‘They’re Godfathers Now’ – Germany’s Most Famous Bodyguard on Powerful Arab Street Gangs

Special police in front of a building in Berlin, Germany © REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch; © RT

A famed bodyguard, who protected the likes of Hollywood A-lister Sean Penn, provided RT Deutsch with a unique insight into the life of powerful Arab street gangs which are thriving in the German capital.

The ruthless Arab street gangs gained momentum in the 1990s, “pushing aside local German groups and taking Berlin’s nightlife under control,” Michael Kuhr told RT Deutsch as he strolled down a working-class neighborhood with many migrant residents.

They’re godfathers now, totally controlling [crime in Berlin], including drugs, prostitution, and shadow money.

The Arab clans are extremely dangerous and, given their close-knit nature, they “can bring together 40 to 50 people in just half an hour,” he stated. “Throughout the night, they are ready to cut and kill. If they have a gun, they are ready to shoot and kill,” Kuhr added.

A former world kickboxing champion and one of the most well-known bodyguards in Germany, Kuhr said he is a “fan” of multiculturalism. However, many migrants resorted to crime because the government failed to integrate them into society, and later made the grave mistake of underestimating the threat posed by the gangs, he said.

Government policies have completely failed. The authorities totally underestimated the situation. They are trying to minimize the damage but it is not an easy thing to do.

The gangs have been a growing source of concern for the German authorities for quite some time. Some criminal groups have been active in Berlin and other German cities for almost half a century, as their first members arrived in Germany in the 1970s. Over the years, they have built extensive criminal networks comprised of hundreds of members.

The gangs are also responsible for thousands of crimes every year. In the German western states of North Rhine-Westphalia alone, clan members committed 14,225 documented offenses between 2016 and 2018, according to police data. The list of the offenses included violent crimes, property crimes as well as fraud and drug-related offenses.

Police also identified as many as 6,449 suspects living in North Rhine-Westphalia alone, who have gang links. A March report by the German Die Welt daily revealed that the number of criminal gangs operating in the state amounted to 108 – twice as many as was previously thought.

An earlier estimate by the German federal criminal police, dated 2015, suggested that, on the nationwide scale, the total number of people belonging to large criminal clans might amount to as many as 200,000, although not all of them might be involved in criminal activities. In comparison, the total number of police officers in Germany amounts to 270,000 people, according to the German public broadcasting radio station, Deutschlandfunk.

Currently, law enforcement in Berlin has a separate investigative team that deals primarily with “organized crime among the families of Arab origin,” police spokesperson Thilo Cablitz told RT.

In late March, Berlin police carried out the largest raid of its kind, targeting Arab criminal gangs. The operation was a part of the ‘zero-tolerance strategy,’ a senior local official told reporters. Hundreds of officers searched hookah lounges, where they suspected the gangs laundered money, and issued fines for various offenses. In January, a similar large-scale raid was conducted in North Rhine-Westphalia.

Issued fines? That's zero-tolerance strategy? No wonder it's not working.

“The fight against the clan structures is not just about [preventing] material damage,” Berlin’s Interior Minister Andreas Geisel told Die Welt in March. “What is more important is that these people undermine the rule of law as they violate the laws and, if the states accepts that, it will end up as a threat to democracy,” he added.

North Rhine-Westphalia’s Interior Minister Herbert Reul warned outright that the gangs want to “replace the state” in the areas they control and rule these territories on their own. “This has gone too far in some parts of our country,” he told Die Welt in March.

If a much more robust attack is not forthcoming, parts of Germany will be like much of central America - controlled by criminal gangs.

Canada is Releasing a Coin Commemorating a Myth: That Homosexuality was Decriminalized in 1969

There is no place for truth or reality in Canada's Liberal

government! There is only political correctness and the

promotion of far-left values whether real or imagined.

Not only did charges for gross indecency continue after 1969,

they escalated

Tom Hooper · for CBC News ·

No laws were repealed. The reforms that were passed had no practical effect. And criminal charges for consensual gay sex among adults increased in the decades after 1969, dramatically.

