General
‘Anti-White’ Scottish First Minister Quits After Disastrous ‘Hate Crime Law’
Scotland’s leader Humza Yousaf resigned on Monday, quitting as head of the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) after scrapping a coalition agreement with Scotland’s Greens. He then failed to secure enough support to survive votes of no confidence against him expected later this week.
Yousaf, born to Pakistani immigrants in Glasgow, built an infamous reputation as a woke activist politician going into the 2023 elections. His rabid pro-immigration stance and consistent arguments in favor of DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) should have been a red flag to the Scottish public; however, with an increasingly progressive voting population Yousaf narrowly scored a victory. Here is Humza in 2020, giving a speech admonishing the “whiteness” of the Scottish government.
At the beginning of 2024 the former First Minister sought to launch a pro-migrant propaganda campaign, claiming that open immigration policies lead to economic benefits for Scotland. Of course, as with all politicians that make this assertion, he offered no concrete statistics to support the theory.
Beyond his insistence on going against the growing public opposition in Scotland to more migrants being allowed into the country, Yousaf’s biggest mistake was the passage of his now wildly unpopular “Hate Crime Act.” The law which recently went into effect criminalized many forms of speech including criticism or skepticism of gender fluid theory and trans identity. Misgendering and misuse of a trans person pronouns could now land a Scottish citizen in jail.
In response, the Scottish public flooded law enforcement agencies with fake calls accusing various trans activists and even political leaders of various hate crimes. Police were so overwhelmed by the paperwork that any effort to enforce the law has ground to a halt.
As we have detailed again and again (here, here, and here), his hate-crime law was an utter disaster — that everyone saw coming — and before his resignation, just 29 per cent of Scottish National Party voters believe Yousaf is doing a good job, while 36 per cent think he has been poor in office.
Consequently, Yousaf’s popularity among his own voters is now minus seven, down from plus 14 in January, a massive drop.
As we have highlighted, under the new ‘hate crime’ legislation, anyone deemed to have been verbally ‘abusive’, in person or online, to a transgender person, including “insulting” them could be hit with a prison sentence of up to seven years.
As a reminder, Police received 8000 ‘hate crime’ complaints in just the first week of the law coming into play, equating to more than the annual total of all hate crime reports for all previous years.
The number is on course to out number the total of all other offences combined.
Calum Steele, the former general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, declared that officers “are genuinely embarrassed,” adding that “They feel that the service and by extension [they] as individual police officers will catch some of the public brunt.”
The hate crime law received backlash from every corner of the UK, including from more liberal personalities like Harry Potter author JK Rowling.
…and now, he’s gone!
In an emotional address, Yousef said:
“While a route through this week’s motion of no confidence was absolutely possible, I am not willing to trade my values and principles or do deals with whomever simply for retaining power.
“Therefore, after spending the weekend reflecting on what is best for my party, for the government and for the country I lead I have concluded that repairing our relationship across the political divide can only be done with someone else at the helm.
“I have therefore informed the SNP’s national secretary of my intention to stand down as party leader and ask that she commences a leadership contest for my replacement as soon as possible.”
His decision comes two days after expressly denying that he would resign.
Alister Jack, the Scottish Secretary, said Humza Yousaf made the right decision to resign as Scotland’s First Minister. The Tory Cabinet minister said:
“It was the right thing for the First Minister to resign.
“Humza Yousaf’s leadership has lurched from crisis to crisis from the very start, and he could not command the confidence of the Scottish Parliament.”
But, amid the political division in his coalition, as The Telegraph‘s Gordon Rayner says “Humza Yousaf’s hate crime and trans laws will be his divisive legacy“.
In truth, the public never wanted Mr. Yousaf as First Minister: opinion polls before his election consistently showed that Kate Forbes, his socially conservative rival for the leadership, was far more popular with both SNP supporters and voters as a whole.
…
Chemerinsky: “Anti-Semitism is not taken as seriously as other kinds of prejudice”
On the other hand, Chemerinsky, Blackman and their co-ethnics as well as other non-Whites are a main drivers of anti-White hate but it’s inconceivable that such Jews would admit to any responsibility in creating this multicultural morass. As always, they see the world only in terms of what’s good for the Jews. And seeing the obvious double standard on hatred of Whites versus hatred of Jews or having any criticism of how Israel has treated the Palestinians is completely out of bounds.
