Censorship on Top of Self-Censorship: Kazakhstan’s Cinema Under Threat

This week, Kazakhstan’s Senate will vote on a number of legislative amendments that will make what officials term “non-traditional sexual orientations”–and any “propaganda” related to them–a forbidden topic in the educational and commercial sectors, as well as in the arts and cultural sphere.

Although lawmakers have justified the amendments as a measure to protect children’s rights, the proposed changes would enable censorship of content related to “non-traditional sexual orientations,” a term frequently used during parliamentary working group discussions to refer to members of the LGBTQ+ community. As a result, the legislative amendments have become widely known as the “anti-LGBT propaganda law.”

If adopted, the proposed changes would place “LGBT propaganda” in a similar legal category as pornography, terrorism, and violence, allowing authorities to restrict, remove, or ban related speech in much the same way that it does for those acts.

The ban on “propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation” will see amendments to Kazakhstan’s laws On Children’s Rights and On Protecting Children From Information Harmful To Their Health And Development, the latter of which uses the same exact language as a law passed in Russia in 2010.

Vlast spoke to a range of filmmakers, who noted that, if adopted, the amendments will strengthen official censorship, impose new market-related restrictions, and force many in the creative sector to engage in heightened self-censorship.

On “Propaganda”

Kanat Beisekeyev, film director: To be honest, it’s hard to imagine this bill actually being implemented in practice. I still think that reason will prevail. I think it would be a very foolish decision if it were adopted.

I don't see what exactly constitutes propaganda. What is propaganda? If a person talks about themselves, such as in interviews, is that propaganda?

Censorship won’t improve things in Kazakhstan. I think all residents here should feel free, regardless of their religious views or sexual orientation. As for the way they express themselves, it’s a personal matter; I don’t see any propaganda in that. “LGBT propaganda” is a completely nonsensical phrase.

Five years ago, people started to become more actively vocal about “LGBT propaganda,” and I’ve noticed how society has become more conservative, less free, since then.

Sharipa Urazbayeva, film director: Sometimes it happens that you show a person’s inner trauma and they call it “one-sided”; you discuss women’s rights and you get accused of “feminist propaganda”; you film real life in a village, that’s “denigration of the country”; you portray someone with empathy, that means you’re “publicizing the ideas of that community.”

Films ask questions, provoke you to think and feel. My goal is not to steer society in any one direction, but to give a voice to those parts of it that usually remain in the shadows.

Assel Aushakimova, film director: Like all reasonable, civilized, modern people living in the 21st century, I am outraged by the amendments currently under discussion and being prepared for the Senate’s approval.

It’s sad and appalling that our deputies and officials, including those from the ministry of culture, are ready to ban, for example, the work of the world-famous Kazakh Erik Kurmangaliyev [a Soviet opera singer of Kazakh descent who performed the role of the spy Song Liling in the play “M. Butterfly,” who cross-dressed as a woman – V.] and are ready to start the same circus that currently exists in Russia, with censored books, the genders of characters in films being swapped, and so on.

Malika Mukhamejan, film director: There's no such thing as “LGBT propaganda.” It’s a political tool designed to restrict freedoms and control people’s identities.

We all know how it works: First, they “do this for the children,” then they ban any mention of LGBTQ+, and then they label their very existence “extremist.” This isn’t done for anyone's protection, it’s repression.

Katya Suvorova, documentary filmmaker: Art-house cinema, as a rule, deals with ideas that don’t meet the expectations of either the market or the state. In my work, I take on people’s lives as they really are.

And I still can’t fully comprehend what exactly this catastrophic law will mean for us. But it’s clear that nothing good happens when the government restricts people from exploring life as it naturally appears.

I find it difficult to talk about “propaganda” seriously regarding documentaries; the very term is used today in a manipulative, distorted sense. Literally speaking, “propaganda” is close to the concept of “advertising,” but documentaries don't advertise, they reflect.

If you view it through the prism of today’s political language, the word “propaganda” can mean anything. The story of any of my characters could be called propaganda.

