Humanism Now | Secular Ethics, Curiosity and Compassionate Change

50. Andrew Copson on Why Humanism Remains Essential in an Age of Extremism, 20 Years of Human Rights Campaigning

• Humanise Live • Season 1 • Episode 50

Share episode

“No one ever said it was going to be easy. Humanists don’t think a better world is inevitable—we think a better world is possible, but we have to work for it.”

Andrew Copson OBE, Chief Executive of Humanists UK and former President of Humanists International, joins us for our 50th episode to reflect on two decades of humanist leadership. From growing up in a secular working-class community to championing global human rights, Andrew explains why humanism remains vital in a time of rising extremism, technological disruption, and political uncertainty.

Connect with Andrew

Topics we cover

 ✔︎ Growing up secular in working-class Britain
 ✔︎ Why humanist organizations matter: advocacy, representarion and care
 ✔︎ Misconceptions about humanism today – “too anti-religious” vs. “too pro-human”
 ✔︎ The challenge of technology and the meaning of mortality
 ✔︎ Strategic engagement: when to dialogue, and when not to
 ✔︎ Transforming Humanists International into a diverse, global movement
 ✔︎ The campaign to free Mubarak Bala
 ✔︎ UK priorities ahead: assisted dying, curriculum reform, defending equality
 ✔︎ Why embracing the identity of “humanist” still matters

Resources & further reading

Send us a text

Support the show


Support Humanism Now & Join Our Community!

Follow @HumanismNowPod

This Podcast is produced by Humanise Live. Humanise Live makes podcasting easy for charities and social causes.

Contact us to get starting in podcasting today at www.humanise.live or hello@humanise.live

Music: Blossom by Light Prism

Podcast transcripts are AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. They are provided to make our content more accessible, but should not be considered a fully accurate record of the conversation.

James Hodgson:

Welcome to the Humanism Now podcast. I'm your host J ames Hodgson. This week's episode marks a double milestone for us at Humanism Now it's both our 50th episode and the second anniversary of our launch of the podcast. To mark this occasion, we're joined by one of our greatest inspirations and a tireless advocate for humanist values, Andrew Copson. Andrew has spent more than two decades at the forefront of human rights campaigning and recently celebrated 20 years with Humanist UK, of which the last 15 years he's been the organisation's chief executive. In June 2025, Andrew concluded a parallel 15-year tenure as the president of Humanist International. Throughout this time, he has championed human rights for all people International. Throughout this time, he has championed human rights for all people and his work was recognised in the 2025 Birthday Honours List with an OBE for services to the non-religious community.

James Hodgson:

You may know Andrew as the author and editor of several influential works, including the Handbook for Humanism, Secularism; politics, religion and Freedom, the Little Book of Humanism and the Little Book of Humanist Weddings. He is also the voice behind the acclaimed podcast series that inspired his latest book, What I Believe. A familiar presence on UK TV and radio, Andrew has taken the humanist perspective to national parliaments and international forums around the world. In this anniversary episode, we're delighted to welcome Andrew Copson OBE, to reflect on his achievements, ambitions for the future and explain why humanism remains a cause worth fighting for and a label worth embracing.

James Hodgson:

Andrew, thank you so much for joining us on Humanism Now.

Andrew Copson:

Thank you

James Hodgson:

so I'm sure most of our guests will be familiar with you and your work, particularly those based in the UK. But I wondered I don't think we've heard very often your personal journey to humanism. why you chose this as a cause to dedicate your career to. So I'd love to and go back to the beginning. How did you first get involved in humanism? What was your motivation for joining Humanist UK and eventually Humanist International?

Andrew Copson:

I joked at the Humanist International General Assembly in Luxembourg. But it's just happened that, unlike a lot of the people present from various other countries in the world, I'm not much of a free thinker and the reason is because the reason I have a humanist approach to life really is because I was raised that way. I'm from a humanist family. I never rebelled or, like many of our members or many people who are involved in humanist organizations, I never sort of moved from some religious life to a humanist life. It's just the way that I was raised. Of course that's increasingly common, especially in the UK and other countries too. That should be the case, but it was the case for me. And I think that, beyond my family life, which was humanist, as I've said, I did grow up in a very secular and I would say implicitly humanist culture. So you know, I grew up in a pretty depressed or at least going that way market or former mining town in the Midlands, very working class culture, so, churches and religion didn't play much part in most people's social life and the sort of institutions that existed at the community level were cooperative institutions or the sort of secular institutions that I've just described. When I met people in this work that we do now who, when they were growing up, were involved in church groups or scouts, groups that went to church or Sunday schools or whatever, that's pretty alien to me. I did briefly go to a Sunday school because I was a child that liked school. When I heard that an extra school was available, I managed to persuade my mom that she should let me go to this local one. W hich she did, b eing a broad-minded humanist. I didn't like it very much so it didn't last long, but most of the social institutions I engaged with were implicitly humanist in that way that secular working class life, at least at that point in the 80s, early 90s, was.

Andrew Copson:

So, that was my, the ground in which I was rooted, and then I was very unusually whisked off to a very elite academic education because there was at the time when I was young, there was this thing called the assisted place scheme, which took children from very poor backgrounds and sent them to local independent schools if they'd passed an exam. It was 1979 to 1997, it operated, and it's funny how many people you meet who went through that scheme. And I went from that sort of very secular community environment into an academic life that for me almost then exclusively focused on history and classics. And so I always think that my academic interests, especially in the ancient world, especially in what the classicist Gilbert Murray called Hellenic humanism and this is a pre-Christian culture of Europe was another thing that sort of moulded my view and then that's sort of my personal humanism. And then professionally it was the early 2000s and I needed a job and jobs were available in humanism. I volunteered for a bit and then got the job and I was motivated to join myself Humanist UK as a member in the early I guess it was around 2002 when they were starting their campaign, when we were starting our campaign against the growth of state-funded faith schools, state-funded religious schools, and that was a particularly egregious moment those people who are old enough will remember it and that was a motivating factor for lots of people to join and get involved in humanist campaigns, and that was certainly the case for me.

