From The Institute of Public Affairs
High Court To Decide On Peter Ridd Free Speech Case
The Institute of Public Affairs has today welcomed the historic judgement of the High Court in the case of James Cook University (JCU) v Peter Ridd, which has given Dr Peter Ridd special leave to bring on his final appeal.
“This will be the most significant test case for academic freedom in a generation to be settled by the highest court in the land,” said Gideon Rozner, Director of Policy at the IPA.
“Today’s decision continues the David vs Goliath battle on the fundamental issue of freedom of speech, against a university administration backed by millions of taxpayer dollars,” said Mr Rozner.
Dr Peter Ridd, a professor of physics at JCU, was sacked by the university for serious misconduct for questioning the climate change science in the IPA’s publication Climate Change: The Facts 2017 around the Great Barrier Reef, and for public statements made on the Jones & Co program on Sky News Australia.
“James Cook University has engaged some of the most expensive legal representation in the country to stifle the free speech of one of its own staff, despite crying poor about university funding in the wake of coronavirus. It creates a massive chilling effect for any academic engaging in public debate in Australia,” said Mr Rozner
“James Cook University’s shameful actions prove without doubt there is a crisis of free speech at Australian Universities. Many academics are censured, but few are prepared to speak out and risk their career, particularly if faced with the prospect of legal battles and possible bankruptcy.”
The IPA called on the Senate to pass the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 which would ensure the dismissal of an academic like Dr Peter Ridd can never happen again.
“The cases of Peter Ridd at James Cook University, Drew Pavlou at the University of Queensland and pressure on academics across the country on policy matters related to China have highlighted without doubt that there is a free speech crisis at Australian universities,” said Mr Rozner.
“The case has identified a culture of censorship when it comes to challenging claims surrounding climate change and the Great Barrier Reef. JCU to this date has never attempted to disprove claims made by Dr Ridd about the Great Barrier Reef,” said Mr Rozner.
Listen to The Heretic: Inside Peter Ridd’s fight for freedom of speech on climate change at www.ipa.org.au/TheHeretic
One step forward.
Yes, a positive development on principle.
This is particularly bad, as Dr Ridd was making an accurate disagreement with another researcher at the same University. Instead of arguing with him, they fired him.
They fire, as opposed to argue, because they believe themselves to be the sole possessors of “The Truth,” and can make no solid or sensible counter-argument to what Dr. Ridd is saying. Disturbing is what it really is.
Larry,
Agreed, it is disturbing. A minor point, however if I may…
It sounds like you are ascribing pure motives to “they”, in that they are protecting “The Truth”, even though many of us have seen so many reasons they are wrong. That is probably a reflection of your mindset (i.e. you seek out truth and that informs your actions and opinions). For me personally, I don’t ascribe any morality and pure motive to the actions of climate racketeers anymore. I’ve seen through their smokescreen. The events over the last decade, and especially the last two years, have me absolutely convinced the folks actually pulling the strings have zero purity in their motives and likely know beyond doubt that this whole CAGW thing (or whatever we are supposed to call it this month) is false. I’m not fooled anymore–“they” are evil, greedy, bast@rds. Everything is proceeding according to plan for the globalists and the leftists and China. There are many useful tools who actually believe this CAGW sh!t as a result of the global mis-information campaign and brainwashing of children in schools, but those in charge very likely do not. It’s about power, control of us fools, and money–not truth. If we don’t start fighting (legally and politically)with everything we have now, the world will go through a dark age for most of us that we haven’t seen for close to a millennium. The ones pulling the strings will be fine–you and I and our descendants, toast.
+10^42
Skeptic,
We believers in the real science of an ever changing climate must distinguish between the priesthood and laity of the High Church of Climastrology! The millions of useful idiots that actually think CO2 is harmful are just the brainwashed masses that have never questioned the lies and propaganda they are fed by their teachers and the media!
The high priests of the church, like Mikey Mann and James Hansen, know they are pushing lies but seem more than eager to sell out humanity for their Danegeld! How someone like Hansen can live with himself is beyond the ken of rational beings! The graph of the global surface temperature anomaly from his 2008 study contradicts ALL the claims made by alarmists! We are still in the midst of an Ice Age and these lunatics want us to worry about a few degrees of warming that is mostly taking place in temperate and polar regions!
I think we should distinguish between those who are entirely political activists and those who suffer from a messiah complex.
Yes, Abolition Man, I agree.
I think I clearly did distinguish between the brainwashed useful tools and the leaders pulling the strings…you might re-read my message.
“There are many useful tools who actually believe this CAGW sh!t as a result of the global mis-information campaign and brainwashing of children in schools, but those in charge very likely do not.“
Methinks you ‘misregard’ the capital T in “Truth”. There is truth, then there is “Truth”, the kind you learn in montessori school, where we vote on truth and majority concensus determines the Truth.
This is a religious thing. The climastrologists have Holy Writ to evangelise, and any word counter to that, is, by definition, blasphemy. You know how the priesthood traditionally treats AntiChrisists…
People are slow to accept that political, economic and social theories are purely religious in nature, just like it is hard to accept that all political parties are mafia gangs. Especially when you realise the Green Party is a party.
Agreed. You must read and listen to the same science I tend to gravitate toward. I lived through the 1970’s coming global ice age while the ring masters were pulling our attention to the all holy Weather maps and their new handy dandy Weather satellite images. The ice age kinda melted away due to the “Hole in the Ozone”, and after much study and contemplation from the Space Lab and shuttle flights, it was determined the hole was closing as the earth healed itself. But then the hole reappeared, and after much consternation, it was determined to be a natural phenomena and we turned the page. Still, the CFC’s had to go to protect the Ozone Layer. Whatever that means. By then, we had a growing armchair community of climatologists, meteorologist, Ret. Astronauts, astrologist, astrophysicists, astronomers and all kinda disciplined Nature and NOVA watchers (now complete with their NPR science disciplined minds and opinions), began crowing loudly at the crisis of Global Warming. After much about nothing and many flights around the globe, the ‘climate modeling’ became the edge of the sword for the fight against the climate warming. This went on until the modelers were outed for their lies, and we discovered the whole of the crisis was a lie. Silence ensued for a short time. Then we were told ‘We really, really mean it this time, the climate, it’s changing”. And now the planet is on a 9 year countdown to The end of life on planet earth, “the polar caps are melting and the seas are rising.” As we watch the special people like BHO, Al Gore and Mr. “I served in Vietnam” John Carry buy multi million dollar properties on both coasts. Hmmmm? It’s like a bad movie but it’s real.
Add DDT and “Silent Spring” to your list of bogus science. That one only killed about 50 million in Africa over the decades due to malaria after the US strong-armed countries to not use it to kill malaria carrying mosquitoes. If you haven’t looked closely at that one, you should.
Establishment defense of man-made climate change avoids debating facts. Instead they claim to ‘trust the experts’; which is actually an argument from authority, AfA. The worst thing about AfA is it allows people to think they hold a view (‘believe in climate change’) without holding a view. Because they do not know any facts about the matter; technically they do no have a view!, they just echo a mantra.
It’s a very disturbing situation that the elites (especially in media and academia) think themselves possessing truth, when they are actually deeply ignorant on climate matters. A monumental dumbing down of academia.
The REAL meaning of the term:
‘I believe in climate change‘, IBICC, is
‘I believe we must do something to stop people interfering with the climate; so I’m voting for that left-wing politician.‘
IBICC is an assertion of moral superiority over other people. It is not an assertion of belief nor understanding. This is why they cannot debate it. They don’t know themselves that their position is ‘normative’. AKA that they take a moral stance which they believe to be the only one they can take. Any discussion of climate change is an attack on their morality. They can’t handle it. So don’t debate.
Wasn’t it the James Cook University that also canceled the late Prof. Bob Carter for his views challenging the “settled consensus science” dogma that promotes agw and pervades academia?
This place has form.
A writer at the New York Times has been producing editorials in which he demands that Fox News be removed from the air waves.
They argue that this is not a “freedom of speech” issue. It’s a “suppression of lies” issue.
According to the left, the government has an absolute right and responsibility to suppress lies. And of course the government is also responsible for determining what is a lie and what isn’t.
How long till they get enough supreme court justices to buy into the argument that freedom of speech doesn’t protect “lies”?
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-why-left-wants-to-shut-down-fox-news
They don’t need to involve SCOTUS at all, just get the cable companies to dump Fox, or anyone else who doesn’t adhere to rightthink. “Private companies” and all, so no First Amendment issue to even worry about a challenge. We’re seeing it already with twitbook, and we’ve seen similar patterns even in the science and medical journals.
The big problem today is, of course, that so many claims of “fact”, “truth”, or “lie” is actually just someone’s opinion, conjecture, or guess. The dangers of putting anybody, least of all the government, in charge of determining what is “truth” and what is “lies” or “disinformation” are manifold. Personally I believe that many (most?) things said on CNN are, at best, misrepresentations of reality and at worst lies; however I would bitterly oppose any effort to silence them either by government action or the collusion of private enterprises. To support the censorship of others is to relinquish your own right to free speech.
This is the first time I have ever seen progressive socialists pretend to fight fascism by eliminating freedom of speech. They don’t even hide their agendas anymore.
As Hayek noted Socialism is inevitably Totalitarian and the worst, most venal, people will rise to the top by their ruthless thirst for power. Are we not there?
Cancel Culture for the Left’s March to Socialism knows no borders.
It was once predicted that the errors of Russia would spread throughout the World. Are we there yet?
Goliath needs to take a thumping for its cowardice and gold lust at any price behavior. It’s many layers of pomp and greed need a good shaking and a court-monitored reform plan.
The individual university officials that pushed for destroying Dr Ridd should be made to pay the cost of this case. Taxpayers should not have to fork out the money. That would send a clear message to future attempts to politically persecute dissenting scientists.
JCU – cowardly bullies.
Giving Dr. Ridd a substantial sum (for me) for his legal expenses is turning out to be one of my best climate investments.
Ditto. I regard my contributions as “work related expenses”. This happened on my patch. There are several individuals and “agencies” locally who will take advantage if JCU prevails.
I too, like many others around the world, have made financial contributions to his case. As you say a good and most necessary investment for us all if we value free speech at all.
However, I’m not sure we should treat this latest news as a ‘big victory’ just yet…I see it as a stay of execution, but most sincerely hope I’m wrong. The University has access to limitless funds which they have no shame in spending on this ridiculous matter.
Absolutely, my donation has returned dividends too numerous to calculate
I invested a small sum, and have an email today that the current required amount has been reached so donations are paused for the moment.
“High Court To Decide On Peter Ridd Free Speech Case”
Considering the way things have been going recently, I’m not looking forward to a bright future.
“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever. George Orwell”
What will make JCU change its behavior is not shame (they feel no guilt or remorse, so they’re not going to be feeling any shame either, and would do it again, if they could get away with it …). What will make them change back to a functional JCU administration and science faculty is a massive hit to JCU’s financial accounts from the totally unnecessary legal costs, and a large personal damages payout to Peter Ridd.
Then JCU will stop suppressing actual scientific debates between science academics and stay out of it completely, as they always should have.
i.e the fear of institutionally dangerous financial losses is what will make them stop interfering to bias debate and pick winners and losers, attempting to destroy professional careers for JCU’s own venal interests stemming from preventing real scientific debate from occurring, to sort the wheat from chaff.
Maybe. They get substantial Aus funding for their bogus GBR research. Same ‘climate racketeering’ problem as in US academia. Think Penn State will fire Mann when Steyn wins? Nope.
No, he will get an award for copensation, you may bookmark my words.
If he’s still viable (e.g. influence, conformity), probably a promotion, too. You have to give them credit for taking binary stands on their positions, if not on principles.
I just re-read the WUWT story about Steyn’s filing for a summary judgment. Apparently there is a ruling that Steyn’s supposedly defamatory article was about the university’s inadequate investigations into its employees including Sandusky and Mann. I’m guessing that can’t possibly be good for Mann’s case.
Of course Penn State will not fire their only Nobel prizewinner
It is great news that the High Court will take up Dr. Ridd’s case against James Cook University. But of course, it does not yet guarantee the kind of result that would restore Dr. Ridd to his position and remove this serious infringement upon academic freedom.
The High Court would do well to remember that an infringement upon one person’s freedom of speech is an infringement upon everyone else’s freedoms as well. Especially in the realm of science, where rigorous debate and dissent is necessary to the advancement of science and of society as well.
Unless, of course, those who would return us to a medieval, absolute state of monarchy (i.e., radical environmentalists) are allowed to prevail.
It is certainly not the outcome JCU wanted for the High Court to grant a hearing. Their angst is probably at Level 10 right now.
Stuart Wood QC on behalf of Dr.Ridd argued on Thursday that while his client had spoken “hard truths” and breached the University’s Code of Conduct by making “disrespectful comments” about his colleagues,he should have been protected by the intellectual freedom clause in his contract.
” The Court should be very troubled by the facts of this case,” he said.” The commitment from the University to protect academic freedom was resiled from and Dr. Ridd was punished for doing what he should be doing”.
Mr. Wood said the purpose of the clause was to allow academics to “ robustly exchange ideas without being censured ….as long as you don’t harass, bully, vilify or intimidate.”
JCU’s barrister, Brett Walker SC said both the code of conduct and enterprise agreement should not be read in isolation and together supported intellectual freedom within a framework of treating colleagues with respect.
” It’s a long bow indeed that….behaving with respect for others, is incongruent to the exercise of intellectual freedom”, he said.
This conflict is not limited to Australian Universities but is vital for academic freedom worldwide.
It should be recalled that Dr.Ridd’s sacking originated in his publication of “The Extraordinary Resilience of Great Barrier Reef Corals, and Problems with Policy Science”,( as supported by comments made him on TV and radio).
Is it reasonable to believe that Dr.Ridd should be prevented from publishing such a paper critical of his university colleagues in an area where he has decades of experience?
Does a difference of opinion now constitute “disrespectful conduct” by saying others’ views are wrong?
If it does, as Dr.Ridd’s barrister acknowledges, the code of conduct is anathema to academic freedom.
How can the paper be “congruent” with “respectful conduct” in such a regime?
Progressives have a long history of declaring that any speech they disagree with is hate speech, which must be banned and the speaker heavily punished.
Gina Carano was recently removed from the cast of “The Mandalorian” because she compared the treatment of conservatives today, to that of Jews in 1930’s Germany. According to Disney, this kind of anti-semitic language has no place in their company.
On the other hand, a liberal actor compared the treatment of illegal aliens under Trump to the treatment of Jews in 1930’s Germany. Disney had no problem with this comparison.
They should be made to wear red “H” letters on their clothing—for hypocrisy (j/k).
“On the other hand, a liberal actor compared the treatment of illegal aliens under Trump to the treatment of Jews in 1930’s Germany. Disney had no problem with this comparison.”
It wasn’t just a liberal actor, it was the star of The Mandolorian himself. Frightful double standard.
tps://pbs.twimg.com/media/Et_7iBHXEAAmGgJ?format=jpg&name=large
I hope i dont get in trouble for links – but that is the post of pedro pascal as mentioned above. I hope Gina sues disney for all they are worth. you will need the ht obv
Agreed x1,000. What exactly was “anti-semitic” about commenting about the persecution of conservatives being in a similar vein to the persecution of Jews in 1930s Germany? And as you pointed out, why was the same type of comparison by a “liberal” actor not similarly deemed “anti-semitic,” if it was deemed to be an “exaggeration” that understated the plight of Jews in 1930s Germany?!
Furthermore, their reaction (in particular given the inconsistent treatment of someone else drawing a similar comparison) was a fine example of exactly what she was talking about!
There is a breed of leftist who believe that what happened to the Jews was somehow uniquely evil and that any comparisons to it lessen the horror of the Holocaust.
Unfortunately, if you examine history, you will find that the only difference between what Hitler did, and what has happened before and since was the scale. But leftists don’t teach history anymore.
Moreover, one might also argue that it is “disrespectful conduct” for other JCU staff members to publish junk science about the GBR that contradicts the actual science of staff members who have more expertise on the subject and whose positions are supported empirically.
sense and sensibility appears on the horizon,
just heading back to the go fund me site now
I fear for the outcome.
Ultimately the courts will bend to whatever the politicians want. They may hold out for a few years, but since the politicians appoint the judges, the result is inevitable.
This is why we can never get an alarmist into a public debate. they simply can’t win with Platonic/Aristotelian logic
Why is the title of this article “Big Victory in War of Academic Freedom”. There is no victory at all here yet. HOPEFULLY the Court will rule in Ridd’s favor, but as of right now that remains just a hope.
Had the High Court denied him the right to be heard, the headline would have read “Big Defeat…”
Ultimate victories are generally preceded by incremental victories, some small, some big.
What remains is not “just a hope”; it is also a possibility, which would not exist without this prior “Big Victory”.
That was my first impression, I thought the headline meant he had won, had been awarded compensation for his troubles and lost income and JCU had paid up. It won’t be a victory of any kind until that happens.
Yep! … unfortunately.
The present situation is merely avoidance of defeat. Victory is dependent on the final judgement.
Cardinal Pell?
Wow, I feel good that the few bucks I sent in have been effective.
“Listen to the Heretic”??
While some Climate Scammers might call me a Denier, I consider myself a Climate Blasphemer. I don’t deny CO2 is a noncondensing GHG. The chemistry-physics of its molecular vibrational modes tells us it is.
So I accept that the weak GHG-CO2 hypothesis has considerable evidence. But I have never been part of the Climate Orthodoxy and that requires accepting the divinations of Climate Dowsers and their strong GHG-CO2 hypothesis. Thus I cannot be a heretic.
Folks like Pilke, Jr and Lomborg, being self-proclaimed, are part of the Climate Orthodoxy and thus are heretics when they publish articles outside of mainstream climate orthodoxy of alarmism. Their publications are heretical on the climate scam.
so let’s get our perjorative labels straight.
Joel,
I like to think of myself as a proud skeptic; a requirement for scientific advance as the centuries have shown us! I’m happy to be called an heretic or a blasphemer; just don’t try to call me a denier!
About the only thing I’ll deny is the sanity and intelligence of anyone who buys into the cult of Climastrology and it’s related sects like Marxism and Progressivism!
And the empirical observations of the Earth’s climate history tells us that it doesn’t matter.
Atmospheric CO2 has never, does not, and will never “drive” the Earth’s climate, or even “contribute” any “warming,” because the “greenhouse effect,” to the extent it is valid, is driven by water vapor, not CO2 or any other “greenhouse gas.”
Hypothetically, increasing CO2 levels would result in warmer temperatures, all other things held equal. That’s all they have – an academic exercise which should never form the basis of policy. Here in the real world, “all other things” are NOT “held equal,” the “feedbacks” are net negative, and the bottom line significance of atmospheric CO2 levels is inseparable from zero.
Just because there are bigger GHG’s is not evidence that CO2 is not also a GHG.
As long as it is a GHG, it will contribute to “warming”. The amount may be to small to discern in our chaotic climate, but it is there.
Conjectured but never proven or observed. Prove me a downwelling mechanism and then we’ll talk.
This is good news and we can hope the High Court rules in Dr. Ridd’s favor as such a positive ruling will support academic freedom around the world. In the current climate of cancel culture, any blow for honesty and integrity is a positive move.
The simple fact that ” High Court To Decide On Peter Ridd Free Speech Case” is sufficient to prove that science has lost. This is a very sad day indeed…….
Science is not a person, or a collection of people, it is a process by which we attempt to discover how the universe works. Thus your assertion that “science has lost” is nonsense. This case isn’t even about the truth or falsity of Dr. Ridd’s claims; in fact JCU has never refuted them or even said they were false. No, their complaint is that he spoke up at all. How dare he point out the false statements of those other researchers, JCU scolded, that’s just not very nice!
Dear Paul Penrose: I meant the fact that a university where the scientific methodology is taught (I hope) needs to silence a collaborator and thereby potentially changing a process ” to discover how the universe works” is a sad event.
The podcast “The Heretic” by the Institute of Public Affairs is excellent. There are 3 episodes, about 30 minutes each, well worth your time, IMO.
The JCU appeal of their momentous slap-down by the lower court and in favor of Peter Ridd, is what I call Peak Ass-Hattery. I’m proud to have donated a couple of times to Peter Ridd’s legal expenses over this period of James Cook University’s gigantic foot bullet. If the HIgh Court rules against Peter, or if the University loses and still obstructs and refuses to pay, the last tattered shreds of JCU scientific credibility will be gone forever, and Australia’s reputation as a free country will be seriously wounded. JCU will need a name change to help people forget about this bullshit episode before they can claim to want new serious STEM students. I urge prospective students NOT to apply at JCU. If you’ve already applied, write and tell them to withdraw your name, and that you won’t go to a school that behaves this way. I urge all alumni to stop giving to this corrupt institution and write for refunds and explain that they will be stoned out until this stops.
Oh, and all you Aussies, go see the reef for yourself and stop believing the bloviating nonsense spewed by these alarmist CAGW idiots!
col·le·gi·al (kə-lē′jē-əl, -jəl)
adj.
1. Full of or conducive to good will among colleagues; friendly and respectful: an office with a collegial atmosphere.
2.
a. Characterized by or having power and authority vested equally among colleagues: “He … prefers a collegial harmony that will present him with a consensus on the issues”
So sad to see an institution of higher learning stray so far they become an enemy of free speech and thought. The very opposite of collegial.
Good. A reason to stop funding academics operations out of taxpayer pockets.