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."
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.
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."
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
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."
____________________
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
