Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan is the largest state in Central Asia. It is a member state of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). President Nursultan Nazarbayev ruled the country from 1990 to 19 March 2019, when he announced his surprise resignation following a deepening economic crisis in the country.[ref]https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-47628854[/ref]

Kazakhstani purports to follow a model of secularism in public policy and its legislation guarantees equal treatment of all religions. Nonetheless, the preamble to the 2011 religion law acknowledges the historical role of Hanafi Islam and the Russian Orthodox Church, regarded as ‘traditional’ religions that have been present on Kazakh territory for many centuries. This is in contrast to the ‘new’ religions and denominations in Kazakhstan that have gained followers in recent years, which authorities continue to discriminate against and treat with suspicion.[ref]https://eurasianet.org/examining-kazakhstans-religious-contradiction[/ref] Kazakhstan witnessed two religiously motivated terrorist attacks in 2011 and another in 2016.[ref]https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/06/kazakhstan-17-killed-series-extremist-attacks-160606105755961.html[/ref] The government’s line is that the attackers follow “radical, non-traditional religious movements”, and it has since used the threat of religious extremism to pass laws restricting freedom of religion or belief.

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 severely restricted
‘Blasphemy’ is outlawed or criticism of religion (including de facto ‘blasphemy’ laws) is restricted and punishable with a prison sentence
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Constitution and government
Insufficient information or detail not included in this report
Education and children’s rights
Some concerns about children's right to specifically religious freedom
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 severely restricted
‘Blasphemy’ is outlawed or criticism of religion (including de facto ‘blasphemy’ laws) is restricted and punishable with a prison sentence
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
 
Severe Discrimination
Systemic Discrimination
No Rating
More information about rating table

Constitution and government

The Constitution and other laws and policies protect freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as freedom of opinion and expression.[ref]https://www.akorda.kz/en/official_documents/constitution[/ref] However, the Law ‘On Religious Activity and Religious Associations’ passed in 2011, 6 months after the Aktobe terrorist attack, is widely seen to have undermined its claim to respect freedom of religion or belief and marked a shift towards the country viewing ‘non-mainstream’ religion with suspicion.

The 2011 religion law created stringent registration requirements for religious organizations, banned or restricted unregistered religious activities and enabled the state to punish most unauthorized religious or political activity. Pursuant to the law, some religious communities are subject to police and secret police surveillance, and criminal charges of extremism are brought against individuals for engaging in ostensibly peaceful religious activity.[ref]https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Tier2_KAZAKHSTAN_2019.pdf[/ref]

The government dislikes discussions of its human rights records. It warned religious communities against participating in the 2014 UN Human Rights Council Periodic Review of the country and against meeting the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion and Belief and the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and Association on country visits in 2015.[ref]forum18.org/archive.php?article_id=2409[/ref]

Education and children’s rights

Kazakhstan’s education system is strictly secular. In 2016, by Order 281 of The Ministry of Education and Science, a course titled “Secularism and Foundations of Religious Studies” became compulsory for 9th grade students. According to the Order, the goals of the course include “bringing the principle of secularism to students and teaching it as an important factor of stability in the government” and “teaching students to not accept ideologies of extremism, terrorism, and religious radicalism and to educate them a sense of tolerance and how to form a humanistic worldview on the basis of spiritual and moral values”.[ref]https://silkroadstudies.org/resources/pdf/SilkRoadPapers/2018-04-Kazakhstan-Secularism.pdf[/ref]

In January 2017, the Ministry of Education passed a decree banning the wearing of the hijab in schools below university level. Between October and December 2017, parents of girls who had been denied their education for refusing to remove their headscarves on grounds of it being a breach of the right freedom of religion or belief brought legal challenges against the State, but none have been successful so far.[ref]https://www.refworld.org/docid/5af009144.html[/ref]

In 2018, a further amendment to the 2011 religion law limited the ability of minors to attend religious services without parental permission, and tightened restrictions on obtaining religious education abroad.[ref]https://silkroadstudies.org/resources/pdf/SilkRoadPapers/2018-04-Kazakhstan-Secularism.pdf[/ref]

Freedom of expression, advocacy of humanist values

Media freedom

The government severely limits freedom of expression. Major broadcast media, especially national television networks, are at least partly owned by the state or by members or associates of the president’s family. The same is true for major newspapers. The independent media that does survive is heavily regulated, and frequently censored and harassed.

