The West has lost its freedom of speech

[sptrawler]

Interesting read @rederob , it sounds as though the main issue was poorly structured defence by Ridd.
If he had separated the issues the findings might have been different, bundling the whole issue under the cl. 14 banner was flawed, I'm surprised the lawyers didn't pick that up the Judges did very quickly.
The right to "intellectual freedom" doesn't cover the right to breach confidentiality agreements, it also doesn't cover the right to not follow due process.

Like the Judges said his stance on some of the issues, were inexplicable:
The Full Court considered this stance of Dr Ridd to be "inexplicable"4 . But Dr Ridd chose not to contest any of the findings of serious misconduct other than on the basis that he was protected by cl 14. The same stance was taken in this Court.



Another thing of note IMO was:
"where there is conflict between a genuine exercise of intellectual freedom and a requirement of the Code of Conduct, the former prevails to the extent of the inconsistency" 5 . His Honour would have remitted the matter to the primary judge for further factual findings.

 

[rederob]

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.

You are consistently inept with your comments.
Given no others at JCU breached the Code of Conduct, and that Ridd's right to disagree was not a considered a breach of the Code, there can be no double standard at play.
At least @sptrawler took the time to read and understand the judgement.

 

[moXJO]

Interesting read @rederob , it sounds as though the main issue was poorly structured defence by Ridd.
If he had separated the issues the findings might have been different, bundling the whole issue under the cl. 14 banner was flawed, I'm surprised the lawyers didn't pick that up the Judges did very quickly.
The right to "intellectual freedom" doesn't cover the right to breach confidentiality agreements, it also doesn't cover the right to not follow due process.

Like the Judges said his stance on some of the issues, were inexplicable:
The Full Court considered this stance of Dr Ridd to be "inexplicable"4 . But Dr Ridd chose not to contest any of the findings of serious misconduct other than on the basis that he was protected by cl 14. The same stance was taken in this Court.



Another thing of note IMO was:
"where there is conflict between a genuine exercise of intellectual freedom and a requirement of the Code of Conduct, the former prevails to the extent of the inconsistency" 5 . His Honour would have remitted the matter to the primary judge for further factual findings.

Bad strategy by the lawyers.

 

[wayneL]

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.

I'm not really accusing court of a double standard, but I am accusing the university of double standards.

Ridd himself has admitted that the university had indeed acted within the letter of the law and its contract with him, but very much breached the spirit of academic freedom.

The court did make the right legal decision, however the state of academic freedom is in peril, despite recent legislative changes. This is Ridd's overarching point.

 

[rederob]

I'm not really accusing court of a double standard, but I am accusing the university of double standards.

Ridd himself has admitted that the university had indeed acted within the letter of the law and its contract with him, but very much breached the spirit of academic freedom.

The court did make the right legal decision, however the state of academic freedom is in peril, despite recent legislative changes. This is Ridd's overarching point.

Academia has a well established framework for professional critiques and these were built into JCU's Code of Conduct and referenced in their Enterprise Agreement.
Ridd deliberately went outside this framework in full knowledge his actions were contrary to professional standards and was censured by JCU. So to claim JCU was in breach when it was in fact Ridd is a denial of reality.
Here's what JCU's actual EA allowed at the time:

Ridd's problems stemmed not from his actual professional views but instead from how he went about expressing them. Most workplaces, even outside academia, have guidelines (such as codes of conduct) in place which cover how you represent your work-related views externally. Indeed, the well publicised Folau case is another prominent example.
Vested media interests are spinning very different and selective stories about Ridd's case, but they mostly miss what the matter was about. In very simple terms is was about the correct application of employment contract law.
If you think this case was about free speech or intellectual freedom you the court judgement well and truly puts that idea to rest.

 

[sptrawler]

Academia has a well established framework for professional critiques and these were built into JCU's Code of Conduct and referenced in their Enterprise Agreement.
Ridd deliberately went outside this framework in full knowledge his actions were contrary to professional standards and was censured by JCU. So to claim JCU was in breach when it was in fact Ridd is a denial of reality.
Here's what JCU's actual EA allowed at the time:


Ridd's problems stemmed not from his actual professional views but instead from how he went about expressing them. Most workplaces, even outside academia, have guidelines (such as codes of conduct) in place which cover how you represent your work-related views externally. Indeed, the well publicised Folau case is another prominent example.
Vested media interests are spinning very different and selective stories about Ridd's case, but they mostly miss what the matter was about. In very simple terms is was about the correct application of employment contract law.
If you think this case was about free speech or intellectual freedom you the court judgement well and truly puts that idea to rest.

Unfortunately Wayne, what Rob says is right, regarding Ridd, he confused the right to free expression to cover slagging off at the university and slagging off at their disciplinary codes and breached their agreement on confidentiality.
The whole basis of his claim of unfair dismissal, was base on "the right to intellectual freedom", if he had segregated them, the issues would have been dealt with differently.


With regard Folau the issues are completely different IMO, Folau wasn't commenting on any issue that pertained to the operation or running of the Rugby League, he was reciting an extract from a religious scripture as a pastor of that religion, Rugby Australia chose to make an example of him as not being inclusive to members of rugby, because he recited those scriptures.
They were given a prompting by one of their sponsors, saying they would withdraw their sponsorship if they didn't make an eaxampe of him apparently.
After taking a deep breath, they thought what a FFcking mess, gave him millions of dollars and bite the bullet, many lost their jobs afterwards, but yet @rederob still runs the banner. ?
It does exemplify Labors policy decision making processes, deafness and who gives a $hit it is our way or the highway.
At least Albo seems to be moving on, from the step on those who object mantra, because if they don't they will end up defunct.

The problem is, as with union membership, there is no point representing the vocal 10%, the non vocal 90% will still win, that's democracy.
just my opinion.

 

[sptrawler]

Imagine if Anthony Mundine had been banned from playing rugby or boxing for life, because he had quoted the Koran, now that would make the news and the project and the QAnd A and every other loonie tune platform iMO.

 

[rederob]

With regard Folau the issues are completely different IMO, Folau wasn't commenting on any issue that pertained to the operation or running of the Rugby League, he was reciting an extract from a religious scripture as a pavocal 90% will still win, that's democracy.

Folau's contract was terminated as a result of a high level breach of RA's code of conduct.
Folau, like Ridd, chose to contest the decision on a right to free speech - namely a religious freedom - having also agreed that he breached the terms of his employment contract. Folau's use of social media was clearly conditioned on entering his employment contract, as was Ridd's in relation to intellectual freedom.
As I said, the legal parallels are obvious.

 

[moXJO]

Folau's contract was terminated as a result of a high level breach of RA's code of conduct.
Folau, like Ridd, chose to contest the decision on a right to free speech - namely a religious freedom - having also agreed that he breached the terms of his employment contract. Folau's use of social media was clearly conditioned on entering his employment contract, as was Ridd's in relation to intellectual freedom.
As I said, the legal parallels are obvious.

Nope disagree. He quoted religious text. There was no social media policy at the time.
It would not have gone done the same.
Sorry but it is widely different.

 

[sptrawler]

Well the first thing you would have to do to win, would be to present what I said correctly, but that would be novel for you wouldn't it.lol
What the fluck is a provacal 90% will still win?

Busy trying to twist $hit around Rob?

Rugby Australia were in the $hit up to their ears and they are still trying to recover IMO.
You don't pay out millions, you can't afford, if you don't have to.
Get over it.

 

[sptrawler]

Folau's contract was terminated as a result of a high level breach of RA's code of conduct.
Folau, like Ridd, chose to contest the decision on a right to free speech - namely a religious freedom - having also agreed that he breached the terms of his employment contract. Folau's use of social media was clearly conditioned on entering his employment contract, as was Ridd's in relation to intellectual freedom.
As I said, the legal parallels are obvious.

No Ridd was busted for breaching confidentiality and slagging off at their disciplinary codes, not for the intellectual freedom part, don't try and put your own bent on it.
If Rugby Australia had a chance in hell of getting out of the hole they dug , they would have, instead they paid millions of dollars of members money to save face.
Thankfully most of them lost their jobs, the whole incident was a disgrace and an attempt to undermine the fabric that Australia is built on, the right for Australians to believe in whatever religion they wish to.
I personally am an atheist, so the religious part doesn't concern me, but the right to practice it does.
Same as the right to be gay.

 

[rederob]

Nope disagree. He quoted religious text. There was no social media policy at the time.
It would not have gone done the same.
Sorry but it is widely different.

You and @sptrawler are dead wrong - again - and the proof is in RA's media release which reiterates my points, eg:

Rugby Australia Chief Executive, Raelene Castle said: “At its core, this is an issue of the responsibilities an employee owes to their employer and the commitments they make to their employer to abide by their employer’s policies and procedures and adhere to their employer’s values."​

Neither JCU nor RA restricted their employees from using media to air their beliefs. However, as the High Court determined for Ridd, it was not unreasonable that they be conditioned.

I could have replaced RA with JCU in the above quote and it would have been their same position. The only substantive difference between the two cases is the number of warnings Ridd got compared to RA's hurried decision to terminate Folau. In that regard RA's actions may have been regarded as "disproportionate," in which case a substantial damages claim would have been warranted.

 

[sptrawler]

Is that the same Raelene Castle who had to stand down over the fiasco, or a different one.Lol
No one even wanted to test Rugby Australia's lifetime ban in the courts, as was proven earlier in the year when Palmer was going to back Folau, the team capitulated and said he could play.
What a joke, if RA thought they could win the case, they wouldn't have paid him out, it wasn't as though they could afford it.

 

[moXJO]

You and @sptrawler are dead wrong - again - and the proof is in RA's media release which reiterates my points, eg:

Rugby Australia Chief Executive, Raelene Castle said: “At its core, this is an issue of the responsibilities an employee owes to their employer and the commitments they make to their employer to abide by their employer’s policies and procedures and adhere to their employer’s values."​

Neither JCU nor RA restricted their employees from using media to air their beliefs. However, as the High Court determined for Ridd, it was not unreasonable that they be conditioned.

I could have replaced RA with JCU in the above quote and it would have been their same position. The only substantive difference between the two cases is the number of warnings Ridd got compared to RA's hurried decision to terminate Folau. In that regard RA's actions may have been regarded as "disproportionate," in which case a substantial damages claim would have been warranted.

I'm sure we argued this endlessly in the other thread. At its core RA was influenced by Qantas knee-jerk reaction and jumped on the outrage bandwagon that then devolved into the mess we witnessed.

Folau quoting of a bible passage that pretty much pointed out a variety of sinners could also have been seen as him trying to "save souls" according to beliefs.
Regardless there was no social media contract. Only the expectations laid out in the player conduct.

Religion is a complete different kettle of fish.
RA made enough mistakes to lose the case.

 

[rederob]

Regardless there was no social media contract. Only the expectations laid out in the player conduct.

Verbal undertakings also form part of any contract and these were laid out beforehand.
Aside from that there was no need for a specific social media clause as RA's code of conduct was crystal clear in relation to what constituted a breach, and Folau even admitted in his tribunal hearing to such a breach.

Religion is a complete different kettle of fish.

So is hate speech, sexual discrimination and disrespect.

RA made enough mistakes to lose the case.

There was a confidential settlement.
Furthermore, there was no lifetime ban on Folau, as suggested by @sptrawler. He must have got another wrong end of the media stick that keeps beating him up.

 

[SirRumpole]

Rugby Australia Chief Executive, Raelene Castle said: “At its core, this is an issue of the responsibilities an employee owes to their employer and the commitments they make to their employer to abide by their employer’s policies and procedures and adhere to their employer’s values."

Stuff the employers values, individuals are allowed to have their own values in a free society and to express those values outside the workplace without fear of retaliation. This is the point that you continually fail to understand.

If an employee was sacked for expressing political opinions that differ from their employer there would justifiably be outrage , but because you disagree with what Folau said your moral indignation blinds you to the fact that he has a right to say what he did.

Employers have no right to dictate moral behaviour , only behaviour that involves the job the employees were employed to do.

 

[wayneL]

Both vaxed and unvaxed Victorian members of parliament prevented from voting for not handing over their medical information.

Just let that sink in.

 

[rederob]

Stuff the employers values, individuals are allowed to have their own values in a free society and to express those values outside the workplace without fear of retaliation. This is the point that you continually fail to understand.

The Ridd case was conclusive in this matter, and you are incorrect. If you don't understand our system of laws then best you don't comment!

If an employee was sacked for expressing political opinions that differ from their employer there would justifiably be outrage , but because you disagree with what Folau said your moral indignation blinds you to the fact that he has a right to say what he did.

I have consistently said that Folau is a fool in my eyes, and he's welcome to his stupid ideas. However, as I repeat again, actions have consequences.

Employers have no right to dictate moral behaviour , only behaviour that involves the job the employees were employed to do.

You are a broken record. Folau admitted he breached RA's code of conduct at his tribunal hearing. He was never censured for his morality or religion. You have never grasped these differences.

 

[sptrawler]

Here is the whole story, not just Rob's interpretation.
https://www.afr.com/companies/sport...l-team-played-rugby-australia-20191216-p53kcr

 

[sptrawler]

And to just highlight what I've always said:

Challenge to COVID-19 vaccine mandate fails in NSW Supreme Court

Justice Robert Beech-Jones found that restrictions on movement according to vaccination status “are the very type of restrictions that the Public Health Act clearly authorises”.

www.smh.com.au

All Rugby Australia had to do, was go to court, to prove whether they were correct in their decision to sack and ban Folau, or flawed in the decision.
They didn't, they paid him millions for their blunder, yet we still have people trying to say they were right.

But the Folau issue just highlighted, there are some people at the sharp end of the issues and there are others who are bell ends. ?