Nobel highlights Syria with Peace Prize to chemical weapons watchdog

44

The Nobel Peace Prize has turned the global spotlight back on the conflict in Syria.

The prize committee in Oslo, Norway, awarded it Friday to theOrganisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international chemical weapons watchdog helping to eliminate the Syrian army's stockpiles of poison gas.

Its inspectors have just begun working in the active war zone, and the Norwegian Nobel Committee said it hopes the award offers "strong support" to them as they face arduous and life-threatening tasks.

But the OPCW did not receive the prize primarily because of its work in Syria, committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland said. "It is because of its long-standing efforts to eliminate chemical weapons and that we are now about to reach the goal and do away with a whole category of weapons of mass destruction. That would be a great event in history, if we can achieve that."

Written By: Ben Brumfield and Laura Smith-Spark
continue to source article at cnn.com

44 COMMENTS

  1. I think you could make a case for bombing both sides in the dispute. These poor folk have to do their work with both sides shooting overhead. I am glad at times like this there are adrenalin junkies. My hat is off to them.

    • In reply to #1 by Roedy:

      These poor folk have to do their work with both sides shooting overhead.

      They are volunteers and they get paid for it, they put themselves at risk because the want to and get very, very, well paid for it I suspect. It’s their friggin’ job.

      Unlike Malala Yousafzai who was just doing what wee girls her age should normally be doing, yet where she lived it was seen as thumbing her nose at a misogynistic religious ideological organisation with a reputation and propensity for murder. Furthermore, in light of a renewed threat to kill her, not only has she vowed to keep thumbing her nose at these Taliban fuckwits, she has went on record worldwide to encourage others to take up their books and pens and get an education in the face of adversity. If people can’t see the difference then we have a big problem. Christopher Hitchens would have been proud of that wee girl, she epitomized all that he stood for IMO.

      I think the NPP committee are a bunch of cretins for their decision this time. And their excuse that she is too young is ageist, we don’t do discrimination around here, you should be better aware of that despicable concept more than most.

      • In reply to #3 by Ignorant Amos:
        >

        Spot on comment but,

        you should be better aware of that despicable concept more than most.

        Don’t pretend you can mind read. Roedy may may well agree with your discrimination point or may simply accept that the lower age limit cutoff is necessary at some point and unfortunate in this case. (Kids are less themselves and more parental parrotts at some younger age.) This is not inconsistent with being pleased there are adrenalin junkies who want to do good things as a job. They have other choices.

        • In reply to #6 by phil rimmer:

          Don’t pretend you can mind read. Roedy may may well agree with your discrimination point or may simply accept that the lower age limit cutoff is necessary at some point and unfortunate in this case.

          I’m not pretending I know Roedy’s mind, I was appealing to any feeling empathy he might have given the history he has shared with us here. It seems I’ve been wrong in such an endeavour.

          (Kids are less themselves and more parental parrotts at some younger age.)

          Well I think we can all agree that this is hardly the case with Malala, though I get you point. How would it pan out for the Nobel committee if some child genius made the greatest discovery in physics, greater than Einstein Relativity or whatever? Would age be a limitation? What about some great literary tome hailed as a masterpiece only for the author to be discovered as a 15 year old. The cynic in me says that something else is afoot in the decision making. Perhaps the members of the committee didn’t want a fatwa on their arse’s. Who knows?

          If there is a minimum age limit for laureate winners, then I suppose it is unfair to cry discrimination on the issue of ageist, but I can’t seem to find that rule.

          This is not inconsistent with being pleased there are adrenalin junkies who want to do good things as a job. They have other choices.

          The main point…perhaps I should have stuck to it.

          • In reply to #17 by Ignorant Amos:

            In reply to #6 by phil rimmer:

            What the Nobel Prize people think about age or the internal rules that may exist is irrelevant to what Roedy may have thought when he produced the post you complained about and what he may still feel justified in saying after research.

            The youngest Nobel Winner was Sir William Bragg at 25 in 1915. The four youngest Nobel Peace Prize winners were in the 30 to 34 age range. Martin Luther King was 35. The average age of peace prize winners is 62.

            Historically they choose old folk with a solid body of achievement.

            The youngest recently was Tawakkol Karman 32 year old at the time and a Sunni Muslim who had seven years of pertinent journalism and politics under her belt.

            I think your conspiracy theory won’t hold water in the light of this.

            Karman started protests as an advocate for press freedoms in her country. At a time when she was advocating for more press freedom, she responded to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy in 2005 by writing: “We are not to call for tyranny and bans on freedom.”[26][34]

            She stopped wearing the traditional niqab in favour of more colourful hijabs that showed her face. She first appeared without the niqab at a conference in 2004.[12] Karman replaced the niqab for the scarf in public on national television to make her point that the full covering is cultural and not dictated by Islam.[35][36] She told the Yemen Times in 2010 that:[12]

            Women should stop being or feeling that they are part of the problem and become part of the solution. We have been marginalized for a long time, and now is the time for women to stand up and become active without needing to ask for permission or acceptance. This is the only way we will give back to our society and allow for Yemen to reach the great potentials it has.

