Your recent articles on so-called homosexual violence are stunning for their flagrant infidelity to intellectual rigour, and, indeed, to even the most rudimentary precepts of journalism. In the first article entitled Gay man gouges out lover’s eyes, your reporter relies entirely on what the police told him to ground his conclusion that the alleged assailant and his victim were both homosexual, and that the attack was based on “jealous fit of rage”. Nowhere in the story is there any report of direct testimony from either of the parties, or an eyewitness.

Like many journalists, he appears to accept the police account of what occurred, without question. In the absence of any corroborating testimony from either of the parties or an eyewitness, an objective observer (pardon the pun) might be inclined to consider the writer’s conclusions about sexual orientation or the motive for the alleged attack as premature and lacking in forensic rigour…

The writer goes on to report that the alleged victim was “treated at the same hospital for a gunshot wound to his buttocks close to two months ago and created a stir when medical personnel attending to him had to remove a ‘G string’ underwear off him while treating the wound”. He further titillates his readers, stating that: “He nearly brought the house down when the doctors and nurses treating him had to remove a pink ‘G string’ off him.” This is tabloid journalism at its very worst. Even if this story is true, of what relevance is it to the story of the alleged victim having his eyes gouged out?

And really, is wearing G-string underwear really news? Would you report on the style of underwear of a female who has been attacked by her male spouse or boyfriend? The gratuitous juxtaposition of the gunshot wound with the eye-gouging, together with the salacious disclosure of his choice of underwear, reveals nothing more than undisguised editorial contempt for the victim, coupled with a malicious intent to publicly humiliate him…

And really, is wearing G-string underwear really news? Would you report on the style of underwear of a female who has been attacked by her male spouse or boyfriend? The gratuitous juxtaposition of the gunshot wound with the eye-gouging, together with the salacious disclosure of his choice of underwear, reveals nothing more than undisguised editorial contempt for the victim, coupled with a malicious intent to publicly humiliate him…

The Rev Aaron Dumas has fairly well-known anti-gay theology, in keeping with his faith. How then, does your writer come to rely on him as an expert on gay psychology and violence? He does not enlighten us on Mr Dumas’ credentials, other than to offer the bald assertion that Mr Dumas has counseled ‘troubled gays’? There is no indication that the writer made any effort to elicit the views of the gay community on anything relating to gay violence or indeed on the credentials of so-called experts like Mr Dumas.

For that matter, I’m not aware that the reporter made any effort to elicit the views of the broader human rights community. Instead, he is content to draw facile conclusions, such as: “Homosexual spin doctors in lobby groups such as Kingston-based Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All Sexuals & Gays (J-FLAG) and London-based Outrage! often attempt to deflect blame onto ‘homophobic’ Jamaicans, a ploy, critics suggest, to pressure the Government into relaxing anti-gay laws” and “Homosexual groups claim that there have been over 50 acts of fatal violence against their members in the last five years, although they failed to say how many of those were committed in their own camp”.

The intellectual dishonesty is breath-taking. When exactly did any of these groups claim that there had been over 50 murders against their members, and when exactly, did he interview any member of these groups? And if any of them ‘failed’ to say how many murders were committed by other homosexuals, did your writer inquire as to why they were unable to say?

…So at the end of the day, the writer starts and ends with the unsubstantiated premise that homosexuals are more prone to vicious acts of violence than non-homosexuals. Apart from speculation and innuendo, he relies on two clerics and a psychiatrist to support what amounts to no more than a deeply entrenched prejudice against, or aversion for, the gay community. There is not even the slightest attempt to incorporate the views of the gay community or human rights community. For me, that is not journalism; that’s propaganda.