The FHA Blog

The defendants’ expert primatologist, Professor Colin Groves, concluded two days of cross-examination this afternoon in biologist Jeremy Griffith and mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape’s defamation action against the ABC.

Under questioning yesterday by counsel for the plaintiffs, Kieran Smark, Professor Groves acknowledged that in 1991 he wrote a supportive commendation for Mr Griffith’s second book, which began, “Beyond The Human Condition is a bold attempt to find an ethical meaning in biology and anthropology. The book’s use of the fossil evidence for human evolution is innovative and intriguing.”

The ANU-based academic agreed he had been invited by the FHA to comment on the book and had given his commendation “in good faith” after having considered Mr Griffith’s work.

Professor Groves then recounted his first meeting with the second defendant, Reverend David Millikan, prior to the defamatory Four Corners broadcast in 1995, during which the Uniting Church minister told him “that Mr Griffith was acting like a cult leader, splitting up families”.

“And indeed, when you provided your expert evidence in this case you did so in part by reason of your belief, which continues to this day, that Mr Griffith is leading an organisation that is in substance a cult?” Mr Smark asked.

“Yes” the Professor responded.

When cross-examination resumed this morning, Mr Smark pressed Professor Groves as to whether he had complied with the Supreme Court’s expert witness code of conduct in preparing his reports as to the scientific standard of Mr Griffith’s work.

“Do you consider that by the time you came to give your expert reports, you were holding strong adverse views about Mr Griffith and the Foundation for Humanity’s Adulthood as being a matter which might be viewed objectively as a basis of bias?” asked Mr Smark.

“I can see there might be that appearance,” Professor Groves responded.

On several occasions, Mr Smark suggested to Professor Groves that the inclusion of negative sentiment towards Mr Griffith in the conclusion of his report was an indication that the Professor’s reports were informed by a bias he held against the first plaintiff.

However, Professor Groves sought to deny that the antipathy he felt towards Mr Griffith meant his whole report was biased.

“I will admit freely that I was aware of this obviously when I wrote the report but I set it aside to the extent that I could,” he said.

“At the end I decided to make an admission, which some people, indeed Mr Smark, has interpreted as bias.”

Professor Groves agreed with Mr Smark that the overall thrust of the Four Corners program was to portray the FHA as a cult-like organisation rather than attempting to set out the views of Mr Griffith in a scientific way.

After cross-examination of Professor Groves concluded this afternoon, the plaintiffs tendered an audio-recording of talk-show host Brian Carlton interviewing Mr Griffith about the nature of his biological ideas in a Radio 2GB broadcast on Boxing Day in 1994.

The trial will continue on Monday morning in the Supreme Court.

Biologist Jeremy Griffith and mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape’s defamation trial against the ABC and Reverend David Millikan adjourned before lunch today to allow Justice David Kirby to finish reading Mr Griffith’s books.

“I want to get both Free and Beyond under my belt by next week. I am reading them fairly carefully and annotating them. The larger book [Mr Griffith’s 2003 book, A Species In Denial] and other material will have to wait until my holidays,” said the Judge.

Earlier in the day, the defendants opened their evidence by calling ANU-based primatologist Professor Colin Groves to the witness box to testify as to the scientific standard of Mr Griffith’s work. After tendering several reports, Professor Groves gave further evidence on what constitutes scientific endeavour and the role peer review plays in that process.

Cross-examination from the plaintiffs’ counsel Kieran Smark rounded out the morning session, when Justice Kirby adjourned until 12pm tomorrow

Cross-examination of cognitive scientist and philosopher, Lieutenant Colonel Dr William Casebeer concluded shortly after proceedings commenced this morning in the Supreme Court.

This preceded some general discussion by Justice David Kirby, with both Dr Casebeer and counsel for the various parties, about the origins of consciousness, humans’ instinctive heritage and how those issues are presented in biologist Jeremy Griffith’s 1991 book, Beyond The Human Condition.

“This subject is that fascinating I would dearly like to take over cross-examination,” Justice Kirby quipped at one stage.

The discussion finished with Justice Kirby asking Dr Casebeer if there was anything else he wanted to say about Beyond The Human Condition.

“No, other than what I have said in my statement. In conclusion, I would like to wish both parties luck with these issues. They are challenging, interesting and important,” Dr Casebeer said.

Around 11am, the Judge ordered an adjournment of the trial until Thursday to enable him to spend the balance of the day and tomorrow reading through the substantial volume of written material tendered in evidence by the parties, including several of Mr Griffith’s published works on the human condition.

The case resumes at 10am on Thursday when the defendants are expected to call primatologist Professor Colin Groves to the witness box.

Cognitive scientist and philosopher, Lieutenant Colonel Dr William Casebeer, gave evidence today in biologist Jeremy Griffith and mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape’s defamation trial against the ABC and the Reverend David Millikan.

In his tendered report, Dr Casebeer reviewed the central hypotheses of Mr Griffith’s thesis set out in his second book Beyond The Human Condition and explained why he considered it both scholarly and scientific.

“That a conflict could arise between instinct and the intellect is a familiar idea from the evolutionary sciences—ethologists and evolutionary psychologists alike would find this familiar,” he wrote.

“The holism discussed in the chapter on the relationship between science and religion is now a mainstay in sciences that study complexity and emergent properties and phenomena,” he added.

Dr Casebeer’s report went on to say that Mr Griffith made several original claims in the book, including “a thought-provoking hypothesis about the origins of human angst from the process of empathy-related indoctrination and learning that is unique and interesting”.

“Mr Griffith’s book is provocative and well-written, and surfaces a large number of important issues in an intelligent manner…the issues it is grappling with are too important to reject out of hand,” his report concluded.

The Court heard Dr Casebeer criticise several aspects of a report filed for the defendants by Australian primatologist Colin Groves as being “unscientific”. He said Professor Groves had conflated the three senses that describe human consciousness: phenomenal consciousness, self awareness and theory of mind.

Under cross-examination by counsel for the defendants, Dr Casebeer maintained his view of the scientific substance of Mr Griffith’s theories.

Dr Casebeer is the fourth international scientific expert to take the stand in defence of the scientific and scholarly standard of Mr Griffith’s work, following evidence earlier in the trial from anthropologist Professor Walter Hartwig, psychologist Professor Scott Churchill and psychiatrist Professor Harry Prosen.

Earlier in the day, the plaintiffs tendered copies of two speeches by Sir James Darling, the former headmaster of Geelong Grammar School and former chairman of the ABC, including ‘Looking Beneath the Surface of Things’ and ‘The Education of a Civilized Man’.

Mr Macartney-Snape described how those speeches influenced him in the preparation of his 1993 speech day address at Geelong Grammar School.

“Dr Darling, as Mr Griffith pointed out, had identified all the elements required to get to the bottom of the human condition. Not only had the person approaching the problem to be sensitive and tough, they needed to take a teleological approach and had to reconcile science and religion.

“Remarkably he even identified the root cause of the human condition…the conflict between instinct and intellect,” he added.

The case continues tomorrow in the Supreme Court.

For biographical information on Dr William Casebeer, view www.humancondition.info/casebeer.

Bret Walker SC put mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape’s renowned endurance to the test this week as he defended himself and Jeremy Griffith’s biological thesis during three days of detailed cross-examination that concluded on Friday afternoon.

Late on Thursday, evidence was tendered about a club the FHA established in 1992 named after Thomas Huxley, renowned supporter of the naturalist Charles Darwin.

Under cross-examination, Mr Macartney-Snape insisted the “Darwin-Huxley parallel” was not confined to him and Mr Griffith. “The Huxley Club was set up for anyone interested,” he said.

On Friday, Mr Macartney-Snape vigorously refuted Mr Walker’s suggestion that references to Mr Griffith’s ideas in his speech day address at Geelong Grammar School in 1993 were inappropriate.

“If Thomas Huxley had hypothetically answered an invitation to talk at a speech day at Eton and he talked about Darwin’s ideas, I think there’s a good similarity there. I don’t think people would see him as recruiting people to the Darwinian model. He was simply introducing them to new, interesting ideas,” he said.

“I would hope that Huxley would have expected the students to make up their own minds,” he added.

Pressed by Mr Walker, Mr Macartney-Snape reiterated that his support for Mr Griffith’s work was well known in the general community at the time of his speech day addresses.

“My support of Mr Griffith was well known in many publications, including my own book, which by that time had been published and sold extensively around Australia.”

Asked to elaborate by Justice David Kirby, the climber outlined a range of publications and events in which he said his support for Mr Griffith’s work was clear.

“There was an article in The Bulletin in 1988 about the launch of Mr Griffith’s first book, in which I am quoted. In 1990 I took the FHA symbol to Mt Everest and in my public lectures around Australia after Everest, many thousands of people attended … and I mentioned my support briefly to explain why I had the flag there. Plus there was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age colour supplement in 1991. And there was Millikan’s review.”

The case continues on Monday morning. The plaintiffs are expected to call Belgium-based Major Dr William Casebeer, philosopher and cognitive scientist, to give evidence as to the scientific and scholarly merit of Mr Griffith’s work.

Elite New Zealand mountaineer and ex-SAS officer, Athol Whimp, gave evidence today in the Supreme Court for his fellow climber Tim Macartney-Snape.

Mr Whimp, winner of the Piolet d’Or, the prestigious French award for mountaineering achievement, was asked about Mr Macartney-Snape’s reputation within elite mountaineering circles and paid tribute to his accomplishments and character.

“Based on Tim’s two ascents of Mt Everest without oxygen, the style in which they were carried out, and the style of Gasherbrum IV and other climbs that preceded his first Everest ascent, Tim was regarded as a very strong climber who performed very well at high altitude, a climber who climbed in what we term a very good style.”

“Tim was and is seen as a very genuine and authentic person and a very honest person,” he added.

Earlier in the day, during cross-examination by the defendants’ counsel, Mr Macartney-Snape continued his criticism of Reverend David Millikan’s role in the production of the ABC-TV Four Corners program which defamed both him and his colleague, biologist Jeremy Griffith.

“We have heard Mr Millikan on several occasions say he would treat us fairly and that the intended program was to be included in a bigger series about thinkers whose ideas were worthy of taking humans into the next millennium.

“But we know from the letter to [Four Corners executive producer] Ian Carroll that was a lie,” he added. “We know from Backchat just how ruthless and artful was his intent.”

The Court heard Mr Macartney-Snape outline how an episode of the ABC-TV program Backchat relayed negative viewer feedback resulting from the Four Corners broadcast.

“The ABC has taken nine negative responses from the mountain of mail and only taken one response that was sceptical of Four Corners. By that I can only presume this is fair evidence as to the program’s effectiveness in denigrating the plaintiffs,” he said.

Mr Macartney-Snape said the FHA’s “open house” policy was misused by the ABC in the production of the Four Corners program, including what he described as the unauthorised use of the FHA’s Hi-8 footage and the inclusion of out-of-context quotes.

“The vision, the sound, the choice of explanations, the voiceover, it’s the whole mix that creates the impression.”

He said the Four Corners film crew used long-range microphones to record, without their knowledge, a group of FHA women having a personal discussion which was later used in the broadcast.

The case continues tomorrow in the Supreme Court.

After re-watching the Four Corners program that defamed him and biologist Jeremy Griffith for the first time in 12 years today in the Supreme Court, Tim Macartney-Snape was clearly emotional, recounting his initial response to the program in 1995 as being “totally stunned”.

“I remember thinking at the time that if there was a Nobel Prize for documentaries and the category was to totally twist and misrepresent the truth, then that was the all-time winner,” he told Kieran Smark, barrister for the plaintiffs.

“I cannot tell you how angry I became at how an honourable and, by all human sensibilities, a good group of young people were utterly trashed.

“And it was not by some commercial operator from which you might expect sensationalism, but the ABC. I mean this is a media organisation owned by the public which has a responsibility to air important issues. They took the most important issue of all, the issue of understanding ourselves, what more noble cause is there than to understand ourselves? It goes right back to Socrates and Plato.”

Mr Macartney-Snape spoke of the betrayal he felt when he first watched segments of the program pertaining to his career on the public speaking circuit, and the damaging effects the Four Corners broadcast had on his professional and personal life.

“I felt betrayed, embarrassed that every school I went to thought I had this agenda – which was complete and utter rubbish. I felt terrible.”

When asked how his feelings changed over time, Mr Macartney-Snape replied, “The enormity of what was perpetrated slowly sunk in. [The Four Corners program] was an incredibly well-crafted documentary and it gradually dawned on me that any interest in me as a public speaker was pretty well shot”.

“I felt ostracised … people stopped ringing me. There were a few people who rang but it was a lonely time,” Mr Macartney-Snape said. “I had to keep my chin up and keep going,” he added.

The mountaineer also recounted how he had to contend with the broader effects of the program. The Court was shown footage of Mr Macartney-Snape being interviewed by Liz Hayes on Channel Nine’s Today program upon his return from climbing in South America just three weeks after Four Corners aired.

“Let’s look at some of the claims your critics are making. They say of course, one of the things they accuse you of is using opportunities like school speeches to do recruiting for the group,” Ms Hayes was shown asking.

The footage showed Mr Macartney-Snape responding, “Yes well that’s a lie. Any of the thousands of students and parents of students who have heard me talk at schools and public lectures and corporate lectures will know that I do nothing of the sort.”

Mr Macartney-Snape said he was “insulted” by the terms of a statement made in open Court by the defendants four weeks before the trial began in which they asserted that they did not intend to convey the defamatory imputations in Four Corners. “It felt like someone kicking you in the face, and then saying they didn’t kick you in the face but sorry if you are hurt.”

The case continues tomorrow in the Supreme Court before Justice David Kirby.

Taking the stand today in his defamation action against the ABC, Everest mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape reflected on how his support for biologist and fellow plaintiff Jeremy Griffith’s explanation of the human condition evolved.

He told the Court how his upbringing, education and climbing achievements each contributed to his interest in understanding human nature.

Prior to scaling many of the world’s highest peaks, feats for which he was twice awarded the Order of Australia, Mr Macartney-Snape studied biology at the Australian National University.

“I started to read thinkers like Arthur Koestler, Carl Jung, Laurens van der Post and others. I’d always had a fascination with palaeontology. Not far from where I had grown up [in Africa], there was an archaeological site and my father knew the palaeontologist Louis Leakey,” he said.

The Court heard how Mr Macartney-Snape first met with Mr Griffith and discussed his ideas on the human condition at a social function in 1987.

“We started talking about the origins of consciousness, a subject that had always interested me. Apart from that I liked him. He’s a forthright and likeable person,” he said.

Mr Macartney-Snape described how his fascination in and support for Griffith’s work grew over the ensuing years. He recounted how he placed the FHA’s flag on the summit of Mt Everest during his historic second ascent of the mountain in 1990 and how he later wrote the foreword for Mr Griffith’s second book Beyond The Human Condition.

In discussing the profundity of Mr Griffith’s work, Mr Macartney-Snape emphasised that “the human condition is a very very difficult subject to engage in,” citing poet Gerald Manly Hopkins, “O the mind, the mind hath mountains, cliffs of fall, frightful, sheer, no-man-fathomed.”

“We are born into the world expecting ideal conditions and when we don’t see those ideals, and we can’t live up to the ideals, gradually over time we resign and discover the world doesn’t want to talk about it. We then use the most powerful psychological tool available to us, we use denial to block out those ideals,” Mr Macartney-Snape added.

“I know about denial as a climber, and we use it in mountaineering to get through painful suffering, yet Mr Griffith has wandered in there and in my view, and those of us who support his work, he has safely explained for us all that we are fundamentally good.”

Mr Macartney-Snape spoke of the influence of Sir James Darling, former headmaster of Geelong Grammar School, which both he and Mr Griffith attended as students. “It goes back to one man, Sir James Darling, headmaster at the school for a very long time. His writing, mainly from speeches, was influential in confirming for Jeremy, and in turn for me, the validity in uncovering a new paradigm.”

Evidence from Mr Macartney-Snape will continue tomorrow.

—————————

For further information about Tim Macartney-Snape, view his biography at www.humancondition.info/tms.

Read/Print a short speech by Sir James Darling, former headmaster of Geelong Grammar School and former Chairman of the ABC at www.humancondition.info/darlingspeech.

Tim Macartney-Snape and Jeremy Griffith’s defamation proceedings against the ABC entered its fourth day in the NSW Supreme Court.

The first witness called today was former President of the Canadian Psychiatric Association and expert in non-human primate psychiatry, Professor Emeritus Harry Prosen from the University of Wisconsin.

Professor Prosen has worked in the field of psychiatry for over 40 years, and most recently received global acclaim for the psychological rehabilitation of a bonobo chimpanzee, known among primatologists as ‘Brian’.

The professor told the Court that he first came across Mr Griffith’s work in 2004 when pre-eminent primatologist Dr Gay Reinartz asked him to assess a documentary proposal on Mr Griffith’s biological synthesis of the human condition.

In his tabled report Professor Prosen concluded, “In my opinion, Mr Griffith’s work, including Beyond, is of the highest scientific merit.”

Professor Prosen has cited Mr Griffith’s work in a book to be published this month titled Bonobos: Encounters in Empathy.

“There are times in the history of science where there is the need for someone to stand back and look at the whole—that can be valuable to scientific research,” he told the Court during cross-examination by senior counsel for the defendants.

The plaintiffs then called Michael Collins Persse, a long-standing senior master at Geelong Grammar School and current curator of the school’s archives.

“Tim has always been valued by members of the school community, particularly those who knew him well, as a person of great integrity and humanity,” he told the Court.

When asked by barrister for the plaintiffs, Kieran Smark, of Mr Macartney-Snape’s reputation for honesty, Mr Collins Persse said it was unsullied since his school days, and that his speech day address that he presented at Geelong Grammar in 1993 was “noble work, challenging … it was greatly admired.”

Evidence in chief from Mr Macartney-Snape was introduced late this afternoon, and will continue tomorrow in the Supreme Court at Queens Square.

For biographical information on Professor Harry Prosen, view www.humancondition.info/prosen.

Leading educators took the stand this week in the NSW Supreme Court defamation action brought by Tim Macartney-Snape and Jeremy Griffith in relation to a 1995 ABC-TV Four Corners program.

The defamatory broadcast imputed, among other things, that Mr Macartney-Snape had deceived schools that had invited him to talk about climbing Mt Everest.

The Court heard yesterday from the eminent educator John Lewis, former headmaster of Eton College in England and previously Geelong Grammar School in Victoria where Mr Macartney-Snape gave the speech day address in 1993.

Mr Lewis said he considered the selection of Mr Macartney-Snape, a former student of the school, as “highly appropriate”.

“Tim’s reputation was very high, he was admired for his courage and endurance but also because he was evidently and patently a humble and humane person,” he said.

A column Mr Lewis subsequently wrote in the school’s newsletter described Mr Macartney-Snape’s speech as being “about what should be the mainsprings of human endeavour and aspiration”.

Mr Lewis’ testimony followed evidence the previous day from Gordon Stewart, former headmaster of Concord High School, who related his experience of Mr Macartney-Snape’s speech night address to the school in March 1995, footage of which was included in the Four Corners program.

Mr Stewart said the ABC told him the program was intended to be a “tribute to Tim for climbing Mt Everest” and that he was assured by the ABC that neither he nor the school would feature in the program.

The educator said he subsequently watched the program, adding, “I was filmed speaking which was something I did not expect and the school was identified in a context I did not think was relevant to the night.”

When asked if he expected that Mr Macartney-Snape would be presenting his values and beliefs, Mr Stewart said “yes”.

Also giving evidence yesterday was University of Dallas psychologist and editor-in-chief of The Humanistic Psychologist, Professor Scott Churchill who tendered a report as to the scientific and scholarly standard of Mr Griffith’s published work before being cross-examined at some length by counsel for the defendants, Bret Walker SC.

The case continues in the Supreme Court at Queens Square on Monday.

15 March 2007

Media Release

The NSW Supreme Court heard today that Everest mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape and science author Jeremy Griffith were misled into participating in a 1995 ABC-TV Four Corners program.

Opening submissions from Kieran Smark, barrister for the two men, continued today in their defamation case against the ABC being heard before Justice David Kirby.

Mr Smark said there were several key incidents that occurred in the preparation for the defamatory broadcast which revealed guest producer Reverend David Millikan’s malicious intent.

“In an inquisitional style interview, marked by the presence of bright hot lights on Griffith, it became clear, which hadn’t been clear until this time, that the leopard had not changed his spots and that David Millikan was still unrepentantly adverse and hostile to Jeremy Griffith’s ideas,” he said.

Reverend Millikan’s comments following a letter of concern from Mr Griffith to the ABC were also alleged to reflect his animosity towards the plaintiffs.

Mr Smark said unused film footage recorded Reverend Millikan saying, “the letter he [Griffith] wrote to us [ABC] on Monday had a sort of threatening tone to it and he’s obviously opening up the possibility of taking us on legally and maybe trying to injunct the program or something like that which I would relish. It would cost him a lot of money and get him absolutely nowhere. And open up the possibility of us to use the sort of legal mechanisms to harass him.”

Mr Smark described the consequences of the ABC Four Corners program for Mr Macartney-Snape and his speaking career as “dramatic and immediate”.

“The impact for Mr Griffith was no less devastating. He was overwhelmed by negative responses.”

Mr Smark went on to criticise the ABC’s failure to apologise despite two recommendations from the Australian Broadcasting Authority in the years following the broadcast.

He said the terms of an ‘apology’ to Mr Macartney-Snape tabled in Court by the ABC on 15 February 2007, almost 12 years after the program and less than a month before the trial began, did not retract the imputations against Mr Macartney-Snape and was in fact a further aggravation.

Following submissions, the plaintiffs called California-based Professor Walter Hartwig, a biological anthropologist and the editor of The Primate Fossil Record (2002), a definitive reference work on human/primate evolution, who gave evidence as to the standard of Mr Griffith’s work.

Mr Smark foreshadowed further experts would be called tomorrow, including Professor of psychology, Scott Churchill from the University of Dallas and Emeritus Professor Harry Prosen, former president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association.

The case continues tomorrow at the Supreme Court at Darlinghurst.

14 March 2007

Media Release

The long awaited defamation trial over the ABC’s treatment of Everest mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape and biologist Jeremy Griffith in a 1995 Four Corners program began today in the NSW Supreme Court.

The opening submissions from Kieran Smark, barrister for the two plaintiffs, presented an overview of the case before Justice David Kirby.

“This is a case in several senses about evolution, about the evolution of humans and also about the evolution of ideas and the way that process can be fostered or hindered by media,” Mr Smark said.

“In this country, freedom of expression permits broadcasters, including the national broadcaster, to make publications about individuals and their ideas without restraint, but the consequences of that is that they remain answerable for those publications and that’s what this proceeding is about.”

Mr Smark said it was also a case about three men, the plaintiffs Mr Griffith and Mr Macartney-Snape and Four Corners guest producer and second defendant Reverend David Millikan. The plaintiffs first met Reverend Millikan at the 1991 launch of Mr Griffith’s second major work, Beyond The Human Condition. Beyond was described by Mr Smark as being broad in scope drawing from a number of disciplines including biology, philosophy, psychology, anthropology and primatology.

He went on to say the promotional flyers distributed at the book launch contained prominent commendations from two scientists, namely Professor Charles Birch and Professor John Morton that were indicative of the significant scientific support at that time for Mr Griffith’s work.

Mr Smark highlighted Reverend Millikan’s subsequent review of Mr Griffith’s book for the Bulletin magazine, in which Reverend Millikan said Mr Griffith’s conclusions were “a scandal”, and questioned Griffith’s “lack of belief in God”.

He outlined key events in early 1995 leading up to the publication of the Four Corners program which he said evidenced a malicious intent by Reverend Millikan.

Mr Smark also criticised the editing of the program which caused the powerful imputations in respect of Mr Macartney-Snape that the jury found to arise.

The conduct of Reverend Millikan “showed an obsession with Griffith’s ideas and whether those ideas have room for a transcendent God. It is relevant that David Millikan was, from 1991 to 1995 offended, appalled or otherwise adverse to Jeremy Griffith’s ideas, rightly or wrongly, because those ideas did not have room for a transcendent God, and that was unpalatable to Reverend Millikan.”

The opening submissions continue tomorrow. The plaintiffs are also expected to call biological anthropologist Professor Walter Hartwig from Touro University, California to give evidence.

After 12 years, a landmark trial in the NSW Supreme Court as
research group takes on ABC in ‘knowledge versus dogma’ conflict

13 March 2007

Media Release

A four week trial begins tomorrow in the NSW Supreme Court to determine defences and damages following the ABC’s defamation of Australian biologist and author Jeremy Griffith and renowned Everest mountaineer Tim Macartney-Snape AM in a 1995 Four Corners TV program.

The trial follows a 2003 jury verdict that found the ABC defamed the two directors of the Foundation for Humanity’s Adulthood, a Sydney-based research foundation dedicated to advancing biological understanding of the human condition: humans’ capacity for both ‘good and evil’.

“What’s at stake in this trial is the principle of freedom of expression in this crucial area of scientific enquiry,” said John Biggs, a spokesperson for the Foundation.

“Humans’ fundamental responsibility as conscious beings is surely to find knowledge, ultimately self-knowledge, understanding of the human condition no less.

“While this issue of our contradictory nature is the most confronting and contentious of subjects, it is also the underlying issue in all human affairs that has to be addressed if there is to be a future for humanity.”

Mr Biggs said the ABC’s misrepresentation of Mr Griffith’s work in this field highlights the dishonesty and great danger of the public broadcaster’s politically correct culture. “It is a culture that dogmatically imposes idealism at the exclusion of any tolerance and analysis of humans’ less than ideal reality,” he said.

“Rather than be a proponent of free and independent thought, the ABC supported guest producer Reverend David Millikan’s attack on a ground-breaking scientific synthesis that he found threatening to his faith.

“This is a very serious development—especially for a country valued for its initiative, its tolerance and its love of a fair go.”

Significantly, Mr Griffith’s work is increasingly attracting international attention and support from prominent scientists who do see it as being at the cutting edge of scientific enquiry.

Professor Harry Prosen, former president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, said of Mr Griffith’s recent book, The Great Exodus, “there has never been a more important book”.

Mr Griffith’s 2003 book, A Species In Denial, has become a bestseller, and his biological synthesis for a proposed documentary series about the human condition has received commendations from over 100 of the world’s leading scientists and thinkers including physicist Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureate Charles Townes.

Despite the growing appreciation abroad, it has been a 12 year struggle for Mr Macartney-Snape and Mr Griffith to clear their names in Australia, Mr Biggs said. “This legal challenge was forced upon us when, despite the Australian Broadcasting Authority ruling the program ‘inaccurate, partial and unbalanced’ and recommending that the ABC apologise, the ABC refused to do so.”

The trial, before Justice David Kirby, will commence at the Darlinghurst Courthouse with opening submissions from barrister Kieran Smark outlining the plaintiffs’ case.

____________________

Further information please visit www.humancondition.info or contact Sally Edgar on 0425 247 133.

Note: More information is available in the Backgrounders prepared for this Media Release.