            She has alleged that many Yemeni girls suffer from malnutrition so that boys could be fed and also called attention to high illiteracy rates, which includes two-thirds of Yemeni women.[37] She took a different stand on marriage laws than other members of the Al-Islah party, advocating for laws that would prevent females younger than 17 from being married. In a statement made to Human Rights Watch, a human rights research and advocacy group, she stated that Yemen’s revolution “didn’t happen just to solve political problems, but also to address societal problems, the most important being child marriage.”

          • In reply to #19 by phil rimmer:

            What the Nobel Prize people think about age or the internal rules that may exist is irrelevant to what Roedy may have thought when he produced the post you complained about and what he may still feel justified in saying after research.

            FFS, it was hardly much of a complaint…more an observation. That said, if the there are rules about qualifying criteria, then they should be transparent, regardless of our discourse here. My main gripe, as I said earlier, is peace prizes being given to those that don’t warrant peace prizes…there have been more than a few.

            The youngest Nobel Winner was Sir William Bragg at 25 in 1915. The four youngest Nobel Peace Prize winners were in the 30 to 34 age range. Martin Luther King was 35. The average age of peace prize winners is 62.

            Yes I read all that today. One of the bonuses of such discussions is having to go look for ones self. Remembering it is my big problem. Still, it’s all a non sequitur with no relevance to this debate.

            Historically they choose old folk with a solid body of achievement.

            So what? I thought the award was made on merit…if it is awarded historically to old folk, that is ageist and you are making my argument. It seems to contradict Bragg’s award at 25, even if joint endeavour with his Paps. If 25, why not 24? If 24, why not 23? See where this is going? Merit has no age limit in my opinion.

            The youngest recently was Tawakkol Karman 32 year old at the time and a Sunni Muslim who had seven years of pertinent journalism and politics under her belt.

            Karman’s Nobel committee may have had more balls than this years….if it was the same committee, perhaps attitudes have changed given the intervening years of fundamentalist nonsense, I don’t know, but it’s at least a possibility.

            I think your conspiracy theory won’t hold water in the light of this.

            I haven’t presented a conspiracy theory, I’m just curious as to why age is a discriminatory factor, to any nomination. If indeed that is the case. Was Malala accepted as a nomination? If too young, why can a nomination be made? Just asking questions.

          • In reply to #22 by Ignorant Amos:
            >

            Ig, I’ve overcooked this. Sorry. As I said at the very beginning. I completely agree with your main point.

            Perhaps the consolation for us both is that with just a few more years of actual work Malala will get the prize she so richly deserves.

          • In reply to #25 by phil rimmer:

            In reply to #22 by Ignorant Amos:

            Ig, I’ve overcooked this. Sorry. As I said at the very beginning. I completely agree with your main point.

            Perhaps the consolation for us both is that with just a few more years of actual work Malala will get the prize she so richly deserves.

            That would be the prize of having her goal of universal education for all females realized, presumably; not some shiny trinket which means pretty much dick all in most of the Islamic world.


            Edit: sorry, dick-all should have been hyphenated.

          • In reply to #26 by Katy Cordeth:

            That would be the prize of having her goal of universal education for all females realized, presumably; not some shiny trinket which means pretty much dick all in most of the Islamic world.

            I would say it was worth fanny-all in most of the Islamic world. The cash part of the prize not so much though.

            You do the award a disservice reducing it to a “shinny trinket”, it has a status like no other award has because it is so renowned. The worldwide notice should not be underestimated, whether it is to a worthy recipient or not. I remember when [Betty Williams](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Williams_(Nobel_laureate) and
            Mairead Maguire won the NPP in 1976…the worlds focus was on NI for good reasons for a change.

            Both women went on to have an impact on the world far above their working class housewife positions they both had when they’d inadvertently created the “Peace Movement”. Now, I wouldn’t agree with all of these ladies ideals, though I guess you might, but there is no getting away from the fact that the NPP is definitely more than just a “shinny trinket” to those two ladies, or the lives of those that they impacted on subsequently.

    • In reply to #1 by Roedy:

      I think you could make a case for bombing both sides in the dispute.

      It’s amazing the way people in the West blithely talk about dropping bombs on people. The same people who are (rightly) outraged by suicide bombs. As if somehow it’s no longer terrorism when the bomb comes from an F16. When you say that keep in mind what you are essentially talking about is killing a lot of innocent women and children who happen to be unlucky enough to be living on “both sides”. IMO you can make a much better case for NOT BOMBING ANYONE and using negotiation rather than military force to solve problems.

