Exclusive: Nick Griffin claims to have made BNP more gay-friendly
British National Party leader Nick Griffin has admitted that he finds gays “creepy” and would ban civil partnerships – but claims he has removed the most homophobic elements from the party.
Mr Griffin spoke to Tory activist and blogger Iain Dale for Total Politics magazine and PinkNews.co.uk has been given exclusive extracts of unpublished parts of the interview.
He conceded that his party used to be “drastically” anti-gay but he now knows it has gay members, although he said it was a “don’t ask, don’t tell” situation.
Mr Griffin said of homosexuality: “It’s unfamiliar, it’s odd and I’m afraid it is creepy. Grown men kissing in public is creepy to most people. You don’t often see it but if you do see it, it’s not a matter of homophobia, it’s odd and you have to explain it to little kids and so on – that’s strange.
“We’re not anti-gay. I took over a party which had a total ban on homosexual members. We’ve got gay members now and people know who they are, but it’s don’t ask don’t tell.”
The BNP now claims to oppose the “promotion” of homosexuality in schools, rather than banning gay sex outright.
Mr Griffin, an MEP for the North-West of England, has been tipped as his party’s first MP. He is standing in Barking, which has more BNP councillors than any other local council.
He continued: “The simple fact is that the party that I took over had a policy of persecuting gays in the party, and was homophobic and also had a policy of re-imposing the 1968 ban on homosexuality.
“The position we have moved to which has taken some doing because there are people who didn’t like it, wouldn’t change the old reactionaries, the gays in denial.
“Different people fought it tooth and nail and accused me of all sorts of selling out and wondered: ‘Is he a fag himself?’
“We are now in a position where we simply say what people do in private amongst consenting adults is their affair and their affair only and that the state has no right to either have a window into men’s souls.”
Mr Griffin confirmed that if his party ever got into power, it would ban civil partnerships. But he said this was “not to do with wanting to persecute homosexuals”.
Instead, he said: “Marriage is only between a man and a women and ideally with kids.”
He claimed that it was “better if two gay men are in a stable relationship rather than cottaging all over the place”, but said that gay couples would have to “collateral damage” when protecting the family.
On gay adoption, he said that he would be “inclined to agree” with gay couples adopting, but only “if we reach the stage where there are so many children in children’s homes that you run out of would-be adopted ideal families”.
Interviewer Iain Dale brought up old rumours about Mr Griffin having once had a gay affair with former National Front leader Martin Webster.
Mr Dale said: “I am now going to ask you a question in which you are either not going to answer or hit me. I have seen videos on YouTube of Martin Webster, the former leader of the National Front, alleging that you and he had had some kind of affair which involved gay sex.”
Mr Griffin replied: “It is bullshit. It was an old trick.”
Mr Dale: “I have to say, it looked fairly convincing”
Mr Griffin answered: “Yeah, but it is balls.”
He continued: “When I and several other members of the National Front ousted him from his utterly dominant position, we did so, partly because it was creepy, when he would come and put his arm around you in the office and so on.
“And when you are 22 and straight, you don’t really like that. And you had no choice because he had all this power and so on. But that was a tiny fraction of it.
“Basically, he was a bully and not politically on message. He really was a racist bigot and so on, and a really crazed anti-Semite. So we got shot of him for organisational reasons.”
Mr Dale then asked: “Did that whole sort of thing colour your views on the subject of homosexuality in anyway?”
Mr Griffin replied: “Did it? I don’t know really. To say that people are condemned to hell because of the way that nature or God made them, that’s actually grotesque. That’s not right. But still I think the homosexuality thing is overplayed.”
Iain Dale interviewed BNP leader Nick Griffin in Barking for Total Politics Magazine. His full interview can be read at www.totalpolitics.com or in the April issue of Total Politics.
Read the transcript below:
Iain Dale: Why is the BNP so anti gay?
Nick Griffin: We’re not drastically anti-gay. We were, but it was just a reflection of white working class culture of the 70s and so on. Its unfamiliar, it’s odd and I’m afraid it is creepy. Grown men kissing in public is creepy to most people. You don’t often see it but if you do see it, it’s not a matter of homophobia, it’s odd and you have to explain it to little kids and so on – that’s strange. We’re not anti-gay. I took over a party which had a total ban on homosexual members. We’ve got gay members now and people know who they are, but it’s don’t ask don’t tell.
Why should it affect anything?
Because it does affect because of the actions of the militant gay lobby.
Who are about as insignificant as the number of terrorist Muslims…
All Muslims are not terrorists but all terrorists are Muslims and as for gays, not all gays are militant and want to shove it down everyone’s throats…
…so to speak…
Indeed. And force sex education on young children, and of course isn’t just a gay thing, it’s a leftist break up of the family. It’s Marxist in origin, but it’s the rainbow alliance of Marxists and gay activists and so on. There is a heterophobia amongst some of those people when they refer to us as ’breeders’ and so on.
