Paul Goble
Vienna, November 19 – A Moscow law firm has set up a special website to provide Russia’s Muslims with free online consultations concerning their rights and responsibilities and the ways they can use the Russian legal system to defend their rights and advance the cause of Islam.
The M. Lawyers firm has established a website at http://www.musbiz.ru to provide free legal consultations to Russia’s Muslims about their rights in the workplace and elsewhere under Russian law and about how they can navigate through the legal thicket to set up Muslim organizations.
The site, the first of its kind on the Dot RU domain features an embedded email form allowing Muslims to ask questions about Russian law and the rights it provides Muslims both individually and collectively. And the site promises to answer all queries for free within two working days.
The site’s creation was announced on Islam.ru on Friday. And that news portal, the largest of its kind in the Russian Federation, featured alongside this announcement an interview with one of the M. Lawyers consultants, Tavkhat Abdrakhmanov, who provided answers to five typical questions (http://www.islam.ru/pressclub/gost/ravhat/).
The first question concerned the rights of employers to fire a worker for observing the norms of Islam, including wearing the hijab or performing the five-time daily prayers. Abdrakhmanov said that employers had broad powers to fire people they find personally distasteful and thus could act on this basis in such cases.
Moreover, he said, employers could argue that Muslim actions or even dress represented a violation of workplace discipline, an argument that is supported by law. And wearing the hijab could fall under this provision of the law under certain conditions, albeit not in all.
The second question involved the right of the faithful to say prayers at work and to request special breaks for this. According to Abdrakhmanov, believers have the right to use their breaks for prayer but the timing and frequency of such breaks are things that must be established through negotiation.
The third question concerned where Muslims have the right to pray at the workplace. Abdrakhmanov said that employers are required to provide clean places for their workers to take breaks and thus to pray under such circumstances. If they do not, then workers have the right to appeal to the authorities or the courts.
The fourth question to Abdrakhmanov was “what legal rights does a Muslim have for the observation of religious obligations in hospitals, birthing houses and other medical institutions?” According to the lawyer, Muslims like other citizens have the right to practice their religion unless that gets in the way of the managers of such facilities.
They can thus bring in halal food but cannot demand that the institutions provide it, they can arrange for visits by Muslim leaders, and they can seek out their own doctors for deliveries of babies but cannot demand that the hospitals or birthing facilities arrange for those the Muslim community approves.
And the fifth hypothetical question concerned the rights of Muslims to form religious communities to advance their faith. Abdrakhmanov said that Russian law allows Muslims to form religious groups, communities and organizations relatively easily even if they do not have the approval of muftis.
He described some of the ways but noted that often Muslims do not know their rights or the procedures that must be followed to force the authorities at the local or regional level to observe them. It is not so much that the latter will oppose them, he continued, but rather that there are relatively few precedents to guide everyone involved.
The creation of this website is important not only because it will allow Muslims to learn about their rights more easily but also because it will provide clear guidance on where their rights may be being violated or not protected by Russian law. But there is a third and even more significant aspect of the apperance of this new venue.
As Abdrakhmanov’s comments suggest, Russian law in this area is still in its infancy – he pointedly notes that religious freedom is “not a legal norm but rather a moral one” – and that Muslims need to bring more cases in order that the courts will be in a position to create the precedents necessary for such freedom to come into being.
That may encourage more Muslims to do just that, and it may also prompt more of Russia’s law firms and legal consultation agencies to begin to provide the kind of services M. Lawyers now has to both individual Muslims and groups of believers in the ever growing Islamic community of the Russian Federation.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Window on Eurasia: Chechnya Now Independent De Facto, Moscow Analyst Says
Paul Goble
Vienna, November 17 –Chechnya under its nominally pro-Kremlin leader Ramzan Kadyrov has achieved de facto independence -- even though he does not make such a claim and neither Moscow nor any other government yet recognizes that status de jure, according to a leading Russian analyst.
That is the product, Anatoliy Tsyganok argues in an article posted on Friday, of Moscow’s failed “experiment” to try to convert former separatist fighters into defenders of Russian law and order, a policy Moscow has not backed away from in the run up to the country’s parliamentary and presidential elections.
Tsyganok, who writes frequently on security issues, is not the first to advance this argument: Akhmed Zakayev, the Ichkerian diplomat now living in London, said the same thing earlier this year, pointing out that Kadyrov, whatever he may say, is acting in ways that point to an independent Chechnya, albeit a very different one than many want.
But unlike Zakayev who would very much like to see an independent Chechnya, albeit not one under Kadyrov, Tsyganok is against that idea and carefully traces the ways in which Moscow has failed to recognize what is going on there or has been unwilling or unable to do anything effective to counter it (http://www.apn.ru/opinions/print.htm).
The occasion for Tsyganok’s analysis is the second in a pair of murderous attacks in Moscow against pro-Russian militia officers from Chechnya, one in November 2006 against Movladi Baysarov and a second quite recently against Alikhan Mutsayev, the personal body guard of former Chechen President Alu Alkhanov.
When Baysarov, who had worked closely with the Russian FSB but fell out of favor in both Grozny and Moscow for his alleged involvement with a series of kidnappings, was killed, the Russian media were filled with details about his activities and speculation about who was behind his murder.
Although Kadyrov, who Tsyganok says viewed Baysarov as an enemy, said nothing at that time, Alkhanov quickly released a statement regretting Baysarov’s “tragic death,” rejecting the charges that had been levelled against him, and praising his contributions to Chechnya and the Russian Federation.
But Tsyganok continues, what a difference a year makes! When Mutsayev, who had been consistently on Moscow’s side in Chechnya, was gunned down in Moscow, the Russian media provided few details. Kadyrov again said nothing, but Alkhanov released no statement even though Mutsayev had been his personal bodyguard.
According to the Moscow analyst, either Alkhanov is now “afraid [to say anything] or his hands are tied” – an extremely remarkable situation in this case because “even in his native village people say that Mutsayev and his brothers did not have any enemies because they were all pro-federal.”
Tsyganok suggests that this points to three conclusions: First, he says, it clearly indicates that Kadyrov and security forces loyal to him rather than Moscow were behind both murders. Second, the military affairs analyst continues, it shows that Kadyrov and company can act with impunity even in Moscow against their opponents.
And third – and this is perhaps the most important– these attacks in the Russian capital send a clear signal to the Chechen diaspora in Russia clearly that Moscow cannot protect any Chechen however loyal he may be to the Russian authorities if Kadyrov wants him removed from the scene.
Alkhanov’s change of behavior suggests that he has gotten this message, but Tsyganok then asks when others will finally recognize that Kadyrov now has a militia structure subordinate only to him that is ready and willing to use violence to settle scores against those who oppose him “even in Moscow itself?”
Tsyganok traces the emergence of this situation to the formation of the two “battalions” in Chechnya, the “East” which consists largely of former separatists who supposedly passed over to the side of federal forces and the ”West,” which is “the single armed formation in which there are practically no former separatists.”
Indeed, according to Tsyganok, former supporters of Dzhokar Dudayev and Arslan Maskhadov find it easy to “’simply pass over to the other side’,” as Chechens say, but they find their path into the pro-Federal West battalion “closed” because of the careful checking by that unit’s commanders.
Kadyrov’s power is based on the East battalion and allied groups, with some 7500 to 10,500 armed men. For him and then, the West battalion is a unit that “sticks in their craw” because it “defends” pro-Russian Federation people in Chechnya, and consequently, he is interested in weakening it by attacking it.
A year ago, as the coverage of the November 2006 murder shows, the balance of forces was on the side of Moscow and the West battalion, Tsyganok says. But now, the balance has shifted away from Moscow and toward Kadyrov and his allies in the East battalion.
There are several reasons for that, Tsyganok continues. First of all, Kadyrov has spent the intervening period strengthening his position in Grozny. Then, his ability to attack his enemies with impunity has won him support grudging in the case of those who may fear him and enthusiastic from those who want to see Chechnya independent.
And finally, the Russian government in this election season, does not want to acknowledge these dangers or do anything about them lest it call into question its claims that the situation in the North Caucasus is “stabilizing” and thus making Russian “nervous” or even “sow panic” among them.
In this way, “history is repeating itself,” Tsyganok notes. After the first Chechen war and the Khasavyurt accords, pro-Russian Federation interior ministry officers left Chechnya and anti-Moscow militants took their places. Now, the same thing is happening again.
And both then and now, this means that the confrontation between Chechnya and Russia “has been transformed into an intra-Chechen conflict,” one that ultimately led Moscow to launch the second Chechen war eight years ago but that now is being won by “systemic” separatists like Kadyrov.
“As a systemic separatist” – this often-used term refers to those in Russia now who seek de facto independence but claim to be loyal to Moscow – “Kadyrov has forced Russia to make remarkable concessions.” Indeed, Tsyganok argues, the current Chechen leader has already “achieved a great deal more than General Dudayev.”
Not only has he become the master of his own homeland but he has also assumed the right to speak in the name of Chechens throughout the Russian Federation and gained an uncontested ability to act against his enemies even in the capital of the country which they serve -- but which quite clearly, at least in Tsyganok’s mind, he does not.
And thus, Tsyganok concludes, “although de jure Chechnya has not achieved independence from Russia, de facto it has received it,” not by the actions of someone who said that is what he wants but rather by those of someone who claims he does not aided and abetted by officials in Moscow who do not understand what they are doing.
Vienna, November 17 –Chechnya under its nominally pro-Kremlin leader Ramzan Kadyrov has achieved de facto independence -- even though he does not make such a claim and neither Moscow nor any other government yet recognizes that status de jure, according to a leading Russian analyst.
That is the product, Anatoliy Tsyganok argues in an article posted on Friday, of Moscow’s failed “experiment” to try to convert former separatist fighters into defenders of Russian law and order, a policy Moscow has not backed away from in the run up to the country’s parliamentary and presidential elections.
Tsyganok, who writes frequently on security issues, is not the first to advance this argument: Akhmed Zakayev, the Ichkerian diplomat now living in London, said the same thing earlier this year, pointing out that Kadyrov, whatever he may say, is acting in ways that point to an independent Chechnya, albeit a very different one than many want.
But unlike Zakayev who would very much like to see an independent Chechnya, albeit not one under Kadyrov, Tsyganok is against that idea and carefully traces the ways in which Moscow has failed to recognize what is going on there or has been unwilling or unable to do anything effective to counter it (http://www.apn.ru/opinions/print.htm).
The occasion for Tsyganok’s analysis is the second in a pair of murderous attacks in Moscow against pro-Russian militia officers from Chechnya, one in November 2006 against Movladi Baysarov and a second quite recently against Alikhan Mutsayev, the personal body guard of former Chechen President Alu Alkhanov.
When Baysarov, who had worked closely with the Russian FSB but fell out of favor in both Grozny and Moscow for his alleged involvement with a series of kidnappings, was killed, the Russian media were filled with details about his activities and speculation about who was behind his murder.
Although Kadyrov, who Tsyganok says viewed Baysarov as an enemy, said nothing at that time, Alkhanov quickly released a statement regretting Baysarov’s “tragic death,” rejecting the charges that had been levelled against him, and praising his contributions to Chechnya and the Russian Federation.
But Tsyganok continues, what a difference a year makes! When Mutsayev, who had been consistently on Moscow’s side in Chechnya, was gunned down in Moscow, the Russian media provided few details. Kadyrov again said nothing, but Alkhanov released no statement even though Mutsayev had been his personal bodyguard.
According to the Moscow analyst, either Alkhanov is now “afraid [to say anything] or his hands are tied” – an extremely remarkable situation in this case because “even in his native village people say that Mutsayev and his brothers did not have any enemies because they were all pro-federal.”
Tsyganok suggests that this points to three conclusions: First, he says, it clearly indicates that Kadyrov and security forces loyal to him rather than Moscow were behind both murders. Second, the military affairs analyst continues, it shows that Kadyrov and company can act with impunity even in Moscow against their opponents.
And third – and this is perhaps the most important– these attacks in the Russian capital send a clear signal to the Chechen diaspora in Russia clearly that Moscow cannot protect any Chechen however loyal he may be to the Russian authorities if Kadyrov wants him removed from the scene.
Alkhanov’s change of behavior suggests that he has gotten this message, but Tsyganok then asks when others will finally recognize that Kadyrov now has a militia structure subordinate only to him that is ready and willing to use violence to settle scores against those who oppose him “even in Moscow itself?”
Tsyganok traces the emergence of this situation to the formation of the two “battalions” in Chechnya, the “East” which consists largely of former separatists who supposedly passed over to the side of federal forces and the ”West,” which is “the single armed formation in which there are practically no former separatists.”
Indeed, according to Tsyganok, former supporters of Dzhokar Dudayev and Arslan Maskhadov find it easy to “’simply pass over to the other side’,” as Chechens say, but they find their path into the pro-Federal West battalion “closed” because of the careful checking by that unit’s commanders.
Kadyrov’s power is based on the East battalion and allied groups, with some 7500 to 10,500 armed men. For him and then, the West battalion is a unit that “sticks in their craw” because it “defends” pro-Russian Federation people in Chechnya, and consequently, he is interested in weakening it by attacking it.
A year ago, as the coverage of the November 2006 murder shows, the balance of forces was on the side of Moscow and the West battalion, Tsyganok says. But now, the balance has shifted away from Moscow and toward Kadyrov and his allies in the East battalion.
There are several reasons for that, Tsyganok continues. First of all, Kadyrov has spent the intervening period strengthening his position in Grozny. Then, his ability to attack his enemies with impunity has won him support grudging in the case of those who may fear him and enthusiastic from those who want to see Chechnya independent.
And finally, the Russian government in this election season, does not want to acknowledge these dangers or do anything about them lest it call into question its claims that the situation in the North Caucasus is “stabilizing” and thus making Russian “nervous” or even “sow panic” among them.
In this way, “history is repeating itself,” Tsyganok notes. After the first Chechen war and the Khasavyurt accords, pro-Russian Federation interior ministry officers left Chechnya and anti-Moscow militants took their places. Now, the same thing is happening again.
And both then and now, this means that the confrontation between Chechnya and Russia “has been transformed into an intra-Chechen conflict,” one that ultimately led Moscow to launch the second Chechen war eight years ago but that now is being won by “systemic” separatists like Kadyrov.
“As a systemic separatist” – this often-used term refers to those in Russia now who seek de facto independence but claim to be loyal to Moscow – “Kadyrov has forced Russia to make remarkable concessions.” Indeed, Tsyganok argues, the current Chechen leader has already “achieved a great deal more than General Dudayev.”
Not only has he become the master of his own homeland but he has also assumed the right to speak in the name of Chechens throughout the Russian Federation and gained an uncontested ability to act against his enemies even in the capital of the country which they serve -- but which quite clearly, at least in Tsyganok’s mind, he does not.
And thus, Tsyganok concludes, “although de jure Chechnya has not achieved independence from Russia, de facto it has received it,” not by the actions of someone who said that is what he wants but rather by those of someone who claims he does not aided and abetted by officials in Moscow who do not understand what they are doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
