1. Peter Nkosi
    Peter Nkosi at |

    “Journalist Dan Littauer reports on … ”
    I find it hard to believe anything written by Dan Littauer.
    In the never-ending crusade by the LGBT media to find issues to be angry about, Littauer wrote an article in which he put a deceitful spin on remarks made by the Zambian Vice-President. Further, he made a baseless, exaggerated statement on the attitude of Zambians to homosexuality.
    The Zambian VP was in Scotland in July. Responding to a question by a reporter regarding concerns over lack of LGBT rights in Zambia, Littauer quotes the VP thus:
    “Scotland introduced gay marriage last week, so therefore Zambia must suddenly? You weren’t complaining about it two weeks ago but now Zambia has to follow suit? It’s not right! It’s an unreasonable expectation. … Zambians care more about poverty, they care more about disease and care more about their children’s education, and that’s what we’re going to concentrate on.”
    Littauer distorts that into a “rebuke to”, and a “rejection of”, “the Scottish government’s support and call for LGBTI equality” in Scotland and other countries generally. In truth, there was no rejection of LGBT rights by the Zambian VP; he said simply that there are other, more pressing problems (such as health issues) which must be given priority in order to benefit a far larger section of the population than the small LGBT minority.
    In the same article, Littauer again spins deceitfully when he writes of a PEW report, allegedly published in April-2010:
    “A recent survey revealed that 98% of Zambians find homosexuality to be morally unacceptable”.
    The report cannot be found on the PEW website. If the survey was ever done in Zambia, then the simple question asked would have been the one always asked in such surveys:
    “Should homosexuality be accepted by society?”
    Let’s believe for the moment that 98% replied “No”. How on earth can Littauer distort that into “98% of Zambians find homosexuality to be morally unacceptable”?
    The real flaw in Littauer’s spin is that the question asked by PEW is not useful in finding out the attitude to homosexuality within a country, because it does not define what is meant by “accept” or “homosexuality”. For example, if people believe that homosexuality means that same-sex marriages should be allowed then they will answer “No”, even if they believe that consensual, same-sex acts should not be criminal offences, and so are (in fact) morally acceptable.
    Take anything written by Dan Littauer with a pinch or two of salt.
    (1) http://kaleidoscot.com/zambia-vice-president-rejects-scotlands-call-for-lgbti-equality/, published ~30-July-2014. No criticism of the article was allowed, despite an invitation from the publisher to post any.

    Reply

Leave a Reply