Malala Yousafzai did not win the Nobel Peace Prize this week. That honor went to “the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) for its extensive efforts to eliminate chemical weapons,” a group whose work the nominating committee found particularly relevant given the recent human rights violations in Syria. Now that the jury’s in, there are fans across the world who are upset Malala didn’t win and there are people who believe she never should have gotten the attention in the first place.
In the media, Malala was commonly referred to as “the favorite” to win – that is, the favorite of her admirers, who would have loved to see a 16 year old girl win such a prestigious award – despite the fact that there was no actual indication that she was the committee’s favorite. That perhaps explains why articles have popped up about the extreme reactions people have had to her loss, like in The Telegraph, where reporters spoke to residents in her hometown of Pakistan, many of whom said she shouldn’t have gotten the award:
Shoiab Khan, who works in a local bank, said the right decision had been made.
“She doesn’t deserve it at all,” he said, adding that there was widespread opposition to her efforts to get girls into school, a campaign many believed was being orchestrated by shadowy foreign forces.
“What about thousands of children who are here, under the shadow of Taliban and risk their lives every day? Malala’s interviews overseas will not help girls here.”
Others in Pakistan were worried that a win by Yousafzai would have provoked the Taliban into further attacks and honestly, that fear is a valid one.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
