To be fair (and I'm no fan of the Daily Fail), I've just seen the article in question and they are NOT blaming Malala for the deaths. They are reporting on an "expert" who has said the attack *could* have been an act of revenge from the Taliban against the decision of the UN to recognise the efforts of their avowed enemy. Not quite the same...
But, there are serious questions to be asked as to what are the consequences of her relocating to the UK.
I can understand it is because of her and the families safety, But then she should have been allowed to fall into obscurity and not be feted, certainly not awarded the Nobel prize.
What is the message that is being put out?
Paint a big target on people and you can get them out and keep them out of your country?
That's a victory for people like the Taliban.
I don't think they care about Malala, she's gone, that's a good result.
She didn't want that, she wants to fight for education for children all around the world. She has used the profile she gained from what could have been a life destroying act, used to prevent girls like her attending school, to make them timid and scared into something good. She has made it clear she is not going to be silenced, because they want to silence her. They already tried to kill her once. She does not want to fall into obscurity. She is fighting towards a better future. There are going to be so many hurdles for her but she is using that profile she gained to do good.
To be fair (and I'm no fan of the Daily Fail), I've just seen the article in question and they are NOT blaming Malala for the deaths. They are reporting on an "expert" who has said the attack *could* have been an act of revenge from the Taliban against the decision of the UN to recognise the efforts of their avowed enemy. Not quite the same...
So why didn't they phrase the headline along the lines of '"Expert" Believes School Attack May Have Been Revenge Against Nobel Winner"?
Because it's not nearly emotive enough to be used as click-bait or to get the readers all riled up. It's the headline that sticks.
I'm not talking about Brand I don't like him either due to how he treats women as sex objects.
But Malala just wants girls to go to school without getting shot for it now is that not a good thing that is is trying to change it and a bad thing and others have said that she likley end up dead for it.
But she's an adherent of a religion that has a real problem with the role of women and feminism in any measure.
I think she is part of the problem, not any type of solution.
So girls go to school and get educated, then what?
Does she agree with complete autonomy over their whole lives, from choosing who they marry, what careers they choose, whether they marry even, to choosing to leave the faith?
But she's an adherent of a religion that has a real problem with the role of women and feminism in any measure.
I think she is part of the problem, not any type of solution.
So girls go to school and get educated, then what?
Does she agree with complete autonomy over their whole lives, from choosing who they marry, what careers they choose, whether they marry even, to choosing to leave the faith?
I agree with what you say up to a point, but we don't know what her beliefs actually are. The only way for women to break out of servitude is for them to be educated. Education gives you choices and educated women are far less likely to believe in the fictions they are fed about how they should behave and what they should believe.
But she's an adherent of a religion that has a real problem with the role of women and feminism in any measure.
I think she is part of the problem, not any type of solution.
So girls go to school and get educated, then what?
Does she agree with complete autonomy over their whole lives, from choosing who they marry, what careers they choose, whether they marry even, to choosing to leave the faith?
The problem with people these days is they expect everything instant, change is gradual it is not sudden. All the women in the suffragettes were Christian, Christianity used to have a harder line on women's rights, the state used to follow it. I'm sure none of them could have anticipated the freedoms of women today, but those freedoms weren't sudden it took a lot of time, decades and centuries (and deaths) to enact change for women to be able to cast a vote. Queen Victoria was against women's rights and autonomy, she freely expressed it at the time. There was a lot of opposition, but change isn't instant.
One person can change a minute thing, which can eventually change a whole lot.
You don't expect her to be able to do all those things at once do you, in the next five years? Kind of stupid, she's just one girl she is up against centuries and centuries of patriarchy and political and social conditioning in Pakistan. And if she doesn't believe in those things you have to remember she is a product of her environment, people are allowed to think that way, but I'm sure she's conflicted about her role in society as are most women, Muslim women especially, and her life as a woman.
But one girl can inspire and enact a minute change, who knows what the next decades will unravel in Pakistan's future, and the role of women in Pakistan, but you can't expect her to do everything. It's a butterfly effect.
There are going to be so many hurdles for her but she is using that profile she gained to do good.
What good has she achieved yet? And where has she established peace? I mean have any schools been founded in Pakistan based on her speeches. Is there greater protection for other girls in the region where she was attacked. Is it safer for another child like she was to speak out without fear. What has she actually achieved?
She is potentially a relevant campaigner but like the Obama one the award is more PR, hope and style over substance. It discredits the prize to gift it like that.
The problem with people these days is they expect everything instant, change is gradual it is not sudden. All the women in the suffragettes were Christian, Christianity used to have a harder line on women's rights, the state used to follow it. I'm sure none of them could have anticipated the freedoms of women today, but those freedoms weren't sudden it took a lot of time, decades and centuries (and deaths) to enact change for women to be able to cast a vote. Queen Victoria was against women's rights and autonomy, she freely expressed it at the time. There was a lot of opposition, but change isn't instant.
One person can change a minute thing, which can eventually change a whole lot.
You don't expect her to be able to do all those things at once do you, in the next five years? Kind of stupid, she's just one girl she is up against centuries and centuries of patriarchy and political and social conditioning in Pakistan. And if she doesn't believe in those things you have to remember she is a product of her environment, people are allowed to think that way, but I'm sure she's conflicted about her role in society as are most women, Muslim women especially, and her life as a woman.
But one girl can inspire and enact a minute change, who knows what the next decades will unravel in Pakistan's future, and the role of women in Pakistan, but you can't expect her to do everything. It's a butterfly effect.
I disagree that to like a campaigner you have to agree with everything they say and all their positions but understand that I personally dislike some activists that are careless on positions I feel strongly about.
I disagree as much with people a abusing her for not speaking out in drones strongly enough as those thinking she should reject her religion because of it's biases against female education.
But she's an adherent of a religion that has a real problem with the role of women and feminism in any measure.
I think she is part of the problem, not any type of solution.
So girls go to school and get educated, then what?
Does she agree with complete autonomy over their whole lives, from choosing who they marry, what careers they choose, whether they marry even, to choosing to leave the faith?
Well for one thing campaigning for the female of the species to get an education tends to do several things, such as enabling them to make more decisions for themselves, be more aware of what they could do/become, and work towards more independence.
There is a very good reason most of the violent religious sects (no matter if they're Islamic, Christian, or followers of the purple bearded angler fish) don't like a secular education.
As has been said already, it's not too long ago that in the West we often considered Women to be less capable of thinking and looking after themselves than men, be it in owning property, having the ability to vote, work in certain jobs, inheriting if there were male heirs* (even if they're younger).
As people started to get more generally and widely educated and aware of the possibilities those that were considered "incapable" or "inferior" started to try and change that.
Remember you can believe in a religion, but not necessarily agree with how it's practised, just look at the number of Christian offshoots, or for that matter look at how the various Islamic offshoots vary both by major sect (Sunni, Shea etc), and even by region.
So no I don't think she's part of the problem, the fact that the religious fanatics tried their hardest to kill her probably shows that they considered her (and her belief in what she and others like her could become) a threat to their way of thinking.
The very fact that there is an organisation devoted to trying to stop the more widespread, and wide thinking education of children also suggests that the idea of people becoming more educated and aware of what the world is like outisde of a selected set of religious texts that are interpreted by the person teaching it (often with regards to that persons personal view).
*A variant of that particular law/custom was only recently repealed in the UK.
Aren't a lot of people just pi55ed that she had surgery in the UK, even though Britain didnt actually actually pay for travelling here or her surgery cost?
Malala is quick to comment on anything which involves Muslims. She doesn't comment on the continued persecution of Sikhs, Hindus and Christians in Pakistan.
