Peter Dankwa on the HI General Assembly in Singapore

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/21

Peter Nyarko Dankwa is a member of the Humanist Association of Ghana. He is outspoken about spreading humanism and critical thinking. He uses his blog, Peter’s Box, to promote humanism and critical thinking. At a Toastmasters meeting in 2019, Peter delivered a speech titled ‘No Monkey Games,’ which was inspired by humanist values. He has held several leadership positions in Toastmasters International, from the club to the district level. Peter holds a bachelor’s degree in Aerospace Engineering.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: We are back again with Peter Dankwa from the Humanist Association of Ghana, or Ghana humanists generally. You just came back from the General Assembly (GA) in Singapore, where you attended your first GA (General Assembly). What were your biggest takeaways?

Peter Dankwa: I had been looking forward to attending my first GA and was excited to be part of the whole process, especially since Humanists International (HI) offered grants to some of us. I was fortunate to attend and would say I was highly impressed with the diversity within HI. Humanists from different walks of life, countries, and cultures were present, and networking with them gave me a broader perspective on humanism and how some countries strive to live by humanist principles. The experience was truly eye-opening.

It was enriching, and I particularly appreciated the agenda. When it came time for voting, I saw firsthand how HI practices democracy and freedom of speech. I saw everything you hear in humanist discussions or the principles of humanism. I was highly impressed.

Jacobsen: That was exactly what I felt when I first experienced it, too. I thought, “Oh, this is how normal people operate.” But, of course, this isn’t the norm, as we both know. That’s a common reflection. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to attend this year.

Were there any specific parts of the theme of inter-faith harmony and dialogue that stood out to you? From workshops, presentations, the surrounding culture, or informal discussions over lunch or at the bar?

Dankwa: Yes, there was a talk by a Muslim woman. One thing I took away from her presentation was that while we often view religious people through the lens of community identity, some aspects of their identity are deeply personal. We risk making a mistake by generalizing. For instance, if you meet a Muslim and immediately think, “Oh, you’re Muslim, so you must believe this and that,” you might miss that individual’s identity and their unique motivations for being Muslim. This is often where conflict begins—starting from assumptions based on group identity rather than understanding the individual’s reasons for belonging to the group. Her point made me realize that we’ve been guilty of this for a while, always viewing religious people through the lens of identity politics without considering their personal experiences and motivations.

Jacobsen: Do you think relying on heuristics to understand group dynamics is problematic, especially when it overlooks the individual? Is it truly a mistake, perhaps even offensive to many?

Dankwa: It was suggested that we break the ice and initiate meaningful dialogue. It all boils down to dialogue—engaging in a conversation where you and the other person can reflect on what has been said. Suppose you only focus on community identity and don’t engage with the individual. In that case, you risk missing the opportunity for deeper understanding. The key is to move beyond the group identity and engage at a personal level, which provides the tool for effective dialogue.

Jacobsen: Were there any subtle insights from the General Assembly about the principles of dialogue that need to be agreed upon for a discourse to take place? And what happens if you find yourself in a conversation where those basic principles are absent, where some people are either unwilling to hear what you’re saying or are so combative that no realdiscussion can occur? So, there is a sort of fanatical rejection or fanatical aggressiveness in discourse. Was there a particular portion of the workshop where you experienced that?

Dankwa: Yes, there was a specific moment during the Q&A session when an audience member made a statement that felt antagonistic. There needed to be more friction in the exchange of ideas. This behaviour is welcome in a humanist setting because we are here to share ideas. The panel members were ready to listen and genuinely understand this person’s origin.

However, suppose you transpose this situation to an everyday setting, where conversations might be more volatile, and people may be. What’s the word? If they are too aggressive in their approach, you will only sometimes have that opportunity for open discussion. At the conference, there was space to agree and disagree civilly because we are humanists and understand the values we hold dear.

It was a very open environment. We were given the chance to voice our opinions. But in everyday settings, there’s still much work to be done in this regard. As humanists, it’s incumbent upon us to show more tolerance in our day-to-day interactions. My mentor once told me, “Peter, you don’t have to do their homework for them,” meaning that gaining values and virtues isn’t something others will receive easily. They may need to go through their own experiences, and those experiences include the friction we’ve been discussing.

