Two party leaders making fools of themselves when discussing gay rights in interviews


Ex-PR man David Cameron had a bit of a public relations disaster this week when messing up an interview with a journalist from Gay Times.

Trying to argue that the Conservatives are now gay-friendly, Cameron is embarrassed when he’s asked about the not very pro-gay rights voting record of Tory MEPs and he is forced to admit he does not know what they’ve been up to.

After saying he takes a firm line on supporting gay rights as human rights, he then gets himself in a muddle by trying to argue that he allows free votes on gay rights matters.

Watching him squirm and backtrack is cringeworthy. Not very polished, to say the least. And his committment to gay rights must be questioned.

Nick Griffinfuhrer of the BNP was also interviewed about gay rights this week. Iain Dale (himself gay) somewhat controversially decided to interview Nasty Nick.

The result is at once infuriating and entertaining.

Why is the BNP so anti gay?
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 hetrophobia 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.

Further evidence, if any was needed, that Griffin is a bigot, an idiot, and a nutter.



One Response to “Two party leaders making fools of themselves when discussing gay rights in interviews”

  1. moriahbethany Says:

    Wow, it’s baffling that there are people still left who continue to ignore gay marriage ban and the crusade against gay rights for what it is, one group of people trying to aviod giving another equal rights. How is this not obvious considering this countries history? One more thing, don’t use your kids as an excuse to discriminate. Kids don’t understand a lot of things, that’s why it’s your job as a parent to explain it to them. Yoy can’t model society to be a certain way just to avoid having these conversations with them. We should be teaching our kids to respect people not to bury their heads in the sand.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: