of border between their countries.

26 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. Someone will complain about the political ones by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But these are both great people who went through hell to great things. They could've awarded the peace prize to Hitler himself, and I'd still be thinking these awards are incredibly appropriate.

    I wish I could've achieved as much as Malala when I was 17, and I can still aspire to achieve what Kailash did by the same I'm 60.

    Fuck anti-education assholes, and fuck slavery.

    1. Re:Someone will complain about the political ones by asliarun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I get Yousafzai.
      What's the deal with the Indian guy Kailash? (as compared with the thousands of other charitable workers the world over?)
      As an illustration, the reaction on this thread alone is 90%+ Yousafzai so far. Seems nobody gives a shit about Kailash...except the august Nobel committee.

      Also Yousafzai should have won it LAST YEAR! When the said august Nobel committee passed her over for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.
      Seems like the said august Nobel committee belatedly tried to redress the howls of political bullshitness in its selection process from last year.

      The reason why this thread (along with all other threads) will be 90% focused on Malala is because - bluntly put - Malala is a lot more news-worthy than Kailash Satyarthi. On one hand, you have a young fragile good looking girl who is standing up against evil tyranny. On the other hand, you have a decidedly unsexy oldish guy who has been chugging along on his fight against child labor (which really is a fight against bonded or slave labor) for the past 3 decades.

      It is a different matter that Kailash has been able to create an organization with over 80000 members and his efforts over the last couple of decades have directly resulted in hundreds of thousands of children from getting freed from the cycle of bonded labor. It is also a different matter that he was being considered for the Nobel peace prize for a decade now. But of course, there are many many people who are just putting their head down and doing their bit to improve the world. So why him, right? He didn't even have a meaningful twitter following until this news just broke. Heck, even people in his country hardly knew about him, except in the NGO (India's term for not-for-profit organizations) circles. But that is modern media for you. And by extension, our modern attention spans.

      Just to be perfectly clear, I am not begrudging Malala anything. Her courage and ambition and ability to leverage the publicity she has been getting - has been extraordinary. But to both Malala and Kailash - this award is a game changer for them - in terms of publicity and monetary support. In a very real way, the Nobel Peace prize has not just become an acknowledgment of effort but a very powerful tool to further boost their efforts.

      I, for one, am really happy that the award went to these two, instead of presidents and famous politicians who really didn't need the award, except as a pat in the back.

    2. Re:Someone will complain about the political ones by seven+of+five · · Score: 2

      Why not award the Nobel Peace Prize to the same person who got the Nobel Chemistry prize?

      You mean this guy?

  2. Irony by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Malala Yousafzay campaigns for womens and girls rights, and in the UK she gets sent to a private, segregated all girls school... I always found that slightly ironic.

    1. Re:Irony by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Not really - a private school in the UK is also referred to as a public school and is funded in whole or in part by tuition fees, as opposed to a state school which is free to attend and paid by the government.

    2. Re:Irony by Code+Herder · · Score: 5, Informative

      Her campaign is for girls' rights to education, pretty sure she doesn't care if people go to coed schools or separate and whether it's private or public.

      Plus I'm just taking a guess but there's probably security issues that are easier to handle in a private all girl school. She was shot point blank 3 times for her views after all, I wouldn't exactly feel 100% safe even if I was in the UK.

    3. Re:Irony by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not all segregation is sexist. Women-only gyms, all-girls schools, female sports teams and competitions, none of these are ghettoes that women are forced into.

    4. Re:Irony by fidget · · Score: 2

      You are confusing the location of her education with her campaign for "the freedom of women and girls to be educated".
      Ascribing motive to the location of her education is probably premature.

  3. The perspective on this from Norway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's some kind of myth that is sought to be promulgated by certain people that the Nobel committee is politically independent. That is completely wrong. The entire commitee is put together by votes in the parliament, and former and high profile politicians are heavily involved. So consider basically the committee's choices the result of the preferences of political appointees.

    The current head of the commitee, Thorbjørn Jagland, is a former head politician of the Labour party. He was the one who gave the prize to Barack Obama. Of course, the commitee does have five people in it - but they are all political appointees, and the president has a double vote.