Andrew Copson:

That's like the trigger that made me join. But in terms of starting to work for Humanist UK and then in due course a humanist international, started off as simply needing a job but also, I suppose, wanting a job that I was personally committed to. I'm lucky to have been able to, through a succession of fortunate retirements of other people, stay in this work for a very long time.

James Hodgson:

I think that's interesting because most people you encounter who have had an upbringing where it's been fairly secular, but also you haven't really noticed the influence of religion, usually they will say why go out and advocate for humanism if it's something that already exists in society? If it's not had, as you say, most people you meet in the movement have had some sort of direct impact or have left, maybe religion. So I just wonder, was there anything in particular? Who were the main influences on you? You mentioned, obviously, the early 2000s. There was a lot of that conversation happening. Yes, were there any real influences that made you see this as an important cause to take forward?

Andrew Copson:

I think people get involved in humanist organizations for lots of reasons. Some people want to get involved in actual advocacy, the causes that humanist organizations campaign for, because we are a platform not just in the UK but globally, a platform for change, for advocating certain types of political and legal and cultural social change, economic change even sometimes, and change that we see as being for the betterment of humanity and society; Greater freedom of thought, greater freedom of expression, greater freedom of choice, greater equality, implementation of human rights and so on. So I think some people do get involved in humanist organizations because they want to advocate for political change from a humanist perspective, and so that's one reason. And then some other people get involved in humanist organizations because they want to serve. This is true of people who get involved because they want to lead Humanist funerals or humanist weddings, provide non-religious people with a very personalized, meaningful alternative to religious ceremonies or civic ceremonies which will give moments of great pain or great celebration. You can choose for yourself which one funerals and weddings might be out of those two choices. Give those moments significance and give a meaning and help people to process their grief or their joy or whatever it is. Or maybe they want to get involved in humanist pastoral carers pastoral carer Maybe they want to support social action in their communities, whatever. So there are some people getting involved because they want to serve others under a humanist banner.

Andrew Copson:

And then there are people, as you have hinted at there in your question, who get involved because of humanism itself. Sometimes they just want to join a cause, that they want to affiliate with, a movement that expresses their values. That's a natural human feeling. I think it's a feeling that some humans have naturally that they want to affiliate with, express their values, by signing up to a cause and help to promote those values in the world. And, of course, one thing that humanist organizations do is promote greater awareness of the humanist approach to life. And then I think there are those who want to promote the humanist approach to life because they think it will be good for people.

Andrew Copson:

There are lots of people in the UK obviously around a third of people opinion polls tell us who have what we would call humanist beliefs and values that this life is the only life we have. That morality doesn't consist of commandments but of thinking empathetically about others and what the greatest good will be in each instance. That the way we understand the universe is not through revelation or superstition, but through reason and science, observation, the bundle of attitudes that constitute the modern humanist approach to life. And if people have these values and beliefs but they don't know the word humanism, they don't know that you know what it means, and they might therefore and often do think of these beliefs they have as a sort of incoherent ragbag of beliefs, maybe parasitic on the religious traditions they grew up with, maybe absorbed from wider society, and that can make those people's worldviews not very resilient. But that strikes certain moments in people's lives. It might be the first time their child asks them "how do we know this is true, or how do we know this is right, or how do you know what's right, or how do we ever know what's true or real, or what happens when we die, and these sorts of questions.

Andrew Copson:

Suddenly, people can be struck by this realization that they haven't examined what they believe about these things, that they're not in a very strong position to give a coherent account of it, that their worldview is, therefore, is not very resilient, and I think one of the things that humanist organizations can do and that a greater public understanding of the concept of the humanist approach to life can do is to increase those people's well-being by giving them a framework to understand what it is they actually do believe.

Andrew Copson:

And that's not about converting people to a particular point of view.

Andrew Copson:

It's about giving people who, because of where they've grown up and the way that our society, especially in this country now is, they've got certain implicit values and beliefs that if they thought about them a bit more and could sort them into this coherent framework that the identity of humanist and the concept of humanist offers, they would be more resilient, happier, more ethical, more fulfilled and more able to live a life according to their own values. So I think it's about self-examination and we want to all humanist organizations want to reach out to and connect with people who are in that position, in those positions, and to let them know that there is a word. These things aren't just incoherent beliefs that they've got from here and there, that there's not just a word and a concept and organization today, but a tradition, and this humanist approach to life that they have is one that's inspired some of the greatest contributions to human welfare and happiness in the history of our species. I think that's where the added value of promoting humanism per se really comes.

James Hodgson:

Yeah, that's wonderful, and I guess as well during your tenure, as mentioned, 20 years of involvement, we've seen the non-religious population increase dramatically. In that time, yeah, do you think the public understanding of humanism as you described it, do you see that there's been a big shift there, that humanism is now better understood for people to, should they wish to affiliate with it now than when you first joined?

