This litigant clearly advocates the retention of a discriminatory regime that excludes persons from enjoying rights of equality on the basis of their sexual orientation.
…… Professor Rose-Marie Belle Antoine ……
Where is the scientific evidence to support the UWI’s position that buggery laws need to be removed to decrease HIV rates in MSM ?
Singapore has a buggery law and its HIV rate among MSM at 2.6% is less than that of France (12% – 17% )which has not had a buggery law for more than two hundred years
The Lancet July 2012 stated that 98% of the reason for the higher rates of HIV among Men who have Sex with Men (MSM) compared to rates in heterosexuals is due to their practise of anal receptive intercourse and their ability to both penetrate and be penetrated i.e reverse roles.
The Lancet July 2012 also stated that HIV epidemics among MSM are expanding in all countries studied regardless of their income levels and that MSM are the only group among whom this is occurring.
The publication further stated that removing buggery laws is insufficient to achieve decrease in HIV rates among MSM.
So what is the UWI’s position based on science or ideology ?
Professor Rose-Marie Belle Antoine seems to be saying its all ideology about rights based on sexual orientation.
xxxxx E N D S xxxxxx
UWI had no choice but to dismiss Prof Bain
BY PROFESSOR ROSE-MARIE BELLE ANTOINE
Monday, June 09, 2014
THE issue of the University of the West Indies’ (UWI’s) termination of the short-term contract of Professor Brendan Bain is not at all about academic freedom. Those who say that it is are misinformed, with perhaps a few who are simply being opportunistic.
It is not even about whether or not the statement in Bain’s court testimony was true or untrue. At the core, it is about a programme leader publicly undermining the very programme and principles he was mandated to support. By his words and action, he voluntarily aligned himself with, and gave endorsement to, a diametrically opposed, unacceptable message on an issue of grave import for the UWI.
The essence of the harm, therefore, more so than the content of the words that Professor Bain spoke, is the fact that an authoritative leader of the UWI spoke with one voice with a litigant party whose purpose and objectives are in direct conflict withthe policies of Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training (CHART) Network and the UWI.
This litigant clearly advocates the retention of a discriminatory regime that excludes persons from enjoying rights of equality on the basis of their sexual orientation. Consequently, the testimony instantly became associated with the UWI in deeply negative and enduring ways, placing deep question marks on the UWI’s integrity and on its public commitment, not only to progressive notions of public health and HIV programming, but more fundamentally, to non-discrimination, equal opportunity, justice, and human rights.
It is a fact that the elimination of discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation is a key ingredient of the UWI’s HIV programming, which Professor Bain had the honour to lead for many years and about which he testified. Anti-discrimination training is a vital part of CHART’s own programme, as conceded in the expert testimony.
Significantly, too, the mandate of PEPFAR and the Global Fund for AIDS, which funds CHART, is “to develop programmes aimed at reducing HIV-related stigma”. The mission of UWI’s HIV programming, HARP, as well as CHART, from the very beginning, has co-existed with a human rights agenda, a central plank of which is the need to abolish discriminatory laws on sexual orientation.
This is incontestable and no one associated with it can ever claim to have been unaware of this. I can speak authoritatively to this as one who has been intimately involved with the work of the programme from its inception. Further, as an HIV and Law consultant who has been actively engaged for over 20 years in policy development across the region for governments, international organisations and NGOs, including on important issues of human rights and justice, I understand why this must be so.
Having participated in several seminars, workshops and sessions on HIV with Professor Bain, I have witnessed first-hand that in each and every one, an important aspect of the discussions and recommendations has been the need to eliminate discrimination and stigma as a result of sexual identity, which co-exist with HIV concerns, making treatment more difficult.
This enlightened position has certainly become part of the UWI’s core values. It is demonstrable, therefore, that UWI’s HIV programming itself is closely aligned to and even dependent on, an egalitarian world view which rejects discrimination on grounds of sexual difference.
Professor Bain’s long-standing and excellent work on HIV and public health is without question. Ironically, it is precisely because of his high profile that his remarks and chosen association are so damaging to UWI’s reputation and credibility.
The retention of Professor Bain in such circumstances threatened to destroy much of the hard-fought gains and trust that UWI has won in the fight against the scourge of HIV and discrimination in general and seriously undermined its own institutional interests. In this context, such testimony cannot be viewed as a mere personal viewpoint, isolated and insulated from CHART and the UWI’s policy position.
Indeed, typically, the very reason authorities like Professor Bain are called upon to speak is because of their professional capacity, which is inextricably linked with the institution, the UWI. Thus, Professor Bain cannot separate his personal views from these comments that have come to represent the institution that is the UWI, which is why they are viewed as harmful and irresponsible.
There is indeed room within an academic institution for individual intellectuals to pontificate about what they view as acceptable inequalities in our societies based on sexual identity, or even race, or religion, or any such thing and supposed scientific bases that support those views. However, the academic institution must draw the line when that individual opinion, intentionally or not, becomes associated with the view of the institution itself.
While intellectual freedom is to be protected and encouraged, the UWI has a duty to ensure that on issues where it holds itself up as perpetuating a particular policy for the benefit of the community, the persons who are chosen to take the lead on the matter are demonstrably in accord with that policy.
I cannot think, for example, that UWI could ever appoint an academic known to be a racist, or supporting racist ideology, to head departments devoted to race studies or even history departments, or a person demonstrating that he or she believes or asserts that women are unequal and their place is in the home, to head the Gender Department!
There have been several ‘scientific’ studies that claim that blacks are lazy and intellectually inferior, or that women are the ‘weaker sex’. Does this mean that in the name of academic freedom, the UWI should compromise its core principles of equality and allow its very integrity to be hijacked? I think not.
Professor Bain, as head of CHART, was in a fiduciary relationship, where one is placed in a position of great trust, which in turn, induces greater responsibility and duties of care. Professor Bain, and by extension, the UWI, with this testimony, violated these fiduciary duties owed to persons living with HIV, the LGBT community, and to the many who look to it for protection and guiding principle.
The bottom line is this: Having given this testimony, it would be impossible for this community, the very constituency that he is supposed to serve, ever to trust Professor Bain again. Thus, the UWI had no choice, after careful review, but to change the leadership of CHART.
Professor Rose-Marie Belle Antoine is dean of the Faculty of Law at the UWI St Augustine campus in Trinidad.