Overall, though, this experience has been enormously sad. It made me realize how anti-Semitism is not taken as seriously as other kinds of prejudice. If a student group had put up posters that included a racist caricature of a Black dean or played on hateful tropes about Asian American or LGBTQ people, the school would have erupted—and understandably so. But a plainly anti-Semitic poster received just a handful of complaints from Jewish staff and students.
Chemerinsky is exactly right. The double standard is painful, but utterly unsurprising for anyone who has studied anti-semitism. And if silence is violence, there was a bloodbath in what was once Boalt Hall. The fact that only Jewish staff and students complained about the poster demonstrates the problems with the DEI industrial complex: only certain types of diversity are to be promoted. Jews with any attachment to the Jewish state need not apply. And forget ideological diversity.
In every generation, there is anti-semitism. 1619 was four centuries ago, but Jewish oppressions stretches back to the beginning of recorded history. Yet Jewish people will never fit into the DEI intersectional hierarchy. The aftermath of October 7 reveals that anti-semitism is always present; it just manifests in different forms.
In December I wrote:
Regrettably, as soon as Israel was established, the millennia-long train of anti-semitism simply morphed into its latest manifestation: anti-Zionism. They don’t hate all Jews, they just oppose all Jews who seek to protect the the only speck on planet Earth devoted for their protection. This doctrine was dressed up in all the academic garb of Marxism, anti-colonialism, and critical racial studies. Anti-Zionism was championed by elite academics on campuses. DEI apparatchiks, ostensibly hired to promote equity, reified the anti-Zionist trope. Students, who are woefully unfamiliar with world history, see the children of the Holocaust as just another oppressor. And, as they are taught, any act of resistance against the oppressors is not only justified, but necessary. The right type of violence demands silence.
What lessons will Chemerinsky and other progressives draw from this experience? Will they reflect on how spending countless hours and dollars on DEI yielded nothing but crickets? Or will they realize that DEI enables and emboldens these students to engage in such antisemitic activity? …
Perhaps a dim feeling among Jews that all their activism on behalf of multiculturalism is not good for the Jews.
Voter fraud in the 2020 election
If there’s one thing the mainstream media knows, it’s that the 2020 election was the most honest, secure election in American history. A contrary view from Justin Haskins of the Heartland Institute, interviewed by Tucker:
Tucker It’s now apparently a criminal offense, a felony in this country, to suggest the 2020 presidential campaign was not on the level. That crime appears to form the basis of one of Donald Trump’s pending indictments. He’s an election denier. But actually it’s worth denying the legitimacy of that election because it was not fair. Critical information was withheld from voters through censorship and yes, by the government. That is a fact. It’s also a fact that Mark Zuckerberg spent $400 million to control voting in various places around the country and affect the outcome. That’s not legitimate. It was also conducted in many places through electronic voting machines, and no country should ever use electronic voting machines because fundamentally they cannot be trusted. Why would you trust it? But then there’s the question of outright cheating. Voter fraud. Was there voter fraud? Well, we know there was some. But was it widespread? That is a hard allegation to prove, though of course, many people believe there was widespread fraud. Well, now it turns out we know for a fact that there was. And in fact, it can be proven with a poll. Just ask people, did you personally commit voter fraud? Well, that has just been done. And the answer is a huge percentage of people asked in the poll admitted, yes, I committed voter fraud. It’s remarkable. Justin Haskins is a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute. He joins us now with details. Justin, thanks so much for coming on. If you could just start by giving us the results, the shocking results of this poll, and we’ll go from there.
Justin Haskins Sure. So it was pretty straightforward. We asked people, a series of questions. The first of which is or one of the first questions was, did you vote in, the 2020 election? And did you vote with an absentee ballot? And if they answered yes to both of those questions, then we asked a bunch of questions related to voter fraud. We didn’t tell them that we were asking, did you commit voter fraud? We just asked them about various behavior. So, for example, we asked, people, did you vote in a state where you’re no longer a legal resident? That’s a pretty straightforward question. If you’re not a permanent resident of a state, you can’t vote there. 17% of people, nearly 1 in 5 said yes, they did do that. We asked people, did you fill out a ballot for someone else on their behalf? That’s also illegal. You’re not allowed to fill out someone else’s ballot. 21% of people said yes to that question. We asked if people forged the signature of a friend or family member on their behalf, with or without their permission. We actually put that in the poll question, and 17% of people said yes to that. So all told, it’s at least and I say at least 1 in 5 Mail-In ballots involved some kind of fraudulent activity. But we didn’t just stop there. We also asked everyone whether they voted via mail in ballot or not. So in-person voting as well. Do you know anyone who personally in your personal life, a friend, a family member, acquaintance? Someone from work? Has anyone ever admitted to you that they did one of these kinds of forms of voter fraud? And 10% and 11%. We asked two different questions on that said yes. People admitted to me that they committed voter fraud. And so when you take 1 in 5, if we just take the 1 in 5 Mail-In ballots could be related to fraud, and you apply that to the numbers of the 2020 election, which included more mail in voting than at any point in the history of the United States of America. What you end up with is potentially 13 million fraudulent mail in ballots. And, to put that in perspective, Donald Trump lost the election in the popular vote by about 7 million ballots. So this is a massive, massive story. If it if this poll is reflective of reality, it is proof that the 2020 election results can’t be trusted.
Tucker I mean, my head is spinning. So and I’m assuming I don’t know if you asked, but I think it would be fair to assume that most of these people who answered in the affirmative are Democrats.
Justin Haskins Well, it would be fair to assume that I think based on certain, things that we’ve learned in the past. But actually, what we found was that the voter fraud was, about equal between self-identified Republicans and Democrats. However, and this is really important to keep in mind, we don’t have enough data to statistically, determine that that’s a really solid, accurate result because you’re now digging really deep into the polling data and the sample size is getting smaller and smaller. But let’s say that’s true. And it was equal, let’s say Democrats and Republicans committed fraud at equal rates. Actually, that’s not the most important consideration because Joe Biden depended extremely heavily on Mail-In ballots, even if the fraud were equal between Republicans and Democrats. It would hurt Joe Biden. It would not hurt Donald Trump in terms of his ability to win elections. So, assuming the fraud was equal between Republicans and Democrats, if you just take the poll and you apply it to the election data that we have about the 2020 election, Donald Trump would win in all six of the swing states that he lost to Joe Biden in 2020, which means the wrong person is in the white House right now if this poll is accurate.
Tucker Pardon my bad memory, but how dependent was Joe Biden on Mail-In ballots?
Justin Haskins Well, it varied from state to state, but generally speaking, he, had twice as many Mail-In ballots vote for him than than Donald Trump did. And in some states, like say, Pennsylvania, for example, the ratio was something like 70% to 20 something percent in favor of Joe Biden. So without those ballots, Joe Biden would not win that.
Tucker I mean, that right there without your poll, which I think is a conversation changer. Forever, I hope. You have to ask, why would Joe Biden have a natural advantage in Mail-In ballots? I mean, honestly, like, what is that if fraud is playing no part here.
Justin Haskins Yeah, I.
Tucker I mean, does anything else explain that?
Justin Haskins It makes absolutely no sense. No, no, I mean, it doesn’t make any sense, especially in a state where the election is split pretty close to 50/50. You might see slight variations in voting behavior based on party affiliation in the past. That’s something that we’ve seen, but we’ve never seen anything like a 70/30 split, 75/25 split. You just don’t see that.
Tucker Well, especially since Republicans are statistically more likely to have jobs and less free time than Democrats. I mean, much less in far higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans are not working and taking state aid, for example. So and presumably the idea behind mail in ballots is people are just like too busy. I’m working at my job. I don’t have time to go to the polling place or whatever. Right. I mean, I don’t see any other logical explanation other than theft. How how is this age?
Justin Haskins Age and disability is also a big part of it.
Tucker So how would I mean, and.
Justin Haskins Republicans are more likely to be older.
Tucker This seems like a huge deal. So I mean, what’s the response been?
