I endorse this point of view wholeheartedly. For a change, it’s great to see encouragement for people who promote liberal, humanistic values in religion and work for the common good of all humanity. It’s great to see acknowledgement of liberal trends in the Islamic world, which normally get no respect from either Muslim fundamentalists or Christian and Jewish fundamentalists. It’s great to see support for someone offering an alternative to fundamentalists of all types.
There are lots of threads on the SDMB debating this and that issue about the Muslim world, but there hasn’t been anything about Shireen Ebadi, and I thought she deserved more recognition. Her achievement is truly significant for the betterment of the whole world.
I didn’t post for some weeks on SDMB, so today I looked at it again for the first time and this one post seems to be the only one paying attention to this Nobel Prize.
It truly surprizes me. Not in the least since so many members here talk about Islam and Muslims and Islamic countries whenever they find an opportunity.
Yet when something really important like this event happens, nobody seemed to even take notice and/or find it worth one line.
Maybe I must conclude that criticizing, screaming and ranting is so much more fun to come up with then an ovation for this courageous, intelligent, educated Muslim woman?
Ah… Such a cruel trap that is set up here… I can understand the difficulties of these members who stay away from this topic.
Thank you for the topic, JomoMojo.
Yes, everyone hates Muslims here. What’s the view like from up on that cross?
It’s actually more likely that no one pays more than passing interest here to the Nobel Peace Prize and it’s not a very controversial pick. She’s certainly very worthy, just no real reason to start a GD thread about it.
And the noble peace prize has what significance exactly ?
It is merely some annual award which is chosen by a small, exlcusionary, bunch of intellectuals in a socialist country, which have in the past awarded the prize to arafat.:smack:
If one is to believe the article in the OP, the committee is using the award to advance their questionable political beliefs.
So perhaps, not many people have mentioned it, because they don’t care ?
(forgive me for not using the preview button, but things are currently at a snails pace here at the moment. I feel like I’m on a 14.4 k modem or worse.)
Those intellectuals weren’t showing a great deal of intellectual prowess in 1994, which is why I mentioned the only person that I know of which has addressed the general assembly of the UN with a revolver around his hip
Quoting from Ethan Bronner editorial in NY Times of 17 October, please note that Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar, formerly Burma, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. And yet, Myanmar remains a human rights nightmare, and she has mostly been held under house arrest during the past 12 years.
For Ms. Ebadi’s prize to have any impact, she will need help, not only from the reformers of Iran, but also from the Arab world, where you, Mr. Aldebaran, have many friends. The Nobel committee can do only so much. Will women in Cairo and Baghdad and Riyadh (or wherever your father was from) speak of Ms. Ebadi, help her, invite her to their countries? If they demonstrate to the Iranian leaders — and their own — that Ms. Ebadi’s work in human and women’s rights is not a tool of Western imperialism but central to all societies that seek justice, then the Nobel will have done its work.
So, Mr. Aldebaran, your work is cut out for you. Get your countrywomen to rise up and invite Ms. Ebadi to your Arab country to stand up for women. If you don’t, I’m afraid Ms. Ebadi’s future may end up being similar to Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar.
(1) The 1994 Nobel Peace Prize was split between Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin.
(2) The prize was awarded for their work leading to the 1994 Oslo Accords.
(3) The Nobel is awarded for work in the preceding year to the man or woman who has “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations”. In 1994, the split award was appropriate under this criteria.
(4) The Nobel is an intensely political prize; it is not awarded just to “reward” an individual’s achievements, rather it is given to highlight particular efforts in peace-making and to encourage future development in the region. In 1994, the split award was appropriate under this criteria.
(5) Norway is not a socialist country. It is a constitutional monarchy which features a mixture of free market action and government intervention.
–
I never correct spelling, but the word is “capital” (re Daisy Cutter’s location field). A “capitol” is a building. Call it a pet peeve – sorry.
*Originally posted by Jervoise * (4) The Nobel is an intensely political prize; it is not awarded just to “reward” an individual’s achievements, rather it is given to highlight particular efforts in peace-making and to encourage future development in the region. In 1994, the split award was appropriate under this criteria.
I think they made a grave mistake. Why can’t they revoke the prize ? If somebody argues that this is against the rules or hasn’t been done before, well they have changed their rules in the past, so there is no reason why they couldn’t do so now. They could admit they were wrong.
(5) Norway is not a socialist country. It is a constitutional monarchy which features a mixture of free market action and government intervention.**
Yes, I’m aware they have a king there, however aren’t the scandinavian countries socialist welfare states ? That’s what I meant by socialist.
**I never correct spelling, but the word is “capital” (re Daisy Cutter’s location field). A “capitol” is a building. Call it a pet peeve – sorry. ****
You’re correct. Thanks for pointing it out. I’ll fix it now.
There were a few quick threads on the topic… some worried about what might happen to her too. If there might be a clerical backlash against a perceived judgement of the Iranian internal situation by a western (non-socialist) country.
As for Daisy Cutter’s remarks disregard. I suppose he thinks only gung-ho cowboys should determine peace prizes… and certainly Bush would deserve one for creating world wide havoc. Socialist isnt only about giving welfare either… and no I am not a leftie fucked up intelectual liberal scum.
Aldebaran has many, many, many more friends on SDMB than he has in the whole of the Arab world.
I know I’m recklessly going out on a limb here, but I believe that Aldebaran’s influence would be just a smidgeonette smaller in the Arab world than it is on SDMB.
On a different matter, I agree with Wake up call on the point that it would be unwise to assume that the mere fact that someone has won a Nobel Peace Prize necessarily means that they have obtained some powerful protective shield.
It can only be effective if those who are the prizewinner’s opponents have a conscience.
To date, I have seen no evidence that the dictators of Iran have anything resembling a conscience.
Daisy Cutter by your reckoning then the UK is a socialist country since it’s got a socialised medical system etc. and Tony Blair is the leader of a “Left” wing party.
I suppose one way to expand the mind of Daisy Cutter would be for twistofFate to start a new thread entitled:
Why and how a viable socialist party should be created/promoted in the US.
As a young and politically immature single party country, the U.S. has a long way to go (IMHO) to offer its citizens viable alternatives to its current single party: The Capitalist Party (Republicans and Democrats being two wings of the same party).
The remarks about what is called in the US “socialism” and on top of it the description of the scandinavian nations as being “socialist welfare states” makes me wonder once again about how it is possible that US’ers have such a strange twisted view on the world.
Thus Belgium is also a “'socialist welfare state” and so are the Netherlands and France and… and… and…
I suppose that it is because a funtctioning social security system on a such a high level, well devellopped, organized, fair and acessible for every one is unknown in the USA, that US’ers are a bit jealous and thus think they must start talking denegrating about it.
But for your information: socialism is also not what you seem to make of it; socialism is not equal to communism.
And even communism is not equal to what most US’ers make of it.
Now on topic:
Maybe one should let Bushy the Bush Cangaroo Cowboy preside a brandnew Nobel Prize Committee where he has a veto right?
(Does someone wants to take my bet on who is going to get the the prize then?)
