South Africa

Officially known as the Republic of South Africa (RSA), this multiethnic country is situated at the southernmost tip of Africa. South Africa is a secular democracy which encompasses a wide variety of cultures, languages and religions, the majority-religion being Christianity. Race remains a huge source of social tension in post-Apartheid South Africa.

Constitution and government Education and children’s rights Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is somewhat restricted
Blasphemy or criticism of religion is restricted in law and is punishable by a fine
The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
No formal discrimination in education
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Constitution and government
The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Education and children’s rights
No formal discrimination in education
Family, community, society, religious courts and tribunals
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Freedom of expression advocacy of humanist values
Expression of core humanist principles on democracy, freedom or human rights is somewhat restricted
Blasphemy or criticism of religion is restricted in law and is punishable by a fine
Use of Conscientious Objection clauses resulting in the denial of lawful services to women and LGBTI+ people
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in all or most state-funded schools with no secular or humanist alternative
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: Kazakhstan

The state is secular, with separation of religious and political authorities, not discriminating against any religion or belief
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
No fundamental restrictions on freedom of expression or advocacy of humanist values
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

No condition holds in this strand
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: Andorra

No condition holds in this strand
Religious courts or tribunals rule directly on some family or ‘moral’ matters; it is legally an opt-in system, but the possibility of social coercion is very clear
No condition holds in this strand

Countries: no countries relate to this boundary condition

Localised or infrequent but recurring and widespread social marginalisation or prejudice against the non-religious

This condition is unusual in that it is applied in cases where there is some social discrimination, but it is not pervasive or nationwide. This condition is applied when there is sufficient background evidence to warrant the assertion that discrimination is not anomalous but widespread, and this condition may be applied for example even where if there is no legislative discrimination or where the non-religious may have legal recourse against such discrimination. However, societal discrimination (i.e. discrimination by peers, as opposed to state or legal discrimination) is not easily measured, and for this reason the Report does not currently have similar more severe boundary conditions to capture higher levels of social discrimination per se. In principle these may be introduced in future. However, we consider that countries with actual higher levels of social discrimination against the non-religious will generally already meet other higher level (more severe) boundary conditions under this thematic strand.

Countries: Botswana, Greece, Serbia, United States of America

The dominant influence of religion in public life undermines the right to equality and/or non-discrimination

Applied when the influence of religion on public life undermines others’ rights, such as SRHR, women’s rights, LGBTI+ rights.

May be applied when the influence is overt (i.e. when religious laws are applied to undermine others’ rights) or covert (i.e. where religious pressure groups exert influence to affect policy)

Countries: Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Armenia, Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eswatini, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Hungary, Iran, Italy, Jamaica, Jordan, Liberia, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Oman, Paraguay, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Zambia

The non-religious are persecuted socially or there are prohibitive social taboos against atheism, humanism or secularism
Complete tyranny precludes all freedoms of expression and thought, religion or belief

Applied when overriding acts of oppression by the State are extreme, to the extent that the question of freedom of thought and expression is almost redundant, because all human rights and freedoms are quashed by authorities.

Countries: North Korea

Expression of core Humanist principles on democracy, freedom and human rights is brutally repressed
Expression of non-religious views is severely persecuted, or is rendered almost impossible by severe social stigma, or is highly likely to be met with hatred or violence
There is significant social marginalisation of the non-religious or stigma associated with expressing atheism, humanism or secularism
Religious or ideological indoctrination is utterly pervasive in schools
There is a nominal state church with few privileges or progress is being made toward disestablishment

Countries: Bulgaria, Norway, Peru, Rwanda

The non-religious are barred from some government offices (including posts reserved for particular religions or sects)
‘Apostasy’ is outlawed and punishable with a prison sentence

Countries: Bahrain, Comoros, Jordan, Kuwait

‘Apostasy’ or conversion from a specific religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Some religious courts rule in civil or family matters on a coercive or discriminatory basis
Religious authorities have supreme authority over the state

Countries: Iran

State legislation is partly derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Preferential treatment is given to a religion or religion in general

This condition is applied where there are miscellaneous indicators that organs of the state offer various forms of support for a religion, or to religion in general over non-religious worldviews, suggesting a preference for those beliefs, or that the organs of that religion are privileged.

Countries: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Montenegro, Mozambique, Nepal, New Zealand, Nigeria, North Macedonia, Oman, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Rwanda, San Marino, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste (East Timor), Tunisia, Turkey, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

There is a pattern of impunity or collusion in violence by non-state actors against the nonreligious
State-funded schools provide religious education which may be nominally comprehensive but is substantively biased or borderline confessional
Religious or ideological instruction in a significant number of schools is of a coercive fundamentalist or extremist variety

This condition highlights countries where schools subject children to fundamentalist religious instruction with no real opportunity to question fundamentalist tenets, or where lessons routinely encourage hatred (for example religious or ethnic hatred). The wording “significant number of schools” is not given a rigid quantification (sometimes the worst-offending schools are unregistered, illegal, or otherwise uncounted); however the condition is not applied in cases where only a small number of schools meet the description and may be anomalous, as opposed to being indicative of a widespread problem.

Countries: Bangladesh, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia

State legislation is largely or entirely derived from religious law or by religious authorities
Anomalous discrimination by local or provincial authorities, or overseas territories
Religious or ideological instruction is mandatory in at least some public schools (without secular or humanist alternatives)
‘Blasphemy’ or criticism of religion is outlawed and punishable by death
Government figures or state agencies openly marginalize, harass, or incite hatred or violence against the non-religious
Government authorities push a socially conservative, religiously or ideologically inspired agenda, without regard to the rights of those with progressive views
It is illegal to advocate secularism or church-state separation, or such advocacy is suppressed
Prohibitive interreligious social control (including interreligious marriage bans)
Quasi-divine veneration of a ruling elite is enforced, or a single-party regime holds uncontested power, subject to severe punishment
Legal or constitutional provisions exclude non-religious views from freedom of belief
It is illegal to register an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization, or such groups are persecuted by authorities
There is a religious tax or tithing which is compulsory, or which is state-administered and discriminates by precluding non-religious groups
The non-religious are barred from holding government office
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom

This condition may apply if specifically religious education, religious materials, or specific religious denominations are so tightly controlled that children are in fact over-protected from exposure to religion and are likely unable to explore or construct their own worldview in accordance with their evolving capacities. This condition helps us to classify states (perhaps with secular constitutions) which have criminalized specifically religious beliefs or practices. This condition is not applied if the restricted beliefs or practices are found to be outlawed due to their being of an extremist variety. While this condition does not directly reflect discrimination against non-religious persons or non-religious ideas, it does represent an overall threat to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief; such restrictions could spill over to affect non-religious beliefs later; and they pose a risk of backlash against over-zealous secular authorities or even against non-religious individuals by association.

Countries: China, Congo, Democratic Republic of, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guyana, Italy, Kazakhstan, Laos, Madagascar, Mexico, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Tajikistan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe

It is illegal or unrecognised to identify as an atheist or as non-religious
It is made difficult to register or operate an explicitly Humanist, atheist, secularist or other non-religious NGO or other human rights organization
Legend
 
Systemic Discrimination
Free and Equal
No Rating
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

The constitution and other laws and policies protect freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly and association. These rights are generally respected in practice.

The Republic of South Africa’s bill of rights states that the government may not discriminate directly or indirectly against any individual based on religion; in addition, no one may deny members of a religious group either the right to practice their religion, or to form, join, and maintain religious associations with other members of that group.

The law prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion and cases of discrimination against persons on the grounds of religious freedom may be taken to the Constitutional Court.

Education and children’s rights

The government allows, but does not require, religious education in public schools and prohibits advocating the tenets of a particular religion in public schools.

In June 2017, the South African court ruled that public education systems cannot promote any one religion to the exclusion of others. The Organization for Religious Education and Democracy (OGOD) had argued that it was in the interest of South Africa’s democracy that public schools not be allowed to favour a specific religion, and had asked the court to declare unconstitutional the religion policy of six public schools, accusing them of favouring Christianity over other religions.
<religionnews.com/2017/06/28/south-african-court-bars-schools-from-promoting-any-one-religion/>

As of October 2017, South Africa has removed the right of ‘reasonable chastisement’ of a child ’ as a valid defence for charges of assault against a minor following a ruling in the Johannesburg High Court which was seen to overrule religious beliefs relating to a parent’s right to discipline their child. The law change gives the state the ability to investigate child abuse cases where religious belief was used to protect parents who would, if they gave the same treatment to an adult, would be liable for conviction on the grounds of assault.
<mg.co.za/article/2017-10-19-high-court-strikes-down-corporal-punishment-defence-for-parents>

Family, community and society

The Witchcraft Suppression Act of 1957 criminalizes activities relating to witchcraft and witch-hunting including both claiming a knowledge of witchcraft, and accusing others of practicing witchcraft. In 2007 the South African Pagan Rights Alliance and the Traditional Healers Organisation submitted requests to the South African Law Reform Commission for an investigation into the constitutionality of the act. In 2010 a South African Law Reform Commission project was approved by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development in order to review witchcraft legislation. Older women in communities holding traditional beliefs are most vulnerable to persecution, along with children who are vulnerable to murder through some witchcraft practices, and related abuses.

The 2006 Civil Union Act introduced an openly secular avenue for couples to legally marry in South Africa. It allows marriage by government officials or secular marriage officers. However, the vast majority of all registered officers are affiliated with religious organizations and not all of them are willing to marry same-sex couples or offer non-religious ceremonies.
<secularsociety.co.za/press-releases/marriage-officers/>

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

Freedoms of expression and the press are protected in the constitution and generally respected in practice. However, the government under president Jacob Zuma had been increasingly hostile to media criticism. Most South Africans receive the news via radio outlets, a majority of which are controlled by the state-run broadcaster South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). The SABC also dominates the television market. The ANC government has been highly sensitive to media criticism and encroached on the editorial independence of the SABC. In addition, government officials have used gag orders to block reporting on alleged corruption, and journalists are occasionally subject to harassment and legal action.

‘Blasphemy’ law

‘Blasphemy’, defined as “unlawfully, intentionally and publicly acting contemptuously towards God” is a common law criminal offence in South Africa. Some sources suggest that the more recent constitution has made the ‘blasphemy’ law unenforceable, due to its protections on freedom of expression, and also on anti-discrimination grounds as the old offence only applied to ‘blasphemy’ against Christianity. However, this has not been tested in law.

Convictions have been rare for many decades and the last conviction we can record was in 1968. This was against the editor of Varsity for coverage of an event which discussed the topic “Is God Dead?”, quoting participants as saying “We must write God off entirely” and “[God] is beginning to stink”. The editor was convicted, but received only a caution.

In addition to the criminal law, the civil law Equality Act (2000) forbids hate speech defined as “words” based on various grounds including religious grounds “against any person”, with intent to be, among other things, “hurtful” . The terms “words” and “hurtful” seem to suggest that a very broad range of speech about religion could in principle fall foul of the act, though the framing as hate speech and qualification that such speech targets a person may narrow the law down to properly a hate speech law. Indeed, it does not in appear that in practice the Equality Act has been used as a de facto ‘blasphemy’ law.

Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes 

As of 2018, under the proposed Hate Speech Bill, hate speech is defined as “a clear intention to be harmful or to incite harm, or promote or propagate hatred on the basis of characteristics such as race, religion, age, nationality etc”. The bill outlaws hate speech on the basis of “religion” and “political affiliation”, but not non-religious belief or worldviews.

Some civil society groups are concerned that petty insults or satire could lead to convictions under the proposed law.
<synapses.co.za/hate-speech-legal-overreach-south-africa/>
<hrw.org/news/2017/02/21/south-african-move-hate-speech-step-too-far>

The Bill received backlash from many Christian groups who saw it as a threat to freedom of religion and feared it would criminalize religious texts, especially those denouncing homosexuality.
<dailymaverick.co.za/article/2018-06-07-mps-question-whether-hate-speech-bill-is-needed/>

However, the text of the bill tabled in parliament as of April 2018 excludes expression performed in good faith, such as proselytizing or espousing any religious tenet, belief, teaching or writing, to the extent that such interpretation and proselytization does not advocate hatred that constitutes incitement to cause “harm”.