Image credit: Scott Jacobsen.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen is the publisher of In-Sight Publishing (ISBN: 978-1-0692343) and Editor-in-Chief of In-Sight: Interviews (ISSN: 2369-6885). He writes for The Good Men Project, The Humanist, International Policy Digest (ISSN: 2332-9416), Basic Income Earth Network (UK Registered Charity 1177066), A Further Inquiry, and other media. He is a member in good standing of numerous media organizations.
Adrián Núñez talks about the growing authoritarianism in Peru, the attack on civil associations, and the erosion of secularism. Núñez describes government interference through APCI laws, the Catholic Church’s privileged status, and the threats faced by indigenous communities. He highlights systemic corruption, organized crime, and weakened human rights protections. Despite setbacks, Peruvian humanists continue advocating for secularism and future reforms. They recently launched a documentary promoting secular values. Núñez stresses that humanism must adapt to local contexts, focusing on immediate survival issues while preserving long-term principles like freedom, evidence-based policy, and separation of church and state.
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Adrián Núñez. So, what is new? What is happening in your corner of the humanist world?
Adrián Núñez: We are somewhat afraid of the government, especially regarding our Association. Right now, Peru has an increasingly authoritarian government. It is not so much the President herself but Congress that is in control. Congress is dominated by a coalition of conservative parties that have taken over different government institutions. They want to consolidate total control, but so far, they have not been able to capture the judiciary — at least not yet.
The problem is that they are attacking civil associations like ours. For example, they modified the law that regulates APCI — the Agencia Peruana de Cooperación Internacional (Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation). This agency oversees foreign funding for NGOs and associations.
We are not yet registered with APCI, but they could force us to register under the new law. If we are forced to register, they can review and censor our activities. We would have to report what we plan to do with foreign funds, and they could block projects they disapprove of. For example, if we wanted to defend someone attacked by the church or the state, the government could stop us. So, for now, we are holding off until this law is either challenged or better defined.
This is a significant concern for us.
At the same time, a group of associations (including our association), journalists, victims and others have been fighting against a powerful conservative Catholic institution, the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae (Sodalitium of Christian Life). This organization has been implicated in numerous cases of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse in Peru.
Thanks to pressure from journalists, survivors, and activists, the Vatican — under Pope Francis — took action. The Vatican intervened and, after several investigations, essentially dismantled the leadership of the Sodalitium. The organization has been formally dissolved but they preserve, through third parties and trusts, companies and assets that continue to generate income and power for them. It was a hard fight, but it represents a significant, medium-sized victory for us.
Now, the victims are seeking legal and moral justice — not just religious acknowledgment, but actual prosecution of the abusers and financial compensation for damages. Many of the accused within the Sodalitium had close ties to organized crime, including groups involved in violent land seizures in northern Peru.
That is a glimpse into some of the harsh realities here — real “Latin American” problems.
Jacobsen: For our international audience, there is also “Rolexgate.” President Dina Boluarte is under investigation after being seen wearing luxury watches, including Rolexes. At the same time, she declared that her salary could not explain such expenses. Investigations revealed that between 2016 and 2022, she had unexplained cash deposits totalling around 1.1 million soles (about USD 300,000).
In March 2024, police raided both her private residence and the Government Palace. Although several motions have been filed in Congress to remove her for “moral incapacity,” Congress has not proceeded with impeachment.
Jacobsen: Approval ratings for Boluarte’s administration have plummeted, with some indicating only 3% public support. In more recent news, on April 15, former President Ollanta Humala and his wife Nadine Heredia were each sentenced to fifteen years in prison for money laundering related to illicit campaign funds from the Brazilian construction company Odebrecht. This marks a significant chapter in the ongoing Lava Jato corruption scandal involving numerous Latin American leaders.
Also, former President Pedro Castillo was on trial for rebellion following his attempt to dissolve Congress in December 2022. Around March 2025, Castillo initiated a hunger strike, which ended after he was hospitalized.
On those major issues — what is the humanist response to these presidential-level scandals?
Núñez: The good thing is that we can at least jail the powerful. That is funny — we can still prosecute people in power.
However, it shows the deep, systemic corruption within our institutions. There are differences between these leaders. Pedro Castillo, the last elected President, tried to stage a coup — live on television — but it was completely disorganized. He did not coordinate with the military or anyone else. Perhaps it was the most ridiculous coup attempt in our history because it was ineffective. He tried to flee to Mexico but was captured at a traffic stop in Lima.
Now, Castillo is jailed during his legal proceedings.
When Castillo fell, his second vice president, Dina Boluarte, took over the presidency.
The thing is, Dina Boluarte has proven to be highly incompetent. She even confessed on television to crimes, which is remarkable. Here in Peru, it is illegal for public officials to receive or even temporarily possess expensive gifts — like Rolex watches — whether or not they are owned outright. Even loans or temporary use of luxury items are considered illegal.
Boluarte confessed to having received these goods as a loan (trying to say that they were not payments), yet nothing happened because she and Congress are defending each other. In reality, she is a puppet of Congress, which effectively controls everything right now.
The common link among all these figures is their conservative worldview. Most of them are deeply aligned with the most conservative sectors of society and work closely with different Christian denominations and powerful religious institutions. This does not mean that the rulers are necessarily conservative at heart. Since Fujimori’s first election, in 1990, I see candidates turning to and making pacts with some churches to get votes. Since then we have seen that some religious sectors that did not participate in politics before started to send candidates. This, I think, has contributed to Peru’s alignment with the polarising and binary tendency of other countries on the continent.
So, the problem is not only corrupt individuals elected to Congress or the presidency. It is also about a large, entrenched conservative power structure in Peru. Or at least, with a conservative discourse.
Jacobsen: Two things. There has been a growing, though still limited, conversation in the international humanist community. The latest Amsterdam Declaration — the third one — touched on themes like indigenous rights, historical representation, and the evolution of humanism as a codified institutional force.
Of course, humanism has appeared in different forms across many cultures and times throughout history. So, two topics: one on the environment and one on indigenous rights. Those two things—environmental protection and indigenous rights—often go together in many countries.
Recently, Peru amended its Forestry and Wildlife Law, eliminating the requirement for state authorization before converting forested land, effectively legalizing past illegal deforestation. Environmentalists and indigenous groups argue that this threatens the Amazon rainforest and undermines indigenous rights, particularly because there was insufficient consultation with indigenous communities before the amendment was passed.
Second, as you mentioned at the outset of the interview, new restrictions have been imposed on NGOs and human rights advocacy—two more central aspects of humanist advocacy.
In March 2025, Peru enacted a law restricting NGOs from initiating legal actions against the state for human rights violations. In other words, by law, human rights advocacy organizations are now prevented from effectively pressuring the government. This nullifies much of the purpose of human rights organizations in Peru—they are supposed to serve as mediators, informers, and watchdogs for governmental actions.
What has been the conversation within the humanist community in Peru on these two topics—environmental and indigenous rights and restrictions on human rights advocacy?
Núñez: Regarding indigenous people, especially in areas like the Amazon, they are often the ones defending the land against illegal exploitation — such as illegal mining and illegal deforestation. For years now, indigenous defenders have been killed by mafias involved in these illicit activities. The government is unable, or unwilling, to protect them, so these communities have had to defend themselves.
There is a local vigilance system because official authorities often refuse to intervene. Moreover, some of these mafias are directly linked to members of Congress. Certain political parties have financial ties to illegal mining companies, so internal lobbying within Congress protects these activities. Congress is actively promoting laws favouring these mafias and weakening land protections. The most serious issue regarding indigenous rights is the fight over land and survival.
As for NGOs, here in Peru, we do not have the term “NGO” as a type of legal entity. The term NGO is a creation of the UN and in Peru if you want to register an NGO you have to choose one of the two options that are adapted to our civil code: association or foundation.
Some associations must register with APCI—the Agencia Peruana de Cooperación Internacional(Peruvian Agency for International Cooperation)—. For example, those dedicated to development or those that receive funds from international cooperation for education or assistance. Right now the government has just enacted a law modifying the role of the APCI that allows it to censor and fine registered associations.