      • In reply to #36 by Red Dog:

        In reply to #1 by Roedy:

        I think you could make a case for bombing both sides in the dispute.

        I think that comment was meant as a bit tongue-in-cheeky. As in, both sides are as bad as one another. Roedy is not a supporter of the imperialist west’s interferences in those parts of the world from previous posting history. Just that if there is a case being made for bombing one side, the same case might be made for bombing the other side, not a case should be made then bomb both sides. I could be wrong though.

  2. From commenter on CNN-

    “Mission_Man7 • 18 hours ago

    What a lame rationale for giving the Nobel Peace Prize to an organization to do what it was designed for. (She is too young!!) It is like giving the NPP to the fire department for putting out fires….it’s their frickin job, they are trained for that, prepared for that, nothing out of their ordinary job description.

    I was hoping that the 15 year old girl that was shot for speaking against the Taliban, fully recovered to continue to go to school, and is still threatened with death from the Taliban for speaking out for women’s rights. That my friends takes courage and personal strength for women’s rights to education and equality. Again, the NPP Committee has failed, with insignificant recipients of this award that is beginning to lose its luster.

    297 9 •Reply•Share ›
    Avatar
    gurney halleck Mission_Man7 • 17 hours ago

    Just goes to prove that the Nobel Prize is being run by political idi0ts.”

    Agree, 100% but then again this is the institution that awarded Arafat and Kissinger!

    Absolutely sickening. They speak of bravery. Yes the inspectors are brave but for they must stand in awe of Malala’s bravery- a different magnitude to theirs. I hope she will, in the near future receive the award and this grievous injustice be corrected.

    • In reply to #5 by Alan4discussion:

      I see a lack of comment in the media about who invented, manufactured, and stockpiled these dangerous substances for years.

      Not unlike the lack of comment on the tobacco industry which is merrily allowed to carry on, with a product they spend billions advertising, killing (5 million people a year) and maiming at huge social and monetary cost.

    • My students (in America) were being particularly apathetic yesterday. As I handed back their disappointingly low quiz grades to them, I showed them a quick retrospective of Malala clips and articles and detailed to them her dignity and class and most recently her call for communication with the pieces of garbage that attacked her (an announcement of staggering maturity and “peace”).

      She has grace and worldliness and wisdom beyond her age. I’d be proud to have her in my family and am proud that she is in our human family. If just one of my students wakes up and starts fighting for their education the way Malala has fought for hers (and, more importantly and impressively, how she fights for OTHER girls to be educated), then Malala has won.

      Malala should have been awarded the Nobel. Without a doubt in my mind.

      In reply to #8 by godsbuster:

      One wonders what role not to be seen “offending” Islam played in the Norwegian’s (world leaders in Islam appeasement ) decision not to award Malala Yousafzai.

    • In reply to #8 by godsbuster:

      One wonders what role not to be seen “offending” Islam played in the Norwegian’s (world leaders in Islam appeasement ) decision not to award Malala Yousafzai.

      Norway & Sweden are allegedly the rape capitals of the world. Rape was virtually unknown before the mass importation of our Islamic brothers- or so it is claimed. Hallelujah for multiculturalism!

    • In reply to #8 by godsbuster:

      One wonders what role not to be seen “offending” Islam played in the Norwegian’s (world leaders in Islam appeasement ) decision not to award Malala Yousafzai.

      Did you really just provide a link to a website whose subtitle is ‘White Identity, Interests, and Culture’?


      Moderators’ message

      This comment has been flagged several times but in our view it does not breach our Terms of Use. Please do not flag it again.

      Thank you.

      The mods

  3. I watched a TV show that feature Malala. She is becoming a strong and well spoken young woman. I also found her father’s support and enthusiasm for his daughter to be a treat. He said he viewed his daughter as an “individual” and upon her birth, he expected her to do great things. Malala will change the world.

    • In reply to #10 by QuestioningKat:

      I watched a TV show that feature Malala. She is becoming a strong and well spoken young woman. I also found her father’s support and enthusiasm for his daughter to be a treat. He said he viewed his daughter as an “individual” and upon her birth, he expected her to do great things. Malala will change the world.

      What has been (at least) a minor disappointment though is that in none of the instances that I’ve heard her speak or read her pronouncements has she ever praised (other than her god) or even mentioned her doctors/and or medical science for their role in her recovery. She just kind of seems to take that part for granted.

      Of course this does not mean she has never expressed it. However, had this had happened to you or I, I have no doubt that we would at least try to squeeze a mention of it in at every opportunity -every interview, not even to profess our allegiance to science but out of sheer gratitude.

