UPDATED: Full legal document posted, along with some spectacular quotes from the judge. See below.
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.
WUWT readers helped make this possible.
The order follows: h/t to @GideonCRozner and CTM
Background on the court case
In May 2018, after an academic career of more than 30 years, Peter had his employment terminated as a professor of physics at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. Peter had spoken against the accepted orthodoxy that climate change was ‘killing’ the Great Barrier Reef.
There’s some absolute rubbish being spoken about the reef and people’s livelihoods are being put in jeopardy. If nobody will stand up, then this is just going to go on and on and on. It has to be stopped.
Peter’s court case has enormous implications for the international debate about climate change, and for the ongoing crisis surrounding freedom of speech.
UPDATE: Peter writes via his GoFundMe page:
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
Help spread the word!
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.
…
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.
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.
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.
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.
…
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.
FINDINGS:
303. In light of the above, I make the following rulings:
a) The first finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
b) The censure given to Professor Ridd was unlawful as it contravened cl.14 of the EA.
c) The First Speech Direction was unlawful in that it sought to interfere with the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
d) The Second Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
e) The First Confidentiality Direction was unlawful because the University had no power to give that direction, and even if it did have the power, such a direction was in contravention of the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
f) The Third Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant cl.14.
g) The Second Confidentiality Direction was unlawful because the University had no power to make such a direction, and even if it did have the power, such a direction was in contravention of the rights conferred on Professor Ridd by virtue of cl.14.
h) The Fourth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights of Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
i) The Fifth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights of Professor Ridd given to him by cl.14.
j) The Sixth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights of Professor Ridd given to him by cl.14.
k) The Seven Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
l) The Eighth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
m) The Third Confidentiality Direction was unlawful because the University had no power to make such a direction, and even if it did, such a direction contravened the rights of Professor Ridd pursuant to cl.14.
n) The Second Speech Direction was unlawful in that it sought to interfere with the rights Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
o) The Fourth Confidentiality Directions was unlawful because the University had no power to make such a direction, and even if it did, such a direction contravened the rights of Professor Ridd pursuant to cl.14.
p) The no satire direction was unlawful in that it sought to interfere with the rights Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
q) The Fifth Confidentiality Direction was unlawful because the University had no power to make such a direction, and even if it did, such a direction contravened the rights of Professor Ridd pursuant to cl.14.
r) The Second Censure was unlawful because it contravened cl.14 of the EA.
s) The Ninth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it related to the breach of a direction which was of itself unlawful.
t) The Tenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it related to the breach of a direction which was of itself unlawful.
u) The Eleventh Finding made by the University was unlawful because it related to the breach of a direction which was of itself unlawful.
v) The Twelfth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
w) The Thirteenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights the Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
x) The Fourteenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it related to the breach of a direction which was of itself unlawful.
y) The Fifteenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because of breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
z) The Sixteenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
aa) The Seventeenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it had no substance whatsoever, and even if there were the slightest scintilla of evidence, it was contrary to the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.
bb) The termination of Professor Ridd’s employment was unlawful because it punished Professor Ridd for conduct that was protected by cl.14 of the EA.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Brilliant!
This is not just a victory for skeptics, it is a victory science in general, reason and integrity.
Thankfully this case was well supported and got a fair judge.
Congratulations to Peter Rudd for having the balls and determination to see this through. Kudos.
PUHLEASE! It’s Dr. Ridd! Don’t confuse someone with integrity with a Rudd (Who was more interested in his hair than running Australia).
Easy enough to miss type as U and I are adjacent on the QWERTY keyboard setup and both Ridd and Rudd pass auto spell check. Sometimes people miss type and don’t catch it, but is that worth being snide?
You have no idea about Rudd!
Yes it’s peculiar that their names are so similar yet the two people themselves .are at opposite ends of the integrity spectrum.
Being snide is protected by cl.14 of the EA. . .
Way Too Funny
We want to Ridd Rudd.
We don’t want to Rudd Ridd.
Rudd tried to create paradise on Earth with tyarrany and slaver? I guess you will find the same «elements» getting rid og Ridd?
My sincere apologies to Dr Peter Ridd for my careless mistake.