Andrew Copson:

It's hard to measure that. Of course we do try. We commission occasional YouGov polls, nipso's Moray polls to measure public understanding of humanism. In some contexts public understanding of humanism is now very high. If you try and measure public knowledge about what a humanist ceremony means, for example, you get 70, 80% of people understanding that is a non-religious, bespoke ceremony that's very personalized to beliefs of people who've died or are getting married or whatever it might be. So 70 to 80% is not bad and that certainly has increased a lot in the last 25 years. But humanism itself has a certain attitude. Public awareness of that is relatively static in england or males at about sort of 40 percent people being. But then the problem is of course that the measures of these things are very difficult.

Andrew Copson:

I think you say human. If you say humanism or humanists, most people they might get it or at least they would be able to intuitively think it must be about people. It must be about people rather than about something else. And because of you know the popularity of the ceremonies, people sort of know it's not religious. That's my experience anyway, when talking with strangers at the bus stop or minicab drivers or whatever it might be that you're talking to the dentist. They've heard of it.

Andrew Copson:

But humanism being able to correctly identify exactly what the set of humanist beliefs and attitudes might be is pretty static, apart from in Scotland where it has risen dramatically from about 30% to about 60% of people who can correct and identify humanism and opinion polls what it means and what it is. And I think that's mainly because humanist weddings have been legal in Scotland now for 20 years. Most people in Scotland have been to a couple of human ceremonies, the weddings of course. Humanist weddings are massive now in Scotland. They're bigger than all the religious weddings put together and I think that spreads a certain understanding. And of course, scotland is a smaller and more homogenous society than England as well, which probably helps.

Andrew Copson:

In Northern Ireland understanding of humanism is also very high compared with the rest of the UK. So I think the availability of humanist ceremonies actually is a sort of vector for better understanding of humanism. But I think that in England and Wales, let's say, there are increased opportunities for people to learn about humanism. But I think that in England and Wales, let's say, there are increased opportunities for people to learn about humanism. It's much more likely to figure in the school curriculum now than it was 20 years ago. The books about humanism that are published now sell much better than books about humanism that were published in the 60s or 70s. Books about humanism being a Sunday Times bestseller in the last few years, that's been obviously a particular development. I do think public understanding of humanism has increased and maybe to be relatively static over the last 20 years in a rising tide of information and misinformation and disinformation that's in the world, maybe that's an achievement, I don't know.

James Hodgson:

Yeah, and on that I wonder if the types of misconceptions or the questions that you get have changed. What are the biggest misconceptions that you have to address when people first challenge humanism?

Andrew Copson:

I think one of the sad things about the last 20 years is that my first experience working in humanist organizations was that people used to object to humanists because they were too anti-religious, and these days they tend to object to humanism because we're too pro-human, Because I think people have become a lot more pessimistic in the last 20 years, and so now they'll say things like oh how, but how how can you maintain a humanist approach when everything's going so badly wrong and human beings are proving to be so wicked and war is back and authoritarianism is back and human rights are on the way down? What's your counter?

James Hodgson:

to that. What's your pitch for humanism if someone has that?

Andrew Copson:

Well, I think there's a mistake. I think there's a misapprehension at the heart of that objection to humanism, which is that somehow humanists are naively utopian or optimistic. My counterstat is to say no one ever said it was going to be easy. It's not that humanists think that a better world is on its way. Humanists think that a better world is possible but that we have to work for it and there'll be roadblocks along the way. And I think that it's a reminder actually for anyone not just humanists but anyone who believes in humanistic type institutions like international cooperation, human rights, liberal democracy itself that you've got to work at these things and develop strategies to cope with the opponents of those things as well. So I think that's the counter to that particular objection, because I think there's a misapprehension at the heart of it.

Andrew Copson:

I think we can sometimes give that false impression with our own language, of course. I think it's important that, as humanists, we talk about the fact that it is possible to seek a better world through our efforts If we choose to do it. We can make a world where a world of plenty and a world of peace, if we try to and if we're committed to it and not to imply somehow that human beings are inherently good, inherently social, will always choose the right thing if the social conditions are correct and the world peace is on its way. I think that's a misrepresentation, and 20th century humanists sometimes were guilty of that, especially in the early 20th century, not so much after the atomic bomb. Obviously then humanists got a bit of a shock, but there was perhaps too much utopianism sometimes, although that can go both ways, because of course you could say why shouldn't you be optimistic? Shoot for the stars and you might clear the rooftops. No one ever got anywhere by being pessimistic, that's for sure.

James Hodgson:

Yeah, and I guess we've seen huge changes in that time as well. I'm thinking particularly recently I went thinking more in terms of technology in particular, and do you see technology as central, now that we should embrace technology as part of a humanistic I think this is another question, isn't it?

Andrew Copson:

This is another one of the objections that people bring against humanism today, the idea that we should somehow be transhuman and go beyond our human condition, or that we should some extent be anti-human and think about how we could eliminate ourselves or not just improve ourselves, but sort of replace ourselves with something better. I think that these are a more important challenge to humanism than religion certainly are. The problem of religions today is there's religious authoritarianism and religious extremism, and of course that's very dangerous. There's religious nationalism, which is very dangerous, and there is still a sort of pernicious influence of religion in people's individual lives, which is all problems for humanist values. Although people should be free to have those religions and practices as long as they're not harming others, nonetheless often they do target humanist values. And of course, commercialism and marketization is also a great threat for humanism because it diminishes our common life in very obvious ways, reduces us to consumers rather than citizens and rather than social animals. So commercialism is a threat, but I think one of the other threats is definitely the anti-humanism that is implicit in some of the futurist visions that some people who are pushing particular technologies I think you might be referring to. If you take, for example, the idea that we might defeat death somehow, that an individual human being might in the future, or maybe someone even born today might live forever, in some sense of that term, either by being replicated in some way or whatever these sort of fantasies might be, I think there's a real challenge there for humanists to explain why that's a problem. Now, I think it's a problem because human life is made sense of through its boundaries. One of those boundaries is mortality itself, and that the conventional humanist idea, from the ancient world to modern expressions in humanist culture, is that life is given significance. In the same way that a story is given its significance, it has a beginning and an end. That's what humanist funeral is about telling the story, making a coherent account of the person. And so there are people who say this is really a challenge for humanism. Humanists should be against immortality, not just because we don't believe it exists in the supernatural sense, but because it unravels the human being, a human being. But then, on the other hand, you could say, yeah, that's true, but maybe there are humanisms that would come out of that sort of immortality. In the end, I believe in the former objection. I think that the notion of immortality unravels what it is to be human, and I also think that less but less about some individual enhancements, of course, of of human beings as well, but I don't know if that's what you're referring to.

