Battle of Jutland 98th anniversary today -- the World War I naval battle between the German High Seas Fleet and the British Grand Fleet, off Denmark . . . hard-bought lessons from history not learned (as usual)

On May 31st 1916 . . . a century less two years, the Battle of Jutland was fought off Denmark, revealing grave weaknesses in both the British ships and systems for developing, leading, making decisions for and operating a navy. Most sadly and spectacularly, such was revealed when three British Battle-Cruisers blew up and sank when hit by German heavy shells, especially in the roofs of their turrets:

Video:



(Cf. a memoir by Alexander Grant, a Gunnery Warrant Officer on HMS Lion and afterwards Naval Captain; perhaps, the man who saved that ship from also blowing up spectacularly, largely due to unsafe handling of a fairly unstable double-base propellant, cordite -- nitrocellulose (= gun-cotton) + nitroglycerine (with 5% vaseline as stabiliser).  And some blackpowder was being used as an initiator, with a tendency to spill from the cloth bags used to contain the propellant for the shells . . . as can be seen in the video. [Apparently, cordite was relatively stable by comparison with blackpowder and there was a temptation to become careless with it especially in hopes of rapid firing to achieve gunnery domination. The British shells also seem to have been brittle and because they used relatively unstable picric acid rather than trinitrotoluene (TNT) tended to prematurely shatter and/or explode on impact instead of after penetrating the armour. This had been recognised c. 1908, but when the directorship of Ordnance changed over on its regular rotation, was not properly followed up until after Jutland. In the end, in the early phase of an encounter fight between Battle-Cruisers, the German ships dominated and had far more horrifically effective results. All of this points to the need to get things right, through systems that promote thoroughness and consistent excellence in socio-technical systems and organisations with a high technology component. Which, in today's clicks and bricks age, is essentially all organisations.])

Let us understand wider history also; here, how a needless arms race was triggered by a leader of a nation with which Britain had traditionally been friendly (indeed, the British Royal Family are German!), and how this then led to a re-alignment and to war, then this major naval clash. 

Who "won" has been debated for a century, to which it seems to me the final answer is, neither -- it should be rephrased as, who lost worse. The British lost more ships and men, but the Germans were unable to destroy a detached portion of the Grand Fleet, and resorted a second time to unlimited submarine warfare, leading to the United States going to war against them. Thus the stage was set further for 1917, in which Russia collapsed leading to the C20's dominating conflict with Communism. Even the Nazis who rose up in a defeated, resentful Germany, cast themselves as an alternative to the Bolsheviks of Russia. 

World War I was the war that everybody lost, and where the inadequacies of the peace settlement helped pave the way for an even worse round two, The Second World War.

Decades of war, conflict, mass-murdering totalitarianism and chaos therefore ensued, only ending in the collapse of Communism as a global threat, at the turn of the 1990's. And, believe it or not, we are again echoing similar patterns in Europe -- the Ukraine -- as well as in the Middle East and elsewhere. Iran's grab for nuclear weapons while being led by a dangerously fanatical regime and sitting on one of the top global trade choke-points -- the Straights of Hormuz that can choke off much of the flow of ME oil, is especially troubling. The first lesson of history is that we refuse to learn from it. END

On Natural Resources and Hazards management -- a KF Blog Series pamphlet

Just now, I have added a new pamphlet on sustainably managing natural resources and hazards, here, based on KF Capacity Focus posts 84 - 89 made across May. This series naturally brings to bear the challenge of addressing governance and so there is no current intent to do a further series on that subject. (Readers may find this on Ethics and Development, helpful, and this note on practical concerns for SD.) Also, I have appended some remarks on Rankine power cycles and Geothermal energy development, a relevant case in point. END

PS: Readers in Montserrat may find the executive summary -- yes, only the 2 pp. summary has been released -- of an EGS report on Wells 1 and 2 hosted by GoM here, useful. Note, 2 MWe potential, before parasitic in-plant loads. Also, moderate chemistry and a fluid temperature of about 220 degrees C; within the zone typically used for Flash steam plants.

Dr Bain's actual testimony (and responses to the typical talking points . . . including by the Gleaner in a May 29th editorial)

It seems that there is a debate as to what Dr Bain actually said, and on whether or not his firing affects academic freedom. 

Okay, first things first:

1: Dr Bain's actual testimony is HERE (from the Gleaner site, in my OCR-ed version).

2: The petition on his behalf (that anticipates and answers  most of the talking points being used to blame the victim) is here.

3: The petition organisers have given a point-counterpoint on the talking points being used to confuse the situation, which I have collected here.

Dr Bain's testimony in a nutshell, is that on . . . uncontested, and supported by the Jamaican Medical Association! . . . research findings, whether or not there is a buggery act on the books, certain sex acts (especially those involving penis-anus or mouth-anus contact) are highly prone to spread HIV/AIDS and other diseases. Because male homosexuals are highly prone to carry out such acts, and to be involved in sexual networks, they show a pattern of dominating the spread of HIV/AIDS in countries with or without buggery acts on the books.

(NB: Dr Bain did not say it, but buggery acts forbid certain sex acts, they do not make having a sexual attraction to other males a crime. The original intent of such law is to block the corruption of boys into catamites, formerly the main target of many male homosexuals; hence the harsh penalties. Homosexuality is an attitude of being attracted sexually to other males, not a specific sex act. (Cf. here on the "my genes made me do it" claim about its roots and whether such attraction can change: yes, and spiritually focussed disciplines such as those in the 12-step type addiction recovery programme can makes a big positive difference.) The statement in the 2008 - 12 Caricom strategy document which is commonly reported in the media and by advocates of homosexualism, is false and misleading. Such advocates also fail to tell us that the very next sentence of Ch 3 of that document implies in context that in the same name of enhanced access to HIV support and treatment, their agenda is also putting the age of consent and statutory rape laws -- designed to protect especially underage girls -- under sexual pressure: 

"legislation that makes male homosexuality a crime deters the development of programmes in support of MSM.  Similarly, current laws constrain the provision of services to sexually-active girls and boys under the legal age of consent." [CARICOM Strategy Document 2008 - 12, ch 3.]

Is this the consensus of our regional experts on HIV/AIDS and public health? If so, something has plainly gone very wrong.

Studious silence on the second "lesson" drawn from 2002 - 6, suggests to me that activists think we are not "ready" for that demand yet.

Let us note, too, that there is no regional record of a large number of prosecutions of homosexuals caught in the act because police broke down the doors of their bedrooms, nor is there a pattern of medical doctors, counsellors and pastors handing over such to the police for prosecution. Likewise, as the Jamaica Association of Evangelicals pointed out to UWI, in a May 11, 2014 letter to the Vice Chancellor, Professor Nigel Harris:

 "in 2102 UNAIDS reported that the percentage of men who have sex with men who were reached through the National HIV programme in Jamaica was 87%. This compares well with other developing and developed countries for example Germany 69%, Bahamas 79% and Brazil 39%."

 That is, in fact the "reach" of HIV/AIDS outreach activities has been world class in Jamaica, never mind the buggery provision on the books. Further, the programmes formerly headed by Dr Bain stressed addressing improper stigmatising and discrimination against victims of the disease, regardless of how they acquired it. So, it seems the assertions in the strategy document and the implied agendas are lacking in warrant.  How -- apart from assumptions, assertions and views of activists -- did they ever come to be identified as the first lessons learned from the initial wave of action in 2002 - 6 and presented as a "consensus"?)

Dr Bain's recommendation is therefore more or less glorified commonsense, though again it is supported by the literature. Notice, he makes sure to point out that this relates to ALL sexually active people in our region, not just male homosexuals:

All sexually active persons [--> notice, this is across the board] must be urged to take responsibility for private and public behavior change [--> note the implication, that we do have capability to choose what we do, and how we behave as a result] as part of a comprehensive national approach that includes individuals delaying their sexual debut, reducing the number of their intimate sexual partners, getting tested for HIV and other STIs in relation to known risky exposure, learning and practising assertive skills in order to avoid coercive sex, disclosing the presence of an STI to prospective partners, using approved barrier protective devices, avoiding the use of mind-altering drugs -- especially during or in temporal proximity to intimate sexual activity, and eliminating behaviours that carry the highest risk of coming into contact with infections. Successful programmes to stem the tide of HIV infections and other sexually transmissible illnesses must be comprehensive rather than piecemeal. In this approach, public and private health and education authorities ensure that everyone in the nation has accurate information and is supported and enabled to take responsibility for the health and safety of self and others.  

A comprehensive approach calls for honest collaboration rather than confrontation.

It is a pity the homosexualist activists and their allies in institutions and halls of influence and power have determined to push an agenda rather than heeding Dr Bain's call for honesty and genuine collaboration instead of hidden agendas and domineering and freedom destroying power plays.

Let us also observe carefully some telling points underscored by a Ms Marsha Thomas in a well-written letter to the editor of the Gleaner:

After reading the report twice, I was amazed to see that the professor made no call for the retention of the buggery law. I clearly remember a particularly outspoken representative of a pressure group stating that Professor Bain's support for the retention of the buggery law made his position at CHART untenable. However, now I realise that the professor made no statement on the retention of the buggery law. The professor has been fired for a statement he has not made!

I believe that much of the condemnation of Professor Bain's testimony is due to his listing of the sexual repertoire /activities of MSMs. I believe the pressure groups know that when many Jamaicans read of these activities they will start to opine that certain activities cannot be cloaked in the idea of privacy of a bedroom but involve specific public-health and economic issues. Professor Bain worked in the trenches and, therefore, his testimony has legitimacy that even his detractors cannot deny.

I am also disappointed with UWI whose representatives saw it fit to link Professor Bain's Christian faith and his submission of the expert statement. Professor Bain's report made no reference to Christian principles and no Bible verses were quoted. His report was based on research and medical facts.

Sadly telling.

Now, too, the Gleaner has weighed in, in a May 29th 2014 editorial that in my view on fair comment, is less than helpful or accurate, especially:

Having allowed his supporters to peddle the fallacy that his sacking was an attack on academic freedom and free speech, we can now only wonder at the intent of Professor Brendan Bain.

For by failing to declare the larger contextual truth, Professor Bain is helping not only to deepen the poles between protagonists in the gay-rights debate but distracting attention from, and potentially weakening, a project to which he has made an invaluable contribution: the delivery of care to people living with HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean . . . .

Professor Bain is entitled to express his opinion on any topic. But if, outside the halls of academia, those publicly declared opinions are at variance with settled consensus of the agency he serves, leading to a loss of confidence in his leadership, he should leave with dignity.

This editorial opens with a questionable accusation of fallacy, not a fact, leading to an unworthy insinuation against Dr Bain's integrity.

There is obviously no settled consensus in the agency Bain led.

Or at least perhaps, it is his firing that has established a "consensus" in the teeth of the evidence Bain so carefully stated to the Belize Supreme Court, a "consensus" established by ruthless radical tactics, brute force and violation of academic integrity based on evidence and the chilling effect of such a firing; rather than by what the Medical Association of Jamaica has called for:

Stressing that, doctors are trained and have expertise in science and scientific research, Dr. Alexis emphasized that “the veracity of a scientific conclusion should only be challenged on the basis of science and NOT on emotion or sentiment its conclusions may evoke.” He added that “statements of fact [here, Dr Bain's findings as communicated as expert testimony to the Belize Supreme Court] are never meant to be offensive.”

In short, we have a case where first, the primary issue is, what are the empirically grounded facts. 

They are, uncontested, essentially what Dr Bain has summarised. 

The MAJ through its President, has called for these facts to be faced on their merits, and if objectors have better facts, let them come forward with them. 

Which, has obviously not been done.

Repeat: which has not been done.

That absence of counter-facts is telling.

In addition, it can be pointed out, that CHART's primary clients are not activist groups, but Health and public health educators, the wider public and those vulnerable to and/or who are victims of HIV/AIDS. 

It is by no means obvious that Dr Bain has breached the trust of these circles as a whole by standing up for the integrity of empirically grounded facts and linked concerns on impacts on the public and on costs, and for making a prime focus on the patterns of behaviour among the sexually active that is the mechanism by which HIV/AIDS is spreading and wreaking havoc, at great cost.

So,we may reasonably, sadly, conclude:

a:  a firing imposed by an institution cowed by activists with agendas (which, let us note, plainly include doing away with age of consent laws, on the same premise that they wish to eliminate buggery laws . . . ) and 

b: plainly backed up by "who pays the piper calls the tune," therefore
_____________________________________

c: imposes a false "consensus" by force and intimidation, and 

d: spreads that crushing and silencing of truth by the chilling effect of firing someone who stood on academic integrity and professional and personal responsibility to tell a Court "the truth, the whole relevant truth and naught but the truth" as an expert witness.

Contrary to the Gleaner's implied demand that Dr Bain should have silently walked away in the face of such agendas and threats now carried out, he has done our region one final honourable service: 

e: by standing up for evidence-backed truth even at the cost of his career, Dr Bain has trumpeted a clear warning on the sort of radical agendas and ruthless tactics that are at work across our region, riding on the back of our concerns regarding HIV/AIDS.

Now, too, we must stand up for what is right, before it is too late.

Kudos, to Dr Bain, Medical Doctor, Public Health and Education professional, honest scholar, and courageous Christian gentleman. END

Capacity focus, 89: The governance challenge of decision and action for sustainably reforming natural resources and hazards management . . . opportunities and pitfalls

The FAO diagram shows how, as government officers, departments, ministers and stakeholders interact, contend and somehow come up with decisions, those society level decisions and actions then exert influences on the management of natural resources and hazards:

Of particular importance is the facet that manages the disaster risk cycle:

Why is that?

Two reasons, first, that capacity to govern, develop policy, devise strategies and programmes then to carry out linked technical functions effectively and in good time, are critical to the management of hazards; and, as hazards are in effect negative resources, resources also.

Second, in a great many cases it is failue to properly anticipate risks and then avert or mitigate them, that contribute to the magnitude of th ensuing disaster. Leading to rather directly unsustainable development. And, not to hammer the nail home too hard, a classic recent example in the Caribbean is the loss of a generation of development in Plymouth Montserrat due to failure to properly manage eposure to volcano hazards:

This brings the concept of sustainable development back to the fore:

Sustainable Development: better and more fairly meeting our needs today while making such wise use of resources and so carefully husbanding the environment -- our bio- physical, socio- cultural and economic surroundings, and trends (. . . as well as shocks)  -- that our children can adequately meet their needs tomorrow.  [Adapted, Gro Harlem Bruntland et al, WCED, 1987]

It would of course be wonderful if we could all sit down together and through sweet gentle reason, come to a stable consensus on what that requires. But already, speaking about better and more fairly meeting needs implies social conflicts and a likelihood that some are pushed to margins of power and well-being, even as others advance through their power. These marginalised then tend to be excluded, pushed to marginal lands and livelihoods, and to lack education and other opportunities for upliftment for them and for their children. Which of course makes them particularly vulnerable to the impact of disasters.

Already, conflicts loom.

Multiply by the fact that our frames are "of dust," and so to live and thrive we must draw resources -- some renewable [but depletable . . . think, for example, fish stocks], some non-renewable (such as ores, fossil fuels, etc). Where, if we over-draw on renewable resources, the supply may crash, and if we unduly exhaust non-renewable resources today, they are not going to be there tomorrow, as was discussed earlier in this series. And, the notion of attaching a levy or the like to help put aside investments for the day when the resource is exhausted invites all sorts of contentions, and frankly thievery or squandering.

Where squandering, waste, depletion, exhaustion, marginalising the powerless, etc all tend to amplify the impact of potential disasters. (In the Caribbean, think in terms of hurricanes, floods and droughts, earthquakes, epidemics, landslides or mud flows, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis as typical "natural disasters.")

No wonder, some are tempted to speak in terms of the curse of resources.

But that needs not be so:

1 -->  We are not horses or mules, we have the power of understanding and of good will towards wisdom. If, we are willing and make the sustained  effort.

2 --> Yes, if. (And yes, that is the biggest two-letter word of all.)

3 --> The possibility exists, if the collective will can be mobilised as a critical mass to move us towards wisdom. Folly and resultant disaster are not inevitable.

4 -->  For, we are morally governed creatures, so we can listen to the better angels of our natures, if we are willing.

5 --> And, yes, I hammer this home because this is exactly where ever so many of our problems lie, compounded by Lord Acton's historical observation that power tends to corrupt and absolute -- unaccountable -- power corrupts absolutely. Not to mention, Jeremiah's cry that he heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.

 6 --> This, we must soberly face as a region, and seek reformation. Which, frankly, requires the aid of God; whatever our angry atheists may want to say. 

(And yes, I am aware that many atheists are not especially angry people, it is the angry ones pushing radical agendas driven by that rage I am talking about. [And no, Stalin, Mao, et al are a LOT closer to us and were hugely more destructive than Torquemada and the Inquisition or the like, so let us not allow ourselves to be overly distracted by that now remote history. The issue is out of control power and ruthless factions or power blocs, as Lord Acton pointed out. And, if you want reformation in the Caribbean, it is going to have to respectfully involve -- as opposed to seek to co-opt and manipulate -- the moral-motivational centre of our region, our Judaeo-Christian cultural foundations. From the ground up.])

 7 --> Now, let us look a bit closer at the FAO diagram. The main power centres in a community, obviously, lie in the Government, in major businesses and in dominant institutions of various stripes. Indeed, there is a tendency for the government to become captive to powerful interests, who monopolise the fruit of power, to the detriment of sustainability. Alternatively, government can become the institutional expression of an ideology and its own entrenched power class.

8 --> The key symptom to watch for here, is marginalisation, stereotyping and scapegoating of the marginalised. That is, when inequity and resulting tendencies to unsustainable management of resources and hazards prevail in a community, it will usually show itself in attempts to entrench and legitimise marginalisation.

9 --> As a result, the breakthrough to a more sustainable path will reach tipping point when there is a genuine empowering of the margins of the society, and when there is a moving away from the politics of polarisation to a growing sense of community that requires a fair deal for all. (Unfortunately, this also tends to be co-opted as rhetoric for the old polarisation game, perhaps with new factions in the halls of power. A key symptom of this will be if the rhetoric of polarisation and demonisation of or contempt towards target groups continues to be dominant.)

10 -->  In that context, we can then focus the issue of sustainability of development policy in general and of resource and hazard management in particular:

11 --> Here, a change agent group or consultancy that has reasonable backing and sponsorship that lends credibility may initiate a process of stakeholder identification and awareness, perhaps in response to some major concern or issue or event. Thus, a reasonable cross-section of stakeholders may be mobilised to begin to come together and reflect on the situation that faces a comunity:

a: A survey of environment factors and trends may lead to highlighting some as Opportunities and threats across a reasonable period of concern. 

b: Opportunities require resources and threats traceable to natural sources will come from hazards, for instance

c: Strengths and weaknesses of the relevant groups, organisations, institutions or even the community as a whole may be identified.

d: In that context, the current situation -- business as usual -- can be analysed and projected across time to its likely outcomes . . . the expected future.

e: This will typically have significant sustainability and hazard vulnerability challenges, and resources are particularly prone to abuse, misuse, squandering and marginalising behaviour.

f: Initially as a rough outline exercise, an alternative thar is more sustainable, and more robust in the face of hazards, may be outlined through stakeholder inputs facilitated by the change agents.

g: Ideas will need to be encouraged, but also after a time, there is need to assess ideas relative to feasibility and likely outcomes.

h: A useful filtering framework, is "Build on strengths, exploit opportunities, counter threats and compensate for (or, if possible correct) weaknesses."

i: The projected more desirable outcome may be identifiable, at least as to an outline sketch comparable to the expected future.

j: A comparison will yield differences, a so-called gap analysis.

k: Where such gaps can reasonably be closed, that then motivates a change programme with a change strategy.

l: Such, as a rule would begin with a more detailed examination and development of a framework, with creation of a governance structure based on a "critical mass" of stakeholders, resource people, sponsors, support groups, etc. (Of course, all of this can be subverted in service to destructive agendas, so a warning should be noted here.)

m: An effective way to go is to organise a programme, based on waves of projects and support facilities and staff with funding that undertakes initial projects then through success by picking low hanging fruit and building capacity, momentum will build like a snowball rolling downhill.

12 --> One danger here, is of course, that a snowballing process can easily go out of control and turn into a destructive avalanche (the fate of too many revolutions to name just now as extreme and ruthless factions seized control):

13 --> Similarly, we must not forget that business as usual has that name for a reason . . . it is the net result of existing balances of power and factions in a community. If such factions find themselves threatened, they may mobilise resources to attack, marginalise and discredit.

14 --> That is why it is wise to slowly build credibility and a network until one has critical mass before taking on such challenges. Moving from margins to centre and starting with capacity building projects that provide definite benefits and show what may thereafter happen, therefore will often be wise.

15 --> An obvious area to target is sufficient media presence to have a support base when the attacks come. And, if power factions are there that benefit from marginalisation, such attacks are all but inevitable.

16 --> Eventually, one will have to deal with government. The trick there is to make reasonable compromises without destroying the core integrity of the change dynamic, and without being captured by power agendas that have questionable agendas.

17 --> Which, admittedly, is hard. 

(NB: Cf. Capacity focus, 77, in this overall series, to see a framework for developing a simulation/ gaming exercise that can be used to help build an understanding, strategic insight and even in planing.)

18 --> But if the job so far has been done right, there will be a growing awareness and agreement across the community on the importance of the natural resources and hazards management issues, and on the need for reforms in interests of fairness and better meeting the needs of people, in a general sustainability framework; as well as on who has earned credibility to be taken seriously as leaders and advisers on how to carry the process forward.

____________

So, we can see a way forward, but one that is not without pitfalls and challenges.

Welcome to the real world.

And, we are back to the challenge: why not here, why not now, why not us? END

Capacity focus, 88: The role of the public, the media, educators, public health and civil society groups in sustainable management of natural resources and hazards

As we again look at the FAO diagram, we see how the input to the right hand side block is through "information" and how the output of the various actors in a society coming together is societal level decisions and actions that affect how natural resources and hazards are managed:

This impact of information highlights the role of the media, educators, public health, civil society groups and the general public in influencing natural resources and hazards management. But also, there is a key subtlety: information -- even that coming from generally credible sources or public authorities and top flight "brilliant" experts -- is not equal to truth, soundness or knowledge, much less . . .  wisdom.

And in a world of unknown unknowns and out- of- the- blue- sky black swans, we may be playing collective Russian Roulette with a dangerously loaded revolver.

 How, then can we proceed?

1 --> First, by recognising our responsibilities, and our limitations.

2 --> Then, we can determine to err on the side of safety and prudence, especially when what is at stake is potentially very costly.

3 --> In turn, we need to try as best we can to identify the range of possible states of the world, and their raw odds in the context of the range of possible actions on our part.

4 --> Given that we are finite, fallible, often biased and too often less than well-intentioned, that points to a need for a well informed public, and for a participative decision making process that captures the range of credible possibilities. 

5 --> That points to participative planning processes that seek to capture the inputs of various stakeholders fairly, and to take into account the majority, concurring and dissenting views of relevant qualified experts -- with their reasons for that diversity.

6 --> This points away from the notion that we can capture "the consensus" of experts, and that this is likely to be the best shot at "the truth." (Too often such a "consensus" is no better than the academic politics that lies behind it. However, the diversity of experts can deeply enrich our understanding of the possibilities in a situation, especially when they interact not only with one another but the wider circle of stakeholders.)

7 --> Educators and the media play particularly important roles, for it is the education base in a community that often drives how people respond to fresh information, and the media both provides informal public education and fresh news and views coverage that shapes how the public perceives issues and decisions.

8 --> Just in case some media figures may wish to say they do not so much shape as reflect opinion, let us just note that the same media sell advertising space and time to firms etc, on the grounds that advertising is able to shift public opinion and actions, from selling soap and cigarettes to selling candidates.

 9 --> Educators have even higher responsibility, for the public strongly expects them to teach truth. That means, that one of the responsibilities is to ascertain the degree of warrant, strengths and limitations of knowledge claims across relevant schools of thought, and to teach in  balanced fashion, drawing diverse issues, views etc together in a coherent and reasonably understandable way that helps to build capacity.

10 --> Which includes, facing the fact of uncertainties, risks, controversies, diverse schools of thought, etc.

11 --> Does that mean that others can get a free pass, then? No, here is a definition of lying that we all must ponder (never mind that this has long since vanished from Wikipedia, since July 23, 2011 . . . itself revealing):

 To lie is to state something with disregard to the truth with the intention that people will accept the statement as truth . . . . even a true statement can be used to deceive. In this situation, it is the intent of being overall untruthful rather than the truthfulness of any individual statement that is considered the lie . . . . One can state part of the truth out of context, knowing that without complete information, it gives a false impression. Likewise, one can actually state accurate facts, yet deceive with them . . . . One lies by omission when omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. Also known as a continuing misrepresentation . . . . A misleading statement is one where there is no outright lie, but still retains the purpose of getting someone to believe in an untruth . . .

 12 --> Especially when it comes to natural resources and hazards, we all have a sobering duty of care to truthfulness, humility in the face of uncertainties and to prudence. Where, we can sum up the above with the well-known revivalist and lawyer, Finney: a lie is any species of calculated deception.

 13 --> Public health comes to bear here, too, as many natural hazards pose health risks, and the ways we extract natural resources and process them into forms suitable for onward industries, or how we farm or harvest fish, etc, may all have public health impacts, such as by exposing us to toxic materials or fostering the spread of diseases.

14 --> Where, of course, disease-causing microbes and parasites etc are natural hazards. (And, as I often point out, it is by properly managing so-called tropical diseases that our region moved from being disease-riddled death traps to the tourist paradises we now promote. That's what turned our beaches, lush watersheds and mountains into high-value tourism industry resources.)

15 --> So, too, for instance, a currently topical case, the firing on Tuesday last of professor Brendan Bain of UWI over debates on his expert testimony to the Supreme Court in Belize concerning the spread of HIV/AIDS and under pressure from  activist groups and their backers, is relevant to and raises troubling questions on natural hazards management and to the information issues we are focussing on.
 
 16 --> As reported in the Jamaica Observer:

The MAJ [Medical Association of Jamaica] and Jambar [Bar Association] concurred that statements of fact are never meant to be offensive. They insisted that as an expert witness, Bain's "testimony to the Court is a duty to the Court, and is the opinion of the expert himself. He is therefore obliged to discharge his testimony truthfully and professionally".

Walker [Jambar president] pointed out that the legal profession routinely relies on expert testimony to advance clients' cases. "As such, we are very concerned that the actions of UWI against Bain could adversely impact on the freedom of expression by experts giving testimony in Jamaica," the lawyers' association said.

"In civil proceedings in the Supreme Court that are governed by the Civil Procedure Rules, an expert witness has a duty 'to help the Court impartially on the matters relevant to his or her area of expertise' and 'that duty overrides any obligations to the person by whom he or she is instructed or paid'," Jambar added.

"In giving expert evidence, the information presented to the Court 'must be and should be seen to be the independent product of the expert witness uninfluenced as to form or content by the demands of the litigation. An expert witness must give independent assistance to the Court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within the expert witness' expertise'," Jambar said.

"In that context, Bain's dismissal may cause such experts (many of whom reside in tenure at UWI) to become fearful to express their honest and considered belief as they may face adverse repercussions, even when their thoughts are based on decades of study and research and independent of the office that they hold," Jambar argued.

17 --> Clearly, a sound community will take positive steps to avoid such a chilling effect or apparent retaliation for unwelcome expert testimony, not only in court but during public discussions of important issues in general.

18 --> Instead, we should seek to elicit the range of credible expert opinions, and use the range to guide our deliberations and decisions under the principle of prudence. In that seeking, it should be clear that there is no hidden agenda of retaliation against the politically incorrect, or . . . as Jambar hints . . .  the consultation will be of little or no value.

19 -->  The same concerns for experts hold for civil society as a whole, identifiable stakeholder groups and just plain ordinary John Q and Jane R Public. With this difference, the organisers of consultations will need major efforts to reach the public and especially marginalised or "silent majority" representatives. Their inputs may be vital.

20 --> I should note too, that in oral societies, it is may be a very important move to tap the elderly, as they will have the oral memories and traditions that may reveal black swan event possibilities. Someone in his or her eighties or nineties could easily have directly known someone who was on the ground coming on two hundred years ago, as a child, and another long lived person or a few in the chain would put the reach of oral history back to 250 - 300 years or even more.

21 --> To give an idea of how useful that may be, an extreme event of likelihood 1 in 1,000 per year, would have about a 25 % chance of happening in 300 years. 

22 --> Of course, geological evidence and the like will also be helpful for capturing rare but possible events, and we should not shun to look at similar examples elsewhere. This, again brings us back to the importance of panels of experts.

23 --> Nor, should we forget sound, well researched history grounded on a good survey of evidence, records and testimony. Where also first rate journalism is "a first, rough draft of history."

24 --> Generally, with a vigorous and sound education system and media culture, the public will be much better informed as a result of consultation processes and that too will go to promote better governance and management of decision-making in the midst of diverse and conflicting interests and goals.
_________________

Bottom-line, the better the quality of information and the better the quality of the education that shapes how the public processes it, the better the quality of governance. Which is the next focal issue. END

The Bain affair cont'd: The Online petition organisers respond to counter- talking points, even as a mass protest is planned for Mona Campus main gate 8:00 - 11:00 am Monday May 26th

Just now, I saw my e-mail inbox, and found an email from the Bain support petition organisers -- I guess, as a signatory to the petition.

First, on Monday May 26, 8:00 - 11:00 am, there is a planned protest event at UWI front Gate, with a dress code, funeral colours, with mouths taped with masking tape with "Freedom of Speech" on the tape.

Were I in Jamaica, I would be there, no ifs ands or buts.

I strongly recommend similar protests at the gates of other UWI campuses and extramural centres across the region.

I also suggest writing to UWI's leadership and the news media across the region by old fashioned mail as well as email. (NB: I am not comfortable to learn that apparently my signing the petition triggered an email to the personal email boxes of the VC etc, I did not know that. I plead with the petition organisers to modify if possible. I think the petition should be printed off at a certain time and communicated on paper to the UWI, to the governments of the region and to Caricom, perhaps introduced in parliaments under the petition rules.)

Also, the email rebuts the counter-points that have been spread in an attempt to make the firing of prof Bain for speaking unwelcome truth to power seem legitimate. 

Here are those counter-points, slightly adjusted for readability and with a few clarifying notes on arrow-points in square brackets:

____________________

>>3. Clarifying Contradictions: There is NO legitimate justification for the dismissal

Over the past few days we have seen the pathetic 'flip-flopping' of those who want to see Professor Bain fired. If you listen closely, not one of their arguments has "stuck." When they say one thing today, and they are corrected, they say another thing tomorrow. It is becoming increasingly clear that they cannot find any legitimate reason for firing him.

First, let us break it down.

FACT: There is no mandate or obligation for C.H.A.R.T. or UWI to work to remove the 'buggery' provisions....

CONTRADICTION: yet still they claim Professor should be dismissed for acting contrary to an imaginary mandate.

C.H.A.R.T. Mandate: "the mission of the CHART Network is to continually strengthen the capacity of national health-care personnel and systems to provide access to quality HIV & AIDS prevention, care, treatment, and support services for all Caribbean people."

Peter Espeut: "Consult the official website of the CHART Network and you will see that "the mission of the CHART Network is to continually strengthen the capacity of national health-care personnel and systems to provide access to quality HIV & AIDS prevention, care, treatment, and support services for all Caribbean people". The purpose of CHART is to train health-care workers in Jamaica and across CARICOM to be better able to prevent HIV & AIDS, and to treat people already infected with the virus. So the primary "community which the CHART programme is expected to reach" is CARICOM health-care workers. And those trained CARICOM health-care workers will interact with two different secondary groups: a much larger group - those who DO NOT have the virus (to target them with prevention strategies); and a much smaller group - those who already have HIV/AIDS (to treat their symptoms and their infection). These two groups include every human living within CARICOM, including you who read this. Therefore, to say that Professor Brendan Bain has "lost the confidence and support of a significant sector of the community which the CHART programme is expected to reach" has to be put in context. There is no evidence before us that Professor Bain has lost the confidence of CHART'S primary target group - CARICOM health-care workers; and there is no evidence before us that Professor Bain has lost the confidence of the vast majority of Caribbean people (who do not have HIV/AIDS). Has Prof Bain lost the confidence of the HIV/AIDS community with respect to the care and treatment of HIV/AIDS, or is there another purpose to the project? Maybe the CHART Network has a hidden agenda."

Affidavit: "Some Public Health practitioners and agencies have hypothesized that decriminalizing the practice of anal intercourse among consenting adults would lead to a reduction in the incidence rate of HIV infections among MSM. To date, published data have not substantiated this hypothesis."

Former Prime Minister Golding: "Professor Bain cannot be expected to render an opinion other than his own. His statement can render him unfit to serve as head of CHART only if its charter or mandate includes the removal of legal impediments to MSM. Its mission statement says no such thing. Its purpose is "to strengthen the capacity of national health-care personnel and systems to provide access to quality HIV & AIDS prevention, care, and treatment and support services for all Caribbean people". Nothing in Professor Bain's affidavit can be said to compromise his ability or commitment to fulfil that mandate."

FACT: Professor Bain made no recommendations concerning the retention of any law...

CONTRADICTION: yet still they claim he should be dismissed because he argued for the retention of the law.

Jamaica Gleaner clarification: "Bain did not make a recommendation about keeping [Belize's] anti-gay law..."

Dr. Kei Miller: "For the most part the document simply makes the undisputable point that for both biological and social/cultural/behavioural reasons — the HIV virus is passed on to Men who have sex with Men with something that approached efficiency. The figures simply are staggering. Some people have tried to counter Bain’s argument by saying that the sex acts he lists (anal sex, multiple-partners, swallowing, etc) are not unique to homosexual relationships. This strikes me as a disingenuous argument. Prof Bain would almost certainly agree that for heterosexuals who engage regularly in these acts then the risk factor for them to contract HIV also increases dramatically. But there is little point in denying that these acts are far more common in the MSM community. Such a denial would go against the principles of the careful and targeted interventions that we want to do.

Bain’s affidavit does not take or register a stance against gay communities or gay men. It earnestly steers clear from such opinions and tries to stick to the figures. Towards the end of the paper when he seems to make recommendations, none of them include encouraging gay men to give their lives to Christ or to turn away from their evil ways. His affidavit accepts that men will have sex with men and so his recommendations are far more pragmatic – encouraging the use of condoms, lubricant, constant testing, delaying the age that one begins to engage in intercourse, etc."

FACT: Freedom of speech actually does involve the right to not be fired for one's religious beliefs or scientific opinions....

CONTRADICTION: yet still certain interest groups have been fighting for 'human rights' including the right to freedom of speech, yet still they are unwilling to extend that right to Professor Bain.

Attorney Gordon Robinson: "Freedom of expression took a severe body blow yesterday when the University of the West Indies sacked Brendan Bain."

Medical Association of Jamaica: "as an expert witness, his testimony to the court is a duty to the Court, and, is the opinion of the expert himself... hoping that doctors' responsibility under the law to the court is not under any form of attack... we respect the rights and opinions of all groups and individuals in our society, and hope that in turn the same respect will be afforded to us in our the professional discharge of our duties."

FACT: All Caribbean people have a right to the scientific information shared by Professor Bain, so that we can be confident that the approach to HIV/AIDS treatment is really in our best interests...

CONTRADICTION: yet still certain interest groups want the science contained in the Affidavit to 'disappear.' 

No one has actually countered the Affidavit with science, only politics.

FACT: Professor Bain's Affidavit was a clear, objective discussion of scientific research on HIV/AIDS and MSM's...

CONTRADICTION: some people ignore this fact, yet the objecting groups that have acknowledged this still say he did something that warrants dismissal without providing some other justification.

National AIDS Committee (which supports the dismissal): "no issue with, and has no objection to the actual content of the report of Professor Brendan Bain to the Court in Belize... there is nothing in that report which is contrary to, or offensive to the work of the National AIDS Committee... In his report, Professor Bain highlighted for the court that homosexual men were at higher risk of contracting HIV and other sexual transmitted infections... This is the very position of the National AIDS Committee."

FACT: Professor Bain's Affidavit was submitted as an Expert Witness, not an ordinary witness, which means he did not argue for or act on behalf of churches or anyone. This is a legal issue which many people do not understand...

CONTRADICTION: yet still some people claim that he argued points for the church

Professor Bain's Sworn Oath at the end of the Affidavit: "I also certify that I have been given no instructions by any party, by any person representing a party, or by any other person with respect to this report. The report represents my own opinions based on my professional experience together with information from research literature related to the matter under consideration. The opinions expressed in the report are mine and should not be attributed to any institution with which I am associated."

FACT: Professor Bain has not lost the confidence of the majority of Caribbean people, who are also citizen stakeholders and targets for the C.H.A.R.T. programme, which is a programme for training HIV/AIDS healthcare workers and not a clinic...

CONTRADICTION: yet the 35 unverified lobby groups act as if they are the only persons that C.H.A.R.T. is supposed to help.

Peter Espeut: "Consult the official website of the CHART Network and you will see that "the mission of the CHART Network is to continually strengthen the capacity of national health-care personnel and systems to provide access to quality HIV & AIDS prevention, care, treatment, and support services for all Caribbean people". The purpose of CHART is to train health-care workers in Jamaica and across CARICOM to be better able to prevent HIV & AIDS, and to treat people already infected with the virus. So the primary "community which the CHART programme is expected to reach" is CARICOM health-care workers. And those trained CARICOM health-care workers will interact with two different secondary groups: a much larger group - those who DO NOT have the virus (to target them with prevention strategies); and a much smaller group - those who already have HIV/AIDS (to treat their symptoms and their infection). These two groups include every human living within CARICOM, including you who read this. Therefore, to say that Professor Brendan Bain has "lost the confidence and support of a significant sector of the community which the CHART programme is expected to reach" has to be put in context. There is no evidence before us that Professor Bain has lost the confidence of CHART'S primary target group - CARICOM health-care workers; and there is no evidence before us that Professor Bain has lost the confidence of the vast majority of Caribbean people (who do not have HIV/AIDS). Has Prof Bain lost the confidence of the HIV/AIDS community with respect to the care and treatment of HIV/AIDS, or is there another purpose to the project? Maybe the CHART Network has a hidden agenda."

FACT: Professor Bain's primary obligation, as a medical expert, was to provide honest and factual information to the Court of law and the information he provided is exactly the sort of information that C.H.A.R.T. should be guided by...

CONTRADICTION: yet still they claim that the information, which did not oppose any C.H.A.R.T. objective or mandate and made no legal recommendations, was a 'conflict of interest'.

Medical Association of Jamaica: "The MAJ is disappointed that one of the pioneers in the diagnosis and treatment of HIV/AIDS is no longer leading CHART. We want to encourage everyone, all stakeholders, to focus on HIV/AIDS and not against each other...as an expert witness, his testimony to the court is a duty to the Court, and, is the opinion of the expert himself... hoping that doctors' responsibility under the law to the court is not under any form of attack... we respect the rights and opinions of all groups and individuals in our society, and hope that in turn the same respect will be afforded to us in our the professional discharge of our duties.”

National AIDS Committee: "no issue with, and has no objection to the actual content of the report of Professor Brendan Bain to the Court in Belize... there is nothing in that report which is contrary to, or offensive to the work of the National AIDS Committee... In his report, Professor Bain highlighted for the court that homosexual men were at higher risk of contracting HIV and other sexual transmitted infections... This is the very position of the National AIDS Committee."

FACT: Professor Bain has been at the forefront of HIV/AIDS training that discouraged discrimination by healthcare workers so that all people affected by HIV/AIDS can get treatment...

CONTRADICTION: yet still they claim that Professor Bain discriminated or included discriminatory words in his Affidavit.

Page 2 of his Affidavit says: "In 2003, [Bain] was invited by a United States Government team to lead the Regional Coordinating Unit of the Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training (CHART) Initiative…Attitudinal training is a central part of the CHART curriculum, with anti-stigma and anti-discrimination training being paramount."

Caribbean Vulnerable Communities Coalition [--> headed by Gomes, and a signatory to the demand for firing Bain]: "Professor Bain is a good man who has worked in the field of HIV for many years."

National AIDS Committee: "no issue with, and has no objection to the actual content of the report of Professor Brendan Bain to the Court in Belize... there is nothing in that report which is contrary to, or offensive to the work of the National AIDS Committee... In his report, Professor Bain highlighted for the court that homosexual men were at higher risk of contracting HIV and other sexual transmitted infections... This is the very position of the National AIDS Committee."

FACT: Professor Bain only compared the relative risk of MSM's compared to the general population in Belize, pointing out that the established fact that the risk is higher and pointed out that despite the 'buggery' laws in Jamaica, rates have increased. He never said that countries without the buggery law have a "higher" but that they have a "high" rate and he certainly never hinted at a causative link between the two...

CONTRADICTION: Carolyn Gomes erroneously claimed that Prof Bain claimed that retaining the laws has in actuality lowered infection rates.

Affidavit: "This report shows that the relative risk of contracting HIV is significantly higher among men who have sex with other men (MSM) in Belize than in the general population. This is also true in several other countries for which data are available, including countries that have repealed the law that criminalizes anal sex and countries where the law still applies."

Carolyn Gomes (incorrectly stated): "Where our colleague Prof. Bain erred was by linking without evidence those high HIV rates to the removal of laws that criminalize homosexuality [--> buggery laws do not criminalise homosexuality, they ban a specific insanitary and damaging sexual act both associated with the spreading of diseases and the corruption of boys]  in France, the Netherlands and United States, while ignoring that neither laws nor Jamaica’s notorious hostility to homosexuality have protected us from having one of the highest rates of HIV infection among men who have sex with men in the world."

National AIDS Committee: "no issue with, and has no objection to the actual content of the report of Professor Brendan Bain to the Court in Belize... there is nothing in that report which is contrary to, or offensive to the work of the National AIDS Committee... In his report, Professor Bain highlighted for the court that homosexual men were at higher risk of contracting HIV and other sexual transmitted infections... This is the very position of the National AIDS Committee."  >>
____________________

Food for thought indeed, and it is clear that we need to seriously think again about where our premier university is headed, and what the homosexualist lobby and their financial backers are implying by what they have done. Dr Bain is the canary in the mine, gasping for breath in a poisonous atmosphere for freedom. What are we going to do? END