  4. In reply to #12 by Billy Joe:

    In reply to #8 by godsbuster:

    Norway & Sweden are allegedly the rape capitals of the world. Rape was virtually unknown before the mass importation of our Islamic brothers- or so it is claimed. Hallelujah for multiculturalism!

    I don’t think this is at all sustainable. Sweden has recently tried to properly report every instance of rape and even expanded the definition of it to include instances of sex without condom use. Most other countries will report repeated rape by a partner or spouse as a single count. Their high count is more to do with this than immigrant populations.

    This is not to say that immigrant communities might not be a source of some additional problems.

    • In reply to #13 by phil rimmer:

      In reply to #12 by Billy Joe:

      In reply to #8 by godsbuster:

      Norway & Sweden are allegedly the rape capitals of the world. Rape was virtually unknown before the mass importation of our Islamic brothers- or so it is claimed. Hallelujah for multiculturalism!

      I don’t think this is at all sustainable….

      Admittedly a bit contentious but depends who you choose to believe–

      The jihad on “uncovered meat” has just begun. Norway distinguishes two kinds of rapes: rape and attack-rape. In rapes, the rapist and the victim know each other beforehand, while an attack-rape is when the two do not know each other before the rape. In Oslo, 100 percent of the attack-rapes are committed by non-Western immigrants (PC speak for Muslims) with a “view of women” that makes them rape, according to the leading police officer, Hanne Kristin Rohde.

      Also, wandering off-topic so I won’t pursue this any further except to point out the results of the recent Metropolitan Police investigation
      following conviction of the seven Muslim members of the (Rochdale/ Oxford /Bradford?) grooming gang, which identified 53 such gangs operating in the UK. ALL Islamists. Apparently.

    • In reply to #13 by phil rimmer:

      In reply to #12 by Billy Joe:

      In reply to #8 by godsbuster:

      Norway & Sweden are allegedly the rape capitals of the world. Rape was virtually unknown before the mass importation of our Islamic brothers- or so it is claimed. Hallelujah for multiculturalism!

      I don’t think this is at all sustainable….

      Perhaps not. What we do, however, appear to have on record is one of Australia’s top Muslim clerics rationalizing a series of gang rapes by Arab men of unveiled women. We also had that popular cleric in Egypt justifying the rape and sexual assault of female protesters in Tahrir Square. And, anecdotally, I was once told by someone personally close to the history of the incident of a woman caught driving in Saudi Arabia who became the victim of mob rape in situ.

      Feminists (long before Islam became a factor and a vector in Western society) informed us that rape is “an instrument of patriarchal control and dominance”, “a key method of forcibly instituting patriarchal values” and so on and so forth. Is Islam – the world’s dominant vector of the organized robbing women of their freedom – interested in patriarchal control and dominance? Feminists today don’t seem very eager to bring it up.

  5. In reply to #4 by Smill:

    Is your final comment, “you should be better aware of that despicable concept more than most” addressed to Roedy?

    Yes it is indeed.

    I find nothing discriminatory about Roedy’s post whatsoever…

    Neither did I.

    …and dragging up another’s personal experience of discrimination is a cheap shot and a poor defence of the cause that Malala and others like her support.

    Get off yer high horse…Roedy very often trots out the discrimination he has had to deal with as the lone voice of an out Gay man in BC during the 70′s…even to the extent of having been the victim of death threats, a fact that I was pointing out as to why he, of all people, should empathize with Malala Yousafzai, rather than a group of individuals who were merely doing their jobs. Though why I need to be explaining myself to you is anybody’s business I don’t know.

    I shall, I suppose, just have to accept that you have a mandate to speak for deceased Mr Hitchens.

    Why would you do such a thing? Just accepting is not how the game is played about these parts. If you are in any way conversant with Christopher Hitchens you’d know that the emancipation of women, particularly in third world countries and the middle east specifically, was a big issue for him. It’s on record, so I’ve no need for a mandate from anyone to speak for the deceased Mr. Hitchens on this particular issue.

    I’ll let the deceased Christopher Hitchens speak for himself….

    “MT [Mother Teresa] was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.”

    “Who are your favorite heroines in real life? The women of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran who risk their lives and their beauty to defy the foulness of theocracy.”

    “The quality you most admire in a woman? Courage moral and physical:”

    “If anyone’s interested in the alleviation of poverty…the only thing we know definitely works is giving women control over their own reproduction”

    Now, my assertion that the heroics of Malala would be a source of pride for CH might be a bit of an overstatement, but given what I’ve read of the man, and his attitude to the subject in debates I’ve seen him in, I think I’ll stick by what I’ve said.

    So, back to the issue at hand. Do you believe those doing what is what the get paid to do are more worthy recipients? What about the age excuse given by the NPP for rejecting her?

    • In reply to #14 by Ignorant Amos:

      In reply to #4 by Smill:

      Is your final comment, “you should be better aware of that despicable concept more than most” addressed to Roedy?

      Yes it is indeed.

      I’m with ya, Amos- FWIW
      >

      I find nothing discriminatory about Roedy’s post whatsoever…

      Neither did I.

      …and dragging up another’s personal experience of discrimi…

  6. In reply to Ignorant, post 14. “Get off yer high horse.”…? Seems to me, if I’m sitting on a high horse I must thank yer kindly for the leg up. Anyways, I read yer post, Amos, and I just want to say, I sure am a big fan of yer’s, so don’t go getting yerself all bowed up about that big prize; it didn’t come yer way this time, but there’s always tomorrow… cowboy.

  7. Maybe I’m missing some nuance, but I don’t see anything in Roedy’s comment that indicates he thought the OPCW was any more, or less, deserving of the prize than Malala. He was just showing them some admiration, yeah?

    • In reply to #21 by dandelionfluff:

      Maybe I’m missing some nuance, but I don’t see anything in Roedy’s comment that indicates he thought the OPCW was any more, or less, deserving of the prize than Malala. He was just showing them some admiration, yeah?

      Yes….YES….all I was doing was pointing out MY reasoning why I don’t agree. I wish I hadn’t have bothered.

      Question: Where the OPCW, an organization doing their jobs and getting well paid for it into the bargain, more worthy winners of the NPP than Malala Yousafzai?

      Answer: In MY opinion…not on yer Nelly. Now discuss.

      I have admiration for the OPCW too…not NPP admiration though. I have admiration for many front-line workers.

      • In reply to #23 by Ignorant Amos:

        In reply to #21 by dandelionfluff:

        Maybe I’m missing some nuance, but I don’t see anything in Roedy’s comment that indicates he thought the OPCW was any more, or less, deserving of the prize than Malala. He was just showing them some admiration, yeah?

        Yes….YES….all I was doing was pointing out…

        Sorry, Ig. And when I said “maybe I’m missing some nuance” I was being sincere, although this morning I see it looks sarcastic. My skill set in the social sphere is very meager, though I like to talk to people like anybody else does.

        For what it’s worth, absolutely I think Malala deserved it more. Not only does education tend to lead to more peacefulness (nutters like Assad aside), but she’s going about pursuing the goal in what seems to be the best way to encourage calm and reason.

  8. In reply to #27 by Smill:
    In reply to #26 by Katy:

    All through this I have attempted to demonstrate that the goals involved here have demanded the application of political thinking. Shitty and crass as the media are in their judgement of what is worthy of their attention, discomfiting as it is that Malala portrays herself as a Muslim, the ends are of such importance that it is worth getting our intellectual hands dirty and just “going with it”.

    The NPP focuses attention of the world’s media and bogus as its licence may be. the endorsement it gives via the media is highly useful (and in this instance deserved). $1.5m may transform the way Malala can work. The universal height of her profile may confer a change of attitude in her target Taliban, the start of a little respect even. It may yet make her safer. It may strengthen her resolve when down. It may attract the right people to her to help with the work. etc. It is some kind of authoritative endorsement of the seriousness of the task she has set herself.

    I apologised to Ig because I was doing what I had accused him of. I suggested he was guessing what another’s motives were and was calling them ignoble, which is shitty. He wasn’t. He was trying to change a mind. I had guessed what was in his mind incorrectly.

    I claim you guys got me wrong too

    • In reply to #28 by phil rimmer:

      I apologised to Ig because I was doing what I had accused him of. I suggested he was guessing what another’s motives were and was calling them ignoble, which is shitty. He wasn’t. He was trying to change a mind. I had guessed what was in his mind incorrectly.

      No need for anything like that phil…the medium of internet forums retards articulate discussions to a degree in cohesive comms. Couple that with the fact that my comms skills are a bit shoddy too, then getting my point over in an articulate manner is my problem not yours.

      You, on the other hand, are erudite and articulate in your comments, so I know when you pull me up, I must do better.

      We only comment at each other when we disagree on a point…that is part of the game.

  9. In reply to #27 by Smill:

    You can’t think the merits or successes can be measured in the winning of a prize? It’s ridiculous, a spectacle no better than the Palme d’Or.

    Clearly an erroneous assertion. Palme d’Or to some recipients, Barak Obama and Martti Ahtisaari for example, a lot more to others as I’ve already proven with the two Irish ladies.

    Liu Xiaobo’s award could hardly be considered as analogous to the Palme d’Or either. Any award that gets a government, with a bad human rights history, up in arms could hardly be considered a “shinny trinket” could it?

    “Sixty-five countries with missions in Norway were all invited to the Nobel Prize ceremony, but fifteen declined, in some cases due to heavy lobbying by China. Besides China, these countries were Russia, Kazakhstan, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Venezuela, Egypt, Sudan, Cuba and Morocco.”