Andrew Copson:

You might be referring to technologies, living in a virtual world. Of course that's bad too, living in a virtual world rather than encountering and connecting with your fellow human beings. But there's a problem, isn't there? Because all these technologies, there are degrees to which these technological advances are helpful.

Andrew Copson:

Who could deny that connecting people around the world who would never have met, but through contact with each other because of their shared interests or the love that might grow between them or whatever it might be, that connecting them in that sense has been an enormous gain and is obviously something that humanists can sign up for, because you want to put human welfare and fulfilment out there at the centre of our ethical and these things are obviously productive of a larger human welfare and fulfillment. Great. Then it might seem like just another step down the same road to say well then, everyone can live in a virtual world all the time and connect with whoever they want to. Maybe that'll increase human wealth and fulfillment. But then you think but hold on, because what seemed like a tool to achieve a gain that we did want morally has suddenly become an alternative to the life that we're used to of human connection in the real world. It seems less like the real world, but I don't know. This isn't really my field.

James Hodgson:

Yeah, no, I think I was referring, I guess, to that's one of the things that we've seen probably become the biggest the developing trends everywhere globally. But I think, in terms of if we're talking about what are the opponents to humanism or where we might see anti-humanist rhetoric, I imagine that's changed dramatically from the start of the century to today. And, in particular, yeah, I think, as you've touched on there, if we're setting the goal as increasing human flourishing, innovation technology can be a fantastic tool towards that, but, yes, it's we're seeing it being taken in certain ways where we need to be part of the conversation to ensure that it doesn't, in fact, reduce the human experience yeah, I think that's right.

Andrew Copson:

I would say then this I would say that, in comparison to 20 years ago, although religious extremism and religious threats to humanist values are still present, and in some parts of the world growing, in the west especially values are still present, and in some parts of the world growing In the West especially, you are more aware. One is more aware of the threats from political authoritarianism, nationalism, general anti-human rightsism, tribalism and so on, but also from the threats of inequality, global inequality, obviously that's corrosive of the humanist ideal, but also of technologies that, although they may help us, may also in a way unravel our humanity.

James Hodgson:

And with these kind of evolving threats to humanism or opponents that we face, your role involves a lot of dialogue and engagement and potentially debate where it's called for. How do you feel we should engage, or to what level should we engage with those whose views we find maybe troubling, maybe anti-humanist? Do you think it's important that we do tolerate to an extent their views and engage with them and try to convince them otherwise? Or where do you draw the line or put up the boundaries when you're involved in those discussions? Because I guess there's a lot of micro decisions you need to make there in terms of where to be present.

Andrew Copson:

That's right Absolutely. And, of course, humanist organizations, like any organizations, are constrained by the resources that we have available to us. And I would say that's quite important because, first of all, I don't think the debates are very useful. I don't think debates ever really organized debates, ever really change anyone's mind although they can, but it's very rare. But I do think that discussion and engagement with people with whom we disagree is extremely important, because I think that discussion and negotiation and engagement is the way that we make change in the democratic society. It should be the only way that we make change and that is vital.

Andrew Copson:

I think back to something that happened 10 years ago, the same-sex marriage campaign, which for me, the most memorable thing about it was going up and down the country having discussions in town halls and village halls and places where these questions were being discussed, and public opinion changed a lot during that campaign, and even more once the law had actually been passed and people thought it was nothing to be afraid of. So I think that engagement, discussion, especially with people whom you disagree, is important, but you've got to make choices about where you spend your energies. Apart from anything else, if we did nothing but accept invitations that we get a lot of to go and speak at this church or that mosque or whatever, or in this debate or this discussion. We wouldn't do anything else. So you've got to obviously pick and choose. I think, therefore, that we would. It would be sensible to engage in discussion and dialogue to a purpose, for a point. I think it, although there might be rare examples when you've got, if it's just next to your house or something and it's convenient to go to, just to shoot the breeze with people, trade values and discuss in generic terms, that might be okay because it furthers mutual understanding perhaps and will be good for your life, maybe in their lives too, and so on mutual understanding.

Andrew Copson:

But I think generally, I think dialogue and discussion has to be to a purpose and for an organization. I think it's got to be for some particular aim. I would want to talk to people we disagree with in the hope that we could make progress on particular issues assisted dying, for example. If you compare assisted dying to same-sex marriage, which is a sort of gap of what? 12 years. I think that the debate on this, the discussion on assisted dying, both in society and in parliament, if you can call it. Discussion has been appalling compared with something like same-sex marriage.

Andrew Copson:

And this, I suppose, draws me to conclude that there are two areas that you've got to be aware of when getting involved in discussion and dialogue. Conclude that there are two areas that you've got to be aware of when getting involved in discussion and dialogue. One is that some people do just engage in bad faith. I don't know whether it's just humanists or whether other people are like this too, but I think we're sort of a bit blind quite often to other people's bad faith, like we're going oh, let's just be reasonable, we just discuss this and actually, as we're seeing in the United States as well, with some of the advocates for Christianian nationalism, in particular the current presidency there, some people just will say anything and they do not care, and you don't have common ground even of shared facts with them, because they don't even believe in facts. They don't even believe in the facts on the ground.

