The proposal of a new Constitution is undoubtedly one of the main themes of this 2022, the convention, constituted by popular election and being the first body of this parity nature in Chile -and the world- has been framed since its inception by a approving and rejecting force that has polarized the discussion.
In this context, education about the content of the proposal so that citizens can give an informed vote is fundamental. It is in the “hunt” for the vote of those who are undecided, where some think that “anything goes” in order to convince one person to choose one option over the other.
In fact, approximately 30% of the electoral roll has not yet decided which option to go for, of this, 60% are women, which translates into 4,500,000 people, according to Pulso Ciudadano.
Fake news or fake news, they are a phenomenon that is not new, but that since the social explosion has taken a lot of strength to try to manipulate public opinion. Therefore, in conversation with The Braga Counter, deny the three most viral fake news on aspects of gender, feminism and dissent in the proposal, the academic and member of the Network of Feminist Historians, Hillary Hiner; the former contestant and spokesperson of the Feminist Coordinator 8M, Alondra Carrillo; and the lawyer UChile, Natalia Morales.
Fake news: “You can abort up to 9 months”
What the norm says (Article 61) is that the State must guarantee the sexual and reproductive rights of all people and that the laws that are generated must respect this principle.
“The myth of an alleged abortion without a time limit that has been spread is false news in relation to gender measures. Because the tactic that this sector of rejection has decided to adopt with respect to the enormous advances in gender that the Constitution brings, is to ignore, omit and make invisible this dimension of the constitutional project, because they clearly know that it would be deeply unpopular in a country where feminism has advanced so much, to go out -openly- to install lies about these aspects of the text”. explains the former conventional Alondra Carrillo.
Fake news: “We will not be able to choose the educational project for our children, with Comprehensive Sexual Education they want to implement their gender ideology”
First of all, it is never too much to remember that there is no “gender ideology”, says the UTEM teacher, María Claudia Ormazabal Abusleme. “An ideology” indoctrinates, segments and blinds us from reality, something far removed from the vision of gender focus, because it broadens us and allows us to make visible the inequities that limit the total inclusion of women and sexual dissidents, in a deeply unequal society with little learning of tolerance for diversity”.
What the proposed new Constitution establishes is that “Everyone has the right to receive comprehensive sexual education, which promotes the full and free enjoyment of sexuality; sex-affective responsibility; autonomy, self-care and consent” (Art.40) and that “Freedom of education is guaranteed and it is the duty of the State to respect it” (Art.41).
“There are many hate speeches regarding this point, I have seen graffiti that are there written in different parts of Santiago, which raise this idea of linking Comprehensive Sexual Education (ESI) with this idea that they are sexual predators or sexual deviations, when it is just the opposite. We know that the ESI provides an education for children, where effectively you can give tools to identify, with much more clarity what sexual violence is, what is child sexual abuse and therefore, helps to prevent, “explains historian Hillary Hiner.
Fake news: “Gender focus on justice means that it will always be ruled in favor of women”
This statement is completely false and is based on an incorrect definition of the gender approach, says lawyer Natalia Morales. To make it clear, the gender approach or perspective is an approach or an analysis tool that makes visible the position of structural inequality in which women, girls and adolescents find themselves with respect to men in our society and that can also be applied to gender diversities and dissidences. Its meaning is to make visible the discrimination and violence that usually goes unnoticed either because it is naturalized or because it is not reasserted.take the corresponding exam.
Applying the gender perspective in justice means that judges have a duty to prevent the reproduction of stereotypes or discriminatory outcomes, she explains. It does not define in any case a result that must be produced in advance. What must be done is to observe and analyze whether or not in the cases to be resolved there is a situation of inequality linked to gender that can influence the decision. If it doesn’t exist, they will fail as they usually do. If it exists, they must evaluate possible decisions considering that women’s rights or diversities are not violated by the effect of gender stereotypes or other factors, which does not necessarily imply that they “win a case”, but that they are respected and protected from the effects of gender violence and discrimination.
This also applies to other law enforcement officers such as police, prosecutors, civil servants, among others. “It is a mainly preventive tool, which prevents actions taken from violating or discriminating against women. Applying the gender approach in justice means in practice that women are not, for example, sent home when they denounce violence, or that judges do not base their decisions on the clothing, conduct, or social opinion that exists about the complainants or denounced for the fact of being women, ” Morales says.
Fear as a form of campaign
Using disinformation and falsehoods are not new tools, on the contrary Hinner argues that they have a very long historicity, for example in the election of ’64’ “these elite groups tried to appeal to women in a tone of ‘protecting the family’, since it was a very cold war context, the arguments had to do with communism, that with his dogmas he was going to break the traditional scheme of the family, corrupt childhood, leave women without certain protections and appealed to instill fear, suspicion regarding these changes that were coming”.
Permanently, Hinner continues, it has been said and proven that the new Constitution is not going to take away people’s house or pension, “however, they come back and forth and touch that same point again, because they are already trying to convince through lying repeatedly”, until the lie becomes something more dangerous, in post-truth, where it no longer matters that the fact is false and that it is denied, because that distortion has already been installed.
Follow us on