A 2009 law classified websites as mass media outlets, giving the authorities more powers to arbitrarily shut them down under vaguely worded extremism statutes or in the interests of state security. Since the introduction of this law, dozens of websites have been closed every year.

The government censors all religious texts and routinely prosecutes citizens for possessing or distributing religious literature. Between February 2009 and May 2018, the government banned 815 items on the basis that they were promoting “extremism.”[ref]https://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Tier2_KAZAKHSTAN_2019.pdf[/ref]

Laws against incitement of religious hatred

Freedom of speech on religious issues is limited by Article 174 of Kazakhstan’s Criminal Code (amended in 2014), which bans, in terms that are vague and wide-ranging:

“Incitement of social, national, clan, racial, or religious hatred or discord, insult to the national honour and dignity or religious feelings of citizens, as well as propaganda of exclusivity, superiority or inferiority of citizens on grounds of their religion, class, national, generic or racial identity, committed publicly or with the use of mass media or information and communication networks, as well as by production or distribution of literature or other information media, promoting social, national, clan, racial, or religious hatred or discord”.[ref]https://www.unodc.org/res/cld/document/penal-code_html/New_penal_code.pdf[/ref]

Punishments for violating Article 174 range from a fine to imprisonment of up to seven years. Article 174 has  been used in practice to prosecute the non-religious ostensibly for “religious hatred” (see Highlighted cases below). Secrecy surrounds many of these prosecutions, with hearings often being closed to the public and cases being brought by or being closely connected to the KNB secret police.[ref]https://www.refworld.org/docid/58bfbe4c4.html[/ref]

Highlighted cases

On 14 March 2013, atheist writer and anti-corruption campaigner Aleksandr Kharlamov was arrested for “inciting religious hatred”. The indictment against him claimed that Kharlamov “in his articles on newspapers and the internet put his personal opinions above the opinions and faith of the majority of the public and thus incited religious animosity”. Kharlamov states that “the principle of freedom of conscience has been violated. “I have the right to believe, and I have the right not to believe. They’re making me believe, show respect toward religion, respect God. What is this, a theocratic state? No. So [it is] violating my rights.”

In a step reminiscent of Soviet-era abuses of the psychiatric system, Kharlamov was confined to a psychiatric hospital for “psychiatric evaluation” of his opinions and writings on religion. Kharlamov reportedly lost 20 kgs during just the first three months of his incarceration. He was detained for five months including one month of forced psychiatric examination. He has since been released on bail, Kharlamov himself believes due to international pressure on the Kazakhstani government.[ref]eurasianet.org/node/68375; odfoundation.eu/en/publications/1222/kazakhstan_civic_activist_prosecuted_for_his_religious_beliefs[/ref]

After five years his case was finally closed in 2018. Kharlamov lodged a suit against the police and the Finance Ministry seeking recompense for the long-running criminal case against him and the abuse he had suffered during pre-trial detention. He won a million tenge ($2,578) from the state for unlawful prosecution.[ref]https://cabar.asia/en/people-without-religion-number-of-atheists-grows-in-kazakhstan/[/ref]

In January 2016, two activists, Ermek Narymbaev and Serikzhan Mambetalin, were convicted for violating the vague provisions of Article 174 and sentenced to three years and two years in prison, respectively, after they posted excerpts from an unpublished book written by religious figure Murat Telibekov on their Facebook pages. There are clear indications that they were in reality targeted for their vocal criticism of the government and participation in peaceful protests.[ref]https://www.iphronline.org/kazakhstan-activists-on-trial-over-social-media-posts-20160121.html[/ref]

Human rights defender Bolatbek Blyalov was similarly charged under Article 174 for “inciting” both “national” and “social discord” based on videos posted on YouTube, in which he expresses his views on contentious matters such as nationalism and the rights of individuals whose houses are up for demolition. Blyalov ‘confessed’ and was released, but the court imposed restrictions on his freedom of movement for three years, including prohibiting him from changing his place of residence or work, or from spending time in public areas.[ref]https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/22/kazakhstan-prison-time-facebook-posts[/ref]

Testimonials

“In modern Kazakhstan, under the current political and legal regime, there is no true freedom of religion, and the situation is getting worse and worse. It is evident that most Kazakh authorities support the religion of Islam and persecute non-Muslims, including atheists. However, religious Islamists create organized crime and extremist militias, religious Kazakhstans commit crimes, and participate in armed religious conflict, like in Syria. Fanatics from the religion of Islam believe that their religion is the one true one and should become the only religion on the planet.”
— Aleksandr Kharlamov