Guest post: Last Words on That Departure…

Guest post by Bruce Everett

It’s been a couple of weeks since the posting of a clarification of my reasons for leaving the Humanist Society of South Australia (HSSA). This, in response to public speculation by HSSA member Mark Senior, was a labour that could have been more easily avoided if only the HSSA had kept its members properly informed of policies passed by committee.

Apparently it needs pointing out that I’m not obliged to use private channels with the HSSA when making corrective statements, when HSSA members publicly speculate on my reasons for leaving. As you’d expect, people will complain of improper treatment all the same…

“My current opinion of Bruce has diminished greatly. He acts more like a rightwing witch-hunter than a progressive thinker and spends an inordinate amount of his time looking for fault in others in the progressive movements.

When we were at the Global Atheist Conference and we met PZ Meyers [sic] he came away saying leadingly “DID YOU SEE HIS EYES?”…”WHAT?”, I responded. He said, “HE WAS LOOKING AT ALL THE TEENAGE GIRLS!”. I didn’t see that at all. Maybe I wasn’t hunting for it like Bruce was. He came away suggesting PZ was an old pervert, I came away thinking it was nice to have met him. Name any public figure in the atheist or Progressive side of politics and he will have a similar attack vector.

This tendency removes him from almost any social environment as people start to fear the inevitable moment when he will turn on them (something I have heard from quite a few members).

If you look at this post you’ll see that it is without basis. “weird body language”, “secrets” that were announced at public meetings and discussed and ACCEPTED after he ceased attending. Accusations of racism to allusions to cultural practices & ideas (a formal logical fallacy), “rape apologetics” for a case where both woman involved have overtly said no rape occurred (we also don’t pre-convict people), liking one self-effacing page out of 1000’s that I have hit like on (keep hunting Bruce, I’m sure you’ll find something else to assist in the assassination) and “whiffs” of problems.

This tall poppy syndrome, combined with his willingness to not voice any of this TO OUR FACES (while taking lifts to meetings, etc) and giving every appearance of being a friend is not a good look.

I will go through his public backstab in detail on the site… which will no doubt be longer than his actual post… a waste of my time in dealing with one big load of innuendo.”
(Justin Millikan, HSSA President, 2015)

Let me home in on one point, before I address a few of the others.

As raised in my initial post, former Australian Humanist of The Year (AHoY) Leslie Cannold presumes the innocence of Julian Assange while not dismissing the allegations against him. Last year’s AHoY, Geoffrey Robertson, while obviously presuming the innocence of Julian Assange, states that the accusations are serious and need to be “faced down”.

The HSSA President dismisses the accusations on the basis of claims that have been considered by pretty much everyone even vaguely familiar with the case. Perhaps he’d like to enlighten everyone concerned as to why the point he raises obligates that the accusations against Assange be dismissed. Perhaps the President can explain why failing to dismiss the allegations against Assange constitutes “pre-convicting”.

Perhaps the HSSA President could offer Geoffrey Robertson a free consultation.

And perhaps, until both the President and Secretary have reached alignment with Leslie Cannold’s views on this matter – a matter that could have had her leaving the Wikileaks party earlier than she did – they could reconsider their habit of histrionically dropping her name on account of an AHoY award she won in 2011, before the current HSSA even existed.


I started this post as I started the last – pointing out that the President and Secretary had kept members in the dark about the passing of the anti-harassment policy earlier in 2014. In his response to my initial post, The President has claimed that I was wrong, and that the policy had been announced at a public meeting that I had not attended.

The falsity of this assertion was quickly pointed out by HSSA member Scott Sharrad, who attended all of last year’s meetings. The anti-harassment policy was not announced publicly. I’ve told the truth on this matter; the President has not.

Perhaps HSSA members would like to take this opportunity to demand of committee, an explanation as to why the rules of the HSSA have also been kept from the membership. It’s not for no reason that members of other Humanist bodies are often given copies of the organisation’s constitution. I know I got mine when I defected to an interstate Humanist organisation.


Apparently my penchant for a certain “attack vector” removes me from almost any social environment because of the fear “quite a few” people have of my turning on them – so members tell Justin. Apparently, I also give “every appearance of being a friend” – so says Justin.

This kind of overt self-contradiction is what you’ll find when people make things up as they go along.

The first of these two contradictory claims is absurd just on its own merits given that I was not “removed” from the HSSA. I resigned of my own cognisance.

I don’t apologise for being friendly in the first instance, and I certainly don’t apologise for ending friendships after encountering certain kinds of interaction. Sometimes the contempt familiarity brings is well earned.

As for my not voicing any of the complaints I made to people’s faces; this is flatly untrue.  No, I didn’t raise each and every point to the President or Secretary’s face, nor did I put any of it to the floor at meetings.

However, when in person, I raised the issue of a racist joke about a Thai restaurant with the President, the response I got was a dismissive “HA HA! THAT’S NOT RACIST!” When I raised this issue again in my formal resignation from committee, I got evasion and excuses.

There’s only a limited extent to which I’m willing to be direct or formal with certain people, when such approaches fail to ablate even the tiniest fraction of the tin-foil lining bonded to their skulls.

If the President genuinely believes that I have never been direct with him about any of this, in person, then either he’s entirely gormless, incredibly forgetful, or both. Of course, there’s also the possibility that he doesn’t genuinely believe this.


My objection to the President’s classism has been taken by certain members as nit-picking, and signifying nothing. Yet the President’s own response demonstrates this dismissive attitude isn’t a feasible position. First of all, he volunteers the opinion that the page is just “self-effacing”.


(Northern Suburbs Survival Tips just being “Self-Effacing”, 2014.)

This particular meme, featured on the Northern Suburbs Survival Tips page, refers to the $7 Medicare Co-payment that the Abbott Government had planned in 2014. This policy would have hit pensioners and the unemployed, and particularly those with chronic illnesses, quite hard. According to the HSSA President though, this is just a self-effacing joke. (You can follow the link to see more examples of just how “self-effacing” the page really is).

Inviting poor folk to ‘like’ this page is one thing, but volunteering the opinion that the page is innocuous is an entirely different prospect.

Far more tellingly though, is the President’s complaint of being the victim of “tall poppy syndrome”. Aside from the vain absurdity of the President positioning himself as a “tall poppy”, this rhetorical trope is used regularly – as it is here – to vilify, and to dismiss the objections and concerns of poor people out of hand. It’s a concept that’s intrinsically classist.

Rather than rebutting my original objection, the President has gormlessly affirmed its truth.


“Assassination”, “witch-hunter”, “PZ Meyers [sic]” – veterans in dealing with the kind of rubbish the HSSA President is peddling will recognise the red flags immediately.

Let me lay a few facts on you about my time at the 2012 Global Atheist Convention (GAC).

I didn’t meet PZ Myers with the HSSA President. I didn’t meet PZ Myers at the GAC at all. I’ve never met him. I didn’t meet anyone at the GAC with the HSSA President or Secretary.

Between my covering the GAC for Butterflies and Wheels, my desire to meet people I met on Facebook, and my utter not-giving-a-shit-about-celebrity, the only direct celebrity interactions I had involved someone I’d rather forget, a mutual nod with Dan Dennett, and Richard Dawkins possibly staring in the direction of my table. I don’t count being in the same hall as PZ as meeting him, and at any rate, I’ve never seen him around teenagers, nor do I recall teenagers being at the GAC in the first place.

The HSSA President’s account of my time at the GAC is about as credible as any of his other tall tales.


The President says he’s going to respond at length; good; good for me; good for HSSA members who genuinely want to know what they’re dealing with; good for CAHS; not so good for the President, nor the Secretary, nor for the cultish types who’ve lined up to brown nose in the wake of all of this.

Continuing my dispute with this ultracrepidarian bumbler would be unproductive. I’ve had more than enough of this issue, and of the HSSA, and I trust in the President’s capacity to continue inadvertently verifying my account, while undermining his own.

~ Bruce


  1. says

    Not actually having had the alleged conversation with the President, I couldn’t verify that, Marcus. Although I gather you’re asking a rhetorical question.

    I don’t recall Shermer being at the 2012 GAC for what it’s worth.

  2. says

    That anecdote bears no resemblance at all to either times I’ve met PZ at the GAC in 2010, or in 2012 when he and Mary met my partner as well. None whatsoever.

  3. Lady Mondegreen says

    Yeah, I’ve actually been in PZ’s presence when young people were around (no idea if any of them were teenagers,) and, uh, that doesn’t sound like him at all.

  4. Lady Mondegreen says

    But then you never said it to begin with, so…

    Sounds like you’re well rid of them.

  5. Rowan vet-tech says

    Were there really all that many teenage girls at an atheist conference?

    Also, was he not also LOOKING AT ALL THE ADULT MEN???? *snorts*

  6. Donnie says

    This, in response to public speculation by HSSA member Mark Senior, was a labour that could have been more easily avoided if only the HSSA had kept its members properly informed of policies passed by committee.

    Any organization that has Mark Senior as a member is *not* an organization that I wish to be a member of….I may be mistaken but i think that he has been banned across multiple FtB blogs.

  7. says

    More than one witness says Mark paid his membership dues in public at a meeting in the second half of 2014, Donnie. Everyone’s membership was due at the beginning of the year, and according to the constitution/rules, a three month lapse is grounds for membership cancellation (with the member being able to appeal at a full meeting). I’ll let you do the maths.

    Of course, Mark couldn’t be expected to know this, given that the constitution hasn’t been made available to the members. Can’t do democratic governance if it would anger/inconvenience/contradict Mark…

  8. says

    I don’t even…

    When we were at the Global Atheist Conference and we met PZ Meyers [sic] he came away saying leadingly “DID YOU SEE HIS EYES?”…”WHAT?”, I responded. He said, “HE WAS LOOKING AT ALL THE TEENAGE GIRLS!”.

    What am I supposed to say to that? Yes, I know that I looked at people in Australia. Some of them were women and girls. I talked to some of them, too.

    I guess I just have to confess. Guilty as charged. I looked at lots of human beings.

    Also kangaroos.

  9. says

    Yeah, but will I be sent to gulag because Pres says I said you looked at people?

    (I went cross-eyed writing that – there’s only so much of this you can internalise, even temporarily).

  10. says

    Bruce must be breathing a sigh of relief at this point with PZM blowing in quickly to refute what Bruce said about him and leaving with the idea that potentially HumanistSA was responsible. Nice trick! However Bruce did indeed say those words and notably didn’t deny it in the post above. Technically he didn’t exchange words with PZM and therefore didn’t “meet him”. There was another witness who has confirmed that he said those words exactly.

    On Assange: This is a stretch at best and untruthful at worst. I have always said this man deserves a fair trial and NOT dismissed the charges against him. I have also suggested that the Swedish Government send the prosecutor to Britain as the British government has suggested. How this has been translated to dismissing the charges I have no idea.

    As I noted in my response to the last suggestive post from Bruce, Leslie Cannold did not leave the Wikileaks Party due to Assange’s court case,/a> but due to an internal subversion of democratic processes within the National Council over Party Preferences that put “Family First” (a right-wing Christian party) second on voting ballots. Bruce is in factual error here.

    I have never said “HA HA That is not racist”.

    It won’t go on as responding to the rest of this (apparently mutable) post would be repetitive.

  11. says

    Mark Senior’s membership lapsed and he renewed it when he was ready. We don’t count this as a new membership or an opportunity to kick people out as Bruce might have us do. If we are to remove people from the organisation we provide formal notification and an opportunity for them to address the membership in appeal if they feel they have a case.

    We found the Mark’s online demeanor was not conducive to civilised discussion and so he has been barred from our Facebook group.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *