Chile Forum

France has similar laws to create an artificial market for garbage that nobody would listen to otherwise.

otravers wrote:France has similar laws to create an artificial market for garbage that nobody would listen to otherwise.

Some municipalities in the US have requirements that city governments purchase American-brand automobiles that nobody would buy otherwise.

patagoniax wrote:

otravers wrote:France has similar laws to create an artificial market for garbage that nobody would listen to otherwise.

Some municipalities in the US have requirements that city governments purchase American-brand automobiles that nobody would buy otherwise.

Interesting about the cars, as when I arrived in the US back in 1988, I wanted to buy a small car, and saw a few "Chev Novas" in a dealer´s lot , but as I had no idea what a Nova was, I checked around and found that it was, in fact, a Toyota Corolla, and when I looked under the hood, I saw that all parts were stamped " Toyota". Apparently the idea was, and perhaps still is, that many Americans had problems with the idea of buying a foreign made car so GM did a deal with Toyota and came up with the Nova. The odd thing was the Nova had a lower price than the Toyota, so I bought the Nova and had various positive remarks at the office, thanking me for buying a US car even though I was a foreigner

dfjordan wrote:

patagoniax wrote:

otravers wrote:France has similar laws to create an artificial market for garbage that nobody would listen to otherwise.

Some municipalities in the US have requirements that city governments purchase American-brand automobiles that nobody would buy otherwise.

Interesting about the cars, as when I arrived in the US back in 1988, I wanted to buy a small car, and saw a few "Chev Novas" in a dealer´s lot , but as I had no idea what a Nova was, I checked around and found that it was, in fact, a Toyota Corolla, and when I looked under the hood, I saw that all parts were stamped " Toyota". Apparently the idea was, and perhaps still is, that many Americans had problems with the idea of buying a foreign made car so GM did a deal with Toyota and came up with the Nova. The odd thing was the Nova had a lower price than the Toyota, so I bought the Nova and had various positive remarks at the office, thanking me for buying a US car even though I was a foreigner

There was a deal between Chevrolet and Toyota for co-branding one model in the US. It was called the Toyolet.

Most of the cars and LUV-type pickup trucks I know of sold in Chile that say "Chevrolet" are actually made anywhere but the US. Some of the full-size pickups now sold in Chile do come from the US but there don't seem to be very many of them.
------
Update on the Chilean "Chevrolet" LUV: for several years the "Chevrolet" LUV trucks in Chile were manufactured in Latin America under licence from Isuzu. Since 2004 the "LUV" was replaced in Chile by the Japanese Isuzu D-Max, but these still have the Chevrolet exterior markings.

admin wrote:... how nice that the most intrusive thing the government does in Chile is tell you when you can and can not fly the flag. That alone should be reason to fly the Chilean flag all year around (even if it means a fine).

We don't have to look far to shatter the commonly held illusions about Chile, wherein its legal system and related cultural legacies are concerned.

The following happened a few years ago (1999) under the Socialist government of Eduardo Alfredo Juan Bernardo Frei Ruiz-Tagle, who of course was the Socialist candidate again in 2009. The Chilean "State Security Law" includes provisions that seem similar to the misnamed "Patriot Act" in the US. Note that the Chilean "State Security Law" dates from 1958, is still on the books, and is not an artifact, as some leftist sites claim, of the Pinochet administration.

SANTIAGO --Press-freedom activists were outraged at the June 16 arrest of Bartolo Ortiz and Carlos Orellana, general manager and editor of the Planeta publishing company, on charges of violating the State Security Law for the publish-
ing of The Black Book of the Chilean Justice System [ El Libro Negro de la Justicia Chilena*].

The book, written by journalist Alejandra Matus, was released on April 14 but was withdrawn from circulation the following day when police arrived at Planeta's offices with a court order to confiscate all copies of the book. Matus was able to escape arrest by fleeing to Argentina.

The arrests came after Supreme Court Justice Servando Jordan filed a lawsuit for defamation. The repressive law, enacted in 1958 under the authoritarian rule of Carlos Ibáñez del Campo, has been used on 25 different occasions against journalists and politicians in the nine years since the end of the Pinochet dictatorship to repress criticism against government employees, military or police personnel, and church leaders. It prescribes up to five years of prison for those found guilty. Judge Rafael Huerta, who issued the warrants, said the book is part of an international conspiracy aimed at discrediting the Chilean judicial system.

The Black Book is the culmination of a six-year investigation by Matus in which she describes the corruption, nepotism, abuse of power and influence-trafficking of the Chilean judicial system. The book portrays Servando Jordan as an avid drinker who has failed his responsibilities as a Supreme Court judge. Matus also indicts the judiciary system for its incapacity to impart justice in cases of human rights violations committed during the military dictatorship.

