Andrew Copson on Humanists International GA 2024

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2024/10/08

Andrew Copson was appointed Chief Executive of Humanists UK in 2009, having previously been its Director of Education and Public Affairs. He is also the current President of Humanists International, a position he’s held since 2015.

His books include The Little Book of Humanism (2020) and The Little Book of Humanist Weddings (2021) with Alice Roberts; Secularism: a very short introduction (Oxford University Press, 2019); The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Humanism (2015) with A C Grayling. His writing on humanist and secularist issues has appeared in The Guardian, The Independent, The Times and New Statesman as well as in various journals.

He has represented the humanist movement extensively on television news on BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Sky, as well as on programmes such as Newsnight, The Daily Politics, and The Big Questions. He has also appeared on radio on programmes from Today, Sunday, The World at One, The Last Word, and Beyond Belief on the BBC, to local and national commercial radio stations.

Andrew served for many years as a director and trustee of the Religious Education Council, the Values Education Council, and the National Council for Faiths and Beliefs in Further Education, and the European Humanist Federation. and has advised on humanism for a range of public bodies such as the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Authority, the Department for Education, the BBC, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office, and the Office for National Statistics. He was a member of the Advisory Group for the Humanist Library at London’s Conway Hall and, in a previous post in the office of Lord Macdonald of Tradeston in the House of Lords, he provided the secretariat for the All Party Parliamentary Humanist Group (APPHG).

Andrew was educated at Balliol College in the University of Oxford, where he read Classics and graduated with a first in Ancient and Modern History. He was a member of the winning team of the 2005 Young Educational Thinker of the Year Programme and is a Member of the Chartered Institute of Public Relations, a Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute and of the Royal Society of Arts, and an Associate of the Centre for Law and Religion at Cardiff University.

opson discusses public criticisms, including being labeled “debauched” and receiving hate mail. He reflect son Humanists International’s General Assembly in Singapore, emphasizing themes of harmony, diversity, and LGBTQ+ rights. Copson highlights Singapore’s social harmony, state control, and cautious approach to progress.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are back for the nth time with Andrew Copson from Humanists UK and Humanists International. We are part of the crew often described as the most “debauched” people on British soil. Before we begin, there’s a question I’d like to ask. What abuses or ad hominems have you received on national or public television based on your experience?

Andrew Copson: I know everyone is familiar with this. You’re referring to the most well-known one, about having a ‘first-class ticket to debauchery,’ right? Satanism and debauchery.

Jacobsen: Correct, that’s right. 

Copson: A rather eccentric man said that almost a decade ago. He was wearing a rather flashy jacket.

Copson: Apart from his peculiar accusations, he was a nice man. 

Jacobsen: Beautiful complexion, well-trimmed head. 

Copson: Yes, very well-kept. But there we are. Obviously, he wasn’t on the same page as us. You often get these kinds of comments about evil, lack of morality, Satanism, and so on. Then there are the emails about going to hell and burning forever. The most creative and chilling one I received was from someone who said, ‘I pity you for when, one second after your death, you open your eyes and realize where you are and what’s happened.’ I thought, ‘Oh, that’s chilling.’

It’s evocative, that idea. That one probably came the closest to sending a chill down my spine. Then, when discussing topics like abortion or assisted dying, which is a debate we’re now starting to have in earnest in the UK due to a new bill, I’ve been called a ‘murderer,’ ‘trying to kill old people,’ ‘eugenicist,’ and other such terms. Typically, the nastiest abuse comes from Catholics, or at least people who identify themselves as Catholics. It seems to be the case.

Honestly, I mostly ignore it after all this time. Unless it’s particularly inventive or memorable, like the one about opening your eyes one second after death, I don’t pay much attention. That was clever targeting, making you think more than the usual attacks. But most of it is rather boring.

Jacobsen: Richard Dawkins has had much fun reading his hate mail. 

Copson: It’s just par for the course for me. The spelling and grammar could be better, too. I’m afraid the messages are rarely well-crafted in literary terms. 

