KZBlog

The controversial new law on religion which passed Parliament is waiting for the President’s signature. The law will outlaw unregistered religious activity, and increase the requirements for registering religions. It also appears to exclude small religious groups and mandates government approval of all religious texts. The law is clearly created defensively to prevent cult-like activity or terrorist cells from working in the country. However it effectively criminalizes religion by demanding that religions prove themselves innocent before being allowed to work. There have also been allegations that provisions of the law have already been enforced (even though the law has not passed yet) in order to take valuable land away from religious groups.

This at least is what most people seem to be saying about this new law On Religion. For a fuller treatment of the law and some of the controversies, check Forum 18’s article: KAZAKHSTAN: “We will wait until after the New Year, and then seize his property”

However, today I got a bulletin from the Kazakhstan Embassy to the US, defending the law. Since it as yet does not appear to be online anywhere, I thought I would publish it here so it could be more widely spread [If anyone from the Embassy objects to my posting the article, please let me know and I will take it down immediately].

On the whole, the article is not convincing. First of all, it is true that many ethnicities and religions live side-by-side in Kazakhstan and that certainly Kazakhstan does much better on the front of interethnic or interreligious tolerance than any other country in the CIS or many countries in the world. However the claim that there has never been any violence due to religious or ethnic conflict is not supportable, except for the fact that it is illegal to call anything in Kazakhstan an ethnic conflict. Therefore officially there has never been ethnic conflict and never will be.

While the Embassy invokes 9/11, the list of insensitivities (a word that itself is rather mild) in Kazakhstan are pretty lame. By their own admission, note, since the article says there have never been serious problems regarding religion in Kazakhstan. One kid died two years ago, a few kids missed a few classes (something that might have happened anyway if they were on dezhurne that day), and the education departments can’t be bothered to go monitor a few rural schools. As for refusing Army service, perhaps the law should therefore provide for ‘conscientious objection’ on religious grounds. As for couples breaking up, I wonder if non-traditional beliefs are a major cause of divorce and/or if outlawing non-traditional beliefs for that reason is really a solution. I also wonder what non-traditional means. So there’s a double standard here. On the one hand, religion isn’t a problem in Kazakhstan, and on the other hand, it’s a serious problem because one kid died once.

It is also interesting to note that the article claims that major religions tried to limit the influence of less installed religions, hinting that there is not much tolerance for other religions in Kazakhstan at all, at least among the leaders of the major religions.

That being said, the list of amendments that were removed is encouraging. Nevertheless the fact that some of these amendments were under consideration is amazing. The government approving religious literature is basically Stalinism and would quickly lead to a system where the government decides what the true Islam or Catholic or Ba’hai message is, and I am pleased that that provision has been removed. In general, if this article is accurate, the registration process seems to be not overly onerous and avoidable. One wonders in practice what will happen or what will happen if a peaceful but non-traditional religious group (pagans, Ba’hai, Wiccans?) try to register. But the article does put my mind at ease when discussing registrations.

Also, I must say in all fairness that considering outlawing foreign donations is not unreasonable and that some financial control is not unreasonable if religious organizations have tax-free status in Kazakhstan or other financial benefits.

I will also add that I am pleased that the article addresses the controversy over the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Hare Krishnas and Baptists. Regardless of whether one believes their explanations, it is good to clearly recognize the issue and give an explanation. Too often the government remains silent on well-publicized controversies.

So that’s my take on the Embassy’s article on the Religion Law. What do you think? Leave a comment and let me know.