The West has lost its freedom of speech

[Smurf1976]

Australia did not act on the Lima declaration.

We signed up to it and embraced globalisation and our place in the world doing what we're good at. That is, mining.

Meanwhile we've seen previously undeveloped countries develop rapidly with a huge consumption of resources.

Good news economically for the people in those countries most certainly.

Dreadful news for the planet if the climate change science is even slightly correct since the whole thing has sent emissions higher.

Also there's the political implications. As the economy shifted, it's a reality that in Australia in 2021 you're more likely to own an investment property than to be a member of a union meanwhile just about everyone with a job, and many others, has investments in shares at least via superannuation.

Who wins elections = who's perceived as good for business, good for shareholders, good for development and so on. That's what happens when the traditionally union-dominated industries are gutted and the population become investors, sole traders, contractors and so on.

For the record, both sides of politics have in the past claimed we signed up to Lima. Going back a long way but from memory the Coalition made the claim and Labor acknowledged it under questioning at the time. Various others at both ends of the political spectrum have likewise either claimed it directly or claimed that the implication of offshoring manufacturing was a given.

 

[rederob]

We signed up to it and embraced globalisation and our place in the world doing what we're good at. That is, mining.

Meanwhile we've seen previously undeveloped countries develop rapidly with a huge consumption of resources.

Good news economically for the people in those countries most certainly.

Dreadful news for the planet if the climate change science is even slightly correct since the whole thing has sent emissions higher.

Also there's the political implications. As the economy shifted, it's a reality that in Australia in 2021 you're more likely to own an investment property than to be a member of a union meanwhile just about everyone with a job, and many others, has investments in shares at least via superannuation.

Who wins elections = who's perceived as good for business, good for shareholders, good for development and so on. That's what happens when the traditionally union-dominated industries are gutted and the population become investors, sole traders, contractors and so on.

For the record, both sides of politics have in the past claimed we signed up to Lima. Going back a long way but from memory the Coalition made the claim and Labor acknowledged it under questioning at the time. Various others at both ends of the political spectrum have likewise either claimed it directly or claimed that the implication of offshoring manufacturing was a given.

Lima had no impact on globalisation in our contemporary economic sense.
Moreover, Australia's mining boom was a localised affair and had nothing to do with globalisation.
Whitlam had lowered most tariffs by 25% in 1973, some 2 years before the Lima declaration, and post-1975 Fraser's government was anything but globalist.
The good news for lesser developed economies didn't really get underway the 1990's as trade walls started to fall away as evidenced by the 2 charts below:

Note Australia's tariff rate (above) was at 18.56% in1991, while below all selected countries have lesser rates for the most recent 10 year period:

Better indicators of globalisation markers were fall of Berlin Wall in 1989, followed by creation of new Russian federation in 1991, and later on when China joined the WTO in 2001.
A greater business impact has been through the World Economic Forum, but this preceded Lima by 4 years.
People who raise Lima as a trigger for globalisation, or that it was even impactful, have no idea that it was so ineffectual.

 

[sptrawler]

It is great that these issues regarding "free speech" are tested in the courts.

Tudge flags further free speech measures as sacked climate sceptic loses High Court case

The Education Minister Alan Tudge says he’s “concerned that, in some places, there is a culture of closing down perceived ‘unwelcome thoughts’ rather than debating them”.

www.theage.com.au

From the article:
A marine physicist sacked after challenging his colleague’s views on climate change and the Great Barrier Reef, along with the university’s attempts to discipline him, has lost his High Court battle against James Cook University in a mixed decision for academic freedom.

Peter Ridd had been a long-serving professor at the university when he was fired in 2018 after forming the view that the scientific consensus on climate change overstated the risk it posed to the reef and vigorously arguing that position.

“So JCU actions were technically legal. But it was, in my opinion, never right, proper, decent, moral or in line with public expectations of how a university should behave,” Dr Ridd said in a statement posted to Facebook.

“It has cost me my job, my career, over $300K in legal fees, and more than a few grey hairs. All I can say is that I hope I would do it again – because overall it was worth the battle, and having the battle is, in this case, more important than the result.”

The university argued that Ridd was not sacked for his views but instead breached its code of conduct which required staff to act in a courteous and respectful way, and then further breached confidentiality requirements about the disciplinary procedure.

On Wednesday five justices of the High Court unanimously found that intellectual, or academic, freedom as contained in the university’s pay deal “is not qualified by a requirement to afford respect and courtesy in the manner of its exercise”.

The justices said that, as a result, an initial censure in 2016 against Dr Ridd was not justified and quoted the famous 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill in their reasoning.

“Whilst a prohibition upon disrespectful and discourteous conduct in intellectual expression might be a ‘convenient plan for having peace in the intellectual world’,” the justices held, “the ‘price paid for this sort of intellectual pacification, is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind’.”

However, that did not result in an overall victory for Dr Ridd because the court found that his conduct extended well beyond the expression of opinion within his area of academic expertise. Had his conduct related only to his area of expertise or criticism of JCU decisions through proscribed processes it would have been protected by intellectual freedom. Because his case was run on an all or nothing basis, that meant Dr Ridd lost.
“This litigation concerned conduct by Dr Ridd far beyond that of the 2016 censure, almost none of which was protected by the intellectual freedom... That conduct culminated in the termination decision, a decision which itself was justified by 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.”
The Institute of Public Affairs, which had helped Ridd run his case via crowdfunding and public relations support, said the decision showed Australia’s universities were mired in a crisis of censorship.

“Our institutions increasingly want to control what Australians are allowed to say and what they can read and hear,” executive director John Roskam said in a statement that also announced Dr Ridd would be joining the institute as an unpaid research fellow to work on “real science”.
Ahead of the decision on Wednesday, federal Education Minister Alan Tudge announced that all 41 Australian universities were now compliant with the French model code on free speech, proposed by former High Court chief justice Robert French.
Loading
“This has taken two years to get to this point, but each university now has policies which specifically protect free speech,” Mr Tudge said.
The federal government has also legislated a definition of academic freedom into university funding laws - a push led by former education minister Dan Tehan who said last year that he’d received legal advice that Dr Ridd would not have been sacked had the definition been in place at the time.
The definition, which was also based on wording recommended by Mr French in his government-commissioned review of free speech at Australian universities, includes “the freedom of academic staff to teach, discuss, and research and to disseminate and publish the results of their research” and “to contribute to public debate, in relation to their subjects of study and research.”

 

[rederob]

It is great that these issues regarding "free speech" are tested in the courts.

Tudge flags further free speech measures as sacked climate sceptic loses High Court case

The Education Minister Alan Tudge says he’s “concerned that, in some places, there is a culture of closing down perceived ‘unwelcome thoughts’ rather than debating them”.

www.theage.com.au

From the article:
A marine physicist sacked after challenging his colleague’s views on climate change and the Great Barrier Reef, along with the university’s attempts to discipline him, has lost his High Court battle against James Cook University in a mixed decision for academic freedom.

Peter Ridd had been a long-serving professor at the university when he was fired in 2018 after forming the view that the scientific consensus on climate change overstated the risk it posed to the reef and vigorously arguing that position.

“So JCU actions were technically legal. But it was, in my opinion, never right, proper, decent, moral or in line with public expectations of how a university should behave,” Dr Ridd said in a statement posted to Facebook.

“It has cost me my job, my career, over $300K in legal fees, and more than a few grey hairs. All I can say is that I hope I would do it again – because overall it was worth the battle, and having the battle is, in this case, more important than the result.”

The university argued that Ridd was not sacked for his views but instead breached its code of conduct which required staff to act in a courteous and respectful way, and then further breached confidentiality requirements about the disciplinary procedure.

On Wednesday five justices of the High Court unanimously found that intellectual, or academic, freedom as contained in the university’s pay deal “is not qualified by a requirement to afford respect and courtesy in the manner of its exercise”.

The justices said that, as a result, an initial censure in 2016 against Dr Ridd was not justified and quoted the famous 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill in their reasoning.

“Whilst a prohibition upon disrespectful and discourteous conduct in intellectual expression might be a ‘convenient plan for having peace in the intellectual world’,” the justices held, “the ‘price paid for this sort of intellectual pacification, is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind’.”

However, that did not result in an overall victory for Dr Ridd because the court found that his conduct extended well beyond the expression of opinion within his area of academic expertise. Had his conduct related only to his area of expertise or criticism of JCU decisions through proscribed processes it would have been protected by intellectual freedom. Because his case was run on an all or nothing basis, that meant Dr Ridd lost.
“This litigation concerned conduct by Dr Ridd far beyond that of the 2016 censure, almost none of which was protected by the intellectual freedom... That conduct culminated in the termination decision, a decision which itself was justified by 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.”
The Institute of Public Affairs, which had helped Ridd run his case via crowdfunding and public relations support, said the decision showed Australia’s universities were mired in a crisis of censorship.

“Our institutions increasingly want to control what Australians are allowed to say and what they can read and hear,” executive director John Roskam said in a statement that also announced Dr Ridd would be joining the institute as an unpaid research fellow to work on “real science”.
Ahead of the decision on Wednesday, federal Education Minister Alan Tudge announced that all 41 Australian universities were now compliant with the French model code on free speech, proposed by former High Court chief justice Robert French.
Loading
“This has taken two years to get to this point, but each university now has policies which specifically protect free speech,” Mr Tudge said.
The federal government has also legislated a definition of academic freedom into university funding laws - a push led by former education minister Dan Tehan who said last year that he’d received legal advice that Dr Ridd would not have been sacked had the definition been in place at the time.
The definition, which was also based on wording recommended by Mr French in his government-commissioned review of free speech at Australian universities, includes “the freedom of academic staff to teach, discuss, and research and to disseminate and publish the results of their research” and “to contribute to public debate, in relation to their subjects of study and research.”

The case was not about free speech at all, although that's what Ridd hoped he would achieve.
The case was about the conditions of work that an employee agreed to upon engagement.
Ridd's position was that all of his conduct was an exercise of the intellectual freedom protected by cl. 14 of the Enterprise Agreement and could not be a serious breach of the Code of Conduct.
(It probably did Ridd no favours that inept federal circuit court judge Salvatore Vasta had previously found that James Cook University unfairly sacked him .)
In today's decision the High Court held that the intellectual freedom protected by cl. 14 of the Enterprise Agreement was not a general freedom of speech. The exercise of intellectual freedom was subject to constraints including respect for the legal rights of others, and required that an expression of disagreement with University decision-making be in accordance with applicable processes, including confidentiality obligations.
The Court found that JCU's termination decision was justified as it relied on Ridd's conduct which was the subject of 18 findings of serious misconduct which were not protected.
In relation to the Folau matter in another thread, readers should note the Court's findings at section 20 of the linked Order.

 

[wayneL]

The cultural Revolution continues unabated.

 

[sptrawler]

The case was not about free speech at all, although that's what Ridd hoped he would achieve.
The case was about the conditions of work that an employee agreed to upon engagement.
Ridd's position was that all of his conduct was an exercise of the intellectual freedom protected by cl. 14 of the Enterprise Agreement and could not be a serious breach of the Code of Conduct.
(It probably did Ridd no favours that inept federal circuit court judge Salvatore Vasta had previously found that James Cook University unfairly sacked him .)
In today's decision the High Court held that the intellectual freedom protected by cl. 14 of the Enterprise Agreement was not a general freedom of speech. The exercise of intellectual freedom was subject to constraints including respect for the legal rights of others, and required that an expression of disagreement with University decision-making be in accordance with applicable processes, including confidentiality obligations.
The Court found that JCU's termination decision was justified as it relied on Ridd's conduct which was the subject of 18 findings of serious misconduct which were not protected.
In relation to the Folau matter in another thread, readers should note the Court's findings at section 20 of the linked Order.

The 18 findings of misconduct are the key issues.
In relation to the Folau incident, it was unfortunate that Rugby Australia chose to give him a multi million dollar payout, rather than test it in court.
Which is the way these issues should be tested IMO, rather than trial by media.

 

[Knobby22]

It is great that these issues regarding "free speech" are tested in the courts.

Tudge flags further free speech measures as sacked climate sceptic loses High Court case

The Education Minister Alan Tudge says he’s “concerned that, in some places, there is a culture of closing down perceived ‘unwelcome thoughts’ rather than debating them”.

www.theage.com.au

From the article:
A marine physicist sacked after challenging his colleague’s views on climate change and the Great Barrier Reef, along with the university’s attempts to discipline him, has lost his High Court battle against James Cook University in a mixed decision for academic freedom.

Peter Ridd had been a long-serving professor at the university when he was fired in 2018 after forming the view that the scientific consensus on climate change overstated the risk it posed to the reef and vigorously arguing that position.

“So JCU actions were technically legal. But it was, in my opinion, never right, proper, decent, moral or in line with public expectations of how a university should behave,” Dr Ridd said in a statement posted to Facebook.

“It has cost me my job, my career, over $300K in legal fees, and more than a few grey hairs. All I can say is that I hope I would do it again – because overall it was worth the battle, and having the battle is, in this case, more important than the result.”

The university argued that Ridd was not sacked for his views but instead breached its code of conduct which required staff to act in a courteous and respectful way, and then further breached confidentiality requirements about the disciplinary procedure.

On Wednesday five justices of the High Court unanimously found that intellectual, or academic, freedom as contained in the university’s pay deal “is not qualified by a requirement to afford respect and courtesy in the manner of its exercise”.

The justices said that, as a result, an initial censure in 2016 against Dr Ridd was not justified and quoted the famous 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill in their reasoning.

“Whilst a prohibition upon disrespectful and discourteous conduct in intellectual expression might be a ‘convenient plan for having peace in the intellectual world’,” the justices held, “the ‘price paid for this sort of intellectual pacification, is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind’.”

However, that did not result in an overall victory for Dr Ridd because the court found that his conduct extended well beyond the expression of opinion within his area of academic expertise. Had his conduct related only to his area of expertise or criticism of JCU decisions through proscribed processes it would have been protected by intellectual freedom. Because his case was run on an all or nothing basis, that meant Dr Ridd lost.
“This litigation concerned conduct by Dr Ridd far beyond that of the 2016 censure, almost none of which was protected by the intellectual freedom... That conduct culminated in the termination decision, a decision which itself was justified by 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.”
The Institute of Public Affairs, which had helped Ridd run his case via crowdfunding and public relations support, said the decision showed Australia’s universities were mired in a crisis of censorship.

“Our institutions increasingly want to control what Australians are allowed to say and what they can read and hear,” executive director John Roskam said in a statement that also announced Dr Ridd would be joining the institute as an unpaid research fellow to work on “real science”.
Ahead of the decision on Wednesday, federal Education Minister Alan Tudge announced that all 41 Australian universities were now compliant with the French model code on free speech, proposed by former High Court chief justice Robert French.
Loading
“This has taken two years to get to this point, but each university now has policies which specifically protect free speech,” Mr Tudge said.
The federal government has also legislated a definition of academic freedom into university funding laws - a push led by former education minister Dan Tehan who said last year that he’d received legal advice that Dr Ridd would not have been sacked had the definition been in place at the time.
The definition, which was also based on wording recommended by Mr French in his government-commissioned review of free speech at Australian universities, includes “the freedom of academic staff to teach, discuss, and research and to disseminate and publish the results of their research” and “to contribute to public debate, in relation to their subjects of study and research.”

Unanimous verdict. What a fool he is.

 

[wayneL]

Unanimous verdict. What a fool he is.

Yes, very foolish for doing real science rather than following a narrative.

 

[sptrawler]

Unanimous verdict. What a fool he is.

From the article, it sounds as though he was confused as to the issues he was testing.

However, that did not result in an overall victory for Dr Ridd because the court found that his conduct extended well beyond the expression of opinion within his area of academic expertise. Had his conduct related only to his area of expertise or criticism of JCU decisions through proscribed processes it would have been protected by intellectual freedom. Because his case was run on an all or nothing basis, that meant Dr Ridd lost.
“This litigation concerned conduct by Dr Ridd far beyond that of the 2016 censure, almost none of which was protected by the intellectual freedom... That conduct culminated in the termination decision, a decision which itself was justified by 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.”

 

[Knobby22]

Unanimous verdict. What a fool he is.

I think he was ho

From the article, it sounds as though he was confused as to the issues he was testing.

However, that did not result in an overall victory for Dr Ridd because the court found that his conduct extended well beyond the expression of opinion within his area of academic expertise. Had his conduct related only to his area of expertise or criticism of JCU decisions through proscribed processes it would have been protected by intellectual freedom. Because his case was run on an all or nothing basis, that meant Dr Ridd lost.
“This litigation concerned conduct by Dr Ridd far beyond that of the 2016 censure, almost none of which was protected by the intellectual freedom... That conduct culminated in the termination decision, a decision which itself was justified by 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.”

He was probably counting on support from the right wing media trying to do a Falou. Falou though was about personal beliefs.
Operating out of his field, trying to damage colleagues, just acting stupidly.

 

[sptrawler]

I think he was ho
He was probably counting on support from the right wing media trying to do a Falou. Falou though was about personal beliefs.
Operating out of his field, trying to damage colleagues, just acting stupidly.

I hadn't read anything about the case in the media, until today, so obviously it didn't attract much attention.
Might be just another disenfranchised person, but it is interesting he took it all the way to the high court, must have had his nose seriously out place. It would have cost a bomb.
18 cases of serious misconduct, sounds like it would be interesting reading.

 

[wayneL]

He basically disagreed with the barrier reef narrative

 

[sptrawler]

He basically disagreed with the barrier reef narrative

It sounds as though, if he had kept it on that issue, he would have won the case.

The university argued that Ridd was not sacked for his views but instead breached its code of conduct which required staff to act in a courteous and respectful way, and then further breached confidentiality requirements about the disciplinary procedure.
.
On Wednesday five justices of the High Court unanimously found that intellectual, or academic, freedom as contained in the university’s pay deal “is not qualified by a requirement to afford respect and courtesy in the manner of its exercise”.
The justices said that, as a result, an initial censure in 2016 against Dr Ridd was not justified

However, that did not result in an overall victory for Dr Ridd because the court found that his conduct extended well beyond the expression of opinion within his area of academic expertise.
“This litigation concerned conduct by Dr Ridd far beyond that of the 2016 censure, almost none of which was protected by the intellectual freedom... That conduct culminated in the termination decision, a decision which itself was justified by 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.”

 

[wayneL]

It sounds as though, if he had kept it on that issue, he would have won the case.

The university argued that Ridd was not sacked for his views but instead breached its code of conduct which required staff to act in a courteous and respectful way, and then further breached confidentiality requirements about the disciplinary procedure.
.
On Wednesday five justices of the High Court unanimously found that intellectual, or academic, freedom as contained in the university’s pay deal “is not qualified by a requirement to afford respect and courtesy in the manner of its exercise”.
The justices said that, as a result, an initial censure in 2016 against Dr Ridd was not justified

However, that did not result in an overall victory for Dr Ridd because the court found that his conduct extended well beyond the expression of opinion within his area of academic expertise.
“This litigation concerned conduct by Dr Ridd far beyond that of the 2016 censure, almost none of which was protected by the intellectual freedom... That conduct culminated in the termination decision, a decision which itself was justified by 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.”

That may be so, but if the other professors involved were held to the same standard, they would also have been sacked.

This is the double standard in play.

 

[sptrawler]

That may be so, but if the other professors involved were held to the same standard, they would also have been sacked.

This is the double standard in play.

The thing with courts is, they only deal with the issue presented, my guess is the professor lost his rag a few times and that part of the evidence justified dismissal.
If he had been sacked just on the basis of "treating other people in a courteous and respectful manner", the 2016 ruling would have been overturned.
Well that is what it sounds like to me.

 

[sptrawler]

Another article, that words the result better IMO.

Tudge flags further free speech measures as sacked climate sceptic loses High Court case

The Education Minister Alan Tudge says he’s “concerned that, in some places, there is a culture of closing down perceived ‘unwelcome thoughts’ rather than debating them”.

www.watoday.com.au

From the article:
Dr Ridd, a long-serving professor at the university, was fired in 2018 after forming the view that the scientific consensus on climate change overstated the risk it posed to the reef and vigorously arguing that position.

Loading
In a unanimous decision on Wednesday, five justices of the High Court dismissed Dr Ridd’s appeal, finding his early criticism of climate research and the reef was protected by academic freedom but that he later went much further, justifying his termination.

 

[IFocus]

Another article, that words the result better IMO.

Tudge flags further free speech measures as sacked climate sceptic loses High Court case

The Education Minister Alan Tudge says he’s “concerned that, in some places, there is a culture of closing down perceived ‘unwelcome thoughts’ rather than debating them”.

www.watoday.com.au

From the article:
Dr Ridd, a long-serving professor at the university, was fired in 2018 after forming the view that the scientific consensus on climate change overstated the risk it posed to the reef and vigorously arguing that position.

Loading
In a unanimous decision on Wednesday, five justices of the High Court dismissed Dr Ridd’s appeal, finding his early criticism of climate research and the reef was protected by academic freedom but that he later went much further, justifying his termination.

Wasn't the issue that he was commenting out side of his professional position?

 

[sptrawler]

Wasn't the issue that he was commenting out side of his professional position?

Not according to the university.

The university argued that Ridd was not sacked for his views

 

[rederob]

From the article, it sounds as though he was confused as to the issues he was testing.

However, that did not result in an overall victory for Dr Ridd because the court found that his conduct extended well beyond the expression of opinion within his area of academic expertise. Had his conduct related only to his area of expertise or criticism of JCU decisions through proscribed processes it would have been protected by intellectual freedom. Because his case was run on an all or nothing basis, that meant Dr Ridd lost.
“This litigation concerned conduct by Dr Ridd far beyond that of the 2016 censure, almost none of which was protected by the intellectual freedom... That conduct culminated in the termination decision, a decision which itself was justified by 18 grounds of serious misconduct, none of which involved the exercise of intellectual freedom.”

Ridd was not confused.
He chose to defend his right to say as he pleased - without constraint. To do that he needed to prove that cl. 14 did not apply and as most of his breaches stemmed from this it is called an "all or nothing" stance. However, Ridd never contested his actions of misconduct, merely that cl. 14 allowed him say whatever he liked, and this was not true.
My link to the judgement unanimously dismissing the appeal spells out why, in detail.

The thing with courts is, they only deal with the issue presented, my guess is the professor lost his rag a few times and that part of the evidence justified dismissal.

The judgement is 32 pages and covers all events and arguments. Moreover, the judgement was forensic, covering some of the strict legal senses of JCU's Enterprise Agreement which would not be obvious to a lay reader. It should be noted that Ridd's conduct was never unlawful (s. 19). Instead, Ridd's serious misconduct was in breach of his EA and JCU properly exercised a right to terminate his employment.
An interesting point regarding this case was that "intellectual freedom" was never "defined" in JCU's EA, which is curious - I prefer unforgivable - given that JCU employs many "intellectuals".
The parallel with Folau's case is obvious. Folau did not act unlawfully and, like Ridd, agreed that his actions breached his undertakings. I suspect in hindsight RA regrets not taking the matter to a judgement based on Ridd's case.

If he had been sacked just on the basis of "treating other people in a courteous and respectful manner", the 2016 ruling would have been overturned.
Well that is what it sounds like to me.

There was never a 2016 ruling.
You should rely on the judgement rather than piecemeal journalistic snippets that confuse contexts.

 

[sptrawler]

There was never a 2016 ruling.
You should rely on the judgement rather than piecemeal journalistic snippets that confuse contexts.

Which goes to my other pet hate, the media and pizz poor reporting.
I certainly hoped the Folau case would go to court, it would have put paid to the trail by media.