Leon Langdon’s Humanist Advocacy at the UN

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/08/08

Leon Langdon, Advocacy Officer at Humanists International, has served for nearly two years. He holds a law degree from Ireland and a Master’s in International Relations from NYU. While at NYU, he interned at the UN Counter-Terrorism Directorate and worked on humanitarian and geopolitical issues as part of Malta’s Security Council mission. After attending a humanist wake, he joined Humanists International in September 2023. He now advocates at the UN for freedom of religion or belief, secular governance, and expression. Langdon describes his path from law in Ireland and international relations studies at NYU to interning at the UN. After attending a humanist wake, he joined Humanists International in September 2023 as Advocacy Officer. He outlines the structured UN advocacy process, which involves drafting statements based on Special Rapporteur reports and member consultations, reviewing them internally, and delivering speeches. His priorities include freedom of religion or belief, secular governance, human rights, and supporting global humanists at risk worldwide.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: What is your current title?

Leon Langdon: Leon Langdon, Advocacy Officer at Humanists International.

Jacobsen: How long have you been here?

Langdon: I have been here for just under two years.

Jacobsen: What did you do before?

Langdon: I previously worked at the United Nations Security Council with the Permanent Mission of Malta during their elected term on the Council.

Jacobsen: How was that?

Langdon: A lot of fun—intense, but engaging work.

Jacobsen: So, how did you get involved in humanist and human rights advocacy—and, in a way, geopolitics?

Langdon: My background is in law—I have a law degree from Ireland. After taking a year out, I was fortunate to receive scholarships that allowed me to pursue a Master’s degree in International Relations at New York University. While at NYU, I interned at the UN Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED). Following that, I secured a position at the Permanent Mission of Malta to the United Nations, where I worked during their tenure on the Security Council, focusing on humanitarian and geopolitical issues across multiple regions.

I debated extensively in school and university, which gave me my first glimpse into global affairs and political thought. I kept that up through college. Before joining Humanists International, I had not been deeply involved in humanism. I joined the organization in September 2023. I recall mentioning during my interview that I had attended one humanist funeral, which was my first real exposure to humanist values.

Jacobsen: So it was a wake—a humanist wake?

Langdon: Yes. Being Irish, I grew up immersed in Catholic traditions—pilgrimages, retreats, that kind of thing. While I still respect those experiences, I no longer hold them in the same regard.

That brings me to where I am today. I have now spent nearly two years advocating at the UN on behalf of Humanists International, focusing on defending and promoting humanist values and human rights, particularly where they intersect—freedom of religion or belief, secular governance, and freedom of expression.

Jacobsen: There is a phrase from Ireland: “You don’t lick it off the rocks.” That applies well here. More seriously, at the UN, what does humanist advocacy look like, procedurally? Especially considering how formal and secure the environment is.

Langdon: Yes, the UN system is very structured. There are hundreds of NGOs in consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), which enables them to engage formally with UN bodies, such as the Human Rights Council. Some NGOs are highly active and independent, while others are more closely aligned with governments.

Humanists International is proudly independent and represents over 120 member organizations worldwide. We primarily engage at the Human Rights Council in Geneva and the UN in New York, advocating on core issues such as freedom of religion or belief, the rights of non-religious individuals, bodily autonomy, and secularism.

Our priorities are set through resolutions passed by our democratic membership, either at our General Assembly or through guidance from the Board of Directors. These inform the statements we deliver at the UN, the side events we co-sponsor, and the lobbying we do with diplomats and UN officials.

With Humanists International having been founded in 1952, and our first UN advocacy efforts officially beginning in 1959, although we suspect they started earlier, with some archival gaps, we have a long history at the UN to draw upon. Within that history, you see us working consistently on the right to freedom of religion or belief, dating back to the UN in the 1960s and 1970s, which included defending the rights of atheists to exist and be included within the international human rights framework. Today, that work has become more nuanced, addressing the position of the non-religious in discussions around countering religious hatred or participating in multifaith initiatives.

We also work on issues that matter deeply to our members, such as discrimination against LGBTI+ individuals, women’s rights, sexual and reproductive health rights, and the rights of the child, where we have historically had a strong presence. In addition to these, a wide range of issues are brought to us by our member organizations—sometimes on an ad hoc basis—as well as other core issues I am probably forgetting at the moment.

Jacobsen: How do you prepare a speech? How do you make sure the facts are correct? Moreover, how do you craft the speech so that it fits within the allotted time?

Langdon: As you will know, the allotted speaking time is usually quite short when delivering statements at the UN—and to add, those statements are the tip of the iceberg of our advocacy.

Statements are 90 seconds or two minutes long. Even that is increasingly under pressure due to changes in how the UN manages speaking time. As for drafting them, the process often begins with the agenda items set by the UN, particularly those of the Human Rights Council. We frequently respond to reports from Special Rapporteurs—high-level UN experts who report on thematic or country-specific issues. Reading their reports is typically the first step.

We then reach out to our member organizations or individuals connected to cases in the relevant countries. This helps us gauge both the accuracy of the UN’s reports—which are typically well-researched—and the local context. We also examine government responses and consult the work of other NGOs, as well as independent journalists, to gain a deeper understanding of the situation on the ground.

Internally, we rely on our Casework and Campaigns Manager and our Research Officer. They work diligently on the Freedom of Thought Report, which provides a consistent, factual basis for much of our advocacy.

Using all of that—first-hand accounts, verified reports, and trusted collaborations—we draft the statement. It typically goes through several rounds of review between me and our Director of Advocacy, Dr. Elizabeth O’Casey. Once we are both satisfied, it becomes the final version to be delivered.

Ideally, we are present in Geneva to deliver the statement ourselves. However, equally valuable, sometimes even more so, is when one of our member organizations nominates someone to give it, particularly when the issue is very close to their personal experience or pertains to their national context.

Jacobsen: What are you primarily advocating for at the UN? Is it about humanists under threat? Are they secular issues? Is it broader than human rights? What are the central issues you keep getting called upon for, on behalf of humanists?

Langdon: It all revolves around human rights. That is the foundation of our work—advocating for the universal application of international human rights standards.

It would be misleading to say it is only one issue. We often raise individual cases at the UN, but we are cautious about how we do that. We work strictly on a consent basis. That means we always consult with the individual concerned or, if necessary, their family—especially when we are not directly in touch with the person. We ensure that raising their case publicly at the UN level is safe and beneficial for them. Attention from the international community can be powerful, but it must never come at the expense of someone’s well-being or security.

However, secondly, it must be helpful. We do not want to raise cases just for the sake of saying we did it. We want to ensure that there is a potential positive outcome we can work toward. That is our approach when it comes to humanists at risk.

More broadly, we address a wide range of issues. For example, we recently worked on the right to identify as a humanist in Indonesia. We partnered with our Italian member organization on sexual and reproductive health, access to abortion, and LGBTI+ rights and equality in Italy. We have also worked on defending the right to freedom of religion or belief and on civil society space across multiple countries—issues our members continually urge us to focus on.

Our Hungarian and Zambian members have been active in this space. Our Ghanaian members have expressed deep concern over developments in their country, particularly regarding LGBTI+ rights, and we have been called to support advocacy efforts there. Across Europe, we are also seeing signs of democratic backsliding, and we raise attention to that where necessary.

Additionally, we occasionally work on advancing international human rights treaties. For instance, we recently called on Norway to ratify a key international human rights convention. So, no two days are the same, and no two member organizations have precisely the same priorities, even though the underlying values they share are consistent.

Jacobsen: What kind of counter-statements do you get in response to your statements?

Langdon: Fortunately, some responses are positive. For example, earlier this year, we delivered a statement during the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief. We thanked her for explicitly including the plight of atheists and humanists in Hungary in her report, following her meeting with two of our member organizations there. She thanked us in return, which was a welcome gesture.

In that same statement, we also highlighted the need for legal remedies for individuals who have experienced torture based on their religion or belief. While that specific point was not fully addressed in her report, she welcomed our input and acknowledged its importance.

In the same session, we stated the dialogue with the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Violence Against Children. She had spoken about working with faith leaders against practices like child marriage and female genital mutilation, which we support. However, we raised a question about her engagement with the Vatican, which had only been mentioned briefly in her report. We asked about the progress made in that regard, and she responded critically to our question—it was not a particularly warm reaction.

We also know that some governments are not pleased when we shine a spotlight on human rights abuses in their countries. While they might not issue formal counter-statements, we often receive private feedback indicating their discontent. It is a delicate balance—we always act in the interest of human rights, but we are aware of the political sensitivities involved.

Jacobsen: What about allies? Which other organizations at the UN are at a similar level—those that may not be explicitly humanist but are humanistic in practice or orientation?

Langdon: To be honest, there are only a handful. Moreover, we are, by far, the predominant organization explicitly representing the non-religious and humanist perspective at the UN. That said, we do work alongside human rights NGOs whose work aligns with ours on key issues, even if they do not identify as humanist. These partnerships are vital, especially when we coordinate joint statements or co-host events on shared priorities, such as freedom of expression, secularism, or reproductive rights.

That is a better, more diplomatic way to put it. However, yes, we are the predominant organization working from a humanist perspective at the UN. There are also a handful of atheist organizations; however, our specific viewpoint is not widely represented, apart from through Humanists International. As a result, our allies often differ from us in origin or mandate.

We collaborate with other organizations that focus on similar issues, including LGBTI+ rights, women’s rights, equality, and non-discrimination. However, we also collaborate with some religious organizations, representatives of religious minorities, or groups that approach these issues from a different philosophical or theological perspective. What unites us is a shared commitment to the right to freedom of religion or belief for all, including humanists and the non-religious.

Jacobsen: What are some of the more obscure issues you have brought up at the UN? They matter enough to be mentioned there, but not enough to be raised regularly.

Langdon: The diplomatic answer is that everything is equally important. However, realistically, yes, some issues are more specific—either to particular contexts or to individual countries.

One example, which might not sound obscure at first, is something we recently raised for the first time: the role of religious leaders in conflict and post-conflict settings. It is backed by excellent research and grounded in common sense—religious leaders are highly influential. They often have trusted voices in their communities and hold significant moral authority.

We called on religious leaders, particularly those operating in humanitarian, conflict, or post-conflict environments, to use their influence to uphold international humanitarian law and international human rights law, especially in defence of women’s rights. There is credible research indicating that, in some instances, religious leaders have not always utilized their influence constructively in these contexts.

So, recognizing the power and presence of religion while also emphasizing that such influence comes with responsibilities is a relatively new area of advocacy for us. Whether it is less important than other issues—that is for you to decide.

Jacobsen: What are the common articles, conventions, treaties, or declarations you tend to reference in your work at the UN?

Langdon: Anything we can get our hands on, frankly. However, we often start with one of the foundational documents—the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 18 guarantees the right to freedom of religion or belief for all, including humanists and the non-religious.

We also reference binding treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which entered into force in 1976. Article 18 of that covenant likewise protects the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief. These documents form the bedrock of our arguments, and we use them to demonstrate that rights for the non-religious are already embedded in the international framework—they need to be respected and enforced.

Article 19 talks about freedom of expression—both it and Article 18 are fundamental rights to us. Some of the other core human rights treaties we regularly reference include the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Both are vital in exploring the intersections between religion and non-religion, as well as the rights of women and children, areas that Humanists International has worked on for decades.

Beyond these international instruments, we also analyze national laws and constitutions, comparing them against global standards. We frequently rely on the Rabat Plan of Action, which emerged from UN processes in 2011 and 2012. It has proven to be a fantastic resource, and we continue to advocate for its implementation.

Resolution 16/18 on countering religious hatred at the UN Human Rights Council is another key framework for us. We also regularly draw on the reports of UN Special Rapporteurs—both recent and historic—as they form an essential part of customary international law and evidence-based human rights monitoring.

Jacobsen: Are there ever times when you find it challenging to reconcile UN values and bureaucracy with humanism as a life stance when advocating for it? Is there ever a point of tension, or is it mostly smooth sailing?

Langdon: I think the core values underpinning both the UN and the international human rights framework—and humanism—are very aligned. Both are grounded in the idea of human dignity for all, equality, and non-discrimination. Both ultimately aim to allow people to live their lives freely, happily, and healthily. That is my perspective, at least.

Where it becomes difficult is the procedural bureaucracy of the UN. You have 193 member states around the table—plus observer states —and several hundred NGOs with consultative status, all looking to participate. Moreover, that is just the official list; there are also many more actors working informally, behind the scenes, for better or worse.

One thing you have to get used to in this field is that things take time, often a long time. You have to be okay with the idea that the results of your efforts might not appear for months, or more likely, years. Sometimes you may never see them in your lifetime. However, that does not mean the work is any less critical in the present moment.

Over the past two years, and more broadly, over the last seven years of advocacy by Humanists International at the UN level, we have seen some tangible results. However, we also recognize it is a constant struggle—a long-term, uphill battle. Moreover, while we might wish for faster progress, the enduring nature of the work is what gives it weight. That is okay.

Jacobsen: What has been your most frustrating experience with the UN?

Langdon: Last year, I spoke to you about the return of Resolution 53/1, which reintroduced the concept of blasphemy at the UN. That was incredibly frustrating. Since 2011, we have had what was admittedly an imperfect but essential consensus between the major actors in the freedom of religion or belief space, primarily the European Union and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). A delicate balance was maintained between the two blocs, with the United States also playing a significant role.

The agreement was that there would be two key resolutions: one on freedom of religion or belief, led by the European Union, and another on countering religious hatred—Resolution 16/18—led by the OIC. That arrangement was not perfect, but it was a hard-fought, diplomatically negotiated structure that held for over a decade. It took years of effort by people who are far more experienced than I am—people who worked for decades to get both resolutions to the table. So the fact that we maintained consensus on both for more than ten years was quite remarkable.

Now, I would like to preface this by saying that the consensus has returned, and we are pleased to see that. We are also advocating for both resolutions to be modernized and made more comprehensive. However, in 2023, we saw the non-renewal of the 16/18 resolution. Instead, Resolution 53/1 was introduced—an explicit condemnation of blasphemy, which, from our perspective and that of many international legal experts and UN representatives, is not in line with international human rights law.

That was particularly frustrating because of the way UN procedures and timelines operate. We often receive very little notice when such resolutions are tabled, so we had to mobilize quickly. Unfortunately, we were not successful in stopping Resolution 53/1 in 2023. However, when an attempt was made to reintroduce it in 2024, we were better prepared. Perhaps it was the groundwork we laid the year before, but this time we managed to brief over 100 states on the issue.

As a result, the OIC withdrew their proposed resolution, and as of 2025, both of the historic resolutions from 2011—on freedom of religion or belief and on countering religious hatred—are back on the table. That imperfect but necessary balance has been restored, and we strongly support this outcome.

That said, we also want to see the consensus strengthened and expanded. Ideally, we want a more holistic and consistently rights-based understanding of freedom of religion or belief—one that includes humanists and the non-religious, and respects international human rights standards across the board.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time today.

Langdon: No worries.

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.