Chile Constitutional Referendum, September 4th 2022

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Oh great. Chile elected Jeremy Corbyn. Glad he's not going to have much power.

If Kast had been even 1/10th as antisemitic as this, it would have been in the international media everywhere, including comments on how it is so outrageous for him to be in the runoff.

Interesting you bring up Kast. Are you aware of his…family troubles?

You mean his Nazi father? I judge people based off their actions.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Oh great. Chile elected Jeremy Corbyn. Glad he's not going to have much power.

If Kast had been even 1/10th as antisemitic as this, it would have been in the international media everywhere, including comments on how it is so outrageous for him to be in the runoff.

Interesting you bring up Kast. Are you aware of his…family troubles?

You mean his Nazi father? I judge people based off their actions.

I do too. For example, his consistent denial of his father’s Nazism, and his support of the Pinochet government (which had extensive ties to the Nazi cult Colonia Dignidad).

Neither of those are explicitly anti-semitic, though I would obviously prefer he acknowledge and denounce his father's nazism and said elements of the Pinochet government.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Oh great. Chile elected Jeremy Corbyn. Glad he's not going to have much power.

If Kast had been even 1/10th as antisemitic as this, it would have been in the international media everywhere, including comments on how it is so outrageous for him to be in the runoff.

Interesting you bring up Kast. Are you aware of his…family troubles?

You mean his Nazi father? I judge people based off their actions.

I do too. For example, his consistent denial of his father’s Nazism, and his support of the Pinochet government (which had extensive ties to the Nazi cult Colonia Dignidad).

Neither of those are explicitly anti-semitic, though I would obviously prefer he acknowledge and denounce his father's nazism and said elements of the Pinochet government.

Boric makes an improper remark to a Jewish community organization with ties to Israel: antisemitism, outrageous

Kast defends his dad who fought for Hitler and maintains lifelong support of a fascist who loved Nazis: well I’d rather he didn’t

It's not just improper: it's blatantly anti-semitic. Pinochet was not a fascist, just a murderous dictator. And millions of Germans fought for Hitler: I won't blame Kast for not hating his father for it, so long as his father wasn't an SS member or some high-up murderer.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

While I find Boric's comments to be clearly anti-semitic, albeit in a way that smacks of ignorance rather than prejudice, I find the reactions of the usual suspects on the forum to be far more distasteful. Derailing a thread about Chilean politics to discuss Israel-Palestine issues and anti-Semitism, which are issues of no importance in Chile, smacks of narcissism and betrays a total lack of concern for Latin America.

I honestly just made a snide comment about how Boric was an anti-semite. I didn't expect Velasco and every other anti-Israel poster on this forum to clamber over each other in an effort to desperately assert that "Akchually, asking random Jewish organizations why they haven't driven the Israelis out of the West Bank isn't anti-semitic."

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Reminder that Gabriel Boric is an anti-semite whose response to a Rosh Hashanah gift basket from Chilean Jews was to ask why they weren't calling upon Israel to end the occupation:

https://twitter.com/gabrielboric/status/1179498192985116672?lang=en

Oh, the horror. If that's your standard for antisemitism, then right is worse. Just google Ivan Moreira Palestina. My city even was declared a territory free of Israel Apartheid under an UDI mayor

In fact, a senate resolution calling for sanctions to Israel over the anexation of the west bank passed with unanimous support in the Senate, after being presented by an UDI senator

The first thing is anti-semitic, the second isn't. Regardless, I'm not sure that "my whole country is anti-semitic, not just the left" is a good thing.

Also, follow-up: What? Israel has never annexed the West Bank.

It was from the time Netanyahu wanted to annex the Jordan Valley.

In any case I find extremely puzzling why you and David take so much issue with this instance but don't see any problem with Kast defending literal nazis or repeatingly calling for the liberation of Miguel Krasnoff (and even saying that the courts "could be wrong" about his 800 years of prison for all his crimes), who said that "Not only is this bitch communist, but she is also Jewish, you have to kill her ” before murdering Diana Arón Svigilisky

I do see a problem with defending Nazis, no matter who they are. If you can point me to statements of Kast defending Nazism, I'll be glad to condemn them and Kast.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Every Chilean Jew I know fled the country during Pinochet's fascist reign.

Official bodies of our diaspora tend to be, as a rule, quite Zionist. True everywhere and we all know it within the community.

Nothingburger!

You must not know many then, since some 30,000 remain! And love to see left wing atheists defend anti-semitism (don't).

[Libertas Vel Mors]

This wasn't AIPAC, it was literally the Jewish community of Chile. Here's their webpage, https://www.cjch.cl/, you can see for yourself that it's not some Chilean-Israeli alliance organization.

The new President of Chile's anti-semitic remarks seem pretty directly relevant to a thread on Chilean politics. I'm disappointed that you don't think that's important. I'm also disappointed that you've avoided my earlier question: If an American Muslim group sent a Ramadan gift to Donald Trump, and his response was to ask them why they haven't stopped ISIS, would that be Islamophobic?

No, that's false. It wasn't actually the Jewish community,  but the organization claiming to represent it. That's the core of this issue, because kaoras already informed us that organization has taken a clear pro-Israel stance and is also spreading conspiracy theories and hatred towards Palestinians.

Boric remarks are in no way antisemitic when he is giving a response to a particular organization.  In any case he made a mistake in not clarifying he was as giving a response to the representatives of a Jewish organization.  When the representatives of a certain organization lobby and campaign for Israel,  it is reasonable to question them for the policies of the Israeli state (deemed genocidal by Boric). That is also at the core of the issue: there is an apartheid regime in Israel-Palestine

Boric should have tweeted "the representatives of the Jewish community " instead of " the Jewish community ". That is all

Other than that, this topic is totally irrelevant to this thread

So you're arguing that because not every member of the Jewish community signed the card wishing a deputy Happy Rosh Hashanah, the card didn't represent their true feelings? That's funny.

As to your other claim, neither you nor Kaoras has provided any proof of CJC lobbying and campaigning for Israel. Can you provide any?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

This wasn't AIPAC, it was literally the Jewish community of Chile. Here's their webpage, https://www.cjch.cl/, you can see for yourself that it's not some Chilean-Israeli alliance organization.

The new President of Chile's anti-semitic remarks seem pretty directly relevant to a thread on Chilean politics. I'm disappointed that you don't think that's important. I'm also disappointed that you've avoided my earlier question: If an American Muslim group sent a Ramadan gift to Donald Trump, and his response was to ask them why they haven't stopped ISIS, would that be Islamophobic?

No, that's false. It wasn't actually the Jewish community,  but the organization claiming to represent it. That's the core of this issue, because kaoras already informed us that organization has taken a clear pro-Israel stance and is also spreading conspiracy theories and hatred towards Palestinians.

Boric remarks are in no way antisemitic when he is giving a response to a particular organization.  In any case he made a mistake in not clarifying he was as giving a response to the representatives of a Jewish organization.  When the representatives of a certain organization lobby and campaign for Israel,  it is reasonable to question them for the policies of the Israeli state (deemed genocidal by Boric). That is also at the core of the issue: there is an apartheid regime in Israel-Palestine

Boric should have tweeted "the representatives of the Jewish community " instead of " the Jewish community ". That is all

Other than that, this topic is totally irrelevant to this thread

So you're arguing that because not every member of the Jewish community signed the card wishing a deputy Happy Rosh Hashanah, the card didn't represent their true feelings? That's funny.

As to your other claim, neither you nor Kaoras has provided any proof of CJC lobbying and campaigning for Israel. Can you provide any?

I am arguing that organization is merely a zionist propaganda vehicle. You only have to visit the "comunidad judia" website to realize it's full of that garbage. Go there and find the evidence yourself, bro

I really hope that not every member of the Jewish community in Chile endorses that organization. I know there are plenty of Jewish individuals not endorsing the policies of the Israeli government

I have been there! I would appreciate it if you could point out any of that "Zionist propaganda." Did the Stars of David scare you?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

I have been there!

Of course you have been there!

I wonder what this could possibly mean to imply!

[Libertas Vel Mors]

[
It's not "zionist" propaganda (whatever you mean by that) but as I said, every time the conflict shows up again they repeat all the talking points of the Israeli government, and that's totally fine. For  example, this is what they said for example in May:

When I say "zionist propaganda" I am referring to the contents of this site in particular

https://www.cjch.cl/

I found loads of garbage in a flash view. Please explore it and save me the effort to explain you the meaning of "propaganda"

On the ither hand, press releases in support of the Israeli government are legal because freedom of speech exists in democratic countries, but in no way I consider it's "perfectly fine" to speak on behalf of an apartheid state.

In any case, I think the point is perfectly clear. Gabriel Boric criticized a pro-Israel organization called "Jewish community" which sent him something, not the Jewish community itself. Claiming this is antisrmitic is disingeneous

I also just looked at that website. Would you mind pointing to the Zionist propaganda?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Also, there's been a lot of debate in the last few days about introducing a "third option" in the plebiscite, because many people like Amarillos por Chile* and the punditariat don't like how the new constitution is shaping up to be, but fear that it will be approved anyway because of the binary option between Approve and Reject (reject meaning keeping the Pinochet constitution). This third option would be doing new conventional elections, that congress has to pass a new constitution or even approving Bachelet's project.

The left and the convention oppose that so is not going to happen.

*Amarillos por Chile had been particularly disgusting of late, with dogwhistles about the autonomy of the indigenous people would somehow violate the principle of 1 person 1 vote. Their barely hidden racism when they talk about anything indigenous related is repulsive and a foreshadowing of how the reject campaign will work.

How is it a dogwhistle to criticize the special seats? Even Americas Quarterly said that:

"Provisions already approved ensuring popular representation in the legislature for each of Chile’s 11 groups of native peoples are far more expansive than existing representation mechanisms for indigenous minorities elsewhere in the world – and will enshrine malapportionment rules that will distort the principle of one person, one vote."

Among many other issues with the constitution, including a virtual removal of property protections.

https://americasquarterly.org/article/the-dangerous-hubris-of-chiles-constitutional-convention/

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Also, there's been a lot of debate in the last few days about introducing a "third option" in the plebiscite, because many people like Amarillos por Chile* and the punditariat don't like how the new constitution is shaping up to be, but fear that it will be approved anyway because of the binary option between Approve and Reject (reject meaning keeping the Pinochet constitution). This third option would be doing new conventional elections, that congress has to pass a new constitution or even approving Bachelet's project.

The left and the convention oppose that so is not going to happen.

*Amarillos por Chile had been particularly disgusting of late, with dogwhistles about the autonomy of the indigenous people would somehow violate the principle of 1 person 1 vote. Their barely hidden racism when they talk about anything indigenous related is repulsive and a foreshadowing of how the reject campaign will work.

How is it a dogwhistle to criticize the special seats? Even Americas Quarterly said that:

"Provisions already approved ensuring popular representation in the legislature for each of Chile’s 11 groups of native peoples are far more expansive than existing representation mechanisms for indigenous minorities elsewhere in the world – and will enshrine malapportionment rules that will distort the principle of one person, one vote."

Among many other issues with the constitution, including a virtual removal of property protections.

https://americasquarterly.org/article/the-dangerous-hubris-of-chiles-constitutional-convention/

Oh dear god, you really are going to make me read a Patricio Navia column? That's a masochistic exercise I've not done in years.

The first part is just complaining about the members elected on change platforms wanting to do significant changes. Elections have consequences, shocking.

The convention is also trying to give more power to Chile’s 16 regions (a number that could increase to 20 if proposals to create new regions gain support). Defying all evidence from countries that have tried fiscal decentralization, the constitutional convention has already included text that will give regions the power to issue bonds, levy taxes and run their own finances.

The bond and taxes thing were rejected. In any case, I seriously doubt you understand the comical extent at which everything is centralized in Chile. I seriously don't have any sympathy whatsoever to these Santiago elites crying about not being able to decide the public transit routes of cities one thousand kilometers away from Santiago. (Well, Navia lives in NYC...)
 

I didn't mention this for a reason. I support decentralization (federalism in the US) and believe that giving more power to states and local governments is a good thing that checks the power of a single government to engage in tyranny.

Also, there's been a lot of debate in the last few days about introducing a "third option" in the plebiscite, because many people like Amarillos por Chile* and the punditariat don't like how the new constitution is shaping up to be, but fear that it will be approved anyway because of the binary option between Approve and Reject (reject meaning keeping the Pinochet constitution). This third option would be doing new conventional elections, that congress has to pass a new constitution or even approving Bachelet's project.

The left and the convention oppose that so is not going to happen.

*Amarillos por Chile had been particularly disgusting of late, with dogwhistles about the autonomy of the indigenous people would somehow violate the principle of 1 person 1 vote. Their barely hidden racism when they talk about anything indigenous related is repulsive and a foreshadowing of how the reject campaign will work.

How is it a dogwhistle to criticize the special seats? Even Americas Quarterly said that:

"Provisions already approved ensuring popular representation in the legislature for each of Chile’s 11 groups of native peoples are far more expansive than existing representation mechanisms for indigenous minorities elsewhere in the world – and will enshrine malapportionment rules that will distort the principle of one person, one vote."

