Vigtig sejr ved domstolen for professor og koral forsker Peter Ridd

Af Frank Lansner

Peter Ridd kritiserede sine kolleger for at vise vildledende billeder af koralrevenes tilstand til journalister, formidle korallernes situation markant værre end virkeligheden og for at undlade at undersøge og formidle dette at lav vandstand var en vigtig faktor for bleaching af Global Barrier Reef i 2016. Visse af disse forhold er omtalt på klimarealisme.dk [1] sektion 8.

Den hårde kritik fra professor Ridd mod visse af kollegerne på James Cook University, blandt andet Terry Hughes, fik universitetet til at fyrre Peter Ridd. Dertil kommer en serie påbud om at Peter Ridd ikke kunne tale frit.

Der blev oprettet indsamlinger på Joanne Novas site og Watts Up With that medførende at Peter Ridd kunne finansiere en retssag mod JCU med hele 17 anklage punkter.

Peter Ridd har nu vundet på samtlige anklage punkter.

I dommerens kommentarer øjner man jævnligt en udtrykkelig harme mod JCU og deres behandling af Peter Ridd. Fra dommen:

” 224. Professor Ridd was expressing his opinion about the operations of JCU and expressing disagreement with decisions of JCU.

225. I find that Professor Ridd was exercising his rights pursuant to cl.14.2 [Paragraf om ytringsfrihed på universitetet]  and cl.14.4 of the EA when he made these comments. ”

“296. To use the vernacular, the University has “played the man and not the ball”. Incredibly, the University has not understood the whole concept of intellectual freedom. In the search for truth, it is an unfortunate consequence that some people may feel denigrated, offended, hurt or upset. It may not always be possible to act collegiately when diametrically opposed views clash in the search for truth.”

“299. The Code of Conduct is subordinate to cl.14 of the EA. And what is said by Professor Ridd must always be looked at in its whole context. The University have continually “cherry-picked” portions of the writings of Professor Ridd and said “that is not the exercise of intellectual freedom”. But it is the whole of what is written that must be looked at rather than excerpts taken out of context.”

“302. That is why intellectual freedom is so important. It allows academics to express their opinions without fear of reprisals. It allows a Charles Darwin to break free of the constraints of creationism. It allows an Albert Einstein to break free of the constraints of Newtonian physics. It allows the human race to question conventional wisdom in the neverending search for knowledge and truth. And that, at its core, is what higher learning is about. To suggest otherwise is to ignore why universities were created and why critically focussed academics remain central to all that university teaching claims to offer.”

Udpluk af dommen:

“

b) The censure given to Professor Ridd was unlawful as it contravened cl.14 of the EA.

c) The First Speech Direction was unlawful in that it sought to interfere with the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

e) The First Confidentiality Direction was unlawful …

g) The Second Confidentiality Direction was unlawful …

m) The Third Confidentiality Direction was unlawful …

n) The Second Speech Direction was unlawful …

o) The Fourth Confidentiality Directions was unlawful …

p) The no satire direction was unlawful …

q) The Fifth Confidentiality Direction was unlawful …

r) The Second Censure was unlawful …

bb) The termination of Professor Ridd’s employment was unlawful because it punished Professor Ridd for conduct that was protected by cl.14 of the EA.

“

Jeg har valgt at fokusere på de domme der berører den påtvungne censur Peter Ridd har været udsat for, ikke mindst idet nogle forsøger at udlægge det som om at Peter Ridd skam ikke havde været udsat for påtvungen censur, “gag order” af nogen slags.  Dommeren mener noget andet.

Dommen er yderligere omtalt på

Fra Joanne Novas site [5]. Fra Joanne Novas site kan man finde links til sagens tidligere forløb.