Amongst about a quarter of a per cent.
I know its a very small number.
You are generalising…
…but you were asking where it came from and that’s where it came from. The simple fact is that the party that I took over had a policy of persecuting gays in the party, and was homophobic and also had a policy of re-imposing the 1968 ban on homosexuality. The position we have moved to which has taken some doing because there are people who didn’t like it, wouldn’t change the old reactionaries, the gays in denial. Different people fought it tooth and nail and accused me of all sorts of selling out and wondered: ‘is he a fag himself?’ We are now in a position where we simply say what people do in private amongst consenting adults is their affair and their affair only and that the state has no right to either have a window into men’s souls.
Would you reverse civil partnership legislation?
Yes, but that’s not to do with wanting to persecute homosexuals. Marriage is between a man and a woman and rearing their own children is not perfect but it’s the best model and basis for a society. So therefore, the civil partnership between a faithful stable and gay couple just as a civil partnership perhaps between two elderly sisters in terms of inheritance and so on, they have to be, regrettably be collateral damage, because you have to put the family above everything in order to say: this is what our society aspires to. Marriage is only between a man and a women and ideally with kids.
But a civil partnership isn’t a marriage.
I know it’s not but it’s part of the left’s war against marriage and the family. I find it hard to grasp people who are essential conservative with a small c who can’t get the point that most of what’s been done to our society been deliberately done by a hard core Marxist left who have infiltrated their ideas into all aspects of our society.
I accept that could be the case with some things but to normal people who just think stable relationships, whatever kind they are, are a good thing for society…
I agree it’s better if two gay men are in a stable relationship rather than cottaging all over the place.
So why can’t society recognise that?
Well perhaps you can recognise it in some way, but not by creating this bogus leftist alternative to marriage whose purpose is to help to break up the family. That’s the cause of the left.
It genuinely isn’t.
That’s where I believe it has come from and it has that effect.
If you believe that homosexuality is quote “curable” I would accept your argument, but if you believe that people are either born gay or their not then why should that group of people – and we are talking about who knows what the percentage is, say somewhere between five and ten per cent of the population – why should those people be disadvantaged by society from actually being recognised in stable relationships.
Because the effects of that are to devalue marriage.
No, you’re wrong. If you have a choice between a child being brought up in a children’s home or between two people of the same sex in a stable loving relationship then I would argue I would rather that child was brought up in the latter. Because I think they are more likely to emerge as a normal member of society than in a children’s home.
Yes. But it is not necessary to do that because there’s a huge number of straight couples who want to adopt kids who can’t or allowed to. There is a shortage. So therefore, if we reach the stage where there are so many children in children’s homes that you run out of would-be adopted ideal families, then I would be inclined to agree. But we are not at that stage. It is regrettable that it is collateral damage of the family.
I am now going to ask you a question in which you are either not going to answer or hit me. I have seen videos on YouTube of Martin Webster, the former leader of the National Front, alleging that you and he had had some kind of affair which involved gay sex.
It is bullshit. It was an old trick.
I have to say, it looked fairly convincing.
Yeah, but it is balls.
So you are not going to give me a Michael Portillo moment?
No, indeed I am not. It was an old trick. It’s to say: ‘Oh, that person I had an affair with them. It embarrasses or used to embarrass more straight people.’ It was quite often done. When I and several other members of the National Front ousted him from his utterly dominant position, we did so, partly because it was creepy, when he would come and put his arm around you in the office and so on. And when you are 22 and straight, you don’t really like that. And you had no choice because he had all this power and so on. But that was a tiny fraction of it. Basically, he was a bully and not politically on message. He really was a racist bigot and so on, and a really crazed anti-Semite. So we got shot of him for organisational reasons. But when we got shot of him we thought actually he was very old and we were very grown up. We were actually in our early 20s and he was about 35 at the peak of his powers and so on. He was ousted by a group of kids. We used to say the balls had just dropped. So he would never ever forgive those of us who ousted him from that position. So it is a good way to hit back. That’s where that came from.
You didn’t hit me.
No, it doesn’t bother me. I know what I am. I am perfectly comfortable.
Did that whole sort of thing colour your views on the subject of homosexuality in anyway?
Did it? I don’t know really. To say that people are condemned to hell because of the way that nature or God made them, that’s actually grotesque. That’s not right. But still I think the homosexuality thing is overplayed. I do think that, well, as a male, although obviously females can be wonderfully promiscuous and great fun. Nevertheless, wanton, rampant promiscuity is more of a male thing than a female thing. Therefore it is entirely logical that homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous but only because of the opportunities.
