Members of East London and Central London Humanists joined the mass demonstration protesting Trump and Trumpism in Central London on 17 September 2025, organised by the Anti-Trump coalition.
Trumpism represents the antithesis of Humanist values. It is characterised by lack of compassion, othering, rejection of science, reason and internationally agreed norms of behaviour, and disrespect for the natural world.
Our double-sided banner paraded along the march condemned the appeasement of this dangerous phenomenon.
The East London Humanists stall once again proved a great attraction at the annual Wanstead Festival.
Despite the rain, there were many visitors and lots of fascinating conversations. As in previous years, a highlight has been the ‘Are you a Humanist?’ quiz, with many people discovering that they are Humanists without realising it.
Pictured below is Calvin Bailey, MP for Leyton and Wanstead, who dropped by and bought ‘How to Argue with a Racist.’ Author Adam Rutherford, a genetic scientist, broadcaster and writer, is the current president of Humanists UK.
Calvin Bailey MP (Lab) with Paul Kaufman (Chairperson East London Humanists)Taking the ‘Are you a Humanist?’ quiz. Wanstead Festival 14.9.25
Opinion piece. Docklands and East London Advertiser; Barking and Dagenham Post. 11 Sept 2025
I never thought I would see the day in this country when ‘Human Rights Lawyer’ became a term of abuse. The sentiment finds expression in growing demands to pull out of the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), a move slammed by Humanists UK as ‘dangerous and divisive.’
Reform leads the charge. They argue it is essential to withdraw from this and other international agreements on torture and human trafficking so that asylum seekers can be rounded up and deported on a mass scale. In their wake, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch anticipates they too will advocate pulling out following a review. Meanwhile, former Labour Home Secretaries David Blunkett and Jack Straw have advocated ‘suspending’ or ‘decoupling’ from it. It’s worth remembering their complicity in the catastrophic interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, from where so many refugees have fled.
Turning our back on the Convention would take us into the territory of despotic regimes such as Russia and Belarus. Some say this is nonsense – that we can still uphold human rights without being part of a convention which ‘ties our hands’ on immigration. Such arguments are blind to history and the character of those who want to turn back the clock.
The ECHR emerged from World War II and the slaughter of millions because of their ethnicity, religion, disability, sexuality or political beliefs. Those who witnessed these horrors vowed ‘never again.’ As then Conservative leader Winston Churchill said in 1948 “In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.” International cooperation, fairness and humanity remain the keys to tackling the issue of mass migration.
Some will say these are different times and the ECHR is no longer fit for purpose. Actually, persecution and bigotry have not gone away. Does anyone honestly believe the fate of the vulnerable and minorities will be safer under the oversight of those who now rubbish the Convention and its values?
Withdrawing would put us all at risk. Without it the Hillsborough victims would never have got justice. It’s been used to fight for victims of domestic violence let down by police and disabled veterans facing Government discrimination. For Humanists, it paved the way for teaching non-religious views in schools and non-religious patients accessing pastoral care.
As the song says, ‘You don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.’
If, like me, you’re lucky enough to have a garden then the impact of climate change is probably all too obvious. Plants that once thrived now struggle to survive. Why aren’t more of us scared by the mounting evidence of a climate and nature catastrophe?
Perhaps we are inured to spiralling floods, fires and storms; to food price hikes caused by crop failures; to rocketing insurance as risks caused by extreme conditions multiply. Man made climate change is no longer just a prediction – the chickens have come home to roost.
Of course, some scoff. There’s always been climate change, they say. True, but evidence shows overwhelmingly that human activity, in particular burning fossil fuels, has become a key driver.
Then there is the ‘China’ argument. Why should Britain cut back on oil, coal and gas when China isn’t? This is wrong on so many levels. Pushing for net zero is in the national interest, and of all our futures.
A piece in the financial pages of the Telegraph shows this is not a simple left/right issue (‘Trump has dropped a big, beautiful bomb on America’s economy’ 3 July). It excoriates Trump for rolling back the green agenda. It describes how China has fully embraced the non-carbon future and is now the world leader in electrification. I had solar panels fitted last year. They’ve been brilliant, and they were of course made in China.
There is only so much we can do individually. It’s unfair to lampoon people who talk green but fall short on leading a perfect green life. You might as well chastise fish for swimming in water. We are all immersed in a world hooked on carbon for food production, transport, heating and so on. Extricating ourselves is a huge challenge. One thing we can do is campaign for structural change. Humanist Climate Action is one of many groups who joined the mass lobby of Parliament in July.
Inurement is one explanation for lack of panic. Another is humankind’s evolved ability to avoid uncomfortable truths. We can be optimistic against all odds. It helps when deciding to bring children into this world. Our brains are also good at compartmentalising, for example stowing thoughts about our burning world while booking a long-haul flight. Let’s hope our capacity to reason and cooperate prevails to tackle this global emergency.
Op piece Romford Recorder and Barking and Dagenham Post July 2025
I joined the throng gathered outside Parliament last month to support the Assisted Dying Bill as it was debated. Others were there to oppose it. It was a microcosm of the debate within the Chamber.
Among the ‘antis’ were devout people of faith, fervently and loudly praying for the Bill to be defeated. They made it clear that medical intervention to end a life is contrary to ‘God’s will.’ For them it will always be sinful. It doesn’t matter how close to death, how excruciating and unavoidable the pain, or how well-informed the patient’s decision.
There was also a cohort of disability campaigners opposed to the Bill. They do not represent everyone with a disability. They were chanting ‘Not dead yet.’ The slogan references a powerful documentary entitled ‘Better off Dead?’ authored by actor Liz Carr. Their opposition is grounded in their belief that the Bill puts disabled people at risk in a society where some say the disabled would be better off dead. This ground is unfounded.
There is much for the disabled to be angry and upset about. They are too often treated with callousness. There are still multiple barriers to leading fuller lives and enjoying greater equality of opportunity with the able-bodied. Poor access to public transport is just one example. The disabled are also still among the poorest and most vulnerable. The Government’s attempt to target disability benefits for savings was met with understandable resentment and fear. Vociferous opposition ultimately led to a U turn. Some disability activists may believe any Assisted Dying legislation represents yet another threat to their right to lead full and dignified lives. In fact, this Bill focusses only on the terminally ill, not on people with disabilities, and includes rigorous safeguards.
MPs backing for the Bill heralds long overdue reform. Supporters are driven by compassion and recognition that the existing state of affairs for the terminally ill is unsatisfactory and inhumane. Many outside Parliament held posters depicting loved ones who they watched live out their last days in unbearable, incurable agony. Others told of terminally ill loved ones who had taken their own lives, suffering alone for fear of criminal consequences, or who made botched attempts leaving them even worse off. None of those I heard opposing the Bill either inside or outside Parliament provided a satisfactory answer to any of this.
Op piece reflects on a recent controversial public order conviction arising from the burning of a Quran. Docklands and East London Advertiser (26.6.25) and Newham Recorder (2.7.25).
The recent prosecution for burning a Quran at a protest in London stirred huge controversy. I’m not going to wade in here with a detailed analysis of what was a complex case. But I would like to consider principles of balance and fairness it raises. They have strong roots in this country, captured in the exhortation to ‘play the ball, not the man.’
The controversy stems in part from concerns the case re-introduces blasphemy laws by the back door. On the other hand, some members of the Muslim community are outraged by the deliberate desecration of their holy book.
As a Humanist, I generally try to avoid causing offence. I don’t advocate burning holy books, or any books for that matter, and think there are better ways of trying to make a point.
But there is no right not to be offended, let alone a right enshrined in our criminal law. Nor should there be. Everyone should have the right to criticise other people’s beliefs, no matter how deeply held they are. This includes the right to ridicule. Poking fun has long played a valuable role in our democratic discourse. Religious belief has no special case for protection from disrespectful speech or behaviour, any more than say veganism, another defining belief, and the butt of many a joke.
Humanists UK, and its predecessors, campaigned for over a hundred years for repeal of this country’s blasphemy laws. This was finally achieved in 2006. The last attempted prosecution ended when the High Court rejected a case over the BBC screening of Jerry Springer – The Opera, with its irreverent treatment of Christian themes. (Author Stewart Lee is now a Humanists UK patron).
But there is a sharp distinction between saying or doing something which is upsetting to a person’s beliefs, and being disrespectful of the individual concerned. It’s tempting to call people stupid, and far worse, when we don’t agree with them. Social media is awash with such ‘ad hominin’ attacks, to use the posh term.
Freedom of religion and belief, including freedom to criticise, must be fought for and defended. But we must also guard against those who seek to denigrate, stereotype and sow hatred against our fellow humans simply because of their faith.
Op piece Romford Recorder and Barking and Dagenham Post May/June 2025
‘Spiritual’ is a vague, hard to define word I avoid using. But I guess it could describe my sense of connection with nature, stirred afresh by recent news stories.
The appointment of a ‘Voice’ to speak for our local rivers is a fantastic development inspired by the global Rights of Nature movement. It’s possibly the first example in the UK. The spokesperson will be part of the Roding, Beam and Ingrebourne Catchment Partnership.
The remit is laid out in a ‘Declaration of Rights of the River Roding.’ This acknowledges ‘that rivers are essential to all life and perform essential ecological functions.’ It declares the Roding ‘to be an indivisible and living whole.’ As a living entity it ‘should possess legal standing in a court of law and have all the rights, powers, duties, and liabilities of a legal person.’ The Declaration fosters a model ‘based on living in harmony with nature and respecting both the rights of nature and human rights.’
Giving our rivers their own voice is a powerful expression of the desire to restore our natural environment after years of pollution, reckless extraction and biodiversity devastation.
The mindset this movement is up against was personified by the Sycamore Gap news story and the cutting down of that iconic tree. One of the two convicted defendants said it was ‘just a tree’ and couldn’t understand why its destruction hit the headlines as much as it did. Some comfort can be taken from the outrage expressed worldwide towards this senseless act of vandalism. But the uncomfortable truth is that the blind spot it showed towards nature pervades society. It’s epitomised by the delight with which Trump spouts the mantra ‘Drill baby drill.’
I don’t believe humans were created separately and given dominion over the rest of nature. We are part of nature, and share much of our DNA with the rest of the natural world from which we have evolved. Our survival depends on recognising our fragile interdependence. To quote the great Humanist, David Attenborough, who’s just turned 99: “It seems to me that the natural world is the greatest source of excitement; the greatest source of visual beauty; the greatest source of intellectual interest. It is the greatest source of so much in life that makes life worth living.”
East London Humanists have announced the staging of a six week introduction to Humanism in June. The in-person course, which will take place in Wanstead, is based on the acclaimed ‘One Life’ course pioneered by Humanists UK.
Opinion piece published Barking & Dagenham Post, Docklands & East London Advertiser May 2025
News of a ‘Christian revival’ has recently featured in the media. Some churches in East London have reported being inundated with worshippers. Humanists are among those wondering what to make of all this.
Interest was sparked by a Bible Society report, The Quiet Revival, released in April. It concludes that ‘the Church is in a period of rapid growth, driven by young adults and in particular young men’. It is based on robust YouGov polling which shows that monthly church attendance between 2018 and 2024 rose from 8% to 12%, and from 4% to 16% for 18–24-year-olds. In a Guardian piece (26 April) Father John Armitage described how his church, St Margaret’s in Canning Town, has been bursting at the seams.
However, what people tell pollsters doesn’t match all national attendance figures. While some congregations in East London are clearly thriving, head count figures, recorded respectively by the Church of England and the Catholic Church, show overall numbers declined up to 2023. Church attendance was, of course, impacted by Covid. It has increased since then, but not to pre-Covid levels.
One explanation for the discrepancy between polls and actual attendance is so-called “social desirability bias.” Church attendance is one of those areas, like drug use or number of sexual partners, where surveys are skewed through people trying to look ‘good’ or not ‘bad’ to others. This might explain the high reported uptick in ‘spirituality’ by young men. Younger people are likely to spend more time online and attend virtual services. Young men are also more likely to come under the sway of forceful Christian nationalist influencers like Jordan Peterson.
The reported upsurge in East London, and elsewhere, may simply reflect the higher proportion of residents hailing from more religious countries. The Quiet Revival acknowledges that 60 percent of the population as a whole does not identify as Christian, and nearly 90 percent do not go to church. Most young people are still atheists, although the number who think there is some sort of higher power has increased.
Today’s belief landscape is diverse, and not particularly Christian. Our laws and institutions need to catch up so all beliefs enjoy a level playing field. The case for reforming archaic institutions such as compulsory Christian school assemblies, and the automatic right for Bishops to sit in the House of Lords, is as strong as ever.
Opinion piece published Romford Recorder, Newham Recorder, East London & Docklands Advertiser April 2025.
Annie Besant was a pioneer of women’s rights in East London. Her beliefs and achievements are remarkably relevant to today’s fraught US trade talks.
Besant’s prominence in the 1888 Match Girls strike is celebrated by a plaque in Bow. in 1877 she and fellow campaigner Charles Bradlaugh published one of the first books on birth control. It incurred the Church’s wrath and resulted in a criminal prosecution which grabbed the then headlines. Bradlaugh founded the National Secular Society in 1866, and Besant was one of its original members.
Secularism is about separating the state from religion. It supports equality under the law, irrespective of religion or belief. It opposes the religious dictating the law on how women must live and treat their own bodies – seen at its most extreme in theocracies like Afghanistan or Iran.
Religious fundamentalists have now captured the levers of power in the US. This has gone hand in hand with the roll back of women’s rights there, and an upsurge in US funding of anti-choice Christian pressure groups here.
At the end of March the US State Department tweeted concern about freedom of expression over the arrest of an anti-abortion activist in the UK. A US charity is funding her case. An insider to the trade negotiations said ‘no free trade without free speech,’ according to the Telegraph.
These concerns about free speech are unfounded. They distort the truth about UK laws on abortion clinic buffer zones. Our laws do not stop people from protesting against abortions, or from praying. They simply prevent them from acting in a way likely to cause alarm or distress. People can protest or pray from 150 metres away. The laws are designed to strike a fair balance of freedoms. They address the well-documented problem of ‘in your face’ harassment of women seeking a lawful medical procedure.
Everyone should be free to practice their religion or belief. But Besant understood 150 years ago the importance of Government keeping their noses out of this and not privileging any religion or belief above another. This is the best way to protect everyone’s rights.
It is hard to know just how much influence US religious zealots have in the trade talks. But any attempt to use the negotiations to impose their views on reproductive rights here must be called out and resisted.
