Should Black Lives Matter have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?

Kevin (Yes)

Black Lives Matter is 'the largest social movement in global history,' and has sparked a global movement for racial justice. BLM began in 2013 as a response to police brutality, specifically the murder of Trayvon Martin and the following acquittal of his killer, but their message and the impact it has had goes beyond any one incident or even the single issue of policing. In the words of co-founder Patrisse Cullors, it has become a movement for 'building grassroots power with Black communities who have been left out of the political process.' As such, BLM follows in the footsteps of Nobel Peace Prize recipient Martin Luther King Jr., who once said that 'There can be no justice without peace and there can be no peace without justice.'

The Norwegian MP of the Socialist Left Party, Petter Eide, who made the nomination, cited 'a strong linkage between antiracism movements and peace' as the basis for his decision, also noting how the majority of BLM demonstrations were peaceful with most incidences of violence being 'caused by the activities of either the police or counter-protestors.' Eide disregarded criticisms from those who have attempted to characterize BLM as violent, saying, 'I'm quite convinced that Black Lives Matter is a peaceful organization.' In addition to MLK Jr., he also referenced past recipients Albert Luthuli and Nelson Mandela, who were both given the honor for their work fighting racial discrimination in South Africa. Eide's nomination letter concluded with a statement that awarding the prize to BLM would 'send a powerful message that peace is founded on equality, solidarity and human rights,' a sentiment that perfectly sums up why the nomination is well-deserved.

Bill (No)

Black Lives Matter is the antithesis of a peaceful, unifying organization, and it would be a travesty to reward its divisive rhetoric and activities with a Nobel Peace Prize. On its own website in May 2020, Black Lives Matter posted an editorial entitled #DefundThePolice that included the following language: '…for Black people, law enforcement doesn't protect or save our lives. They often threaten and take them.' The last sentence was written in bold letters (for emphasis). Aside from being a gross misstatement, the offensive slur against law enforcement was intended to incite violent protests in the wake of the deadly George Floyd confrontation with police in Minneapolis.

To advocate for defunding the police is to invite anarchy, and that's exactly what occurred in the wake of the reinvigorated Black Lives Matter movement of 2020. Far from peaceful protests, last summer's nihilistic eruptions were marked by burning, looting, destruction, and violence, resulting in nearly $2B in property damage and 24 deaths.  

Perhaps most troubling about Black Lives Matter is its tactics. By cloaking themselves in their seemingly innocuous name/slogan (an obvious 'moralistic truism' no one denies), they can avoid media scrutiny while simultaneously bullying, harassing, and terrorizing their opponents into submission. They also hold sway over urban Democrat political leaders who risk slander and civil unrest if they resist capitulating to its mob-like demands. As Jason Whitlock (noted Black Sports Journalist) puts it: Black Lives Matter is 'a racial divider' whose intent is 'to undermine racial progress and bully American citizens to support Democrat politicians.' Because of this, the Nobel Prize Committee should not award the Nobel Peace Prize to an organization as destructive and divisive as BLM.