I've not seem her comment on the Asia Bibi blasphemy case where a Christian women was issued a death sentence under the counties blasphemy laws. There is also the acid attacks on women which happen and there has been at least five other terror attacks in Pakistan in the last month.
Much like Baroness Warsi she will comment on Muslim issues while ignoring other problems in Pakistan such as sectarian violence committed by Muslims against non-Muslims.
What does malala say about the passages in the Koran that say women are not equal to men?
Does she want the passages removed or just for people to be nicer?
New Testament book 'First Epistle of Paul to Timothy' 2:12
(St Paul writes) "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."
Malala is quick to comment on anything which involves Muslims. She doesn't comment on the continued persecution of Sikhs, Hindus and Christians in Pakistan.
I've not seem her comment on the Asia Bibi blasphemy case where a Christian women was issued a death sentence under the counties blasphemy laws. There is also the acid attacks on women which happen and there has been at least five other terror attacks in Pakistan in the last month.
Much like Baroness Warsi she will comment on Muslim issues while ignoring other problems in Pakistan such as sectarian violence committed by Muslims against non-Muslims.
You could also say this about people who only defend the actions of Israel and the IDF no matter what they do yet stay silent about the plight of innocent Palestinians
New Testament book 'First Epistle of Paul to Timothy' 2:12
(St Paul writes) "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."
St Paul died over a 1,000 years ago. The first female bishop was announced on the news today so women do teach and have authority of men. The Western world doesn't take the New Testament as literally as Muslims to do the Koran.
I just find the way she comes across as patronising and that when she appears on tv she expects everyone to accept her opinion and change things how she wants them.
Anyone who doesn't think girls have as much right to an education as boys needs to change their opinion imo.
She has behaved with tremendous courage and dignity and I really admire her.
Malala is quick to comment on anything which involves Muslims. She doesn't comment on the continued persecution of Sikhs, Hindus and Christians in Pakistan.
I've not seem her comment on the Asia Bibi blasphemy case where a Christian women was issued a death sentence under the counties blasphemy laws. There is also the acid attacks on women which happen and there has been at least five other terror attacks in Pakistan in the last month.
Much like Baroness Warsi she will comment on Muslim issues while ignoring other problems in Pakistan such as sectarian violence committed by Muslims against non-Muslims.
The Mail has a big headline saying that her winning of the Nobel prize was the reason for the attack - which is odd given the Taliban have already said it is because of the army offensive
When it's a choice between The Mail and the Taliban, I wouldn't know who to believe.
Comments
ah, thank you i hadn`t read it.
She didn't want that, she wants to fight for education for children all around the world. She has used the profile she gained from what could have been a life destroying act, used to prevent girls like her attending school, to make them timid and scared into something good. She has made it clear she is not going to be silenced, because they want to silence her. They already tried to kill her once. She does not want to fall into obscurity. She is fighting towards a better future. There are going to be so many hurdles for her but she is using that profile she gained to do good.
So why didn't they phrase the headline along the lines of '"Expert" Believes School Attack May Have Been Revenge Against Nobel Winner"?
Because it's not nearly emotive enough to be used as click-bait or to get the readers all riled up. It's the headline that sticks.
But she's an adherent of a religion that has a real problem with the role of women and feminism in any measure.
I think she is part of the problem, not any type of solution.
So girls go to school and get educated, then what?
Does she agree with complete autonomy over their whole lives, from choosing who they marry, what careers they choose, whether they marry even, to choosing to leave the faith?
I agree with what you say up to a point, but we don't know what her beliefs actually are. The only way for women to break out of servitude is for them to be educated. Education gives you choices and educated women are far less likely to believe in the fictions they are fed about how they should behave and what they should believe.
The problem with people these days is they expect everything instant, change is gradual it is not sudden. All the women in the suffragettes were Christian, Christianity used to have a harder line on women's rights, the state used to follow it. I'm sure none of them could have anticipated the freedoms of women today, but those freedoms weren't sudden it took a lot of time, decades and centuries (and deaths) to enact change for women to be able to cast a vote. Queen Victoria was against women's rights and autonomy, she freely expressed it at the time. There was a lot of opposition, but change isn't instant.
One person can change a minute thing, which can eventually change a whole lot.
You don't expect her to be able to do all those things at once do you, in the next five years? Kind of stupid, she's just one girl she is up against centuries and centuries of patriarchy and political and social conditioning in Pakistan. And if she doesn't believe in those things you have to remember she is a product of her environment, people are allowed to think that way, but I'm sure she's conflicted about her role in society as are most women, Muslim women especially, and her life as a woman.
But one girl can inspire and enact a minute change, who knows what the next decades will unravel in Pakistan's future, and the role of women in Pakistan, but you can't expect her to do everything. It's a butterfly effect.
Does she want the passages removed or just for people to be nicer?
She is potentially a relevant campaigner but like the Obama one the award is more PR, hope and style over substance. It discredits the prize to gift it like that.
I disagree as much with people a abusing her for not speaking out in drones strongly enough as those thinking she should reject her religion because of it's biases against female education.
She has brought Islam to a wider global audience.
Islam is already a global religion and since she is she it's representative?
Plenty of Nobel Peace Prize winners who have the deaths of hundreds of thousands on their hands, so should we be surprised?
Pointless award IMO
Well for one thing campaigning for the female of the species to get an education tends to do several things, such as enabling them to make more decisions for themselves, be more aware of what they could do/become, and work towards more independence.
There is a very good reason most of the violent religious sects (no matter if they're Islamic, Christian, or followers of the purple bearded angler fish) don't like a secular education.
As has been said already, it's not too long ago that in the West we often considered Women to be less capable of thinking and looking after themselves than men, be it in owning property, having the ability to vote, work in certain jobs, inheriting if there were male heirs* (even if they're younger).
As people started to get more generally and widely educated and aware of the possibilities those that were considered "incapable" or "inferior" started to try and change that.
Remember you can believe in a religion, but not necessarily agree with how it's practised, just look at the number of Christian offshoots, or for that matter look at how the various Islamic offshoots vary both by major sect (Sunni, Shea etc), and even by region.
So no I don't think she's part of the problem, the fact that the religious fanatics tried their hardest to kill her probably shows that they considered her (and her belief in what she and others like her could become) a threat to their way of thinking.
The very fact that there is an organisation devoted to trying to stop the more widespread, and wide thinking education of children also suggests that the idea of people becoming more educated and aware of what the world is like outisde of a selected set of religious texts that are interpreted by the person teaching it (often with regards to that persons personal view).
*A variant of that particular law/custom was only recently repealed in the UK.
Yes.
And likewise I'm allowed to hold anyone who makes comments along the lines of the first one quoted here in utter contempt.
I've not seem her comment on the Asia Bibi blasphemy case where a Christian women was issued a death sentence under the counties blasphemy laws. There is also the acid attacks on women which happen and there has been at least five other terror attacks in Pakistan in the last month.
Much like Baroness Warsi she will comment on Muslim issues while ignoring other problems in Pakistan such as sectarian violence committed by Muslims against non-Muslims.
New Testament book 'First Epistle of Paul to Timothy' 2:12
(St Paul writes) "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."
You could also say this about people who only defend the actions of Israel and the IDF no matter what they do yet stay silent about the plight of innocent Palestinians
St Paul died over a 1,000 years ago. The first female bishop was announced on the news today so women do teach and have authority of men. The Western world doesn't take the New Testament as literally as Muslims to do the Koran.
Anyone who doesn't think girls have as much right to an education as boys needs to change their opinion imo.
She has behaved with tremendous courage and dignity and I really admire her.
Gosh, give her a break. She is just a kid .
When it's a choice between The Mail and the Taliban, I wouldn't know who to believe.