Jacobsen: Yes, the spelling is usually off. It’s not like receiving correspondence from the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Copson: No, definitely not. Rowan Williams could write a better screed. It’s strange. I would never dream of randomly emailing Christians to say, ‘You idiot, why do you believe these absurd things?’ or ‘Why are you ruining everyone’s lives with your anti-gay rhetoric?’ It’s an odd thing to do, but I suppose some people have nothing better to do.

Jacobsen: The individual on national television, where you were with Douglas Murray who had his eyebrows practically going to the back of his head when those comments were made. If I remember the video correctly, at the time of seeing it, I recall the term ‘debauched.’ It struck me as such a British way of putting someone down—it’s ‘debauched.’

Copson: It does sound like a rather nice word. It has an old-fashioned feel to it. It sounds like Henry VIII, leaning back with a joint of venison and a big pot of something, going, ‘Oh, ho, ho.’ It creates quite a happy image—debauchery. 

Jacobsen: But that’s not the intention. It sounds like you’re participating in bacchanalia. It sounds like you’re at the head of it—enthusiastic.

Copson: That’s right. And all this, early on a Sunday morning! 

Jacobsen: I don’t know what was happening in his imagination—a Sunday morning! 

Copson: Yes, it was early on a Sunday morning when that show was on. That show has since been cancelled. That’s a shame because it was the show where, if you did it, you’d walk around town later that same Sunday and people would come up to you and say, ‘Oh, I saw you this morning!’ It had many viewers. Nicky Campbell was the presenter. Of course, he was good at bringing out the eccentricities in people, which made for good television. But now it’s been cancelled, and there’s a much more sedate program on BBC One in that religion and ethics slot on Sunday mornings, which is sometimes more illuminating but far less watched.

Jacobsen: It’s edifying, like National Geographic, but less fun.

Copson: No, it’s not as fun. It could be more fun. With The Big Questions—that was the show’s name—you had to go with it. You had to roll with it and enjoy yourself. 

Jacobsen: I used to watch clips of it, and I found it very entertaining. 

Copson: People still do. People still watch it. They’ll come up to you at conferences or events, even if you’re there for something entirely different, and say, ‘First-class ticket to debauchery!’ Or they’ll say, ‘Oh yeah, I was watching a clip on YouTube of an old discussion about assisted dying. It was so good on that program.’ So, it remains popular.

They’d love to revive it. It was good TV. But aren’t we here to talk about the Humanists International General Assembly in Singapore? 

Jacobsen: This is all a fun preamble, but we’re here for the Humanists International Singapore General Assembly 2024. 

Copson: Where there was no debauchery.

Jacobsen: What was the importance of discussing intricate harmony thematically at this General Assembly?

Copson: Yes. But first, I’d like to say how glad I am that we went to Singapore and how important it was. At the General Assembly the year before, in 2023, in Copenhagen, one or two representatives from the Global North objected to us going to Singapore, saying it’s a country with restrictive policies.

Jacobsen: I remember that.

Copson: Restrictive in free speech, restrictive in civil liberties, and the argument was that we shouldn’t go. Humanists International should refrain from holding its General Assembly in countries where this is the case. At the time, I thought that was a rather strange argument because if humanist organizations in countries face significant challenges regarding democratic rights and freedoms, it seems that’s precisely where we should go to support them in their contexts. First, they likely need help to travel to other places. Secondly, we should be on the ground where conditions are difficult.

I found it odd that there was the idea that we should boycott countries less hospitable to humanists and freedom. It turned out to be the right decision because when we were in Singapore, it was the first time we had been there. The Singaporean humanists were delighted to have us. The General Assembly can sometimes be a burden and a pleasure for host organizations because it’s expensive and requires much organization. But it was absolutely clear that they were thrilled to have us there. It was a great opportunity for them to showcase what Singaporean humanists had been doing and to meet others on their home ground. Not all Singaporean humanists can travel to other General Assemblies.

So, having the chance to encounter humanists from around the world in their own country benefited them. Another reason why it turned out to be such a good idea was that, for the first time, humanists from the wider region attended. We admitted Humanists Malaysia and a Humanist Association from Indonesia as members of Humanists International for the first time in Singapore. The people from those countries could attend the General Assembly because it was in their backyard.

I’m not saying Humanist Malaysia and the Humanist Association of Indonesia would never have joined Humanists International had we not gone to Singapore. Still, it’s not a coincidence that they formed their organizations and joined in the year we were in Singapore.

Having met the people involved, I’m confident this will significantly stimulate regional humanism. I’m glad we went. It was a wonderful experience in Singapore. We had fantastic hosts, which benefited humanism in the wider region.

Now, about interfaith harmony, or harmony between people of different religions or beliefs. You may be familiar with Singapore and its unique national culture, but it is historically artificial. It was essentially created by immigration. It’s filled with people who have either recently arrived or whose ancestors arrived relatively recently. As a result, it’s extremely diverse, both ethnically and religiously. I’m right in saying that the largest religious identity is Buddhist, but even that’s only about 35%.

And then you’ve got 21% with no religion, which, of course, includes all the humanists, 18% Christian, 18% Muslim, and so on through the smaller religions as well—Hindus and others. That situation, where every religion or belief group is a minority, creates a unique, if not unusual, social environment. Even though there’s a larger group, like the Buddhists, no one holds a majority. In this context of hyper-diversity, where everyone is a minority, harmony between people of different religions becomes incredibly important, especially in a place like Singapore, where everyone shares a relatively small, densely populated territory.

That means there was something real to discuss and learn from in Singapore on the theme of harmony, which felt very specific, if not unique, to that place. That’s why they chose the theme, and it worked well. Another reason why they selected the theme is because it’s one of the few topics they could discuss openly. Although the person at the General Assembly in Copenhagen was wrong about whether or not we should go to Singapore and overstated the lack of freedom there, Singapore is not a fully free country. There are significant restrictions on what you can and can’t say.

For instance, it’s illegal to criticize someone’s religion or belief, and it’s also illegal to attempt to convert someone from their religion. As far as I could tell, the groups that object to these laws are mainly Christians and Muslims. It’s not the humanists, Buddhists, or Hindus who have a problem with them. Nonetheless, these restrictions did constrain the kinds of topics we could discuss. Harmony, therefore, became an important and fitting theme. When we arrived, or at least many of us didn’t, we learned that harmony is not just an idea dreamt up by Singaporean humanists but an official national doctrine.

For example, we visited the government’s Harmony and Diversity Gallery, and it became clear that the government strongly promoted harmony. 

Jacobsen: How debauched of you? 

Copson: How harmonious. It was fascinating. One of the discussions many of us from the Global North, or more, let’s say, civically riotous places, had was about how much freedom you would give up to enjoy life as good as the one people have in Singapore.

Of course, it’s clean. There’s little crime. Everywhere we went, we felt safe. At some point during the trip, we humanists talked seriously about the balance between liberty and security—how much freedom you would sacrifice to ensure more security and vice versa. I thought that was quite an engaging discussion.

Jacobsen: What about the presentation on deradicalization? That seemed to come up in discussions I had with people—how interesting their approach was to combating extremism at the individual level, working with communities.

Copson: I, unfortunately, went on the other tour, so I missed that presentation. I wish I had seen it, as we had to choose between different sessions. I went on a walk to see different religious buildings coexisting peacefully. Then we went to the government’s Harmony and Diversity Gallery, where we watched a video about how awful the world was—except for Singapore, where everyone lives in harmony. So, I missed the tour you’re referring to. 

It did sound extremely interesting. You probably know as much about it as I do, given that we both talked to people who attended the session, but it’s certainly an approach. Interestingly, the Singaporean government is committed to controlling certain aspects of their citizens’ identities and attitudes.

They have no hesitation about enforcing a doctrine of tolerance and harmony through state coercion. Many people, especially in Western countries, tend to get uncomfortable with this, especially as those countries become more diverse. It’s quite common for Western liberals to object to the idea of national values being compulsory. In Britain, for example, plenty of liberal people aren’t comfortable with the idea of “British values” being enshrined in the education curriculum or made a feature of national life. But there was no such uneasiness in Singapore, and certainly none from the Singaporean humanists, as far as I could tell. They seemed entirely supportive of this approach.

That’s an interesting distinction. It’s made easier by the fact that Singapore is legally a secular state. One of the interesting things in the Harmony and Diversity Gallery was how much they celebrated the secularity of the state, holding it up as the key to creating harmony among the diverse religious and ethnic groups in Singapore. I suppose that would make it more comfortable for many humanists because, of course, the idea of a secular state promoting civic values—values that must be shared in a political community—is one we can get behind. Even if you don’t believe them, you must behave according to them. No state can control what’s in your heart, after all. That was its saving grace, in a way.

Jacobsen: So, you visited the various religious buildings and galleries next to each other. What were other personal highlights for you on this particular trip?

Copson: Well, I did enjoy visiting the places. It was interesting to observe the various religious buildings coexisting in the same space and the shared altars used by different groups on different days. When we arrived, one altar was set up for a Buddhist festival. The next day, it was redone for a Hindu festival.

That was fascinating—the shared spaces didn’t seem to have any visible antagonism. But it was interesting to notice the small things that were, to some extent, engineered and, to another extent, a matter of social choice. For example, big food courts in Singapore are based on hawker markets or street food markets. Everywhere you go, there are these spaces with at least four counters.

One counter serves Halal Malay cuisine, another Han Chinese cuisine, etc. You have all these different cuisines, but the tables are all shared food-hall style. It’s another way of ensuring harmony and diversity: all the food is available, but everyone sits together. The tables are communal.

Once you start looking at Singaporean society from that perspective, you see this unity engineering everywhere. One of our guides explained that even the housing system is organized this way. Most of the housing is ultimately owned by the government but is offered on long leaseholds. That’s different from a legal concept that is familiar to you. 

Jacobsen: Still, it probably comes from English law—inevitably, since Lee Kuan Yew was educated in Britain.

Copson: Right. That makes sense. So, they have high owner-occupancy rates because of these 99-year leases, or similar, which give people the feeling of owning their homes. But ultimately, the government owns the properties. The government also ensures social mixing in its housing, so you can’t have blocks where everyone is Han Chinese or blocks where everyone is Tamil, for instance. The more you learned about this approach, the more interesting it became across society. I found that particularly compelling.

There was another particularly interesting moment because many Westerners think Singapore has a big problem with homophobia, given that they only decriminalized male homosexuality two years ago. Even though there had been no prosecutions for decades before that, it was still an unenforced law. Nevertheless, when we had the opportunity to question some representatives of the Singaporean authorities, one of the Italian humanists asked about LGBTQ+ issues: “You say your country is tolerant and harmonious. What about LGBTQ+ rights?”

The official responded by acknowledging that, yes, they had only recently decriminalized male homosexuality, while female homosexuality had never been illegal. And then he said two more things that were quite interesting.

The first thing he mentioned was that Singapore is the only safe place in the region where two men can walk down the street holding hands, visit gay bars, or display a rainbow flag without fear of being assaulted. If you cross the land bridge to Malaysia or take the ferry to Indonesia, that’s not the case. You won’t be able to live your life with that same sense of safety. I thought that was an interesting point, a reminder to those of us who might have taken a more high-handed or imperious attitude toward civil rights and freedoms, especially in that region. While not perfect, Singapore is relatively good for LGBTQ+ people and, similarly, for women. I’m sure Singapore has its issues with gender inequality, but again, in relative terms, compared to neighbouring countries, they are doing much better—much freer and more tolerant. That was a bit of a “check your Western privilege” moment.

The second interesting point he made about LGBTQ+ issues, in response to the question, was why Singapore hasn’t legalized same-sex marriage or partnerships yet. His answer was thought-provoking. He said that while he believed it would happen, Singaporeans prefer to make social progress consensually. He thought that same-sex marriage would come along once enough people had been persuaded, allowing the change to happen without causing civic or social disruption, disharmony, or disunity.

So, even in that context, the theme of harmony and social unity was central. It’s similar to the balance between liberty and security—there’s a balance between freedom and cohesion. To see a society that has taken a slightly different path or is on a different trajectory regarding that balance was striking. It was an interesting place to be.