Among many other issues with the constitution, including a virtual removal of property protections.

https://americasquarterly.org/article/the-dangerous-hubris-of-chiles-constitutional-convention/

Oh dear god, you really are going to make me read a Patricio Navia column? That's a masochistic exercise I've not done in years.

The first part is just complaining about the members elected on change platforms wanting to do significant changes. Elections have consequences, shocking.

The convention is also trying to give more power to Chile’s 16 regions (a number that could increase to 20 if proposals to create new regions gain support). Defying all evidence from countries that have tried fiscal decentralization, the constitutional convention has already included text that will give regions the power to issue bonds, levy taxes and run their own finances.

The bond and taxes thing were rejected. In any case, I seriously doubt you understand the comical extent at which everything is centralized in Chile. I seriously don't have any sympathy whatsoever to these Santiago elites crying about not being able to decide the public transit routes of cities one thousand kilometers away from Santiago. (Well, Navia lives in NYC...)

hile. Some provisions already sent to the floor for a full vote call for the nationalization of the mining sector. Others make eminent domain so broad that citizens would have no protection against a government that wants to nationalize the entire economy. Those provisions would still need to be approved by the floor

Yes, that was the problem I was talking about with the commission. The next few paragraphs are him crying about things that were rejected by the floor. Including the Central Bank thing where he literally admits that he is complaining about what he just thinks is going to happen (spoiler, it didn't happened)

Again, I didn't mention the Central Bank thing. I did mention the virtual removal of property protections, but the new constitution is extremely weak in that regard, so I think that's fair.

Also, there's been a lot of debate in the last few days about introducing a "third option" in the plebiscite, because many people like Amarillos por Chile* and the punditariat don't like how the new constitution is shaping up to be, but fear that it will be approved anyway because of the binary option between Approve and Reject (reject meaning keeping the Pinochet constitution). This third option would be doing new conventional elections, that congress has to pass a new constitution or even approving Bachelet's project.

The left and the convention oppose that so is not going to happen.

*Amarillos por Chile had been particularly disgusting of late, with dogwhistles about the autonomy of the indigenous people would somehow violate the principle of 1 person 1 vote. Their barely hidden racism when they talk about anything indigenous related is repulsive and a foreshadowing of how the reject campaign will work.

How is it a dogwhistle to criticize the special seats? Even Americas Quarterly said that:

"Provisions already approved ensuring popular representation in the legislature for each of Chile’s 11 groups of native peoples are far more expansive than existing representation mechanisms for indigenous minorities elsewhere in the world – and will enshrine malapportionment rules that will distort the principle of one person, one vote."

Among many other issues with the constitution, including a virtual removal of property protections.

https://americasquarterly.org/article/the-dangerous-hubris-of-chiles-constitutional-convention/

Oh dear god, you really are going to make me read a Patricio Navia column? That's a masochistic exercise I've not done in years.

The first part is just complaining about the members elected on change platforms wanting to do significant changes. Elections have consequences, shocking.

The convention is also trying to give more power to Chile’s 16 regions (a number that could increase to 20 if proposals to create new regions gain support). Defying all evidence from countries that have tried fiscal decentralization, the constitutional convention has already included text that will give regions the power to issue bonds, levy taxes and run their own finances.

The bond and taxes thing were rejected. In any case, I seriously doubt you understand the comical extent at which everything is centralized in Chile. I seriously don't have any sympathy whatsoever to these Santiago elites crying about not being able to decide the public transit routes of cities one thousand kilometers away from Santiago. (Well, Navia lives in NYC...)

hile. Some provisions already sent to the floor for a full vote call for the nationalization of the mining sector. Others make eminent domain so broad that citizens would have no protection against a government that wants to nationalize the entire economy. Those provisions would still need to be approved by the floor

Yes, that was the problem I was talking about with the commission. The next few paragraphs are him crying about things that were rejected by the floor. Including the Central Bank thing where he literally admits that he is complaining about what he just thinks is going to happen (spoiler, it didn't happened)

For example, ambitious provisions for the rights of nature, expressed repeatedly in different articles already voted by the floor and many others approved at the committee level, will create huge hurdles for mining activities

Oh, the horror of regulating big mining.

I don't really understand his point about the indigenous representation since there has not been any fixed quota approved by the convention (nor any of the political system details yet) so he is pulling the malappoirtment thing out of thin air.
 

