We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Humza Yousaf, hoist by his own hate crime law

“Humza Yousaf reported to police for breaking his own hate crime law”, reports Guido Fawkes with pardonable glee:

Humza Yousaf has been reported to Police Scotland for appearing to break the Hate Crime and Public Order Act, after claiming double rapist Isla Bryson is “not a genuine trans woman” during the latest SNP leadership debate. The same Hate Crime Act introduced by… Humza Yousaf.

Speaking during the BBC’s debate on Tuesday, Yousaf claimed:

“Isla Bryson should not be in a woman’s prison. Isla Bryson is a rapist who’s completely at it, I don’t think they’re a genuine trans woman, I think they’re trying to play the system.”

Not a “genuine trans woman“, although still using “they” pronouns for some reason. Regardless, Yousaf’s remarks are a criminal offence under the Hate Crime Act, which bans “threatening, abusive or insulting language… based on their protected characteristics, which include gender identity

Mr Yousaf is presently the Health Secretary for the SNP government in Scotland, and is probably the leading candidate to replace Nicola Sturgeon as leader of the scandal-ridden Scottish National Party. Given the events of the last twenty-four hours, I wonder whether Mr Yousaf might not prefer to lose. Given that the man known as “Humza Useless” would be a useless leader of a party I despise, I am not sure whether I might not prefer him to win. He certainly deserves to lose. The following link takes you to previous Samizdata posts with Humza’s name in them, dating from his time as Scottish Justice Secretary and chief incubator of the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021. Yousaf was the man who decreed that there should be no exemption for prosecution for hateful speech and conduct just because it took place in a private dwelling.

11 comments to Humza Yousaf, hoist by his own hate crime law

  • Zerren Yeoville

    I wonder if any old-school Scottish Nationalists – using the word ‘nationalist’ in the conventionally-understood definition of the word* – have ever dared to wonder publicly what the Yousaf clan tartan looks like?

    (*rather than in the Sturgeon-era sense of ultra-woke, ultra-Europhile Anglophobes)

  • Duncan S

    Hmm, but, bizarrely, the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 is not yet in force and therefore Humza can’t have broken the law.

    Whilst the Act received Royal Assent, it has yet to “commence”, i.e. it is not yet in force, requiring a separate regulation to be passed.


    The text of the Act is here. See part 6 section 21.

    Even the ScotGov website acknowledges that the law is not yet in force.

  • Surellin

    “No true Scotsman”?

  • Fraser Orr

    Isn’t there a clause in that law saying it only applies to the “wrong” sort of people? Or is that just de facto rather than de jure?

  • Mark

    @Zerren Yeoville

    I would imagine some variation of the clan Freisler

  • Natalie Solent (Essex)

    Duncan S, true, but (as I am sure you are aware) as the guiding force behind enforcing such laws on other people, Mr Yousaf had built into them the principle that “the process is the punishment”. In several cases where the UK or Scottish authorities have arrested street preachers or gender-critical feminists, I have no doubt that they knew perfectly well that the charges would not stick. But the person they were targeting would still suffer any or all of a night in jail, having the charges hanging over them for months, damage to their career, and having to arrange and pay for legal assistance.

    In comparison to Marion Millar, Mr Yousaf will not suffer much inconvenience for being reported to the police for hate speech. But he will suffer some. It’s not a good look in the middle of one’s campaign to lead a “progressive” political party.

  • Paul Marks

    The twisted doctrines of the Progressives are eating their own – but then this was always the case, for example most of the leading figures of the French Revolution murdered each other. In the otherwise pro Revolution film “Danton” there is a moment of truth – as Danton is being collected for execution, another prisoner spits in his face “it was you who helped create the Committee of Public Safety – and you did nothing to help the first people it murdered, now it is your turn JUSTICE, JUSTICE!”

    Much like Tolkien’s “Orcs” – the Progressives hate us and wish to destroy us, but they also hate each other and destroy each other. Indeed, I suspect, they hate themselves – and, deep down, wish to destroy themselves.

  • Paul Marks

    As for the legal background – the Equality Act of 2010 is based on this Frankfurt School “Critical Theory” Marxist doctrine, known in the British Civil Service (and the Quangos) as “EDI” (Equality, Diversity and Inclusion – much the same as the DEI, Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion Frankfurt School doctrine in the United States), but criminalisation of speech goes back long before this – indeed it is present as far back as the 1965 Race Relations Act.

    “That only restricted the Freedom of Speech of racists” – once you make exceptions on Freedom of Speech there are more and more exceptions, till (eventually) you find yourself one of the bad-people who does not “deserve” Freedom of Speech or any other basic liberty, indeed does not “deserve” to live.

    George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells and the other Fabians made it quite clear that reactionaries should be killed – and if you, gentle reader, think they were joking – you are mistaken.

    Remember these are the heroes of even the non Marxist left in the United Kingdom. So the idea that this totalitarianism was imported from the United States is quite wrong.

    People such as G.B. Shaw did not need any American to teach them about the glories of tyranny. To Mr Shaw, and his associates, if you could not “justify your existence” in terms of their cause – then you should be killed. So again, anyone who thinks this evil has been imported from the United States is deluding themselves.

  • djm

    He’s also a shit scooterist


    *taps nose*

  • Rich Rostrom

    And yet, ironically, for speaking the truth for once.

  • Paul Marks

    Rich Rostrom – yes, good point.

    The man is not being punished for his many lies – he is being punished for, for once, telling the truth.