Bain firing a gag order on science
THE EDITOR, Sir:
I refer to your editorial of Thursday, May 29, 2014 headlined 'Prof Bain's endgame' and offer this response.
Is Prof Brendan Bain to be held responsible for the worsening of the polarisation and the increasing distraction of CHART as well? Really?
Let The Gleaner obtain and publish the registered objectives of CHART as set out in the documents filed when it was incorporated.
I would hazard a bet that the repeal of the Buggery Act in the Caribbean territories that it was to operate under the umbrella of the UWI was not included or even mentioned as a registered objective of the organisation. That objective may have become the expressed wishes of some of the persons associated with the operation of the organisation and not a 'mandate' to be strictly observed by the CEO, Professor Bain.
NO LEGAL JUSTIFICATION
Professor Bain did not refer to any Christian beliefs he holds in giving his expert testimony in the court case in Belize. Nor did he do anything legally or constitutionally to justify his publicly showcased dismissal.
Could it be that the treatment and rejection of Bain has to do with the stark scientific evidence he exposed, which describes the very unhealthy consequences of anal penetration and other men-who-have-sex-with-men sexual procedures and practices?
This disclosure might make people more aware of the health hazards and consequent health costs to the wider community, even though the actions of a couple of MSM are done in their own 'privacy'. Yes, it may very well cause persons in a democratic society to prefer that the buggery law be maintained and not repealed.
What has that got to do with the objectives of CHART and the performance of Bain?