    He has been severely and repeatedly criticised over many years, from high profile people, for completely ignoring Alfred Nobel's will. For example, here: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/nobels-fredspris/nobel-forfatter-jagland-burde-gaatt-av-for-lenge-siden/a/10062076/ - headline "Jagland should have resigned a long time ago", criticism from the author of the book "Nobel's Will". Article about the author here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredrik_Heffermehl .

    Nobel's will states that the prize should go to whomever works to reduce standing armies and arrange peace conferences - it should go to efforts to reduce conventional wars.

    The new conservative government has indicated that they are going to remove Jagland. Jagland has presented a conspiracy theory that this is because they are trying to please China. But that's probably not going to float, so the streak of madness and Labour party preference is going to end soon.

    1. Re:The perspective on this from Norway by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      It's hard to divorce politics from the notion of peace. There are people whose political beliefs go as far as the notion that going to war promotes peace. The best you can do is try to ensure there is non-partial input.

  4. Re: Because she had a big impact on peace on earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Neither has contributed much to the "fraternity of nations" and the "abolition or reduction of standing armies." Neither did Al Gore, who also won the prize. Truth of the matter is that the Nobel committee stopped handing out Peace prizes long ago and now hands out Ideologies We Like awards. The recipients may be very deserving of some sort of award, but few lately meet the original criteria of fostering peace and reducing war, Kissinger and Obama being the starkest proof of that. It's sad really: with all the wars that are raging now, you'd think promoting peace would be important to someone.

  5. I was not expecting this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Where's Obama's second Peace Prize?

  6. Is that allowed? by shaitand · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "In 2012, the Taliban shot her in the head, but she survived and continued her struggle."

    That ladies and gentlemen is what we call a zombie. Can a zombie win the nobel prize? Apparently so. I for one welcome our new teenage zombie overlords.

  7. Re: Because she had a big impact on peace on eart by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    an educated population is one of the best defenses against mindless wars. That's why it's so important to the corrupt governments that want to wage those wars to have control of the education systems in their societies.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  8. Re:Get it by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

    Pakistan and India have been hostile since they first were separated from each other, but they're not so different!!

    The people of Pakistan and the people of India have been hostile toward each other much longer than that. Of course, they weren't "people of Pakistan and India" before the end of British rule of what is now India and Pakistan.

    About the only period they weren't hostile was during the Raj, when the British tried to prevent that sort of thing.

    Note that during the post-British period, when they were split into two countries, the Hindus living in what is now Pakistan were attacked by their Muslim neighbors and driven out of the country.

    Likewise, during the same period, the Muslims living in what is now India were attacked by their Hindu neighbors. This reached the point that trainloads of Muslims fleeing to Pakistan were stopped by the Indian Army and machinegunned before being allowed to continue into Pakistan.

    Surely this gesture will make them realize this and they'll have no choice but to bury the hatchet, that's just how human psychology works.

    Bury the hatchet in each other's head, yes.

    The way you mean it, no.

    And do you really know so little of human psychology?

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  9. Re:Really? by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Informative

    lol, you have no idea what you're talking about and you can't even be bothered to check out wikipedia before you attack a teenage girl?

    Let me make it easy for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...

    She attended school, despite threats from various, very scary groups that any girl caught doing so would be attacked.
    There was basically a civil war while she was in school and girls were banned from attending, but she went anyways.
    She worked for the BBC all this time, describing what it was like. Enlightening people in the west to the plight of girls in this area of the world.
    Then the Taliban ordered her dead. A gunman drove up, ordered her to identify herself or he'd shoot them all. She did and was shot. She nearly died.
    She survived the attack and continued to attend school.
    This brought world wide attention to the plight of women in Pakistan.
    She recovered, continued to attend school, got exiled, etc...
    She's met with damn near every world leader.
    Asked and received funding to support the education of women.
    Got money from the UN
    Wrote books, articles, blogs, etc... all encouraging young women to attend school and get an education no matter what.
    At any point during all of this she could have simply attended private school and shut her mouth to avoid the threats but she refused.

    Nobel Prizes are given for a lifetime of achievement. This girl has already done more in the less than 2 decades she's been alive then the whole of the Slashdot community combined. There are a lot of questionable Nobel awards out there, but this is not one of them.

