Peter Ridd, sacked by James Cook University for telling the truth and exposing lies about the barrier reef, has won his case against that organisation.

The Federal Court has found that Ridd's termination was unlawful. Penalties will be fixed at a later date.

Ridd had the right to ignore university administrators and to continue to speak out, the Court found.

I am heartened to see justice done in this case, although I'd say the judge has been removed from more than a few guest lists.

Ridd has challenged the academia model of talking up minor problems to enhance the grants received, & offering faulty research results, if that is what government wants.

It is a standing joke in the north, among people who spend a lot of time on the reef, just how bad the media published stories are. "Is that our reef they are talking about" is a common question. We need more Peter Ridds to even start to get some honesty into academia.

Wouldn't it be great if we had a government strong enough to cut off all funding from James Cook, until the people who attempted this miscarriage of justice were removed from the institution.

One would think that scientists, by their very nature, would be compelled to speak the true facts, not face dismissal for presenting data that may prove unpopular or embarrassing. Seems nothing has been learned from the denigration of progressive scientists in the past.
I’m delighted he won his case.

In a statement James Cook University's Provost
Professor Chris Cocklin disagreed with the judge
and said the University was - "Considering its
options."

"We are also troubled by the fact that he fails
to refer to any legal precedent or case law in
Australia to support his interpretation of our
enterprise agreement, or academic freedom in Australia
employment law." The statement said.

Provost Professor Cocklin maintained in the statement
that Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his "scientific
views."

"Peter Ridd was never gagged or silenced," the statement
said.

"We maintain we have not taken issue with Dr Ridd's,
nor any other employers right to academic freedom.
What was an issue was how he communicated about
others, how he denigrated others, and how he
breached confidentiality, which impacted not only on him,
but on others."

More hearings are to be set for a later date.

Good, but nothing will change.
My mommy said; if you can't say anything "nice", don't say anything, so nothing to say about educational institutions.

...more than...in my area, the local Council contracted Newcastle uni to tick-off a sewage outfall into the ocean, when within an hours drive is Southern Cross uni.
This uni also has a marine biology department in Coffs Harbour, an hour south.

Not hard to work out why!

Dan

Oh I was taught the Barrier reef would be finished by the turn of last century. What percentage of our budget now goes to scaremongers who claim to be part of the solution while really are the problem. Thank God for men like Ridd and Folau who despite being treated as deplorables have far more integrity than the swamp.

We're all stuck in the swamp - but some
of us are looking at the stars.

Ridd's exoneration should lead to an outbreak of freedom of speech and honest debate on the climate scam. It should also serve as a warning to the Left media and other academics that suppression of opponents right to freedom of thought and speech could entail some real-world penalties. James Cook university's appalling arrogance and tyranny is going to cost.

'We're all stuck in the swamp - but some
of us are looking at the stars.'

pay that one Foxy! ha

runner,

Don't need to pay it. How about trying it for
a change?

Well Foxy the stars in these cases are definetely Ridd and Folau.

I think there is quite some difference in reporting news about the Peter Ridd case outcome, difference between ABC and SMH reporting.
The ABC seems to provide a balanced view.
The SMH view appears to me to be unbalanced, e.g was Prof Ridd's questioning global warming or was he questioning actual damage and condition of the (whole) GBR?
I think the Ridd point of contention was about coral, not about CO2 emissions.

Anyway, from my point of view coral is thriving in some areas while other areas have damaged or dead coral.
Also, where some reef was previously all covered with healthy coral, now there can be considerable dead coral among the living coral.

One thing is certain, damaged and dead coral is becoming more apparent in the SW Pacific and worldwide, and evidence of substance on hand indicates the cause is nutrient pollution feeding algae leading to hypoxia in small and bigger dead zones, including ocean dead zones.
I think lack of oxygen due to over abundance of algae sometimes in pockets or sometimes from a bloom over part of a reef, is killing the coral's own zooanthellae algae, causing it to be expelled, sometimes then leading to 'coral bleaching'.

Physics and marine biology and other appropriate fields of science must urgently team together toward proper solutions. Viable business and employment generating solutions.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-16/jcu-scientist-peter-ridd-sacking-unlawful-federal-court-judgment/11021554

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/sacking-of-james-cook-university-professor-was-unlawful-court-rules-20190416-p51etz.html

runner,

We shall have to wait and see on those counts
what the courts end up deciding. Still early
days as yet.

"I think there is quite some difference in reporting news about the Peter Ridd case outcome, difference between ABC and SMH reporting.
The ABC seems to provide a balanced view".

The findings of a court are not subject to "balance" in reporting or opinions. The court found in favour of Peter Ridd. End of story.

ttbn,

Surely media reporting of the court decision should be balanced. Or do you think such reporting can be spun and politicized to promote one thing or another? End of story?

Dear Hasbeen,

You write;

“I am heartened to see justice done in this case, although I'd say the judge has been removed from more than a few guest lists.”

Why? He did his job. The only ones who were not going to be happy with that outside those immediately impacted was your lot of anti-climate loons. The rest of us have enough confidence in the legal system to accept the judgement and move on. It is you and your small band of malcontents who were lining up to call him weak if he hadn't adjudicated the way you wanted.

Dear Big Nana,

You wrote;

“One would think that scientists, by their very nature, would be compelled to speak the true facts, not face dismissal for presenting data that may prove unpopular or embarrassing.”

He got sacked not for the content but in the accusatory and demeaning manner with which he delivered his assessment of other staff.

JF,

No mate. It's the decision that is the important thing - to me anyway. He was persecuted by the university hierarchy for contradicting the 'wisdom' of their official line on the GBR. Right or wrong, he was entitled to voice dissent; and the Federal Court agreed. What is there to report about that simple fact?

Hasbeen and Big Nana,

Don't bother arguing with SR: it only encourages more of his rants. You are both made of better stuff than he is.

Yes ttbn, I think he might have been Examinator in a previous life. If not there is another buffoon with an unjustifiably opinion of themselves.

The SJW's response to the court ruling is interesting. Thanks to Ridd for presenting the data. It's sad to see the proud name of James Cook related to this university. Though not an expert I'm still concerned about "the reef"- the star fish, the bleaching, the level of human activity around it, the runoff.

Hasbeen,

Where most people are prepared to put their opinions and arguments, accepting that they will get agreement, disagreement and sometimes even a bit of respect, SR is one of the three posters notorious for their insistence on having the last word. They are trolls who just like to argue about anything. There is no point in getting involved with them. I won't name the others and give them an excuse to start chuntering, but you know who they are.

It appears that opinions that don't agree with
theirs are simply unacceptable to certain posters.
And these are the very posters who will
get down to personal attacks.
There's words for people like that - hypocrites
comes to mind.

As far as Peter Ridd is concerned - the university
has explained why the man was fired. It wasn't his
views - it was the way he denigrated both the
university and his colleagues.

In any case - penalty hearings are continuing -
the end results are yet to come. We shall have to
wait and see if the man is re-instated.

Dear Hasbeen,

You write; “there is another buffoon with an unjustifiably opinion of themselves”

Yup we really are peas in a pod aren't we.

Anyway shall we move past the typical kneejerk claptrap of you and your cohort and discuss the judgement.

This case is turning out to be a cracker. It appears that the judge sees the Academic Freedom provisions in James Cook's Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2016 as overriding the requirements for confidentiality (which Ridd admitted breaking) contained within the same agreement.

http://www.jcu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/123472/James-Cook-University-Enterprise-Agreement-2016.pdf

The University's response is also worth a read.

http://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2019/april/response-to-federal-circuit-court-judgement

If the judge's decision is to be upheld then it will be a fun time for university administrators as any staff member will be able to slag off about another and publish confidential information and call it academic freedom. It might be considered over reach but time will tell how much it is abused.

However it should be noted that it has been the unions forcing inclusion of the academic freedom clause within enterprise agreements which has allowed for this determination.

Quote

The National Tertiary Education Union campaigns for academic freedom clauses in Enterprise Agreements rather than in university policies. National President Alison Barnes explains why; “the most important implication of this judgement is that the only real protections for academic freedom in Australia are in the enterprise agreements negotiated by the NTEU. Most universities have policies on academic freedom, but they are completely unenforceable and therefore of very limited value.”
“Professor Ridd’s views on climate change would be at odds with the strongly held opinions of many NTEU members. However, that is not the point. The right to speak freely about academic matters needs to be especially protected when views are unpopular or controversial. It is greatly to the credit of his colleagues, many of whom disagree with his views, that they did not support the heavy-handed approach of the university management in this case,” Dr Barnes says.

End quote
http://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/why-peter-ridd-won-his-case-against-james-cook-u/

A victory for the unions in a number of ways it would seem.

For those interested here is a link to the judgement itself.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCCA/2019/997.html?context=1;query=Peter%20Ridd;mask_path=

The introduction reads in part;

Quote

1 .Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Others have thought that this trial was about the manner in which academics should conduct themselves. Some observers may have thought that this trial was about the use of non-offensive words when promulgating scientific ideas. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views.

2. Though many of those issues were canvased and discussed throughout the hearing of this matter, this trial was about none of the above. Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise Agreement. Whilst the Court acknowledges that there may be consequences that touch upon these other issues because of the Court’s construction of that clause, none of those consequences can play any part in the determination of the proper construction of that clause.

3. The clause in question is cl.14 of the James Cook University Enterprise Agreement. It is headed “Intellectual Freedom”. It, and it alone, is the focus of this judgement.

End quote.

I haven't had a chance to read it properly yet.

Just a note there must be a later Enterprise Agreement than the one I posted before as in that one the Academic Freedom section is Clause 10 rather than 14. When I get a moment I will see if I can find the more recent version.

Hasbeen,

There's another one popping up to yap, proving what I just said about them.

No - providing facts.

But -

Don't let them get in the way of a good story.

Clause 14 from the Enterprise Bargaining Agreement which the case hinged on;

"14. INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM

14.1. JCU is committed to act in a manner consistent with the protection and promotion of intellectual freedom within the University and in accordance with JCU’s Code of Conduct.

14.2. Intellectual freedom includes the rights of staff to:
Pursue critical and open inquiry;
Participate in public debate and express opinions about issues and ideas related to their respective fields of competence;
Express opinions about the operations of JCU and higher education policy more generally;
Be eligible to participate in established decision making structures and processes within JCU, subject to established selection procedures and criteria;
Participate in professional and representative bodies, including unions and other representative bodies.

14.3. All staff have the right to express unpopular or controversial views. However, this comes with a responsibility to respect the rights of others and they do not have the right to harass, vilify, bully or intimidate those who disagree with their views. These rights are linked to the responsibilities of staff to support JCU as a place of independent learning and thought where ideas may be put forward and opinion expressed freely.

14.4. JCU acknowledges the rights of staff to express disagreement with University decisions and with the processes used to make those decisions. Staff should seek to raise their concerns through applicable processes and give reasonable opportunity for such processes to be followed.

14.5. Staff, as leaders and role models to students and the wider community, must adhere to the highest standards of propriety and truthfulness in scholarship, research and professional practice.

14.6. Staff members commenting publicly in a professional or expert capacity may identify themselves using their University appointment or qualifications, but must not represent their opinions as those of JCU. The University expects that staff will maintain professional standards when they intentionally associate themselves with its name in public statements and/or forums.

14.7. Staff who contribute to public debate as individuals and not in a professional or expert capacity, must not intentionally identify themselves in association with their University appointment.

End quote

I have read through the judgement and I have no problems with it. Referencing Darwin and Einstein was probably stretch but otherwise I think is was solid and well reasoned. It does not paint the University in good light and their actions of going through all of Ridd's emails to pad out their list of complains should be illegal.

For the judge to find that the EBA overrode the university's Code of Conduct will have its own ramifications but that was solidly argued by him and I agree with his position.

Professor Ridd should be thankful for every dollar he has ever paid to his union.

“Like Galileo, Professor Ridd has been determined to uphold his own scientific views in the face of condemnation by a hostile hierarchy. Unlike Galileo, however, attempts to force his recantation failed.” (The Spectator).

SR says:”Professor Ridd should be thankful for every dollar he has ever paid to his union.s:”
Was there evidence that the union negotiated the agreement, Reflux? You might direct us to it, or otherwise seek to justify your baseless statement
Professor Cocklin has issued a statement that the university does not agree with the judgement. The law is clear on how a judgment may be contested, so his statement may amount to abuse of process or contempt of Court. It certainly has no status in relation to the judgment.

Dear Leo Lane,

Now normally of course I would have given your temerity short shrift but I am trying to moderate my tone.

So I am instead going to direct you to an earlier post on this thread where I gave the following reference;

“The National Tertiary Education Union campaigns for academic freedom clauses in Enterprise Agreements rather than in university policies. National President Alison Barnes explains why; “the most important implication of this judgement is that the only real protections for academic freedom in Australia are in the enterprise agreements negotiated by the NTEU. Most universities have policies on academic freedom, but they are completely unenforceable and therefore of very limited value.”
“Professor Ridd’s views on climate change would be at odds with the strongly held opinions of many NTEU members. However, that is not the point. The right to speak freely about academic matters needs to be especially protected when views are unpopular or controversial. It is greatly to the credit of his colleagues, many of whom disagree with his views, that they did not support the heavy-handed approach of the university management in this case,” Dr Barnes says.”
http://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/why-peter-ridd-won-his-case-against-james-cook-u/

As you had obviously missed it I would be interested to see if you had anything that would counter the above?

If you are going to assert that the EBA was negotiated without the union then it would probably make James Cook University staff as probably the only uni in the country where that has occurred. Highly unlikely of course.

You may well be considering remarking that this doesn't prove the union was instrumental in including the academic clause within this specific agreement and that it was placed in there at the insistence of the University, but that of course would be ludicrous so you won't.

In a statement James Cook
University Provost, Professor Chris Cocklin did more
than just disagree
with the judge - he said the university was "considering its
options."

And he went on to further explain that -

"We are also troubled by the fact that he (the judge) fails
to refer to any legal precedent or case law in Australia
to support his interpretation of our enterprise agreement,
or academic freedom in Australian employment law." His
statement said.

Provost Professor Cocklin maintained in the statement that
Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his "scientific views."

"Peter Ridd was never gagged or silenced." the statement said.

"We maintain we have not taken issue with Dr Ridd's nor any
other employee's right to academic freedom."

"What was an issue was how he (Ridd) communicated about
others, how he denigrated others,
and how he breached confidentiality,
which impacted not only on him, but on others."

Penalty hearings are to be set for a later date.

It shall be interesting to see if Dr Ridd gets re-instated.

On what grounds is Peter Ridd's view of the state of the GBR not relevant to his dismissal?
If his view is incorrect then surely dismissing him would be justified.
If his view is correct and that view offends others, then surely his dismissal is not justified.

This JCU/Ridd affair is not just about academia. The very future of the GBR and coral worldwide is at stake. Peter Ridd has shown photos of healthy coral where JCU science has claimed coral is dead or damaged. Doubt needs to be resolved. Questions need answers.

Is the GBR seriously damaged as some JCU coral scientists say according to news media?
Is there any damage to GBR coral, if so from what scientifically proven cause, is the sole cause due to climate change or is there another cause?
Is climate change absolutely the only cause of widespread coral bleaching?

There is evidence coral in some areas of the GBR is very healthy. In other areas there is dead coral amongst living coral. There are areas of old reef with new coral sprouting up here and there.

CO2 is everywhere but coral is not dead everywhere.
The whole GBR is not dead. But most GBR coral could be dead in the future due to eutrophication.

There is evidence of substance including absolute fact that JCU science and also Prof Ridd, have not been measuring the total nutrient load being transported from all point sources into GBR waters. For presently unknown reason the northerly flow of sewage nutrient from Australia’s east coast cities and towns, transported within the known sediment dispersal system, is not observed and measured in JCU and GBRMPA associated science. That dispersal system is definitely transporting unprecedented southern city and town sewage nutrient (pollution) into GBR waters and beyond Cape York.
Dissolved nutrient bonded to fresher surface water is sometimes pushed long distances by prevailing wind.

If the JCU/ Ridd affair develops solely into academic debate then its likely nutrient pollution feeding algae killing coral will continue without solutions. Even crown of thorns larvae plagues thrive on micro algae.

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/08-1120.1

JCU Provost Professor Chris Cocklin clearly explained
why they sacked Dr Ridd.

Dr Ridd was not sacked because of his "scientific views."

"We maintain we have not taken issue with Dr Ridd's, nor
any other employee's rights to academic freedom"

In other words Dr Ridd was never gagged or silenced.

"What was an issue was HOW Dr Ridd communicated about
others, how he denigrated others, and how he breached
confidentiality, which impacted not only on him, but
on others."

Penalty hearings are to be set for a later date.
And whether Dr Ridd will be re=-instated we don't
yet kn ow. Perhaps he'll get a better offer from
some media outlets.

I think JCU took issue with Peter Ridd's personal view, not his scientific view. There was no paper.

The Great Barrier Reef (Queensland version), is "kapoot". Peter Ridd is of total insignificance.

Dear Foxy,

I think Professor Chris Cocklin might be drawing a long bow to say they never impinged on his academic freedom.

By evoking a confidentiality clause that is normally there to protect the individual during disciplinary actions taken against them to attempt to silence Ridd from speaking about the reasons for the proceedings against him was fraught.

Also the provisions of the EBA on Academic Freedom include this;

"All staff have the right to express unpopular or controversial views. However, this comes with a responsibility to respect the rights of others and they do not have the right to harass, vilify, bully or intimidate those who disagree with their views."

What JCU failed to do, in the judge's opinion, was to illustrate that Ridd harassed, vilified, bullied or intimidated any other staff. I agree with that assessment based on his judgement. This will probably the basis of any appeal though.

Dear Steele,

I guess it will be up to the university to prove
their case if they decide to appeal. Dr Ridd
did give a series of interviews to the media
where he was not very diplomatic in what he
said. He did make it personal regarding both
his colleagues and the university. However, it's
now all up to the university and what it decides to do.

I shall be surprised if despite everything the man
gets re-instated.

This is the judgment handed down by the Court:
1) The Court rules 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.

(2) The issue of the making of declarations and penalty are adjourned to a date to be fixed.
The matter will only come before the Court for making of orders for reinstatement of Professor Ridd, and orders, including any penalty against the university. There will be no reconsideration of the case, Foxy, unless, the university appeals. There is a possibility of action against the university if its informal response is viewed as abuse of process.

Dear Leo,

I hope the university appeals.

I nominate Peter Ridd as Australian of the year.

Not Fraser Anning?

probably not a bad suggestion Foxy. Who do you suggest?

Peter Dutton.

'Peter Dutton.' I think Tony would edge him. He did stop the boats and get rid of the breathing tax! Defied everyone who said these things were impossible.

It's incredible the two issues at the heart of this Ridd case are being virtually ignored on this thread.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2019/03/two-truths-at-the-heart-of-peter-ridds-sacking/

Interesting article JF Aus.

Yes, CM. Very interesting.

From my perspective the whole situation is very concerning.
JCU and also Peter Ridd are focussed on sediment when in reality the problem is nutrient pollution killing coral and seagrass food web nurseries.

Farmer's are being blamed for da manage to the GBR, resulting in more and more restrictive legislation that is affecting farming business and family livelihood, when it is the unmanaged dissolved nutrient load in municipal sewage waste water dumped daily that is the cause.

Non political science should have easy and urgent access to the resources being lost on misleading nonsense suggesting the whole GBR is doomed due to silt and CO2 emissions.

All point source nutrient pollution linked to eutrophication is the problem.

It's time for academic debate about JCU v/S Ridd to turn to debate about nutrient pollution from all point sources devastating world ocean ecosystems, not just the GBR.
Seagrass areal coverage list to nutrient proliferated algae is resulting in lack of food for ocean animals including now devastated tuna populations.
Hungry animals are cleaning out island fish on which island people depend for essential protein. Under nutrition is causing increase in maternal mortality and NCD including Diabetes, liver, kidney and heart disease.

Dire urgency to identify all causes of coral and seagrass damage must be debated and understood so proper solutions can be put in place.
The problem is not CO2.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946114/

SR refers to my questioning of his unsupported and irrelevant assertion, as”temerity”, which is how he regards any questioning of his baseless statements. His delusional state makes communication with him difficult. He has referred me to a statement by a union official which makes no reference to Peter Ridd, so is irrelevant.
Typical of Reflux, and his inability to respond coherently.I wonder how he will act, now that he has made a fool of himself. He usually runs away and hides.

Yes, Foxy, it would be nice to see an appeal. The university deserves another trouncing, and attempting to overturn a competent Judge like Vasta is a good w ay to ensure that happens.

Dear Leo Lane,

You write;

“He has referred me to a statement by a union official which makes no reference to Peter Ridd, so is irrelevant.”

What? The statement I posted referred to “the judgement' and to “Professor Ridd”! This was from the head of the bloody union you dingbat.

You really are bonkers mate.

You really are an ignoramus, Reflux. You need to show that the clause in Ridd’s agreement is the clause drafted by the union.That should not be difficult for you, if only you had the abilty to think straight. What the head of the union said is irrelevant unless it deals with that specific issue. Anyway, you have reminded us of your ignorance, and your inability to conduct yourself as a reasonable human being. You have made a fool of yourself again.. Your offensive, ill-bred language certainly adds to this. Try again, Reflux, and give us anther laugh at a dimwit

Dear Leo Lane,

It appears that there's some question about Judge
Vasta's competency:

http://www.afr.com/business/legal/could-salvatore-vasta-be-australias-worst-judge-20190225-h1bp1k

There's a great deal more on the web.

I hope that JCU will appeal.

Dear Leo Lane,

Stop being a snow flake.

You call me 'delusional', a 'fool' and indicate I am a coward yet when I retort with a simple 'dingbat' it is my language that is deemed 'offensive' and 'ill-bred'? Yeh right.

I will remind you of your original statement which now seems like so much projection;

“He has referred me to a statement by a union official which makes no reference to Peter Ridd, so is irrelevant.
Typical of Reflux, and his inability to respond coherently. I wonder how he will act, now that he has made a fool of himself. “

Well given that there was a clear and specific reference to Ridd from the union official this was not a coherent response was it. It is relevant. And you have made an utter fool of yourself.

Now you are saying than unless I can prove the clause included in the EBA was explicitly placed there by the the union then my argument collapses.

This is of course bonkers. The university has its own, albeit weaker, academic freedom rules so why would it include a stronger set within the EBA of its own accord?

It is utterly delusional to assert without evidence that it was not the union which drafted the EBA?

Whacker old chap.

Dear Foxy,

You link was behind a paywall I'm afraid but I'm wondering if you could post any comments relevant to Ridd's case.

Does Foxy agree anthropogenic global warming is caused by CO2 emissions?

Dear Steele,

What I found was that according to the Australian
Financial Review articles Judge Salvatore Vasta faces
the prospect of a parliamentary inquiry on his fitness
to remain on the bench with the Law Council saying it was
considering action after a series of "troubling"
judgements.

I imagine that such a move would put his legal competency
into question would it not?

Dear Foxy,

Perhaps.

But I have read his judgement in this case and have found little to fault it. If you can find examples of him getting it wrong I would be happy to look at them.

What relation is he to Angelo Vasta or is he keeping that under wraps ? I couldn't blame him if he did.

"Judging judges is fraught with dangers".
http://www.cla.asn.au/News/judicial-independence-under-assault-2/

Why not just get on with whether what Peter Ridd said about the GBR and JCU, is correct or not?

Or is all this academic legality focus a distraction to the mess Adani will make during coal port excavati

.... coal port excavation?

Dear Steele,

Perhaps this link may help:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2019/04/18/judge-peter-ridd-james-cook-trial-not-climate-science-freedom-speech

Reflux says:” Now you are saying than unless I can prove the clause included in the EBA was explicitly placed there by the the union then my argument collapses.

This is of course bonkers. “
I did not say that, Reflux, you said it, and as you say, it is” bonkers”, like the rest of your assertions on this topic.
We are past the point where demonstrations of the addled state of your mind are funny. You are just tiresome.
You have at least established that you are unable to sustain any of your baseless assertions about Ridd’s agreement.

The Ridd case should not be hijacked by climate change advocates or by sensitive academics.

Surely media-reported questions should also include, is the Peter Ridd view of coral damage validated by his unfair dismissal win?

If Peter Ridd had said nothing he would not have been dismissed.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-04-23/peter-ridd-reef-science-climate-change/11026540

SR,

I'm glad that you read the judgement. I also thought that his decisions were clear well explained and logical and dealt with each point individually and thoroughly. I brought it up in a separate thread with respect to the proposed cancellation of Folau's contract.

I would be genuinely interested in your take on the correlation between the two cases.

While I don't have access to the details of Folau's contract, the fact that Rugby Australia tried to insert a social media clause into Folau's contract (unsuccessfully) subsequent to both parties signing the contract indicates to me that the contract is silent on social media issues, which would make cancelling the contract risky.

As background to Reflux’s refusal to behave like a reasonable human being I will post a copy of my post of 11 August 2017 one of the futile requests I made of him to disclose the source of the scurrilous lies he posted about Professor Robert Carter. Carter showed that the scientific proof of human causation of global warming
Put out by the IPCC was invalid. Reflux, finding no science to counter a climate scientist like Carter’s flawless science, posted a lie, attacking Carter
The copy of my previous post:
“Reflux, demonstrating his lack of breeding, and his ignorant, uncivil behaviour, still fails to respond to questions about his lie concerning Professor Carter.
Here is a copy of my post in May, requesting his response
” Steele Reflux has raised his delusional head again, using the scurrilous term “denier”.
As I have asked you many times before, Reflux, what is the science being denied?
You have none. There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
You disappeared from the climate thread after you posted the baseless lie that Robert Carter’s complete demolition of the climate fraud had been shown to be untrue.
You gave no reference to the source of this nonsense, and I asked you to give the source or admit that you had concocted the ridiculous lie yourself.
As is your custom when you corner yourself with your dishonesty, you disappeared down your rodent hole for months.
Now that you have surfaced will you please give the source of your baseless lies about Robert Carter’s work.
He showed that the assertions about CO2 by the fraud promoters completely fail.
As Carter's science is flawless, fraud promoters like Reflux, make baseless personal attacks.
What is your response this time, Reflux?
Disappear down the rat hole again?
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday,

That Peter Ridd said something and what he said and whether it was absurd or correct, should also be debated and reported as to whether he is guilty or not.

JCU is a good university with mostly genuine scientists not totally obsessed and tied up with AGW and CO2 emission views.
I think JCU is a pawn. Evidence indicates the debacle is GBRMPA policy with its boundary jurisdiction that excludes scientific study and measurement and assessment of impact of the Australian east coast sediment dispersal system current flowing northwards and transporting nutrient pollution into GBR waters.

And another debacle is commentators inability to comprehend nutrient pollution is causing areas of coral damage, not GBR overall damage caused by global warming.

http://www.thegwpf.com/the-ridd-affair-is-a-debacle-for-james-cook-university/

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'm not sure my take will align with yours but here goes. To me the correlation relates to over reach by both respective governing bodies and the corrosion of values by outside money.

Over reach of course in the sense that they are not owned by an individual and not strictly corporations either but have acted like they are.

I think we have to accept that in a capitalist culture a sole owner of a rugby club can decide he does not want to continue to pay someone who is turning away sponsors. But the governing body of the sport should not have that expediency. I don't accept that they should be so beholden to corporate sponsorship that they could deny one of Australia's best rugby players the chance to play for his country. But this was the case they put to Folau in their initial meeting with him. I'm not saying there shouldn't be avenues for sanctions for non-compliance with rules of employment but the bar of termination for putting the game into disrepute should be set appropriately high with justifications that will stand up in court.

I am not so deep into conspiracy theories that I believe outside funding is the primary driver for Climate change research. However it would be dishonest to claim it had no influence in the decisions of the JCU administrators. JCU is a public university. It should display a higher value system toward inclusion and academic freedom than what we might expect out of a Catholic university or perhaps a Bond University.

So the final judgement in both cases will centre around whether either governing body had the right to place the stipulations of employment they did on either individual, or more to the point whether they are found to be legally enforceable.

As an aside I did consider the stance taken by the National Tertiary Education Union as more commendable than that of the Rugby Player's Association even though a representative of the latter did attend the hearing with Folau.

So what is your take?

Hi Steele,

For once, I agree with you, on these issues.

Jesus, now either I'm a lefty fruit-cake or you're a knuckle-dragging Alt-Right. [Or is it the other way around ?]

Or maybe both of us are somewhere in between :)

Cheers,

Joe

Reflux, you seemed to consider that ill-breeding of yourself was inappropriate to explain your behaviour. If you have a more appropriate explanation of the reason for your disgraceful behaviour, please inform us.

SR,

Actually I don't differ from your view on the issue much at all.

With regards Folau, PC pressure, particularly from Quantas who is their major sponsor is a major factor in the action they have taken, and now that they have announced his sacking before even a tribunal has taken place is the workplace equivalent of a verdict being issued before a trial has started.

While not knowing what was in his contract, the onus to show significant breach of contract lies on RA.

With regards PR, the Uni council clearly failed to understand that the employment contract had contradictory elements where intellectual freedom took precedence. That at no point did the JCU council even challenge the factual validity of PR's statements made the decision very clear. Ruffling the feathers of colleagues is not a dismissable offence. I think that the chance of a successful appeal here is slim.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Since we are being rather congenial on this I'm wondering if you had given any thought to the fact that the protections for Ridd's academic freedom were union driven? It would appear they are the last bastion so to speak. Ultimately giving everything over to the market can only erode those protections. Have we gone too far?

Dear Loudmouth,

I believe most people are pretty decent and when ideology is parked then agreement is almost always assured on the grounds of aforementioned decency, fairness and shared experiences. I'm not saying ideology doesn't have its place as some of the great social leaps forward have resulted in exercising it. However we generally have far more in common than we do differences and not enough attention or respect is paid to those commonalities.

SR,

Given that Intellectual freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of Universities, the propensity of unions against free speech, and the fact that the effort to fire PR came from a "union" of left wing academics, I remain skeptical as to the involvement of the unions in the insertion of clause 14 of the EA.

I would say that Clause 18c is also a major erosion of free speech.

As I said Reflux,
“You have at least established that you are unable to sustain any of your baseless assertions about Ridd’s agreement.”
That did not prevent your addle brained attempt to raise your baseless assertion about the union again.Surely you understand the proof of your failure, now.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote;

“Given that Intellectual freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of Universities”

This actually varies considerably between institutions and compared to some of the others JCU's version is far less a cornerstone and much more a facade.

Its code says they will;

“value academic freedom, and enquire, examine, criticise and challenge in the collegial and academic spirit of the search for knowledge, understanding and truth;”

Compare it to Deakin University's version;

“the University recognises and values the right to academic freedom as central to its endeavours in scholarship, teaching and research and is committed to its promotion and protection within the University. It supports the right of its scholars to engage in critical inquiry and robust and unfettered critical debate which extends to engagement with the media”

Western Sydney University's;

“The University is committed to the ideal of freedom to undertake intellectual inquiry and the pursuit of knowledge without undue interference or influence. While the individual and the University benefit from this, we acknowledge the social context and our responsibilities and accountability to peers, each other, and society in general.”

University of Western Australia;

“Academic freedom is recognised and protected by this University as essential to the proper conduct of teaching, research and scholarship. Freedom of intellectual thought and enquiry and the open exchange of ideas and evidence are a University core value. All academic and research staff should be guided by a commitment to freedom of inquiry and exercise their traditional rights to examine social values and to criticise and challenge the belief structures of society in the spirit of a responsible and honest search for knowledge and its dissemination.”

You then say because of;

“the propensity of unions against free speech, and the fact that the effort to fire PR came from a "union" of left wing academics”

Insipid. The fact that the EBA contained far stronger clauses about academic freedom than that of the university speaks for itself and for you to be labelling a bunch of aggrieved staff a 'union' doesn't add one iota to the discussion.

SR,

My last post was not very clear. EAs are negotiated between employers and employee representatives with clauses being put in by both sides. I would assume that the clause 14 is not used in any other industry, and have no reason to believe that it was inserted at the behest of the union involved. This is based on my perception that unions are strong supporters of the new PC culture, however, I stand to be corrected if you have any contrary evidence.

I wonder whether clause 14 is repeated in other university EAs particularly those you cited with wooly codes of conduct that expose staff to political persecution. Sydney Uni would be one that might have to temper its behaviour.

http://sydney.edu.au/policies/showdoc.aspx?recnum=PDOC2011/65&RendNum=0

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote;

"I would assume that the clause 14 is not used in any other industry, and have no reason to believe that it was inserted at the behest of the union involved. This is based on my perception that unions are strong supporters of the new PC culture, however, I stand to be corrected if you have any contrary evidence."

I gave this reference earlier in the thread;

Quote

The National Tertiary Education Union campaigns for academic freedom clauses in Enterprise Agreements rather than in university policies. National President Alison Barnes explains why; “the most important implication of this judgement is that the only real protections for academic freedom in Australia are in the enterprise agreements negotiated by the NTEU. Most universities have policies on academic freedom, but they are completely unenforceable and therefore of very limited value.”
“Professor Ridd’s views on climate change would be at odds with the strongly held opinions of many NTEU members. However, that is not the point. The right to speak freely about academic matters needs to be especially protected when views are unpopular or controversial. It is greatly to the credit of his colleagues, many of whom disagree with his views, that they did not support the heavy-handed approach of the university management in this case,” Dr Barnes says.

End quote
http://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/why-peter-ridd-won-his-case-against-james-cook-u/

I'm wondering if you are claiming this has lesser evidentiary weight than your perception?

Ridd's case has proven that EBA trumps the code of conduct. I have also shown that JCU stance on academic freedom contained within its own code of conduct rules was tepid at best. Based on this I have no problem assuming the union was correct in its assessment and would expect it to have driven for stronger protections within the EBA.

As I said Reflux,
“You have at least established that you are unable to sustain any of your baseless assertions about Ridd’s agreement.”
That did not prevent your addle brained attempt to raise your baseless assertion about the union again.Surely you understand proof of your failure, now.

"addle brained"

Mmmm.

Yes, Reflux, an apt description of yourself, finally acknowledged

SR,

As I said, I did stand to be corrected so I now accept that the NTEU was involved with inserting the intellectual freedom clause. However, given that the NTEU is left wing even compared to most unions, I would guess that the clause was to protect the more outrageous commentary from the far left. Given that it was pressure from union members to get him fired, I would guess that this judgement would have given them a fat wake up call that intellectual freedom goes both ways.

Given the general intolerance of the academic left I wouldn't be surprised to see this clause quietly modified at subsequent EAs.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You conjectured;

“Given that it was pressure from union members to get him fired”

Professor Hughes put in a complaint about Ridd to the university administrators as he had ever right to do, but I can not find any record of him calling for Ridd to be dismissed. Those complaints were upheld by the university. It was Ridd subsequently breaking rules of confidentiality that caused the escalation with the administration which led to his ultimate dismissal, certainly not pressure from other staff from what I can ascertain.

So unless you are contending those administrators are also members of the union I don't think your conjecture can be sustained.

How can comment here on OLO not include whether Peter Ridd's question of the GBR facing imminent catastrophe from climate change is a question of substance or not? If he spoke nonsense then surely dismissal would be justified.

Could something else be causing damage to coral believed to be due to climate change, such as eutrophication from nutrient pollution?

I think you OLO people should wake up via links below, to the seriousness of the devastated state of the ocean that includes the GBR. (N.B. see following link dates, all 2019 until now 30 Apr)

Independent evidence indicates causes and solutions:
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-dead-gray-whales-starving-20190426-story.html
AND
A likely cause is toxic algae eaten by small fish dolphin eat.
http://www.treehugger.com/ocean-conservation/3000-dolphins-found-dead-coast-peru.html
AND
Dolphin are competing more and more with fishermen, for dwindling fish.
http://www.france24.com/en/20190329-france-environment-dead-dolphins-beaches-fishing-sea-shepherd-macron

P.S.
http://www.marinemammalcenter.org/science/top-research-projects/domoic-acid-toxicity.html

What about justice for the GBR and the ocean?

Correction. The second link above is dated 2012. Apologies.

Try this one:
http://greenworldwarriors.com/2019/04/21/over-3000-dolphins-found-dead-on-the-coast-of-peru/

SR,

While Professor Hughes might have made the original complaint, it stretches all credibility to claim that there was no input from anyone else, and that the punishment meted out to PR was simply due to a handful of incompetent bureaucrats.

Secondly, PR broke no rules of confidentiality only the edict of Professor Cocklin who had vastly overstepped both the letter and spirit of the confidentiality clause of the already shaky "code of conduct" in order to silence PR.

Dear Shadow minister,

Come on mate, you have read the judgement apparently, where is there a single piece of evidence for any of that?