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.