    Palme d’Or? I think not.

  10. In reply to #35 by Smill:

    I agree that the Nobel Committee has failed to endorse the rights of women to an education, as Katy Cordeth pointed out to you.

    That is neither here nor there. I’m discussing who merited the award this year.

    Do prizes attract the ‘right’ people? This seems to deny that ordinary humanity is capable of humanitarian action without the support of the ‘big players’.

    That is an non sequitur…the topic is the NPP and what effect it has on the world at large, not humanity’s capability to be humanitarian, with or without the congratulations of any award.

    How deeply cynical of you! Do prizes strengthen resolve when down? Why, no!

    Why yes. They motivate. Ever hear of military decorations, otherwise known as medals. You might benefit from a read of this paper…Doing Psychological Science: Giving and Receiving Awards…there is a paragraph on Nobel prizes, but if ya can’t be arsed reading the lot, the Abstract and Conclusion should paint the picture well enough.

    Isn’t it the people we love and the values we hold dear, surely?

    That has nothing to do with the topic being discussed, what is you point?

    Amos, you take the biscuit, however, when you describe how Nobel raised two lowly women ‘far above their working class housewives positions’.

    You take the biscuit with your straw man fallaciousness. You are also making phil rimmers point about what underhand motivation may or may not be inferred by others comments. Where did I describe those two women as “lowly”? That they made achievements far above what they would have had as a result of the recognition afforded them by wining the NPP is not the same thing. Would it have been different had they been factory workers or office cleaners?

    “‘far above their working class factory worker positions”….”far above their working class office cleaners positions”…I think not, get over yerself.

    Because, working class housewives have no influence or power to influence politics whatsoever, do they?

    That is my point. Individually, no they don’t, but by forming a movement that consisted of thousands of other working class housewives, factory workers and office cleaners, they had. The NPP prize put that movement on the world stage, and while all the other working class housewives, factory workers and office cleaners that were part of the Peace Movement, those two went on to greater glory. Did you read the links I provided.

    Need I refer you to any modern labour movement and the role of women?

    False equivalence fallacy and more whataboutery. Without the chain of coincidental and devastating events that brought these two women together, this conversation would be moot.

    As for your original comment to Roedy; not well said, not well said at all.

    Well seeing as that is your subjective opinion and I don’t much care for what you have to say, I’ll disregard it. Others have posted contrary opinions.

    None of your arguments here have any relevance to my assertion that, IMO, and that of others, the Nobel committee fucked up and gave the prize to the less meritorious party, and that your assertion, and that of yer pal Katy, the NPP is on a par with a “shinny trinket” such as the Palme d’Or is wrong.

  11. In reply to #35 by Smill:

    working class housewives have no influence or power to influence politics whatsoever, do they?

    Ordinary folk find it unfairly difficult to command attention when needed even now. Back then, in the seventies, it was even worse than it is now especially as a woman.

    I agree that the Nobel Committee has failed to endorse the rights of women to an education

    As we discover, at least they did so in 2011. It could be they feel a few other topics need exposure before a repeat….who knows. We may guess but best not impute a specific.

    I’m happy you think Ig and I are an item. But, sadly we won’t be picking out curtains just yet.. It was entirely for your benefit not his that I expounded the reasons for a simple sorry to him. I hoped you might take heed of the perils of imputing motives of another on scant evidence.

  12. In reply to Ignorant Amos, post 37. You ‘don’t care much’ for what I say? Ouch, I’m wounded, but is it a fatal blow? Maybe the prospect of medals awarded in posterity will render me succour in the darker moments ahead… You have accused me of logical errors, which is rich, considering the original logical error was yours, and yours alone, and no matter how much you backtrack and weave, and dodge and backslap with yer pal, Phil, I remain focussed upon your little piss take of an innocent bystander, along with yer ridiculous and may I say, neurotic, reaction to a one-day-to-be redundant prize dreamed up by an explosives expert to be awarded to palliate the insecurities of the self-serving academies. But what of Amos? Maybe one day Dawky may pin a medal on yer chest and you can kiss his ring ringer, you know the one with a fat red A on it.

    • In reply to #39 by Smill:

      You ‘don’t care much’ for what I say? Ouch, I’m wounded, but is it a fatal blow?

      And yet, still more bluster with no substance, just a load of obfuscation, smoke and mirrors.

      Maybe the prospect of medals awarded in posterity will render me succour in the darker moments ahead…

      They have to be earned I’m afraid.

      You have accused me of logical errors, which is rich, considering the original logical error was yours, and yours alone,

      Still more whataboutery…even if true…you still mucked up.

