Dr. Peter Ridd sens this update via email:
The court just announced that we have been awarded around $1.2 million (provisional on submissions).
This case was always about academic freedom.
It was a fight that should never have started in the first place.
I have worked for 35 years on the Great Barrier Reef, and my genuinely held belief is that there are systemic quality assurance problems at GBR science institutions. I had a right, a duty, to say this. JCU have still not accepted this fundamental right despite the importance of the debate to the North Queensland region.
The case shows the importance of strong clauses in Enterprise Agreements that were negotiated by the union, and relied upon in court. It also shows the importance of the federal government’s initiatives, such as the French Review, to require universities to behave like universities. If JCU appeals it casts doubt that academic freedom is part of their DNA as they often insist.
An appeal will continue the huge and pointless legal costs. JCU admit to spending well over $600K, although we suspect their true costs are far higher. The legal costs to my wife and I is around $200K. This is on top of the $260K that was donated to us in the crowd funding campaign. Our intention is to re-donate the $260K to assist with science quality and academic freedom initiatives but this will have to wait until any appeal is finished. I should add that under the Fair Work Act each side usually pays their own legal fees.
As ever I am very grateful to those who supported this cause. JCU has three weeks to appeal. If they appeal, regrettably I will likely have to call upon this support again. Until any prospective appeal is finalised, we will not be in a position to access the court payout. My lawyers say it is a landmark case so it is imperative that we continue the fight if necessary.
I’d like to thank my excellent legal team Stuart Wood AM QC, Ben Jellis, Ben Kidston, Mitchell Downes and Amelia Hasson. Also, without the support of the IPA especially Jennifer Marohasy, John Roskam, Gideon Roezner and Matthew Lesh, this would not have been possible
Lastly and most importantly I’d like to thank my wife Cheryl. She suffered most but was always rock-solid in support.
The link to the Judge’s reason is below.
https://platogbr.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/ridd-v-james-cook-university-no.2-2019-fcca-2489.pdf
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“My lawyers say it is a landmark case”…….
I bet this will be the head line news on the MSM channels…..NOT !
Has anyone among Mr Ridd’s false accusers been sacked, or disciplined in any way? Has any meaningful inquiry into the conduct of JCU been instigated? Is Mr Ridd likely to ever work again in his field of expertise and passion? Indeed, is he likely to ever be re-employed anywhere in Academia — apart from some obscure fringe facility? Is there any reason to expect that the quality of research conducted at JCU will improve as a result of this case?
It will be interesting to revisit this scene a year after the legal dust has settled. We shall then see who is still standing and who has been swept away to impotent irrelevance.
Tertiary educational institutions are now run so that academics have ‘skin in the game’ and must tailor their research and published opinions to whatever rewards them best. While this model continues, so will routine academic prostitution. Climate Science is by no means alone in this predicament. To view this as some kind of LEFT WING creation requires the wearing of glasses even more heavily distorted than those evidently worn by Theodore Parker.
Only dissenters get sacked from Aussie universities.
Anyone now or in the future considering becoming a benefactor—or continuing contributions—to JCU should bail out of this despicable institution. It does not merit the title “institution of higher learning.”
THAT is one of the most direct ways to punish the institution, and thereby its governing administration and guilty professors, that brought this judgment onto themselves. I do feel some sympathy for the innocent people (students, professors and university staff) that would be “collateral damage” under such action, but there appear to be many better places to study and work than JCU.
JCU Vice Chancellor Sandra Harding has yet to resign.
https://www.jcu.edu.au/office-of-the-vice-chancellor-and-president/biography
“An economic sociologist by training….”
I had to look up what economic sociology was…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_sociology
Hmmnnn…I’m still not sure
With a salary of $940000 she is not going to resign
https://www.universityrankings.com.au/vice-chancellor-salary-packages.html
And JCU is well able to drag this affair out until it financially or psychologically breaks Peter Ridd, given that it has a surplus of 26M$ and income of 500M$
https://www.universityrankings.com.au/australian-university-revenue-surpluses.html
The academic and media establishment are completely behind JCU, so IMO (and I sincerely hope that I am wrong) an appeals court with , presumably , a different judge and subjected to the persistent anti-Ridd propaganda, will almost certainly reverse this decision.
AU$940,000?!!!!!! Yeah, she is not going anywhere. The other “benefit” not listed at that link is superannuation. It’s compulsory in Australia and is a minimum 9.5% deduction from your “salary” package. Many Aussies believe it’s the employer that pays it, well they do, they just deduct it from your package and pay it in to your fund, so it is “your” money. Many Universities go one better (Because the taxpayer pays it) with “deductions” of up to 19%. So, yeah, she isn’t going anywhere at all.
Judge’s comments say it all.
“145.
Professor Ridd has been painted as “non-collegiate”, “recalcitrant” and even “dishonest”. None of these are attributes that can be seen in this man. He has been ostracized from the academic community and accused
of “serious misconduct” and was deliberately made to feel isolated via the making of unlawful directions as to confidentiality.
146.
Then, when he took these matters to Court (as he was, in fact, challenged to do by JCU in their press release of May 2018) and was successful, the university did what it could to undermine the decision of the Court and deprive Professor Ridd of “the fruits of his victory”. It then further attempted to blacken his name.”
Is there some climate-change Quisling in JCU’s maladministration egging them on to disaster upon disaster, some secret supporter of Dr. Ridd? No other explanation seems possible, for no sane person would inflict such self-harm on themselves or their institution.
Well played Sir. Congratulations.
Climate Alarmism Crisis!
Criminal Board members. I criticized them- got bashed by police- put in jail.
Hat’s off the Dr Ridd and his loyal wife who has clearly suffered a lot throughout this ordeal. If it goes to appeal, they should ask for damages for her too.
Thank you, Dr Ridd and your family.
The world is growing a bitter divide between the groupthink PC “consensus” and the individual investigative, quality assured thinkers.
Grouthink is the ideology of every single terror regime from Hitler to Mao, from Isis to the IRA. It recruits on the basis that you are either with us … or the enemy. It hates diversity, it hates people who can think, it hates … well it just hates.
Individualism, is an ideology that respects diversity, which believes in freedom of speech particularly for views we disagree with and sees no individual as our enemy, the enemy is the consensus groups that delude them.
Hitler (the National Socialist) got to power through the big lie, through the delusion of the masses, by finding an “enemy” in the jews to attack. The climate cult is from the same stable. It is based on one enormous lie of catastrophic cliamte change, it uses the press to delude the masses, and its intentionally constructs a totally bogus “enemy” in the form of the “fossil fuel funded climate deniers”.
Hitler first took over the media, then he took over the courts and then he destoyed Europe in a totally senseless action. At least this judgement shows that the groupthink climate cult haven’t (yet) taken over the courts.
Wow! Well said!!
I am sad to say that the Australian media is awash with climate alarmist articles, even ones like this;
https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/literally-pathetic-trump-blasted-for-fake-map-as-dorian-pounds-carolinas-20190906-p52oio.html
And this;
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/four-injured-cars-damaged-after-tree-falls-on-hume-highway-20190906-p52ot9.html
And this;
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/residents-in-northern-nsw-told-too-late-to-leave-as-fires-burn-out-of-control-20190906-p52oqw.html
Although no direct statement, there is always the underlying “story” that these events are the new normal as a direct result of climate change.
Well done Peter – you must be so pleased with what the Judge said about you!
“Pofessor Ridd has given evidence before me on two occasions. I have
found him to be scrupulously honest. He is a person who does not make
statements lightly and there is genuine conviction in what he says. The
passion he has for his work and for the Great Barrier Reef is plain for all
to see.
144. There is no malice or vindictiveness in Professor Ridd’s manner. He has
sought to debate matters of public significance via a legitimate true
scientific process where ideas are matched against each other in the
search for truth. This is at the heart of intellectual freedom. That freedom
is all that Professor Ridd has ever sought to exercise. He would have
continued to do so but for the myopic and unjustified actions of his
lifelong employer.”
What a character reference…. And castigation for JCU
Indeed
If the Australian court system of jurisprudence is anything like the one we have
in the United States, any appeal by JCU of part or all of Judge Vasta’s ruling in
RIDD v JAMES COOK UNIVERSITY (No.2) will begin to set tangible legal
precedents for other Aussie public/private employers in general and the
universities in particular.
Assuming an appeal by JCU is permitted,”academic freedom” will not be
the only issue impacted.
Doesn’t work like that, details and the exact law references are above. There is a whole process you have to go thru to seek leave to appeal you are not granted the right to an automatic appeal.
What part of “Assuming an appeal by JCU is permitted…” did you not
understand?
Actually an article the SMH;
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/damaged-goods-professor-awarded-1-2m-for-uni-s-unlawful-sacking-20190906-p52op3.html
Supported your principled stand before, support your again, Peter Ridd. My few $$ a small price to pay for free enquiry.
Professor,
Very good news, and you may count on my continued support in the case of an appeal.
excellent news for Peter Ridd and the Missus;-)
we can hope the JCU mob know when to stfu n cut their losses in money and reputation
wait n see on that. I dont rate their combined IQs very highly with what we’ve seen so far
meantime Scomos got some climate related committees to get underway so Peter should be eminently qualified for that, far more so than the self created climate council started by flimflam and besties, who will push for places
as will the turkey turney now hes managed a posh job n payrise on the back of his epic disaster down sth;-(
oh if Peter lives near Stanthorpe? think he does
bad fires there just now;-( some evacuated some didnt get out in time.
waters at low low dams are dry and housetanks are being filled by bought water
One can but hope that the Federal Government appoints Peter Reed tot a
position to oversee a inquiry into the health of the GBR.
We have this committee probably set up by Julie Galliards government to do
that, and they say its in very poor condition.
If the Federal government wants to keep the tourists coming they will have to
counter that rubbish, and Professor Reed is just the man to head it.
MJE VK5ELL
Yes, he is. I say this because he has proven himself to follow the data. If the reef were indeed in bad condition and the data supported that conclusion, he would state so frankly and without overstatement. If it is in good condition as most suspect, he would say so. Finally, if it is in overall good condition, but there are areas that are being adversely impacted he would give a full account of the damage and causes, and create a suite of recommendations for mitigation including the secondary impacts of each.
I’d rather see him appointed to a position to oversee an inquiry into the health of JCU, with sufficient authority to make any changes needed.
Warmist congratulations to Peter Ridd. The “University” that mistreated him should be thoroughly ashamed of itself. This is a sterling victory for academic freedom against the narrow-minded totalitarians who have captured the universities of the West.
“Warmist” congratulations?
Looks like fine sarcasm.
I agree — a deliberate Miss Pelling.
It comes to ‘face’ in the end , just how much effort does JCU want to go to to ‘save face ‘ or will they merely let the whole thing go when the press coverage moves on.
Leftists always manage to use our own money against us in this very clever Climate fraud (and on most other battle fronts). It’s over $Trillion and counting. They have their sights on a couple $100Trillion…and control of Western political institutions.
EVERYTHING is at stake here.
The legal fees for the criminal professors and administrators at JCU are not being born by those criminals. JCU might suffer some, but the criminals will ultimately get off scott free.
Dr. Ridd must win this small battle…in this unending and bigger war against the enemies of individual freedom.
And hopefully this court case will awaken enough voters in the west to slow the momentum of the International Socialists in their fraudulent Climate Crusade.
The loss of the sacred fundamental institutional principles of free speech and academic freedoms and the free exchange of ideas IS A LINE THAT MUST BE DRAWN in the sand. Most of the leftists in Science and Academia and the Press have sold out on these fundamental freedoms. And so far they have not paid the price for this transgression. Wars have been fought over far less grievous crimes.
Great news Dr Peter Ridd. Well done on sticking it out with grit and determination.
In the Guardian article: “Vasta agreed that Ridd was “damaged goods” and had poisoned the well for Ridd’s future employment prospects.”
Something amiss here, a genuine error or done on purpose?
As usual, the Guardian is playing fast and loose with the facts. Here is the actual sentence the are referring to:
“Despite his best endeavours, however, it is difficult to shake the feeling that because of this litigation, Professor Ridd will be seen as “damaged goods” and will continue to pay a heavy price for that stereotype.”
This was in the section where the Judge was attempting to decide if Professor Ridd had made a real effort to find employment and whether he would be able to find any in the future. This goes to deciding how much the University has to pay for future losses.
I found in reading the judgement that the demands of confidentiality (a ‘gag order’) by the university to be particularly egregious, both in issuing them in the first place, and then in claiming that contravention of them was a serious breach of conduct. Such behavior prompted me to look up the history of Star Chamber proceedings, and is so completely unexpected of a university. The entire issue has a hint of someone at the university having an ‘I’ve taken down bigger men than you, Picard’ attitude.