Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Monday May 01 2017, @03:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the they-grow-up-so-quickly-these-days dept.

Free Malaysia Today reports

At the [Malaysian] National Scholastic Chess Championship 2017, which took place in Putrajaya recently, the girl was informed that what she wore was "improper and had violated the dress code" for the tournament.

[...] The girl's chess coach, Kaushal Khandhar, wrote on Facebook, "In the middle of Round 2, (without stopping the clocks) Chief Arbiter informs my student that the dress she wore was improper and violated the dress code of the tournament.

"It was later informed (by Chief Arbiter) to my student and her mother, that the Tournament Director deemed my student's dress to be 'seductive' and a 'temptation from a certain angle far, far away'."

[...] Kaushal said after discussions with the chief arbiter, the girl was allowed to compete, provided she bought a pair of slacks for the next day, but that decision came at 10pm and with the event at Putrajaya, there was no way the girl's mother could buy anything for the 9am start the next day.

"Before the morning round next day, my student's mother called the tournament director regarding this matter. Initially he had replied that he was not aware of the situation but after a brief discussion, we realised he knew all the details on this incident prior to this phone call.

"He promised to return the call upon discussion with the chief arbiter, but this did not happen. He would further not answer or return any calls by my student's mother", Kaushal wrote, adding that the situation led to the inevitable decision of withdrawal from the tournament altogether."

We should perhaps note here that Malaysia is majority-Muslim.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 01 2017, @05:43PM (3 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 01 2017, @05:43PM (#502398) Journal

    I responded to a similar question earlier. Operation Ajax in the fifties - the US destroyed a democratic government ruling Iran, and installed a much-hated puppet. When the Iranians finally ran that puppet out of town, the Islamic Revolution took over. No, bat-shit crazy Muslims didn't rule Iran in the 1960's. The US has itself to blame for all the Ayatollahs.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Informative=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Monday May 01 2017, @07:52PM (2 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Monday May 01 2017, @07:52PM (#502480)

    I dunno. If Wikipedia is to be believed, the Brits were pretty heavily fucking with them due to greed over oil profits. So the Brits basically drive the Iranian economy into the ground by seizing all their oil they're trying to export (shockingly, the Iranian side of the oil partnership wasn't happy with 16% of profits and also no, we won't let you audit our records). The prime minister's coalition was keeping the shah (the pre-shah shah) from being too autocratic because the people loved the PM. But then the whole British fuckery* steadily eroded all his support. Finally he basically declared himself dictator and abolished the parliament, the government crumbled, and *then* Operation Ajax happened.

    Take it with a grain of salt I suppose, but their problems with the Brits sound pretty damn severe before the U.S. got involved, regardless of when exactly that was.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Oil_nationalization_crisis [wikipedia.org]

    *apparently Winston Churchill was an asshole

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 01 2017, @08:01PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Monday May 01 2017, @08:01PM (#502482)

      Calling it a "coup" is a bit odd, considering that the U.S. was militarily supporting the Shah dismissing the Prime Minister, which he did in fact had the constitutional authority to do. The PM didn't like that and resisted.

      So it rather sounds like it would've devolved into a civil war anyway, assuming the Shah had the balls to dismiss the PM without the U.S. leaning on him to do so. Which isn't as far-fetched as you might think.

      But yeah, I wish the U.S. would've stayed out of it. Greed over oil is a powerful motivator. WP claims that Churchill basically lied to Eisenhower that Iran was thinking about going over to the Soviet side to try to get his hands on the oil.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:24AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday May 04 2017, @05:24AM (#504197) Homepage
      There are some Brits who consider Churchill to be as much war criminal as war hero. Hearing of him fucking up/over something more no longer comes as much of a surprise.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves