Wednesday, April 17, 2019

"ONE SMALL STEP FOR MAN A GIANT STEP FOR MANKIND"



Professor Peter Ridd took James Cook University to the High Court  Of Australia accusing them of first bullying, followed by attempted gagging and finally unjustified dismissal in relation to his widely acknowledged scholarship around the BS of Climate science lobby beliefs as they relate to a perceived destruction to the Barrier Reef.
Yesterday a resounding victory for the Professor.
That institution has a sad history of such behaviour

Professor Ridd has endured too much he could not afford yet his will to survive and ultimately prevail was a small victory richly deserved.

I guess the James Cook bit will be short lived as rewriting history grows as a cult will this resounding legal defeat will give added pressure to that change.

A victory for academic freedom and human rights to disagree with the mob, how refreshing a judge remained true to the principles and the law around such unfashionable doctrines.

The socialist march through educational institutions remains a threat to the health of humanity but Ridd's victory was but one small battle in what the left regard as the War.
Well done that man.

11 comments:

David said...

I hereby award you the Adolf Fiinkensein Trophy for getting so much so wrong in a single post.

this case has nothing to do with whatever you think socialism is,

it has nothing to do with your persistent refusal to accept facts about climate change,

In the words of Judge Salvatore Vasta:

Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views.

Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement.”


It helps to be fully informed lest you make a dick of yourself. Again.

alloytoo said...

" 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.

The clause in question is:

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.


Full judgement here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ridd-v-james-cook-university-2019-fcca-997-.pdf

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Poor David. Has had so few wins this last few weeks. You can tell desperation has set in when in his mind a theory becomes a fact.

What will the poor Pavlovian bugger do when his masters change the song to 'Beware the Next Ice Age. Doom is Just Ten Years Away'?

David said...

...a theory becomes a fact.

Ah, the smug, self satisfied ignorance of those who do not understand science.

It is germ theory that has increased life spans.

It is the theory of gravity that stops you flying from the earth.

It is the oxygen theory of combustion that caused so much devastation to Notre Dame Cathedral.

And finally, there is Euripedes theory of argument Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish.

gravedodger said...


The Climate Change Ponzi scheme success or failure will not be known for decades if not centuries.

The current trend to de-platforming, silencing views unacceptable to the mob, and following fashionable memes for what ever reason is killing freedom of intellectual thought as we speak. What the mob rule tried to do to Ridd was and remains contrary to what University practice has successfully embraced for centuries. It seemed successful "once upon a time"

But the beliefs that the educated instinkly understand can not be challenged, sheesh they might have to rewrite history, again.
Venezuela would not be a basket case if Socialism had been done right, Pol Pot made it work, yes, no maybe maybe not.
Best rely on a drip under pressure make such decisions and shoot anyone who dares to disagree, now there is a thought.

Anonymous said...

And there you go again David suggesting AGW has anything to do with science. You clearly don’t realise that science requires rigorous testing and consistent results for a hypothesis to be accepted as science- none of which apply to your climate religion.

Paranormal

David said...

Round the turn and in to the home stretch of The Stupidity Stakes, it's Garavdodger by a a head in front of Paranormal, with Adolf tiring at the rear.

You clearly don’t realise that science begins with an hypothesis that requires rigorous testing and consistent results for it to be accepted as a theory. When a theory has been further tested and with consistent results, it may then become a law.

Just because you either don't understand it, or don't like it, the facts don't care and the science is what it is.

Psycho Milt said...

It's an interesting dispute. Ridd says he was sacked for having unpopular views, the university says he was sacked for denigrating his colleagues and breaching confidence. The court agreed with Ridd, and I certainly wouldn't put it past a university administration to sack someone for generating unflattering media stories, but if the university has evidence of him denigrating his colleagues and breaching confidence you can bet it will appeal.

However, one thing it doesn't tell us anything about is climate change or the relative merits of scholarly disputes about coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.

alloytoo said...

@PM"if the university has evidence of him denigrating his colleagues and breaching confidence you can bet it will appeal."

The judge unravelled those arguments rather nicely.

1. The Enterprise Agreement clause 14 guaranteeing academic freedom overrides any code of conduct clauses. Since Ridd attacked their science within the constraints of clause 14 the little snowflakes didn't have a leg to stand on.

2. The confidentiality clause was intended to protect them employee and not the institution in the way in the University tried to use it as a weapon.


All we know about the science is that some snowflakes were too afraid to discuss it with Ridd, and thought it easier to be rid of him.

Psycho Milt said...

It's inherent in the very nature of lodging an appeal that the appellant disagrees with the judge's interpretation and has some evidential basis for the disagreement. In this case, no appeal would confirm this dismissal was one more example of managerialist, corporate bullshit from university administators.

All we know about the science from this incident is "Nothing." The colleagues Ridd was in dispute with, and their union, disagreed with his dismissal, so clearly the people who found it "easier to be rid of him" were the administrators of James Cook University, most likely on the advice of their PR team.

gravedodger said...

Good comment Milt, Ridd on Andrew Bolt said as much, taking aim at The VC alone.

In answer to a question as to how he would fare with colleagues back in the halls of JCU, Ridd dismissed such nonsense he still has good relationships with the staff many of whom supported his fight but in danger of treatment such as Peter Ridd has endured after 30 years of tenure made expressing support rather fraught.