Jacobsen: They seem to be following a reverse path of development—becoming wealthy and well-educated first and then allowing, as you said, consensual permissions and acceptance of various freedoms.

Copson: That’s right. How will that proceed from here? Presumably, like everywhere, they face threats. They consider themselves under threat to some extent from Islamic extremism. They’ve got this deradicalization program in place.

Jacobsen: Lee Kuan Yew noted this when Singapore was first being formed. He observed that some individuals who once practiced their faith more casually had become more stringent in their observance of Islam. Before he passed, he remarked that things had tightened up in certain cases, suggesting a need to loosen up again. That may be a concern for them moving forward. That might explain the emphasis on having an Islamic deradicalization speaker. 

Copson: They also mentioned that they recently banned a Bangladeshi preacher, known for his extreme views, who had managed to sneak into the country, give a secret talk, and then leave before they could act. Maintaining cohesion, especially about extremism, is a primary concern for them.

That’s interesting. What is happening in Malaysia has profoundly affected Singapore, and Malaysia recently took a more extreme turn. I don’t know how things stand now, but there’s been some back-and-forth. Nevertheless, there’s a radicalization problem in the region. So, it’s understandable why Singapore is cautious about these issues.

Jacobsen: Did you mention who gave the keynote again?

Copson: Well, there was no keynote. Instead, there were two panels with local experts. It was all policy-intensive, focusing on harmony and events in Malaysia and Singapore. I got the impression that’s probably what conferences are like there—no controversy, very focused.

Jacobsen: What aspects of harmony or interfaith dialogue were educational for you, especially in contrast to how things are handled in the UK?

Copson: I wouldn’t say the approach was significantly different. The main difference was the context. In Singapore, both Muslims and Christians are minorities, and even combined, they’re still a minority in the country. So, as far as I recall, it was interesting to hear from Muslim speakers, especially since there were no Christian speakers. The Muslim speakers had formed strong relationships with the humanist representatives in Singapore. Listening to their experiences as a minority in a country with the largest religion, Chinese Buddhism, was fascinating. They have a much more cosmopolitan attitude as a result of this context.

However, in methodological terms, I didn’t notice any significant differences between how things are handled in the UK and Singapore. The big, overwhelming difference is that the state in Singapore keeps a close eye on everything and has an official ideology of harmony. This is common in the wider region. Indonesia, for example, has its own version of a harmonious ideology, though it expresses it through its concept of Pancasila. Pancasila is a national philosophy?

In Indonesia, Pancasila is a philosophy where you can belong to any prescribed religion, but you can’t be non-religious. You must adhere to one of the accepted religions yet still be seen as part of this national ideology of ‘One God, One Country,’ and all the rest of it. So it’s common in the region for states to aspire to some level of control over doctrine for everyone within their borders. I used Pancasila as an example of state multiculturalism in my book on secularism a few years ago.

Jacobsen: Was that the one you did with Alice Roberts?

Copson: No, no. This was the Short Introduction to Secularism. It’s about political secularism. I used Indonesia as an example of the kind of arrangement that the Dutch and Belgians used to have—and to some extent still do—this official state multiculturalism where certain religions or beliefs are recognized. In Belgium and the Netherlands, that includes humanists. It doesn’t in Indonesia, but it’s a popular alternative to full secularism.

Ultimately, it’s unsuccessful because you still constrain people’s choices, even if you allow several religions or beliefs to be official. It might be better than having a single-state church, but you’re still circumscribing people’s choices. What happens when a new religion emerges? What happens when humanists in Indonesia try to organize, or Buddhists in Belgium try to organize? They can’t gain entry into this officially multiculturalist system. Nonetheless, it’s an interesting way for governments to try to mediate religious diversity.

Jacobsen: Any final thoughts or perhaps debauched feelings?

Copson: I shan’t give voice to my debauched feelings! As for thoughts, this might be the last time we speak for a while because I’ve only got eight months left as president. We’ll have to speak again in Luxembourg at my last General Assembly. Then I can tell you what the last ten years have been like. That’ll be an interesting reflection.

Jacobsen: I appreciate it.

Copson: 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.