The right to believe, to worship and witness
The right to change one’s belief or religion
The right to join together and express one’s belief
As the regime declares a state of emergency and bans mass meetings in some areas, legal changes from 9 January increase the obstacles for holding religious meetings away from state-registered places of worship. Human rights defenders such as the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and the Rule of Law have documented the regime’s already severe restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly and to hold demonstrations. Orthodox Christmas night services (due on 6/7 January) in state of emergency areas have been cancelled.
3 December 2021
On 2 December, the upper house of Parliament approved in revised form amendments to the Religion Law to make holding religious events away from state-registered places of worship more difficult. The amendments now return to the lower house. The Senate narrowed the type of events that would need to undergo the burdensome process of seeking special official permission in advance. A legal specialist questions whether ordinary police officers would know that the new requirements – if adopted – would not apply to religious communities meeting in rented premises. “Much will depend on the instructions of religious affairs authorities and the discretion of local or national officials,” the legal specialist told Forum 18.
11 October 2021
Religion Law changes to widen state religious censorship and make holding religious meetings more difficult are now in parliament’s upper house. Any religious community which does not own its own building, or wants to hold a pilgrimage or other event away from their own place of worship, would have to have advance state permission for the meeting or event – including regular meetings for worship – if the amendments are adopted.
24 September 2021
Claims that reading Jehovah’s Witness texts harms mental health has led to Jehovah’s Witness communities being ordered to pay over 3 years’ average wages to plaintiffs. A Justice Ministry “expert analysis” was used to make the claims, which succeeded despite 63 per cent of the “analysis” being plagiarised and an academic analysis finding it “cannot be accepted as comprehensive, complete, scientifically based, or in accordance with the normative demands presented to the specialists for investigation”.
Menu
