Malala Yousafzai is a fourteen year old girl, living in Pakistan, and is in most ways a perfectly normal child. Last week however, she was shot in the neck and head by Taliban gunmen whilst on the school bus. Why then was she the target of an attempted murder on her way home? Quite simply; she had a voice, and she used it.

Malala first came to the attention of the public in 2009, when she volunteered to write a diary for BBC Urdu. She lives in Pakistan’s troubled north western Swat district, which at that time had seen a enforcement of the Taliban edict which banned female rights to education, with 150 schools being closed within a year. The diary detailed the day to day life of an eleven year old school girl, and importantly, it featured her opinions on how the ban had affected her and her friends. Writing under the pen name of Gul Makai, her words are intelligent and perceptive, but most strikingly they are clearly still the words of a young girl. In one entry, she describes wearing her favourite pink dress to school, as her uniform would draw the attention of militants. She is precocious and confident, it seems. In another she comments: “I AM AFRAID. I had a terrible dream yesterday with military helicopters and the Taliban. I have had such dreams since the launch of the military operation in Swat.’

This is the voice of a child forced to grow up by a troubled political climate, and it is clear that Malala rose to the challenge. When her identity was revealed she was praised by international leaders and Pakistan’s Prime Minister, and was eventually awarded Pakistan’s first National Peace Prize for her eloquence and honesty in the discussion of women’s rights. Her father, Ziauddin Yousafzai, is a poet, school owner and educational activist, and saw something special in his only daughter. This encouragement allowed her an educational freedom at home, and though she has met with diplomats and made a name for herself on the international political stage, what lies at the heart of her story is an impossibly simple wish to learn. In a message to Adam B. Ellick, who made a short film about her, Malala said she wanted “access to the world of knowledge.” The fact of the mat- ter is that education, a pillar of any society, is often taken for granted, because most of us are so used to it being readily available.

At a recent conference Malala stated that “democracy is the best rule. This country needs new leaders. I want to study the law and I dream of a country in which education pre- vails and no one sleeps hungry.” Words like these made her an open target to militants, and when Taliban spokesperson Ehsanullah Ehsan claimed responsibility for the attack, he cited her pro-Western ideals and secular views. He added that if she survived, her life would not be spared. Even taking into account the current political climate of Pakistan, and the frequent images of violence coming out of the nation, this particular attack appears to have resonated around the globe. Indeed, many are declaring this to be the watershed which will turn the public tide against extremism, with support for the girl coming from all over Pakistan.

Thankfully, it appears that Malala is going to make a recovery. But the question remains; will this attack spur her on and those who support her, or is it evidence that her choices are too dangerous? Many have written on her recent attack, and naturally all have expressed their admiration for this young girl, but the word that seems to symbolise her character more than any other is a timeless one. Hope. We hope that she will recover, we hope that she will continue to fight, we hope that others will voice their opinions as she has. But in actual fact, she represents more than that. She represents action. I am older than this girl, I live in a society which affords me all the opportunities she does not have, I have my freedom of speech and yet there are still times when I find myself reluctant to discuss my politics in a public forum. Why is this? Fear? Embarrassment? I don‘t really know. I do know however, that if I were half as brave as this fourteen year old, then I would take advantage of my rights and try to make a difference.

One Pakistani news station described her as “harmless”, but that’s not quite right. With her political ideals, her sense of equality, and confidence in her own voice, Malala has the power to truly change the attitudes of her nation.

What has Mr Hugo Chavez done for Venezuela over the last fourteen years?

When Chavez came to power, almost 50% of Venezuelans lived in poverty. By 2008 this had fallen to under 28%. Income inequality has also been significantly reduced. Critics argue that these advances are to be expected during a sustained boom in the price of oil, Venezuela’s main source of income. They have come at the price of a steady erosion in civil liberties and the concentration of ever more power in the hands of the president. Economic growth, which has been erratic, has coincided with a decline in productive employment and is ever more dependent on oil, which now represents more than 95% of export earnings.

To what extent was Mr Chavez’s re-election to the Presidency this week due to his own popularity?

The president himself admitted during his election campaign that his government had been deficient in many areas, including employment, housing and infrastructure. It is common to find supporters of Chavez who criticise the government’s performance but do not blame the president himself. Chavez has a remarkable rapport with ordinary Venezuelans, and particularly the poor, who see him as ‘one of us’ – a man who rose from humble origins, who speaks their language and who has their interests at heart. They are therefore inclined to blame the problems they face in their daily lives on ministers, state governors, mayors, the police and other functionaries, rather than on the president. 

How clean were the elections?

 A small minority on the fringes of the opposition insists that the process is inherently fraudulent, although they have been unable to show how such a fraud would occur. The executive secretary of the opposition MUD coalition, Ramon Guillermo Aveledo, says the election was ‘free but not fair’ –  the votes were accurately counted, but the government’s abuse of state resources during the campaign and its virtual stranglehold on broadcast media made it extremely hard for MUD candidate Henrique Capriles Radonski to compete. The scales were further tilted in Chavez’ favour by intimidation of state employees, many of whom fear to lose their jobs if they vote the ‘wrong’ way. The use of finger-print readers connected to the voting machines led many to conclude that their vote was not secret.

