Features — 30 May 2014

Recently I have heard the term “conflict of interest” wielded like an out of control sword and to me it seems that those wielding the sword were doing so with the intent to intimidate, injure, annihilate, behead and kill. If the sword will be used, those wielding it should know what they are talking about.

So I was on Open Your Eyes morning show and my eyes were surely opened to how, at all cost, my hosts, William and Marleni, defended the decision of UWI to unlawfully terminate Professor Bain. They couldn’t even hide their bias and came wielding but since I carry the armor of truth, I did not fear. What struck me was their lack of understanding of what is a conflict of interest, the court process, and what are truly human rights. It had me thinking if two intelligent persons have missed the mark, I wonder how many more either out of ignorance or mis-information are unable to see why so many of us support Professor Bain and will stand up to defend his rights!

Thus I thought it important this week to share some information, not expert opinion, but hard core facts based on knowledge and black and white.


William and Marleni said to me at different points and in different ways that Prof. Bain had to be removed because of the conflict of interest he was in. Therefore, the rationale was that said conflict was the reason for his termination. However, the UWI statement giving the reason for his dismissal stated: “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.” [emphasis mine]

I say, if the extremists of the MSM (men having sex with men) agenda, which is hitched on the gay-agenda, are going to convince us … they better get their story straight … oops, hope that is not offensive ….

It is important to let people know and appreciate what is a conflict of interest because it has its very own legal meaning and consequences. The issue of conflict of interest is so serious that at Section 121 of the Belize Constitution it addresses the code of conduct of public officials (example: members of the National Assembly, Belize Advisory Council, Public Services Commission, Elections and Boundaries Commission, public officers).

It is imperative that readers learn the definition of what is a conflict of interest. In my own layman’s terms I say it is when you are in some key power-position and you use that position to gain from it personally or for someone close to you. The free dictionary defines it as a: “term used to describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary.” http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conflict+of+interest

Thus my question is – what is the personal benefit Professor Bain gained from his testimony, did he get money out of it? Surely he lost more than he gained and yet he unknowingly risked it all, because he never would have imagined that the extremists were such bigots and intolerant and only talk about rights and equality but practice otherwise! Conflict of interest involves monetary gain: Prof. Bain obtained none of this, and rather he lost his job and salary.


The other issue is that my hosts clearly did not understand who was an expert witness and how they are dealt with. First and foremost, it needs to be clear that an expert witness can be called by both sides of an issue and their evidence can only be submitted with permission of the court. But more importantly, by Rule 32.8(1) of the Civil Procedure Rule (CPR), even the side that did not adduce an expert, can put questions to them. The expert can be ordered by the court on the application of the other side to produce a written expert report, be examined on the report, to file and serve the report.

If UNIBAM’s extremists really believed its own lies, that Prof. Bain’s expert evidence did not tell the whole story and mis-used the studies of other researchers, then it is their highfalutin attorneys who messed up. Part 32 of our CPR is clear on how they could have introduced their own expert, refuted the expert evidence of Prof. Bain and even made Prof. Bain disclose any other pertinent information that would have helped their case, even though he was called by the defendants (Government and Churches) in this case. All the extremists crying over the expert evidence by the expert witness need to go back to their attorneys and at the same time enlighten themselves of the process by which in court the extremists could have discredited Prof. Bain.

Now my opinion, and this is just an opinion, the reason they could not knock down Prof. Bain’s expert evidence that criminalizing or decriminalizing sodomy is not synonymous with reduced incidences of HIV/AIDS, is because they could not refute the truth. Plus, if they have all the studies that indeed show how amending the sodomy laws has decreased HIV/AIDS, especially amongst men having sex with men, why didn’t they bring their expert to present it? Surely such expert would have been sympathetic to their cause and gladly rally to their aid. Further, if they really want us to believe that the Lancet report was not disclosed in full, then they need to be informed by their attorneys that if Prof. Bain’s side did not disclose the documents, the medical research included, UNIBAM’s attorneys could have applied to the court to strike down his evidence…. But that did not happen. Thus my conclusion is, it could not happen because Prof. Bain’s team of attorneys fulfilled their duty to disclose… and so all material is before the courts.

My take is that if UNIBAM and their smart-ass attorneys (no pun intended) wanted to go after Prof. Bain, the more credible forum would have been how they refuted and discredited his evidence in court, not how they showed the darkness of their hearts and ruthless and vindictive nature towards anyone who is not in bed with them, oops, no pun intended again!


It is rather interesting that UNIBAM had the opportunity and legal muscle to use the courts to deal with Prof. Bain but did not or could not, so they felt so hurt by his great work that they needed to publicly humiliate him for daring to stand up. So when it was convenient they came to the courts to present a case against our government and laws, but that same court that they could have used to challenge the evidence of Prof. Bain was not used. I propose, therefore, that UNIBAM is not about justice, rights and equality, but about spite and might and the move against Prof. Bain is to send a message of power, dominion, supremacy and intimidation to anyone with whom they are least pleased. It did not matter that the good professor worked tirelessly to help the very men having sex with men to deal with HIV/AIDS at a time when the stigma was grave and he fought to make positive changes regional for ALL people with AIDS. There were never any complaints of discrimination or ill-treatment to these men, but rather Dr. Bernard Bulwer, his student, wrote: “Dr. Bain led the effort to rescue and give hope to those infected with HIV and afflicted with AIDS, which at the time were mainly MSM [men having sex with men]…To me it is a very sad day when this very professor Bain who gave his life … and life-giving therapies and programs that especially benefit some of the very people who have called for his head, is now so publicly vilified.”


I personally view the acts by UNIBAM and its sister organizations led by US funding as a form of intimidation against our judiciary… This assault on a witness is equivalent to the behavior of the street criminals who intimidate and kill witnesses so the case against them cannot be proven. I am even more concerned that this act is to bring pressure on the Chief Justice, who to date has not rendered his ruling and should be of a free and clear mind as he deliberates. If this is the intolerance towards the witness who only gave evidence, could you imagine what powers would be brought against the judge who rules against them? And remember, the men having sex with men are in government: they decide which judge gets appointed and not. They are also backed by the US Embassy, which has enough ammunition to pressure any corrupt government into getting rid of what the Prime Minister’s wife calls “homophobes.” In addition, the US government, which is pushing the gay agenda, is sending the big stick in the person of their new Ambassador, who is a crusader for the gay agenda under the guise of human rights.

UWI in its statement said: “CHART is not a department of the UWI but a regional project managed by the University under a contract funded by … and a group of US agencies”. How much more clear do they need to be for us to get the coup being carried out by the new world power and world order? CHART’s service is to “train health workers dealing with patients and communities affected by HIV/AIDS,” yet it was not the health workers who lost confidence in Prof. Bain … how people stretch things when they want to justify their wrongs! For those not falling within the ranks of the extremists, they can clearly see the bullying, intimidation, arrogance and air of superiority. It has been so brazen that even some guy claiming to be gay by the name of Orozco, posted the following on Facebook; “What this case shows is an opportunity for all these individuals who hold such strong beliefs that I may disagree with, to take heed…” as he supported the termination of Professor Bain.

Crushing Human Rights!

The entire country and region indeed need to take heed, because the basic human right of Prof. Bain was crushed so as to promote a choice disguised as a human right. The extremists have hijacked the human-rights agenda and while nowhere in the Magna Carta or the Constitution of Belize it says that how and with whom you have sex with is a right, the whole focus is to find how to squeeze it in as a human right, to gain support and traction and eventually amend the Constitution to add a new human right. Those close to the inside of the agenda say the ultimate goal is same-sex marriages and adoption of children. But while sodomy, homosexuality, etc. is billed as a right every human has, the truth is, no true human right would contradict with other rights, but rather they would complement each other.

If to promote MSM as a human right makes it necessary to remove a person’s right to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience and right to work, then something is amiss here. Looking at Section 16 of the Belize Constitution it is unequivocal about your right not to be discriminated against based on “sex, race, place of origin, political opinions, colour or creed,” yet Professor Bain has been discriminated against for his “political” opinion in his area of expertise. As a result he has been denied his Constitutional right to work, because his job was taken away by the extremists; he has been denied his freedom of conscience and his freedom of speech. Look out! This is just the start as the extremists of the lgbt flex their muscle to silence and discriminate against anyone not towing the line.

God bless Belize!

Related Articles


About Author

(0) Readers Comments

Comments are closed.