At the conference, friction was welcomed. There was a moment when things got a bit tense, and I wondered if things might take a bad turn. But then I realized we were having a productive dialogue, and I enjoyed watching from afar, taking notes.

Jacobsen: That resonates with my own experiences in Iceland and Copenhagen. Two important takeaways from those events were how at home I felt, being among people from everywhere, all sharing a certain sensibility—a shared worldview. It was like a microcosm of what a unified, global future could be. It was quite wonderful. How was your feeling interacting with people from all these countries, many of whom spoke English as a second or even a 19th language?

Dankwa: I’ll start with the host country, Singapore. Singaporeans are lovely people, especially older people. For some reason, I connect more with older people because I’m always seeking wisdom from those more experienced than me. I had great conversations with Nora and Peter from Humanists International.

Nora has been exceptionally kind and helpful, always going out of her way to assist the attendees. Peter, in particular, was very interested in Ghana and how things are going here. I had many enjoyable conversations with both of them. I also met another remarkable woman, Gerda.

It’s quite impressive how we are not alone in our activism. Even though we may have different experiences, the underlying principles—equity, empathy, and so on—remain the same. I enjoyed that aspect of my interactions with everyone.

In fact, on a Friday night, I delivered a speech titled To Be or Not To Be. That speech was inspired by what I had observed within the humanist community. Here’s the thing—sometimes humanism can sound too good to be true, or it might seem like an ideal. But when I saw people like Roslyn, Dr. Leo, and Javan actively advocating for humanism, I realized there’s much more we can do. I told myself that everything counts and anything can make a difference. So, I decided to add my voice because you never know whom you might influence.

My speech encouraged us, as humanists, to do more. That was another highlight of the social night. I also had the chance to witness much talent. I enjoyed Inga’s performance—she played beautifully on her guitar. I can’t recall the exact name of the song, but it was quite memorable.

Overall, the networking was fantastic. You learned about different cultures, how people practice humanism in their countries, and the challenges they face. It made me realize that we are not alone in our struggles. It was a truly eye-opening experience.

Jacobsen: Did you have any favourite presentations?

Dankwa: Yes. There was a presentation by the founder of Humanist Singapore. His name escapes me right now—He gave an excellent presentation.

Jacobsen: Yes, it’s Paul Simon

Dankwa: His presentation sheds light on the advocacy involved in humanism. People often associate humanism with human rights because they sound similar, but humanism is much broader than that. He provided valuable insights, not just about the atmosphere in Singapore but also in other places. He’s well-travelled and highly educated, so he offered many practical tips and statistics highlighting humanism and the opposite—non-humanism. That was a presentation I thoroughly enjoyed.

Also, the Muslim woman—I didn’t catch her name, forgive me—her presentation was impactful. She spoke from the perspective of a religious person, and I appreciated where she was coming from.

Jacobsen: Yes, Paul Simon sounds like a wise man. As for the Muslim presenter, the point you’re raising is important. I’ve done interviews with religious leaders, too, and that’s a common concern—they feel like they’re treated as a monolithic block, almost like a political party. Catholics, for instance, often express frustration about being perceived that way.

So, their fear is being treated as a block. On the other hand, I can see why heuristics come into play—it’s a group of over a billion people. Some core tenets exist when dealing with something as large as a global belief system, and people will make broad statements. It’s not like a country with a small population; it’s a vast, interconnected belief system.

I can see both ends, but it’s great that you brought up both presentations. I won’t ask who your favourite person was—let’s keep that private! What things did other humanist communities do that could be useful in a Ghanaian context?

Dankwa: Wow, interesting. One thing that stood out was volunteerism. Even though Singapore was hosting the event, many people volunteered for different aspects of the program. Ghana lags in this area.

It’s not just in Ghana, though—it’s a global issue. Only a few people often do most of the work, which can make it feel overwhelming. But when more people get involved, it becomes easier to communicate our values and make progress. So, I’d encourage my fellow Ghanaians to adopt a stronger culture of volunteerism.