Andrew Copson:

So I think you've got to be, that's got to be, a limit to engagement, and I think then the other limit to engagement in this sort of area has to be I do believe in Popper's Karl Popper's old paradox of tolerance, that there are some situations in which you cannot tolerate the intolerant, because if you do, society will come apart.

Andrew Copson:

And, after all, engagement and dialogue and freedom of expression itself isn't the end. It's a means to an end, as far as we're concerned anyway, and the end, to which is the means, is a better world and more human flourishing, and so on and so forth. And so I do think sometimes there is an argument against engagement when it comes to, for example, hardline anti-rights movements, the proponents of hatred and so on and so forth. I don't in specific communities, of course, people have got to engage with each other because they're fellow citizens, and so on and so forth, but in general, I don't think it's something that purpose-based organizations need to spend, should spend much time doing yes, unfortunately, and there may well be some people that can be saved from that worldview, but it's.

James Hodgson:

I guess it's too much of a risk to to take to and, as you say, when time and resources are limited, it's where can you have the most impact and be most effective?

Andrew Copson:

and I mean, I think they have to.

Andrew Copson:

Of course, people do have to discuss with each other in their communities these things, and people need to get along with neighbors, and I was hearing about a project a couple of weeks ago which was bringing some reform party supporters together with some asylum seekers to engage in mediated conversation. Wow, that's, that's pretty punchy, and the rationale for that is that they all lived in the same place and so they had to get on and engage with each other and understand each other. So that's a bit different if it's about place-based community necessity. But that's not the sort of business that we're in, obviously, because we're in the business of promoting certain ideas, advancing certain causes, and for us, I think we have to be therefore, unfortunately, just a bit more choosy and strategic about who we engage with and when.

James Hodgson:

Yeah, it's interesting Whenever you hear of those projects where they physically get people together and they get them talking, usually building rapport, not talking about their political differences, finding things in common and maybe breaking bread together. They always have very revealing outcomes of quashing those hatreds and bringing people together. But it takes, it's the time and effort, and I think it goes back to your point of we all live online now. People aren't just that. We. Our first encounter with someone is usually through their online presence and so we form that instance or a idea of them through the heuristics of people that we have online and so people tend to go into. These will then go forward with those assumptions.

Andrew Copson:

I suppose that's right. I suppose I'm online to the extent that you have to be these days, but in other ways I'm Victorian in my habits, I don't do that. But I mean you're right. Everyone else I know seems completely online.

James Hodgson:

When we talk about intolerance. I think that seems to be entirely.

Andrew Copson:

There certainly is a role.

Andrew Copson:

That sort of the rapidity is.

Andrew Copson:

The speed of social media, the fast pace of digital life and the rapidity with which it allows people to come to a settled view and have that view confirmed repeatedly in a way that would usually take many weeks or months to confirm even a false belief, is obviously creating some sort of problems, and the ratcheting up of the creation also almost of a sort of alternative reality on the line.

Andrew Copson:

You know, things being at the moment where we've got, for example, it's the summer and of 2025 and there are lots of people online saying there'll be a summer of riots. But you know, and they're saying things like someone in my village actually said you can't go to london now. Um, because you can't go to london now because there are people with knives that is roaming around the streets and they're just attacking people all the time. And I said I go to london once or twice a week for work and I this this is not the London that I recognize and they just were like no, they didn't believe me and I know that it was through their Instagram or their Facebook or whatever. They were reading these stories and having them constantly perpetuated and reaffirmed, and that's very difficult, isn't?

James Hodgson:

it. You mentioned a couple of the successful campaigns that Humanists UK have had over your tenure with, particularly recently, the assist dying legalization of gay marriage. When you reflect on your time, what are the key milestones? What are the achievements that you're most proud of during your tenure with Humanist UK?

Andrew Copson:

Well, of course, I've had rather a disappointing time in some ways, because when I was appointed chief executive when I was 28, and then a week later I became 29, when I was 28. And then a week later I became 29, because it was just a week before my birthday. And then I started the job on the 1st of January 2010, which was an amazing time because the Gordon Brown government at the time had just made the first new regulation of faith schools. That had been for a very long time limiting admissions. They're about to introduce a brand new curriculum that had humanism in it. It's had great sexual relationship with education.

Andrew Copson:

Gordon Brown had launched this project to work on the constitution. He'd appointed some humanist philosophers to the advisory group. For that. Everything was going well. I thought at the time this is great. I'm going to be like the most impactful chief executive of humanistic care ever since the 1890s or the 1960s. This is brilliant. And then, of course, a few months later, there's a general election. The whole thing fell apart, and so we were struggling from that point onwards. We have been struggling from that point onwards with governments that, to put it mildly, did not share our values. And then, of course, the political turmoil there was nothing to do with us of Brexit and this and that and the other, which sort of took all the oxygen out of progressive campaigning in general, of which humanists are obviously a part in our country.

Andrew Copson:

I think a lot of achievements the last 15 years was just keeping the show on the road. As far as humanistic care is concerned and external impacts although you're right to say that same-sex marriage is one of them, and there have been others too in the last 15 years, of various kinds there are even more now, even in the first year of this new government, like our successful campaign to have clauses to regulate illegal faith schools put into the bill. Lots of other things that are going on at the moment assisted language mention but a lot of the external impacts that we could have were rather limited. So I think we did well to. You know, we were often campaigning to mitigate bad things that governments were doing or to try and prevent them doing worse things.

