Go Fund Peter Ridd

A message from Peter Ridd on his GoFundMe page:

We have had a setback, but my lawyers have carefully gone over the judgement, and believe there are numerous strong grounds for appeal to the High Court of Australia.  We are re-opening the fundraising campaign and will carry on with the legal action. 

In the final analysis, I was fired for saying that, because of systemic problems with quality assurance, work from the JCU coral reef centre, which also publishes extensively on climate change, was untrustworthy. I believe what I said was true and have given plenty of published evidence to support the statement. After I was fired, it was proven beyond doubt that I was correct when a group of seven international scientists who audited eight of the major studies from the JCU coral reef centre found them ALL to be 100% wrong. You can’t get much more scientifically untrustworthy than that. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/ex-judge-investigate-controversial-marine-research 

I don’t take the decision to appeal lightly. The financial and emotional costs are high and legal action is fraught with uncertainties. In addition to the $300K Cheryl and I have spent on this case, I have received from  about four thousand people, over $800K.  It is matter that rests heavily on my conscience. 

We have an excellent chance, but we might lose. There are, however, too many important principles at stake to walk away at this stage.

This case has already demonstrated a major problem with Academic Freedom of Speech at a university. This ultimately affects what academics are prepared to say on controversial topics such as climate change, or the fate of the Great Barrier Reef.  The Commonwealth government has already signalled its intention to consider adapting the French Review Model Code to prevent a similar case. This may be the most important long-term implication of the case. Ironically, even if we lose in the High Court, it will demonstrate beyond doubt that the work contracts at universities have the effect of crushing free speech.  I have little doubt the Education Minister will have something to say about that once the legal action is over.

So even if we lose the High Court challenge, we still win the ultimate political battle.

Many thanks again for your support

Peter

This entry was posted in Gratuitous Advertising. Bookmark the permalink.

62 Responses to Go Fund Peter Ridd

  1. Zyconoclast

    I have little doubt the Education Minister will have something to say about that once the legal action is over.

    Why hasn’t PR been sent to the gulags yet?

  2. Rex Anger

    So much for protecting property rights and this whole thing not being an Academic freedom issue, eh IamPeter?

    How does supporting a fellow chased out by manipulative people wanting to protect their poorly produced material and its associated funding gravy train from all criticism at all costs count as ‘Identity Politics?’ A true ‘Capitalist’ would be arguing that the Market of Ideas should be the final arbiter on the matter. Not shutting down all discussion and banning the questioner.

    Now please, do come and rant about how this is all a state-based ‘shakedown’ of a poor, innocent employer. When TEQSA, the State-run arbiter and watchdog of Academic.Freedom amd Quality in Australian universities declared that the fellow travellers who executed Peter Ridd committed no foul…

  3. stackja

    I have made a small donation to PR.
    JCU using taxpayers money?

  4. pete m

    Mr Ridd should first explain why his trial defence conceded breaches of the code where this was unlikely and failed to challenge these centres as part of jcu when it was just a partner of their organisations. The lawyers may feel they have strong arguments but civil claims have low chance of getting special leave.

    Further it should not cost more than $50k to run the sl application but he is fund raising a full appeal.

    Yes I think fcafc decision has issues but some queries as above linger.

  5. Sinclair Davidson

    JCU using taxpayers money?

    No – it is not taxpayers money.

  6. Rex Anger

    @ Pete M-

    Fundraising in anticipation of the fight in HC once Leave to Appeal has been granted?

    “But don’t begin until you count the cost. For who would begin construction of a building without first calculating the cost to see if there is enough money to finish it? Otherwise, you might complete only the foundation before running out of money, and then everyone would laugh at you.”
    Luke 14:28-29 NLT

  7. Iampeter

    In the final analysis, I was fired for saying that, because of systemic problems with quality assurance, work from the JCU coral reef centre, which also publishes extensively on climate change, was untrustworthy.

    It doesn’t matter WHY you were fired. If you don’t support the right to fire you for ANY reason then you don’t support academic freedom. Or many other crucial freedoms either.

    Ironically, even if we lose in the High Court, it will demonstrate beyond doubt that the work contracts at universities have the effect of crushing free speech.

    A contract can never crush your free speech. This guy has no idea what he’s talking about.

    It’s Ridd’s lawsuit and the regulations allowing it to take place that represent an actual attack on academic freedom, free speech and many other freedoms.

    How did we get to a level of discourse where the state controlling who universities can fire is being viewed as “academic freedom?”

  8. Rex Anger

    ‘Cos you’re late to the party Petey, I’ll ask again:

    How does supporting a fellow chased out by manipulative people wanting to protect their poorly produced material and its associated funding gravy train from all criticism at all costs count as ‘Identity Politics?’ I will further add- And how does challenging this behaviour in Court qualify as an actual attack on academic freedom, free speech and many other freedoms?

    Surely a true ‘Capitalist’ like your august self would be arguing that the Market of Ideas should be the final arbiter on the matter. Not shutting down all discussion and banning the questioner.

  9. C.L.

    Courageous and principled man. Thank you, Peter. This is for all of us too, really.

    Spooner says it beautifully.

  10. C.L.

    No – it is not taxpayers money.

    The Vice-Chancellor is funding this from his personal account?

  11. Rex Anger

    IamTheTerror’s mask is slipping…

    It doesn’t matter WHY you were fired. If you don’t support the right to fire you for ANY reason then you don’t support academic freedom. Or many other crucial freedoms either.

    Why I would I support the right to fire me? Does that not seem redundant? Who agrees to their own career death at the hands of people who don’t like them or what they have to say? Regardless of their job competence, aptitude or attitude?

  12. Rex Anger

    Why I would I support the right to fire me? Does that not seem redundant? Who agrees to their own career death at the hands of people who don’t like them or what they have to say? Regardless of their job competence, aptitude or attitude?

    A clarification- If there is a legally justifiable means for my termination, such as I lack capacity, or am disruptive in the workplace, or my work practices are a danger to myself and others, despite all reasonable efforts to retrain and correct me, then there is no argument.

    But to say someone should be supporting the concept of an employee being fired for ANY reason, IamTeeTotallyTotalitarian, is to allow people to engage in persecution.

    No matter how you try to spin it, that is not a Western or rational ideal or value, IamReallyNotARightwinger…

  13. Lee

    If you don’t support the right to fire you for ANY reason then you don’t support academic freedom.

    BS.
    The irony meter just exploded!
    Even your precious universities “don’t support academic freedom.”
    Certainly not for those dissenting from the party line, as in Ridd’s case.

  14. Rex Anger

    The Vice-Chancellor is funding this from his personal account?

    Correct me if I am wrong Sinc, but a University’s operational budget comes from a multitude of sources. That being HELP fees, Student contributions, federal, state and private grants, philanthropic donations, etc.

    For accounting purposes only, these sources might be quantified. But at the operational level, such as budgeting for disciplines and Schools, or funding the legal department’s defence and appeals, nobody would be quantifying what goes where?

  15. Sinclair Davidson

    The Vice-Chancellor is funding this from his personal account?

    No. JCU is funding this out of revenues that have been earned from various sources and that are available for this use (i.e. are not earmarked).

    Rex Anger – not sure what you’re asking. But here goes at an answer: Universities earn revenue by selling education services, research services and then earn miscellaneous income from other sources (property rentals and the like). The Australian government is the single largest financier of education services. It (effectively) gives education vouchers to Australian citizens and permanent residents that can be cashed in at accredited institutions. The government then recovers some (or all) of the value of that voucher from the student in future years via the tax system. In the absence of those “vouchers” students would have to pay fees for their own education. To argue that this amounts to government funding of universities is not correct.

    There is plenty to dislike about the university system and the Ridd-JCU issue. To argue that the JCU case is being funded by the taxpayer is incorrect. To argue that those funds could be put to some other better use? Well that is a different argument.

  16. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Ridd lost his position at JCU because he exposed fraudulent “academic research” claiming that gerbil worming/ocean acidification was destroying the Grate* Barrier Reef. End of story.

    That there are idiots who would defend JCU’s role in this shameful farce is simply staggering.

    All the verbiage and bloviating about breaches of a code of conduct is just legalist bullshit/obfuscation and arse covering.

    Ridd’s removal was intended to send a clear message to any academic challenging a catastrophist narrative, e.g. question the fact and evidence free anti-scientific hysterical fraud that is human induced catastrophic climate change and you’ll be jobsacked, you heretic, pour encourager les autres.

    *Deliberate

  17. Sinclair Davidson

    Another way to think about this: Imagine the government buys office supplies from, say, Officeworks. Nobody is going to argue that Officeworks is now a government funded organisation or is owned by the government.

  18. Tel

    No – it is not taxpayers money.

    Since money is fungible, it’s impossible to determine which dollar is spent where, and indeed nonsensical to even attempt to do so. There’s a deeper problem with any quasi-private institution that takes money from government without a clear purchase agreement explaining what exactly it is delivering in exchange for that money. Suppose a government department puts on a lunch and buys $250 dollars worth of sandwiches from the nearby private sandwich shop, and the shop delivers a reasonable product at something close to a market price … we can conclude that this shop sold a product, it does not have any ongoing obligation to the taxpayer beyond that single delivery.

    However, the deliverables of a university are vaguely defined (perhaps unavoidable) and what they taxpayer is buying might be perhaps the overall atmosphere of learning and a house of open discourse. If that was the case then by pursuing this case JCU is indeed taking the tax money and not returning the product that was expected of them.

  19. Rex Anger

    @ Sinc-

    Your answer was more or less what I had thought was the case. My question/statement in response to Currency Lad’s question was rather clumsily worded.

  20. Iampeter

    Ridd lost his position at JCU because he exposed fraudulent “academic research” claiming that gerbil worming/ocean acidification was destroying the Grate* Barrier Reef. End of story.
    That there are idiots who would defend JCU’s role in this shameful farce is simply staggering.

    You don’t need to defend the JCU’s reasons for firing him in order to defend their right to do so. You just need principles and to support actual free speech, academic freedom and property rights.
    Ridd’s supporters are only backing him because they agree with his CAGW position, while throwing terms like “academic freedom” around which they do not understand.

    In other words, Ridd’s supporters are actually attacking free speech and academic freedom, while in reality being driven by identity politics on this issue. All of it without the slightest realization of what they’re doing.
    It doesn’t get much worse than this.

    Ridd’s removal was intended to send a clear message to any academic challenging a catastrophist narrative, e.g. question the fact and evidence free anti-scientific hysterical fraud that is human induced catastrophic climate change and you’ll be jobsacked, you heretic, pour encourager les autres.

    It’s the other way around.
    The fact that you can’t fire anyone in this country means everybody owns your property except you.
    That’s the message here.

    Nobody is going to argue that Officeworks is now a government funded organisation or is owned by the government.

    They’ll argue whatever they need to argue depending on whether the person being defended by the argument aligns ideologically with the one defending him. All that matters is identity politics, not principles or fundamentals.

  21. NuThink

    Surely the easiest way to settle the matter would have been to have an open public debate with Ridd vs the others.

    If they were right they would have shown Ridd up, but the problem for them is that if Ridd were right it would have shown them up.
    Open debate early in the developing problem would have meant no one loses face and heaps of money in legal fees would have been saved.

    How many of those in power at the Uni understand science. Hint – it is about laws of nature that we do not fully understand and cannot as yet modify, vs the human made laws which can be altered and adapted to the prevailing winds.

    Having an open debate would have shown to outsiders and insiders that the uni was a centre of debate and learning, and not a degree factory.

    They are not degree factories, or are they?

    If a scientists are not open to questioning – then they are not real scientists.

    The lawyers should have been kept out of it.

  22. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    The fact that you can’t fire anyone in this country

    The statement above is bullshit.

  23. Rex Anger

    In other words, Ridd’s supporters are actually attacking free speech and academic freedom, while in reality being driven by identity politics on this issue

    What identity politics, IamUsingThisBuzzwordToSilenceEveryoneWhoDisagreesWithMe?

    Nobody is asking for Peter Ridd to have more privileges than others because he is Peter Ridd. Which is what Identity Politics actually is.

    He is legally challenging behaviour that, while it may not be expressly illegal by statute, has violated his right to speak up as part of his job and role in society, and demonstrated very blatantly amd very clearly to a wider audience that the Powers That Be only indulge free speech when it freely agrees with them.

    Much like yourself, IamGoingToSilenceEveryoneIDon’tLike.

  24. Tim Neilson

    If you don’t support the right to fire you for ANY reason then you don’t support academic freedom. Or many other crucial freedoms either.

    You’re clearly using the term “academic freedom” very differently to the way everyone else on planet earth uses it.

    “Academic freedom” traditionally meant the freedom of individual academics to speak what they believed to be the truth. It doesn’t traditionally mean the “freedom” of the institution to force its academics, on threat of sacking, to comply with the institution’s suite of approved opinions.

    Sure you can argue that the “University” (an artificial legal entity largely funded by government regulatory preferences and subsidies) should have that “freedom”.

    But surely people are entitled to argue that if a “university” wants to get the government regulatory preferences and subsidies the university should have to agree in return to abide by some rules, including granting its academics traditional academic freedom. That’s what people are doing. Why is there anything wrong in advocating for that? Why can’t we argue that if JCU wants to place contractual muzzles on its academic staff it can but it then should have to fund itself entirely in the open market, with no government regulatory preferences and subsidies?

    To take an analogy – judges’ salaries are paid by the government, but the government’s capacity to sack judges is very limited. Most people see that as a good thing – they wouldn’t support the idea of government-as-employer having absolute “freedom” to sack judges at will.
    Some people think that old-style academic freedom has a value that justifies a similar (though no doubt not identical) restraint being imposed as a condition of taxpayer-subsidies and government-preference being given to “universities”. You may disagree, but that’s got nothing to do with the institutions’ “freedom”.

  25. NoFixedAddress

    While Ridd is pursuing ‘justice’ through the Australian Public Service Government Court System ™, and all the best with his endeavor, the real crime is being obfuscated.

    It is Time to stop all funding of so called “universities” engaged in propaganda communist research of the reef.

    In fact It is Time to start drilling and using the reef for some human good and stop abusing and demonising tourism operators, tourists, farmers, miners, shipping, fishing, whatever all of whom need protection from the psychopathic researchers.

    Coral reefs and ‘the goobers’ that build them are a world wide virus of the sea!

    They are fucking everywhere and indestructible.

  26. 2dogs

    To argue that the JCU case is being funded by the taxpayer is incorrect.

    It is funded from student fees which are, in turn, funded by government financing. That government financing is intentionally loss making, so yes, the taxpayer is paying for it, at least in part.

    _______________

    Also, we should start a petition to get Peter Ridd appointed as a TEQSA commissioner.

  27. Behind Enemy Lines

    Further to Tel’s point, there are a lot of organisations which are nominally private or mixed-funding, but are de facto government bodies when you dig through all the layers. Legal assistance organisations, anything to do with so-called human rights, ‘community’ organisations and of course the universities generally fall into this category. In theory they might be able to support themselves independently. In practice, and in present form, they’d close the day the government tap was turned off. There’s direct funding; indirect funding (research grants etc); project-based contract work designed for university tender; government-backed student loans; regulations allowing restrictive accreditation; on and on it goes. All part of the lefty moneygoround. Nominally at arm’s length, but sponsored by the uniparty and paid for by you and me. No wonder the ANU flipped when some Coalition dreamer got out of step and tried to tie funding to non-partisan subject material, and objective standards.

    Anyway, Peter Ridd got stitched up just like Cardinal Pell. Both their cases reveal the threat to anyone who opposes lefty overreach. I’ve sent him some cash.

    Side note: are we all being held for moderation these days?

  28. Sinclair Davidson

    No wonder the ANU flipped when some Coalition dreamer got out of step and tried to tie funding to non-partisan subject material, and objective standards.

    From memory there is a component of ANU funding that is direct funding from the feds.

  29. Iampeter

    “Academic freedom” traditionally meant the freedom of individual academics to speak what they believed to be the truth.

    But you think this is violated by firing someone.
    Which means you actually think “academic freedom” means forcing someone to employ you.
    So it’s Ridd’s supporters that are using the term incorrectly, as you’ve demonstrated.

  30. Behind Enemy Lines

    Sinclair Davidson
    #3527845, posted on July 29, 2020 at 4:05 pm
    No wonder the ANU flipped when some Coalition dreamer got out of step and tried to tie funding to non-partisan subject material, and objective standards.

    From memory there is a component of ANU funding that is direct funding from the feds.

    The National Institutes Program (ANU, UniMelb / VCA, two others) is set out under legislation. For some odd reason, the details of this funding don’t leap to the top of the search results. I think there’s also direct infrastructure funding (ie for capital works). I see reference to it, but without tearing up the accounts I can’t be certain whether ‘infrastructure’ is being used in the same cant sense that government uses ‘investment’.

  31. Bob

    The Government is sympathetic so why is it not funding the appeal?
    At the very least the Government can take $2M from JCU’s budget and use that to fight against JCU serving the dual objectives of winning the case and punishing the unspeakable bastards running JCU for their ideological criminality.
    Where is this Minister Dan Tehan, and when will he grow a pair? Or at least grow a spine.
    For Christ’s sake Dan Tehan, be a man for once!
    Stand up for Liberal principles. You have the power to, meaning you have no excuse not to.

  32. Rex Anger

    …you actually think “academic freedom” means forcing someone to employ you.
    So it’s Ridd’s supporters that are using the term incorrectly, as you’ve demonstrated

    No we don’t, and no we haven’t, IamNoGoodAtDialectic.

    Our definitions of ‘Academic Freedom’ haven’t changed once during this argument, so your attempts to say we have said ‘X is Y’ hold no water.

    To quote Darth Vader: “Your powers are weak, IamAWeasel…”

  33. The BigBlueCat

    Iampeter
    #3527876, posted on July 29, 2020 at 4:38 pm
    “Academic freedom” traditionally meant the freedom of individual academics to speak what they believed to be the truth.

    But you think this is violated by firing someone.
    Which means you actually think “academic freedom” means forcing someone to employ you.
    So it’s Ridd’s supporters that are using the term incorrectly, as you’ve demonstrated.

    If JCU is coercing academics to “shut-up or else”, then it is certainly a restraint on academic freedom. Of course, he is free to say what he wants and bugger the consequences, but it’s the very consequences plus the implied (or actual) coercion that it at issue here; JCU are requiring the academic to self-censor, and if they don’t then the academic will lose their job. Let’s see what the High Court thinks.

    No-one is forcing anyone to employ someone. I doubt Ridd really wants his job back, and I doubt that the High Court would require JCU to reinstate him. But Ridd should be eligible for reputational damages (in my opinion, which is not a legal one) along with compensation for unlawful termination (if the HC deems that JCU acted unfairly).

  34. Win

    Doesn’t seem to be much quality assurance going on at Australian Universities. Sloppy sub standard scholarship is much the same as sloppy substandard open heart surgery or sending people into space. Funny how people’s lives concentrates the mind and demands quality assurance. Presumably there is no medical research done at JCU? God help us if there is.

  35. Lee

    For someone who professes to be for “academic freedom” and “free speech,” IamWhatIClaimOthersToBe is quite happy for people to be arbitrarily silenced, whether it’s by their university or employer, with no recourse of action available to them.
    Sums up the Left in a nutshell.

  36. Tim Neilson

    But you think this is violated by firing someone.

    OK, for the exceptionally obtuse, here’s an elaboration.

    “Academic freedom” traditionally meant the freedom of individual academics to speak what they believed to be the truth, in matters related to the discipline in which they were engaged by the university as an academic, without being subject to sanction by the university – because such speech was part and parcel of their job as an academic, and hiring them as an academic on that basis was part of the proper role of a university.

    And, utterly obtuse one, I see you ran a trillion miles from engaging with the point I actually made, that no-one is seeking to force JCU to employ Prof. Ridd, or preventing them from firing whoever they like, we’re just arguing that JCU should not get the taxpayer-funded and government-granted privileges of a “university” if they’re not prepared to operate as a university by granting that traditional academic freedom to their senior academics (especially someone with a full chair).

  37. Pyrmonter

    @ Tim N

    we’re just arguing that JCU should not get the taxpayer-funded and government-granted privileges of a “university” if they’re not prepared to operate as a university by granting that traditional academic freedom to their senior academics

    That’s perilously close to that old (well, 90s) lefty argument that ‘corporations owe their value to the grant of the right to incorporate by the state; consequently their value has been given away and should be expropriated for the benefit of the people, etc’. JCU have done themselves considerable harm in this affair; that might be punishment enough.

    JCU has also done us the service of exposing that assumptions of academic freedom were nothing more than that: that allows us to move the focus of politicking away from the institutions and into mainstream politics. By rights, I think that’s where it belongs; and if that argument can’t be won, we really all ought to give up.

  38. Kneel

    ” “Academic freedom” traditionally meant the freedom of individual academics to speak what they believed to be the truth.

    But you think this is violated by firing someone.
    Which means you actually think “academic freedom” means forcing someone to employ you.
    So it’s Ridd’s supporters that are using the term incorrectly, as you’ve demonstrated.”

    If they employ me to speak truth to power, but have the ability to fire me if they don’t like what I say because, oh, let’s say I’m giving current Gov policy a hard time and those guys fund us, then it’s not exactly “freedom” is it? For me or the Uni. That’s why they traditionally got tenure.

    There are certainly what I think are relevant points:
    * the contract placed “academic freedom” above “collegiality”
    * some of the research he complained about was retracted because it was faked
    * the academic that complained about what Ridd said was very vocal about his thoughts on Ridd’s stand, was very disparaging, yet was not disciplined

    In other words, JCU itself said in the contract that other “rules” didn’t override the “freedom” one, Ridd actually has (independent) proof that JCU staff created “bad” science (ie, what he said is demonstrably true), and someone else doing the same thing as Ridd got no punishment.

    They (JCU) might “win” the legal battle, but they have definitely lost both the scientific and ethical ones.

    What JCU should have done is say “nothing to do with us, it’s his opinion only not official JCU position, but he’s entitled to say it same as everyone else here” and let it go at that. They could have easily found a “consensus” that he was wrong and it would be a dead duck in the media and politically, but no, they had to be all “woke” and “cancel” the heathen “denier”.
    Postmodernists have a lot to answer for, this being only one example.

  39. NoFixedAddress

    IAP

    So you don’t disagree that universities produce crap

  40. Tim Neilson

    we’re just arguing that JCU should not get the taxpayer-funded and government-granted privileges of a “university” if they’re not prepared to operate as a university by granting that traditional academic freedom to their senior academics

    That’s perilously close to that old (well, 90s) lefty argument that ‘corporations owe their value to the grant of the right to incorporate by the state; consequently their value has been given away and should be expropriated for the benefit of the people, etc’.

    I think there’s a considerable difference between being allowed to exist and being given governmental funds and regulatory preferences. I was speaking only about the latter.

    One could legitimately debate whether the government ought to meddle with tertiary education at all, but as long as it’s giving benefits to universities it ought to insist that in return they actually operate as universities.

  41. mundi

    He should have just taken the $800k and retired.

    I can understand fighting on the basis of contract being upheld, but this ‘academic freedom’ nonsense is absolute tripe.

  42. Perfidious Albino

    Sinc – I accept your nuance re the Commonwealth merely being a major customer of JCU as opposed to representing taxpayer funds, but what about research funding and grants ?

  43. Pyrmonter

    @ Tim N

    Does the value flow from their licence to grant certificates, or because the certificates evidence something? It’s a privilege if it’s the former, but hardly if it’s the latter.

    In the version of the LPA Platform I received when I joined, 30 years ago, there was a commitment to academic freedom. In one of the re-writes (perhaps the one prompted by Costello’s apostasy on the constitutional monarchy), it disappeared – but the issue has turned up periodically in the past: Max Harwell made his name on such an issue; and the academics’ union its over governance issues at Tasmania. If the issue needs to be re-fought, so be it; but let’s not have the hypocrisy of ‘academic freedom to believe what we agree with’: that’s what the Left wants.

  44. Astatine Jones

    Ridd lost his position at JCU because he exposed fraudulent “academic research” claiming that gerbil worming/ocean acidification was destroying the Grate* Barrier Reef. End of story.

    Not exactly. Here is Ridd’s statement regarding the findings of Clark et al. (2020):
    https://www.thegwpf.com/peter-ridd-scientific-misconduct-at-james-cook-university-confirms-my-worst-fears/

    Worthwhile noting, in expressing his academic freedom, that Ridd doesn’t out-of-hand dismiss the risk of ocean acidification to coral reefs. He’s a scientist afterall:

    The results of Clark et al. (2020), as the authors mention, do not mean that ocean acidification is not a serious environmental threat. They reveal that the effect of high CO2 levels on reef fish behaviour is not a concern. As an aside, in my opinion ocean pH changes are a credible, though not proven, threat to the GBR. This is in contrast to other well publicised threats, such as from agriculture or modest temperature increases, which I do not believe are a significant threat.

  45. Iampeter

    “Academic freedom” traditionally meant the freedom of individual academics to speak what they believed to be the truth, in matters related to the discipline in which they were engaged by the university as an academic, without being subject to sanction by the university

    No it doesn’t. The university ALSO has academic freedom and you don’t have a right to a job at a university, which means them sanctioning you is not a violation of any of your freedoms. So like I said, you think “academic freedom” means forcing someone to employ you.
    As usual you just don’t realize what you’re own argument actually amounts to.

    And, utterly obtuse one, I see you ran a trillion miles from engaging with the point I actually made, that no-one is seeking to force JCU to employ Prof. Ridd, or preventing them from firing whoever they like

    Then Peter Ridd wouldn’t be suing them and none of you would be supporting him, so this is a false statement.

    we’re just arguing that JCU should not get the taxpayer-funded and government-granted privileges of a “university” if they’re not prepared to operate as a university by granting that traditional academic freedom to their senior academics (especially someone with a full chair).

    Yes, some of you are arguing this. But it has nothing to do with what you’re responding to and once again you go off on a random tangent because you don’t really understand the actual issue that you yourself are choosing to keep responding to for some reason.

  46. Rex Anger

    No it doesn’t. The university ALSO has academic freedom and you don’t have a right to a job at a university, which means them sanctioning you is not a violation of any of your freedoms. So like I said, you think “academic freedom” means forcing someone to employ you.
    As usual you just don’t realize what you’re own argument actually amounts to.

    IamAFool still tries to claim everyone on this thread other than him is arguing ‘X is Y’ as far as ‘academic freedom’ is concerned. And the argument gets thinner and more preposterous the harder he tries.

    Furthermore, IamGoingToGetMyWayAtAllCosts persists with his Marxist-inspired fiction that Peter Ridd is trying to force JCU to give him his job back. Again, without proof.

    But it has nothing to do with what you’re responding to and once again you go off on a random tangent because you don’t really understand the actual issue that you yourself are choosing to keep responding to for some reason.

    If IamGoingToHaveToGiveUpAndFlounceOffAtSomePoint flaps his arms any harder on this point, he may well achieve lift. I would actually be impressed by this…

  47. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    in my opinion ocean pH changes are a credible, though not proven, threat to the GBR

    Yep – that ol’ zero evidence problem (again). The ocean acidification hypothesis (increased acidification driven by increased human CO2 emissions) is bullshit and has been credibly recognised as such for many years.

  48. Astatine Jones

    Yep – that ol’ zero evidence problem (again). The ocean acidification hypothesis (increased acidification driven by increased human CO2 emissions) is bullshit and has been credibly recognised as such for many years.

    LMAO!
    If there were zero evidence then I doubt Ridd would use the term ‘credible’!
    Plenty of evidence, just have to look. But don’t look, don’t see.
    Check your brain for gerbil worms.

  49. Rex Anger

    LMAO!
    If there were zero evidence then I doubt Ridd would use the term ‘credible’!

    Academic weasel words, rare-earth metalloid man.

    Peter Ridd is not stupid. Even he recognised a bridge too far, as far as tipping sacred cows was concerned.

    Furthermore, ‘crediblity’ is a rhetorical concept of how believable something is. You do not necessarily need evidence to agree that something is believable. Look at the Brett Kavanagh, George Pell and Eric Chauvin cases. Everyone who was ‘right-thinking’ said, and still say, the cases against them are ‘credible,’ even as the evidence against them has collapsed.

    A compelling (or desired) argument can make something ‘credible,’ but the evidence,or lack of, will render it incredible with time.

    Your concern trolling is concerning, metalloid man. Your technique is good and appears factual, but that last sneer was unfocussed. You cannot.give lesser mortals like me any ope ings, Mr Jones. A Cat’s ripostecan be lethal…

    Welcome to the Cat, Metalloid Man. I look forward to crossong swords with you again. 🙂

  50. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    If there were zero evidence then I doubt Ridd would use the term ‘credible’!

    He stated it was “not proven”, nor will it ever be. Human emissions of CO2 are not “acidifying” the oceans, nor is this non existent ocean acidification any proven threat to the GBR, you ignorant obtuse twat.

  51. Snoopy

    TheirABC:

    Peter Ridd was sacked after denigrating a colleague and criticising science organisations

    Actionable?

  52. Astatine Jones

    Rex Anger
    Spurgeon Monkfish III

    A concern troll is about the best I could aspire to on this site, I’ve no pretensions otherwise!

    No, this is simply Science in action. Peter Ridd is demonstrating his honesty as a scientist. He thinks ocean acidification is potentially (i.e. credibly) a problem. Observation and experimental evidence will ultimately demonstrate conclusively one way or the other.

    I can’t imagine he’d use the word ‘credible’ and stand by it (as he is stridently doing regarding his dismissal and the appeal) if he didn’t think that was accurate. Not given the position of many of his supporters – like the IPA, yourself and S Monkfish III.

    In Science ‘not proven’ doesn’t equal ‘never will be’. Just ask Einstein, Galileo, Boltzmann…
    And not in this ignorant obtuse twat’s education or experience.
    But we can agree to disagree.

  53. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    In Science ‘not proven’ doesn’t equal ‘never will be’.

    The assertion* that human CO2 emissions are acidifying the oceans and destroying the GBR is untestable and unscientific and will remain so in our lifetimes.

    *It’s not even worth dignifying with the term “hypothesis”.

  54. Tim Neilson

    I said “Academic freedom” traditionally meant the freedom of individual academics to speak what they believed to be the truth, in matters related to the discipline in which they were engaged by the university as an academic, without being subject to sanction by the university

    Iamashiteater said No it doesn’t.

    Poor old intellectual failure. Unable to distinguish between defining what the term traditionally means (i.e. what I did) and how he’d like to employ it, i.e….
    The university ALSO has academic freedom and you don’t have a right to a job at a university, which means them sanctioning you is not a violation of any of your freedoms. So like I said, you think “academic freedom” means forcing someone to employ you.

    Poor old intellectual failure. Unable to understand that if one of the terms of employment was that the employer undertook to provide “academic freedom” in its traditional meaning (which is what Prof. Ridd is arguing JCU did), then the employer has contracted away the right to sack the employee for exercising that freedom – it’s a simple matter of enforcing a contract, and if the employer doesn’t want to give away it’s supposed “freedom” it shouldn’t enter contracts where it does give away that “freedom”.

    I said And, utterly obtuse one, I see you ran a trillion miles from engaging with the point I actually made, that no-one is seeking to force JCU to employ Prof. Ridd, or preventing them from firing whoever they like

    Iamashiteater said Then Peter Ridd wouldn’t be suing them and none of you would be supporting him, so this is a false statement.

    Poor old intellectual failure. If the High Court finds that Ridd’s contract has been breached he’ll get whatever remedy is appropriate to that breach – the court order won’t be forcing JCU to do anything that they didn’t contract to do.

    Yes, some of you are arguing this. But it has nothing to do with what you’re responding to and once again you go off on a random tangent because you don’t really understand the actual issue that you yourself are choosing to keep responding to for some reason.

    Poor old intellectual failure.
    Here’s the format:
    Iamashiteater says “you’re all collectivists because you’re arguing in favour of X”
    We say “We’re not arguing in favour of X, we’re arguing in favour of Y”
    Iamashiteater says “arguing in favour of Y isn’t responding to my hissy fit about X!”

  55. Tim Neilson

    Does the value flow from their licence to grant certificates, or because the certificates evidence something? It’s a privilege if it’s the former, but hardly if it’s the latter.

    I was talking about taxpayer funded research grants, HECS schemes to give universities an advantage in charging students’ fees, etc. I wan’t implying that degree-granting “power” per se was some sort of “benefit” given by the government. I suppose it might be, though I doubt it. Any institution can decide what titles etc. it gives to participants in it. There is, for example, no legislative backing for the title “Fellow of The Tax Institute”.

    If the issue needs to be re-fought, so be it; but let’s not have the hypocrisy of ‘academic freedom to believe what we agree with’: that’s what the Left wants.

    Who’s been advocating that?

  56. Iampeter

    the employer undertook to provide “academic freedom” in its traditional meaning (which is what Prof. Ridd is arguing JCU did), then the employer has contracted away the right to sack the employee for exercising that freedom

    So not only do you not understand the proper meaning of “academic freedom,” or the concept of “freedom” in general, continuing to use it in a way that implies others have to be forced to provide something for you, but you also don’t understand how contracts work either.
    I.e. you cannot “contract away” your freedoms.

    Poor old intellectual failure. If the High Court finds that Ridd’s contract has been breached he’ll get whatever remedy is appropriate to that breach – the court order won’t be forcing JCU to do anything that they didn’t contract to do.

    As usual this doesn’t address what you’re responding to.

  57. Tim Neilson

    … others have to be forced to provide something for you

    Poor old intellectual failure. That’s what contracts tend to do. A long term contract of any sort “forces” the contracting party to “provide something”. Once they’ve contracted, they can be “forced” to perform the contract (or at least pay damages for not doing so). That’s the whole basis of contract law. Poor old ignoramus.

    I.e. you cannot “contract away” your freedoms.

    Poor old intellectual failure.
    To take an example, are you really saying that an employer can’t engage someone on a fixed term contract, by which the employer undertakes not to sack the person before the end of the term (no doubt, normally, except for gross misconduct, and maybe some other specified reasons)? Are you really that ignorant of contract law?
    This is qualitatively the same. (In fact it’s exactly the same, assuming that there’s a retirement age in the contract, which effectively makes it fixed term.) If they don’t want to do it, they shouldn’t enter the contract. And if they won’t enter contracts on that basis, that’s fine, that’s their choice, but then they’re not really acting as a university and the government should stop providing funds and benefits to them as if they are.

    As usual this doesn’t address what you’re responding to.

    Poor old intellectual failure.
    Once again with the same format:
    Iamashiteater says “you’re all collectivists because you’re arguing in favour of X”
    We say “We’re not arguing in favour of X, we’re arguing in favour of Y”
    Iamashiteater says “arguing in favour of Y isn’t responding to my hissy fit about X!”

  58. Rex Anger

    I.e. you cannot “contract away” your freedoms.

    Really IamReallyNotAwareofWhatIamTalkingAbout?

    Ever tried joining the ADF and publicly protesting about Australian warmongering against poor, innocent China and refusing all orders to deploy, etc. while in full uniform? Or the State or Federal Police Forces and organising a ‘Defund Da Puleez’ Rally? Or refusing to act against rioters at the same?

    What about becoming a Legal Aid Barrister and publicly refusing to represent a Christianist cos you don’t like them very much cos Dark Ages?

    And these are just some of the things out there you can get involved in, that may require you to waive certain ‘freedoms’ in order to do your job.

    You fool.

  59. Iampeter

    A long term contract of any sort “forces” the contracting party to “provide something”.

    Contracts don’t force anyone to do anything. That’s why they are voluntary arrangements. This is just more of you simply not knowing how any of this works and so you keep spouting leftist entitlement talking points without realizing what you’re saying.

    To take an example, are you really saying that an employer can’t engage someone on a fixed term contract, by which the employer undertakes not to sack the person before the end of the term

    These “contracts” only exist because of left wing laws, like the FWA, which is what Peter Ridd, like Folau, has used to sue his employer. Those of us who are actually right wing oppose such regulations.

    Once again with the same format:

    Nothing you’ve said addresses the fact that Ridd and his supporters oppose the freedom for businesses to fire people. That’s all.
    Everything else is your attempt to evade the usual oblivious left wing position you’ve taken.

  60. Rex Anger

    Petey, like blood loss, tax time and Yours Truly, you can only ignore reality for so long.

    You pick some woefully stupid hills to die on, dear, sweet little troll.

    One sincerely hopes you are never stupid enough to enter a contract and then break it because of your ‘principles’ of ‘muh freedumbs.’

    There will only be derisive laughter in response to your howling at the penalties inflicted by your own kind and their ‘leftist,’ ‘entitled’ laws.

    Now go away and sulk.

  61. Iampeter

    Wow, Rex.
    You really have no idea what’s going in any of the threads you follow me to, while tirelessly describing your own behavior.

  62. Rex Anger

    Only a pissweak single sentence of projection and “No, U,” Petey?

    What happened to your spectacular display on the Greg Cravan thread? I felt suitably put in my place, I did.

    You are a disappointment to humanity, IamNowCompletelyOutOfBreath. Even the Rabid Llama does a better job of trolling than you, and his vocabulary puts his reading and comprehension age at about 7 and 2 crayons…

Comments are closed.