This year, the federal government is funding several initiatives to celebrate 50 years since the 1969 decriminalization of homosexuality in Canada.

Egale Canada Human Rights Trust, for example — a non-profit that works to improve the lives of LGBTQ2 people — has been granted $770,000 to produce a film and travelling exhibit, and the Canadian Mint will soon release a special $1 coin.

Canada's $1 coin is appropriately called the Loonie. Supposedly because there is an image of a loon on the back. But I really believe it is simply because it is made in Ottawa.

The only problem is that the idea that homosexuality was decriminalized in 1969 is essentially a myth.

No laws were repealed. The reforms that were passed had no practical effect. And criminal charges for consensual gay sex among adults increased in the decades after 1969, dramatically.

There was never an explicit section of the Criminal Code outlawing homosexuality. Instead, acts of gay sex were criminalized under various 19th century provisions. The reforms in 1969 dealt with two of these: buggery and gross indecency.

'Exception clause'

These were not repealed from the Code. Instead, an "exception clause" was added that allowed two adults 21 years and older to commit these crimes provided they did so in a strict definition of private. Gay sex remained criminal.

The exception clause stated: "(1) Sections 147 and 149 do not apply to any act committed in private between (a) a husband and his wife, or (b) any two persons, each of whom is twenty-one years or more of age, both of whom consent to the commission of the act. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), (a) an act shall be deemed not to have been committed in private if it is committed in a public place, or if more than two persons take part or are present."

The reforms followed a notorious 1967 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Everett George Klippert. The decision upheld multiple convictions against him for gross indecency, resulting in a declaration that he was a dangerous sexual offender.

This prompted then-Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau to make the famous statement: "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation." But in truth, the state did not have the resources to police the bedrooms of the nation, and these are not the types of cases found in the historical records.

I have often accused Pierre Trudeau of closing the bedroom doors and opening the closets. But this report makes it clear that the bedroom doors have always been closed.

The 1969 reforms had no effect on Klippert's case, and he remained in jail until 1971. (Submitted by Kevin Allen/Klippert family)

Klippert was not charged for sex in a private bedroom. Like many men, he often made use of his vehicle and other secluded "public" spaces to have gay sex. Klippert also had sex with guys who were under 21, including while he too was underage. As a result, the 1969 reforms had no effect on Klippert's case, and he remained in jail until 1971.

While the 1969 debates in the House of Commons focused on whether homosexuality was a dangerous threat or a medical disease, members from all political parties agreed on one thing: the reform accomplished nothing.

Ralliement créditiste MP Bernard Dumont said, "When two homosexuals want to commit such acts privately, nobody will denounce them and no sentence will be passed on them, I cannot see why are being led to believe that this bill is going to change anything." Progressive Conservative Eldon Woolliams agreed: "Two consenting adults are not going to go out and report what they do in private to the law officers."

NDP MP David Orlikow quoted an academic study of gross indecency in Toronto and found there were no charges against two adults in private, concluding "I do not believe this change in the Criminal Code will really do very much."

Even the governing Liberals admitted this. MP Gilles Marceau stated, "Gross indecency is still a criminal act which may be punishable by five years in jail. And the amendment which will enable consenting adults to do certain acts in private only confirms the inviolability of private life."

Justice Minister John Turner was more emphatic, stating that the reform does not promote homosexuality, "it does not advocate such acts, it does not popularize such acts, it does not even legalize this kind of conduct."

When the reforms became law in August 1969, the headline in the Toronto Star read, "State leaves bedrooms, but little has changed." A morality squad detective with more than 18 years experience was interviewed and could not recall a single arrest for two consenting adults having sex in private.

Not only did charges for gross indecency continue after 1969, they escalated. In one example from 1976, two young men were arrested at 5 a.m. in an Edmonton park because they were kissing in their parked vehicle. Over an eight-month period in 1982, a group of gay activists attended the Old City Hall courthouse in Toronto and tracked 74 charges of gross indecency against adults for having gay sex.

Bathhouse raids

Charges also escalated for other 19th century Criminal Code relics that were untouched in 1969, including indecent acts, vagrancy, obscenity, and the bawdy-house law. From 1968 to 2004, more than 1,300 men were charged under the bawdy-house law for being in a gay bar or bathhouse. They could not claim protection using the 1969 reform because more than two people were present in these instances, even if they were behind closed doors.

So why is the Canadian Mint releasing a coin commemorating an event that led to the mass criminalization of LGBTQ2 communities in the decades after 1969? Whom does this commemoration serve?

It does not serve lesbians, who were not captured by these Criminal Code provisions. Nor does it serve Two-Spirit and Indigenous communities, who in 1969 mobilized against the White Paper, which called for the destruction of their sovereignty and treaty rights.

It does not serve the gay and lesbian community, which, in 1971 gathered on Parliament Hill for their first national protest organized in direct opposition to the 1969 reform. They called for an actual decriminalization and the repeal of all "indecency" laws. This commemoration also ignores LGBTQ2 members of the military and civil service, who continued to be purged until as recent as 1992.

Instead, this commemoration celebrates the so-called accomplishment of a Liberal named Trudeau, a myth that is literally going on our dollar.

What happened in 1992 to change everything? That was when Science magazine came out with another myth, the discovery of a gay gene. The study somehow finessed its way through peer-review and was published as the cover story. For left-wing media it was confirmation that Christians are evil and gays are good. They flew with it, despite credible scientists thoroughly trashing the story. Science, remarkably, repeated the error several years later with another fabricated study.

Did ISIS Help Plot the Christian Carnage in Sri Lanka?

The attacks have several earmarks of ISIS style massacres. And, a foreign intelligence service warned Sri Lanka of planned attacks 10 days ago. The expected culprit - an Islamist group, National Thowheed Jamaath (NTJ).

By LARISSA BROWN, DEFENCE AND SECURITY EDITOR FOR THE DAILY MAIL

After living through a bloody civil war that dragged on for three decades, the people of Sri Lanka are no strangers to terror. But the carnage that unfolded yesterday saw the country’s enemies take on new depths of depravity.

It had all the hallmarks of the barbaric Islamic State group – executed meticulously and without mercy.

Within minutes of yesterday’s blasts, MI5 was trying to establish if there were any British links to those who could be behind the plot. There were no immediate claims of responsibility, nor any established motive for the attack, although 13 suspects had been arrested by last night.

Early evidence pointed to the National Thowheed Jamaath (NTJ), a relatively unknown radical Islamist group said to have formed in Kattankudy, a Muslim-dominated town in eastern Sri Lanka, in 2014. 

In fact, Thowheed Jamaath was formed in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu in 2004. They claimed to preach true Islam, which is what a lot of Muslims say before killing people.

Alex and Anita Nicholson photographed in London in 2015. Both were killed in the bomb blast in the Shangri-La hotel  

Shantha Mayadunne (second left) and her daughter Nisanga (right) were among the victims of the Sri Lanka bomb attacks on Sunday. The family posted this picture of their Easter breakfast at the Shangri-La hotel just before the blast there

A map showing where the eight blasts went off today, six of them in very quick succession on Easter Sunday morning  

ISIS militants marching in Raqqa, Syria, in 2014. This year the fundamentalists were driven from the last land they

occupied but security experts have warned of 'pop up' terror cells

National Thowheed Jamaath has no history of mass fatality attacks. In fact, its only mention appears to be last year when it was linked to the vandalism of Buddhist statues.

Sources in the Muslim community in Sri Lanka claim the group has publicly supported Islamic State. They also say that Zahran Hashim, named in reports as one of the bombers, was its founder.

Although intelligence files on the group are small, there is no doubt the warning signs were there.

On April 11, Sri Lankan police circulated a document entitled ‘Information of an alleged plan attack’ which said they had been warned by an unnamed foreign intelligence agency that the NTJ was plotting suicide attacks on churches in Colombo.

It added that intelligence pointed to any of the following methods: suicide attack, weapon attack or truck attack.

The original warning is most likely to have come from Australia – one of the ‘five eyes’ with a close intelligence-sharing relationship with Britain – that has kept watch on the rise of extremism in the region.

Documents show that Sri Lanka’s police chief Pujuth Jayasundara then issued an intelligence alert to top officers, specifically warning that suicide bombers planned to hit ‘prominent churches’.

And yet, there doesn't appear to have been any extra security for any of the churches on Easter Sunday???!!! Who made the decision that extra security was unnecessary?

Sri Lanka's defence ministry has now ordered curfew with immediate effect 'until further notice', and the Sri Lankan government said it had shut down access to social media messaging services, sources say

Hospital staff push a trolley with a casualty after an explosion at a church in Batticaloa, Sri Lanka

A crime scene official inspects the site of a bomb blast inside a church in Negombo, Sri Lanka, which lost

half its roof tiles with the force of the blast

Documents even named six individuals as likely suicide bombers, including Hashim. Yesterday, the seemingly far-fetched plan became frighteningly real.

Why the police did not sound the alarm earlier will remain a mystery. Prime minister Ranil Wickremesinghe admitted that information about the attacks had been received in advance but denied having direct knowledge himself. ‘We must look into why adequate precautions were not taken. Neither I nor the ministers were kept informed,’ he said following intense anger in the community.

Whichever group was behind yesterday’s attack, it was most certainly inspired by the tactics used by IS. The suicide bombings explicitly targeted civilians, designed to create maximum terror for maximum effect – like the Manchester Arena bombings and the London Bridge attack.

They also chose iconic locations packed full of people, including many foreigners.

IS – which lost its final sliver of territory in Syria just weeks ago – also has a history of staging attacks against Christians on holy days, notably Christmas and Easter.

British military chiefs and ministers have long warned that the defeat of the terror group in the Middle East does not mean it has been vanquished.

They have referred to a ‘pop-up’ IS involving the group emerging elsewhere, often in states where they can exploit a vacuum. They have specifically warned of the rising threat from such diehard jihadis in south-east Asia.

IS fostered a brand which was so effective other terror groups wanted to be associated with it. Some radicalised Muslims travelled from Sri Lanka to Syria to fight in that country’s civil war.

In 2016, the justice minister said 32 Sri Lankan Muslims from ‘well-educated and elite’ families had joined IS in Syria.

The recent loss of its last territory makes it even more likely that foreign fighters from countries such as Sri Lanka may now be returning home.

Terrorism expert Raffaello Pantucci says the demise of the group’s ‘caliphate’ could have persuaded extremists to stay in their countries and mount attacks there instead. ‘Think how big Islamic State’s footprint is,’ he said. ‘This means it has a reverse effect as well – their ideas are going out to a big pool of places.’

Sri Lankan military stand guard near the explosion site at a church in Batticaloa,with police tape keeping out bystanders

Security forces inspect the St. Anthony's Shrine after an explosion hit St Anthony's Church in Kochchikade in Colombo

State minister of defence Ruwan Wijewardene said investigators have identified the culprits behind the 'terrorist' attacks (pictuerd: Shangri La hotel, Colombo)

Yesterday’s bombings end a decade of relative peace in Sri Lanka following the end of its civil war in 2009. Terrorist bombings were common during the brutal 25-year struggle during which the Sri Lankan government fought Tamil separatism.

But despite the period of calm, much bitterness and grievance has remained in the country, riven by ethnic disputes.

Sri Lanka, which is mainly Buddhist, does not have a recent history of persecution of its Christian minority, which comprises 7 per cent of the population.

Yet its relations with others, including Hindus and Muslims, have not always been easy. Over the years there has been an increasing rise of discontent among Sri Lanka’s Muslim community, which make up 10 per cent of the population.

In November 1990, many were expelled from their homes in the north and have since been living as ‘displaced’ in the southern part of the country, under the patronage of the state.

Whatever the motives behind yesterday’s attack, there is little doubt that the brutal tactics used by Islamic State will continue to inspire others.

B.C. Tricked Canadian Politicians into Believing its Carbon Tax Policy Works. It Doesn't!

It cost an extra $6 to fill my Honda Accord.

By 2030 it may be an extra $16, and by 2050 - $50 extra.

'Revenue neutral' carbon tax is not an accounting exercise for B.C. families.

It’s an expensive reality

Special to Financial Post
Kris Sims, CTF

While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government gets set to force a federal carbon tax on all of Canada’s provinces and territories, taxpayers across the country deserve to know what happened in the country’s carbon-tax test case, British Columbia.

The Trojan horse of the carbon tax was wheeled into the B.C. public square in 2008 with the government’s promise that it would somehow cost average people nothing and would be “revenue neutral.” But, that turned out to be a cautionary tale for the ages.

For years, the carbon-tax cheerleaders continued to laud the fee that’s been tacked on to carbon-emitting goods and services, urging the rest of the country to follow suit. It was touted as a magical formula that would somehow protect the environment and lower taxes all at once. Visions of hydrogen-powered buses and solar cars danced in the heads of the green bean counters. “Revenue neutral” they all sang.

The reality of government, however, is always duller and grift-ier than that. The current B.C. government has dropped the term “revenue neutral” altogether and now calls the carbon tax a “tool.”

Before the charade was abandoned entirely, this is what “revenue neutral” meant for the B.C. carbon tax: In 2016–17 the provincial government raked in $1.2 billion in the carbon tax from taxpayers. The amount is listed on page 68 in the budget document as a frame entitled: “Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Plan.” Then, the government scraped together 17 sundry tax credits and stuffed them into the carbon-tax frame, making the tax sum balance out to zero. Abracadabra: “revenue neutral.” That’s all it meant.

It was a crass puppet show. Every provincial and federal budget includes tax credits for things like home renovations, children’s fitness programs, film incentives, and business training tax credits. In B.C., however, there is an uncommon carbon tax taken from people, so these very common credits were just repackaged to make the tax appear neutral on paper. As a senior B.C. government official admitted during last year’s budget lockup, “this was always just an accounting exercise.”

The carbon tax is not an accounting exercise for B.C. families. It’s an expensive reality for any Canadian subjected to it.

To fill up an average Toyota Camry with a 70-litre fuel tank costs $6 in carbon tax

Under the federal formula at $35 per tonne, the carbon tax costs a lot of money at the gas station, approximately 8.55 cents per litre of gasoline with the GST tacked onto it (because, of course, they have to tax the tax), and 10.06 cents per litre for diesel with the GST. 

To fill up an average Toyota Camry with a 70-litre fuel tank costs $6 in carbon tax. A Dodge Ram pick-up truck costs more than $10 in carbon tax and a Ford Super Duty Diesel costs more than $17 per fill up. For tractor-trailer trucks, it costs $45 in carbon taxes to fill up just one of those cylinder tanks with diesel. Canadians bought more than 40 billion litres of gasoline and more than 16 billion litres of diesel fuel in 2016. Multiply that volume by the carbon tax per litre and the government haul is crystal clear.

And note, as I have been saying for some time - everything that moves will go up in price, not just gas and diesel.

It gets worse, though, because even with the carbon tax costing Canadians billions of dollars, it’s still not reducing emissions, according to environmentalists leading the carbon-tax charge. In January, the Sierra Club reported on the B.C. experiment: “emissions were higher in 2015 than in 2010 and have risen in four of the last five years. B.C.’s latest emissions data mark years of failure to reduce emissions by more than a token amount.” 

If taking billions of dollars away from Canadians doesn’t reduce emissions, then, what is the point of this forced carbon tax?

When the forced federal carbon tax is set at $50 per tonne in 2022, that means that gasoline will have a carbon tax of 11.63 cents per litre. Will that be enough? Not according to the Environment Canada bureaucrats who told Environment Minister Catherine McKenna that the country needs a carbon tax of $100 per tonne by 2020 and a tax of $300 per tonne by 2050 to meet the government’s promises under the Paris climate agreement. That would be 23 cents per litre on gas in 2020 and then 70 cents per litre by 2050 — about $50 extra in today’s money to fill up the family sedan.

People need to use oil and gas. The carbon tax doesn’t make people “reduce their use” of this modern lifeblood, it just costs them a lot of money while not stopping the emissions. Our economy and our modern way of life depend on oil and gas. We use them to run our power stations, till our soil, plant our food, mine our minerals, mill our wood, heat our greenhouses, manufacture all of our goods and haul those goods and food to market.

We use oil and gas products to travel to school, work and the beach. Planes, automobiles and transit buses all use oil and gas, and they were manufactured and shipped to us using oil and gas. All of these actions of everyday life depend upon the miracle of hydrocarbons, so, the carbon tax is a tax on everything.

Carbon taxes don’t just make gasoline more expensive, they make life much more expensive.

And low and middle-income families end up paying far more as a percentage of their income than wealthy people. We have the most beautiful province in the world and we won't be able to afford to go anywhere to see it. Neither will the Americans come to see it as gas prices are becoming prohibitive.

Montreal Terrorist Sentenced to Life in Prison for 2017 Michigan Airport Attack

'I regret I didn't kill that cop,' Amor Ftouhi tells judge

CBC News 

Amor Ftouhi has been sentenced to life in U.S. prison. (Facebook)

Amor Ftouhi, a Montreal man, was sentenced Thursday to life in a U.S. prison for stabbing a police officer in a Flint, Mich. airport in 2017. 

His lawyers were seeking a 25-year sentence.

"He was crystal clear today. If he had the opportunity to kill more people, he would," said U.S. District Judge Matthew Leitman.

In court, Ftouhi had said he regretted not having a machine gun during the knife attack.

"Do I regret what I did? Never," Ftouhi told the judge in a federal courtroom in Flint. "I regret I didn't get that machine gun. I regret I didn't kill that cop."

Witnesses said he yelled 'Allahu akbar' while attacking Lt. Jeff Neville. The officer survived being stabbed in the neck. 

"I'm glad he didn't have a machete on him," Neville said outside the courthouse after the sentencing. "A knife was enough to deal with."

Neville lost feeling on the right side of his face. He has retired from the airport police department because of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Thursday, Ftouhi testified he would do it again if given the chance.

Radio-Canada's Rose St-Pierre reports that Ftouhi told the judge he wished he had caused greater carnage. 

In court, Ftouhi said he had a good education and many skills, but felt discrimination in Canada because he wasn't a white Christian. He pledged allegiance to his Muslim faith and said Western countries and Arabic countries should be cursed if they "don't rule according to Allah."

Ftouhi's attorney, Joan Morgan, wanted a 25-year prison sentence in solitary confinement, arguing it would be equivalent to a life sentence because Ftouhi is 51.

Morgan also said Ftouhi's mental health had deteriorated at the time of the attack and has slipped even further during the 22 months in custody awaiting trial and sentencing.

His mental health deteriorated when he was radicalized. Radical Muslims are all mentally ill and should be segregated from society.

"People change ... He is more than what his actions were," said Morgan. 

Ftouhi was convicted in November of committing an act of terrorism transcending national boundaries.

German Economy Heads for Worst Growth in Six Years

By Arne Delfs, Bloomberg

The German economy is turning into Europe’s underperformer, with the government now predicting 2019 will see the weakest expansion in six years.

Amid slowing global momentum and concerns over Brexit and trade disputes, the economy ministry on Wednesday cut its estimate to 0.5 percent, half the pace previously forecast. It’s the latest in a series of downward revisions from a 2.1 percent projection a year ago. Growth for next year is seen at 1.5 percent.

German Pain

Europe’s biggest economy is heading for its worst year since 2013

While there’s been a small improvement in business confidence, manufacturing in Germany remains mired in a deep slump. Based on European Commission forecasts for the rest of the euro area, the government’s latest prediction would leave Germany as the region’s worst performer this year, bar Italy, which is stagnating.

What Bloomberg’s Economists Say

“We think the risks to these forecasts are skewed to the downside. That’s because, just as the worst of the storm seemed to have passed, fresh gloom has now appeared on the horizon. The manufacturing PMI plummeted in March -- to levels not seen since the euro-area’s sovereign debt crisis -- and factory orders plunged in February as well.”

--Jamie Murray, Chief European Economist

Click here to view the research

The International Monetary Fund last week cut its global growth outlook on indications higher tariffs are weighing on trade. Economy Minister Peter Altmaier said in an emailed statement that the “current weak phase in Germany’s economy must be a wake-up call.”

Not a Good Look

Germany’s economy is on track for a bad year

The extent of the slowdown has prompted appeals for Germany to use its financial cushion to boost spending. Altmaier said Germany is investing into infrastructure, education and research at record levels.

The chancellor’s spokesman, Steffen Seibert, earlier this week denied the need for a package of measures to boost growth.

VICTORY: Climate Skeptic Scientist Peter Ridd Wins Big!

Astonishing win against Climate Change hysteria

Professor Ridd disputed the hysteria surrounding the demise

of the Great Barrier Reef and the fraudulent 'science'

upon which it was based. He got fired for it! 

Anthony Watts

Full legal document posted, along with some spectacular quotes from the judge.

In a huge victory for climate skeptics everywhere, Judge Salvatore Vasta finds all findings made by James Cook University, including his sacking, were all unlawful.

The order follows: h/t to @GideonCRozner and CTM

Background on the court case

In May 2018, after an academic career of more than 30 years, Peter had his employment terminated as a professor of physics at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. Peter had spoken against the accepted orthodoxy that climate change was ‘killing’ the Great Barrier Reef.

There’s some absolute rubbish being spoken about the reef and

people’s livelihoods are being put in jeopardy. If nobody will

stand up, then this is just going to go on and on and on.

It has to be stopped.

Peter’s court case has enormous implications for the international debate about climate change, and for the ongoing crisis surrounding freedom of speech.

Peter writes via his GoFundMe page:

Dear All,

Excellent news.

My lawyers have told me that the judge handed down his decision and we seem to have won on all counts. 

It all happened very quickly and we had no warning , and because I live almost a thousand miles from the court, I was not able to be there. I have still not seen the written judgement and will update you all when I have that information.

Needless to say, I have to thank all 2500 of you, and all the bloggers, and the IPA and my legal team who donated much of their time free for this success. But mostly I want to thank my dearest Cheryl, who quite by chance has been my bestest friend for exactly 40 years today. It just shows what a team effort can achieve.

The next chapter of this saga must now be written by the JCU Council which is the governing body of JCU. What will they do about the VC and SDVC who were responsible for bringing the university into disrepute, not just in North Queensland, but also around the world. JCU crushed dissent, crushed academic freedom and tried to crush my spirit with their appalling behaviour. They only failed because I had your support. But if the JCU council does not act, they will be complicit in this disgraceful episode.

Attention must now focus on the JCU council.

I will update you shortly when I have more information, but for now I certainly have a spring in my step.

kind regards

Peter

Help spread the word!

For some reason the full legal document can't be accessed by a link provided in this article, but here are some excerpts:

217. Professor Ridd’s statement, that when he asked if he could mention them to his wife, he was not given permission, is the truth. It was not until 19 September 2017, that the University deigned to allow him to talk to his wife about these matters.

218. Whilst none of this makes any difference at all to my ultimate decision, the actions of the University in this respect are, quite frankly, appalling. They have had no regard for the anguish that Professor Ridd felt between 24 August 2017 and 19 September 2017. There has not even been an apology for what can only be seen as extremely callous behaviour. This is inexcusable.

219. Instead, Professor Ridd is accused of being misleading and untruthful because, even though the University eventually allowed him to talk to his wife, he did not mention this when he made statements on his WordPress website.

220. The hypocrisy is breathtaking. On one hand, the University is finding that Professor Ridd has breached the Code of Conduct in that he has made public a number of items to do with the disciplinary process. On the other hand, he is accused of breaching the Code of Conduct in that he has not referred to all of that material when he has made this particular statement.

221. The irony is even more spectacular when one considers that, in his original email to the journalist in 2016, Professor Ridd took the institutions to task for being misleading regarding the use of photographs. It seems the University found no problem with the use of those photographs because there was a footnote that led to the Wachenfeld article.

222. And yet when Professor Ridd pointed out that there was a hyperlink to all of the 2017 disciplinary process material (which would include the 19 September 2017 letter and the subsequent final censure), he is found guilty of a Code of Conduct violation for being misleading. One could be forgiven for thinking that the university was more concerned with the splinter in the eye of Professor Ridd whilst ignoring the plank in their own.

223. The University still sought to justify this finding on the basis of a breach of the Code of Conduct. I disagree.

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 and cl.14.4 of the EA when he made these comments.

…

235. This is an extremely peculiar finding by the University. The University has found that Professor Ridd preferred his own interests, and those of the Institute of Public Affairs (“the IPA”), above the interests of the University. The University found that this was in breach of the obligations under the Code of Conduct to “take reasonable steps to avoid, or disclose and manage, any conflict of interest (actual, potential or perceived) in the course of employment”.

236. During the course of the trial, I repeatedly asked Counsel for the University to tell me what the conflict of interest actually was. Try as he might, Counsel was unable to do so. Yet he would not concede that this finding was not justified.

…

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.

297. Many aspects of the Code of Conduct cannot sit with the concept of intellectual freedom and certainly contravene cl.14. For example, the Code speaks of the need to “value academic freedom, and enquire, examine, criticise and challenge in the collegial and academic spirit of the search for knowledge, understanding and truth”. The University has denounced Professor Ridd because his enquiry, examination, criticism and challenge was not, in their view, done in the collegial and academic spirit. But there is no need for such enquiry, examination, criticism or challenge to be done that way under the rights conferred upon Professor Ridd by cl.14.

298. The University have been at pains to say that it is not what Professor Ridd has said, but rather the manner in which he has said it, that is the underlying reason for the censure, the final censure and the termination. But the University has consistently overlooked the whole of what has been written. They have concentrated on small, almost incidental parts of what has been said and then used the Code of Conduct to pass judgement on those small parts, with the intention that the flow on effect of that judgement would impugn the whole of what Professor Ridd has written.

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.

FINDINGS:

303. In light of the above, I make the following rulings:

a) The first finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

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.

d) The Second Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

e) The First Confidentiality Direction was unlawful because the University had no power to give that direction, and even if it did have the power, such a direction was in contravention of the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

f) The Third Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant cl.14.

g) The Second Confidentiality Direction was unlawful because the University had no power to make such a direction, and even if it did have the power, such a direction was in contravention of the rights conferred on Professor Ridd by virtue of cl.14.

h) The Fourth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights of Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

i) The Fifth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights of Professor Ridd given to him by cl.14.

j) The Sixth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights of Professor Ridd given to him by cl.14.

k) The Seven Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

l) The Eighth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

m) The Third Confidentiality Direction was unlawful because the University had no power to make such a direction, and even if it did, such a direction contravened the rights of Professor Ridd pursuant to cl.14.

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

o) The Fourth Confidentiality Directions was unlawful because the University had no power to make such a direction, and even if it did, such a direction contravened the rights of Professor Ridd pursuant to cl.14.

p) The no satire direction was unlawful in that it sought to interfere with the rights Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

q) The Fifth Confidentiality Direction was unlawful because the University had no power to make such a direction, and even if it did, such a direction contravened the rights of Professor Ridd pursuant to cl.14.

r) The Second Censure was unlawful because it contravened cl.14 of the EA.

s) The Ninth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it related to the breach of a direction which was of itself unlawful.

t) The Tenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it related to the breach of a direction which was of itself unlawful.

u) The Eleventh Finding made by the University was unlawful because it related to the breach of a direction which was of itself unlawful.

v) The Twelfth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

w) The Thirteenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights the Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

x) The Fourteenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it related to the breach of a direction which was of itself unlawful.

y) The Fifteenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because of breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

z) The Sixteenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it breached the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

aa) The Seventeenth Finding made by the University was unlawful because it had no substance whatsoever, and even if there were the slightest scintilla of evidence, it was contrary to the rights that Professor Ridd had pursuant to cl.14.

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.