  10. Re:Good. by Teresita · · Score: 2

    And I thought John Kerry was a shoo-in for his Israeli Apartheid comments...

  11. Re: Get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "People of Pakistan and people of India have long been hostile?" Wrong. "Was the only time they were not hostile was during the Raj?". Utterly wrong again, rather the opposite. People of areas now comprising India and Pakistan were never so hostile except since Raj. As a mattef of fact these hostilities were sown due to Raj's divide-and-rule approach.

  12. Re: Because she had a big impact on peace on eart by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think I'll have to invoke Godwin on this one or for that matter post 9/11 US, education doesn't stop wacky wars. At least not education with a high degree of political slant and indoctrination, people can read/write or for that matter be an engineer/developer and still swallow political propaganda hook, line and sinker.

    This is far older and simpler than this, it's opposition to equality of the sexes. They'd rather have their women be ignorant half-slave housekeepers, sex servants, child bearers and nannies. The first step is denying them any education so they're illiterate, then wrap them in burqas and make them terrified of contact with any other male who might treat them like a human being and finally subjugate them in law, to refuse your husband is never rape, no divorce, the kids belong to the father and if a woman gets raped let's punish her because obviously she tempted them in some way.

    And just to get back on that education track, if the choices are no education, religious indoctrination (ev-uh-lution? what's that?) or government indoctrination I think for the most part I favor democratically imposed standards of education over individual whack jobs who want to inflict their wacky world view on their children. Not that I think public school is necessarily a good school, but most of them are pretty bland and expose you to a wide variety of other children with different backgrounds.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  13. Let's ignore Edward Snowden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Nobel "Peace" prize is such a farce. First we have warmonger Obama. Then we have Snowden completely ignored.

  14. Re: Because she had a big impact on peace on eart by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is there any proof for your hypothesis?

    Yes, there is evidence. The US invasion of Iraq was not history's bloodiest war, but it was one of the dumbest. Polls taken in 2002-2003 clearly show that opposition to that invasion was strongly correlated with education level. High school dropouts were the most likely to favor invading, and people with graduate degrees were the most likely to oppose it.

    This doesn't mean that education can prevent all wars, but maybe it can prevent the really dumb wars.

  15. Re: Because she had a big impact on peace on earth by the+gnat · · Score: 2

    few lately meet the original criteria of fostering peace and reducing war,

    I think it's been very broad for the last 50 years, and what they also now recognize is nonviolent resistance to tyranny. That's why MLK and Lech Walesa won the prize (among others), and I have a hard time thinking of anyone more deserving.

  16. Re: Because she had a big impact on peace on eart by nucrash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Did you not see how ISIS tries to control what is being taught in the schools about mathematics and chemistry?

    The Taliban also do the same to keep women and girls out of education because they might learn about other possibilities and lose their dependence on men.

    In the US, it was illegal in the early 1800s to teach slaves how to read or write. If a slave were to learn, they would quickly overpower their masters.

    Why else do you think there were times when the Catholic church would shun science? Education of the stars took away the geocentric theory and was bound to take away our importance of being the center of the universe.

    Authoritarians have throughout history done what they could to control education. An ignorant populace is not a threat. An educated populace is capable of organization and can quickly create problems for the powers that be.

    Examples of racism in South Africa were actually greater towards the Indian population than the African population because Indians

    --
    Place something witty here
  17. Re: Because she had a big impact on peace on eart by ahaweb · · Score: 2

    Libertarians in practice are just conservatives without the context of history and social forces.

  18. Re:Really? by Jawnn · · Score: 2

    Education, and the education of women in particular, begets peace. Well demonstrated fact. Find another way to attack her credibility. You've failed here.

  19. Re:Really? by dryeo · · Score: 2

    In the interviews with her I've heard, she has also talked quite a bit about peace and how the likes of the Taliban do not stand for Muslims and how she understands her religion.
    This cuts to one of the big problems facing us, namely the fact that groups such as the Taliban and ISIS are trying there hardest to make the west think that they are representative of Islam and therefore promote religious war.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism