In April of this year, blogger Justinian the Great (Catallaxy Files 26.4.19) predicted that Peter Ridd’s (Prof. Ridd is the debunker of GBR gloom and doom on coral) victory over James Cook University would “not usher in a new era of academic freedom and debate”. Justinian thought that, rather than accept the court’s judgement, JCU would probably double down on their enterprise agreement to ensure that ‘no future “Ridd” case’ can happen. He was right.

According to Jo Nova: “JCU has no commitment to free speech; they’ve now REMOVED THE CLAUSE THAT ENSURED RIDD WON”. That is, James Cook University has merely recognised that sloppy wording on their part was why Ridd won, and by tidying up, they will be able to continue their draconian stance against free speech, and continue lying about the state of the Great Barrier Reef.

Justinian believes that the Morrison government will do nothing.

Given Morrison’s lack of commitment to academic freedom and freedom of speech in general, my money is on Justinian the Great being right again.

Morrison’s lack of commitment to academic freedom and freedom of speech in general,

ttbn,
Freedom of speech means Academia can say what it wants but others must be silenced at all cost. Morrison is a wake up to that.

individual

I believe that Morrison just doesn't care about freedom of speech. I don't have a clue what he cares about, and I don't think anyone else does. The Coalition picked the wrong man.

When freedom of speech is used as a vehicle to de-stabilise then it is not freedom of speech !
Many sort-of-educated people & that includes many Australians are simply not switched on enough to be given the privilege of free speech. It's like giving a loaded gun to a 4 year old.

Morrison doesn't care about free speech ttbn,
Someone else is calling the shots for him.
There has been many conservative speakers denied visas since he became PM.

This is the reason why I was willing to preference Labor ahead of Liberals at the last election.
- And I tell you I can't stand the Labor party, but at least they were being unbiased on the Israel / Palestinian issue.

Morrison's a Christian Zionist.
So he'll bow to Israel and the Jewish lobby's bidding at any time and on any issue.
And all this political correctness, identity politics, hate speech and anti-semitic definitions;

All goes back to the Anti Defamation League.

The thing that annoys me, no offense;
Is that you whinge about erosion of free speech;
But blindly support the entity behind its cause.

The two positions are not aligned with one another and it makes me delirious.

They're playing both the left and right off against the middle;
And the narrative is always an extra two steps to the left so that they constantly shift the goal posts.
http://youtu.be/vgq4pgOkGG0

Dear individual,

You wouldn't know free speech if it bit you on the arse.

Remember this?

“Steel Redux,
Yasmin's comments didn't fall into the category of free speech, there(sic) were hate speech of which you pretent(sic) to be an opponent.”

Can you please explain why Falou's comments were not hate speech but Yasmin's were?

This should be bloody interesting.

Frankly in order for any honesty to take place on uni campus's a very large swamp needs to be drained. Good people like Ridley are likely to be sacked and head nodders to the gw scam promoted. Must be a horrible horrible time to be a genuine scientist.

Steele Redux,
'Hate Speech'...
Where did this 'idea' come from?
Watch the previously linked video.

"Can you please explain why Falou's comments were not hate speech but Yasmin's were?"

I know this wasn't directed at me;
But if you want to get serious

We have freedom of religion right?
Does that freedom of religion mean that those who are religious are free to publicly proclaim their beliefs or not?

Meaning...

Christians can say homosexuals are going to hell.

But if they can say that,
Then...

Muslims can say its ok to kill infidels;
And Jews can say they have a right to rule over goyim.

Christians are so dumb.
On the basis of 'equality' (the 21st century religion) the right that Christians are fighting for is the same one that allows Muslims to kill them and for Jews to rule over them.
- Sorry I digress -

So either you support or respect freedom of religion or you don't?
Or, maybe you just oppose the religious publicly stating some aspects of their religious that you consider discriminatory towards others?

Well guess what?
Wake up Australia, all the religions discriminate against others.

So I'll ask again,
Either you support or respect freedom of religion or you don't.

individual,

I don't think I know who would use freedom of speech to "destabilise". Besides, I would never go for preventing ANYONE from speaking freely. I believe what I say as, I believe, do others who say different things.

Armchair Critic,

What do you mean by 'preference'? First preference, second, third? Which brings me to your fourth paragraph.

I did not vote for the anyone in the lower house at the last election, so I’m not sure who it is I “blindly support”. And I do not “whinge” about freedom of speech; I express it, and respect everyone else’s right to express it, no matter what they say.

Back to Morrison. I don’t know that anyone else is calling the shots for him. You would have to explain that, too. I’m not sure what a “Christian Zionist” is, but I do no take happy clapping with bands very seriously.

I simply believe that Scott Morrison is not up to the job, particularly with the looming threat from China and his unwillingness to stand up for freedom of speech. He doesn’t even have the will to protect his own brand of Christianity in the current anti-Christian age. He, like all politicians, are too remote from everyone’s feelings and beliefs to represent us they way he is supposed to.

This should be bloody interesting.
SteeleRedux,
Folau's comments weren't hate speech, Yasmine's were & you know it ! Stop pretending to be something you're not, a level headed, caring individual !

AC,

What was directed at you was my question as to what you meant by preferencing Labor over Liberal. Did you actually vote Labor? Or, did you mean that you put Liberal below Labor at the bottom of the card, and voted for someone else?

Hey ttbn,
"Did you actually vote Labor? Or, did you mean that you put Liberal below Labor at the bottom of the card, and voted for someone else?"

No, I didn't vote Labor.
And I can't ever foresee a situation where I actually would.
I placed Labor and Liberal either 3rd or 4th, or 4th and 5th.
But I did feel somewhat guilty about putting them ahead of the Liberals afterwards.

The thing that stuck me in my decision was that I saw him as a globalist rather than a nationalist.

And it was on the issue of 'freedom of speech'
- Towing the globalist line and preventing foreign speakers coming to Australia on their speaking tours.
- As well as his stand on moving the Australian embassy to Jerusalem which told me he was a Pro-Zionist or Christian Zionist.

It was these issues that annoyed me, and why I punished the Liberals by preferencing Labor ahead of them.

Western elections really are just 'feces sandwiches' due to globalist politics and political correctness these days.
It doesn't really matter which half of the sandwich you choose.

Sorry I sometimes (maybe unfairly) give you a bit of a hard time on your support for Israel.

AC,

Glad you didn’t vote Labor. Although the Morrison Coalition is clearly not interested in defended free speech for Folau or anyone else, is doesn’t actually try to block it as Green-inspired Labor does.

Globalisation is a problem with all politicians wanting to strut on the world stage instead of doing their duty to the people who pay them. Globalisation drives out industry and jobs, and imports shoddy goods.

I don’t take anything you say about Israel personally. I have no skin in the game; it’s just that I prefer Israelis (Jewish or otherwise) and democracy to Arabs and Islam. We have a lot in common with Israel; nothing whatsoever with the rest of the Middle East.

Peter Ridd won his case for unfair dismissal against
James Cook University. The controversial scientist
was sacked by James Cook University in 2018 for
allegedly breaking the University's code of conduct.

Among James Cook University's grievances were that
Peter Ridd had publicly criticised the work of colleagues,
including telling Sky News in 2017 that " scientific
organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine
Science and the ARC Centre for Coral Reef Studies can
no longer be trusted."

Controversial Judge Salvatore Vasta (who himself was facing
the prospect of a Parliamentary inquiry on his fitness to
remain on the bench with the Law Council saying it was
considering formal action after a series of "troubling
judgements" and making errors of fact and law), Vasta
ruled in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia that
the University's sacking of Ridd was "unlawful" -
in respect to their enterprise bargaining agreement.

Of course Peter Ridd's supporters were quick to claim the
win for academic freedom and freedom of speech. And
before long some were equating the court victory to a win
for climate-change scepticism.

However, Peter Ridd's views on the impact of climate change
on the Great Barrier Reef were not on trial in this case,
neither was freedom of speech. The decision was confined to
Ridd's industrial rights in his bargaining agreement and
the judge made no comment on the validity of Ridd's
climate views.

It will be interesting to see what the court decides the
law stands on Folau's rights.

Peter Ridd's crime was rocking a very comfortable, taxpayer-funded cruise liner !

Did he succeed?

Did he succeed?
As irresponsible, low ranking Academia is gradually losing ground, the real learned people/scholars/scientists/researchers will actually show how tax dollars should be spent responsibly !

Individual,

Has Peter Ridd been re-instated at JCU?

And as for his reputation? Don't be so hard on him.

Has Peter Ridd been re-instated at JCU?

This is just simple short-term thinking. The real outcome is now in development brought on by this saga !

Foxy,

While the judge in the Ridd case has delivered the verdict, the remedy has yet to be delivered, and typically this will occur either after negotiations between the parties or if this fails by the judge a few months later.

At this stage the options would include:
1 full reinstatement with back pay legal costs and possibly a penalty,
2 legal costs, back pay, compensation for potential future payment losses and a penalty.

individual,

He has not been reinstated and is unlikely to be. I doubt that he would be looking at that, as the JCU thugs have now made it impossible for anyone to get the judgement he did. JCU have cynically used the opportunity to ensure that they will never be able to be brought to book for blocking the truth again. Nice people, hey?

Judge Salvatore Vasta went out of his way to be clear
about what the trial and his decision regarding the
Peter Ridd case was and wasn't all about.

He wrote that some had thought that the trial was about
freedom of speech and intellectual freedom, and the
media reports had considered "this trial was about
silencing persons with controversial or unpopular
views."

Vasta wrote " this trial was about none of the above."
"Rather the trial was purely and simply about the
proper construction of a clause in an Enterprise
Agreement."

Contrast this with editorials in The Australian,
Institute of Public Affairs, comments in Breitbart to
mention just a few which mentioned things like -
academic integrity, the health of the Great Barrier
Reef, marine science, climate change - none of which had
anything to do with the case.

Peter Ridd wanted his job back but James Cook University
made it quite clear it was considering its options
on the case decided by Judge Vasta.

There are unusual circumstances. In an article in the
Australian Financial Review the newspaper's legal affairs
editor Michael Pelly asked in February "Is Salvatore
Vasta Australia's Worst Judge?"

Pelly was reviewing what he described as "withering
denunciations"in appeal courts of 3 of Judge Vasta's
findings and the prospect of a parliamentary inquiry into
Vasta's fitness to remain on the bench. over concerns about
his judgement.

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

If James Cook University is considering an appeal
its lawyers may consider bringing up the fact that
Judge Vasta has been overturned on appeal at least
15 times since he was appointed in 2015 by then
Attorney General George Brandis, a conservative
politician.

JCU's response to Vasta's decision was:

"We disagree with the Judge's comments and are also
troubled by the fact he fails to refer to any legal
precedent of case law in Australia to support his
interpretation of our enterprise agreement or
academic freedom in Australian employment law.
The judgement reflects views, which are not supported
in any way by any case law or legal precedent."

JCU has been at pains to point out that Peter Ridd
was "never gagged or silenced about his scientific views."
A matter that was admitted during the court hearing.

A hearing date for penalties has not yet been set.

Peter Ridd
was "never gagged or silenced about his scientific views."

?? So, why all the kerfuffle ?

Foxy,

JCU is cutting it a bit fine as they only have a week or two to launch an appeal. As for the Judge's record, this is not considered in an appeal only the legal basis.

Secondly, while the JCU's claim that they had not gagged Ridd was technically correct, that the consequence for speaking out was dismissal essentially mounted to the same thing.

Peter Ridd was "never gagged or silenced about his scientific views."

"Peter Ridd wanted his job back but James Cook University made it quite clear it was considering its options on the case decided by Judge Vasta."

Does becoming unemployed, and wanting his job back, count, Foxy ?

Joe

Peter Ridd -

1) Broke the university's code of conduct.

2) Publicly criticised the work of colleagues.

3) Told Sky News in 2017 that scientific
organisations like the Australian Institue
of Marine Science and the ARC Centre for Coral
Reef Studies could no longer be trusted.

However the judge's decision was confined to Ridd's
industrial rights in the bargaining agreement.

It's now up to JCU if they decide to pursue the
matter further.

Foxy,

I'm going to assume that you didn't read the judgement and posted a falsehood in ignorance.

While the judgement was based solely on the contractual obligations, the judge also pointed out that just about every claim that PR broke the code of conduct used to discipline PR was factually incorrect.

2) Publicly criticised the work of colleagues.

3) Told Sky News in 2017 that scientific
organisations like the Australian Institue
of Marine Science and the ARC Centre for Coral
Reef Studies could no longer be trusted.

Telling the truth is now wrong ?

Individual,

Yes and we're all going to hell - right?

Yes and we're all going to hell - right?

Well, with comments like that you're bound to !

Foxy what would you do if you knew that your colleagues were constructively lying to increase their income by gaining grants?

If you would not expose these lies, you are not the lady I have believed you to be.

Individual,

Nah, I'm a good negotiator.

Hasbeen,

All any one of us can be is responsible for our own
behaviour.

I worked with a colleague a few years back
who saw it as her duty
to look for mistakes of another colleague that she
disliked very much. She became quite obsessive,
and made this woman's life miserable. Every time
she found an error she would run to the
department head about it. This awful creature finally
caused her colleague to have a nervous breakdown.
The colleague never recovered.

Having witnessed this first hand - I have made it a
general rule that at work - I do the best job that
I possibly can. I do not get involved in intrigues.

Yes Foxy, rather nasty, but no where as critical as misguiding government policy & expenditure by concocting false research results.

This is the type of behaviour I would expect any concerned citizen to feel they had to blow the whistle on. In fact I would suggest any person, particularly a scientists would be showing very bad faith if they did not blow the whistle on such behaviour.

Hasbeen,

I don't know where you get the false research
results from. Peter Ridd made no mention of
any false research results. What he said was:

"I'm not saying that all the science is wrong.
I'm just saying because there is not enough
checking, testing and replicating ... it is
difficult to know what is right and wrong."

He was never gagged or silenced in his views.
As was admitted in court.

See you on another discussion.

Nah, I'm a good negotiator.
Of what ?

Individual,

In getting good outcomes.

Foxy et al,

What Peter Ridd accused his colleagues of was of cherry picking and misrepresenting data incl photos in order to draw conclusions that were not actually supported by the data.

In all the disciplinary discussions with PR, at no point was any claim made that his statements were false only that he was "breaking the code of conduct" by publicly criticising his peers.