• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A Victory for Free Speech and Free Inquiry in Climate Science

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is a great day. The anti-science advocates of consensus enforcement have been dealt a stinging defeat. Our congratulations and thanks to Peter Ridd.

Climate News
VICTORY: Climate skeptic scientist Peter Ridd wins big!

[FONT=&quot]In a huge victory for climate skeptics everywhere, Judge Salvatore Vasta finds all findings made by James Cook University, including his sacking, were all unlawful.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]WUWT readers helped make this possible.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The order follows: h/t to @GideonCRozner and CTM[/FONT]
ridd-wins-document-533x720.jpg
 
As the judge explained:

Judge Vasta said the university has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom.
“[The] university has ‘played the man and not the ball’,” he said.
“Intellectual freedom is so important. It allows academics to express their opinions without fear of reprisals. It allows a Charles Darwin to break free of the constraints of creationism. It allows an Albert Einstein to break free of the constraints of Newtonian physics. It allows the human race to question conventional wisdom in the never-ending search for knowledge and truth.”
 
[FONT=&quot][h=1]Blog[/h][/FONT]
[h=2]Peter Ridd Has Won – Because of You[/h]April 16, 2019 By jennifer 28 Comments
PETER Ridd was a professor at James Cook University who dared to question claims that the Great Barrier Reef is facing imminent catastrophe from climate change – eventually being sacked for not backing down. With your support he has insisted: … [Read more...]
 
Justice! Prof Peter Ridd wins on all counts against James Cook Uni


Professor Peter Ridd
​
Brilliant. There is still some free speech in Australia, as long as you are willing to risk your career, 12 months out of action and a huge legal case. Peter Ridd wins on all counts.
Presumably James Cook will have to reinstate him, and he is now free to talk about the failure of replication in science and how our institutions may not be trusted. How many taxpayer dollars were fritzed defending the indefendable? Will Ridd get compensation? Will JCU staff get punished or sacked for what their war against science?
Thanks to Peter for fighting on when so many would have given up, and thanks to everyone who helped fund the case!
Dear All,
Excellent news.
My lawyers have told me that the judge handed down his decision and we seem to have won on all counts.
It all happened very quickly and we had no warning , and because I live almost a thousand miles from the court, I was not able to be there. I have still not seen the written judgement and will update you all when I have that information.
Needless to say, I have to thank all 2500 of you, and all the bloggers, and the IPA and my legal team who donated much of their time free for this success. But mostly I want to thank my dearest Cheryl, who quite by chance has been my bestest friend for exactly 40 years today. It just shows what a team effort can achieve.
The next chapter of this saga must now be written by the JCU Council which is the governing body of JCU. What will they do about the VC and SDVC who were responsible for bringing the university into disrepute, not just in North Queensland, but also around the world. JCU crushed dissent, crushed academic freedom and tried to crush my spirit with their appalling behaviour. They only failed because I had your support. But if the JCU council does not act, they will be complicit in this disgraceful episode.
Attention must now focus on the JCU council.
I will update you shortly when I have more information, but for now I certainly have a spring in my step.
kind regards
Peter
From Peter Ridd’s GoFundMe page
From the Australian:
“The Court rules that the 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure given by the University and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful,” Judge Vasta said.
A penalty hearing will be set for a later date. . . .





 
The judge really "lit up" JCU.

