Udate: note this is from the Washington Times, a very dubious source.
Good old liberation struggles, like the liberation struggle of Chechnya from the brutal embrace of Russia.
Chechnya’s government is openly approving of families that kill female relatives who violate their sense of honor, as this Russian republic embraces a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam after decades of religious suppression under Soviet rule.
In the past five years, the bodies of dozens of young Chechen women have been found dumped in woods, abandoned in alleys and left along roads in the capital, Grozny, and neighboring villages.
Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov publicly announced that the dead women had “loose morals” and were rightfully shot by male relatives. He went on to describe women as the property of their husbands, and said their main role is to bear children.
Hmm. That’s nice. Imagine living in a country where the head of state announces that women who have Incorrect sex deserve to be murdered by their male relatives.
“You hear about these cases almost every day,” said a local human rights defender, who asked that her name not be used out of fear for her safety. “It is hard for me to investigate this topic, yet I worked on it with [human rights activist] Natasha [Estemirova] for a while. But, I can’t anymore. I am too scared now. I’ve almost given up, really.”
Estemirova, who angered Chechen authorities with reports of torture, abductions and extrajudicial killings, was found in the woods in 2009 in the neighboring region of Ingushetia with gunshot wounds to the head and chest. Her killer or killers have not been found.
Has anyone looked?
The patriarchy is alive and well in Chechnya.
Religious repression don’t seem so bad if this is the alternative.
Wot? This is religious repression.
Or…you mean repression of religion?
Russian republic embraces a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam after decades of religious suppression under Soviet rule.
Religious suppression! D’oh! Religious suppression (by the Soviets) don’t seem so bad if this is the alternative.
I have no desire to minimize how poor life under the Soviet Union was but I couldn’t help thinking the same thing. If this is how some religious express themselves I see nothing wrong with removing their right to free expression. They are, afterall, a threat to anyone who wishes to live a happy life away from their rule and to any woman who displeases a man.
It was the same deal in Afghanistan. Soviet takeover; no doubt very bossy and sometimes brutal etc etc…but at least it wasn’t the fucking Taliban. It thought girls should go to school.
There’s an argument that given equality of interests, then it’s OK for the state to stomp upon, or at least censure those who would harm or destroy the interests (rights) of others. I mean, it’s not controversial that I should be locked up if I rape or murder as I’m stomping on others interests, so it really isn’t that controversial to stomp on others who kill, rape, or silence in the name of religion is it?
@Brian
It gets hazy in that we’re dealing with beliefs as opposed to actions. It’s one thing to censure actions that result in harm and damage to others and another thing entirely to limit the expression of ideas that may hurt someone.
Of course at the workplace, in school or publicly shared areas it’s a no brainer. We should limit the expression of ideas that will incite violence against a group or person. (Tempered obviously by the needs of the individual who’s expression we’re stopping.) In the home or in a private setting it gets more iffy but, again obviously, a good bit of consideration should be given when individuals who are most likely to be hurt or harmed by these ideas are present.
Julian, I meant people who act on their ideas.
While Islamic theocracies are perhaps unmatched in their lurid sadism let’s not depreciate the scale of destruction that secular tyrannies can wreak. I believe 650,000 to 2,000,000 Afghans are thought to have died in the Soviet takeover. It might be the case that Russian occupation was preferable to the alternatives – once it had been imposed, at least – and it was likely that it was stupid and destructive for the Yanks to empower the Mujahideen but I don’t think we should idly judge pass judgements on which is preferable. In the case of Chechnya as well as Afghanistan.
I can’t help but to wonder how those men learned, after decades of suppression of such behavior, to murder their “dishonorable” sisters and wives. Is this new or resurgent behavior, or was it just much less common under Soviet rule? Did the Chechens ache under the Soviet suppression of such murders? Did Soviet brutality teach them to be brutal once they were more or less free to rule themselves?
Be it Afghanistan, the Balkans or Chechnya regional struggles that happened to involve Muslims have attracted jihadists like moths to flames. I suspect the mujahideen who’ve travelled there in recent times have spread their destructive da’wah.
What a pity that none of the Chechen wars were about human rights or women’s rights, just power and the oil deposits in the region… For a nice take on how Russian “political journalists” see Chechens and the right way to deal with them, “Purgatory” by A. Nevzorov (formerly filmmaker and politician with a liking for firing into civilian crowds, now a sectarian horse trainer) is a good example: They are portrayed werewolf-like subhumans, so it’s not just OK but even heroic to shoot and kill them all, including civilians.
Basically it’s all a big pile of barbaric shit, with a complete lack of respect for human lives. It’s just the focus on who is worth least (women, Chechens, non-Muslims etc) that varies.
By the way, the author of the Washington Times piece – why did she have to sell it to Mr Moonie’s propaganda rag? It makes me distrust it – has a really sad, touching photo essay under “Farewell my Chechnya” here.
It’s a shame things like this get published in worthless rags like the WT, it calls their integrity immediately into question. And I’d second the point that the Russian govt, and its deranged supporters, have been on a major campaign to dehumanise the Chechens for a long time. It’s a fine line between condemning one side’s atrocities, and implicitly condoning the other’s. Actually, it oughtn’t to be a fine line at all, it ought to be a huge yawning gulf of obviousness, but in anything to do with Russia, the mad partisans always come out.
True about the Washington Times, I hated linking to it and meant to add that but forgot to.
Another round of “which shits are worse?” The only answer seems to be “yes.”
BenSix: I would generalize your comments vis-a-vis the Soviets to look at the death and destruction sponsored by the oh-so-humane “civillian secular democracies” of the west (Hiroshima, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan….on and on and on) There were “rogue” (gotta have the deniability, dontcha know?) elements of the French Secret Service on the ground in Rwanda right before the genocide.
Just sayin’ 🙂
Ophelia nails it. Human shit stinks, even if it cloaked in terms of “human rights” or, for that matter, religion.