In any case, having now seen the judgement, I’m sure he will in good enough humour today to excuse me. That is one hell of a judgement, the definitive a to z and aa to bb of how pigheaded, wrong and downright despicable the zealots can get.
My apologies also to Peter Rudd for confusing him with someone of integrity.
Your last sentence is sooo funny.
Is Peter Rudd a person? When did that happen?
I just posted a reply to congratulate Dr. Ridd, and autocorrect tried to change “Ridd” to “Rudd”. Fortunately I caught it before completing the post.
the name of the offending entity is Chairman Krudd, a lesser organism that once approached sentience, coifed his hair, declared himself A Great Leader and was preparing to launch Oz into the Golden Age where we’d probably be known as The Glorious People’s Democratic People’s Republic of Australia (unless he planned to dispense with the Australia part, one never knew with that one).
Subsequently we all try to refrain from mentioning it’s name lest it be summoned, uttering germicidal monologues and cursing furiously. if anyone’s really interested I believe there’s a video of it on YouTube eating ear wax..
verbicidal , curse you spell checker..
Congratulations Dr. Ridd.
It is not just a victory for science but a victory for free speech.
Particularly in the week that Rugby Australia has just terminated the contract of its best player, Israel Folau, for posting his belief on Instagram that “Drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators – Hell awaits you.”
Folau may be mistaken in his religious belief . He was certainly mistaken in believing that in this modern era he could express it publicly. But he was only expressing what all major religions had taught for centuries.
Following a service at the Truth Of Jesus Christ Church, he told the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper: “I share it with love. I can see the other side of the coin where people’s reactions are the total opposite to how I’m sharing it.
“First and foremost, I live for God now. Whatever He wants me to do, I believe His plans for me are better than whatever I can think. If that’s not to continue on playing, so be it.”
“In saying that, obviously I love playing footy and if it goes down that path I’ll definitely miss it. But my faith in Jesus Christ is what comes first.”
Perhaps Folau should sue Rigby Australia.
Would that be Eleanor Rigby?
Best player?
Perhaps not the best but one of the best in Australia.
Would have trouble making it into the NZ All Blacks.
Nevertheless here’s a compilation of Isreal in action in Au:
If only Folau was muslim then his views would be fine, especially here in the UK.
I’m not familiar with Australian law, but here in the states, private companies have more latitude in this area than do state agencies.
In the US, you can be fired for embarrassing your employer.
If his employer (And there are rumours that his case could go to court) is found to be in breach of his rights (“religious beliefs”) his employer could be found guilty of unlawful sacking.
In my considered opinion the man is a complete twat and only good for running and kicking an odd shaped ball around for a few minutes.
Excuse my language however, people like him really get far too much attention.
In the US you can be fired fort embarrassing your employers hamster.
The man will ultimately be memorialized as in the film about Eric Liddell’s unwavering Christian faith – Chariots of Fire
https://www.amazon.com/Eric-Liddell-Something-Greater-Christian/dp/1576581373
Nothing to add here, all said !!!
I agree with you Greg. This is a victory for Science against some, let’s say, Inquisitional like methods that are being used against someone with even a slightest doubt about CAGW. It has everything to be a religion (a faith, books, movies, priests and now this kind of inquisition).
Even though it is over, I would like to make a donation to Peter, but I cannot find the route here. I am looking for a reliable means of making sure it gets to him.
https://www.gofundme.com/peter-ridd-legal-action-fund?viewupdates=1&rcid=r01-155539728187-6a2160e6b86c459a&utm_medium=email&utm_source=customer&utm_campaign=p_email%2B1137-update-supporters-v5b
The site says it’s no longer accepting donations. ???
Dr. Ridd closed the donations option whe he decided he has sufficient monies to proceed.
If this goes through the higher courts, he may well open the donations button again.
Here is hoping that getting rebuked and slapped once is sufficient for JCU.
Dr. Ridd’s people will let us know if there are residual expenses. Save your money for the next case. And there will be a next case. Academia in Oz and around the world are suffering from a grave illness that will not be cured by one dose of justice.
“You’re making a bigger fool of yourself than I thought you would Mr Kane. With anybody else I’d say what’s going to happen to you would be a lesson to you. Only you’re gonna need more than one lesson. And you’re going get more than one lesson.”
Peter Ridd’s victory is also a posthumous victory for Bob Carter.
JCU slandered and sacked Bob just the way they did Peter Ridd.
JCU management is now fully revealed to the world as the anti-science, anti-free thought moralizing prigs those of us who knew Bob and his work, understood them to be.
Rest in peace, Bob. You’ve won.
And with huge thanks to Peter Ridd. A man with the complete courage of his convictions.
++1
Bob Carter’s lectures, so many years ago now, were what confirmed my scepticism.
Exactly the same for me. I still watch them every so often now just because I like Bob so much.
Common sense still reigns in some quarters. Thank God! And yes GOD STILL REIGNS.!!!
has there ever been a more complete repudiation? Kudos to Judge Vasta- – –
Just seen this – what an awesome result!
Well chuffed – will have glass or three of Aussie Shiraz tonight to celebrate!!
Alas this is not a victory for science. It is however a victory against corrupt dogmatics.
Oddgeir
well done Peter A blow for academic freedom Lets hope Academia is listening
Time for naming and shaming and a few ad hominems, which is the standard approach of climate catastrophists. I know it’s not the way of well informed folks but just occasionally it is sweet.
Can’t do that in Aus.
Congratulations Dr. Ridd!
Bet we won’t see a drive by Mosher who tried to defend the Uni.
I also bet that ABC will mamange to utterly ignore this news also.
they have a climate scam agenda and if anything its getting worse.
think this week we will have whingeing steffen and flimflam touted and promoted
Nothing but silence across the board!
Australia! Winner! Yesssssss!
I am sure that the ABC is similar to our CBC in Canada, the BBC in the UK and Pravda in Russia. State broadcasters that are merely the propaganda mouthpiece for the government. After all they are bought and paid for by government using taxpayer money to mimic Orwellian speak.
In Canada the government is giving $$ to all the press. It is an election year and there are votes to be bought.
In Australia the nationally owned ABC is actually aligned with leftists, not with the present government . That’s why we will not hear about Dr Peter Ridd’s wonderful win.
Actually, the BBC have never been the mouthpiece of the government, they are the mouthpiece of anyone who supports their institutional marxist/socialist agenda. I’m not as familiar with the other public broadcasters
After no mention at all of the case until now the ABC in Oz has grudgingly reported the verdict [no doubt through gritted teeth].
I wonder if the case will crack a mention on Robyn Williams’ Science Show on ABC Radio [https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/robyn-williams/2913842]. He’s shown little tolerance for ignorant, shameful, red-neck, in the pay of foreign polluting multinationals climate deniers to date.
Bet we won’t see a drive by Mosher who tried to defend the Uni.
just to remind everyone of Mosh’s previous “words of wisdom” (do I need a sarc tag?) on the subject:
I do hope that echoes down Mosher’s ‘hubris canyon’ for a very long time.
Looking again at the language and word cadence, I’m of the opinion that Mr. Mosher was on something at the time of that writing.
Probably the academic payrol
Defend the Uni?
Nope. never defended the actions of the university
In fact, I applauded your efforts here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/01/james-cook-university-censures-a-climate-skeptic-help-him-fight-back/#comment-2273415
and this
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/01/james-cook-university-censures-a-climate-skeptic-help-him-fight-back/#comment-2273470
My comments were directed toward the POST
‘The trial opened on Tuesday with Mr Wood QC outlining Dr Ridd’s honestly held expert opinion that the Great Barrier Reef is in good health, but that many of his colleagues, particularly Professor Hughes, suggest otherwise, that their research is “untrustworthy” and is not subject to any “quality assurance”.
The Judge seemed genuinely interested in this issue of “quality assurance” of the research. Towards the end of Day 2 he specifically requested that Mr Murdoch QC explain to the court what quality assurance procedures were in place.
I had assumed that Mr Murdoch QC, the Barrister acting for the University, would thus begin Day 3 with some explanation of this – but he didn’t. The University continued to refuse to engage on any matters of science, particularly the issue of quality assurance. Rather the University simply argued that because there is a code of conduct that expects professors to be collegial – they thus had a right to sack Peter Ridd because he had become disrespectful of his colleagues and also had broken confidentiality.
At the beginning of Day 2 Peter Ridd clearly explained that he was concerned about the trustworthiness of the science, and the lack of quality assurance because it was having a significant negative economic impact on rural and regional economies – because of the bad publicity for tourism and increasing government regulation of farming. ”
The way Jenniffer told the story of what transpired in court made it appear that Ridd was arguing the science in court.
I wrote
‘o lemme get this straight.
Ridd had the better scientific argument
Decided to slag his fellow employees,
And the boss sacked his ass for violating
Workplace rules..
Who the hell thinks you can ignore workplace rules.
Now in court he wants to argue the science.”
Nothing about the university being right or wrong.
Nothing about my opinion about intellectual freedom.
More about the advisability of arguing the science in court when the
issue is workplace rules.
Its a good thing he won on intellectual freedom. which is what the case was about
Not the science.
Work place rules that restrict intellectual freedom are not very bright.
Violating workplace rules ( even dumb ones and uninforceable ones) when you have the better scientific arguments is still dumb.
”Violating workplace rules ( even dumb ones and uninforceable ones) when you have the better scientific arguments is still dumb.”
Obviously not ”dumb” as we have just seen.
Sometimes you just gotta call bullshit regardless of rules.
Spend a few minutes of your drive by routine to think about the workplace where he was employed and the academic freedom he has to disagree with work which was neither trustworthy not subject to any quality assurance. That is his academic right as part of his employment. Read the judgement where the judge clearly enumerates on this.
You did a drive by insulting posting as usual and have been proved wrong. Have the grace to admit that.
Do you just make this up as you go along or do you plan it meticulously ?
I suspect both, meticulously make it up as you go along.
You did a drive by insulting posting as usual and have been proved wrong. Have the grace to admit that
driving-by means never having to admit you are wrong. Why do you think it’s his preferred method of communication?
The way Jenniffer told the story of what transpired in court made it appear
So you weren’t skeptical and just took what someone told you at face value, never looking in to it for yourself. Where have I heard that admonishment before? hmmm?
Not sure how you gleaned from Jennifer’s post that Ridd’s lawyer was arguing about the science or that science was at the core of their suit. In your own words, you really needed to read harder.
What a goose the Mosher is.
The fact is, he didn’t argue the science in court. He argued his intellectual freedom rights under the Enterprise Agreement under which he was employed.
These are explicitly mapped out in the Vasta judgement. Whether what he said was true of not, he had the right to say it and let the debate find the truth. JCU didn’t like what he said and tried to shut him up.
I witnessed the 3 day trial and the judge didn’t miss JCU. In respect to their initial refusal to allow Ridd to discuss the charges against him with his wife he said that the JCU actions were heavy handed, absolutely abhorrent and reprehensible.
His judgement is consistent with those comments. JCU lost on every count. Methinks they will now double down with an appeal. They have too much to lose.
So John Cook University’s interpretation of policy is essentially:
“Shut up'”, he explained. – The Young Immigrunts – Ringgold Wilmer Lardner, Jr.
Some claim that Ringgold Wilmer Lardner, Jr. was a pen name used by his father, Ringgold Wilmer Lardner, Sr. , as Junior was only four when The Young Immigrunts was published. However, since Junior does have two Academy Awards for writing , perhaps some will believe that he was merely precocious.
Now, how many appeals do you reckon the University will launch?
I suspect that Big Green will now elevate it to crisis status and their big guns and big money will be deployed.
If a quite deal canot be done under the counter , and given the unversity has an open book , unlike Peter , as many as it takes .
I’m guessing that law in Australia is basically English Common Law, which to me means the University won’t appeal until the monetary damage is set, and then only appeal if the amount seems excessive. At any rate, nothing like great news to start the day off! Or end the day is you’re in Australia? Whatever, congratulations to Professor Ridd.
