Chilean government supports Muslim school girl use of ‘hijab’

Source: Mercopress

Thursday, November 11th 2010 - 20:29 UTC
Chilean government supports Muslim school girl use of ‘hijab’

Yasmin Elsayed, a 9-year old girl who was prohibited from wearing a hijab (an Islamic head scarf) at the W. A. Mozart School in the La Reina borough of Chile’s capital Santiago, was allowed to register again for the 2011 school year this week.

The school claimed the hijab was not part of the official school uniform. Yasmin’s parents complained that school officials had said their daughter would not be able to enrol for the following school year if she continued to wear the head scarf.

Muslims represent less than one percent of Chile’s population.

On Sunday, Education Minister Joaquín Lavín announced his support for the family at the Islamic Cultural Centre of Santiago. The meeting was also attended by the ambassadors of Iraq, Iran, Lebanon and Jordan. Lavín informed the family that authorities had contacted the school, and that Yasmin would be able to continue her education there.

“The Education Act protects the right of Yasmin to wear the head scarf along with her uniform” Lavín said.

Read more: http://en.mercopress.com/2010/11/11/chilean-government-supports-muslim-school-girl-use-of-hijab

I dont think so.

like the US-backed filthy, absolutely evil fascist government of General Pinochet which had the country in its grasp for years and years, with total US financial, material, political support and approval.

Chile has come so very far as it struggled to stand up again after living in absolute fear, with so many destroyed lives, for so very long.

Viva Chile. Hope they get the world they wanted in Chile before the Nixon regime plotted to violently overthrow their elected President Allende.

You seem to be demonstraing discomfort at the actual subject raised.

I realize that sometimes, when a challenging topic with no easy answer stares you in the face, a natural inclination can be to try to make tried and true comforting arguments on semi-adjacent subjects.

As in this case, where the story of Gen. Pinochet and the Nixon administration is not exactltly central to the matter raised.

Muslims are less than 1% of the population in Chile, according to the article.

This would fall under the rubric of protecting the rights of minorities, something the execrable Pinochet didn't do. Thus, it's germane to the topic.


BTW, is that monster still alive? If so, why?

From Time Magazine: Pinochet liked to say that no blade of grass moved in Chile without his order.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,265371,00.html

Here's a short summary of his hideous life:
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/pinochet.html

The more you read on the horror this man unleashed, with the help of the U.S. upon the country, the more you feel compelled to keep reading until you know more about this event of which we were NOT informed at the time, even though our own tax dollars were used to underwrite it. It's absolutely horrendous. He had 11 torture centers in the country, and 3 ships which plied the water of the Chilean coast, upon which they placed more political prisoners, with the sole purpose of torturing them. An English priest died on one of the ships (off shore, like Guantanamo!), La Esmeralda.

http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com.nyud.net:8090/uploads/images/article-images/noticia_14543_normal.png
Pinochet's infamous torturer was Osvaldo Romo. What was done to prisoners under his care would seem beyond belief to you.

http://critica.uchile.cl.nyud.net:8090/imagen/portadas/romo.jpg http://www.elrancahuaso.cl.nyud.net:8090/tmp_images/202/noticia_10060_normal.jpg
Wikipedia, Osvaldo Romo

~snip~
Excerpt from a Univision interview:
—Would you do it again? Would you do it the same way?
—Sure, I'd do the same and more. I wouldn't leave anybody alive (...) That was one of DINA's mistakes. I was always arguing with my general: don't leave that person alive, don't let that person go free. There are consequences.
—As for throwing the corpses of the prisoners into the sea...
—I think it could have happened. (...) Throwing them into the crater of a volcano would be better... (...) Who'd go looking for them in a volcano? Nobody.
—On the day you die... what would your epitaph say? "Here lies the hangman, the torturer, the murderer..."
—Logical, logical. I accept that. But for me it was a positive thing. (...) I am at peace with my conscience and my beliefs.

– Extract from the interview,

More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osvaldo_Romo

It's very inconvenient not being a believer.

