In defence of Professor Brendan Bain of UWI Jamaica, Medical Doctor and Public Health expert fired by UWI (my alma mater . . . ) for giving a politically incorrect expert opinion on the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the Caribbean to the Belize Supreme Court . . .

@DavidD:

Therefore the Bible was never inspired after all ?

I think it is inspired by God. And there's evidence for the inspiration.

So Anders Behring Breivik was a good ol boy

What velikovskys said. JWTruthInLove

DavidD So Anders Behring Breivik was a good ol boy who got 21 years while his 84 victims and their families got life ? Nice! How does this follow from JWT analogy? I can only imagine what the knife is representative of. Then I wouldn't recommend using " the knife " for either spreading butter or cutting sausage. Again, Decency is the only boundary for tolerance. Perhaps if it is none of your business is a better boundary. If Darwinism is true, then there are no boundaries and life if pointless. The mechanism of evolution is defined by its boundaries, perhaps you mean creation ex nihilo has no boundaries. The point of life is life, if you need more then imagine whatever you want. velikovskys

Querius, I will conduct your pointless experiment if you can first explain to me how I can "honestly" and "sincerely" pray to a god that doesn't exist. The experiment alone would be a lie. I might as well pray "honestly" and "sincerely" to the tooth fairy. Acartia_bogart

JW - "Therefore we have credible reason to believe, that the bible was corrupted by men." _________ Therefore the Bible was never inspired after all ? JW - "Image I design a knife for butter and state in the manual: “You shall use the knife to smear butter on bread”. Then someone uses that knife to cut a sausage. Why would the designer hate such a person or even murder him/her by an extremely gruesome method??" _________ So Anders Behring Breivik was a good ol boy who got 21 years while his 84 victims and their families got life ? Nice! I can only imagine what the knife is representative of. Again, Decency is the only boundary for tolerance. If Darwinism is true, then there are no boundaries and life if pointless. DavidD

@DavidD: Timothy 3:16-17 is in conflict with Leviticus 20:13. Therefore we have credible reason to believe, that the bible was corrupted by men. @Acartia_bogart:

By the way, what exactly did Jesus say about homosexuality? It is my understanding that he never talked about it.

Nothing that explains the irrational hate. Image I design a knife for butter and state in the manual: "You shall use the knife to smear butter on bread". Then someone uses that knife to cut a sausage. Why would the designer hate such a person or even murder him/her by an extremely gruesome method?? JWTruthInLove

JWTruthInLove July 11, 2014 "There’s no evidence, that Leviticus 20:13 originated from God." ________________ 2 Timothy 3:16-17 Expanded Bible (EXB) 16 "All Scripture is ·inspired by God [breathed out by God; L?God-breathed] and is useful for teaching, for ·showing people what is wrong in their lives [refuting error; rebuking], for correcting faults, and for ·teaching how to live right [training in righteousness]. 17 ·Using the Scriptures, [L?…so that] ·the person who serves God [L?God’s person] will be ·capable [competent], ·having all that is needed [fully equipped] to do every good work." 2 Peter 1:21 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 21 "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." The Law to the Israelites given through Moses was for running an actual Nation or Country for which even alien residents were subject to their constitutional regulations so to speak, and while Christians are no longer under the Law of Moses in the literal sense of enforcement, the basic principles involved would still be of interest to them. DavidD

Acartia_bogart July 11, 2014 at 3:01 pm "By the way, what exactly did Jesus say about homosexuality? It is my understanding that he never talked about it." __________ Matthew 19:4 GOD’S WORD Translation (GW) 4 "Jesus answered, “Haven’t you read that the Creator made them male and female in the beginning" Evidently Jesus believed in the Genesis account about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. - DavidD

Acartia_bogart, Why hide behind statements like "We both know that belief is not absolute" when a simple, neutral experiment has been offered to you through which you can know for sure? As I suggested previously . . .

Try praying to God with honesty, sincerity, and openness, and see what happens. “Dear God, I honestly don’t even know if you exist, but if you do, I’d like to get right with you and have you in my life. I’d also like to know if Jesus really is your son, the manifestation of you in a human being and if what Jesus promised is really true. Please show me in some way that I will know. Thank you. Amen.” You will need to persist to prove to yourself that you really mean it. It might take several days. Are you willing to try?