      …and no matter how much you backtrack and weave, and dodge

      Hilarious. I’ve nothing to backtrack, weave and dodge for, it was your ignorant misunderstanding of my comment that is at the heart of the problem. Having moved on, you are still making errors…give it up already.

      …and backslap with yer pal, Phil,

      You obviously no nothing of which you talk about. Try using a search engine.

      I remain focussed upon your little piss take of an innocent bystander,…

      Bollocks…that was an inference you incorrectly drew…and having explained my comment in detail, rather than you hold your hands up as others have done, you continue to dig the hole. I’m sure Roedy is very grateful for having the likes of you around to defend him though. I suppose, I’ll just have to accept that you have a mandate to speak for him.

      …along with yer ridiculous and may I say, neurotic, reaction to a one-day-to-be redundant prize dreamed up by an explosives expert to be awarded to palliate the insecurities of the self-serving academies.

      FFS, the topic of this thread is the Nobel Peace Prize and this years recipient in case you hadn’t noticed, how is it neurotic to discuss the topic of the thread? What IS neurotic is your incessant insistence that you know my mind and what I inferred in my first comment. That typifies neurosis. Whether the prize will one day be redundant, regardless of who dreamed the award up or their field of expertise, or who it was meant to palliate, all has bugger all to do with this discourse…just more obfuscation, smoke and mirrors.

      But what of Amos? Maybe one day Dawky may pin a medal on yer chest and you can kiss his ring ringer, you know the one with a fat red A on it.

      WTF? Are you on something? If your not, you should be. I’m sure you might think that NEUROTIC hyperbolic diatribe has some relevance to the OP, I just don’t see it.

      Now unless you have something sensible to contribute to the discussion, I shan’t be replying to any more of your asinine nonsense.

  13. Dear Mods, you guys have made a small mistake.
    The link I shared was to a BBC article and I also asked to be annonymous in the process
    because the credits originally go to another member of this site.
    I suspected that he hadn’t shared the link.

    Anyway the member is HellFireFuel.
    He shared the following link

    Syria chemical weapons monitors win Nobel Peace Prize

    on the topic,

    Malala wows Jon Stewart on Daily Show

    Not trying to be a nag, I just noticed the small error and thought I should clear it up.
    Thanks in advance.

  14. In reply to #31 by Ignorant Amos:

    In reply to #26 by Katy Cordeth:

    That would be the prize of having her goal of universal education for all females realized, presumably; not some shiny trinket which means pretty much dick all in most of the Islamic world.

    I would say it was worth fanny-all in most of the Islamic world. The cash part of the prize not so much though.

    You do the award a disservice reducing it to a “shinny trinket”, it has a status like no other award has because it is so renowned. The worldwide notice should not be underestimated, whether it is to a worthy recipient or not. I remember when Betty Williams and Mairead Maguire won the NPP in 1976…the worlds focus was on NI for good reasons for a change.

    Both women went on to have an impact on the world far above their working class housewife positions they both had when they’d inadvertently created the “Peace Movement”. Now, I wouldn’t agree with all of these ladies ideals, though I guess you might, but there is no getting away from the fact that the NPP is definitely more than just a “shinny trinket” to those two ladies, or the lives of those that they impacted on subsequently.

    Fair play to these women. But they were westerners, and Nobel Prizes are a western accolade. The cash would have been useful but I think awarding the NPP to Malala would have been squandering what, more than its sister awards for chemistry, literature and so on, is a useful propaganda tool, a means of sending a political message. In this instance the intent was to say the use of chemical weapons is not acceptable. Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin were the principle recipients of this message, and unlike with those who seek to deny girls in Pakistan an education, we can be certain it was delivered.

    I think the committee made the right decision giving the prize to the OPCW.

    Maybe I just have a problem with the idea of awards in general. It might have something to do with my antipathy, which I know you share, towards the Royal Family. The entire honors system is risible. Every so often someone will ask why Richard hasn’t been given a knighthood, somehow missing the irony that this title would be bestowed by someone – i.e. her Maj – whose title is Defender of the Faith and whose only reason for enjoying the position she and her extended family of inbred halfwits and Nazi supporters get to is because it has been ordained by God.

    I thought it was fantastic when Danny Boyle, the guy who organised the brilliant Olympics opening ceremony, turned down a knighthood when one was offered. I wish more would do the same. Fred ‘the Shred’ Goodwin was awarded a knighthood in 2004 for ‘services to banking’. Nuff said?

    What about medals for those in the armed forces? There’s an idea prevalent on this site that Muslim suicide bombers do what they do solely to be rewarded with the 72 virgins and eternal bliss. Well, how many soldiers do you imagine have run towards machine gun fire because they’ve been brainwashed into believing a bit of tin pinned to their left breast is reason enough to risk their life?