It is a little empty without the fantasy of terrible retributions we can summons by "praying!" It seems all wrong for people to be this evil and then slip away without being on the receiving end of even a really powerful frown!

ear curls, or a 9-year old Baptist girl who goes to church twice on Sunday and once in the middle of the week. In matters of religious faith children are expected to be taught by their parents. The issue here is whether the school could ban her from wearing the headscarf common to most Islamic cultures. The Chilean government correctly, in my view, decided that they could not. There's no "free choice" issue here.

After all, I doubt they ban the Jewish minority from putting yarmulkes on the boys.

It's a scarf, not an attack on the great culture of the west.

person to decide what religion, if any, they want to follow. I'm with Dawkins on this; religious indoctrination is child abuse.

but do we really know what the 9 year old is thinking? Does she have any more choice than what any other 9 year old wears? It's just a piece of clothing after all.

Peace,
Tex Shelters
http://texshelters.wordpress.com/

She also didn't choose to live in Chile, speak Spanish, or go to school at all. Parents are responsible for raising their children, and it seems to me that these parents are doing a very good job of it from the little information available here.

It is usually the full body cover that people consider oppressive.

My kid has a uniform (of sorts) he has to wear at school. If he "insists" on doing otherwise he'll be sent home. If he does it repeatedly he will not be allowed to attend that school. He'll be able to enroll at a different school that's much less conveniently located.

He's 6.

It has nothing to do with religious discrimination. It has to do with who's privileged to be exempted from part or all of the rules and who isn't.

I have little problem with religious exemptions. However, usually the exemptions are reserved not because of the parents' beliefs (or even the kid's) but because there's some authority that's sided with the parents. Granted, it prevents abuse; on the other hand it makes the entire issue a collective rights or collective force one as opposed to an individual-rights issue. Note that it only became a fashionable and correct thing to do for Chile when embassies got involved and a "community" was at stake, defending that poor girl's honor and privileges. If she was in a community of one nobody would care about her rights.

That bothers me in the US. I'm of two minds on other countries. Approving of Chile's action in this is the same as approving of Sudan's inaction on FGM: It's their internal concern and none of my business. On the other hand, I figure I have the same right to pass judgment on other cultures as other cultures have to pass judgment on mine.

While I 100% agree with a Burka ban, as you cannot identify who is wearing it (and bank robbers have chosen the burka as a disguise

A hijab ban is culturally insensitive however. As far as ID purposes, it is no different than a headscarf.

I made the "free choice" point simply because whenever Islamic dress requirements for women come up here, they are often justified as being matters of "free will".

I am of the opinion that adherence to these rules are not expressions of free will at all. They are examples of religion-driven social conformity imposed on women who have the misfortune to be born into a mysogynist culture governed by patriarchal religions.

I celebrate the fact that I had the advantage and good luck not to be born into such a culture.

"They are examples of religion-driven social conformity imposed on women who have the misfortune to be born into a mysogynist culture governed by patriarchal religions."

And extend it to people in general, then the US culture's general ban on nudity also qualifies.

A cultural disposition against nudity isn't specificaly an American aversion, nor is it a taboo upheld by only one specific religious group in America, nor is the prohibiton against nudity imposed only on one gender. So theres not much of a useful analogy there.

For my part, I'm a Canadian, and strongly opposed to nudity anytime in winter, more as a practical than a religious matter.

so let's not talk about AMERICA, when the statutes vary state to state. Some states also (NY comes to mind...) give women the same freedom as men to go topless, fwiw.

Furthermore, many municipalities allow nudity to lesser or greater extent. I used to be a town lifeguard where one of our town run beaches was nude.

Brief back story: We have a group of people who ride bicycles naked, en masse, around Portland. It's a form of protest, as a group action.

Somebody decided to do it solo, got arrested. Judge decided that individual speech and group speech were not supposed to have separate rules.

Oh, and Portland has the highest, per capita, amount of strip clubs in the United States. Nudity here is just a work outfit for many folks.

is in my state. I do recall seeing numerous female topless protesters at various events and the cops could not have cared less. I'm not sure if they were ignoring it because they didn't want to make a fuss at those incidents, or if it is in fact legal. I am certain that technically speaking full nudity is illegal in WA state, however it's largely a "community standard" thing iow there must be a complainant and it must violate "community standards" and thus various nude exhibitions etc. don't result in arrests that I have seen, at least in the Seattle area.