UPDATE2: Here is the full legal document. (PDF)
ridd-v-james-cook-university-2019-fcca-997
Some excerpts:
217. Professor Ridd’s statement, that when he asked if he could mention them to his wife, he was not given permission, is the truth. It was not until 19 September 2017, that the University deigned to allow him to talk to his wife about these matters.
218. Whilst none of this makes any difference at all to my ultimate decision, the actions of the University in this respect are, quite frankly, appalling. They have had no regard for the anguish that Professor Ridd felt between 24 August 2017 and 19 September 2017. There has not even been an apology for what can only be seen as extremely callous behaviour. This is inexcusable.
219. Instead, Professor Ridd is accused of being misleading and untruthful because, even though the University eventually allowed him to talk to his wife, he did not mention this when he made statements on his WordPress website.
220. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. On one hand, the University is finding that Professor Ridd has breached the Code of Conduct in that he has made public a number of items to do with the disciplinary process. On the other hand, he is accused of breaching the Code of Conduct in that he has not referred to all of that material when he has made this particular statement.
221. The irony is even more spectacular when one considers that, in his original email to the journalist in 2016, Professor Ridd took the institutions to task for being misleading regarding the use of photographs. It seems the University found no problem with the use of those photographs because there was a footnote that led to the Wachenfeld article.
222. And yet when Professor Ridd pointed out that there was a hyperlink to all of the 2017 disciplinary process material (which would include the 19 September 2017 letter and the subsequent final censure), he is found guilty of a Code of Conduct violation for being misleading. One could be forgiven for thinking that the university was more concerned with the splinter in the eye of Professor Ridd whilst ignoring the plank in their own.
223. The University still sought to justify this finding on the basis of a breach of the Code of Conduct. I disagree.
224. Professor Ridd was expressing his opinion about the operations of JCU and expressing disagreement with decisions of JCU.
225. I find that Professor Ridd was exercising his rights pursuant to cl.14.2 and cl.14.4 of the EA when he made these comments.
…
235. This is an extremely peculiar finding by the University. The University has found that Professor Ridd preferred his own interests, and those of the Institute of Public Affairs (“the IPA”), above the interests of the University. The University found that this was in breach of the obligations under the Code of Conduct to “take reasonable steps to avoid, or disclose and manage, any conflict of interest (actual, potential or perceived) in the course of employment”.
236. During the course of the trial, I repeatedly asked Counsel for the University to tell me what the conflict of interest actually was. Try as he might, Counsel was unable to do so. Yet he would not concede that this finding was not justified.
…
 
Continued:

[FONT=&quot]UPDATE2: Here is the full legal document. (PDF)[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ridd-v-james-cook-university-2019-fcca-997[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]296. To use the vernacular, the University has “played the man and not the ball”. Incredibly, the University has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom. In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset. It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]297. Many aspects of the Code of Conduct cannot sit with the concept of intellectual freedom and certainly contravene cl.14. For example, the Code speaks of the need to “value academic freedom, and enquire, examine, criticise and challenge in the collegial and academic spirit of the search for knowledge, understanding and truth”. The University has denounced Professor Ridd because his enquiry, examination, criticism and challenge was not, in their view, done in the collegial and academic spirit. But there is no need for such enquiry, examination, criticism or challenge to be done that way under the rights conferred upon Professor Ridd by cl.14.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]298. The University have been at pains to say that it is not what Professor Ridd has said, but rather the manner in which he has said it, that is the underlying reason for the censure, the final censure and the termination. But the University has consistently overlooked the whole of what has been written. They have concentrated on small, almost incidental parts of what has been said and then used the Code of Conduct to pass judgement on those small parts, with the intention that the flow on effect of that judgement would impugn the whole of what Professor Ridd has written.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]299. The Code of Conduct is subordinate to cl.14 of the EA. And what is said by Professor Ridd must always be looked at in its whole context. The University have continually “cherry-picked” portions of the writings of Professor Ridd and said “that is not the exercise of intellectual freedom”. But it is the whole of what is written that must be looked at rather than excerpts taken out of context.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]…[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]302. That is why intellectual freedom is so important. It allows academics to express their opinions without fear of reprisals. It allows a Charles Darwin to break free of the constraints of creationism. It allows an Albert Einstein to break free of the constraints of Newtonian physics. It allows the human race to question conventional wisdom in the neverending search for knowledge and truth. And that, at its core, is what higher learning is about. To suggest otherwise is to ignore why universities were created and why critically focussed academics remain central to all that university teaching claims to offer.[/FONT]
 
Next highlight will come when the court sets the amount of damages JCU must pay.:mrgreen:
 
Stupid is as stupid does.

[FONT=&quot]Climate News[/FONT]
[h=1]Hubris on steroids @jcu – Uni “digging in” on Peter Ridd decision[/h][FONT=&quot]Peter Ridd writes of this unbelievable example of arrogance and hubris from James Cook University on his GoFundMe page: Dear All, There has been a flurry of media activity on the case but the main news is that it looks as though the Vice Chancellor (VC) is digging in. She and the Provost Prof Chris…
[/FONT]
 
235. This is an extremely peculiar finding by the University. The University has found that Professor Ridd preferred his own interests, and those of the Institute of Public Affairs (“the IPA”), above the interests of the University. The University found that this was in breach of the obligations under the Code of Conduct to “take reasonable steps to avoid, or disclose and manage, any conflict of interest (actual, potential or perceived) in the course of employment”.
236. During the course of the trial, I repeatedly asked Counsel for the University to tell me what the conflict of interest actually was. Try as he might, Counsel was unable to do so. Yet he would not concede that this finding was not justified.
Click to expand...

It would seem that repeating a lie often enough does not work in court.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Academic quits in disgust over university sacking of Peter Ridd[/h][FONT=&quot]From the Australian A James Cook University associate professor has resigned from her honorary position over the sacking of professor Peter Ridd, who was dismissed after he criticised the institution’s climate change science. Sheilagh Cronin *resigned from the unpaid role at the Townsville university in protest and said she was “ashamed” that she had not…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
[h=2]Heads must roll at JCU or academics still have no free speech[/h]
After what Peter Ridd went through, and the flagrant waste of one million dollars, someone must be held accountable. Otherwise, no academic would want to risk two years of legal hell for pointing out systematic problems in academia. Who would dare drily write “for your amusement” in an email?
Its good to see other staff are speaking up. Sandra Harding is vice-chancellor of James Cook University. She could have stopped the witchhunt at any time but pursued it all the way:
Janet Albrechtsen, The Australian
“The bottom line is Sandra Harding should go,” says a former member of the university’s 15-member governing council. “It’s in the interest of everybody that she retires.” Speaking to The Weekend Australian this week, the former council member says if Harding doesn’t retire, she should be sacked.
Still in close contact with JCU staff, including academics, the former council member says staff are upset and “whether or not they agree with Ridd is a separate matter. This court case probably cost the university a million bucks, which is money JCU cannot afford.”
“They know that there will be further redundancies coming.”
Ultimately some staff will lose jobs because JCU tried to silence Ridd.
According to the ex-member, the other reason the governing council should be more involved is that “the sacking of Ridd is being watched around the world. It is damaging JCU’s reputation in an area where JCU leads the world. In marine science, JCU is the top dog. To have that reputation damaged is extraordinarily worrying.”
According to the former member of JCU’s governing council, Ridd has more support on campus than he realises…”
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Dr. Peter Ridd on the Free Speech Crisis At Universities[/h][FONT=&quot]Marine Geophysicist, Dr Peter Ridd, has said his experience with James Cook University, and the slow take up by universities to the free speech model code proposed by former High Court chief justice Robert French, demonstrates there is a crisis of free speech at Australian universities in an interview with the Institute of Public Affairs’ Looking…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Can't wait for Jack Hays to join this thread...
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Penalty phase coming for the Peter Ridd vs. @jcu firing fiasco[/h][FONT=&quot]I just got this message from Dr. Peter Ridd. As you know, he’s won the court case for his unjust termination by James Cook University. Now, the judge is going to determine damages and penalties. From what I’ve seen, JCU doesn’t think they are in the wrong in any way. That may exacerbate the penalties.…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
This is a great day. The anti-science advocates of consensus enforcement have been dealt a stinging defeat. Our congratulations and thanks to Peter Ridd.

[FONT=&]Climate News[/FONT]
VICTORY: Climate skeptic scientist Peter Ridd wins big!

[FONT="]In a huge victory for climate skeptics everywhere, Judge Salvatore Vasta finds all findings made by James Cook University, including his sacking, were all unlawful.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]WUWT readers helped make this possible.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The order follows: h/t to @GideonCRozner and CTM[/FONT]
ridd-wins-document-533x720.jpg
Click to expand...

Propaganda making it into the mainstream is no victory for anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom