Dr Peter Ridd Reflects on Aussie High Court Freedom of Speech Defeat

 

Sky News Australia reported (October 13, 2021) that “The High Court’s ruling against former James Cook University professor Peter Ridd is a blow to every Australian who values freedom of expression.” Peter Ridd gives his response below.

In 2018 Professor Ridd was fired by his university after criticising the work of a colleague studying the Great Barrier Reef. In an email to a journalist, he said the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority “is grossly misusing some scientific ‘data’ to make the case that the Great [B]arrier Reef is greatly damaged”.

This led to a protracted and extremely expensive court battle that ultimately went the way of the employer and against Ridd and the concept of free speech.

Peter writes:

It is with a heavy heart that I inform you that we have lost the appeal in the High Court. We lost, in my opinion, because JCU’s work contract, under which I was employed, effectively kills academic freedom of speech – and the contract is effectively the law.

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.
I often ask myself, if I knew what was going to happen, would I have handled that fateful interview with Alan Jones and Peta Credlin in 2017 differently. Would I still say that, due to systemic quality assurance problems, work from a couple of Great Barrier Reef science institutions was “untrustworthy”?
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.
This is just a small battle in a much bigger war. It was a battle which we had to have and, in retrospect, lose. JCU’s and almost every other university in Australia and the western world are behaving badly. We have shown how badly.
Decent people and governments can see the immense problem we have. The universities are not our friends. Only when the problem is recognised will public pressure force a solution.
The failure of our legal action, and JCU’s determination to effectively destroy academic freedom of speech, demonstrates that further legislation is required to force universities to behave properly – especially if they are to receive any public funding. The Commonwealth government introduced excellent legislation in parliament early this year, partly in response to our legal case, to bolster academic freedom of speech. It is an excellent step in the right direction. If my case had been fought under this legislation, I would have had a better chance of winning. But it would still have been far from certain. There would still have been a clash between the new legislation and the work agreement.
There needs to be major punishment against universities for infringement of academic freedom of speech, such as fines or losing their accreditation. There needs to be active policing and investigations of the universities to make sure they comply and do not threaten academics with expensive legal action to stop the university’s behaviour becoming public. Universities must be told that they cannot spy on academic’s email communications (this should only be done by the police) or use secrecy directives to silence and intimidate staff. And all this protection for academics MUST be written into the work contracts to put the matter beyond legal doubt.
I am very mindful that I asked for, and received, donations of about $1,500,000 (in two GoFundMe campaigns of around $750k#) for the legal battle – from over 10,000 people. And I lost. Some of those donations were from people who have very slender financial resources. All I can say is that it weighs heavily on my conscience, but I hope they agree that it was still worth the battle.
A last thank you
I would like to express, one last time, my thanks to Stuart Wood AM QC, Ben Jellis, Ben Kidston, Colette Mintz, Mitchell Downes, Amelia Hasson and the rest of the team. They were fabulous. They did everything that was possible.
Thanks also to John Roskam, Gideon Rozner, Evan Mulholland, Morgan Begg and the Institute of Public Affairs. They backed me when things got tough. They are one of the few institutions in the country that will fight on issues of freedom of speech. I’d like to make a special mention of the IPA’s Jennifer Marohasy. She has been a great support over many years and played a crucial role in the critical early days of this fight.
Thanks to the National Tertiary Education Union. They supported the cause in court, even though my views on the Reef may well be opposed to the views of many of their members.
There are many politicians who have gone into bat on my behalf such as Matt Canavan, George Christensen, Pauline Hanson, Bob Katter, Gerard Rennick, Malcolm Roberts, Dan Tehan, and Alan Tudge (in alphabetical order). They obviously could not interfere with the legal proceedings, but were instrumental in bringing in the new academic freedom legislation.
There are many journalists and bloggers who helped spread the word, but I would particularly like to thanks Graham Lloyd from The Australian, Jo Nova, and Anthony Watts (WUWT).
There are also many other people, far too many to list, that I am thankful to. They will know who they are.
And finally, thanks to my family, and especially Cheryl.

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Doug Harrison

    |

    I suppose the lesson to be learned from this diabolical assault on freedom of speech is that everybody needs to get the best advice they can afford when negotiating an employment contract. I have not seen Dr Ridd’s contract with JCU but there must have been obvious fish hooks to a good legal mind (not me). Universities like JCU are no longer seekers after truth as has been thew tradition over centuries but the purveyors of whatever those who see themselves as worthy because they are rich want the truth to be.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Richard Noakes

      |

      He who pays the Piper calls the tune – in this case, above professor signed a contract which provided him with the rules set by his employer and if he breached those rules, then his contract and his tenure would be cancelled.
      That he chose to try and overturn the contract he signed, to have his own thoughts put above those of the policies of his employer and the contract he signed, would eventually fail – otherwise, why have employees sign contracts which determine how they are expected to behave, while providing the services required by the University, in the first place?
      Furthermore, because this was a public display for all to watch and the outcome, the said professor is probably black-listed world wide and might find getting another job, not that easy to achieve, which might mean the failure of his marriage, the assets he does not own outright and his life taking a major turn for the worst

      Reply

  • Avatar

    CodexCoder

    |

    In Canada, the line to remember is; “The truth is not a defense”. Welcome to the club, Professor.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Ken Hughes

    |

    Surely, the law of the land should prevail over any work contract, since, if the contract is drawn up in contravention of national law, then the contract itself is unlawful in that regard and cannot be enforced?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Andy

    |

    A disgraceful result but probably to be expected. The alarmists cannot have their views challenged.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    K Kaiser

    |

    A sad turn of events. Probably entirely impossible just a few years ago.
    Freedom of expression, like other “constitutional” rights are usurped by political powers, courts of law, and others, all in the name of a mysteriously defined “common good.”

    Historically, such developments are, eventually, followed by anarchy and revolutions. The next “Storming the Bastille” cannot be far behind.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via