Features — 23 May 2014 — by Audrey Matura-Shepherd

I would not say the word “bigot” is of common use on our society… and I surmise that is because as a society Belize is far more tolerant and passive than many other societies. So for those who do not know what the word means or use it loosely, I have taken time to enlighten myself as to its dictionary definition.

big•ot (noun) –1. a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion. Origin:
1590–1600; < Middle French ( Old French: derogatory name applied by the French to the Normans), perhaps < Old English bî God by God. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot);

2. Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bigotry);

3. a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, especially on religion, politics, or race. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bigot)

The Free Dictionary website provides this history of the origin: “Word History: Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant “an excessively devoted or hypocritical person.” Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense “a superstitious hypocrite.”

Who are the bigots?

So it seems from the above definitions, anyone can be a bigot. All you need to do is be intolerant of any view other than yours to the point that it is not just disagreeing but outright unable to countenance it that you would seek to annihilate it. The word “intolerant” in and of itself is a very strong word with much depth of meaning … it makes me envision rejecting something, wanting to get rid of something because you are unable or unwilling to support it or have it around.

The online Merriman dictionary defines “intolerant” as follows: “not willing to allow or accept something: not willing to allow some people to have equality, freedom, or other social rights; medicine : unable to take a certain substance into the body without becoming sick”

Thus it seems that anything that you repulse because it is of a different view merits your being called a bigot. However, interestingly the word seems to be used recently as a national anthem for the non-heterosexual agenda, who seem to have condemned to bigotry anyone who does not support their agenda, view or opinion, and especially if said person dares to express a different view. To me there is a vast difference between people holding different views and thus agreeing to disagree, and people having a different view seeking to quash the person with the other or opposing view.

For varying reasons and beliefs of my own I do not subcribe to men having sex with men, call it by whatever other name you want, but I do not think it leads to a healthy lifestyle or society, and it is even worse when the same men having sex with men then go and have sex with those of the fairer sex. However, to each his choice and since sex is such a private act, it is best left in the confines of whichever room where it is performed.

But it seems that no matter what is the reason, once a person expresses disagreement with that new age open lifestyle, the fanatic pro-gay, lgbt, and profilers quickly call the person with an opposing view a bigot. Hmmmm…. That is funny because the one calling the other is as much a bigot for not being tolerant of the other person’s view.

The “agendaists,” as I will call those people who cannot deal with an opposing view on the gay and men-sex-men have become intolerant to the point of such extreme bigotry that their modus operandi has been to: identify; isolate; target and annihilate. It’s as if they have a manual or their own code of conduct.

Men-sex-men = high risk!

If I had any doubt that this is their modus operandi, the recent demand for the University of the West Indies to terminate, or rather annihilate Dr. Brendan Bain, confirms my opinion. Imagine, here is a professional called by one side of the UNIBAM case in Belize, to give expert evidence. This was an option open to both sides. Our Civil Procedure Rule 2005 allows for expert witnesses to be called. At Part 32 it outlines the duty and the process of the expert to and in the court.

It states at Rule 32.4(2) “An expert witness must provide independent assistance to the courts by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise.” One of the statements the good professor made was that there is no evidence that decriminalizing sodomy will reduce the incidence of HIV/AIDS and cited that in countries where it is not criminalized the incidence has still not gone down. Of course this defeats the position presented by UNIBAM that the criminalization has caused grown men, who already know how to have sex anally, from making a mature decision and seek medical care for sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS. Now whether you are heterosexual or homosexual, common sense will tell you to seek medical help. And cultural context will tell you that generally by nature males are very reluctant to go to the doctor.

In an ironic twist of events in the great USA where even the president is promoting this lifestyle as part of his agenda to appease his lobbyists, there is an interesting news coming out about the increase in incidence of syphilis amongst men having sex with men. “The Atlanta-based Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), dated May 9 of this year, identifies the alarming trend of an ‘increase in syphilis among MSM [men who have sex with men]’ as a ‘major public health concern.’ But more than that, the latest available CDC information also reveals that since 1995 several STDs are quite literally exploding across the United States among homosexual men.” Read more at http://barbwire.com/2014/05/14/cdc-syphilis-outbreak-among-men-sex-men/#c7SK8wuUyqmSCbm9.99

Syphilis weakens the immune system and causes the virus that causes AIDS to attack the body. Now this is the very danger against which Prof. Bain was warning and he got fired for telling the truth… ouch! THE TRUTH HURTS!

Bully Bain … UWI no shame!

What is rather interesting about this unjust termination is that Professor Bain has been at the helm of CHART (Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training) Centre since its inception and there was nothing but great reviews of him. His performance and work was so sterling that even when he retired he was asked to return on contract. The UWI press statement says he “has had a distinguished career primarily in the field of HIV/AIDS in the Caribbean” All was well with is work until he made his findings known in a very public manner and in the very boxing ring set up by the lgbt extremists and they did not like that they were beaten in their own fight. So they had to play dirty outside the ring.

In June 2001,the CARICOM Secretariat proposed the creation of a CHART Centre and two years later the CHART Network was established “for the purpose of contributing to systematic capacity development among institutional and community-based health care workers involved in prevention of HIV/AIDS and in care, treatment and support of persons living with HIV and AIDS”. However, it seems that the reason UWI had to sell its soul and cave in is simply over money and as usual we in the region sell ourselves short and love the colonial master mentality.

By its own admission UWI explains that CHART “is not a department of the UWI but a regional project managed by the University under a contract funded by the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR), the Global Fund and a group of US agencies, to train health workers dealing with patients and communities affected by HIV/AIDS.” Now key here is the emphasis on the US agencies who are driving the gay-agenda, which has hijacked the HIV/AIDS portfolio and act as if only homosexuals are concerned with AIDS. So the minority group has demanded the head of “John the Baptist”, a loss to self and the majority, heterosexual population who are also at risk for AIDS… This backside turn upside down, no pun intended …. HMMM!

Facts of AIDS unchanged

With Prof. Bain out of the way this does not in any way change his view given as an expert and still will NEVER change the fact that penis penetration into a feces canal will increase your risk of any STD’s and those STD’s include HIV/AIDS. In the case of men who do not consider themselves “gay” and still enjoying putting that same penis into a vaginal canal, the risk is taken to another level.

It states at Rule 32.4(3) An expert witness must state the facts or assumptions upon which his opinion is based…”. So when Professor Bain explained that decriminalizing sodomy still does not address the problem he simply was showing that the argument is not about law but responsible behavior. Even if they legalize abortion and I know the mental and physical health risks associated with it, why would I make that choice?

So according to the fire-Bain-advocates these were the words that Bain gave in his expert evidence that they find most offensive: “Together with promoting individual responsibility, it is clear that environments that enable individuals to make and practice safe and healthy choices must be provided at family, community and GOVERNMENTAL levels,…”. He said nothing about allowing discrimination and stigmatizing lgbt’s. This statement is equally applicable to the minority groups and the majority groups. So the individual responsibility, I opine, is that even if sodomy is legalized and I engage in it, it being decriminalized does not make me any less vulnerable. And asking that from the family level to the government level they provide humans, of whichever sexual preference, with healthy choices can in no way have caused the minority groups served by CHART to lose confidence. Rather, this position should have been embraced if the issue was really about reducing HIV/AIDS, but I now conclude it is not about that… It’s about promoting a lifestyle and sexual choice and wanting it to be embraced and accepted and anyone who gets in the way must have their heads roll!

From 2008 to 2010 the new HIV infection rate grew 12%, from 26,700 to 29,800 cases reported. One in five sexually active MSM carry the AIDS virus, but nearly half of those don’t even know it. However, HIV/AIDS is not the only problem, as the new CDC report on syphilis makes clear. According to the Linacre paper, “MSM are far more likely to be diagnosed with other STDs, some of which have become resistant to commonly used antibiotics.” Read more at http://barbwire.com/2014/05/14/cdc-syphilis-outbreak-among-men-sex-men/#c7SK8wuUyqmSCbm9.99.

The real bigots!

Now, we are all entitled to our own opinion, but we are not entitled to demand the removal of anyone from their jobs and the denial of their constitutional rights: to work; to free speech, to freedom of conscience just because we did not like that their opinion opposed ours! That is low at its lowest since if the role were reversed the bigots so promoting it would not like the same be done. Further, this now means that we will next hear a call for the removal of the government attorneys who valiantly oppose UNIBAM, we will hear a call for the removal from the roll of attorneys, the two local attorneys who did a splendid job with their arguments. And after Friday’s protest we might find Caleb hand in to Mrs. PM Kim Simpliss a list of all the government-employed persons who took time out of their lunch to protest the dismissal of professor Bain.  To truly talk about equality she must condemn the lgbt’s phobia of those who do not wish to ascribe to that lifestyle and the lgbt’s economic violence on people like Prof. Bain, who must lose his livelihood for having a perceived different view… such irony and hypocrisy for a few minutes of air time!

Does anyone wonder why would these bigots do this and get away with it… well, because they do not really want equal rights: they want superior rights based on how and with whom they have sex, and they know they will get away with it because they got the funding behind them… No pun intended! Look how the US government has positioned itself to now pressure and influence our government and people to their new world agenda!

Thus I say, “Can the real bigots please stand up, please stand up..!”  Let the bigots seek to fire me if they are intolerant of my position and writing on this matter! Ha!

God forgive them because they do not know what they do, but expose the darkness of their hearts!

Related Articles

Share

About Author

(0) Readers Comments

Comments are closed.