Hat tip to Ryan Cullen for pointing out an interview by Nick Griffin in the Lincolnshire Echo.
Some selective points from this interview will suffice to illustrate why this man and his party should be opposed at all costs. VK is the journalist and NG is Nick Griffin
VK: Our problem in Lincoln is mostly car traffic, because we don't have big lorries travelling through the city. So, have you got any ideas for reducing rush hour congestion?
NG: On policies like that, once you get into the minute detail, there has to be a fair degree of consensus between the parties. You can have minor tweaking, such as allowing more flexi-time - which would at least help. But then you come back to the big, overall picture, which is where we become politically incorrect, and that's that the native population of these islands, the Scots, Irish and Welsh, is in slow decline.
VK: When you said about people in need, what about footballers? Lincoln is obviously quite a proud footballing city. There would be a huge number of Lincoln City fans, and Boston United fans, asked to vote for a BNP candidate in Lincoln City Council. But obviously foreign players are quite a big part of that. Would they be allowed over to work?
NG: BNP policy would go far further than that. We wouldn't allow any football team to have anyone who wasn't born, or hadn't been living for a period of time, in their own area. So Manchester United couldn't come here and steal really good players. We'd totally localise football. Big money has ruined football.
VK: I did want to ask you about that. The local BNP group have called a meeting because a church in Lincoln is being converted into a mosque. Do you have a particular opinion on that? Why are the BNP involved?
NG: We have a particular opinion on it, for a number of reasons. Firstly, everywhere this is done in the country it acts as a magnet and a boost to further Islamification. Secondly. no-one locally ever wants these things. But they are bulldozed through by the local council and so on, but that's not local democracy. The wishes of local people should be paramount in decisions such as this.
VK: How do you know people living in Boultham Park Road don't want the mosque there? Instead of a derelict church building?
NG: Because we know from good experience, and the petitions we have had up and down the county. It’s an extremely hot issue. People simply do not want mosques in their area.
VK: Are you convinced that is all people?
NG: Yes, yes. The only person that wants a mosque is sometimes a vicar, whose church is totally empty - who thinks its just another version of God and it would do rather nicely if it became a mosque. No ordinary people want mosques in their own areas. Partly because it's just a symbol of something very strange and very foreign. Secondly, they have read enough of the tabloid newspapers to have an idea of what Islam is about, and to have grave concerns about it. And they see it as part of a creeping colonisation of their area. The natural reaction of a non-brainwashed population is to react against colonisation.
VK: You talk about brainwashing, but do you think the people who are opposed to Islam might only be thinking about extremists? Rather than realising that the majority of Muslims practice in a peaceful way?
Muslims don't understand Koran
NG: The majority of Muslims follow the Koran. They practice in a peaceful way until there is enough of them to get their way by force. And then they switch to using force. It's in the Koran. It's nothing extreme. It's simply what the Koran tells you to do. And what historically they do do.
VK: Just to be completely clear, you think all Muslims practice in a peaceful way until they are strong enough together to turn to extremism?
NG: The majority of Muslims don't really understand what's in the Koran. Traditionally it's in Arabic. None of them read Arabic. And most of them don't have any translation, they don't actually know what is in it. But once they do know what is in it, knowing perfectly well the theories in the Koran, which repeatedly tell Muslims that it's their job to Islamify the world. They do it by persuasion if they can, by force if they can't. But they don't start to use force until they get to ten per cent of the population. At which stage they are encouraged by Allah to use force to impose their views and their religion on their non-Muslim neighbours. It's just in the Koran. It's just the nature of the beast.
VK: So you think the conversion of a derelict church is imposing Islam on people who live in Lincoln? Even though we are talking about a corrugated iron, listed, building that can't be pulled down, but has fallen into disrepair? Which is now going to be used, once again, for worship. Which was its original purpose?
NG: No, it's original purpose was to be used for Christian worship, not to be used for the Islamification of another part of this country.
VK: If everybody who lives in that street goes to that meeting and says, yes, they are fully behind the conversion of that building - will you then change your mind?
NG: No, we will continue to oppose it, if we had councillors elected. We would continue to oppose it. But, obviously, if they turn out to be the only place in Britain where the natives actually welcome this thing, well, that would be odd. But we will respect their wishes and carry on trying to persuade them they are wrong.
VK: Do you have a particular perspective on homosexuality? We have a thriving gay community in Lincoln.
NG: Our position on homosexuality is that it is something that happens, it's not the norm for society. We believe in a stronger Clause 28 so we will put homosexuality back in the closet. What people do in their own homes, and so on, is entirely their own affair. We've got no problem or interest in that. But it shouldn't be presented as normal. It shouldn't be taught to children in schools, particularly primary school children, which is the latest insanity. The homosexual community, well, they can either vote for us or not, but in the end, the present legal system in this country won't last for much longer. They will have a choice between our position of pushing them gently but firmly back in the closet or the fundamentalist Islamic position which is to stone them to death. In the end they will have a choice like that.
Perverse and repulsive
VK: I have a quote here. I don't know if it is rightly attributed to you. It was written in 1999 and I'm sure you have had it quoted back at you many times: 'TV footage of dozens of gay demonstrators flaunting their perversions in front of the world's journalists showed just why so many people find these creatures repulsive.' Is that rightly attributed?
NG: It's an accurate quote, yes.
VK: It's an accurate quote?
VK: Do you still stand by those terms? The gay community would probably be unimpressed.
NG: Well, as I say, we respect their right to do whatever they want and they must also respect the fact that there are millions of ordinary people, particularly people with young kids and so on, who find what they do, when they do it in public, repulsive.
VK: What do you think about civil partnerships?
NG: I think they are entirely wrong. They undermine the value of marriage and marriage is the best way to bring up kids. One man, one woman, bringing up children. Married couples stay together longer because they have more commitment. Since that is good for society, things which are divided are bad for society, so civil partnerships are something we put in the politically correct litter bin with the rest of it.
VK: But if you take away civil partnerships, it doesn't mean gay people will get married? They won't suddenly stop being gay?
NG: No, but it's also a matter of tax and so on. The tax breaks should be for married, heterosexual couples - not for anybody else.
VK: But gay people still have to pay the same taxes as everybody else so why shouldn't they have the same benefit?
NG: Because they are not the ones rearing kids. They are not the ones helping to bring on the next generation. They are not the ones making the sacrifice for the next generation. For the next generation to be at it should rely, or be able to rely, on decent, stable family backgrounds. We have to discriminate in favour of the family and that means discriminating against people such homosexual couples who are ruining families.
VK: But what do you think about homosexual adoption?
NG: It shouldn't be allowed.
VK: What about the 4,000 children who are waiting to be adopted in this country? Some of them will never be adopted.
NG: There's an enormous shortage of kids for adoption in this country, such that people are having to go to third world nurseries for kids.
VK; There is not a shortage of kids for adoption. NG: There is. VK: There are 4,000 children awaiting adoption. The British Association for Fostering and Adoption has been pleading for more people to adopt British children, because so many people think it is easier to adopt abroad. There is a shortage of people willing to adopt children. There will be some children who won't be adopted. Now, do you think it is better for them to be adopted by gay couples, or be left on the waiting list, which would be the case?
NG: They are better on the waiting list than being adopted by a gay couple.
At this point the tape ends. Nick Griffin then expresses his view that gay adoption is also wrong because incidences of paedophilia are more common among gay people. They are less likely to be prosecuted, he says, because of political correctness. The fact that paedophilia is more common among gay people is a scientific, not a criminal? Fact he says, but he honestly cannot remember where he heard it.