A 2007 ruling of the Constitutional Court indicates that it is not mandatory for an association to register with APCI, and this saves some associations like ours for the moment, but the Constitutional Court is also functional to the government coalition and someone could go to this tribunal to reverse this ruling.
Because of the new law, and because the President is now the only person who can appoint the head of APCI, you cannot effectively go against the President or the government if they commit abuses or crimes—that is our reality now.
There are several propaganda outlets on television, paper and in online media. Because of this, many people, even those we once considered freethinkers or skeptics, believe all the misinformation. They are trapped inside that ideological bubble now. One of the slogans of these media is that NGOs are evil, destructive institutions that want to ideologize us or that come with a perverse agenda.
It is very similar to what you see in the United States: large propaganda media outlets and many people are conditioned to believe whatever they are told.
Jacobsen: Societies create many myths about themselves and each other. For example, many might be surprised to learn that the United States is the only country in the world that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
It is the most widely ratified human rights document globally. The U.S. signed it over thirty years ago, on February 16, 1995, but has never ratified it. Somalia was the second-to-last country to sign, and they completed ratification in 2015. So now, the U.S. stands completely alone.
Another example: Americans often point to child marriage as a significant issue in Saudi Arabia. That is fair. However, if they looked internally, they would find that the United States has more instances of child marriage than Saudi Arabia.
These are essential contexts to remember. I had another question regarding extortion and the rise of organized crime.
In the early 2000s, a famous case was about North American rapper Eminem (Marshall Mathers). In that period, he was allegedly being extorted by members of the Crips, one of the most prominent gangs in Los Angeles. His manager enlisted the Boo-Yaa T.R.I.B.E., a Samoan-American hip-hop group, for protection. It worked — people were genuinely terrified of the Boo-Yaa T.R.I.B.E. Of course, not everyone has the fame, money, or foresight to enlist such protection.
Now, shifting back to Peru, there has been a noticeable rise in organized crime here as well. Extortion cases allegedly reached over 17,000 in the first ten months of 2024. Some of these criminal networks have ties to Colombia and Venezuela. They are targeting sectors like transportation, education, and others.
Despite military patrols, authorities are struggling to contain the violence. From a humanist perspective, what concerns do you have regarding human rights violations related to this wave of organized crime? You do not have to comment on the Eminem story — I thought it was remarkable.
Núñez: This situation is partly due to the lack of evidence-based policies. In the past, we had a competent division within the police dedicated to intelligence work. They were very practical—they quietly captured gangs, dismantled two terrorist organizations, found fugitives from justice, confiscated weapons, and disrupted criminal activity.
However, that unit has not been renewed or strengthened over the last ten years. So now, in practice we have no operational intelligence division. That is one of the root causes behind the spread of organized crime.
Another factor is that this is not just a Peruvian phenomenon but regional across Latin America. However, in Peru, specific political decisions made the situation worse.
For instance, Congress deactivated a law that allowed police to detain a person suspected of committing a crime for a few days while conducting an investigation. Usually, under suspicion of committing a crime, you could be held temporarily at a police station to determine whether to proceed with formal charges.
Crime surged when Congress suspended that detention authority for three months or more. Police could no longer take preventive action. That legislative change benefited certain Congress and government individuals who did not want to risk detention.
Another example is if the police or prosecutor suspect you are connected to a criminal gang. Previously, with a court order, they could enter your home or office and investigate without warning (this is how they found one of the Rolex certificates in the house of Boluarte). Because of recent legal reforms, the police must inform the suspect beforehand—they have to call and announce that they are coming, and the suspect must have their lawyer present.
It is absurd. It completely undermines investigations. In practice, this change actively encouraged the growth of organized crime.
Another aspect is that violent crime is relatively new to us. Crime itself is not new — you could be robbed or mugged in the past — but assassinations were rare. Now, targeted killings are happening more frequently. That is a new and alarming development for Peru.
