Prof Bain's vindication: A vital lesson for the religious, especially


Thursday, August 10, 2017

Print this page Email A Friend!

Right after news broke of Professor Brendan Bain's dismissal from his post at The University of the West Indies (UWI) years ago I lashed the committee in an intended newspaper column thus, “When a UWI group behaves the way Professor Nigel Harris's committee has behaved, then it is just possible they are all afflicted with the other AIDS virus — Acquired Integrity Deficiency Syndrome… Why this broadside against my intellectual superiors? Well, it seems to me, having read Bain's report to the Belize court, that The UWI committee surrendered logic to political correctness.”

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in Bain's favour and slapped The UWI for breaching the esteemed scientist's right of freedom of expression, we dare not miss an easily overlooked point.

The right to freedom of expression has little if anything to do with the accuracy or probative value of the expression — except, of course, where the expression can cause harm or detriment to the person or rights of others.

Fearing that the paragraph above was just my unlearned, even crazy musings I sent it to three lawyer friends asking if it was accurate or correctly worded. [By the way, as a pastor I tell the people I serve that I am half-crazy so they should feel free to question me after any sermon or Bible study].

Now I know that I am asking you to take it by faith that the quotations below are real. I have not given the names simply because I did not seek their permission to quote them, though they know I was preparing this article.

One said succinctly, “Apparently it can even be offensive and distasteful. Just not defamatory.” Another advised: “Perhaps it should be rephrased to say that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression does not also mean that what is said needs to be either factually accurate or even intelligible.”

The third, a lecturer in law, counselled: “Yes, the freedom of expression should not harm the reputation of others, but there are other restrictions as well. I encourage you to look at the restrictions carefully. For example, assume I am in a crowded cinema and I shout 'fire'. If there is no fire, I am acting contrary to law. If there is a fire, I am not. This example could be covered by your general statement, but I do not think persons reading your sentence would be guided clearly on the point.”

So then, here is my vital lesson for conservative Evangelicals (such as I am) and other religious folk, especially.

You can't defensibly celebrate Professor Brendan Bain's freedom of expression yet demonise others (like Bishop Howard Gregory and President Garnett Roper) when they exercise their right to freedom of expression in a view with which you disagree.

So, taking the informed guidance of my lawyer friends I can say freedom of expression gives one the right to freely express what may be factually incorrect (if no one can be harmed by the error) and even logically flawed in argumentation.

To put it more bluntly, one could say you are free to be foolish in your expression as long as your expression is not likely to cause anyone any harm.

Being no lawyer, I see the legal notion of 'freedom of expression' [broader by the way than 'freedom of speech', a fact I learned from reading the judgement in Bain's case] as conceptual freedom, freedom to express ideas that are not likely to injure anyone or trample on the rights of anyone.

I hope we religious folk, especially, learn this vital lesson from the Bain experience. As before, I beg religious leaders to encourage critical thinking among members of their worship centres.

Rev Clinton Chisholm is a minister of religion and scholar. Send comments to the Observer or to




1. We welcome reader comments on the top stories of the day. Some comments may be republished on the website or in the newspaper � email addresses will not be published.

2. Please understand that comments are moderated and it is not always possible to publish all that have been submitted. We will, however, try to publish comments that are representative of all received.

3. We ask that comments are civil and free of libellous or hateful material. Also please stick to the topic under discussion.

4. Please do not write in block capitals since this makes your comment hard to read.

5. Please don't use the comments to advertise. However, our advertising department can be more than accommodating if emailed:

6. If readers wish to report offensive comments, suggest a correction or share a story then please email:

7. Lastly, read our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy

comments powered by Disqus



Today's Cartoon

Click image to view full size editorial cartoon