by Billy Roper
The United States doesn’t have ‘Hate Speech’ laws, yet, although a majority of Democrats would like to see the first amendment curtailed by them, according to exit poll surveys. However, there are ‘hate crime’ enhancements, which give a harsher penalty to the convicted perpetrator of a crime based on their real or suspected political leanings. Sometimes, when people can’t be said to have told the victim or bystanders why they did what they’ve been convicted of, a judge may attempt to infer their motivation based on previous behavior or associations. Think about that. Can you imagine a racial activist having any kind of negative interaction with a nonWhite which isn’t judged to be motivated by hate, regardless of whether it was, or not? Try to prove yourself innocent in a particular instance of a persuasion which is your general raison d’etre. Right.
Likewise, anti-White judges in Texas have ruled that two of the three redrawings of Congressional districts by Republicans were probably motivated by discrimination which made it less likely for those districts to be won by nonWhites. Of course, discrimination can be subconscious, so the judges didn’t have to prove that anyone was racist, or trying to discriminate. Just that the way the Congressional districts were drawn made it likely for a White person to win. That’s WRONG. They now have to be redrawn so it’s more likely for a nonWhite person to win. That’s FAIR. See?