    At least the honors system and the awarding of medals have method to their madness. They subsist in order to a) justify the continued existence of the royals and prop up the status quo; and b) dissuade naive servicemen from running away from danger, as any sensible person would.

    Other awards seem to exist simply for their own sake. They’re self-perpetuating, in other words. As I said, the Nobel Peace Prize is predominately a propaganda tool. This was made clear in 2009 when President Obama, who was barely into his first term, was awarded it. He got it for not being George W and because the prize committee wanted to send the message that they hoped Obama would follow a different path from his predecessor.

    You say I do the award a disservice by referring to it as a shiny trinket, but go on to say that ‘it has a status like no other award has because it is so renowned’. Don’t you see this is a tautology? It has a status like no other because of its status; it’s renowned because it’s so renowned. The same could be said of the Oscars or the Emmys. It doesn’t mean they have any intrinsic worth.

    I’m not denying the Nobel Peace Prize can be a force for good. But you need to recognise it for what it is.

    • In reply to #44 by Katy Cordeth:

      >

      it’s renowned because it’s so renowned.

      A PhD is valued because it is valued…..money too, for that matter.

      Value isn’t if it isn’t perceived. Nor can you PoMo it out of existence and out of peoples heads.

      Like it or not the NPP has value and if you don’t like it how do we as a society get to show approval of those who risk their own safety to increase ours?

      Was Tawakkol Karman degraded by it?

  15. In reply to #45 by phil rimmer:

    In reply to #44 by Katy Cordeth:

    it’s renowned because it’s so renowned.

    A PhD is valued because it is valued…..money too, for that matter.

    Money’s intrinsic value lies in its being able to be exchanged for goods and services.

    Qualifications are valued because they represent proof that those receiving them have understood the subject matter and are therefore _qualifi_ed to work in that field or progress to the next level of education. Qualifications and awards are not the same thing.

    The main difference is that awards tend to be arbitrary. If Malala Yousafzai worked towards a Ph.D and was denied it because of political considerations, that would be scandalous and almost certainly illegal. That she didn’t get the NPP is rather sad but doesn’t mean the Nobel prize committee has a case to answer.

    Value isn’t if it isn’t perceived. Nor can you PoMo it out of existence and out of peoples heads.

    I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at here. Is PoMo post modernism? I don’t wish to erase anything from anyone’s head – other perhaps than the recent comment I made about a certain site member’s reason for leaving which I would’ve sworn on a stack of Bibles was true.

    Like it or not the NPP has value…

    The NPP’s value, like all awards, is subject to fluctuation. If there were such a thing as the British Broadcasting Corporation Annual Award for Integrity in Programming, it would have lost considerable cachet recently in the wake of the Savile revelations and other sex scandals.

    Bodies in charge of evaluating exam papers and coursework are subject to rigorous scrutiny because what they are doing is so important. No one is standing over the shoulders of the Daytime Soap Awards committee making sure every vote is counted properly and there’s no funny business going on. Same thing with the UK honors system or the Dickin medal (if anyone reading this is at work and unsure about clicking on the link, don’t worry, it’s not about porn), because they are all symbolic.

    …and if you don’t like it how do we as a society get to show approval of those who risk their own safety to increase ours?

    We do it by honoring what they risk their safety for. We can make a start by not saying crass things like “They are volunteers and they get paid for it, they put themselves at risk because the want to and get very, very, well paid for it I suspect. It’s their friggin’ job.”

    We do it by not turning a blind eye to the despicable things going on in the world and by doing our bit, however small, to decrease the sum amount of awfulness in society. We do it by drawing attention to the causes these people fight for and refusing to give in to our own apathy. And we do it by holding those who commit atrocities accountable for their actions. What we don’t do is stick a tin medal on the chest of those who risk their lives, give them a nice pat on the back, and consider that the end of the matter.

    Was Tawakkol Karman degraded by it?

    Who’s talking about anyone being degraded by the Nobel Peace Prize? I’m certainly not. It would have been terrific had Malala won the gong. It’s just that at the moment the proliferation of nerve toxins and the willingness of tyrants like Bashar al-Assad to deploy them against innocent civilians represents a more immediate evil than girls in Taleban strongholds being denied the opportunity of an education.

    • In reply to #46 by Katy Cordeth:

      It’s just that at the moment the proliferation of nerve toxins and the willingness of tyrants like Bashar al-Assad to deploy them against innocent civilians represents a more immediate evil than girls in Taleban strongholds being denied the opportunity of an education.

      Gottit. Ta.

      I still don’t see the difference in type between money, qualifications and awards. Its true, with Kissinger the NPP thoroughly Mugabe’d its coinage, much as Mugabe did for the Zimbabwean dollar. The value of your degree can go down as well as up depending on their scarcity and their trade in value of how much people currently want to listen to you on the strength of it.

Leave a Reply