In Jamaica, this distinguished professor — literally the man who led the Caribbean region’s medical fight against HIV/AIDS from the beginning in 1983 on — has been fired as at Tuesday afternoon by UWI’s Vice Chancellor for giving a politically incorrect expert testimony to The Supreme Court in Belize.
This is a sign of how pressure group activism led by radicals of various stripes . . . it hardly matters that they all think they have cornered the market on the correct view on whatever bees are buzzing in their bonnets . . . is undermining the civilisation’s hard won consensus on freedom of inquiry, of expression and of educators and students around the world. Not to mention, just plain general freedom and civility. (Where, the link to the right to hold “heretical” views such as Intelligent Design, or some variety of Creationism, or skepticism concerning climate change or Austrian Economics should be plain.)
My thoughts are here, and an excellent online petition is here, I am sure signatures will be welcome from around the world.
The university must be a bastion of freedom, not in thralldom to radical activists and political correctness.
So, I say, molon labe. END
PS: Comments invited . . . I had at first thought to keep this as a notice, do, keep close to topic and retain civility. The reputation of one of the finest men I have ever known is being besmirched and there is a concerted effort across the Anglophone Caribbean to enforce political correctness on HIV/AIDS, which points to many other topics also. (Cf my remarks in reply to PM Freundel Stuart of Barbados, here.) Where the Caribbean has one of the largest blocs of votes in the UN.
It is time to take our stand for freedom, just as in olden time. Molon labe, I say!
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.”
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:
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.”)
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
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:
So the student actually sums up the matter NOT aptly, but delivers a misrepresentation.
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.
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:
In that context, young Daniel Thomas did a fairly good summary on his feet.
My summary of Thomas is:
And, my excerpting of Bain’s actual testimony is:
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
PS: The Bain Report. The supportive petition (which gives a detailed rationale) is here.
PPS: I note how >> the Jamaica Association of Evangelicals notes in its May 11 letter to UWI Vice Chancellor Harris, how:
. . . It then pointedly, aptly, asks:
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.
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, a God they profess to lack believe in.
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 ???
@kf:
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):
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:
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
@kf:
In your blog-post:
You fail to quote the Committee… Instead you quote a newspapaer:
Fascinating. Now let’s look at reality — The statement of the university:
And now for the summarization of the idiologically-burdened student:
I rest my case.
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
@kf:
Who says otherwise? (I’ve corrected Robert Byers on his misuse!)
Might be.
I’ve also criticized the student, who said this:
But the university actually recognizes his rights! There was nothing wrong with telling the truth under oath:
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
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:
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.
RB:
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:
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.
There’s not evidence that God is against homosexuality!
JWTruthinlove:
Does that mean that stoning is just a form of affection?
@Acartia_bogart:
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.
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,
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 . . .
Again, note that this experiment is neutral and you’re not forcing yourself into any delusion.
Are you willing to try?
-Q
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.
–
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:
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:
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??
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.
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.
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.
@DavidD:
I think it is inspired by God. And there’s evidence for the inspiration.
What velikovskys said.