Andrew Copson:

We were successful in preventing them from reintroducing 100% selective religious schools, for example, but you don't really want your life to be about stopping the worst thing that could happen from happening. You want your life to be about, obviously, making the good things happen, but that's the way we are. That was what I was landed with, that's what we were all landed with in the last 15 years. So we did our best. I think our greatest achievements probably, though, as a movement in that time have been more about on the ground the increase in ceremonies, the increase in pastoral care, our growth as a membership organization and those sorts of general activities and the awareness raising of humanism itself which, of course, we've grown.

James Hodgson:

And, of course, as mentioned in the introduction, you also decided to take on a parallel role as president of Humanists International. So two huge leadership roles at the age of 28. We've spoken with a few representatives, vice presidents of Humanists International. I don't think we've ever actually ever had gone. You know what is the organization, why it exists, so it'd be lovely to hear your elevator pitch, if you like, for Humanist International as an organization.

Andrew Copson:

Well, in the late 19th century there was a global organization for humanist groups, but as a result of communism and fascism in Europe it largely disappeared. It was either the communists or the fascists liked the humanists and so it largely got wiped out. And then in the 1950s there was a decision to rebuild this global movement, and that's when Humanist International, which was then called the International Humanist and Ethical Union not very modern branding was formed in 1952 in Amsterdam, and that makes it obviously one of the oldest human rights NGOs in the world. It was very proudly a human rights movement. The first resolution it's found in Congress, or the second resolution the first resolution it's found in Congress was to define what modern humanism really well. The second resolution, the first resolution it's found in Congress was to define what modern humanism really meant. I think second resolution was to give full support to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was of course at that point very new and which meant humanists had been involved in writing. And so it's a very old human rights NGO, one of the first NGOs to be accredited with the United Nations, where they still are accredited, and it's now also the umbrella body for humanist organizations around the world. So not only is it a global voice for humanists at places like the UN or the African Commission or the Council of Europe or wherever international institutions are, it's also an umbrella body for humanist organizations within their national context. So it helps to support new humanist organizations, develop them, train their leaders, take them to the next level wherever possible and to network humanist organizations together within their region, especially where those organizations are bigger and more developed, like, for example, in Europe, where there are European networks of both humanist practitioners of services but also European policy specialists from humanist organizations. So it's somewhere between a global umbrella and a global federation and a global voice, and one of the pleasures about working, about having a role in the leadership of Humanist International for the last 15 years, has been just encountering such an inspiring range of humanists from different contexts.

Andrew Copson:

Of course, it's very hard for humanists in many countries, especially where their existence is technically unlawful, like Pakistan or Malaysia or many parts of the Arab world, of course, and they're incredible people and they do such sort of work, and it's also been inspiring the consistency that humanism represents over the world. There are some people in the West these days who think that, oh, humanism is very Western and everything good is Western, it all comes from Christianity, and this is a historical recent trend saying these things. I think it's really interesting for me over the last 15 years to see the roots of humanism in different cultures around the world African humanism, southeast Asian humanism in particular and just how far back that goes, and how modern humanist organizations, wherever they are in the world, have such ancient traditions to draw on of wisdom from their own cultures, secular wisdom from their own cultures, a lay tradition that exists almost everywhere, and how similar that is, and how that sort of reaffirms your humanist conviction that there is universal morality to be discerned from our status as social creatures everywhere. So that was a great pleasure Meet amazing people, very courageous people and people are one of the things that I like most. So I just liked hearing about everything that everyone was doing and meeting so many different people over those 15 years and I felt quite sad in the end actually to stand down.

Andrew Copson:

I stood down because I really thought it was time for a change, but also I'd done all the things I wanted to do. I had a particular reform agenda. I wanted to make the General Assembly much more democratic, give greater votes to the global South and make sure that the board was always representative. I joined a committee In 2010,. When I joined the Committee of Humans International, there were five Europeans, or one American of European extraction, let's say and that was it, and they were all men and one woman only. And then the boards that I left in the General Assembly when I stood down a few weeks ago half women, 50% female, 50% male board members from Africa, from Asia, from Latin America, an African woman as vice president, the first African woman ever to have been vice president since we've launched in the 50s and I was succeeded by the first woman of color to be president. So I think the reform agenda that I had was completed, really, and I just felt that the next stage had to be taken forward by others. So I left.

Andrew Copson:

It's quite a privileged position to be in. I mean, how many people get to leave a role? Haven't done everything they wanted to do, people still relatively liking them and their reputation is still good. So I enjoyed leaving and I think, and some very nice one, very nice person on LinkedIn, not commenting on anything that I'd said, but commenting on something that the chief executive of Humanists International said oh, this is.

Andrew Copson:

It's so great to see an orderly transition, implying this was very rare, especially in NGOs, and I think that's right.

Andrew Copson:

Actually, we've all worked very hard at it, as you would expect a cooperative group of humanists to do, but it was very orderly and I was very pleased about it, and I do think that anyone who's got a leadership role of any kind should always remember that the true test of how good their leadership has been is really, I think, what happens in the two to three years after they've left. To some extent, of course, people then do pick up the ball and do with it what they want, but if you've left chaos in your wake, then that will be judged in the two to three years after you've gone, and if you've, on the other hand, worked hard, been cooperative, set out an orderly transition and kept things going in the right direction, then things will continue, at least for a while. To be said, I hope that no one listening to this podcast three years from now is listening reflecting on the collapse of Humanist International. It's all gone to the ground.

James Hodgson:

I'm sure that won't be the case. And you mentioned, obviously, that Humanist International is designed for people, it's to protect people, it's to help people, to bring people together around the world. I just wonder. I know there's been a huge amount that's probably happened in the last 15 years and that bringing together those reforms, but also the bringing together of so many groups, but also there's been lots of cases of helping people individually and collectively. And I just wonder is there anything that stands out for you as a particularly proud moment or case of Humanist International's work during your tenure?

Andrew Copson:

Well, of course, the case of Mubarak Bala. I mean Mubarak Bala, who was the president of the Humanist Association of Nigeria and was arrested during COVID, and Humanist International and a lot of our member organizations, including Humanist UK, but also in America and European Union countries, did an awful lot of work to raise his case. Humanist International itself offered the legal support and the funding to him and in the end he was sentenced to 24 years, but then he was released after a few years of that, through diplomatic efforts, really from the US, the UK and the EU, which humanist organizations had triggered. And then he came there. He was at the General Assembly in Luxembourg just a few weeks ago, which was just a wonderful feeling.

Andrew Copson:

He gave a speech about what happened to him and how he felt about the humanist organizations that had tried to assist him, and that was very moving because obviously what we want is for humanists to be safe in their countries and to be able to organize and to live their own lives according to their values, as well as to organize with others freely and in freedom. But sometimes that just isn't possible and you have to try and get people out, and I was really proud of the global collaboration that humanist organizations were capable of in getting him out UK efforts to lobby to get him out, american efforts to lobby to get him out and then, of course, german humanist organizations working with authorities in Germany to get him a student visa to Germany. So the collaboration that represented to support one of our own in those difficult circumstances was very heartwarming and it was heartwarming to hear him say how he hadn't felt alone because of that.

James Hodgson:

But of course you're not moving on from humanism and campaigning altogether. You're still very much actively involved. It's still got the day job, yeah, still got the Humanist UK and of course I'm sure still very much involved, involved. It's just got the day job, yeah, still got the humanist uk and of course I'm sure still very much involved with humanist international. So what do you see as the next major causes, areas for change? You see you're putting your efforts towards, but also you feel like you know globally, humanists should be engaging with nationally.

Andrew Copson:

We've got to make the most of the current government. I know that the current government is very popular in various ways, but it's certainly the most humanist-friendly government we've had for at least 15 years, and we've got to make the most of that. More than that, this is the first almost majority non-religious parliament. This is the most humanist parliament we've had for a very long time. The parliamentary humanist group, which has been going since the 1960s in this parliament, is bigger than ever, and so I think it's the second biggest all-party group in the Westminster parliament. The context is very favourable to us in a way that it hasn't been for very long. So obviously we need to continue to make progress with the assisted dying bill, which I'm sure that we will. We need to continue to make progress with the government's curriculum review for schools in England, which we're very involved in too. Continue to make progress with the regulation of illegal schools through the Children's Wellbeing Bill, which we're involved in. I think we need to continue to press government and parliament to go further and faster on other reforms too.

Andrew Copson:

There are lots of incomplete human rights and equality measures in our country.

Andrew Copson:

Still, in UK wide there are anti-rights movements pushing hard to unravel some of the protections that people have enjoyed in the past, especially on grounds of sexual orientation or gender reassignment, and they have to be defended.

Andrew Copson:

The human rights of people to live their lives according to their values and in the ways that they need to in order to be happy needs to be defended. It's an endless battle, a timeless battle, and then I think that there are constitutional reforms that we continue to need to press for around the Church of England and its status, particularly in the House of Lords. So I think there's lots of old battles still being fought. I think in the UK, too, we need to increase the extent in the UK to which we're putting the humanist approach to life forward as an alternative not just to religious ways of living, but to some of the other secular ways of living that are being put out there. We need to be an antidote to tribalism, to nationalism, and we need to continue to promote the idea of human rights in general and of liberal democracy, the reality of facts and information in the world, contrary to misinformation and disinformation.

James Hodgson:

That we're all suffering from. Can we focus on that? I know we're tight on time here, but I think one of the things we often struggle those of us that are involved in the promotion, trying to build a recognition of humanism is to get that very succinct case for why humanism is a label worth embracing, why it's something that's good to associate with. What is your case for humanism, as you said, for people who may be unaware or are uncertain about whether it's for them?

Andrew Copson:

Well, I think if you want to live a life that is consistent with reality as we understand it, the nature of the world and the universe that science has revealed to us, and if you want to live in a way that takes seriously our moral obligations to ourselves and to others and deals rationally with the problems that face our species and you want a better future, then I think that the humanist way of approaching things is the only way that makes sense and I would always promote the humanist approach to life.

Andrew Copson:

On that basis and as we were saying earlier, there are a lot of people who implicitly have a sort of secular values that humanists comprehend how I would make the case. I think that's true both for individual wellbeing. I think you have a happier and more resilient life if you've got an examined approach to life, and I think also it's better there's also a case for social progress that these values, once being lived, can also be argued for and can inform our common life, even in a diverse society. So that's the argument that I personally make for the importance of humanism itself.

James Hodgson:

Given your involvement with Humanists International globally. Where do you see the main areas for focus going forward?

Andrew Copson:

areas for focus going forward Globally.

Andrew Copson:

The focus has to be on just ensuring that the multilateral institutions, which, like the UN, are incredibly fragile right now.

Andrew Copson:

And the whole idea of a rules-based international order and, more specifically, an international order that has the human rights framework at its heart is precarious.

Andrew Copson:

Right's framework at its heart is precarious, and I think our focus has to be on that. It has to be on that because that is the only thing that will guarantee the freedom of humanists within countries where it is under threat, either from religious extremism or authoritarian nationalism or both. And but also, I think it's the only way that we can hope to achieve global consensus on the sort of existential issues that face us, whether it's how we deal with climate change and the human consequences of that, or how we deal with the resurgence of aggressive states that are willing to advance their what they see as their national agenda through hostile action against others. And I think that's the only hope that we have is the reassertion of those frameworks and their reestablishment, and I think that, although that's a global challenge, it does have to be met nationally. I think it's down to all of us to hold our own governments to account for the extent to which they not only comply with that framework but seek to strengthen and rebuild it.

James Hodgson:

And if anyone is listening to this and who feels passionately about these topics, they want to get involved, they would like to be supportive, or where do you recommend they start? If someone is either just to support the work, your work, but also if they want, if they feel they want to go the next step and be actively engaged in these campaigns, I think, join your local humanist organization in the country where you live.

Andrew Copson:

Join Humanist UK if you're in the UK. Join your humanist organization if you're in another country and then get involved from there. Most humanist organizations, as well as communicating with their members, will ask their members what they're interested in doing and give them opportunities to volunteer or to work or to train or be developed into different roles, and I think the more people that do that, the better. Of course, humanist activism can't be confined to humanist organizations.

Andrew Copson:

I think, more humanists need to get involved in politics, in local politics, in national politics. More humanists need to get involved in their community institutions in every way, and I think that's important too. We must be outward looking, not just look inside and build sort of humanist communities, but use the fortitude and resilience that we get from being part of humanist communities to change the outside world and to look outwards and to be part of those communities that are not communities of belief but communities of other interests, or local communities or political communities, and that's really obviously the best way to effect change that can help everyone.

James Hodgson:

And do you think it's helpful as well that when people do go into those other organizations and they try to influence change?

Andrew Copson:

Yeah, I do. I know that a lot of people these days, some people are very uncomfortable about identities and don't think they have an identity and a common response to people who are maybe third generation non-religious, for example, who come across or are leading a very religious identity. These are two different reasons for not liking identities, but we get them both, unfortunately, in the humanist movement. They say I don't know why I don't want to be a humanist, but identity, I'm not sure why I want to identify. Isn't it just common sense? Why do you need an identity? Those people have to remember that it's not common sense, that only a third of the people, even in this country, have a humanist approach to life and that if you wanted to continue and you wanted to continue to influence our public, wider life, then you need to be part of it and identify it as it.

Andrew Copson:

Michael Rosen, the great children's author, great children's book about humanism. I interviewed him at the launch and I said what's your response to this idea that we don't really need to put the concept of humanism out there or the identity of humanist? What do you think? And he said absolutely we need to. You can't understand a thing. In fact, a thing isn't even real unless it's got a name, unless there's a word. This is what he's learned from his life of children's education. Of course, it's the first thing you teach children. This is what this is. This is humanist. This is something else that you need to have a word, otherwise the thing isn't real, and I think that too many people forget that.

James Hodgson:

Well, thank you so much for all your work and everything that you've done Before we go. We're speaking to you recently after, of course, your awarding of an OBE, and specifically for your contributions and work for non-religious communities. Am I right in thinking that's the first OBE of that nature for the non-religious?

Andrew Copson:

It is, it's the first time in a century, since it started, that a national award has been made for services to the non-religious, and this, of course, was part of the reason for accepting it, naturally, is that it does connote a certain sort of recognition. I felt slightly uncomfortable about it because I think that no one likes to be personally awarded or at least I didn't especially when you're being awarded for something which is the common achievement of so many people. But it did. As we said in our statements about it at the time of human issue k, we hope that lots of other awards for services normally just will follow, and I think that they hopefully will and I think that it's good recognition that this is a significant, substantial section of our national community that that deserves recognition for the good work that people do for each other and the service that they provide within our communities, locally as well as nationally. So on that basis I accepted it and I'm not ashamed.

Andrew Copson:

My mum, a very Republican, small r Republican for US listeners I thought would be sceptical as well, but she's now choosing hats. So I think that it's. I think this is how the establishment gets you, james, but watch this space. But no, I think that it's the system that we have and if you look behind, as it were, the superficial aspects of God and empire and king, what it really is, of course, is a national recognition that this is an important community, and I think that's, on reflection, I think that's something to be welcomed.

James Hodgson:

Well, congratulations not only on the honour, but also for all your achievements with Humanist International, humanist UK and elsewhere. Thank you for all your tireless campaigning, as mentioned in the introduction, and thank you for being very generous with your time in joining us on Humanism Now, thank you. Thank you for your wonderful podcast and thank you for being very generous with your time in joining us on Humanism Now.

Andrew Copson:

Thank you. Thank you for your wonderful podcast.

James Hodgson:

And thank you for listening. If you like the podcast, please do rate and review us wherever you get your podcasts. It hugely helps the channel. You can support us by finding the podcast on Patreon and please follow us and share on all social media. We are at Humanism Now, pod.

Humanise Live:

Thanks for listening to Humanism Now. If you liked the show, please leave us a review. It helps more people find us. Support us from just £5 a month for exclusive content and to shape future episodes, and we'll plant a tree each month in your name. Follow us on all socials at humanismnowpod and help spread curiosity, compassion and human progress. Humanism Now is produced by Humanize Life, creating world-class podcasts, videos and events for purpose-led individuals and organizations. Learn more at humanizelife.

People on this episode

Head Shot

James Hodgson

Host
Head Shot

Andrew Copson

Guest

Podcasts we love

Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.

What I Believe Artwork

What I Believe

Humanists UK