I mean, we can debate "regulating big mining," but it's a pretty standard right-wing belief to oppose overregulation, and especially overregulation of valuable industry.

Re: the indigenous thing if there's going to be special seats for the indigenous that can violate one man one vote if the indigenous have the right to vote in both regular elections and indigenous elections. Think of New Zealand, for instance (before MMP, at least, not sure how it works with MMP): if the Maori are allotted seats according to their total population, but some Maori vote in the regular elections rather than the special Maori seats, than the Maori votes are worth more than others.

Also, there's been a lot of debate in the last few days about introducing a "third option" in the plebiscite, because many people like Amarillos por Chile* and the punditariat don't like how the new constitution is shaping up to be, but fear that it will be approved anyway because of the binary option between Approve and Reject (reject meaning keeping the Pinochet constitution). This third option would be doing new conventional elections, that congress has to pass a new constitution or even approving Bachelet's project.

The left and the convention oppose that so is not going to happen.

*Amarillos por Chile had been particularly disgusting of late, with dogwhistles about the autonomy of the indigenous people would somehow violate the principle of 1 person 1 vote. Their barely hidden racism when they talk about anything indigenous related is repulsive and a foreshadowing of how the reject campaign will work.

How is it a dogwhistle to criticize the special seats? Even Americas Quarterly said that:

"Provisions already approved ensuring popular representation in the legislature for each of Chile’s 11 groups of native peoples are far more expansive than existing representation mechanisms for indigenous minorities elsewhere in the world – and will enshrine malapportionment rules that will distort the principle of one person, one vote."

Among many other issues with the constitution, including a virtual removal of property protections.

https://americasquarterly.org/article/the-dangerous-hubris-of-chiles-constitutional-convention/

Oh dear god, you really are going to make me read a Patricio Navia column? That's a masochistic exercise I've not done in years.

The first part is just complaining about the members elected on change platforms wanting to do significant changes. Elections have consequences, shocking.

The convention is also trying to give more power to Chile’s 16 regions (a number that could increase to 20 if proposals to create new regions gain support). Defying all evidence from countries that have tried fiscal decentralization, the constitutional convention has already included text that will give regions the power to issue bonds, levy taxes and run their own finances.

The bond and taxes thing were rejected. In any case, I seriously doubt you understand the comical extent at which everything is centralized in Chile. I seriously don't have any sympathy whatsoever to these Santiago elites crying about not being able to decide the public transit routes of cities one thousand kilometers away from Santiago. (Well, Navia lives in NYC...)

hile. Some provisions already sent to the floor for a full vote call for the nationalization of the mining sector. Others make eminent domain so broad that citizens would have no protection against a government that wants to nationalize the entire economy. Those provisions would still need to be approved by the floor

Yes, that was the problem I was talking about with the commission. The next few paragraphs are him crying about things that were rejected by the floor. Including the Central Bank thing where he literally admits that he is complaining about what he just thinks is going to happen (spoiler, it didn't happened)

For example, ambitious provisions for the rights of nature, expressed repeatedly in different articles already voted by the floor and many others approved at the committee level, will create huge hurdles for mining activities

Oh, the horror of regulating big mining.

I don't really understand his point about the indigenous representation since there has not been any fixed quota approved by the convention (nor any of the political system details yet) so he is pulling the malappoirtment thing out of thin air.

Then he complains about gender parity and social rights and blablabla. Regarding your point about property rights, I guess you are referring to the changes to the expropriations clauses. The 1980 constitution had expropriation procedures detailed at a level unseen in literally any other constitution in the world (you can check any comparative law paper written about it), the new Private Property right and expropriation clause is just in line with what most European countries have.
 

1. Most European countries probably should have more property protections. That European countries have overly weak constitutions is a common phenomenon, but that doesn't mean it should be repeated elsewhere.

2. Most European countries don't have candidates regularly calling for the expropriation of property. Weaker protections for property may be fine in a European country where property rights aren't at risk, but in Chile where property rights are stronger rights are necessary.

3. This isn't true. The new Chilean Constitution says that no person can be deprived of property, except by virtue of a law that authorizes expropriation for public utility or general interest declared by the legislator -- basically removing guarantees of rights by allowing for expropriation so long as Congress declares it to be "in the general interest" (a vague term in the best of times, made worthless by allowing Congress to decide what it is). By contrast, the Polish Constitution guarantees "ownership and the right of succession" and say that all citizens "shall receive legal protection regarding ownership, other property rights and the right of succession."