The ban on “propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation” will also cover advertising, amending Kazakhstan’s laws On Advertising and On Online Platforms And Online Advertising.

On the Possible Consequences of the Law

Urazbayeva: Today’s debates around LGBTQ+ issues largely arise from the confusion of two concepts. Some speak from a medical perspective, others from a psychological one, and these dimensions are wrongly contrasted with each other.

In general, [LGBTQ+] discussion should not be about a person’s biological sex, but about their personal psychological experiences. It’s important to distinguish between these two elements.

Suvorova: What frightens me most is that my government is effectively refusing to consider any empirical evidence. It simply refuses to rely on real data or to acknowledge the diversity of all people’s existences. This feels like a personal insult.

This is already having an effect: People from the LGBTQ+ community in Kazakhstan are being forced to censor themselves.

Aushakimova: For me, a person’s orientation is not the main thing that defines them. It’s simply part of their personality. [The queer protagonists in my films] are not that different from heterosexual women with similar views; they are fellow citizens of Kazakhstan, with the same problems and issues that all Kazakhstanis share. I would like to normalize queerness as much as possible through my films.

Beisekeyev: If this law is passed, it will make life much more difficult for the large portion of Kazakhstan’s population who already hide their sexual orientation. We will simply be sending these people a signal that they have no place here, and that is catastrophically sad.

The ban on “propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation” will affect the cultural sphere, amending Kazakhstan’s laws On Cinematography and On Culture.

On the Past and Future of Cinema in Kazakhstan

Suvorova: In my work I have repeatedly encountered situations where actors were reluctant to reveal parts of their personal lives. They understand perfectly well that they live and are building their careers in a closed-minded and intolerant society.

Aushakimova: The film industry in Kazakhstan has long been quite homophobic, misogynistic, and patriarchal. A few years ago, I had to hear plenty from colleagues about the “values” I was supposedly spreading.

Judging by the Russian example, which our officials are following, I’m afraid that in a year or two LGBTQ+ people in Kazakhstan will be branded “extremists.” After these amendments are passed, anyone the authorities don’t like could be prosecuted as a “propagandist.” All of this will only worsen freedom of speech and art in Kazakhstan, which was already in a dire state before these amendments.

Mukhamejan: Such laws create an atmosphere of fear and pressure. Although, to be frank , Kazakhstan’s film industry has already long been largely occupied by people whose views you could call traditional.

We will continue the activities of Qyzqaras [a women-focused film festival – V.], but of course, these laws could influence which films we show at the festival and what topics we discuss. It feels like we’re gasping for air in a sealed-off cell. It’s all a matter of time, unfortunately.

Suvorova: Our industry already has a complex mixture of both tacit and self-censorship, some of which comes from the government and some from the market — it’s impossible to clearly distinguish the two. The market is very sensitive to the government’s position, and therefore “acceptable” projects that get state financial support usually touch upon a limited range of topics. It’s an invisible border that no one has actually drawn, but which clearly exists.

Urazbayeva: Cinema is an exploration of reality, an attempt to reveal the complexity of human nature. If mentioning or depicting a certain group of people becomes “propaganda,” authorial freedom will automatically be put under pressure.

[In Kazakhstan], there are things like the national distribution system, state funding, and expert review boards, which can all impose restrictions on filmmakers — sometimes overtly, sometimes in more subtle ways. No one directly says, “you can’t film this.” Instead, they say “it doesn't align with society” or “it’s not suitable for the country’s image.”

On top of that, there’s market censorship, when commercial platforms also impose their own restrictions: “nobody will watch this,” “we don’t cover such topics,” “the audience won’t understand,” or “it’s too toxic.’

But the most covert and most dangerous form of censorship is self-censorship. When you’re afraid to say something directly and start conveying it in a roundabout way, the film’s message loses its power. When a filmmaker loses authenticity, the viewer feels it.

If the state truly cares about children’s safety, it should improve their literacy instead of imposing restrictions [on expression].

The ban on “propaganda of non-traditional sexual orientation” will affect journalism and schooling, amending Kazakhstan’s laws On Mass Media and On Education.