Not at all. Australian employment law is a bitch (Stupid)! And then there is the contract you sign. So, as ridiculous as it may sound, someone, could take you to court because you said something that offended them, or even wore an item of clothing that offended them. (Case in point. Go do some research).
You are all incorrect please stop commenting …. you know nothing John Snow.
This isn’t a normal court and it doesn’t act like people are dribbling on about.
You must first seek leave to appeal a decision … please for the love of all things read the rules
https://www.fwc.gov.au/disputes-at-work/how-the-commission-works/appeal-a-decision-or-order#field-content-7-heading
Given the strength of the finding there is almost way the University will be given the right to appeal.
John Snow from “Game of Thrones”?
Pardon my confusion – but was this not an action in Judicial Court, not the earlier stage of an appeal to the Fair Work Commission?
(In any case, you are likely correct, if the Courts in Oz work similarly to the US system. A judicial Appeals Court here will only hear your case if you can convince them that there is a matter of law, not fact, involved.)
This was a decision of the Federal Court of Australia. It was not a tribunal decision. Be that. As it may, unfortunately, Judge Vasta does not have a great record of his judgements surviving appeals. Dr Ridd’s advocate, Stuart Wood was brilliant in carrying hit he case and was very persuasive compared to the JCU advocate who didn’t seem to have his heart in it.
Now that this case is concluded, Stuart Wood SC may have time to take on Rugby Australia for Israel Folau. This is another important freedom of speech case.
No. That is a completely different ball game.
… in the Family Court.
I am mildly surprised the university didn’t settle this quietly rather than letting it spin out in court. That said, going to court is a crap shoot and they could have got lucky. On the other hand, a good lawyer keeps her client out of court. My former employer would do ridiculous things to keep out of court.
A large organization can punish the weak by burying them under legal bills. Thank goodness for all those who funded Peter’s fight.
This kind of thing can go on forever. The sad example is Edwin Armstrong arguably the inventor of the FM as well as the circuit which is used by almost all radio receivers (super het.). The fight to enforce his patents probably drove him to his death.
You are right Commie I think you would remember I said that at the beginning of this, they should have settled. It was a stupid risk and it is going to cost them.
hi Bob oh that unis(depts of) been doing similar to other fields using their threats and bluffing quite a few professionals in other fields either into submission or retirement. this is what I hinted at in other comments but really cant say more as other cases are underway to bring them to reality and stop this misuse and abuse of power.
I am grinning ear to ear at the excellent news for Peter and also because a precedent is shown now.
they are NOT above the law OR a law unto themselves;-)
The very good example is Jordan Peterson. The guns were turned on him. There was a petition to get him fired. link Then, all of a sudden, he’s not fired and he’s a bit of a rock star. link I don’t understand how that happened and it doesn’t happen for most professors.
The best thingA very good thing about Peterson is that he seems to terrify the loony left. Given that universities are predominantly left leaning, it’s no surprise that there was a petition against him. I think one of the things that protects him is that he’s very careful with his words. link It makes it very hard to trip him up. Just ask Cathy Newman. linkAnd wasn’t Cathy a joy to watch? 😀
They believed the law (System) was on their side (The alarmist side). This is good news and should be posted far and wide.
Normally this is a crap shoot but with loaded dice. I am still stunned at this decision as normally the judiciary are already in on the action.
I attended the case. The judge described the actions of JCU as heavy handed, absolutely abhorrent and reprehensible.
He criticised JCU for its reaction to Ridd’s criticism of the lack of quality assurance in its research. He said that JCU did not make any attempt to show where it had procedures and protocols in place which would contradict Dr Ridd’s statements.
Overall, he was damning in his comments on JCU. He had substantive criticism of the actions of Dr Ridd. That said, you don’t know the result until the judgement comes down. What a fantastic result!!
amortiser,
What were his criticisms of Dr. Ridd?
rip
Rip
That should have read “no substantive criticisms”.
My apologies.
Oh, gotcha. Thanks for clarifying!
“He said that JCU did not make any attempt to show where it had procedures and protocols in place which would contradict Dr Ridd’s statements.”
Procedures and protocols…quality assurance… These are not words or attitudes you find in academia. In fact, the PhD, prior to being doled out in degree mill numbers, was itself considered the ‘quality control’. ‘Peer Review’ will likely be argued as the ‘quality control procedure’ should this ever go back to court. Now either there was no peer review or peer review itself comes in flavours and is not a set of documented standards that can be used for as a quality control procedure.
Peer review means whatever you want it to mean. It cannot ever be considered as a replacement of documented quality control.
It’s called ‘Doubling Down’. They made a fool of themselves and their university by taking action against Peter Ridd, and by then most of the damage was done – they had little to lose continuing – and who knows what external pressure was being put on them NOT to give in
“I am mildly surprised the university didn’t settle this quietly “…
I’m surprised parents send their kids there…pay huge sums of money..to get their kids educated…
..and the university just showed the world how stupid they are
The new generation of university elite get all emotional about their decisions. They are incapable of actually understanding the framework of laws actually mean, only what they believe they ought to mean.
Since the universities are no longer fulfilling their proper purpose, the logical course of action is to defund the universities. link
An alternate course of action is to change how institutions of higher education are accredited. link Accreditation sets the standards necessary for a university to grant degrees. Sadly, if you drill down into the accreditating agencies you find that they are basically puppets of the universities. That protects the interests of the universities and not the public.
If states and the feds take control of the accreditation of the universities and colleges within their jurisdiction, there is a much greater chance that the public’s interests will come before the entrenched interests of special interest groups.
The trouble is that the running of universities is by bureaucrats who lack the ethical training that scientists are supposed to get, and are focused on marketing and money, not truth, objectivity etc.
Will JCU appeal? Good question. The judgement was so comprehensive that I would hope they wouldn’t, but there is still I think a strong possibility that they will. Why? Apart from the importance of the case to them, there is a strong possibility that an appeal presided over by a green judge would succeed. One possible weakness of the decisions in favour of Peter Ridd is that the foundation for every single one them is the same clause 14 – knock it over once at it’s knocked over for all.
But something which I think JCU knows that they are up against is that the pockets of honest citizens, via GoFundMe, are way way deeper than theirs.
Many congratulations, Peter Ridd, I hope the decision holds and the JCU swamp can be totally drained – oh yes, and that the SMH report it properly.
This ruling being the crack in the dike, I’m betting the uni needs to appeal until the ruling is overturned or they run out of appeals processes.
I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know Oz law, but in the US, a District court is given huge defference on findings of fact; US appeals courts focus on legal principles, generally not facts.
Rock on!! Maybe Mark Steyn will be next!
WOOHOO!!!
Expect NOTHING from the MSM, especially here in Australia
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/james-cook-professors-sacking-ruled-unlawful/news-story/bd3c0e40c9e8d7f8b7bcf06461bccfa6
A Federal Court judge has ruled that James Cook University acted unlawfully when it sacked professor Peter Ridd after he publicly criticised the institution and one of its star scientists over claims about the impact global warming had on the Great Barrier Reef…
Let us see if the ABC, The Sydney Herald, The Age, and The Guardian follow.
Nothing on line as of 18:30 today 16th April.
If and when they do my prediction is it will be characterised as a technical victory with no reflection on the substance of what Peter had said re the so called science. Wrap the turd in brown paper and put a ribbon on it.
ABC on line has an article submitted at about 8 or 9 pm on 16th April. Quite balanced.
The journalist is based in Brisbane so outside the Sydney-Melbourne leftard echo chamber.
This is amazing ,and unexpected precisely because it is Brisbane.
Don’t hold your breath on that .
Yes, and let’s see if they publish with integrity.
And of course CBC’s Quirks and Quarks did an interview with Terry Hughes last week with nary a mention of the challenges to his particular brand of junk science. Knowing the depths of PC corruption in CBC, it would not be too cynical to suppose this was a preemptive strike to save the image of one of their poster boys of despair.
I am sure that The Australian (a Murdoch paper) will give it a lot of editorial space.
Unfortunately the link to the Australian news report on this story appears to be pay walled.
The Australian is pay walled.
The article in “The Australian” is paywalled but there are ways to get round this. The news is front page in the Townsville Bulletin, and is being covered by Sky News Australia, where JCU’s disgraceful treatment of Dr Robert Carter will be covered again. A ruling of unlawful on SEVENTEEN items is not something that can be swept under the carpet.
Here’s a rough copy of what I have gleaned so far.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/35bgmuvcjlowyl3/Peter%20Ridd%20wins.pdf?dl=0
Oh they will sweep it under the carpet alright. Just seventeen technicalities folks. Nothing to see there.
The Australian is right of centre. So you get some reason. SMH etc etc…forget it!
SMH? Aptly named.
An editorial piece on this case and its impact by Andrew Bolt is currently accessible (16Apr 10:15UTC) on the Courier Mail front page.
https://www.couriermail.com.au/
[It works if you bring up the front page and click on the article, but if you try to save or send the URL and replay it, it will bring up a paywall.]
Yes Australian MSM is different cos just as Fix have Tucker Carlson, Australian Murdoch group have Andrew Bolt who always pushes back against the libmob.
and is hence is hated by them , but is extremely popular with millions of people.
Still this Oz court outcome is a surprise cos here in the UK media/courts routinely STITCH-UP people not conforming to metroliberal bubbleworld.
Yay!
I hope that they don’t appeal, or if they do, that they lose again.
You do not get to relitigate the case. You have to show that the judge made a serious error in judgment or reached a conclusion not based on the case. If the judge in the court type of case is given wide discretion, like they are in divorce court, then appeal is astronomically impossible. The judge can shut that down by demanding defendant post a large bond they forfeit if they do not prevail on appeal.
JCU has resources that may make a relitigation possible. They also got the manpower. Never underestimate the enemy.
Peter managed to raise A$260k in a matter of days…before closing the funding himself. I doubt that JCU would be stupid enough to bet more money on winning an appeal.
I’d put in more cash for Peter if they tried and I’d bet he could easily raise a mill given just a month or so. This case has travelled world wide now.
Don’t forget his court costs are likely to be paid back too.
The university is already looking down the barrel of a huge payout plus there legal fees they have spent and they may still be ruled to have to re-employee Peter Ridd.
Hard to accept JCU will be influenced by money.
Remember, all JCU bureaucrats are spending Other People’s Money. JCU doesn’t really “make money” in the corporate sense; they simply ask the legislature for more.
@Non Nomen
It is not a normal court you can’t just appeal and it doesn’t matter how much money or how many lawyers you employee you can’t do what you can’t do .. read the relevant law.
Donald Kasper above stated the position correctly you would need exceptional circumstances to hear an appeal and it goes back to the same court.
Never underestimate the enemy. Does “fabrication” mean something to you?
It’s one reason why he paid the price of a QC.
All 17 University findings ruled unlawful. That is the sweet taste of victory, alright!
Sincere congratulations!
Superb result! Justice & common sense prevails! Thank you, Judge Vasta!
How many appeals could the James Cook University afford to launch against this legally crushing finding?
It would not surprise me if they continue appealing until they get the judge they want.
As per above you can’t appeal. All you could do is seek leave to appeal if there was some really really bad miscarriage like a fact no-one knew. As stands the finding is to string for the Uni to be given the right to appeal.
*strong not string 🙂
And “too” not “to”.
JCU has an annual budget of AUD 113.6 mio.
If I were a student, I’d kick the Chancellor and his bad advisors in their academic a*se for squandering my tuition fees.
Popcorn? Beer? BBQ?
Excellent result!
I will be surprised if the university don’t appeal and try to whittle away Peter’s funds. We might need another round of crowd funding to support him.
I’ll be in.
#Me2 – The finger up to JCU
This is the bit of the legal document that meant most to me:
Sorry about the formatting C&P issues.
The Concept of Intellectual Freedom
6.Intellectual freedom is also known as academic freedom. It is a concept that underpins universities and institutions devoted to higher learning. Obviously such institutions must have administrators that care for the governance and proper direction of the institution. However, the mission of these institutions must undoubtedly be the search for knowledge which leads to a quest for truth. In reality, intellectual freedom is the cornerstone of this core mission of all institutions of higher learning.
7.This is so because it allows ideas to conflict with each other; to battle and test each other. It is within this “battle” that the strengths and weaknesses of ideas are found out. In this process, there comes “learning”. And with learning comes discovery.
8.At its core, intellectual freedom mandates that academics should express their opinions openly and honestly, while inviting scrutiny and debate about those ideas. Unless opinions are expressed in this way, the growth and expression of ideas will be stifled and new realms of thinking will cease to be explored. That will lead to intellectual and social stagnation and a uniformity of thought which is an anathema to the concept of higher learning and social progress.
9.Intellectual freedom allows academics to challenge the status quo and encourage critical analysis. History tells of many people who did so.
10.During the last 160 years, arguably the two most prominent scientists/academics to challenge the status quo have been Charles Darwin and Albert Einstein. The ideas brought forth by both of these men were extremely controversial and offended several of their academic peers as well as many others in the greater society.
‘Peter had spoken against the accepted orthodoxy…’
“The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” —
– George Orwell
I’ll be in for 50 Aussies
Watch Peter’s GoFundMe page for any updates.
The university should be required to publish a full account of the whole business so everyone can see their manoeuvres. With the full judgement attached.
Is that legal in Australia? I’d recommend an independent review board should do that, not JCU.
Congratulations Peter and support team.
Excellent! I always like it when David beats Goliath.
Yes!!!!
As a contributor to his legal fund I am overjoyed!!
What excellent news!
Wonderful for Peter and for the Cause of Truth! Well Done All. Brett Keane, NZ
Great news.
Shouldn’t Peter Ridd get costs awarded as well?
yes , next steps, this is just the judgement
costs, reputational damage, income foregone, personal damages and probably stuff I havent dreamt of
Don’t forget global damages inflicted on the science community at large and the senses. And then there were the damages to tour operators from the unofficial boycott of Australia as a travel destination.
They are facing a bucket load of damages which will be ruled on and likely be ordered to re-instate him. If they refuse that (they can) they face an even harsher set of damages.
IMO he will be offered re-instatement. If it were me I would refuse.
Oh, no, no, no, a thousand times no! Accept reinstatement. Walk around campus smiling sweetly. When asked about the issue, continue to smite the liars (‘Reefers’ and their administration toadies) loudly and to the media outlets. He has a free pass now to be as publicly obnoxious as he wants.
And don’t tell me he should play nice. Payback is a Bitch.
I am 100% with you.
Absolutely agree. No time to go softly on them now.
On Edwin Armstrong: There is doubt he invented FM. It’s just that David Sarnoff managed to steal it aided by an incompetent Supreme Court decision.
https://www.damninteresting.com/the-tragic-birth-of-fm-radio/
Oops, that got filed in the wrong spot. Combination of my cluelessness and the blog software. Sorry.
Also, I meant to say there is no doubt.
Remind me not to hurry getting off to work….
There are so many great articles on that site it’s unbelievable. Surprised that I hadn’t read that one before.
> Shouldn’t Peter Ridd get costs awarded as well?
See point 2 in the court order. “… adjourned to a date to be fixed.”
Cue the MSM to report something like that it’s a “tragic day for science”, or similar.
Excellent, I wonder what the clowns at JCU will make of this. The spin will be epic.
Wonderful news for Peter and freedom of speech. But never underestimate these con merchants.
Bravo Peter … a big win today for science … and the scientific method.
Hopefully a shot heard ’round the world …
A.Scott is correct,it is as big a result for the integrity of science as it is for Peter.Congratulations Peter,i hope you are recompensed appropriately and you can do your best to put this whole sorry episode behind you and enjoy life going forward.
It could be that this will push Dr. Ridd into the position of an anti-‘Reefer’ activist. [Am I wrong in believing that the word ‘Reefer’ in reference to the rent-seekers is my creation?]
If we are called Climate Deniers, it seems appropriate that Peter would now be called a Reef Denier. And a successful one at that.
Marvellous news! Congratulations to Peter, his family, his support team.
Thank You So Much Peter for making the stand against corruption in our Universities, Sadly they where once a place of great learning ,they seem to have become a place of of corrupt conformity.