Again, note that this experiment is neutral and you're not forcing yourself into any delusion. Are you willing to try? -Q Querius

JW, if all Christians did what you say, there would be any problems. But we both know that belief is not an absolute. Some people take the bible as literal and god's word. Others pick and chose to suit their own lifestyle. By the way, what exactly did Jesus say about homosexuality? It is my understanding that he never talked about it. Acartia_bogart

@Acartia_bogart:

Does that mean that stoning is just a form of affection?

First. I don't share the conservative values: - Oklahoma candidate says homosexuality is “worthy of death” - Pastor Calls For Electrified Fence To Corral and Exterminate Gays Second. Christians should follow Jesus, not the Old Testament. Third. There's no evidence, that Leviticus 20:13 originated from God. JWTruthInLove

JWTruthinlove:

There’s not evidence that God is against homosexuality!

Does that mean that stoning is just a form of affection? Acartia_bogart

@Acartia_bogart: Since there's no evidence that anal intercourse is "carnal intercourse against the order of nature", there's no discrimination against gay men intercourse-wise.

Homosexual activity was never made illegal due to health concerns It was made illegal due to words in the bible.

There's not evidence that God is against homosexuality! JWTruthInLove

RB:

If it had been illegal however perhaps hugh numbers would not of got HIV/death.

Homosexual activity was never made illegal due to health concerns It was made illegal due to words in the bible. I don't want to comment on this person being fired because I have not followed this story. But this OP provided very little background. I don't see any reference to documents clearly stating the reason for dismissal. As far as I can see, this is a he said-she said issue. My biggest concern about any jurisdiction in which homosexuality is illegal is the number of infected people who do not seek treatment for fear of charges. Acartia_bogart

PS: Plato's warning, c. 360 BC: ______________ >> Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that . . . The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view! Notice also, the trichotomy of causal factors: (a) chance/accident, (b) mechanical necessity of nature, (c) art or intelligent design and direction.] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny], and not in legal subjection to them. >> __________________ This is what again crouches at the door, ready to spring. 100+ million ghosts from the century just past moan out a grim warning on the consequences -- and lurkers and rhetorical snipers from Anti Evo et al, that still obtains. We have rights, that is self evident. If you doubt that, explain to us why it is not self evident that it is wrong for someone to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a young child . . . I draw from a real case for a boy the son of a well known worker on the campus that happened only a few 100's of yards from where Dr Bain worked and near to the time when he began his great fight against HIV/AIDS. And, tell me that we do not find a compelling sense of wrong that must be stopped, if we were to encounter such in action. Then, answer to us as to what lies in the foundations of evolutionary materialism that is an IS capable of bearing the weight of OUGHT. I answer, nil. If you would doubt and dismiss me, answer then to one of your own, Richard Dawkins:

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but pitiless indifference . . . . DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. [ “God’s Utility Function,” Sci. Am. Aug 1995, pp. 80 - 85. Emphases added.]

I say, thank you for the admission, which exposes both the moral and the intellectual bankruptcy of evolutionary materialism. Never mind how it likes to dress up in a lab coat. kairosfocus

JWT: In the above, there are repeated conflations of the two, some from you, some from RB, some from misleading media reports. Second, as I said, I paraphrased Daniel's comments, but his comments are easily shown to be substantially accurate . . . note what the Medical Association and the HRM pros say. Next, it is a commonplace to say one thing and do another. The UWI leadership has given lip service to rights but has in fact improperly penalised the man for exercising them; making up out of whole cloth a violation that leads to breakdown of trust. As for the "conflict of interests" talking point, observe former PM Golding's observation. But then blame the victim is a proved successful tactic . . . as well we know from career busting of design thinkers. Fundamentally, Bain pointed out the epidemiology, the fact that the same basic pattern holds whether or not there are buggery laws, and outlined what is known to be effective in addressing HIV/AIDS; that is, by implication if Buggery laws are to be repealed it should be on other grounds than the claimed causing lack of access to public health and such medical care as obtains. Note his excerpted testimony and ff Golding on where the wider issues come down and the implications of severing moral considerations and taboos from law. I add, the very claim to a right pivots on the foundations of morality, which require an IS capable of sustaining OUGHT; the only real candidate is the inherently good Creator God, the necessary maximally great being at the root of reality. Certainly, evo mat ideologies and linked radical secular humanism ends at might and manipulation make 'right' -- i.e. amorality and an invitation to nihilism. (This has been warned against since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, 2350 years ago.) He has been fired because well founded facts do not fit with a radical agenda, and the pushers of radical agendas and their backers want to attack the man to dismiss the inconvenient truth. Obviously, their actions meant, remain silent or parrot our talking points, distorting the material truth. Much the same as happened with say Gonzalez. KF kairosfocus

I've also criticized the student, who said this:

If one can be fired from the Anglophone Caribbean's premier University for stating a scientific fact under oath to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a Court of Law, what does this imply about freedom of speech, academic freedom, and freedom of conscience and worship, not only in that University and the Governments who sponsor it, but in the region as a whole?

But the university actually recognizes his rights! There was nothing wrong with telling the truth under oath:

the University recognises the right of Professor Bain to provide expert testimony in the manner he did

JWTruthInLove

@kf:

is not equal to homosexuality

Who says otherwise? (I've corrected Robert Byers on his misuse!)

I don’t know if there is a language problem.

Might be. JWTruthInLove

JWT: I don't know if there is a language problem. Buggery, which is what the law states, describes and bans on harsh penalty . . . again . . . is not equal to homosexuality but to certain specific sexual acts that are in fact strongly correlated with spreading HIV/AIDS. It is possible to carry out the acts without being homosexual, and it is possible to be homosexual without doing those particular acts -- the two concepts are therefore describing plainly distinct things. Likewise, homosexuals (i.e. persons with strong or habitual same sex attractions) often engage in heterosexual acts, both male and female homosexuals. Some homosexuals, out of conviction that their attractions ought not to be acted on, who are married, carry out as marital duty, normal intercourse on a regular basis . . . and not merely as part of a "cover." [We should note that also the further politically incorrect fact is, that homosexual attractions and habits are not stable, they often spontaneously decay, and more often change in light of focussed moral effort. Cf. My Genes made me do it, here.] As well, many heterosexual people do not engage in genital sex acts, for various reasons, not least out of a moral commitment to chastity. And indeed one of the related problems in the Caribbean is young men who otherwise have no interest in same sex acts submitting to buggery strictly for money then carrying infections to their girlfriends. Dr Bain spoke to the epidemiology, and to the empirical fact that on statistics in various jurisdictions removing such a law has not materially changed the patterns of incidence of disease, pointing to the real changes that would make a difference and not just for those who commit buggery. I cited a news report and linked it (along with two others on the Medical Association's statement and the HRM associations expression of concern on process), that is what is material in the public debate. Note, Golding on the gap between the charter of CHART, and what Bain is accused of in the justifications offered for dismissing him or supporting the dismissal, i.e. there is a problem of hidden agendas at work. As well, the way the buggery law is reported is repeatedly in error, something that is probably calculated by advocates to seem unfair. I suggest, you should read Bain's actual testimony. KF kairosfocus

@kf: In your blog-post:

By sharp contrast, let us observe: The Jamaica National AIDS Committee: (...)

You fail to quote the Committee... Instead you quote a newspapaer:

The AIDS Committee said it amounted to a conflict of interest for Professor Bain to have got involved in the suit against the Belize Government to keep homosexuality as a criminal offence. http://jamaica-gleaner.com/latest/article.php?id=53013

Fascinating. Now let's look at reality -- The statement of the university:

The issue in question arose about two years ago in a high-profile case in Belize in which Caleb Orozco, a gay man in Belize, challenged the constitutionality of an 1861 law that criminalises men having sex with men (MSM). Professor Brendan Bain provided a Statement on behalf of a group of churches seeking to retain the 1861 Law. Many authorities familiar with the Brief presented believe that Professor Bain’s testimony supported arguments for retention of the law, thereby contributing to the continued criminalisation and stigmatisation of MSM. This opinion is shared by the lesbian, gay and other groups who are served by CHART. ... While the University recognises the right of Professor Bain to provide expert testimony in the manner he did, it has become increasingly evident that Professor Bain has lost the confidence and support of a significant sector of the community which the CHART programme is expected to reach, including the loss of his leadership status in PANCAP, thereby undermining the ability of this programme to effectively deliver on its mandate. It is for this reason that the University of the West Indies has decided to terminate the contract of Professor Bain as Director of the Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU) of the Caribbean HIV/Training (CHART) Network. http://myspot.mona.uwi.edu/marcom/newsroom/entry/5708

And now for the summarization of the idiologically-burdened student:

If one can be fired from the Anglophone Caribbean's premier University for stating a scientific fact under oath to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a Court of Law, what does this imply about freedom of speech, academic freedom, and freedom of conscience and worship, not only in that University and the Governments who sponsor it, but in the region as a whole?

I rest my case. JWTruthInLove

JWT (& RB): First -- again, homosexuality is not illegal under buggery laws [note the distinct terminology], the act of buggery [anal sodomy] is; I note that many of these laws did not envision that women could or would be used as passive partners for such (and seemingly oddly, lesbianism is not targetted) . . . the laws in the main contemplate the classical pattern, the corruption of boys into catamites by men (as with Zeus and Ganymede); hence also the stringency of the penalties. (NB: Modern patterns of adult men targetting other adult men as a dominant form seem to have become dominant in recent centuries, in part in response to buggery laws being enforced -- and NAMBLA etc stand in testimony to the onward intent to revert to the classic target, the boy with a very handsome face comparable in beauty to a pretty girl; cf the discussion here. When we think of homosexuality, we need to think in those terms, of a significant difference in the context of acts and participants envisioned.) Homosexuality, again, is a predisposition to be sexually attracted to persons of one's own sex. That needs not be acted upon in any way, it can be focussed or sublimated in positive ways, and even if carried into acts, they need not be the ones of primary public health interest due to their insanitary, damaging disease vector nature -- especially when coupled to multiple partners and given the limitations of barrier devices. Second, Bain very carefully focussed his expert report on the public health and linked costs -- personal, social, financial, based on statistics. He showed, as I summarised above and as onward linked, that whether or no buggery laws are in force, there is a pattern that persists with a heavy over-representation of especially male homosexuals among the infected with HIV/AIDS. Indeed, it can reasonably be said that in countries in this region the HIV/AIDS problem spreads first in male same sex networks, then to the women they and their catamites [often, boys and young men needing or wanting money] also interact with sexually. Onwards, it can spread in other sexual networks, but it seems that is the core of the epidemic. He addressed that core and other related issues, and in fact -- properly, as he is not a lawyer -- gave no legal opinion on whether or no the law on the books should be struck down. The online petition draws attention to this point. The effect of this, is that it highlights the root problem, and brings the activist claim that buggery laws are blocking access to reducing the spread of HIV/AIDS under question. But that effect is not a matter of Dr Baine's say so as an amateur commenter on law or morality. It is a matter of the empirical facts and identified epidemiological patterns. This, in a context where under Dr Baine's leadership -- BTW he is actually Trinidadian -- the public health and clinical outreach to homosexuals has had high effectiveness and has emphasised that one should not attach a stigma to victims of a disease or treat them unfairly. Former Jamaican Prime Minister Bruce Golding, on direct experience and knowledge, gives a very different context as the underlying (hidden) agenda at work, in a column that just came out in Jamaica's Gleaner:

The sacking of Prof Brendan Bain illustrates the intimidating power of the gay-rights lobby, as well as external sources of funding on which we have to rely. I am saddened at the treatment, not just to Professor Bain, but to the Caribbean community. In his affidavit, Professor Bain rendered a professional opinion that the practice of MSM was harmful and that decriminalising it would not necessarily lead to a reduction in the rate of HIV infections. Other professionals may offer contrary views, and the litigants in this particular case are entitled to present affidavits in support of those views. 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 . . . . While I was in office, subtle and sometimes not-so-subtle pressure was exerted by some foreign governments and agencies to have the buggery provisions removed from our statutes. I rebuffed these efforts because I felt this involved social, cultural and religious considerations on which Jamaica - and Jamaica alone - would have to deliberate. I am not opposed to the repeal of the buggery provisions in our laws because I don't think that legislation can, or should, try to regulate sexual practices, except in certain circumstances such as in the protection of children. The State has no business barging into any bedroom to molest homosexuals any more than it would fornicators or adulterers. Many Jamaicans, including me, are of the view, however, that once those provisions are repealed, the battle cry will be sounded to secure recognition of same-sex unions and eventually same-sex marriages. The new libertarian view that has captured the mind of even President Obama is that this is an expression of an individual's right to choose. It is a dangerous view because it completely severs the moral considerations that inform the norms of a society and the value system within which it operates. The entire society may not be faithful to its value system, but it, nonetheless, recognises its legitimacy and frame of reference. Hence, although adultery and multiple sex partners may be common in Jamaica, no lobby has yet been mounted to legalise polygamy. This new libertarian view of the right to choose is dangerous because once that moral tether is severed, no taboo can then be justified. What, other than moral considerations, would be the basis for retaining the Incest (Punishment) Act and depriving a man and his adult consenting daughter the right to cohabit? Yet the vast majority of Jamaicans would consider that abhorrent. Why? Because it offends our moral values and cultural tradition . . .

In short, there are big issues at stake that need to be brought out into the light and fully frankly faced in light of consequences and the implications of ever-creeping precedents in courts. Not, smuggled in under the false cover of a claim that the laws under attack are blocking access to prevention and health care; backed up by funders pushing hidden agendas (CHART's charter does not include any requirement that would make Bain's testimony a genuine conflict of interest or violation of trust). So, it is not true that his testimony in intent or effect is to support making or keeping homosexuality illegal. For the simple reason that homosexuality is not equal to the act of anal penetration. Second, he rendered no amateur legal opinion and did not abuse his expert position to lobby for a particular view on law. He pointed out on empirical facts that the existence or not of buggery laws is effectively substantially irrelevant to the mechanisms that make men who engage in same sex networks particularly at risk, as well as to the ability of medical practitioners and public health leaders to reach out to them. It seems we all have some serious food for thought. KF kairosfocus

@kf:

JWT: Actually, no.

I expected a rebuttal of my argument. You delivered nothing of that sort. Even Robert Byers sees the obvious @12 (I guess by "homosexuality" he means peepee-into-poo-hole-sex-acts):

It does seem they fired him for aiding those who would keep homosexuality illegal.

JWTruthInLove

It does seem they fired him for aiding those who would keep homosexuality illegal. It should be illegal everywhere for moral reasons. However because we all live together we should not make it illegal as other sex things are legal. If it had been illegal however perhaps hugh numbers would not of got HIV/death. Whats more important for these gay activists ??? Robert Byers

Axel, a God they profess to lack believe in. Mung

By suppressing the truth, preferring to live in a fantasy world, who will be the losers? Yet they will be blaming God more than furiously ever. Axel

PPS: I note how >> the Jamaica Association of Evangelicals notes in its May 11 letter to UWI Vice Chancellor Harris, how:

"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%."

. . . It then pointedly, aptly, asks:

"Surely this testifies to the fact that our programmes provide assistance to the MSM community. What then is Professor Bain guilty of?">>

That is, on the ground, with Dr Bain in the lead since 1983, outreach to the most at risk group has been obviously effective. There is also no regional pattern of police raiding homes to arrest homosexual men under the buggery act, though some cases of public acts have been prosecuted. Likewise, neither medical or healthcare staff nor pastors and priests have been reporting men to the police for arrest. I should note, there have been several high profile arrests and prosecutions of notoriously lewd entertainers. kairosfocus

PS: The Bain Report. The supportive petition (which gives a detailed rationale) is here. kairosfocus

JWT: Actually, no. He very carefully took time to speak to the epidemiological facts and to identify patterns of behaviour that on evidence are associated with the spreading of HIV/AIDS, as can be seen from my excerpts and the full report. In addition he identified that in both jurisdictions with buggery laws and those without, there is the same basic pattern linked to key risk factors. Next, though the objectors tend to summarise them as banning homosexuality, the laws in question are not about the disposition of same sex attraction but specify particular sexual acts that -- for fairly obvious reasons -- turn out to be high-risk for propagation of body-fluids borne diseases. He also identified relevant challenges with other STIs and cancers. His recommendations focussed on the empirically warranted factors that put individuals and groups at risk. He made sure to broaden these, pointing to various at-risk groups. That is why the Medical Association supported his stance on evidence and research. As summarised from its statement:

The MAJ, in a statement released through its president, Dr. Shane Alexis, late on Monday, asserted that it is “against discrimination in all its forms,” and its members are “committed to improving the health of all members of society.” 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.” [--> i.e. the we have no trust in you assertion] 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 that context, young Daniel Thomas did a fairly good summary on his feet. My summary of Thomas is:

If one can be fired from the Anglophone Caribbean's premier University for stating a scientific fact under oath to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a Court of Law, what does this imply about freedom of speech, academic freedom, and freedom of conscience and worship, not only in that University and the Governments who sponsor it, but in the region as a whole?

And, my excerpting of Bain's actual testimony is:

As was discussed yesterday [i.e. the previous day] here at KF blog, professor Dr Bain was under pressure from the homosexualist lobby because he pointed out on evidence that changing the buggery law in Belize was unlikely to address root causes for the spreading of HIV/AIDS among especially male homosexuals. Instead, in his expert testimony based on thirty years as a pioneer in dealing with the region's HIV/AIDS epidemic . . . . he counselled:

. . . a major argument that has been posited by some experts is that the current [buggery] law impedes access to HIV prevention, care and treatment services by men who have sex with other men (MSM), thus jeopardizing their health and threatening premature demise . . . . The threat of illness and premature death from HIV infection has undoubtedly generated fear for persons in the general society and particularly for persons whose sexual choices put them at greater than average risk of acquiring HIV . . . . As a physician and Public Health practitioner, one of my responsibilities is to assess behaviours for their impact on health and wellbeing . . . when something is harmful, such as smoking, overeating, alcohol or drug abuse, and unsafe sexual behavior, it is my duty to discourage it. Together with promoting individual responsibility, it is clear that enviromnents that enable individuals to make and practice safe and healthy choices must be provided at family, community and govermmental levels. Another of my responsibilities as a Public Health practitioner is to assess the cost of behaviour, not just to the individual ‘actor’, but also to the community . . . [T]here are instances in which private behaviors result in considerable public cost due to illness, with accompanying loss of productivity and social disruption and the prospect of premature death. The public cost of these private behaviours must be acknowledged and actively reckoned with. This report shows that the relative risk of contracting HIV is signi?cantly higher among men who have sex with other men (MSM) [--> notice, the focus is on specific acts] 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 . . . . HIV should not be the only consideration in relation to the matter at hand. Available data from several parts of the world indicate that the relative risk of acquiring and spreading other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and cancers is unacceptably high among MSM when compared with other men and women . . . . Factors associated with the high relative risk of STIs [=HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmissible diseases] and cancers in affected persons are interactive and include: (a) choosing a sexual partner whose sexual history is unknown; (b) being part of a sexual network, including having multiple partners and a high rate of changing partners [--> which, unfortunately, is highly typical of especially male homosexuality and is apparently reflected in how, e.g. in Jamaica it seems that 32 percent of the male homosexual community are reportedly HIV-infected and 4.6% of prostitutes]; (c) having unprotected sex; and (d) having a repertoire of sexual behaviours that includes actions that carry a significant risk either of causing physical trauma [= tearing, abrading, cutting etc] or of allowing contact with faecal material [= human solid wastes] — these behaviours include, but are not con?ned to, penis-anus intercourse. Therefore, even when certain behaviours are done in private, they turn out to have serious deleterious public consequences.

On the strength of this and other supportive argument and evidence, he advised:

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 [--> note, already highlighted, in a summary from peer reviewed literature]. 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.

Glorified common good sense, backed up by decades of experience and research, counsel and advice that should be unobjectionable to a reasonable and reasonably informed person. One wishes that the plea in the last line had been heeded.

In his report, he spoke to behaviour patterns, not to bans in law on buggery, save to highlight that the same general pattern of disproportionate infection obtains in jurisdictions with and without buggery and similar laws. Thus he implicitly challenges the concept that it is buggery laws that are largely or at least materially responsible for such a disproportion. The onward reasonable inference that may be derived, is that the challenge of addressing HIV/AIDS is being used as a front for a broader agenda that figures that public sympathy over AIDS can be used to move towards a policy goal that evidently cannot stand on its own merits. From jurisdictions that have removed such statutes and notorious pressure to set up the whole cloth novelty, so-called same sex marriage under colour of law then paint those who object on moral grounds as bigots comparable to racists and subject to similar civil rights law penalties, those onward goals are not hard to guess at. The rhetoric that accused Dr Bain of a breach of trust and a conflict of interest is therefore fallacious and a case of attacking the man rather than frankly and fairly addressing the issue, as I addressed here. KF kairosfocus

So what you're pointing out, Truth, is that the good dr. agreed to be an expert witness in a court of law that is simply inquiring about whether criminalizing homosexuality is a good idea? He's helping them to make a legal decision (that hasn't yet been made, mind you), and because of that, they dismissed him? That's even more horrendous than the implied reason. CannuckianYankee

Signed. But he wasn't fired for expressing the facts about HIV-damage. Those facts are publicly available for anyone to see. It's right there in your blog-post:

The AIDS Committee said it amounted to a conflict of interest for Professor Bain to have got involved in the suit against the Belize Government to keep homosexuality as a criminal offence.

So the student actually sums up the matter NOT aptly, but delivers a misrepresentation.

Daniel Thomas, UWI student, sums up the matter aptly:

If one can be fired from the Anglophone Caribbean's premier University for stating a scientific fact under oath to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in a Court of Law

JWTruthInLove

VJT: Thanks, relevant background facts and helpful thoughts. I think we are in a perilous time, far more dangerous than we think. This one looks very much like the tip of an iceberg. A very troubling iceberg. KF kairosfocus

Hi Kairosfocus, And as if that were not bad enough, a large percentage of people suffering from HIV don't even know that they have the disease. To quote from the CDC fact sheet, HIV Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men:

In this study, the overall percent of gay and bisexual men with HIV who knew of their HIV infection increased from 56% in 2008 to 66% in 2011. Among those infected, 49% of young MSM [men who have sex with men] aged 18 to 24 years knew of their infection, whereas 76% of those aged 40 and over were aware of their HIV infection. Fifty- four percent of black/African American MSM knew of their infection, compared with 63% of Hispanic/Latino MSM and 86% of white MSM. Persons who don't know they have HIV don't get medical care and can unknowingly infect others.

Finally, the CDC has stated that the rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is "more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women." (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, March 10, 2010. "CDC Analysis Provides New Look at Disproportionate Impact of HIV and Syphilis Among U.S. Gay and Bisexual Men.") vjtorley

Hi Kairosfocus, Professor Bain is of course quite correct as far as the medical facts are concerned. A 2012 CDC report titled, Science of Optimizing HIV Prevention by Jonathan Mermin, MD, MPH, Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On page 3, the report states that "men who have sex with men (MSM) are >40 times more likely to have HIV than other men." On page 4, the report points out that "if current trends continue, half of today's young black MSM will have HIV by age 35," and "half of all MSM will have HIV by age 50." But there's more. According to the 2013 fact sheet, HIV Among Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), only a quarter of people suffering from HIV in the United States have adequate levels of viral suppression, leaving three-quarters of HIV sufferers at risk of succumbing to the virus: "Currently, CDC estimates that only 25% of the 1.1 million individuals with HIV have their viral loads adequately suppressed." vjtorley

It is time to take our stand for freedom, just as in olden time. Molon labe, I say! kairosfocus