 Did Henrique Capriles Radonski of the Democratic Unity coalition ever stand a chance?

Some polling organisations projected a very close result, or even a Capriles victory, but their conclusions appear in retrospect to have been based on a faulty analysis of the data – in particular the percentage of undecided voters and their likely behaviour. Capriles rose steadily in the polls during the campaign, whereas the president’s support remained static, but the rate of the former’s ascent was insufficient to close the gap by election day. The opposition has nonetheless gained over 2 million votes since the last presidential election, confirming a trend of recent years whereby Chavez’ advantage over his opponents has been gradually reduced.

What will it take to unseat Mr Chavez?

Many in the opposition fear that the task is impossible, given his charisma, the elimination of all institutional checks and balances and the fact that he is able to spend the national budget with absolute discretion and almost no transparency. Some believe that only his death – perhaps from the cancer that was diagnosed in mid-2011 – or an unforeseen crisis of major dimensions would suffice to remove him from power. A sudden drop in the price of oil, and hence in the government’s ability to use state spending to bolster its support, might affect his popularity, but autocratic governments are by their nature less susceptible to collapse under the pressure of economic crises.

Ever spent three hours on the tube? This week, Comment brings you Somerville’s Ella Waldman, who ran the length of theNorthern line, visiting every one of its 34 stops and covering an over-ground distance of 24 miles in under 180 minutes. Better known at Oxford for her talents as an actress, Ella is also a keen runner, achieving a full Blue in cross-country in her first year. On her one-woman marathon, Ella wore a vest which read “rail replacement service ‘running’”, learnt that Morden was “fugly” and raised a cool £3000.

The money went to Accion Callejera Fundacion Educativa (AC), a small Dominican charityin Santiago that works with some of the most deprived street-kids in the world. Ella spent eight months with the charity during her gap year in 2010. Most of her time was spent in AC’s main centre, where children living on the street are given access to food, informal learning, psychological support and medical care. Many of the young people she met were involved in drug gangs or suffered other forms of exploitation. Ella set up and ran an English and Art course for the younger children. When her former student, aged ten, won a national competition to design a book cover, Ella was “deeply touched”. She is a keen supporter of AC’s work: “AC’s a place where children can literally put aside their shoe-shine box and enjoy being a child for a few hours. Some of the improvements that have been made in individuals and in the communities are quite amazing, given how horrific the reality of some of the places are.’

Taking a break from treading the boards, Ella is once again training for Oxford’s cross-country team. “I’d like to run the Central line next.”

According to Godwin’s law, the longer an online discussion continues, the greater the likelihood that someone will mention the Nazis. Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey extended this rule to the fringe of the Tory conference last week, where he compared the name-calling aimed at those who oppose same-sex marriage to the situation of the Jews in Nazi Germany, a case of Reductio ad Hitlerum which caused all reasonable people to groan and hit their heads against the nearest solid object.

Carey spoke alongside a collection of anti-marriage equality campaigners including David Burrowes MP and Ann Widdecombe, who argued that the restrictions on freedoms that would come from same-sex marriage were “the hallmark of a totalitarian states down the ages.” But Carey, Widdecombe et al. need a strong dose of logic, because their arguments are entirely ridiculous.

First, the comparison is frankly offensive: the plight of Germany’s Jews, persecuted and killed for their racial status, is in no way the same as (almost) being called a bigot by Clegg and co., and it’s an especially unsuitable comparison considering the number of homosexuals who died alongside the Jews.

Secondly, being “called names” was certainly part of that Nazi persecution, but calling some-one out on their views does not mean that we will soon slide down that slippery slope and find ourselves goose-stepping within the year. Widdecombe worries that people are “no longer free to speak their minds.” Nobody is stopping anybody from doing this, but freedom of speech also means that we can condemn those who we believe are wrong.

Then Widdecombe brought up the civil-partnerships-are-as-good-as-marriages argument, which misses the point. If Carey is going to make a Nazi comparison, I’ll make a civil rights one: the back of the bus may have got African-Americans to the same stops, but it enforced the status of second-class citizen. Widdecombe went on to say, “you’re taking it away from heterosexuals but you’re not giving anything to the gays”, the logic of which boggles the mind. If the first is true, how can the latter be? What can straight couples possibly lose if more people can get married? She also claims that gay people don’t want to get married, which is patently untrue and reminiscent of anti-suffrage campaigners 100 years ago – ‘but most women don’t even want the vote!’

Really, the crux of it all is in Carey’s statement that “same sex relationships are not the same as heterosexual relationships and should not be put on the same level.” This is what they should be judged upon, and it does not make you a fascist to suggest that they might be a little bit bigoted.