Ridd loses: Federal Court rules that science is whatever the JCU Vice Chancellor says it is.
JCU wins the appeal on all 17 points that Justice Vasta scathingly awarded to Peter Ridd.
If, hypothetically, fraud was happening at JCU and a staff member reported it, the Australian Federal Court decision has just declared that its fine for JCU to sack that whistleblower for being uncolliegiate.
As I said, this is a case so pointless that even if JCU wins, it loses. And it has spent a fortune to win the legal battle and prove that we cannot trust anything anyone says from JCU.
This win doesn’t just tarnish the VC and admin, it taints everyone who works there. No matter what any good academic says at JCU, the world will wonder what they didn’t say. We can’t know whether they would have preferred to say something else, but couldn’t out of fear that they will be sacked because the VC might not like it.
To recap Peter Ridds crimes: he said “for your amusement” in an email once. (Illegal satire). He said “ We can no longer rely on our science institutions.” He talked about the replication crisis in science, which was borne out in research, and he spotted duplicated photos that appear to be fraudulent by a JCU researcher who was separately was found guilty of fabricating data in Sweden.
After this ruling, nothing any academic at JCU says can be trusted. Are they censoring what they really think? Is JCU riddled with incompetence but the staff won’t dare say so because they are frightened to use their emails? Is the evidence fraudulent? Could be. JCU doesn’t care if it is. They only care if they look good. Unfortunately, they look terrible. JCU has spent a fortune defending the indefensible.
Exactly how much did they burn on the pyre of their own reputation? Likely $2 million and counting.
It’s time the The Hon Dan Tehan explained why taxpayers should fund research at JCU which has no quality control, wastes money on lawyers, doesn’t investigate fraud, and does not enshrine free speech in employment contracts.
The government could fix this entire embarrassing debacle in five minutes. They just need to withhold JCU funding til the uni protects free speech — rehires Ridd, and sacks the VC Sandra Harding AO who was paid $975,000 in 2018.
Academic Freedom is “historical” because “the internet”?
The judges reasoning is essentially that academic freedom doesn’t mean freedom in academia because J S Mill, John Locke and Isiah Berlin didn’t have any facebook trolls.
From Gideon Rozner at the IPA:
… this decision has proven how serious the freedom of speech crisis on campus is. You can read the judgment here, but this part in particular – found at paragraph 94 – is absolutely unbelievable:
There is little to be gained in resorting to historical concepts and definitions of academic freedom. Whatever the concept once meant, it has evolved to take into account contemporary circumstances which present a challenge to it, including the internet, social media and trolling, none of which informed the view of persons such as J S Mill, John Locke, Isaiah Berlin and others who have written on the topic.
The judges argue that academic freedom is indispensable to universities, but is dispensable enough to toss to the wind. The right of Professors to speak is now determined by students who are demanding safe spaces where their favourite delusions can hide. The judges admit they are in uncharted territory.
Australian law is now set by teenage twitter mobs.
The court went on to quote a passage from an academic textbook that endorses the view that intellectual freedom is an outdated concept:
Academic freedom plays an indispensable role in fulfilling the mission of the university… But a host of new challenges have arisen in recent years in response to the changing norms and expectations of the university. With the increasing role of the Internet in research, the rise of social media in both professional and extramural exchanges, and student demands for accommodations such as content warnings and safe spaces, the parameters of, and challenges to, academic freedom often leave us in unchartered territory.
Jennifer Marohasy: University Appeal Upheld, Peter Ridd Loses – We all Lose
Today the University won in the Federal Court. In the judgement, Peter Ridd’s academic freedom is portrayed as his ‘personal opinion’.
It is not Peter Ridd’s personal opinion that the corals are alive, and the Great Barrier Reef resilient to climate change. It is fact. I’ve seen the coral reefs whose health is contested with my own eyes: they are very much alive.
What is dead is academic freedom in Australia.
This is not a one off. JCU has a pattern of evicting, blackbanning, and ousting people who disagree with the bureaucrats pet fashions (vale, Bob Carter!). In this culture, more funding means more strangling. So just stop.
The Peter Ridd story:
- Prof Peter Ridd says the Great Barrier Reef recovers, our science institutions are failing us.
- Professor Peter Ridd is facing misconduct charges for not selling peer review as sacred?
- JCU bans Prof Peter Ridd from criticizing scientific institutions. Defiant, he refuses, fights on!
- Professor Peter Ridd sacked: James Cook Uni goes nuclear on free speech:
- Don Aitken tells it: Peter Ridd was sacked because he threatened the Money Making Engine at Uni
- Staff at JCU are too scared to use their uni email – this is what “academic freedom” looks like?
- Fake science on fake fish from James Cook Uni?
- Peter Ridd’s Court Case — Free Speech versus James Cook Uni.
- Peter Ridd: The Great Barrier Reef has about the same amount of coral as in 1985
- JCU appeals Ridd decision: James Cook Uni vows to waste more funds in quest to stamp out opinions
- Peter Ridd update: James Cook University wasted $630,000 defending the Bureaucrat Rulers of Science, and plans to appeal
- Global Mystery: Barrier Reef dying, total panic, but no one cares enough to measure growth for last 15 years?
h/t David B, The IPA, Chris Dawson, Tom B.
On Wednesday, Judge Sarah Derrington handed down the decision of the full court and set aside the orders made by Justice Vasta.
Dr Ridd can challenge the decision in the High Court.
In a statement, Policy Director Gideon Rozner from the Institute of Public Affairs, which funded some of Dr Ridd’s legal challenge, said the judgment was a “devastating” blow for free speech.
“This judgment is devastating blow against mainstream Australians, against freedom of speech and against freedom of speech on climate change,” Mr Rozner said.
“Alarmingly, this decision shows that contractual provisions guaranteeing intellectual freedom do not protect academics against censorship by university administrators. The time has come for the Morrison government to intervene.
“This has been Australia’s David versus Goliath battle. Dr Peter Ridd on one side backed by thousands of ordinary Australians, and JCU on the other side who secured some of the most expensive legal representation in the country in Bret Walker SC to stifle the free speech of one of its own staff.”
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/james-cook-university-wins-appeal-over-12m-peter-ridd-judgment/news-story/ff08fe521298a1f50c85acc264e4acba
[NOTE: Some comments like this and below were posted on the Unthreaded link first which explains why people appear to be announcing the Ridd case “out of context” – Jo]
370
It’s interesting how money wins in court. Plus the appalling idea that whoever has the most money can win any case by hiring the best lawyers who can out wit and intimidate the judges. And it’s our taxes paying for all this.
So it’s on to the High Court and more millions in public money. For what? It’s about an assault on a University member of staff, head of the Physics department who claimed people were not telling the truth on the alleged devastation of the Great Barrier Reef. Better to dispose of the man, wreck his life and career to silence him. Hundreds of millions of save the Reef money are at stake, with the former Prime Minister’s wife looking after $444Million gifted to her committee to ‘save’ the Great Barrier Reef. No one even had to ask for the money. Or say what they were going to do with it. A good cause, apparently.
Like the windmill electricity bonanza, there is a huge amount of money involved in hiding the truth and maintaining the flow of cash. And this one will enable the Greens to cripple the farmers far inland as well. It’s a plot against Australia, just like the whole Climate Change nonsense.
462
Is there a link to the judgement?
20
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2020/2020fcafc0123
50
If Ridd was so wrong – like some flat earth nutter – JCU seems to have spent a lot of money to shut him up.
40
Looks like Peter Ridd will need to go to the High Court after the Federal Court overruled Vasta 2-1.
120
Following the Love Thoms 4-3 judgment the High Court placed itself on a level with the Mad Hatter’s Tea Party of Alice In Wonderland; it’s anybody’s guess what it’ll do next and it’s a pity that our last legal resort has become a theatre of the absurd.
70
The betrayal by the Morrison government for not stepping in to defend the truth instead of kowtowing to the emission reduction climate change nut jobs is a sad reflection on Morrison’s character. As far as I’m concerned he is Turnbull 2.0.
250
I couldn’t agree more!
That’s exactly what he is.
60
Devastaing news!
Today, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its decision in the Peter Ridd case, following the appeal hearing in May. The court upheld the appeal, ruling in favour of James Cook University.
In other words, the court delivered a loss to Peter Ridd and the fight for freedom of speech on climate change.
220
This is terrible news.
81
He lost because the cancerous lies of man made climate change has spread far and wide, even to PM Morrison with his strong stance on emission reduction. So what hope is there for people like Peter Ridd to be held up high by governments let alone be defended? None I’m afraid. People like Peter Ridd will always have an uphill battle to defend the truth given the lack of will by our spineless politicians to help such people.
240
‘Devastating’ despite the spelling. We are well on the way to Orwell’s 1984.
170
Beth
That is clearly Orwell’s ‘wrong think’
If you can just leave your details we can arrange a re-education programme
Oh, silly me, we already have all your details and I can see that you need an awful lot of re-education before we can safely let you out again..
30
Alack, Tony, too true.
10
Peter Ridd today LOST the appeal from JCU to the Federal Court.
This is part of the IPA statement on the matter:
‘ You can read the judgment here, but this part in particular – found at paragraph 94 – is absolutely unbelievable:
“There is little to be gained in resorting to historical concepts and definitions of academic freedom. Whatever the concept once meant, it has evolved to take into account contemporary circumstances which present a challenge to it, including the internet, social media and trolling, none of which informed the view of persons such as J S Mill, John Locke, Isaiah Berlin and others who have written on the topic.
The court went on to quote a passage from an academic textbook that endorses the view that intellectual freedom is an outdated concept:
Academic freedom plays an indispensable role in fulfilling the mission of the university… But a host of new challenges have arisen in recent years in response to the changing norms and expectations of the university. With the increasing role of the Internet in research, the rise of social media in both professional and extramural exchanges, and student demands for accommodations such as content warnings and safe spaces, the parameters of, and challenges to, academic freedom often leave us in unchartered territory.”
So much for Morrison and Abbott saying Section 18c of the HRA was a secondary and
relatively minor matter when it came to freedom of speech. Just as the politicians
have decided anyone not believing in human production of CO2 has caused the globe to
heat is a ‘sceptic’ -the equivalent of a holocaust denier -and are in the midst of their process
to destroy all Western economies, so all truth and freedom is found only in the twitter verse etc
and the old ideas of what is freedom (of any sort?) of speech have become irrelevant.
Man, is the West in trouble when its very values of civilisation are rejected by one of the highest Courts in the land. Mobs and computers now rule the roost.
360
The law is an ass!
190
Also the politicians who make the laws. The emission reduction madness has spread far and wide to both major parties.
150
There is no law. There is only Ruling Class power. And a lowly academic like Dr Ridd has none or not enough.
70
The court and its judges are asses.
40
the core function of a university since Plato’s Academy has been the ascertainment, collection and dissemination of knowledge.
but apparently students and their safe spaces are now more important.
taxpayers should not be funding institutions that simply churn out the children of Marx and coca-cola.
150
The primary judge who upheld Ridd’s appeal against his dismissal regarded intellectual freedom in the natural sciences as it always has been regarded…and can only rationally be regarded…..the search for objective truth …whereas the counsel for JCU and the Federal Court judges …and also High Court Chief Justice French…..take the post-modern activist law road…that objective truth must bend and take a back seat to social mores…feelings …the vibe …..treating the natural sciences as if they’re no different from social science and political science….ie the useful post-modern delusion that natural science has no special status in the hierarchy of research.
The latter post-modern post-normal road will kill science …kill trust…kill the future..create chaos and destroy countries and everything rational people believe in.
110
Some would say that’s exactly what social media is designed to do. It’s all part of
destroying the history, and reputation, of Western civilisation. The left have been
at this for 50years, and few people of note took any notice, and even fewer called the
alarm. Our latest PM’s all consider it a secondary matter of little importance, or lacked the
ticker to take on things like Section 18c of the HRA. Hence this disease has spread to all
our institutions, including the CSIRO, our law Courts and to Members of the highest Courts
in the land.
One must respect their jurisprudence, but how does one explain their conviction
that social media offers higher value about how humans advance the human condition than the principles that have stood mankind in good stead for half a millenium?
I would think most people that follow these now ‘highly regarded’ means of communication must be in despair that people with the intellect of our highest legal minds can believe such things, especially when it is shown day by day that the output of social media can be highly affected by censorship from those that run these modern disasters. The output of social media is therefore
nothing nearing an independent source of knowledge and is no better than having politics
determine science – which is exactly where we are right now.
50
Funny how ‘ historical concepts and definitions’ of legal principles still seem precious and sacred to the very same courts.
40
DOC, there’s an element that is not new here.
Many years ago in NSW a lot of wheat was stolen from a QANGO. $5 million was mentioned, but I would not have been surprised if it was more. Probably equivalent to $50 million now.
People in high places were involved. A lot of the theft went on by the truckload in broad daylight. If you hadn’t seen it happening you would never believe it.
A small number of people were charged, none of them big wheels, and a smaller number convicted and gaoled.
One of these small cogs was a heavy drinker, and several times when his case came up he was suffering from delirium tremens. His wife let it be known that they “were waiting for a favourable judge”. When he eventually did get to court he was acquitted.
That wasn’t the only bad court story in that saga.
Maybe we should be putting the cleaners through the courts.
20
‘James Cook University did not act unlawfully when it sacked the contrarian academic Peter Ridd for serious misconduct in 2018, the federal court has ruled.
‘The university had appealed an earlier decision, by federal court circuit judge Salvatore Vasta, who awarded Ridd $1.2m compensation and found that his sacking breached workplace laws.
‘The full bench of the federal court on Wednesday allowed an appeal by JCU, effectively overturning the earlier finding and financial payout.’
Guardian
31
In other words the court ruled that people can be sacked for doing their job properly while those who don’t can’t be sacked. At least they are consistent in this up-side-down sick world.
330
So true!
00
How about moving over the comments on this matter from the open thread of the day before?
[Done, though it may muck up the nesting and leave comments orphaned. – jo]
50
“There is little to be gained in resorting to historical concepts and definitions of academic freedom.”
What a truly bizarre statement.
Academic freedom can only be defined in practical terms by past experience, i.e.spelling out examples of ‘free’ and ‘not free’ expression. It is one thing even to have a constitutional definition of such freedom but it still needs to be adjudicated on case by case.
Imagine a judgement or any statement that said:-
‘There is little to be gained in resorting to historical concepts and definitions of legal precedent.’
Judges who agree with the above quote would be right royally roasted by their colleagues if they uttered the adjusted version.
I have little faith in JCU’s efforts in the field of ‘climate science’ and GBR research but when the cancel cuture makes its way into the appellate courts, sheesh.. where the hell are we heading and what faith can we place in the legal system? It is like the judiciary are separating from the robust and objective decision making they are meant to embody and maintain and have just joined the ‘protest mevement’. Its like it matters not what is argued at the bar in the court room but what is performed for the media on the courthouse steps in the following burlesque version. Even the law is becoming Twitterised it seems.
There is another pandemic afflicting our society facilitated by the viral spread of silicon based technology. I call it imbeSilicosis.
Who needs the CCP to goose step its way across our human rignhts when we can repatriate intellectual fascism to the likes of JCU and its in house academic freedom eizatsgruppen and fellow travelling rubber stampers in the appellate courts.?
90
Just read Paragraph 94. What a joke. They make the statement aboutit all being different now coz’ loik there’s the internet and put up stetements of one academic who has mused about the effect of the internet in broad terms as if said academic was the grand poobah of such matters ‘and to be obeyed’. What utterly pathetic reasoning (IMO of course).
40
And it appears that, in Australia, justice is not to be trusted, either!
450
Q. The difference between a Lawyer and a rat?
Unfortunately our Parliaments are full of Lawyers drafting and approving mountains of legislation so ridiculous and open to interpretation that no one can comply. The ABC, Woolworths and in fact probably every employer regardless of the size of their accounting and legal team cannot comply with employment legislation. This legislation as with the tax laws than becomes a weapon to be used against dissenters by a remote and increasingly tyrannical swamp.
Even if Peter had won this appeal there is a good chance he would be subjected to the full power of the Deep State utilizing its Fraser and Howard era powers of deeming and the acceptance of retrospective legislation to silence him.
The only protection he would have is the courts, only at a cost few honest citizens can afford and in which any separation of powers has become difficult to observe.
Ans. There are some things a rat will not do!
230
No…we are in a banana republic now….
How do you go from 17 up to 17 down?
It makes no logical sense
250
Cognitive dissonance!
Message: Turtles are threatened due to plastic shopping bags.
Image: 64000 Turtles waiting to nest on Raine Island
Professor Peter Ridd should have accepted the reef was dying and ignored his cognitive abilities.
I’ll slide my plans for a Turtle cannery on Raine Island back into the draw.
61
Slavery is freedom
Ignorance is Strength
70
Diversity is strength.
Please keep up.
40
Steve was referring to INGSOC ( 1984 ) slogans – which should be obviously contradictory in a rational world.
40
John Farnham,
INGSOC (1984) slogans were to instill rationality and logic into the mind of Proles and Outer Party workers. INGSOC ensured that free and open thoughts were harmlessly corralled and translated to the easily assimilated doublethink condition.
It is the blessed ignorance of Proles (like all free animals) with their innate understanding that because of their concerted collective iron strength, freedom from the slavery of unwarrented peace, that war is utterly justified. Indeed it is this requirement and its application that delivers a properly fair and just society. All of history shows this self evident truth.
This is yet another way The Inner Part employees and Big Brother himself, are justly insulated from petty daily minutia of Proles, Outer Party workers. Thus all the intelligentsia of the Inner Party are able to apply their talents to make policy, influence decisions, and govern efficiently and effectively.
😉 🙂
sarc-off >
20
We saw this bunch in action on the Pell case so no surprises. The law faculty at Universities have been the frontrunners on this postmodern bovine manure as part of the social sciences for a long time, so at least the judges behaved in a predictable manner, but it doesn’t bode well for the future. It’s scary that people with this mindset are the esteemed ones “practicing the law”…
10
This has not ended well for Peter Ridd and it will not end well for the rest of us, consider if the judges are no longer following fundamental rules of law then what are they following and to what end, this is what Americas founding fathers referred to as tyranny.
610
Good perspective Yonnie.
In any society when there is wrong doing, it’s the job of the judiciary to examine the facts and make a determination that clearly reflects the required standards of Scientific Exactness and Community Ethics.
The Judges decision is clearly saying that;
“We live in a Swamp, the rules of the Swamp prevail, the Swamp says he’s guilty, decision made, move on.”
This is the ultimate proof that Australia is Totally Stuffed.
KK
530
On the bright side the UK daily mail, the country’s largest selling newspaper, has splashed the story about shellenberger recanting his left wing views
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8550381/Eco-warrior-says-going-veggie-pointless-mass-loss-species-myth.html
Hopefully Ridd can appeal as the opposition in the form of shellenberger and Moore are recanting their views. One step back but two forward.
130
Jo keeps popping up on various threads and deleting comments that I think specifically mentions a racial group in a negative context.? Is that correct.
If so this judgement starts to make sense in that debate is being progressively shut down and opinions can not be expressed on case they upset someone, hence the parallel rise of no plstforming and safe spaces.
Here in the UK the education secretary has just said that grants to univernsities will be withheld unless free speech is permitted in the universities.
Not before time as we have bred a generation that thinks the only correct opinion s the one they hold and they don’t need to debate it further as they know everything
That a senior judge in Australia( I take him to be more than a local magistrate) should endorse the woke, spoilt, ‘ I know everything’ generation is worrying
351
Tonyb – as I keep saying, there is no free speech in Australia thanks to Section 18C. Plus, of course, free speech is not enshrined in our constitution. If you offend an ethnic or racial group (apart from one, and we all know which one that is) that’s against the law.
Thanks for mentioning the UK Ed Secretary and free speech in the UK. That’s very useful. Some links would be great. We need to turn up the heat on the Government. No free speech = No funds.
[Please commenters, don’t go off topic here, and the topic is Peter Ridd, Free Speech, Academia and Judges etc]
141
The appeal was heard by three judges of the Federal Court.
Yes, they are considered to be “well good” at their craft and are appointed by the Governor General (the Queen’s rep). So if they stuff up we can blame the UK. 😉
20
But the PM appoints the Governor General. The crown only ratifies the appointment.
Plus there is the matter of WHICH Governors General appointed those judges?
So who’s to blame?
20
My UK blame comment was just a frivolous joke for Tonyb in the UK. I don’t even know if he’s a UK citizen or an Aussie doing 7 years there for having stolen a loaf here … or whatever.
But an extension to your chain of blame. The party chooses their leader (PM) so it’s their fault. But we elected them so it’s our fault.
But officially the PM only suggests a GG and the GG is appointed by the Queen. So we’re back to blaming the UK. 😉
10
Wow. Woke judges! So goodbye to history and precedent. This is judge made law based on their interpretation of Twitter trends and new mores based on their expert view of internet mores?
This is another and increasingly common case as in the UK of interventionist judges writing new laws for the country and taking over the role of elected politicians. Just as journalists give us not the facts but their opinions and historians airbrush history, pioneering brave judges now give us their laws based on their observations of trends in society and they openly say so. We have faux facts, faux history and now we have faux laws from activist woke judges. Apparently old concepts of justice and truth are now dead and unbelievably they have said so in their ruling. This is unbelievably wrong and at odds with real public opinion and all of history. The least computer literate people in society now think the internet is the arbiter of truth, not the people or the facts.
Just as the High Court could not understand at all the rulings of judges in Victoria and the 2:1 ruling against Cardinal Pell, convicted in a show trial by video without any evidence at all and of something which was prima facie impossible, the High Court will have a real problem with an appeal which succeeded because Twitter is the new law of the land, supplanting all historical judgments and laws? As if that makes sense to anyone at all.
Ridd was right and telling the truth. And he should not have been sacked for telling the truth, quite apart from whether the Vice Chancellor and friends even had the right to sack him, presumably so they could support lies as the truth. It’s the law of the jungle, approved by the Appeal Court as the new norm because truth is now dead and faux science, faux facts rule. It will not stand, so why did they do it? Fame? What possessed two of them to intervene in a plain and simple judgement and spout on about safe spaces and the internet and a new world? It’s really unbelievable and reads as complete nonsense, the stuff of Jabberwocky in the 21st century.
481
Banana banana banana republic…..
Images of Dear Leader in ray bans with cigar, painted on the sides of buildings….
70
Dan Andrews?
20
Point of law, did Ridd believe what he was saying was fact when he said/wrote, what the judges call his “opinion”.
Seems the Judges in this Court believe the learned Professor was touting an opinion from the Twitterverse or some such world instead of giving a professional judgement based on his thirty years experience.
Professor Ridd has collided with the world of the PC/ Woke/Swamp.
Heaven Help Us!
250
Yes, you would think the opinion of the head of the Physics Department was more than a ‘personal opinion’. At what point and where is he allowed to have a ‘professional opinion’ based on his seniority, qualifications, position and expertise. Or is that just the judges personal opinion?
120
And the judges felt that his actions had led to ‘bullying’ of others and made them feel unsafe. So he was bullied out of his life’s work and fired. That will stop bullying surely. It’s a given fact of research that no one’s work is to be questioned, privately or publicly and least of all by a department head. I would have thought the bullying was the other way around?
110
TdeF,
In 1987 my company got clobbered on government appeal to the Full Federal Court of 3 judges. We tried for the High Court who decided in essence to refuse to hear because it had got complicated.
It was then that we noted a possible trend in the layers of judgement, with Federal Courts being more radical in the hope they would be noticed for the next High Court appointments. As you note, the Pell hearings reversed contorted logic at intermediate court level.
There is a fundamental consideration exposed in the Ridd matter. We, the public, support Universities and benefit from that support. We have a preference for untainted work. The administrators are tainting the work. Do they have powers to do this tainting? Should they have such powers? Should they be limited to management of matters like payroll, safety, etc.? Is there a need for structures within universities where admin types do the bookkeeping and councils of academic types look after research, reporting, publication, quality control, etc? A separation of powers that until this Ridd judgement, I thought was already there. Geoff S
160
The flood of foreign students have turned universities from seats of learning and research into money making enterprises. They have exploded in size, budgets and wages at the top. It has become a significant export business for the country and the old ideas and universities are gone. It’s a business, a huge business. So is Global Warming and the Save the Great Barrier Reef. So what if a few people are trampled underfoot for even suggesting the reef does not need saving, the warming is not detectable and it’s all fake. And Ocean acidification which inverts the basic rules of physical Chemistry.
A physicist like Ridd is aneathema to the business of $100Bn business of money harvesting. He’s not in on the game. And he is causing distress to those who are. So he has to go. Of course the works is ‘tainted’. I would have said completely fake.
So there is no point appealing to the Chancellor. This is the entirely work of the Vice Chancellor with the approval of the board. They are protecting their very (big) incomes.
To talk of separating bookeeping from research, publication, quality control misses the point. It’s all bookeeping.
121
It’s also bit Monty Python. “George. Everyone’s terrified of George.” “It seems he nailed your head to the floor and your wife’s head to a coffee table” “Yes, but I had transgressed the unwritten law“.
30
Australia’s greatest exports are in order of value for FY2018-19:
iron ore
coal
natural gas
education-related services
personal travel services (excluding education)
gold
aluminium
beef
crude petroleum
copper ore
Basically all rocks, minerals or food except for education or travel. Very sad.
50
If 12 million Australians do not go overseas this year, they will not spend at least $5,000 each or $60Billion in hard currency will not leave the country. It could be our biggest money earner. Better, if that is spent on trips within Australia, it will really pick up remote communities like Broome and Cairns and perhaps nearby island
communities like New Caledonia and Vanuatu and the many islands who are disease free (subject to careful screening). And Tasmania.
The one thing we cannot replace are the overseas students and all the money they bring, but $60Billion goes a long way. Plus all the public cash used to pay for staff at endless third rate Universities, like JCU where the truth and science are banned subjects which threaten their safe spaces, according to the judges’ ruling.
41
Thanks for, once again, offering to run my life for me, but I’ll pass on touring Australia and double the time overseas when I can travel again.
40
The trouble with domestic travel is that Australia is one of the world’s most expensive tourist destinations, even compared to Europe and the US/Canada.
Excessive union overtime and weekend and public holiday pay rates, excessive anti-development and environmental regulations and high real estate costs due to excessive land use restrictions all contribute. Not to mention the closure of activities like climbing Ayers Rock even though traditional custodians didn’t mind it being climbed, just some woke troublemakers.
60
Not being able to climb Ayers Rock is one of the pointed issues.
30
Only one thing wrong with your ascertain, the people have no job to earn the $60 billion to spend in the first place.
10
Judges are part of the Establishment, this was always going to be the outcome, you cant have actual scientists contradicting Government propaganda.
400
Well said and succinct. Yes those who believes the LNP federal government is any better than the Greens and ALP on such matters is living a 1ie. PM Morrison is still insisting that emission reductions is a good thing. Good for what? Placing the last nail in the coffin for our economy?
340
No, they are not. In fact they are often at odds with the government. The original judge’s decision was plain, detailed, fair. And the University lost on more than 35 arguments.
This appeal court is out of control. They have brought in entirely new arguments and issues like professional bullying and hurt feelings and the universities new alleged duty to protect their staff from the opinions of the Head of the Physics department causing hurt feelings. That is outrageous, interventionist and not part of any law but an interpretation by the judges of alleged community opinion without instruction from parliamentary law or precedent.
By coincidence, on the front of the Australian newspaper today is a review of the near total overturning of the judgments of the Victorian Appeals Court by the High Court. It seems the State Appeals courts are out of touch with both the courts and the High Court, literally a woke group, a law unto themselves. Recently in their unanimous decision, the entire bench of seven High court judges could not understand the legal logic for the Appeals court of Victoria to uphold the Pell conviction without witnesses, any evidence or even the possibility of the alleged crimes. Their comments were scathing. The Appeals court of Victoria had completely failed in their duty.
As in the UK court ruling over Brexit, these appeals courts are a hotbed of woke activism. And in the US. Judges are using their position to write new laws, not interpret the existing ones. They are very political positions where judges usurp the rights of governments to effect new implied laws. In difficult or unusual circumstances they have to make interpretations but this is writing new laws from the bench. It is unacceptable and utterly political, the essence of Woke activism by judges far exceeding their remit if not their authority.
191
Don your iron helmet and black shirt and urge people
“Don’t be stupid, be a smarty,
come and join the JCU Party.”
30
And now it’s Springtime for Radicals and Lefties
Winter for Conservatives, once more..
30
Thanks for that; very instructive.
When the nation’s ultimate arbiters of right and wrong are so blatantly power hungry, it means we need to change things quickly.
41
They literally are.
20
Not being familiar with the hierarchy of courts in Oz, I’d like to know if there is a higher court for a further appeal by Ridd (and all sane folks), or if this is the end of this affair. Or perhaps there is some international court of appeal, or some legislative recourse. And then, what happens to Justice Vasta, after being so grotesquely overruled?
Here in the States, we sometimes wonder when it’s the right time to send in Guido and Luigi for a nice little chat with the justices’ kneecaps. Ultimately that is what it comes down to, unless their “consensus” really does reflect the prevailing values there, in which case, “concerned citizens” will go underground and mysterious things will happen in the dark of night.
80
There is a higher court of appeal viz. the High Court of Australia.
130
I have written to Peter Ridd encouraging him to appeal. Amongst other things, I said that I had contributed to his GoFundMe before, and would chip in more. Also that many people would be very disappointed if they didn’t get the opportunity to do the same. I seriously believe that the funds can be raised.
I think there’s only one more court level, so winning there really will be final. The latest judgement looks to me like it has a fatal flaw: while saying that academic freedom had changed, they failed to say what it had changed to. Their reference to the internet etc, on analysis, is as Jo says nonsensical.
But for the next round, I think there has to be a co-ordinated media campaign and lobbying of politicians. Hopefully Jo and Peter can put together a team to run that (not in my skill set!).
380
I have no idea of the quality of his lawyer or did he represent himself?
The high court will surely want to reverse the decision as it has so many ramifications. There must be many of us willing to chip in to get a top notch lawyer or at the high court level perhaps it’s a barrister, in which a lot of money will be needed
160
I desperately hope so but part of me despairs that globalist “democracy” has now taken hold at the highest levels of our legal system
30
TonyB,
The legal counsel (Stuart Wood, Queen’s Counsel) hired by Dr Ridd was of the highest standard of experience, precision, and eloquence, and vocally delivered argument against JCU’s 17 claims in a duration that could be best described by the word “marathon”. There was nothing wrong or amiss with his argument in construction or its delivery on 29 March 2019. I can’t comment specifically about the arguments lodged this year in appeal, but it was all from the same team that had done admirably in court last year.
It’s my understanding that Stuart Wood QC saw such merit in Ridd’s case that he accepted the job for a substantial discount on the hourly fee he has usually secured. He has accumulated such familiarity with the case and has done so well thus far that I struggle to imagine Ridd could make any headway by switching counsel at this point.
In my lay opinion, Judge Vasta correctly interpreted the relationship between the Enterprise Agreement (Ridd’s employment contract) and the Code of Conduct, which is that the CoC is not incorporated in the EA and it does not override the EA. Therefore the EA is still the only definition of when termination is warranted, so JCU was in error by not citing the EA as the authority for his termination, and that this implies JCU dismissed Ridd unlawfully. Whether Ridd was allowed to say bad things about specific researchers (with good reason, or even for no reason) is almost secondary, though that is the facet of the case which attracted the most attention. But on that point, clause 14 of that EA gave Ridd the right to say the things he said and in the place and manner in which he said them, because that is the traditional meaning of academic freedom, and the CoC cannot detract from that. Never expected a federal appeals court judge to rule that tradition is irrelevant.
But we should steel ourselves for the possibility that this is as far as it will go. Dr Ridd has previously talked down the possibility of a High Court challenge because of how much money the public have had to contribute to get him this far. The other issue is that the newer EAs that most newer staff are hired under does not have any academic freedom clause like #14 any more. That right has already been crushed. This is perhaps why Dr Ridd is drawing attention to the government’s role in this issue, which is far larger than Dr Ridd and so would not be solved for the people who need it the most even if JCU had lost their appeal.
The update to his GoFundme page yesterday says “I respect the decision of the Court. I will be seeking legal advice as to my next steps.”
30
Andrew
Thanks for that great summary. It’s up to Dr Ridd of course as this case must be very tiring. There is a greater principle involved but whether this case is the ultimate test for freedom of speech or ability to express an expert opinion is beyond my pay grade. I am sure that if Dr Ridd thinks it will be worthwhile to proceed, many of us will support it with funding.
20
Deplatforming, Cancel Culture have a long history. I’m guessing Ridd and Mann will now become besties, as they can bond over this experience.
338
Just like you to conflate Ridd’s honesty and scientific integrity with Mann’s deceit and fr**dulent lies.
You have shown many time that you can’t tell the difference.
422
Stop stirring…..
90
My response was to fitz
111
How dare you:
he was expressing his Truth, and there is No higher truth.
51
Even if his “truth” is dripping with deceit and dishonesty.
The trait of a far left marxist sociopath !
131
You got the irony.
🙂
20
What a grubby comment, PFitz.
30
“unchartered” territory.
LOL.
Says it all.
60
Agreed. If these “learned” judges actually used that wording, perhaps they should go back to primary school to learn English language.
30
Maybe there will be a charter when the deal eventually goes through and China is the co-signatory.
20
A partial solution: stop working for and paying for degrees from academic institutions. Learn and practice a trade. Make things that work. Do whatever doesn’t require a college or university degree.
You now know the academic letters after your name are empty of meaning and value. They are not worth the paper they are printed upon.
261
Much like the LNP federal government doing nothing about the ABC propaganda machine and instead continually feeding it with our tax money, the same government will do nothing to protect people like Peter Ridd from attacks by others who want to stop real scientific research and instead continue to promote untruths, such as the myth that reducing our emissions is a necessary thing. Anyone who still thinks the LNP is any better than the ALP or Greens in these matters is dreaming and living a Iie.
260
We should return to where the trades and professions are running their own training institutions. This worked!
70
Engineers have long been derogatory about people who have no fiscal consequences attached to their failures. A since deceased scorner lent me his observations. B.S. ( do you need to ask ? )
M.S. ( more of same ) PhD ( piled higher and deeper )
50
In 1965, I left an “all but the thesis PhD” to become a Biomedical Engineer. Within a few years, I discovered computers and computer programming and never looked back. Since then, I have been a self taught Software Engineer and made my living by creating programs that work and that people were willing to pay for. Still doing it.
30
Universities are being run as a business these days. It’s not about providing an education anymore. It’s about getting credentials but the value of those credentials is hyper-inflated. I think it was Bernie Sanders who said high school qualifications from 50 years is the equivalent of a university degree today. He used this as the basis to say everyone should go to university which of course makes the problem even worse. Universities have no choice but to pander to the mob to protect their business. Afterall, the customer is always right.
111
“Universities are being run as a business these days”
Not exactly. Businesses that intentionally promote falsehood usually end up having executives being put in jail. Anyone doing their tax wrong can be in serious trouble.
Some businesses, eg ABC, CSIRO, BoM, Universities, are exempt. Then there are all those not-for-profit and alleged charitable organisations who promote chaos, BLM (burnlootmurder) and have yet to be classified as a terrorist organisation.
100
BLM (burnlootmurder). Precisely. Outlaws, villains, anarchists, rioters, murder*rs, criminals and of course in Portland they are trying to burn down the Federal Court house and they assault the police. How can anyone paint this as a ‘protest’? It is an attack on civil liberties and the rule of law and the rights of millions, all approved and encouraged by the Democratic Party, the party specifically formed in the Confederate states to protect slavery.
61
Let me guess. The BLM protesters next week will not comply with the safe distancing rules. So how come they won’t all be fined? Are our politicians that spineless? I wish there was a way to fine and jail the politicians for not enforcing the same rules they already have done so for restaurants and the like.
20
Martin,
Important difference!
Businesses are funded through the success of their work.
Universities are funded (at least in part) by taxpayer monies, provided irrespective of success. Geoff S
50
This does raise the question about the motives at JCU. Were they protecting their complient staff and warning other to toe the line, or were they more worried about the Grant money flowing in from the Federal Govt? It would seem to me that after 49 years of the GBR “dying real soon – send money for research” somebody should be asking what, if anything, we have got for the taxpayers money.
And if some of that research is fraudulent (and remember one recent PhD has been disbarred in Sweden), then there may be a case to answer for “obtaining money with false pretences” or the coverup as “Complicity in illegal activity”. It might stir the Federal Government into action.
20
Thank you Jo for highlighting this disgusting episode in Australia’s public life.
What does this decision say?
In “correcting” Justice Vasta, the “Superior” Court is saying that No Court can be trusted and further, that reality can be bent, twisted and stomped on in any way they see fit.
I just hope that most Australians ignore this judgement because anyone who examines it would be depressed and give up whatever they may have been striving for.
Poor fella my country.
KK
240
Magna Carta is no longer valid because of the internet. Also it did not provide for safe spaces.
250
Magna Carta was actually a totally disgusting load of bumpf dealing with a farce of a court and complaints / revolt from the hereditary tyrants ( nobility ) that the chief tyrant was having absolutely too much fun….with them and theirs. Feudal ‘justice’ later became characterized as ‘facsist’ because there was one law for the rich and another for the poor, who were assets of their lord ( serfs ; servants ).
31
In the UK Blair decided he wanted fifty percent of the young to attend university which has been reached via a lot of Mickey mouse universities and Donald duck degrees.
However the pandemic has made Huge difference to those wanting to attend university as much teaching will not be face to face. So the number of students is Likely to fall from the uk itself and from overseas.
The govt has made it clear they want far more people to go to the modern equivalent of technical colleges
So we are likely to see the demise of many of the jumped up polytechnics that call themselves universities. Good job too.
Does a similar proportion of students attend australan universities and will the numbers drop enough to get the second rate niversities closed down?
I understand you will be missing tens of thousands of Chinese students this academic year so presumably there will be a knock on effect
110
Yeah, through the academic facility termed “group assessment” we are able to confer degrees upon cashed up foreign students who do not speak English.
50
Australia too seems to be emphasizing the need for trades and apprenticeships now.
Possibly someone in charge wants to reduce unemployment numbers, but also, hopefully, start manufacturing again in Australia instead of getting all our supplies from an adversary.
60
“getting all our supplies from an adversary.” I’m going to be nasty and compare that attitude to the Yanks, who run it overtime and for everything. An analysis of competitive advantage likely is annoying for a country selling raw materials compared to finished goods. The idea that Chinese labour is of so much less value is unlikely to survive indefinitely – but it is fun while it lasts.
01
Have you ever tried to use some of the products that come out of China?Total rubbish is being too kind to the stuff they produce.
00
I wish I could give your comment a hundred thumbs up. So true. A month ago I vowed to stop buying goods from a certain country. But it’s impossible when nothing is Made In Australia anymore and everything is “made in chucking fina”
10
Jo Nova said “start manufacturing again in Australia”!!
Good heavens what an idea!
Imagine if all Western societies took such an attitude. Chaos! Chaos I tell you — with national industries competing against each other in what would amount to free and open world trade.
Forgive me but what possible good could this do for consumers and the planet? Manufacturing on the grounds of mere economic value, where the country with the resources and employees produced better specified and valued products. Where after-market sales are lively with sales of repaired, recycled, and reapplied products at much lower cost. A world where resources are cost effectively extracted not by government edict, or because of government subsidies, but the needs of the consumer and the price they’re willing to pay?
Extracting resources that are variable in price just because of their abundance/rarity and market requirements. Oh horror.
How can World order be maintained if this is your only offering? How could worthy(?) government maintained monopolies and cartels survive with such a disordered system. What would happen to all their employees and their children?
😉
40
Jo
I understand 40% of your exports go to china which seems an uncomfortably large proportion. Add in the income from Chinese students and tourists and a large part of your economy is compromised. As another commentator remarked though, internal tourism will to some extent offset the losses
30
Well, it becomes clear why JCU pursued the appeal. The fix was “in” at the next level of Australian juris(im)prudence. I wonder if cash was involved or just fellow travelers scratching each others backs? Is there additional recourse for Peter Ridd or is this the end of the road (ignorant U.S. citizen here)?
180
Yes. It’s possible to take this to the High Court with 7 judges. That’s the highest court in the land. It takes $$$ though.
30
We will all gladly donate again. Nd again. And again. And a……
20
I got the impression from listening to Peter Ridd on the Bolt Report, that he felt beaten by this decision and wouldn’t be pursuing the case any further. Correct me if I’m wrong.
I hope enough people of means convince him otherwise.
10
Universities are no longer a place people go to debate the truth. The court has ruled that they are simply a place you go to make friends and feel good about yourself. This world has gone truly mad.
What next? A ruling that parliamentarians must be collegiate?
260
How about a court ruling that school teaches teach that 2+2=5? That’s where it’s already heading.
180
Never challenge the Left with anything from their instruction manual, “1984”.
Quote from Wikipedia:
110
The court ruling proves that it’s not about truth or real science. It’s about reputations to keep alive a myth in the secular science community. All the scientists in that secular community should hang their heads in shame for either supporting or remaining silent (same thing really) on the issue. Instead of coming out and defending Peter Ridd with the express aim to uphold the scientific objective of searching for the truth they are holding back and helping in the destruction of the scientific principles only to replace them with unscientific methods to perpetrate their untruths and fake narratives.
160
This has to go to the High Court. If not then truth and the freedom to question science in Australia is now legally dead.
200
Unfortunately, to go by the Love Thoms debacle, the Australian High Court has fallen prey to the touchy-feely zeitgeist and likely will also submit to the infantilized mob which appears to have intimidated the appeal court.
41
That didn’t happen with the media trial and conviction of Cardinal Pell. The High Court threw out the case. Pell had no case to answer. The question was really why was the trial brought again, why was he convicted and why was the Appeal rejected? Victorian courts and judges were censured. It looks like the Labor state of Queensland has the same problem, activist judges making political decisions not based in law.
80
How about putting a petition together Jo demanding the Govt stop the funding rather than those who care swamping Tehan with e-mails? Its a role reversal like the dainty little petals on campus!!! But I am worried for our future when we have legal decisions like that.
50
Second thoughts – maybe you shouldn’t, as Branch Chairwoman San will run off to her big boss Chairman Xi for the funding.
30
Scientific HONESTY and INTEGRITY gets a huge slap in the face, and told to ST*U
It appears the judges have no appreciation of either honesty or integrity.
151
Well, did you expect anything else from the Godless Left, who favour lies and dishonesty?
80
Much like PM Morrison who is supposed to be a Christian and not of the left but supports the emission reductions hoax. Go figure.
80
Modern day “Christians” no longer follow the teachings of Christ to the letter.
Instead, they obey Papal directives, which are frequently in direct contradiction to what Jesus taught.
Not that I’m particularly Christian – but I do recognise the difference.
10
Such decisions are for elected officials, not judges.
80
Who in turn are elected by the people. So if we keep voting for them don’t blame the elected officials, blame the voters.
30
I personally loved the “no satire” direction. It is in harmony with our current Governments position on Juice Media and “Genuine satire”. It seems the matter at hand is the inherent conflict between Sections 13 and 14 of the Enterprise Agreement – and about how Ridd responded to the University’s directions about his behaviour. Maybe technically correct – but chilling. Essentially “respect”, “integrity” and “social responsibility” become whatever the VC wants them to be.
As section 86 of the judgement says ” It may be observed that many of these standards are couched in vague and imprecise language. They do not readily provide clear guidance to staff as to whether particular conduct might breach the obligations outlined in the Code of Conduct so as to amount to misconduct, or indeed serious misconduct. Reasonable minds may differ about whether particular conduct in fact breaches the obligations on any given occasion. This is an unfortunate consequence of the drafting, particularly given the very serious consequences that may flow from a decision by JCU that conduct has breached the standards.”
EGAD!
100
EGAD! ”It may be observed that many of these standards are couched in vague and imprecise language.”
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean different things – that’s all.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all”.
EGAD indeed.
160
Now that’s satire.
20
Well if vagueness and imprecise language is the order of the day then Peter Ridd should be re-instated to continue his vague and imprecise research among the rest of the vague and imprecise researchers. The hypocrisy today by the establishment has just reached new heights. Soon the law courts will be the place for ruling on the legitimacy of research papers. Now that would be interesting. Flat earthers would love that. It would be so easy for them to rule that the earth is flat and force schools to teach it. After all, isn’t that what being vague and imprecise is all about? It’s certainly not science.
110
Here are a few perspectives (see links) on the present condition of the southern half of the GBR. I have been extremely fortunate to have cruised, fished and snorkelled in this vast region for 1-3 week periods each year since I retired in 2004. I include the first link (which is a current TV commercial for Queensland tourism) to remind everyone that governments commonly speak with forked tongue – alternatively highlighting the alleged poor condition of the Reef when wanting to appease urban greenies (and Reef grant seekers), while (often simultaneously) promoting the Reefs’ enormous attractions to urban yuppies, when chasing tourism $$.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN15Jk_es-s
https://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/fears-reef-report-has-people-jumping-to-wrong-conc/3821745/
https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=918078f9-c636-4ffc-8302-e803fe12ac8d&subId=673018
https://www.scu.edu.au/engage/news/latest-news/2019/southern-great-barrier-reef-island-shows-vital-signs-of-life.php
And if the GBR was in real trouble one would expect its apex predators would be in real trouble too. But just today we are told that the shark population of the GBR is doing really well – and exhibits some of the best reef shark diversity compared with reefs sampled from all around the world. [Listen from 14:25 – 20:41 minutes in: https://www.abc.net.au/radio/capricornia/programs/breakfast/breakfast/12467740 . And here is today’s Nature article detailing this research:
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2519-y ]
[PS: If you have a personal “bucket list” try to include on it a charter boat cruise in the Swain Reefs SE of Mackay. It is indeed a wonder of the world – although you need kind weather to get the most out of it – as the Swains are true reefs that are not just fringing exposed parts of the mainland visited by most tourists].
All the best to Peter Ridd. I really sympathise with him as I have also been subject to agenda driven group think and cancel culture – which pretends that 40+ years of well supported woodland management research, undertaken by myself and many colleagues, just does not exist. Yet it was published in a reputable range of state, national and international scientific journals, and can be found in numerous government and funding body reports. “A generation which ignores history has no past and no future” – Robert Heinlein (1907-1988).
60
Not only is academia dying/dead, but the legal institutions as well.
You can’t have social order without justice, and you can’t have justice without consistent unbiased adherence to commonly agreed upon laws and historical precedents.
Those fools are destroying everything!
160
And watch our leaders do nothing about it, just as is the case with the ABC propaganda machine. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” I would go one step more and say if leaders do nothing to try and stop evil then they are also evil, otherwise they should step down and let someone else try.
70
Yes, without the complicity of the majority it couldn’t happen.
50
That’s right. We only have ourselves to blame for giving majority rule to either major party and still expecting things to change for the better.
60
Once politics was to progress the nation. Today it’s all about the attainment of power. To
attain that power one needs the cooperation of the media. Hence media has become the power
behind governance. The days of having a strong leader in politics, ready to go down for his/her convictions and principles, has long gone – at least 50years gone. Remediation for Section 18c has been rejected by both Abbott and Morrison as being of ‘secondary interest’. I would say its a lot worse than that; it holds no interest for people for whom power is the game. The Federal Court
decision against Ridd seems to reinforce this position.
BTW, in the Western democracies, this is a common theme. Trump dumped the WHO. One wonders
who will be the first to dump the valueless, principleless UN as well, and for the same reasons.
Until something like this occurs it appears no leader in the West is willing to take on the left,
expose its destructive absurdities and the dictatorial nature of people in control of it so the
world can return to some semblance of resuming practices and beliefs that have stood the West in such good stead for centuries. The West set the standards that it now disrespects – or should that
be, the standards that its leaders, cravenly, are no longer willing to defend. When two men of
supposedly high principles and high courage refuse the battle, then we are really in trouble.
20
If it is still possible in Australia for an alternative example to arise, and to demonstrate
through performance that a different way is possible, academic might be saved. Actual scholarship
has survived political orthodoxy before.
In the US there are a small number of schools at all levels that take no federal or state funds, and have
no religious affiliation. They are still free to inquires as they may.
One assumes that, under current trends, there will be an attempt to prevent them, and independent minded individuals
from speaking and publishing at all. If successful, the dark night of totalitarianism will fall upon our nations, and freedom will
have to arise elsewhere.
Many of our institutions have been captured by the insane, corrupt, or venal. It remains to be seen if this is true of our souls.
130
Beware of the thought police. I have little doubt they are coming.
50
Unfortunately Richard, Australia just doesn’t have the philanthropic depth of the US. We have almost no independent universities (likely none at all, if we take into account how much the government funds for research and student intake are concerned.)
50
An intersting read is Dorothy Sayers’ “The Lost Tools Of Learning.” Her essay explains where education lost its way when classical education was abandoned.
There is hope though, as you say, there are independent schools in the USA and some of these have gone back to where it should be. Home schooling is a good beginning.
https://www.pccs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LostToolsOfLearning-DorothySayers.pdf
For classical education and resources in the USA: https://www.memoriapress.com/ (Saving Western Civilization one step at a time.)
For comparing our dystopian world with a fictional one Ray Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451” is spot on. Books are outlawed and burnt, people are entertained with whole wall size TVs spewing forth interactive virtual reality shows and anyone with intelligence has escaped to live in the hills in a secret enclave where they safeguard what is left of civilized thought and traditions. Considering that this was written in 1953, Bradbury was a prophet. Perhaps our true academics will be not only chased out of universities , but hunted down as dangerous terrorists?
40
How much does a judge cost I wonder? More than a politician probably.
30
A federal court judge has a base salary of $441k; just over twice that of federal MLA.
It would take a great deal of effort to determine what their total remuneration amounts to when considering the benefits of the office and what entitlements are on offer for retirement. The average Joe would need a massive nest egg earning 2% interest to match the pension of a judge, paid at 60% of the salary of a judge of the same ranking from retirement after 60. There is no contribution required.
50
Better still, what about the Vice Chancellor salaries these days?
40
They both prefer to be paid in Chinese Yuan whatever their price.
00
Interesting that the “principles applicable to the interpretation of an enterprise agreement” contain no express mention of fundamental or established common law freedoms (the law of the land).
60
Just goes to show the psychopath left has infiltrated the judicial system. It remains to be seen how far it has gone. I’m hoping that the High Court is not infiltrated by them, not yet anyway.
40
It’s Rudi Dutchke’s “long march through the institutions”.
It’s what happens when conservatives remain silent.
40
Battling on through courts simply makes the leeches of this world wealthier.
Peter should set up his own charity to save the barrier reef (from misinformation). Spend the rest of his days enjoying what he likes doing but funded by sponsorships. He would be the director of the charity and paid handsomely for his experience.
He has the reputation and now credibility to take on the scammers. He can always claim he won his court battle; at least first round. It is then up to JCU to justify why they took it to another level. Win the case in the court of public opinion rather than the law courts. The only winner in law are the lawyers.
I would be happy to donate to Peter Ridd’s Save the Reef Charity. Not so much to pay more exorbitant legal fees.
40
I’d be interested to know the political leanings of the judges that made this decision.
Leftists I would assume.
Yes, I know their political leanings are meant to be irrelevant.
30
Had the PM shown some leadership on the issue and questioned AGW in a scientific manner rather than endorsing AGW lies, we might not be in this position.
SloMo should also have withdrawn funding from JCU due to misspending of taxpayer money to persecute an academic (or anyone).
And as a taxpayer, I’m offended that an “academic” institution I fund is not performing their basic duty of scholarly inquiry they are paid to do.
I will always recommend to anyone that asks me, not to attend that institution, as I already have.
SloMo is an enormous disappointment in so many ways and only slightly less bad than Turnbull.
130
SloMo has no honesty or truth in him wrt to climate change and CO2 emissions. If he had any honesty he would have started proceedings to exit the Paris Agreement the moment he became PM. He is in effect Turnbull 2.0. He is a fake and the sooner he goes the better as I’m getting sick of rhetoric on emission reductions. There are a few in the LNP who disagree with Morrison’s agenda on emission reductions. Trouble is they have no chance of being PM. The LNP is broken. Still it’s better than the alternative but only just, which means in the long run it makes no difference. If only we the voice of the people was loud enough to make them change.
90
Heads you lose, tails I win.
Splitting hairs over being ‘uncollegiate’ with statements such as ‘not knowing anything about the weather’ is not applied consistently. Similar uncollegiate remarks could be gleaned from those who aren’t fired. The hypocrisy and double standards are breathtaking.
I hereby declare the court uncollegiate and offensive to my personal space. Can we now sack it?
60
I had hoped that we were several increments from reaching “Peak Stupidity” but this shower appear to have achieved it in one. Thank you Peter for your efforts, I am glad to have contributed and will gladly do so again if required.
90
The decision does not just damage JCU. All Australian universities are tarnished by it. The only way forward is for employers to sideline a university degree as an employment criterion, and just focus on capabilities of the applicant. Similarly government must no longer take university propaganda masquerading as research as anything more than an element to consider, with no intrinsic weight. Real research will have to be done by companies.
The university is effectively dead.
100
thanks. I’ll let everyone know.
23
No need. They already do know. It’s just taking a while to action.
90
I am not sure what came of it nb, but a couple of years ago 100 major companies in NZ signed a letter saying they would no longer view a degree as the most important thing on an applicants CV. They said they would be looking at character, any experience already obtained, outside work/study activities etc. They were referring mainly to younger job applicants. I think they were basically telling the universities many undergraduate degrees were not up to scratch and the employers were expecting the universities to up their game.
50
Ross, hopefully, but “character” may mean “past tweets”.
If students realize they can study from home though, that will be curtains for expensive and useless Australian degrees. People will find better cheaper alternative degrees overseas.
Though foreigners may continue to pour funds into our uni’s as a proxy for “permanent residency”.
70
Here is JCU’s “code for the responsible conduct of research”. (Link below.)
There is no mention of academic freedom therefore it’s not actually a university. It’s just a place that produces people with “degrees” but no ability of independent thought or action.
And where the Vice Chancellor earns $1.2 million per year. I wonder if she’s a quota appointment?
https://www.jcu.edu.au/policy/research-management/code-for-the-responsible-conduct-of-research
50
I blame conservatives for the mess Australia is in.
For remaining silent while the Left took over almost every institution, public and private.
It is the natural consequence of Rudi Dutchke’s “long march through the institutions” AND O’Sullivan’s Law.
80
True but the people can have a say in all this; but alas they don’t, at least for now. Perhaps when the screws have tightened enough the people will wake up and react accordingly but it will be too late to escape much of the pain. Better late than never though.
20
And the Left took over the Conservatives.
Malcolm Turnbull in particular. Christopher Pyne, Julie Bishop and all the leftists in the Black Hand.
These traitorous leftiess thought they had wiped out Conservatives when they deposed Tony Abbott in a coup. In the Winner’s Circle. And Turnbull’s Liberals(tm) tried to turn the country Green, save the Barrier Reef, Snowy II.
I wonder if Malcolm will get a bronze statue somewhere other than Ballarat. He could join forces with Rudd in their own little garden of uselessness. They are very similar egotists but at least Rudd was wildly popular in his day. Gillard and Turnbull stole, not earned their positions as PM.
100
Seems this all happened well before the Turnbull crew.
In 2005 at the teachers union conference the Australian Education Union president said
“We have succeeded in influencing curriculum development in schools, education departments and universities. The conservatives have a lot of work to do to undo the progressive curriculum.”
40
Here is a good article that contains that quote.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/dr-kevin-donnelly-cultural-left-has-targeted-education-for-decades/news-story/
00
Correction:
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/dr-kevin-donnelly-cultural-left-has-targeted-education-for-decades/news-story/2f2b083ac33b0ba7ed82fc9e7863bda8
20
The book referred to in the judgement, Academic Freedom edited by Jennifer Lackey, is favourably reviewed by Ronan McDonald of University of Melbourne.
Apparently Professor McDonald thinks that free speech ought to be the exclusive right of the Left.
I’m wondering if the good justices are of the same opinion.
60
I bet they are.
30
Convenient isn’t it that the decision was made by unions to change everything in academe in 1988…on the cusp of the propaganda campaign for the hoax of the millennium.
What did the Left need most at that particular time?
They needed control over the message their propaganda was about to convey to the Australian people.
So when the Global Socialists had a need back then to flog CAGW…their global rejigging tool…. to the people of Australia…when they were about to declare their ‘consensus’…’science closed’ so that the Australian people thereafter had no way of seeing the questions of dissenting scientists put directly to the ruling ‘consensus’ cohort……1988 would have seemed just the right time for those who were fixing to deceive Australia and the world..…the perfect time to nobble uppity rational scientists who might throw a spanner into their nefarious works…scientists who clung to the old-fashioned notion that all of the great scientific advances of the 20th century ….all of the taxpayer funding poured into science…had been achieved by honest people and institutions on the basis of the people’s trust in the integrity of science and scientists.
A stumbling block for the deceivers was that scientists of integrity revered those earlier scientists who followed the tenets of the scientific process on whose findings their own work relied…so the honest scientists who sought objective truth not post-normal socially=engineered ‘truth’ had to be nobbled…sidelined and if necessary ..sacked…. a difficult purge to pull off if tenure was involved.
So the control of science and potentially recalcitrant scientists had to be handed over to the LW unions, in order to turn tenure into ..virtually… employment-at-the-pleasure-of-militant-unions who were of course committed to the use of the hoax of the millennium to install Global Socialism….and to the corruption of science and silencing of dissent… or failing that the sacking of dissenters… that it required.
Since Scott Morrison says not one word about all of this I presume he doesn’t give a damn if Australians no longer have any respect for Australian universities or public education at any level…no trust in science…doesn’t give a damn that we believe we’re being railroaded into poverty and energy insecurity on the back of cooked science…activist LW ‘scientists’ whose focus is not on Australia’s interests or even the interests of honest people around the world but the interests of Marxist political upheaval as precursor for global Socialist control of what have hitherto been sovereign nations…as Figueres … Edenhofer and other UNIPCC officials have spelt out.
I guess Morrison doesn’t give a damn if we don’t trust a thing he says.
What else can you conclude about a ‘leader’ who’s forcing Australia into the role of world’s dumb road kill for the CAGW hoax…crippled and nobbled …the only country on the face of the earth forced by its leaders and the rest of the Left to commit suicide as a 1st world nation…to flush billions in TPM to rely totally on 100% weather-dependent intermittents and their 100% weather-dependent props for everything we do…for health…food…jobs….transport…physical…economic…border and military security….a stupid country in a dangerous time….forced to accept zero baseload power security forever…while all of Australia’s competitors ….every single one of them….will have and prosper with …their own baseload security forever…in coal…gas…huge hydro…nuclear and hugely CO2-emitting biomass plus multiple interconnectors to neighboring countries that have those options.
120
I can see why you called yourself truth.
17
Troof likes long sentences, but can you find fault in his argument?
60
Point it out and I’ll see.
17
So, you come up EMPTY, yet again, hey gee-aye.
Nothing unusual about that
70
Empty, another word, almost, for Void.
20
I am no legal expert but I would have thought that it would be extremely unusual for a higher court to overturn ALL 17 judgements made, by a lower court. I could, perhaps understand say 5 or 10 being overturned, but all 17 ???
50
Vasta is working under supervision at present and it is worth noting that his judgments often as not are reversed on appeal. https://www.afr.com/work-and-careers/workplace/benched-judge-forced-to-take-a-break-from-duties-20190719-p528ys
10
The AFR.
Doesn’t like him?
Isn’t the AFR aligned with US Democrat thinking.
10
Rather than Ridd spend heaps on legals i am sure a good honest team of people that are conversant with the marine environment, could prove before a court that Ridd was right.
That the reef is alive and well.
40
🙂 🙂
The ultimate truth, so obvious that we couldn’t see it
10
Its not just JCU. I retired 8 years ago from McGill. At that time it was already clear that a female student of ‘colour’ had to be handled with kid gloves, especially if she was mediocre. It was not possible to find out the cv of the ‘independent’ ‘professional ethicist’ hired to oversea animal care. The Safety Office had gone from 2 to (I think) 16 people. Accounting ‘mistakes’ with grant funds took literally years to sort out. I could go on… Nevertheless, if Peter Ridd is able to appeal again, I will contribute.
90
Interestingly, according to her biography, among her numerous memberships Sandra Harding, Vice Chancellor of JCU, is a
Member, Citizens of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation Board
I’m sure that doesn’t bias her opinion in regard to Prof. Ridd….
https://www.jcu.edu.au/office-of-the-vice-chancellor-and-president/biography
https://www.cairnspost.com.au/business/new-board-of-citizens-of-great-barrier-reef-foundation-named/news-story/5fe61aff3ef5e016ac80fa5cf7b26352
20
How Superlatively embarrassing.
The Great Big Barrier Reef Foundation and the gentle support of MalEx444 lapping at its doors.
What a lifestyle,
20
This is a new and aggressive strategy of the Left. Attempt to break individuals personally and economically with vast unlimited pools of mostly taxpayer funds for litigation whilst trying to bankrupt those whose opinions they disagree with. This also serves as a warning to others who dare disagree with the opinions of Leftists.
30
Ridd has done an enormous service for Australia and for science by having the fortitude to take on JCU…and to test the status of freedom of speech in Australia and especially in the universities.
Australians have a right to know about it if …as this judgment seems to say…universities are free to be very loose with their own code of conduct re massively important matters on the strength of which the course of Australia’s future is now being shaped and set in concrete…..and yet their own shortcomings are to be immune from criticism or sanction….while they feel free to bounce any academic who seeks to reveal the truth to the people who fund the universities.
The whole world now knows about certain key studies led by senior scientists at JCU that could not be replicated and the plastics research that made it through to give an overseas student her PhD…with others left to reveal the truth….not JCU.
If this situation is allowed to stand…how can Australians ever trust any of the institutions and the people who run them?
There’s a lot of spruiking by journalists about the Australian people’s ‘right to know’…and much use made by them of the concept… to excuse their own political cherry-picking of particular leaks and assorted gossip.
There’s no sign at all…except for a handful of exceptions…that Australian journalists actually give a damn about the freedom of speech …intellectual freedom or academic freedom …of anyone who’s not in their own cosy little camp of left of centre post-modern global socialist groupthink.
So I think the Morrison government should fund an appeal to the High Court now to get justice for Peter Ridd…and to sort out this issue …if they want to preserve any vestiges of respect for Australian education institutions and science that might have miraculously survived the onslaught of post-modernism and CAGW.
Sort it out now so Australians …who fund the science… know once and for all where the parameters now lie on academic freedom and freedom of speech …and what has to be done to regain trust.
We’ve all got skin in this game …so let’s have it all out about the integrity and commitment to truth of those whose findings are used to drive Australia’s future.
40
Truth,
You argue well.
What do you think of a plan to put more distance between the research and commercial income functions of universities? I have long been concerned about the dilution of management effort (or its pal, enlarged admin depts) caused by this channelling of thousands of foreigners of unclear ability. This seems almost incompatible with the nurture of the special research environment that is a desirable part of optimising the academic output and quality. Geoff S
00
Hi Jo
I think some people are getting carried away with the result of this case i.e. that it is somehow the end of academic freedom etc. etc..
As Dr Ridd himself points out it was a dispute over an employment contract and has nothing, nothing, to do with the validity or otherwise of reef science, climate science or any other science. The lesion from this case is that if you are going to pursue a career in academia then do not trust the institutions lawyers to draw up a fair contract, get independent advice before you sign!
I hope Peter Ridd does not continue with an appeal and gets on with his life. We need people of his caliber working in science, doing science, not wasting the best years of their careers scrapping around for money to feed the bottomless pit of the legal system. Getting some endorsement from the courts in the end makes no difference to your stature as a scientist, it’s only your work that counts. It either stands up to scrutiny by the scientific method or it doesn’t.
No court ruling can change the empirical data just as no Papal ruling changed the reality of Galileo’s observations of the heavens. There are a hundred different types of legal systems around the world that give out all sorts of wacky verdicts but only the scientific method gives us, no matter our race or culture, a common tool to investigate the universe around us.
As for freedom to speak I do not think Dr Ridd has been stooped from putting his view across, the secret police haven’t disappeared him into a Wuhan basement or anything. So he has a dispute with his employer? Do what the rest of us in the private sector do when we have had a gutful of our bosses, get another job! There are plenty of universities around the world who would welcome a scientist of Peter Ridd’s quality on their list.
Peter Ridd will be fine, the validity of the scientific method will be fine, JCU however I’m not so sure about.
12
Taken in isolation you could be right about this incident, but what a lot of people see is that it is just one more sympton of a much deeper problem.
John Cook of the 97% of scientists B.S. getting away with his nonsense is just another example. Our universities are not bastions of free speech and free inquiry.
Ideology reigns. Other commentators here probably know much more about this than I do.
30
Does anyone know how much an appeal to the High Court would cost? I imagine there wouldn’t be much change from one million dollars.
20
Hmmmmn this is a very sad day for Australian Science – so much for the “clever country” we are rapidly approaching being a very dumb country where anything that doesnt fit the socialist meme is bullied out of existence. I got to university in the UK when only 4% of the population succeeded in getting there. I had Professor and lecturers who questioned your understanding remorselessly and gave you examples of good and bad scientific work to ponder over. One lecturer who was brilliant actually failed his Phd because he made a basic error in his maths. That demonstrated to me the downside of not being meticulous in your work. Hopefully that made me a better scientist. Having a mining company make decisions on where to put a mine shaft to exploit an ore body – spending millions on the basis of your opinion – was salutary and certainly focused the mind. It seems in this modern world failure has no consequences and calling out fraud that brings expensive mistakes is worse than making those mistakes and fraud. Indeed slavery is freedom and dishonesty is truth – as long as it is mentioned by enough people on twitter. I despair for our future and those of my grandchildren who will have to face up to the domination of China and the rest of the world.
[Was caught by the spam filter]ED
40
In a little digging today after I read the jdgement, I found that this was the first appearance of Judge Sarah Herrington in the Federal Court. It raised an eyebrow to find that she appears to have written the majority opinion in her first try. Then I found that these judges are graduates of the University of Queensland, which ran James Cook Uni in its formative years, like when I was a student there. One wonders if this is a little too close in a buddy system, maybe graduates from another uni better?
Then I read the public speech reported last year for and by Judge Derrington. It opens with discussion of “Star Wars” the movie and moves to discussion of religion and charity. What a strange essay, I thought.
The court transcript lists inter alia the broad functions of the JCU. I looked, but I failed to find enablement for the rejection of past ethical and moral mores in favour of ways to accommodate modern social media and its followers. There are words in the transcript about freedom of expression, but they are in the sense of its promotion, not its censorship.
For the sake of long histories of successful traditions at the very least, this judgement has to get reviewed. The main and maybe only way is by the High Court allowing an appeal. May it happen, please. Geoff S
10
Why does auto-correct repeatedly change Derr…. to Herr…? At least, it did not insert Sherr…. Geoff S
00
So called “Whistle Blower Legislation” is sold as protection for those who see corruption and do the right thing – report it. But it always turns out to be the opposite of ‘what-it-says-on-the-box’. It actually helps to protect the corrupt and provides stiff penalties for those who blow the whistle. It’s been going on for years around the world.
In the medical caper, many incompetent doctors continue to practice. That’s why.
10
Outrageous. Government money (especially from the Chinese government) is essential. Truth is optional or dispensable.
Anyone out there with a degree from JCU should be ashamed. Anyone looking to get a degree from JCU should think twice.
Cheers,
Speedy.
00
Outrageous. Government money (especially from the Chinese government) is essential. Truth seems to be optional or dispensable.
Anyone out there with a degree from JCU should be ashamed. Anyone looking to get a degree from JCU should think twice.
Cheers,
Speedy.
10
“The judges argue that academic freedom is indispensable to universities, but is dispensable enough to toss to the wind.” If that line had made it to court, it might make even bought barristers blush.
10
It’s not just Peter Ridd or even JCU. Other casualties of the cancel culture include Carter, Salby, and most recently 1000frolly.
https://twitter.com/1000Frolly/status/1282620229399359488
The disgraceful behaviour reflects a universal descent of Australian education into the intellectual abyss. Without freedom to question, there can be no intelligent discourse. And without that there is no enlightenment. The established pattern makes clear that education in Australia has been reduced to indoctrination.
The truly appalling side of this disgraceful behaviour is its endorsement by Australian courts, the very institutions responsible for protecting society against such behaviour and in disregard of laws that were enacted to do so.
https://mlsxmq.wixsite.com/salby-macquarie/page-1f
Through their support, the ultimate loser is the Australian public – by undermining its future.
30
We should start a protest movement.
Scientific Free Speech Matters.
AND because we are responsible people we should organize Virtual Protests. At a specific time of day and month we should all send e-mails of protest to our favorite person who opposes our view.
While this may not cause denial of service it will clog up in-box’s
We can follow up please answer e-mails and even protest to the MSM that they won’t answer e-mails.
I see this being an effective way of redressing the UN-scientific methods used by….
er JCU as an example.
20
I’m ready when you are. Great idea!
20
Or just …
FREE
SPEECH
MATTERS
FSM Movement. Sounds catchy.
All we need now is
1) Corporate sponsorship from the billionaires in the Davos crowd
2) A mob of unemployed people who like repeating three word slogans and despise billionaires but who
carecan act as if they care about free speech.3) A media industrial complex funded by those billionaires and desperate for the clicks and social media energy of that mob.
In other words, not likely, ever.
00
JCU has lots of form for [not investigating potential fraud].
“The investigating team of seven scientists that has exposed the alleged misconduct …examined eight JCU studies on the effect of climate change on coral reef fish — one of them authored by Lönnstedt — and found 100 per cent replication failure. That is, none of the findings of the original eight studies was found to be correct.” https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/01/something-smells-fishy-at-jcu/
00
Google search for the Bob Hawke speech at May 4 1984 for 100 years of Fabian Society. It has relevant elements of the long March tactic “Patient gradualism to global governance …. ”
Yes, Fabianism has endured, marks to them, but you might think a little about promoting the future success of other isms that are less anti-person than this lefty danger. Geoff S
10
None of this surprises me.
This little gem is a great example of critical theory at work in our society.
For those who thought critical theory was just an academic phenomenon, here we see it has migrated into the judicial system; the Federal Appeals Court no less!!!
The Marxists will be celebrating this one for a long, long time.
For those who don’t know what critical theory is, here’s a quick reminder:
Basically, the theory of academic freedom can be thought of as merely an ideology built upon assumptions by the ‘power structure’ and that ‘human liberation’ requires its destruction in order for ‘social problems’ (lynch mob appeasement) to be resolved.
Got that plebs?
Do you not understand?
You’re just not as smart as a Marxist intellectual if you don’t understand why destroying academic freedom brings about human liberation.
… the beatings will continue until morale improves.
20
More censorship of dissenting views.
They don’t want to defend his points just shut him down. He’s obviously a denier because he worked in mining but if you’re a Groupthinker on the public drip that’s OK. If you’re not a Groupthinker you have to be expunged like Peter so there’s unanimity among taxeaters.
10
It could go to the high court but Ridd may still lose on some points, mainly because the ‘code of conduct’ is so vague.
I had a small argument with a colleague at work just the other day, this could be construed as ‘uncollegial’ and disrespectful, it’s just that in most trivial occasions common sense prevails and one doesn’t get fired for it. The fact that Ridd objected to the process of disciplining, even if it was a farce, again doesn’t mean he couldn’t be fired for it, again because the disciplining process is so vaguely constructed. The problem with the way these laws are constructed, is that they are so vague that the university can argue just about anything about anyone, effectively meaning it can fire just about anyone, if it really wants to. Not much different than a person is a witch because they float, or sink, or whatever one would like the requirement to be. It’s arbitrary.
Where I disagree the most about this farce is that going on something like the ABC and stating his professional opinion that ‘a particular science institution cant be trusted’ should indeed be allowed, something JCU argues he shouldn’t be able to do. That’s his professional opinion, and he should be allowed and encouraged to say it. This is different to working for a private company, where speaking to the media would be discouraged, as there are disclosure rules in market processes, but these don’t apply to institutions. In other words, AIMS could get it wrong for years and ‘the market’ wouldn’t know about it, as there is no market processes as such in place to correct it. People don’t invest privately in AIMS, so they are not accountable the way companies are accountable to disclose information. The whole risk and auditing structure is very different. And a professional should be able to state their opinion, much the same as in a court.
10
The Cardinal Pell case shows how reliable the Australian legal system is. It’s like tossing a coin. It was a mistake to celebrate the original court decision to exonerate Peter Ridd.
00
And in the good old UK
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8560707/Lecturer-sacked-praising-Jewish-scientists-German-engineers-slams-woke-brigade.html
00
If JCU used taxpayer funds to prosecute it’s case then Peter should be afforded sufficient taxpayer funds to take the case to the High Court. The HCA at least appears open to real debate and is not afraid to overturn lower courts when it finds that their findings were unreasonable, for example in the George Pell case.
It is not justice when one litigant has unlimited funding courtesy of the taxpayer and the other has to beg in order to prove a principle. Justice can only prevail when both parties have equal representation and equal access to the court. That equality is missing in this case.
10
James Cook didn’t discover Australia. It was already there. The name must change because of racial connotations. All reference to James Cook must be removed and compensation must be made to all the indigenous peoples who have been offended and hurt by the continued use of his name.
00