Some countries are fortunate enough to have government funding for their humanist activities. They have a large membership base and resources to fund their initiatives. A few even receive government subsidies. This brings up an important question about the concept of volunteerism in humanism. If government funding is available, why not have paid positions, as we see in large organizations, instead of relying solely on volunteers?

For instance, you have highly dedicated volunteers who excel in their areas. They get noticed, move up, and might eventually receive internships or paid positions. This way, they could make a living from their humanist activism and community-building efforts.

Jacobsen: Would a model like that work in places like Ghana, if feasible?

Dankwa: Most definitely. It’s feasible, but the challenge lies in timing and the general atmosphere in the country, which is highly religious. Only recently—within the last four or five years—has the Humanist Association of Ghana started receiving invitations to national forums and civil society discussions. It’s a positive step, but Ghana is extremely religious.

In Ghana, there isn’t a clear separation of church and state. Certain institutions still look to the clergy for advice. When you try to bring in a different perspective, it can come across as though you’re opposing the dominant religious view. This is compounded by the fact that the majority of what we receive, culturally and politically, is influenced by religious institutions.

This even ties into the anti-LGBTQ+ bill, which is heavily religiously motivated. The bill’s proponents frequently reference the Bible, the Quran, or religious beliefs in general. Challenging these viewpoints is difficult because religion strongly influences the government and society. To change this dynamic, we would need a political evolution and a mental revolution in how we think about religion and governance.

There must be much education to get to that point. Can we only have platforms to support humanist organizations and other civil society groups pursuing their goals? But most importantly, the responsibility still falls on us, so I keep mentioning volunteerism.

If you look at our religious counterparts, for example, they excel in areas like education and healthcare. They set up schools and hospitals, and many religious bodies advocate for their causes, ensuring they’re heard. That’s something we, as the Humanist Association of Ghana, and more broadly, need to emulate. We need to make tangible contributions to growth and development, something concrete we can rely on.

Humanists International (HI) is doing a great job providing grants to help members embark on such projects. We’re improving in that regard. But, as I said earlier, it’s a race against time, where we need not just political change but a mental revolution. That’s why I continue to emphasize volunteerism—it’s through our collective efforts that we’ll create change. My voice is being heard today because of my volunteerism, and you’re dedicating your time because of the value you see in it. So, volunteerism is the starting point, but the mental revolution is equally essential.

Jacobsen: And the point about the bill is crucial because it ties into the international aspect of this. I’m aware that American evangelicals, and perhaps some hardline Catholics, are highly supportive of this anti-LGBTQ+ bill. I need to find out the extent of the funding or the degree of their involvement. Still, there’s no doubt that Americans have pushed this agenda in Ghana. Canadians also have hardline evangelicals who might be involved.

To a large extent, North Americans have not been helpful regarding this bill. So, even if we have feasible volunteer efforts to counter such bills, we are all engaged in a common struggle. Americans face similar challenges with their hardline evangelicals and Catholics, who are exporting this extreme ideology to influence the political and policy landscape of countries that are already deeply religious. In a way, many people in these countries welcome that extremism because they see those groups as their brothers and sisters in faith.

So, what did you learn from meeting people in other countries who may face even more extreme religious or political contexts with greater social or legal repercussions for their humanist beliefs?

Dankwa: I gained a lot from those conversations because they made my problems seem smaller by comparison. There’s an element of discretion in how we communicate our values, especially in places where freedoms are more severely repressed.

For example, I noted at least three or four countries where the human rights situation was dire. In particular, many people were concerned about how their countries treated them. This brings me back to the idea of discretion—when communicating about repression or difficulty in a country, it’s crucial to prioritize safety above all else. So, while it’s important to stand by our values and advocate for them, we must also be careful about our actions.

Jacobsen: So you’re saying that in countries with harsh repression, being strategic in how you communicate can sometimes be more important than the message itself to protect people’s safety?

Dankwa: Safety is paramount; in some contexts, being too vocal or open can lead to serious consequences. So, we must balance standing up for our values with ensuring people aren’t in danger.

That’s an important point that struck me. As a media person and blogger, I’m always trying to stay up to date with the latest news, get new information, and share it. However, I noticed during the conference that I was being advised to be careful with some of the things I publish. So, in my passion to advocate and be an activist, I also need to exercise discretion, at least for the sake of those involved.

Activism and advocacy might seem straightforward—you want people to know what’s happening and present all your logical points. But sometimes, it can come back to bite you. So, much discretion goes into humanism, and you must communicate wisely. There’s a time to speak, and there’s a time to remain silent. That’s one of the big lessons I took from this experience.

Jacobsen: That’s a critical point. For some people, protesting isn’t always the best or safest response in certain contexts. Safety is the primary concern. I remember in 2023, during a conversation in a workshop, one participant and I were comparing our situations. He said something like, “I would just like to walk around the street without fear of being beheaded.”

Jacobsen: That was my reaction, too, right? Like, wow. In Canada, yes, we have discrimination, legal issues, symbolic nonsense, creationism, anti-science movements, homeopathy, and so on. These are all real problems because they waste resources and spread false hope. But that individual’s issue was immediate—life or death. The difference is stark.

You must pump the brakes and recognize that safety comes first. I appreciated how you used the word “discretion” earlier. We’re not afraid but don’t live in those immediate, dangerous contexts like some people do. It’s not about letting fear take over the conversation. It’s about rational analysis and calculating whether it’s safe or not. Discretion is the right term here—it’s about being thoughtful in our actions and responses.

Did you get a chance to explore Singapore while you were there?

Dankwa: Yes, I had some time to look around. I made the most of my commute to the venue to experience the city. But the journey was long, and I was super jet-lagged and disoriented. I rested most of the time so I wouldn’t miss any sessions. So, while I had grand plans to visit different places, in the end, I didn’t get to do as much exploring as I had hoped.

Jacobsen: So, you only had the chance to visit a few places because you wanted to avoid overexerting yourself?

Dankwa: Yes, exactly. I didn’t want to push myself too much, but I enjoyed the landscape. It was impressive to see how green the place was. Singapore is essentially an island country, and you would expect a limited amount of vegetation. But everything was lush and vivid. It was quite striking, especially when I compared it to Ghana. I kept thinking, “What did they do right that we’re missing?” It made me reflect on the differences between our development paths since both countries gained independence around the same time. I also enjoyed their transportation system. It was easy to navigate, and every stop had a city map. I was genuinely impressed.

Jacobsen: I’ve asked about the conference, your trip, Ghana, and the challenges with North American Christians pushing the anti-LGBTQ+ bill. We’ve also touched on your favourite speakers and the event’s themes. We gave TattSi Tan his well-deserved props. But what do you think is important for people who might not know much about Ghana to understand, especially someone from a place like Canada who doesn’t have much contact with the global humanist movement—what should they know about Ghanaian humanism?

Dankwa: They should first know that the Ghanaian humanist space is quite youthful. A lot of young people are involved in humanism here. This is probably due to education—as more people get educated, they start asking critical questions that inform their decisions about how they want to live their lives.

Volunteerism is also a significant aspect of Ghanaian humanism, though we’re still working on it. We must always exercise discretion, especially when the government gives us little space. For example, at our monthly meeting on Sunday, our president reminded us of the need to be discreet in these times.

Ghanaian humanism still has a long way to go. Volunteerism is a mixed bag, and that makes it difficult to meet certainobjectives. However, on the positive side, Ghanaians are always ready to work towards something meaningful. If you propose an idea that promotes humanism, people will jump on board, bringing different skills to the table. For example, the Vice President of Humanists International is Ghanaian, and our African Regional Coordinator is Ghanaian. I volunteer for Young Humanists International (YHI).

Once a cause is clearly defined, Ghanaians and the diaspora will get involved. That’s the beautiful thing about Ghanaian humanism. It’s not just local; Ghanaians abroad also contribute significantly.

Jacobsen: Peter, it’s past midnight for me. I need to get some sleep.

Dankwa: You deserve a good rest. Well, I am done!

Jacobsen: Thank you! Thank you so much for your time. I hope you have a great day at work!

Dankwa: Thanks, you too. Take care!

Jacobsen: All right, take care. Bye!

Dankwa: Bye!

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.