Ortiz and Orellana were released on bail after two days in jail. According to the National Press Association, that they were arrested at all proves "once more, the extraordinary fragility of freedom of speech" in Chile.

A more comprehensive analysis of the case and international appeals are reported on the following sites http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/cases/55-00.html
http://www.cpj.org/news/2001/Chile_matus.pdf

* Anyone who is serious about living in Chile and participating in any sort of business that could bring contact with the Chilean judicial system should read this book. And remember why more than a few Chileans have a "plan B" for quickly getting out of the country or going underground. The book is available online now for free --- in Spanish only

http://www.salvador-allende.cl/Bibliote ... 0Matus.pdf

Hey, I read today that there is a proposal now to change the law that will allow people to fly the flag when they want!! So it,s not just the likes of myself that ask why we should be dictated to as to when we can fly the flag without restriction. Poco a poco. Perhaps we may, one day, be able to write a will that allows us to decide waht we want to do with our assets when we die instead of being dictated to by inheritance laws that are also beyond my logic!

It's not beyond your logic; it's Napoleanic law versus British civil law and it's descendent (U.S. law) that most of us are used to.
It's kinda like knowing the Miranda rights from watching TV for 40 years and being surprised no one else knows them or that they mean nothing in most places.

Zenth wrote:It's not beyond your logic; it's Napoleanic law versus British civil law and it's descendent (U.S. law) that most of us are used to.
It's kinda like knowing the Miranda rights from watching TV for 40 years and being surprised no one else knows them or that they mean nothing in most places.

Sorry, I´m not clear whether you are commenting on my complaint about inheritance laws or the flying of the flag? I have no problem with say the law about flying a flag whether it be Napoleonic law or British law, all I wanted was to know ( but necessarily agree with) the reason the law was passed, working on the theory that a law doesn´t get passed unless someone has a reason to propose it.
With inheritance laws I don´t think it makes much difference on whose laws they are based; what I object to is a government telling me who I can give my assets to at any time, whether it be while I´m alive or dead.

dfjordan wrote:... what I object to is a government telling me who I can give my assets to at any time, whether it be while I´m alive or dead.

It's one of those things you buy into when becoming a resident of a former Spanish colony. When I lived in Spain the law was essentially the same as it is in Chile. It's an old tradition of the Spanish-speaking countries, and it generally suits their sense of social justice and logic, or at least well enough to have so far prevented significant change. I have heard the argument that Chile's system makes more social sense than the North American systems that allow persons to leave their entire estates to their dogs and ponies, and not a penny to their surviving spouse and children. The Chilean law also prevents persons from willing their entire estates to a church or similar (as is permitted and done in North America) thus also leaving spouse and children destitute. (I'll add a note that many jurisdictions in North America do provide civil procedures for heirs to contest exclusion from distribution of estates).

There is some great history attached to this topic. One of the earliest codified sets of laws in Spain, the Siete Partidas from the 13th century, did allow wills to specify certain types of disinheritance. For example, A Christian Spanish father could disinherit a son for becoming a Jew, a Muslim, or a wizard!

Evidently under some circumstances the Spanish authorities nowadays will allow a non-Spanish property owner resident in Spain to pre-arrange (prior to his/her death) for an application the laws of his or her native country. But if you are a Spanish national there is no such opportunity, que yo sepa. This idea of allowing non-Chilean residents to chose the law of their nationality doesn't seem to have caught on in Chile. In fact, from what I understand, the Bachelet government took a stand against any such liberalising of the inheritance concept for Chile, viewing it as one of her pet "women's rights" social policies.

Anyone familiar with international law and treaties will recall that there have been many ratified accords that SHOULD have allowed the application of the laws of one's nationality to the preplanned (intestate) disposition of properties after death -- including within several Spanish-speaking countries. The latest Convention on this would allow a person to essentially chose "nationality" or "residency" nations' systems for rules of intestacy. Chile and Argentina both evidently signed the Hague Convention of 1 August 1989 on the Law Applicable to Succession to the Estates of Deceased Persons, but neither allowed it to become part of observed domestic social policy and law. Courts in Brazil, on the other hand, reportedly chose between the laws of that nation or those of a deceased person, depending on what the court determines to be more favourable to the surviving spouse and children, and those are entitled to not less than 50 percent of the estate, no matter what the previously expressed wishes of the deceased.

By the way, others have opined that this inheritance practice observed in Chile is based on Napoleonic reforms. In fact the basis of the Spanish/Chilean concept of inheritance is rooted in the doctrine of Legitime and is based on Roman civil law. Under Legitime, a significant portion of a person's estate must be distributed to the "rightful heirs."

Note that I am not personally defending any of this; just offering an explanation, and a very sketchy and incomplete one at that. Es lo que hay. Informed opinions always welcome.

Thanks very much patagoniax for your explanation which I found very interesting, and I agree with you entirely