Justin Haskins Well, from from the right, from conservatives, the response at least most conservatives, the response has been, I mean, this is a game changer. This is one of the biggest stories of of the year, for sure. Donald Trump himself has said it’s the biggest story of the year. It’s one of the biggest polls in the last 20 years, he said. And I think that that’s exactly right. We should be asking questions. We should be launching investigations. The sad thing about all of this is that the mainstream press doesn’t care. They don’t even care enough to talk about it, to refute it. They don’t care because they got the result that they wanted, which was Joe Biden in the white House. And anyone who dared to ask questions about that has been labeled a conspiracy theorist, an insurrectionist, a person who doesn’t deserve to have a platform of any kind. And you can’t have a free society like that. And now we’re seeing, as we’ve seen with so many other stories like Covid, the origins of Covid, for example, or whether lockdowns were a good idea, people initially who questioned the validity of the election were targeted, and their lives in some cases were destroyed, the careers were destroyed, they were attacked. And now we’re finding out that all you had to do was just ask people. You just had to do the very basics of journalism, which is to ask questions and seek the truth. Just ask people, hey, did you do this thing? Did you did you do this thing you weren’t supposed to do? Did you vote in a state where you’re no longer a permanent resident? I mean, did you fill someone else’s ballot out for them? You’re not supposed to do that. Did you do that? No one in the media establishment, on the left, especially, but in much of the on the right as well, didn’t even bother to ask the question. We just assumed that, no, that couldn’t possibly have happened, even though obviously the opportunity for fraud was there. And so I think the bigger story here really, in many ways, is it’s not that that Joe Biden is president, when Donald Trump should probably be president. That’s a massive story. But the biggest story is, can we trust the media at all to tell us the truth, or to even bother to ask questions when an important story like this comes up? And I think the answer is obviously, as you know, and as many of your viewers now know, we can’t. And how can you have a free society like that?
Tucker Well, it’s of course not a free society anymore. So the New York Times never wrote about this?
Justin Haskins No. The New York Times, the only major left wing media outlet. And I say left wing, meaning establishment media outlet that covered it was the Washington Post which wrote, an article, very quickly without taking it very seriously, saying essentially, hey, you can’t trust anything that these crazy people at The Heartland Institute do or Rasmussen Reports, these people are far right wing extremists and election deniers, etc., and so don’t listen to them. And they were the only ones, not literally nobody else, as far as I’m aware, on the left has talked about this.
Tucker It’s just, it’s really. Well, I continue to think it’s one of the most amazing things I’ve ever heard. They admitted it. No one had ever asked them until you did. Justin Haskins of Heartland Institute, thank you for joining us.
Justin Haskins Thanks, Tucker.
Tucker Interviews Jeremy Carl on Anti-White Racism
Of course it’s not the analysis I would like to see, but it will help a lot of people wake up to the obvious reality.
Ep. 98 There is systemic racism in the United States, against whites. Everyone knows it. Nobody says it. How come? pic.twitter.com/hSrU9BPVb4
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) April 24, 2024
Comparing ‘insurrections’: J6 vs. George Floyd riots
Yet they never describe 2020 riots – sparked mainly by the Minneapolis police’s killing of George Floyd – as insurrections. Then again, they should.
Though insurrection is defined nowhere in the U.S. Code, it’s a federal crime (18 U.S. Code §2383):
“Whoever incites … assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against … the U.S. or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined … or imprisoned … and shall be incapable of holding any office under the U.S.”
Interestingly, Special Counsel Jack Smith hasn’t charged former President Trump or any J6 participant with insurrection.
J6, consequently, wasn’t an insurrection.
The Constitution’s 14th Amendment, Section 3, is similar to federal law. But it bars only past/present officials who’ve committed insurrection – possibly including presidents – from occupying any federal/state/city public office.
Colorado and Illinois courts and a Maine official cited that section in seeking to dump Donald Trump from their states’ GOP primaries.
On March 4, the U.S. Supreme Court shot them down: States cannot use Section 3 to disqualify federal candidates.
As to whether Trump had perpetrated insurrection, SCOTUS was silent.
The 2020 insurrections
Webster’s defines insurrection as “an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.” Others say an insurrection must involve violence.
Regardless, given their countless thousands of anti-government acts/instances, 2020’s coast-to-coast, typically left-of-center George Floyd and similar riots qualify as insurrections:
Assaults on police and others, property and business destruction, vandalism, looting, arson, firebombings, laser attacks, blockades, occupations, shootings, and homicides.
Among the targets: The White House and other federal buildings.
Bloodbaths aptly describes 2020’s clashes.
In 1992, then-Attorney General Bill Barr used the Insurrection Act and National Guard to quell riots that followed Rodney King’s beating by L.A. police. If those were insurrections, so were 2020’s riots.
Though the 2020 uprisings occurred chiefly from May 26 through early June, sporadic violence persisted for months. Most George Floyd protesters, nevertheless, were nonviolent.
So were the vast majority of J6 protesters.
2020 versus January 6
While J6’s losses topped out at $2.7 million, 2020’s toll rivals that of a war: $1-2 billion.
2020’s mega-mayhem also eclipsed J6’s invasion as measured by the numbers of violent individuals, arrests, injuries and deaths.
Comparing 2020 to J6, RealClearInvestigations found “15 times more injured police officers, 19 times as many arrests.”
Yet, “authorities have pursued … Capitol [J6] rioters with substantially more vigor than [ 2020 rioters].”
Moreover, “In most of a dozen major jurisdictions, 90%+ of [2020’s] citations/charges” were dropped/dismissed/not filed.
New York and other cities allowed hundreds of 2020’s alleged looters/lawbreakers to escape prosecution.
In contrast, more than three years later, the feds remain consumed with hunting down J6 lawbreakers.
Why hasn’t Jack Smith prosecuted J6 persons for insurrection?
One possibility: The feds and even states might then feel compelled to slap insurrection charges on 2020’s lawbreakers.
That would trigger meltdowns among the rioters’ media backers and, possibly, more bloodbaths.
Our politically venomous justice system resembles that of a third-world you-know-what.
Giving aid and comfort
Those who equipped the 2020 insurrectionists with bricks, bats, bottles, bolt cutters, blinding lasers and Molotov cocktails unequivocally gave them “aid or comfort.”
Among others vulnerable to the same charge:
- DAs who rapidly and recklessly released arrestees back onto the streets.
- Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan. She hailed the illegal, destructive CHAZ/CHOP occupation of the city’s Capitol Hill as a “Summer of Love” and “block party” and let it remain.
- Massachusetts attorney general, now Gov. Maura Healey. The day after Boston’s riots, she seemingly encouraged more lawlessness: “Yes, America is burning, but that’s how forests grow.”
U.S. Code or the 14th Amendment would bar such individuals, if convicted, from holding federal, state, and/or city offices.
But didn’t J6 spring from appalling election lies whereas 2020 was prompted by police brutality against, and social justice for, blacks?
Questioning is not a crime
Activists in 2020 were entitled to be angered by images of Officer Chauvin’s knee on George Floyd’s neck. Indeed, a jury convicted Chauvin of murder in 2021.
Objective observers also know that police abuse, crime, coverups and corruption occur too often.
J6 demonstrators and many Americans were similarly entitled to believe that 2020’s presidential election and race were marred by extensive fraud and government misconduct. Just ask Hillary Clinton and Georgia’s Stacey Abrams about their own election critiques.
Electoral mischief is, after all, an American tradition. And voter rolls are intentionally out-of-date and thus illegal.
Some states rushed to adopt mail-in ballots during the COVID scare. That added to the skepticism. 2005’s Jimmy Carter-James Baker Commission had cautioned about mail-in voting.
J6 protesters were trying to pressure Vice President Pence to decline certifying Joe Biden’s win. Suppose Pence had done so.
The inauguration was just 14 days away, and incontrovertible evidence of a Trump win was seemingly lacking. Congress or SCOTUS would undoubtedly have intervened and affirmed Biden’s win.
True, the Oath Keepers and some others were convicted of trying to overthrow the election and government on J6.
They were going to hold off the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, National Guard, Homeland Security, Marshals Service, ATF, FBI, and police? Impossible.
More differences
J6 was confined to one day and one locale. And it copied a mere snippet from 2020’s encyclopedia of lawlessness.
But aside from peaceful protests and, perhaps, targeting law enforcement, 2020’s nationwide attacks, arson, looting, destruction of minority businesses and deaths were simply criminal anarchy. These bore no rational relation to Floyd’s murder or social justice.
The Senate held hearings for SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh from Sept. 4-7, 2018.
Backed by feminist and progressive organizations, women repeatedly entered the hearing. They interrupted it with shouts and other unruly activity.
One leader’s goal: “For this nomination not to go through.” Sounds a bit like January 6.
Another leader declared: “I came to put my body on the line.” Like J6 protesters?
It’s difficult to know the final disposition of the Kavanaugh hearing’s 227-plus arrests.
But most were charged with “disorderly conduct, crowding or obstructing,” reported NPR. They paid $35 or $50 fines.
It seems unfair, therefore, that many J6 participants received harsher sentences for similar charges of Obstruction of an Official Proceeding and/or Disorderly/Disruptive Conduct.
So was the action of Jan. 6, 2021, an insurrection? Only if corporate media and their allies describe 2020’s riots that way, which they’ll never do.
Reposted from World News Daily, with permission.
David Boyajian’s usual focus in the Caucasus. His work can be found at https://www.armeniapedia.org/wiki/David_Boyajian.
Also available at Barnes & Noble
Also available at Barnes & Noble