Jacobsen: We have discussed legislative advocacy and civil rights issues. We have also discussed how many of these social problems are rooted in the absence of evidence-based policy and law. A Nigerian humanist once pointed out that freedom of expression and speech are essential — but only after basic survival needs are met.
In some African contexts, safety is more critical than free speech. When survival is not guaranteed, safety becomes the immediate and primary concern, while freedom of expression becomes secondary. That is what I mean by contextual rank ordering of values.
This Nigerian humanist emphasized, “Of course, freedom of speech matters, but in our situation, safety and well-being come first.” The constellation of humanist values varies by context, but I do not think it changes—it is about how they are prioritized in different circumstances.
If someone already has safety, healthcare, a sound education system, a relatively rational political system, evidence-based policies, and civil discourse, their concerns naturally shift toward more abstract ideas—the development and ethical implementation of technology, for example.
At that point, your focus might resemble the vision in Isaac Asimov’s science fiction—technology-driven societies focused on exploration, innovation, and advanced rights. But it always depends on the context.
Núñez: Yes, absolutely. It is entirely valid.
You must first worry about the most immediate and serious issues. Older problems—survival and basic rights—must come first. Future problems can come later. This is perfectly valid. As you said, the important thing is that humanism should be open and broad enough to allow for different focuses in different parts of the world.
It is like this: if you are persecuted for being a witch in your country, you must focus on that specific problem. You cannot prioritize distant or abstract concerns when your immediate safety and rights are threatened.
Jacobsen: There is an old saying about gangsters in the United States: the first rule of a gangster is silence. The joke is that there is no such thing as authentic gangster rap because if you were a real gangster, you would not talk so much.
More seriously, if being accused of witchcraft can lead your own family to throw battery acid on you or your community to murder you — as happens in some African contexts — then silence becomes primary. Freedom of expression takes a backseat because survival becomes the overriding concern.
It is always about applying values within context. Flexibility is a strength of humanism—it has adaptability built into it. But it requires mindfulness of context.
Núñez: Yes, it is an intersectionality issue, in a sense.
Jacobsen: Right — whether people want to say “intersectionality” or “cross-section” or just “relating ideas,” the principle remains the same. If someone has a problem with the word, use a different word. All right, what would you like to plug?
Núñez: I would say the focus for us right now — for the Peruvian Association of Atheists — is on secularism. Right now, achieving a truly secular state is practically impossible. But we must think of the future by taking small steps on a constant basis.
We are launching a documentary about secularism in Peru in a few days. It will cover almost everything—the historical background, current issues, and future challenges.
It is critical for people to understand the real dangers of not having a secular state and to recognize how the church, allied with the government, abuses its privileges. That is the primary focus for us right now. I want to put a strong emphasis on it.
Jacobsen: That reminds me of the Romanian humanist Remus Cernea. He ran for public office—for Parliament and even for President—and became a serious obstacle to those trying to violate church-state separation.
He resisted efforts to give public lands to churches and challenged Christian dominance in over 90% of religious society. Peru, as far as I know, is similarly highly religious. Could Peruvian atheists, humanists, or even transhumanists run for office and take up that fight?
Núñez: We had some allies in Congress a few years ago. We probably have one or two legislators today who are on our side. — but that is almost nothing out of 130 members.
For example, one of our allies promised to pass a constitutional amendment declaring Peru a secular state. Right now, the Constitution only vaguely says that Peru recognizes the “importance” of the Catholic Church in its history. It does not separate church and state.
But passing that amendment was impossible because of Congress’s structure — too much corruption and entrenched interests. One or two people alone cannot fight against a mafia-like structure. So, for now, we have almost no chance.
We are coordinating with different secular groups—like feminist associations and progressive Christian denominations that also want a secular state—but the consensus is that we cannot make real progress until the government changes. We may have to wait until after the mid-2026 elections.
Jacobsen: Fair enough. Adrián, thank you as always.
Núñez: Cool, yes. Excellent. Thank you.
Jacobsen: Thank you. Bye.
Photo by Willian Justen de Vasconcellos on Unsplash