JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Peter Ridd will take the fight for free speech to the High Court

For Peter Ridd, it would have been so much easier if he had gone quietly. This battle is not for him, but for our Australian Universities. He shouldn’t need to take this to the High Court, or even the Federal Court. The Scott Morrison government could turn off the tap to every institution which won’t guarantee free speech and enshrine it in their employee contracts. Dan Tehan is reviewing the university model code, but they don’t need a review. They know, we know, everyone knows, without free speech our universities are just Big Government advertising agencies, or victims of the latest FashionThink trend. Those funds could be frozen tonight, and watch how fast the universities can rewrite their contracts. At the speed of light…

Donations are already flowing in for the High Court Battle. Thank you to all who can help his GoFundMe Campaign.

John Spooner, PEter Ridd in Liliput.

From John Spooner, The Australian.

Peter Ridd Seeks High Court Appeal

Charlie Peel, The Australian

Sacked James Cook University professor Peter Ridd will go to the High Court over his controversial sacking for publicly criticising the institution and his colleagues over their climate change science.

A week after the Federal Circuit Court overturned an earlier court decision awarding him $1.2m, the marine physicist has confirmed the next front in his legal battle that has already cost more than $1m. Professor Ridd, who has personally spent $300,000 in his fight, has rallied his supporters in a fresh fundraising bid aimed at amassing $630,000 to bankroll his appeal to the highest court.

Professor Ridd told The Australian on Tuesday he had already spent $1.15m on his legal campaign, $860,000 of which came from donations.

For the scientist, 59, the fight is about more than the loss of potential earnings from a stalled academic career. “This is about principle,” Professor Ridd told The Australian. “We’ve got to have it that academics can speak.

“The fact is that because it was justified to fire me, any academic who wants to speak out about the Great Barrier Reef or any controversial issue will know it’s not worth the risk.”

Professor Ridd said he was “quite encouraged” by federal Education Minister Dan Tehan’s commitment last week to review the new university model code, developed by former High Court chief justice Robert French, aimed at protecting freedom of speech on university campuses.

“Anything he (Tehan) does has to be put into the (enterprise) agreement,” Professor Ridd said.

“As soon as there is any doubt, the university will win because the academic knows they can’t afford the legal battle.”

Ridd case must go all the way to the High Court

Joe Dowse, Mosman, NSW, Letters,  The Australian

The recent Federal Court decision on the sacking of Peter Ridd is a victory for intellectual timidity, collegial double-speak and institutional cowardice by the ironically named James Cook University. Reading the judgment, I was reminded of the way the majority judges in the Pell case came to their conclusion. That miscarriage of justice was fortunately reversed by the High Court.

h/t Anne Carter

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.9/10 (111 votes cast)
Peter Ridd will take the fight for free speech to the High Court , 9.9 out of 10 based on 111 ratings

154 comments to Peter Ridd will take the fight for free speech to the High Court

  • #
    Mark Smith

    One line of appeal could easily be that the Federal Circuit Court had no cause to even hear the appeal case.

    150

    • #
      Ted O'Brien.

      Let’s hope.

      30

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        What I do wonder is how the court, having described the terms of the contract as “vague”, could nevertheless make a determination. Looks too much like a lucky dip to me.

        90

        • #
          Hasbeen

          How can anyone have any faith in getting justice from our law courts when 2 courts can give such metrically opposed rulings on the same case?

          180

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          “Vague” leaves it completely open to interpretation, but equally means that its impossible to stop free speech as there are no definitive rules to enforce.

          Bit of a legal dogs breakfast really….but possibly some big loop holes for Ridd I think…

          20

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            Now, if I was king:

            I would subject all court workers, from the highest to the lowest, to the same drug testing regime as miners and truckies.

            130

  • #
    Strop

    You can donate to the legal funding via

    https://gf.me/u/yizspb

    100

  • #
    2dogs

    The Scott Morrison government could turn off the tap to every institution which won’t guarantee free speech and enshrine it in their employee declarations.

    It is already in the legislation:

    https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2013C00169

    Dan Tehan just needs make sure that TEQSA enforces it. And start rolling some heads at TEQSA if they won’t.

    230

    • #
      2dogs

      And given Peter Ridd is now unemployed, I think he would make an excellent TEQSA commissioner.

      350

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Thanks, TD.
      Wasn’t too difficult to find the right paragraph as the word “freedom” appears only once in the whole document.
      Higher Education Standards Framework (2015), 6.1.4:

      The governing body takes steps to develop and maintain an institutional environment in which freedom of intellectual inquiry is upheld and protected, students and staff are treated equitably, the wellbeing of students and staff is fostered, …

      Slightly concerning that intellectual freedom is given equal billing with the wellbeing of staff, leaving one to wonder if resolving any conflicts between those two goals is delegated to institutional CoCs and so leaving Unis in the same quagmire we started with.

      Great to hear Peter is having another go. I saw his fundraiser go up $12000 in 20 minutes.

      210

    • #
      PeterS

      Yes but the same sort of thing using other pieces of legislations can be said about the ABC yet the Morrison government has does nothing to curtail the extreme propaganda of the ABC, which is for all intents and purposes is the broadcasting arm of the ALP+Greens. As far as I’m concerned Morrison is a spineless hypocrite. Then there is the utter hypocrisy over emission reductions. If anyone is looking for a party leader with freedom of speech and truth in science as their major foundations then look elsewhere. Certainly neither major party has them.

      190

  • #
    Deano

    Ridd shouldn’t have to spend buckets of cash to get a court to acknowledge freedom of thought and expression is vital in the practice of science.

    ‘Science’ in 2020 is more like the religious dogma of the middle ages – which of course gave rise to the original scientific method which (believe it or not kiddies) used to value truth above all else, even fashionable opinions.

    240

    • #
      PeterS

      Money talks and mostly talks lies. In sales it is often said “Show me the money!”. If I were a client of theirs I would exclaim back “Sure I’ll show you the money when you stop telling lies.”. Well, that’s exactly what the Morrison government should do with the ABC and Universities. Stop funding them until they stop telling lies. Of course that won’t happen because telling lies is considered a virtue even in the said government.

      70

    • #
      Lawrie

      Because JCU is using taxpayer funds to crucify Peter Ridd it is only fair and reasonable that Peter be given taxpayer funds to fight his case. Justice is easily denied when one party cannot afford to seek it.

      190

      • #
        FijiDave

        Now that, Laurie, is spot on!

        That is exactly what I was pondering – where do the University hierarchy get off using tax-payer funds to smash one man into the ground?

        Peter Ridd himself, as a taxpayer, is helping to fund his own persecution!

        If the hierarchy were to use their own funds to fight their legal battles, they might be a little more circumspect in choosing their victims.

        10

  • #
    nb

    It amazes me that this University, and the university sector as a whole, should do so much to convince everyone they cannot be trusted.
    Much activity in the United States around the evolution of new forms of education.

    220

  • #
    Jurgen

    “any academic who wants to speak out about the Great Barrier Reef or any controversial issue will know it’s not worth the risk.”

    It was already obvious in Australia before Peter Ridd:

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/08/silencing-climate-change-dissenters/

    https://mlsxmq.wixsite.com/salby-macquarie/page-1f

    100

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Reading the Salby document reminds me that we have come to a point in society where overly long “Information sheets, Conditions and Disclaimers” can be used to circumvent suppliers obligations and dis-empower consumers.

      Anything more than a page in this area is just deliberate abuse of the consumer.

      130

      • #
        Analitik

        Anything more than a page in this area is just deliberate abuse of the consumer

        That would be true if consumers, in general, were willing to take some level of personal responsibility when they screw up, not following installation, usage and maintenance guidelines. In today’s litigious society, CYA is essential for staying in business.

        20

    • #
      Rupert Ashford

      “They” silent any dissenters and ridicule them, and think they’re doing society a huge favour by showing how petty they can be – case in point this douche bag from Channel 9 breakfast shutting down the “mask lady” live on air. Why on earth invite them on your show if you’re going to behave like an idiot towards them? And this “Karen” thing the Aussie media has embraced now – it’s nothing else than racist – I haven’t seen anybody else than white women being tarred with that title.

      70

      • #
        yarpos

        How is it racist? it was started by white people, poking fun at other entitled white people, lighten up FFS.

        23

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Rupert is actuaaly right.

          Yes its mocking of some groups of people bu others, however the Establishment showrd its true nazi core by sending a TAC team to arrest someone who dared stand up to the Big Lie that cov19 has become.

          You can tell when something is an Establishment pysop against the population by the 24×7 blanket unrelenting MSM programming.

          This woman who actually stared down the Establishment was more dangerous to them than any posting on a liberterian blog….

          Now just so were clear, I dont advocate lawlessness, however if a situation is a bad law situation, it needs to be challenged otherwise democracy is crushed by tyrants. Cov19 in victoria is the smokeshield for that right now….

          40

    • #
      Serp

      Your Spectator link is dead Jurgen. It was a Delingpole article in the print edition of 3rd August 2013 where it appeared on page vii of Spectator Australia. Pumping that information into google yielded https://www.spectator.com.au/2013/08/silencing-climate-change-dissenters/

      10

  • #
    GD

    They know, we know, everyone knows, without free speech, our universities are just Big Government advertising agencies or victims of the latest FashionThink trend

    Or worse still, apologists for the CCP, as in the case of Drew Pavlou.

    200

    • #
      Serp

      Thanks for the Drew Pavlou story GD. It should be compulsory reading for all of us.

      CCP influence would be similar at all Australia’s campuses and let’s not forget the performance of our parliamentarians over recent years.

      60

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        I hope people can see the ugliness of the CCP and how it hates free speech.

        Actually thinking about it, this is a free country and not china.

        40

        • #
          AndyG55

          ugliness of the CCP JCU and how it hates free speech.

          Actually thinking about it, this is a free country….. or not !

          50

  • #
    TdeF

    I understand it was a split judgement, 2:1, the same as in the appalling Pell case. Does anyone have a link to the dissenting judgement?

    113

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    Have you ever noticed that most great ideas can be written on a postcard.

    Evil, on the other hand requires thousand page cascades of lies supported by quasi-intellectual judgments,
    otherwise known as laws, court opinions, and the musings of liberals on ‘science”.

    ie… Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,…

    …the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    …The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    No sane person could possibly deduce these as operative rules from the behavior of our governments or large institutions.
    Until thhis deduction can be made, we reside in paradise lost.

    200

    • #
      Deano

      So true. I’ve noticed that almost all of the worlds great ideas, inventions, works of art, music compositions, breakthroughs etc are the work of individuals. Committees never came up with anything new or useful. They just got in the way and broke the hearts of the creative with ever expanding regulations devised to secure their own useless jobs.

      30

      • #
        C. Paul Barreira

        Well, there was an interesting committee formed in, I think, 1604, that produced the King James Version of the Bible (1611). William Tyndall, long since deceased, contributed some 80 per cent. of the NT, which begs the question of the committee except that it showed such good sense. But it is a while ago.

        10

        • #
          Lucky

          The King James.
          One of the masterpieces in the English language.
          The exception that proves the rule.

          10

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    He will lose, and you will have your martyr.

    239

    • #
      AndyG55

      Time you made a donation.. or don’t you believe in scientific integrity. !

      7 out of 8 JCU studies found to have huge errors and scientific malpractice.

      Surly you don’t condone that

      Surly you don’t think JCU should try to hide this massive problem of scientific ineptitude.

      Or do you !!

      Your credibility sinks further and further into the abyss !!

      290

      • #
        Steve of Cornubia

        I keep saying it: stop feeding the trolls. They’re not here to dabate or reason with you, only to antagonise and annoy people. It’s a hobby for many of them, presumably because they are trapped in a powerless existence.

        70

    • #
      el gordo

      Actually I think Ridd will win, its over comrade.

      111

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        One what grounds? At this leve the argument is all about technicalities in the judgments of the lower court. There is little consideration of the original arguments

        223

        • #
          AndyG55

          Glad to see you want to drag scientific integrity and scientific evidence into your own personal abyss of credibility.

          Only way you can hope to defend your rancid belief in AGW.

          180

          • #
            AndyG55

            Poor peter..

            you have zero evidence of even the slightest scientific integrity on your behalf.

            In fact you seem to rejoice in your lack thereof. :-)

            So funny. :-)

            EVIDENCE, peter.. we are still waiting for you to show that you even know what scientific evidence or integrity actually are !!

            You have NONE of either. A total lack of credibility.

            50

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘On what grounds?’

          They will have to go over the original arguments to satisfy themselves that the judgement was correct.

          80

          • #
            Peter Fitzroy

            not quite – firstly the court has to allow the appeal, which it might not, then it is limited to application of the law, as described in the lower court was correct – it has nothing to do with the original judgement, except in that limited sense.

            39

            • #
              AndyG55

              Pretense in knowledge of the law, now, hey peter….

              Very funny !

              Do you consider it proper for a University to try to HIDE a lack of scientific integrity by its researchers???

              … should they spend millions of taxpayers money in that attempt.

              Or should they actually obey their charter and allow free and open discussion of problems in that research.?

              You seem to think that scientific integrity and honesty is not important in actual science. Is that what you actually think ?

              You think it should not be exposed ? Really ? !

              Or, as you keep displaying, do scientific honesty and integrity mean absolutely nothing to you. !!

              100

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘ … it has nothing to do with the original judgement, except in that limited sense.’

              Yeah, it doesn’t matter so much, we already know the law is an ass. If they refuse to hear the appeal then Peter Ridd is free to pour cold water all over them.

              ‘There’s some absolute rubbish being spoken about the reef and people’s livelihoods are being put in jeopardy. If nobody will stand up, then this is just going to go on and on and on. It has to be stopped.’ Peter Ridd

              60

            • #
              el gordo

              ‘ … it is limited to application of the law, as described in the lower court was correct …’

              So lets look at that.

              ‘Judge Vasta found in favour of Peter Ridd and ordered that the 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure given by the University and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful.’ Jennifer Marohasy

              70

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                In this case, it will be the findings of the Federal court, and the legality of that decision, it is not about the substance decided in the lower courts, only that the Federal court did not find contrary to the laws under which the case was heard

                The high court could decide that the alleged transgression presented in the Federal court was tried using the wrong statute, and therefore should be negated

                29

              • #
                el gordo

                The judiciary will settle the matter, but its fair to say I feel very angry that JCU sacked a researcher for criticising scientific orthodoxy.

                90

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                And I feel sorry for Mr Ridd, he has been played a losing hand by his backers at the IPA, a point that should be given a higher profile

                114

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘ … he has been played a losing hand by his backers …’

                The IPA have supported Ridd, but he is personally driven and crowd funded. He has charismatic qualities in that he wants to overthrow scientific orthodoxy.

                On the other hand, Terry P. Hughes should be sacked.

                90

              • #
                Peter Fitzroy

                The IPA are very selective as to who gets their support in for free speech, and academic freedom. Can you name anybody from humanities, or arts who has received the same support?

                Mr Ridd is road kill in all this, and not for the reasons you promote. I feel sorry for him. Mind you, while working at uni, I did see several of these cases play out. It never ended well for the accused, even when they won.

                015

              • #
                yarpos

                nothing wrong with being selective, we all do it every day. It would be incompentent for most organisations not be be selective across a rangeequally of issues. In what fantasy land would anyone feel obliged to support other cases because you support one? Dont the humanities/arts have their own support enitities like getup? How would they even stray outside the PC narrative to need any help anyway, PC sheep rarely put there heads above the parapet unless agreeing with an approved position.

                100

              • #
                AndyG55

                We don’t feel sorry for you, Peter F. No pity at all.

                You are a low-integrity clown fighting a battle where you don’t have the intelligence or evidence to ever win anything.

                You have always been your facts WRONG, and provably so.

                A deliberate misinformation farce.

                The IPA did not deal Peter Ridd anything, they supported scientific integrity and honesty..

                Something you will NEVER do.

                Arts and humanities are not science, so scientific integrity is not expected of them , you keep proving that.

                And being mostly far-left socialist patsies, honesty is not expected either.

                Janitorial jobs are needed at uni I suppose!

                70

              • #
                AndyG55

                Interesting that Peter F seems so adamant in his lack of support for scientific integrity and honesty

                Seems to think that scientific malpractice or incompetence should be brought to the fore.

                Now why would that be ?

                30

              • #
                AndyG55

                typo…

                He seems to think that scientific malpractice or incompetence should NOT be brought to the fore.

                Why does he hate the concept of scientific honesty and integrity so much ??

                Must be a leftist ideology.!

                30

    • #
      Strop

      Hi Peter,
      If he does lose we won’t have a martyr. We’ll have entrenched stifling of open conversation and debate in our tertiary education institutions, and science that can not be trusted.

      180

  • #
    Zigmaster

    Is there a way that the government could join Peter Ridd and become a party to this case? There is a legal precedent that has been established that requires overturning. It sounds ridiculous because it could be viewed as the government suing itself but this is not just about the contempt of Universities to certain principals of academic freedom but the mental gymnastics that the legal system will go through to assist the forces against western civilisation principals that has captured so many of our institutions. It was interesting that the academics union was a strong supporter of Ridd so you already had one quasi government body fighting for him. Settling this by government tightening regulation won’t prevent the lawyers from using creative manoeuvres to get around it. A principal needs to be established that the government has to really stand up for the ability of people to have freedom to discuss controversial issues.
    My fear is that if as it is at the moment the university wins this case the use of the legal system to remove our freedoms will become more prevalent.
    It would also help with funding where the costs of the legal action would be a proverbial drop in the bucket for a government with zillion dollar deficits. It would also help reestablish the governments conservative credentials which are being damaged by their failure to take sides on this issue.

    70

    • #
      PeterS

      The current federal government join Peter Ridd and become a party to this case? LOL. That would be like asking the question will the current federal government starting proceedings to exit from the Paris Agreement, stop bragging about how good they are with emission reductions and stop kowtowing to the CAGW agenda.

      120

  • #
    PeterS

    Peoples, you all have to understand the Universities and the ABC are on the same agenda; train people far and wide that the West is the enemy and must be destroyed. Once people realise that’s the truth that counts wrt the left then perhaps people will wake up and do something about it. Then if enough voters stopped voting for either major party, both the LNP and/or the ALP will get the message that the people want that agenda removed, not kowtowed to or ignored as is the current situation. Even if Peter Ridd wins his case at the High Court, the current agenda will still flourish due to lack of interest or blatant support by the major parties for the agenda to keep flourishing.

    100

    • #
      David Maddison

      The latest example of the Left’s war against truth was the deletion from social media, including President Trump’s own Twitter feed, of a press conference held by a US Congressman with a large number of medical doctors talking about effective options for early stage treatment of C-19. The video went viral before it was deleted. I’ll post more details in the next Unthreaded, unless Jo posts on the topic.

      133

    • #
      el gordo

      The case is generating publicity and is good for the cause of free speech, let us wait to see how the ABC handles it.

      ‘ … perhaps people will wake up and do something about it.’

      It may take a little while, democracy works slowly, perhaps the Westminster system is the problem. If everyone voted for independent candidates it would be a dog’s breakfast, unable to defend ourselves against the rapacious fascists.

      Don’t take your eye off the ball, its better to work within our political and judicial confines to achieve justice or we might end up with the Beijing model.

      12

  • #
    David Maddison

    The inappropriately named James Cook “University”, which discredits the name of both Captain James Cook, who had a science-based approach to his endeavours (pun intended); and to the original concept of universities in general; will stop at nothing to win this case against free speech and academic inquiry. They are a disgrace to themselves; and the taxpayer money they are spending to promote their anti-scientific agenda plus the persecution of Prof. Peter Ridd is disgusting.

    Also, as I’ve previously pointed out, surely the Vice Chancellor’s membership of as a “Member, Citizens of the Great Barrier Reef Foundation Board” is of significance because Prof. Ridd directly contradicts her personal beliefs and that of the organisation she is a member of that claims anthropogenic harm to the Reef?
    Reference: https://www.jcu.edu.au/office-of-the-vice-chancellor-and-president/biography

    Incidentally, the Deputy Vice Chancellor is also “a member of the International Scientific Advisory Committee, Great Barrier Reef Foundation”. Reference:
    https://www.jcu.edu.au/office-of-provost

    Their personal beliefs and those of the non-university organisation they are members of should not be reflected in their persecution and prosecution of Prof. Ridd.

    The PM is weak and useless due to his silence on this matter and his policies in support of the lie of anthropogenic global warming in general. He is only slightly less bad than Turnbull.

    133

    • #
      PeterS

      The PM is weak and useless due to his silence on this matter and his policies in support of the lie of anthropogenic global warming in general. He is only slightly less bad than Turnbull.

      True but I would go further to say at least Turnbull was honest about his beliefs. Morrison on the other hand is a hypocrite. He initially convinced a loot of us, me included, he stood for coal fired power and against the push for emission reductions. He has subsequently done a back-flip and instead has used emission reductions as a virtue and stopped talking about coal power. In fact he’s still supportive and pushing for the Snowy 2.0, which is a total waste of billions of dollars. Then again what’s a few billion these days now that our national debt is racing towards a trillion? On that point, spending a few billion on new coal fired power stations would appear to be the best strategy for getting this nation back on its feet, but of course even many here would not like that idea. With all this confusion over deciding what to do it’s no wonder why this nation is going to crash and burn in due course. We need a strong party with a strong leader to turn things around. Unfortunately, the two don’t exist.

      80

      • #
        AndyG55

        “but of course even many here would not like that idea.”

        Pretty sure that the large majority here would agree wholeheartedly that a couple of new HELE coal fired power stations are becoming an absolute necessity !

        160

        • #
          David Maddison

          Regular coal burners, HELE or nuclear, whatever is the economic choice for a certain situation.

          Also, I don’t like the term HELE, high efficiency, low emissions.

          It may or may not be economically worthwhile to spend extra for an ultrasupercritical coal plant for the increased fuel efficiency and thus lower fuel costs. It depends on the coal price.

          However, we science rationalists should not endorse the “low emissions” aspect of the name because CO2 emissions are irrelevant (or actually beneficial). Other undesirable emissions can and are easily controlled anyway. Using “LE” just confirms to the anti-rationalists that there is actually an emissions problem.

          I think the preferred name should be Ultra-Supercritical Coal Power Plant.

          173

        • #
          PeterS

          As I tried to explain that depends on who they vote for :-)

          20

  • #
    David Maddison

    How can a university function as such if its members aren’t allowed to ask questions?

    93

    • #
      el gordo

      Ridd went out of his way to upset the AGW enthusiasts on staff who had become addicted to grant money. JCU cannot allow anyone with his knowledge and experience to simply wander around in public circles belittling them, its a typical academic adversarial battle being played out on the world stage.

      Free speech is important for the maintenance of democracy, we all owe Peter Ridd our thanks.

      170

      • #
        Strop

        I think he was doing it to try and restore integrity to the science. He didn’t necessarily claim the results were wrong. He was saying the science isn’t being properly checked and therefore can’t be trusted.

        Upsetting AGW enthusiasts addicted to grant money was just an inevitable byproduct.

        160

        • #
          el gordo

          Still, its the big picture item which is front and centre.

          ‘Rebel marine scientist Peter Ridd has thrown down a challenge to reef scientists to test whether or not human actions have caused a collapse in the growth rate of coral­s on the Great Barrier Reef.

          ‘Dr Ridd said despite published claims of a collapse in coral growth rates between 1990 and 2005 due to stress from human pollution, there was no data for the past 15 years. “We don’t know how the Great Barrier Reef has fared since 2005,” he said.’

          Oz/ Jan 2020

          20

      • #
        PeterS

        Democracy per se is already maintained and so is not the problem. The problem is voters keep voting for representatives who are indifferent and/or ignorant of the need to defend against the attacks of free speech being perpetrated by the likes of the Universities, ABC, MSM, etc. Obfuscation has become and art form in politics on both sides in the interest of obtaining as much voter support as possible under the illusion a candidate is promoting free speech when in fact they have little or no regard for it. Furthermore, too many voters don’t bother enough about politics to take it seriously. So, we end up with a dog’s breakfast disguised as a roast dinner.

        50

        • #
          el gordo

          Its the political system we have inherited, perhaps we need to think about becoming a republic.

          22

          • #
            PeterS

            Here are some examples. Most are a disaster or soon to become one. Then there are the historical ones, such as the Roman Republic. They all failed. To be honest becoming a Republic comes with too much risk given I trust politicians as far as I can throw them. I rather keep what we have and try to wake up the people to elect better representatives, which is exactly the same problem we would face under a Republic. In other words, becoming a Republic would be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

            Argentine Republic
            Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
            Bosnia and Herzegovina
            Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
            Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal
            Federal Republic of Germany
            Federal Republic of Nigeria
            Federal Republic of Somalia
            Federated States of Micronesia
            Federative Republic of Brazil
            Republic of Austria
            Republic of India
            Republic of Iraq
            Republic of the Sudan
            Russian Federation
            Swiss Confederation
            Union of Comoros
            United Mexican States
            United States of America

            70

            • #
              el gordo

              If the major parties were excluded from participating because the battle between labour and capital has run its course, then we would need a charismatic leader to unify a working majority.

              It might come to pass that a political rabble is united under the leadership of a Utopian Socialist (US).

              01

            • #
              yarpos

              Heaven forefend we should endure the chaos of the Swiss Confederation. Thank God we have the Queen to save us from that horror. Lets not even talk about Austria.

              21

    • #
      PeterS

      Simples. Let West-hating left wing activists run them and have spineless leaders who allow it to continue unobstructed. As is said not often enough, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.

      60

    • #
      AndyG55

      Basically what JCU and this court have effectively done is to put “hurt feelings” and possible loss of grants, ahead of scientific truth and integrity.

      Its a true SJW/leftist agenda.

      Not a good look for JCU, who’s credibility was already very much on the low side !

      90

      • #
        Rupert Ashford

        And the Legal Fraternity (swamp) who are not doing too badly themselves to trash their own reputation on this topic. Medical professional not too far behind…seems if you have $$$ to spend yourself out of trouble caused by your virtue-signalling actions, there’s no limit to the basic underlying evil, selfish man coming out.

        41

  • #
    Ross

    Just donated $100 – the total was approaching $180k when I left the GoFundMe site. :-)

    120

  • #
    Michael Hammer

    specifically; item 4.2 states

    The higher education provider promotes and protects free intellectual inquiry and expression in its higher education learning, teaching, and research activities.

    4.3 states

    The higher education provider protects academic integrity in higher education through effective policies and measures to:

    • ensure the integrity of research and research activity;

    Interestingly 4.2 does not just say free intellectual enquiry but also free intellectual expression. So it is saying researchers do not just have the right to think freely but they also have the right to speak out about their thoughts. Trouble is the appeal judges seemed to completely ignore these items. The links to the cardinal Pell appeal are interesting.

    90

    • #
      AndyG55

      4.3 The higher education provider protects academic integrity in higher education through effective policies and measures to:

      • ensure the integrity of student assessment;

      ensure the integrity of research and research activity;

      prevent, detect and address academic misconduct by students or staff, including cheating and plagiarism;

      ensure that academic staff are free to make public comment on issues that lie within their area of expertise; and,

      • ensure that the awarding of multiple awards, including higher education awards offered in conjunction with another entity, protects the integrity of the higher education awards offered by the higher education provider.

      JCU have not met the sections in bold above.

      They are in breach of the Higher Education Standards Framework.

      90

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Good point Andy.

        “JCU have not met the sections in bold above.

        They are in breach of the Higher Education Standards Framework.”

        For a very long time there have been “students of opportunity” from O/S who have been very quietly given a “pass” on the proviso that they did not apply for jobs in Australia using their “qualification”. It was for home country use only. Of course the field is wider now.

        50

    • #
      PeterS

      They are just policy statements, not laws. It’s the same as when a politician makes a policy statement. It can be shown to be a lie without suffering any legal repercussions. Now if they were enacted in parliament to be law with suitable penalties then we might get somewhere. It would take a leader with a spine even to suggest that.

      20

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Michael,
      In my reply to 2dogs above I neglected to mention that 2dogs had linked to outdated legislation and that I had located the newer “in-force” legislation and was commenting on that.

      I don’t know enough about how these laws are applied to know if they take effect on all higher ed staff immediately or whether Ridd’s EA had to be renegotiated for the 2011 legislation to take effect through it (and whether that had been done before 2015). Certainly the older “2011″ version was the version in force at the time of the incidents in 2015/2016 that triggered Ridd’s case, so 2dogs’ link is still valid for that discussion.

      All I can say is that it is a bit concerning that the wonderful freedom of expression clause you refer to there was cut out of section 4.2 on 1 Jan 2017, apparently without any direct replacement. There are a host of differences, with previously separate clauses being clustered together around common themes, so sometimes a clause that disappeared from one section now shows up (in spirit, if not in letter) at a different place. eg the misconduct prevention clause in “(2011)” 4.3 sort of shows up in “(2015)” 5.2. Nonetheless, it is a fact that the word “expression” does not appear anywhere in the new document.

      It might be argued that intellectual inquiry needs an exchange of ideas, so “free intellectual inquiry” that all higher education providers are still expected to support should imply freedom of expression too. But then one could argue the old legislation pronounced “inquiry and expression” separately as though the first does not imply the second, and the new legislation says all terms in it have the same meaning as the old version. No wonder courts have thrilling adventures with this stuff.

      20

  • #
    John

    As always the result will depend on the ideology of the judges not justice for the appellant. Cancel culture has taken over most of our media and educational organisations with the High Court the last bastion for justice for freedom of thought and expression.

    If Ridd fails here, the Left has secured everything.

    70

  • #
    David Maddison

    Underlying all this, of course, is the Leftist belief that there is no such thing as objective truth. For them, it’s all about “feelings”.

    73

    • #

      All about feelings, yes, mostly hate and resentment, and all about the view that power is the underlying basis of all relationships.

      60

    • #
      PeterS

      Refuting absolute truth is the result of being godless for many. Relativism is the (dis)order of the day for them. Have we all forgotten already the gender issue? Have they won that battle already by default?

      41

    • #
      Analitik

      No, it’s all about the majority opinion on the Internet. Of course, the overlords of the web are of the lefty, feely, diversive persuasion as are those with the most time of voice their opinions (ever noticed the number of posts by Nick Stokes on WUWT whenever he latches on to something?), so the end effect is the same.

      21

  • #
    David Maddison

    With the Left’s war against truth and everything else that is good and decent, conservatives and libertarians should and do appreciate Jo’s blog. Even the Leftists who post here should appreciate it because back on social media, once they’ve got rid of the conservatives, they’ll be coming for you too.

    93

    • #
      PeterS

      Good comment. We who stand for absolute truth and against relativism need to stand up and be counted. Otherwise, the left will win the war. The trouble is only one leader in the West (Trump) is standing up and being countered. All the other Western leaders are kowtowing to the left only because they fear losing votes. Go figure.

      50

  • #
    Drapetomania

    Peter Fitzroy
    July 29, 2020 at 7:32 am · Reply
    He will lose, and you will have your martyr.

    And your puerile snark means you support no freedom of speech anymore or truth in science.
    At least you come out from the Orwellian shadows to admit it..

    130

    • #
      David Maddison

      The one good thing to come out of all the legacy and social media censorship plus the BLM riots is that it’s helped expose the censorious, violent, anti-freedom and anti-reason nature of the Left. Hopefully it’s enough to make people sit up and take notice otherwise we (Western Civilisation) are all doomed.

      73

      • #
        PeterS

        I often thought that myself. The more they act the way they do the better, provided the people don’t get used to their antics and keep voting for representatives and leaders who are already ignoring their antics. That would lead us deeper into the abyss. As is sometimes stated, when a lie is repeated often enough, people eventually think it’s true.

        40

  • #
    Bulldust

    O/Topic – ABC “Fact Check” drags out the diesel fuel rebate as a subsidy of evil fossil fuels again by re-defining what a subsidy is:

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-29/fact-check-matt-canavan-fossil-fuel-industry-subsidies/12496310

    In what world is paying less tax, but still paying some, a subsidy? Only in an upside-down Green think dominated institution for the politically insane. At least they admit they are using vague definitions of the word subsidy to broaden its meaning. It’s pretty bold when the Orwellians actually openly state they are manipulating language and fully expect you to mentally digest their double think as truth.

    90

    • #
      David Maddison

      I don’t understand why the Left can’t understand why the diesel fuel rebate isn’t a subsidy. It’s a return on that part of the tax that is a road usage charge for public roads. Since vehicles that are subject to this rebate are only used on farms and mining sites, there is no need for them to pay the tax for using public roads. It is an extremely rare example of a tax properly applied – it is paid only on the basis of public services you actually use, in this case, roads.

      123

      • #
        Ross

        All correct David M. Its an old chestnut. The US has even accused Australia of using subsidies in agriculture trade negotiations by quoting the diesel rebate as a “subsidy”. So, it’s not just the left.

        50

        • #
          Bulldust

          Having had firsthand experience with reading through CVD (Counter Vailing Duties) documents, I am aware that the US Dept of Commerce is utilised as a tool to protect inefficient US businesses. Some of the ambit claims made are quite ridiculous, but taken seriously by the DoC types seeking to protect local business.

          The diesel fuel rebate is the main “fossil fuel subsidy” which is why the Green-left is constantly pushing the lie. Are there R&D and exploration incentives? I have no doubt, but the grand daddy of them is the diesel rebate, which is why it is so important to their false narrative.

          70

        • #
          Strop

          farm support – Aus farmers
          https://farmers.org.au/blog/farm-subsidies-in-australia-the-facts/

          Australian farmers receive the second lowest levels of support in the developed world, second only to New Zealand.

          60

      • #
        Dennis

        The left do not want to understand that the diesel rebate of road use fuel excise/tax relates to use of diesel fuel off road. They also fail to understand that all companies, including wind and solar energy businesses, are entitled to tax deductions on expenses incurred in earning taxable profits.

        They do not want to understand that the $500,000 a year special subsidy for wind turbines, each one, is industry specific and funded by taxpayers.

        And that power station fossil fuels since Turnbull Government 2016 legislation are levied an emissions tax penalty and operating cost.

        Or that the unreliable, intermittent delivery of energy from wind and solar sources handicaps power station generators that are designed to operate continuously, and the interference is a loss of efficiency factor adding to operating expenses.

        100

    • #
      Strop

      That study relied on a very broad definition of “subsidy”, among other things counting social and environmental costs typically not borne by fossil fuel producers such as localised pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and traffic congestion.

      What the! Traffic congestion is a subsidy!

      Interesting that Fact Check can’t actually bring itself to a verdict of Canavan’s claim being false. They so wanted to but could only get to “Senator Canavan is drawing a long bow.” Which means he’s not wrong but there’s room to debate it depending on how crazy a definition you’re willing to accept.

      80

      • #
        yarpos

        no, the idea that they dont contribute to the those costs , is seen as getting away with something. Therefore in their fevered minds a subsidy. Ironic they should see others as drawing a long bow.

        20

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    The Peter Ridd gfm has gone up about $10,000 in the last 15 minutes!!

    50

  • #

    Previously donated $ 1,000. Will not donate again, why? Donors pay tax to Gov (subsidising UNI’s) who use tax funds to destroy freedom of speech. Double whammy for the taxpayer. What a joke, no, nightmare! The cultural marxists won the revolution in 1968. Implementation occurred the past 52 years. Most commenting on this site realise that there is an acceleration in the implementation rate lately. Negative, pessimistic or given up. Correct, all of them. Migrated to Australia to 13 years age, sick and tired of 50 years of Southern African cultural marxisim and communism. Been there, donit, pendulum has swung too far, AU going down the cultural marxist sh*thole. Last year after elections (Scomo euphoria) I made the following comments and was shot down by most on this blog:
    “So far only talk from Scomo and no action:
    - No dams approved or under construction (30 years and still no “drought proofing”)
    - No coal fired power stations approved or under construction (highest elec. prices in the world)
    - Manufacturing & jobs going abroad (employment increasing in Gov., decreasing in private sector)
    - Uncontrolled roll out of cultural Marxism in all our institutions
    - Mass immigration, no slowing down (housing Ponzi scheme bubble)
    - Low interest rates (incompetent RBA).
    - $ 1.1 Bn ABC & SBS funded progressive propaganda 24/7.
    - Legalizing of sodomy (fake marriage) and abortion (fake “decriminalization”).
    - Etc., etc., etc.
    Australians are asleep at the wheel. Voting for the same political parties who has been signing away Australia’s sovereignty for many years since 1992.
    - Agenda 21
    - Kyoto
    - Paris
    - Agenda 2030
    - Immigration intake
    - Refugee intake
    All this is dictated by the UN. Australia is a puppet of the global socialist elite.
    We are in deep doo – doo. LNP, ALP & Greens all follow the UN script.”

    Theodore Dalrymple:
    In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

    80

    • #
      Dennis

      Your information is way out of date, for example;

      Dams require State Government planning approval, but there are three now approved in NSW announced a couple of months ago.
      One coal fired power station application with finance underwriting guaranteed by Federal, but State planning approval essential.
      Two gas fired power stations now past planning and approved for VIC and NQ.

      Please note that the Commonwealth of Australia was formed at Federation of States which were British Colonies, the Constitution provides for State powers for most areas of governance within the international and state borders.

      By the way immigration intake was reduced in 2019.

      Fully agree that the UN has too much influence and impacts adversely on sovereignty, and those treaties and agreements must be cut together with the red, green and black tape legislation and regulations undermining national prosperity.

      40

      • #

        “By the way immigration intake was reduced in 2019″.

        Really?

        https://www.xyz.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/936164AA-29F0-48BB-B906-C07B7F4B5447.png

        More than 204,800 people became citizens in 2019-20, the biggest increase of new citizens on record and 60 per cent more than the previous financial year.

        More than 60,000 applicants received their citizenship virtually since March, after face-to-face events were put on hold at the height of the pandemic.

        Immigration Minister Alan Tudge told SBS News the government has made reducing the citizenship backlog and cutting waiting times a priority, even amid the pandemic.

        00

    • #
      Strop

      Hi Staal,

      Thanks for supporting the previous round/rounds of the fight with a generous donation.

      Will not donate again, why? Donors pay tax to Gov (subsidising UNI’s) who use tax funds to destroy freedom of speech. Double whammy for the taxpayer.

      Not sure I follow the logic. You’ve paid the tax whether you donate it to Ridd’s legal battle or not. So why not try again to undo what the uni’s are doing?
      Unless you’re proposing to donate the equivalent amount to a tax deductible charity to reduce your portion of money to the govt and flow to uni’s. But even then the govt has already allocated the funds.

      Thanks again for the previous generosity.

      20

  • #
    Serge Wright

    In a way it’s good that the federal court sided with JCU. Taking this to the high court will dramatically increase the profile of the case and turn it into a real fight for freedom of speech that will set a legal precedent for all future career cancellations at the hands of these far-left Marxist extremists. It’s hard to see how a high court could do anything else but side with the individual because the repercussions of denying individual freedom of speech would be too horrific to contemplate. Basically this has now come down to money in a state versus Ridd contest, where the state (JCU) is beholden to Chinese style left wing totalitarianism and like all our public universities, supports the totalitarian ideology over and above the freedoms of the west.

    90

  • #
    Matty

    Go Peter…..

    Meanwhile – for some spectacular footage of the Three Gorges dam discharging. You may want to kill the dramatic music.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB9fIb0kmts

    20

  • #
    Speedy

    Now at $320k, after 14 hours.
    Cheers,
    Speedy

    30

    • #
    • #
      Andrew McRae

      Just before midnight last night, not long after donations reopened, the fund was at $106k.
      It has just reached $400k now and is likely to hit $406k in the next 10 minutes.
      Soon he will have raised $300k in 22 hours.

      On a principle. No deliverables offered.

      There’s probably a lesson in this somewhere, but darned if I can learn it.

      20

  • #
    Annie

    Going up well; Other Half donated earlier.

    30

    • #
      TdeF

      Very pleasing.

      More important though is the realisation that thousands and thousands of people are involved, wishing Peter Ridd success with their own cash.

      Surely that does not sit well with the conspirators who are trying desperately to bring him down and with unlimited funds from us, the taxpayers. It’s one thing to have an opinion. Quite another to make donations as much as an anonymous $10,000 or even $10. That’s real money. Not other people’s money.

      Nor will it please the nervous politicians who watch the political mood and it is solidly against what a supposed University and institution of learning is doing to the head of Physics because he wanted to tell the truth.

      There is a Queensland State election soon on 31 October 2020 and the Queensland Labor government has direct control, as do all State governments. The Federal government has no schools, no universities. And Queensland Labor obviously approves this punishment for suggesting that the reef is fine after all. Obviously they approve using the taxation of the people of Queensland to continue the pretence that the reef is dying or dead. Why? This will cost them in October.

      And Peter is persisting despite the mental and fiscal punishment he and his family are enduring. It’s no reward for 30 years professional work to be tossed out for wanting to be a physicist and to believe in the job. No one teaches ethics in physics. It’s something you have or do not have.

      I did tell him directly this would happen, but he was absolutely determined. And so are we. Justice will be done, not this travesty. I would like to see punishment for the perpetrators, at least in proportion to what they are dishing out from their safe lucrative tenure. How dare Professor Ridd threaten their river of money from their made up stories and fake science?

      Why doesn’t the Queensland government stop this?. Pay Peter his money and what he has lost. Apologise. Fire the board and the Vice Chancellor. And stop allowing the waste of millions persecuting a member of staff for telling the truth? Why? Cui Bono?

      81

      • #
        TdeF

        And it would still be cheaper for JCU to settle this than to continue. I hope the politicians realise how much taxpayer money is being wasted and has been wasted to destroy the life, job and reputation of the head of Physics at James Cook University and what it will cost them in votes.

        61

        • #
          TdeF

          And this is the same University which will want lots of financial help with the loss of the income from many international students. It’s hard to see why any government would give them money if this is what is done with it.

          51

  • #
    David Maddison

    I’m wondering what centres of scholarship actually are left in Australia or elsewhere. Virtually all educational (and other) institutions have been taken over by Marxists.

    I don’t think there are any left in Western countries but there might be some in Japan or Russia and former Soviet states.

    62

  • #
    TdeF

    The most profound part of this is not free speech, it’s that University administrators and staff decide what is truth based on their commercial needs. The money in pushing lies is very good. Careers are based on it and Ridd threatens that with his naive and non collegial insistence on truth in science. These days there can be huge money in fringe sciences like ecology. Scientists all, like Tim Flannery.

    We are seeing this in Google censorship, the fake Russian impeachment of Trump, the ‘non violent’ demonstrations with nail bombs and molotov cocktails and automatic weapons. Burn, Loot and Murder, peacefully. Nadler, the leader of the Democrats in the US Senate says he does not believe what is plainly on television. It is all very peaceful or Trump’s fault. And the Democrat mayors are all blaming Trump for the violence. And appalling Daniel Andrews in Victoria is blaming his victims as irresponsible. Or the Unions made him do it, put unqualified students in chairs to police lockdown hotels. Someone made a fortune, but it’s not his fault.

    So we are told what to believe and what are the facts, the truth and now science is whatever political leaders decide. Captain James Cook, Churchill, Lord Nelson and George Washington were evil white supremacists, not brave and heroic people who changed the world for the better. They might even have been misogynists like Tony Abbott. In the new history of the world, only communist leaders are heroes.

    It’s far past freedom of speech. This is about lying and getting away with it because there is a lot of money involved. And faking data like the rejection of the HQC data by Lancet no less is acceptable to large numbers of people, as long as it suits a political purpose.

    Of course the Great Barrier Reef is fine. But when the last Prime Minister hands $400million in cash to his wife’s friends without anyone even asking for it or justifying it, nothing is said. That’s what Prime Ministers do apparently. And how much of that ‘saving the Great Barrier Reef’ cash is going to save something which does not need saving? None of it. They have already estimated $135Million in administrative fees. I would do the paperwork and answer the phones for only $100Million. I mean no one has even set any goals? How do you measure success in something which is not happening?

    This ripoff of Australians with fake science has gone far enough. There is no man made Global Warming. And Australia has been crippled for nothing. We make nothing. Now the promoters of all this fantasy science and even medicine are defending their right to lie to us and to deny the truth.

    It’s about more than Dr Ridd. This is about truth in Science. Truth or government certified, university controlled fake science, fake medicine, fake news and how they will persecute and prosecute anyone who speaks out. And the courts support it, the way Pell’s conviction was supported in Victoria without any evidence at all by just blaming the jury. And organizations like the WHO, BOM, CSIRO, JCU, IPCC, ABC are all controlled by people who have an agenda. Your money, their truth.

    The only strong public figure fighting on our behalf is Donald Trump. Even Boris Johnson is looking like a middle of the road opportunist who just wanted the job. And I fear a fake Brexit.

    And I would love to see LA defund the police in Beverly Hills and Hollywood. And Martha’s Vinyard. What a stupid idea. Taken up by Hollywood while ex President Obama has retired to his $14Million mansion in White Supremacist paradise with absolute beach frontage and not a windmill to be seen, so far.

    122

    • #
      williamx

      Tdef, a well put together argument

      Your quotes:

      “This is about truth in Science”
      “how they will persecute and prosecute anyone who speaks out”

      Reminds me of that individual whom also earned the ire of the establishment. One Galileo Galilei.

      Galileo’s discoveries were met with opposition within the Catholic Church, and in 1616 the Inquisition declared heliocentrism to be “formally heretical.” Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.

      Have we not in our wisdom moved on from the 17th century?

      51

  • #
    Ian

    JoNova you write

    “For Peter Ridd, it would have been so much easier if he had gone quietly.”

    It would have been so much easier for Peter Ridd if he hadn’t publicly criticised his colleagues’ search findings.

    111

    • #
      Ian

      Apologies “search’ should be “research”

      10

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Unbubludy unbelievable.

      Attention Jo.

      You are being questioned.

      20

    • #
      Lewis P Buckingham

      The problem for Prof Ridd was manifold.
      He clearly had put his life’s work into the study of the reef.
      When he expressed concern about replication he was gagged.
      To defend himself he would have to lawyer up.
      He was up against the big boys and girls.
      Trivia was used against him, things that for ordinary mortals would be as nothing.
      The uni’s statement of its ethos read like the real thing, so anyone reading it would think they meant it.
      Yet he was treated as if he were an employee flipping hamburgers.
      The appeal even brought up the common law, which gives trucking companies the power to discipline employees.
      Yet the uni appeared by its own holistic ethos statement to support free inquiry and speech.
      This was read together with the contract of employment and shown to bind the uni, in the original case brought by Prof Ridd.
      This got thrown out on appeal.
      A whole lot of baggage then appeared.
      The Majority decided that the principles of the university were outmoded because of the invention of the twitter crowd.
      They did not judge that the University was not only bound by its own ethos statement, but could give these greater rights it supports to Prof Ridd,
      greater than allowed by common law.
      There seems a blindness to the clear evolution, or at least lip service to it, of the rights of employment for academics,JCU wrote into their
      mission and vision type statement, which then binds them.
      Much has been said that the decision does not turn on the validity of the science.
      However this begs the questions,
      Will this judgement simply lead academics to shut up and keep their job, or ‘go quietly’..to the slaughter, when a capricious administration is in control?
      Is this a constructive refusal by this university, to be aped by the rest,to stop reasonable give and take by adults, in contestable publicly funded science?
      If so then this appeal and its aftermath will be supportable and watched over by those of goodwill.

      70

      • #
        Ian

        Ridd chose not to challenge the university’s finding that he had repeatedly breached its code of conduct. Why was that? From that It could be taken that by not doing so he implicitly agreed he had breached the code of conduct

        00

    • #
      AndyG55

      Oh look, another sjw that supports scientific malpractice and incompetence.

      … and thinks it should be hidden from the public that pays for it. !

      So long as it fits the leftist regressive agenda… right ?!

      20

    • #
      Analitik

      Publicly criticism of faked measurements and observations (to support a hypothesis that contradicts reality) is something all scientists should do to keep the integrity of science intact. That they don’t because of vested interests undermines science as a whole.

      31

  • #
    UK-Weather Lass

    Having followed the Peter Ridd case from the early days of his ‘troubles’ with JCU I am really glad he is fighting on. There was so much inconsistency in the JCU’s defence of their actions in the original hearing that I would have been outraged had the judge not found in his favour. In this day and age there is no surprise a higher court completely turned the original judgement over but, if there is any justice left in the Australian legal process, there has to be another turnover in the High Court. Much of what JCU did throughout the process of Ridd’s dismissal, clearly laid out in the trial transcripts, was shameful and certainly unnecessary in the context of a character like Peter Ridd who was and is simply trying to be honest and faithful to his profession.

    Apparently integrity is no longer a requirement of employment in academia. As Willie Soon says ‘think long and hard before you send your kid to uni’.

    40

  • #
    Ted the kangaroo

    I’m sure I read somewhere that the uni has done no reef research for 15 years, so how can the clowns at JCU claim Peter Ridd is wrong.

    10

  • #
    Ruairi

    What a shame Peter Ridd must resort,
    To appeal to Australia’s High Court,
    Such a costly affair,
    More than one soul should bear,
    Thus deserving our earnest support.

    20

  • #
    DOC

    One of the problems staring any politician in the face over this issue
    is the fact they have utilised the shutting down of debate so desperately
    themselves, in forcing acceptance of their anthropogenic global warming theory.
    In doing so the politicians have wrought such damage on the nation which in terms
    of human misery over the increase in the cost of living, and in sheer wasted dollar
    terms make Peter Ridd’s problems seem minuscule.

    How do the politicians force the Universities – and CSIRO and BOM – to free up
    academic rights to proper open scientific debate when they themselves have used
    the same censorious methodology to force huge changes in the use and cost of energy
    on the people and driven businesses and jobs offshore? Politicians have
    used the same methodology, political and media power to force their own interpretation
    of science upon scientists and the nation. In doing so they have empowered every
    environmental extremist to force their opinions upon the nation, often through legislation
    and as a cover for their own political ambitions about how the nation should be governed.

    The fact that it takes a decade or more for some companies to fight through the Courts to
    get huge projects off the ground is one of the major complaints of our current Federal government. The fact is, the governments of the last thirty years are the reason for these very
    problems. They pandered to any section of the community that offered them votes rather than
    taking up the fight. They have increasingly cut back our right to free speech to cover
    their political hides. None, even now, will replicate Trump’s actions in defying the same people.

    The High Court, on a unity ticket, tossed out the allegedly nonsensical arguments used to
    convict Pell. One would think that the same forces would be brought to bear on arguments
    that relied on social media, with all its censorship etc, as being the greater in principle that people use as decide national values than the values derived from historic traditions people use to establish their values.

    30

  • #
    Strop

    Someone accidentally donated $25,000 to the GoFundme instead of $250.
    They’ve been able to arrange a refund …. which they’re using to buy some new underwear.

    30

  • #
    AndyG55

    You could prove me wrong about your total lack of scientific integrity and honesty.

    Donate $100 towards Peter Ridd’s challenge in the High Court.

    50

  • #
    glen Michel

    [Snip]

    11

  • #
    yarpos

    Snippy comment?

    [No]AD

    11

  • #
    sophocles

    My comment at #32 doesn’t need to come out of the moderation queue, AD.
    Thanks.

    11