Whites to get harsher treatment.

This video is available on Rumble and Odysee.

Just a few days ago, on June 9th, something very ominous happened that hardly anyone noticed. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the criminal law should officially treat people of color more leniently than it treats whites.

Civil law was perverted long ago. Laws that were supposed to stop racial discrimination are now routinely used to justify blatant discrimination in hiring, promotion, and college admission – so long as the victims are white and sometimes Asian.

And criminal law is enforced unfairly all the time, but the pretense has always been that it was blind to race. Not anymore.

The case in Washington was about “seizure of a person.” The police can seize you without arresting you. It’s when you are not free to go, even if you have not been arrested. You lose certain rights when you are seized. You can’t walk away, and you have to answer the police truthfully.

Back in 2019, police found Palla Sum sleeping in his car in a public place. An officer asked some questions about the car and asked Mr. Sum to identify himself. Mr. Sum wasn’t under arrest. He wasn’t seized. He could have said, “Good day, Officer,” and driven off. There is no dispute about that, but instead, Mr. Sum lied about who he was, and this led to unpleasant consequences that needn’t concern us here.

Mr. Sum’s lawyers argued that although Mr. Sum was not seized, it was reasonable for him to think he was seized, because he is a person of color. It was reasonable for him to think he couldn’t just drive away, which he might have done if he were white, and therefore his lie to the officer must be treated as if it never happened. It was an unlawful seizure of information, and cannot be used as evidence.

All nine members of the Washington Supreme Court agreed. They stated flatly – without any evidence – that “implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in disproportionate police contacts, investigative seizures, and uses of force against Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) in Washington.”

They wrote that America is so awful that “generations of children have had to grow up with ‘the Talk,’” in which Mom and Dad tell them how dangerous white policemen are.

There is no evidence Mr. Sum ever got “the talk.” There was no evidence he was ever mistreated by the police. In fact, Mr. Sum is Asian, which means people of his race are stopped, arrested, and convicted less often than whites. The judges said it didn’t matter. They wrote that Mr. Sum had no obligation to show that Asians are mistreated. The only thing that mattered was their assertion that BIPOCs are mistreated, and he was BIPOC. The judges didn’t even care what race the officer was. He could have been Asian. It didn’t matter. Nor did the judges care whether the officer even noticed Mr. Sum’s race. Mr. Sum was a BIPOC, and for that reason alone, he gets a break.

Think of where this could go. BIPOCs are more likely than whites to die at the hands of the police. Therefore, it’s not a sign of guilt if they run at the sight of a cop car. They are just getting out of pistol range. Likewise, it could be reasonable for BIPOCs to resist arrest, even kill an officer, out of legitimate fear that the police might kill them. This madness could go anywhere. For now, it’s law only Washington State.

Justice Mary Yu wrote the opinion. In 2014, “She became the first Asian-American, the first Latina, and first openly gay supreme court justice in the state.”

Getting a unanimous decision was easy. As the Seattle Times explained in an article called “Washington Supreme Court tries to chart a different path on race” “Among the nine justices there is only one white man. There are seven women, four people of color, three Jewish justices, two lesbians, the court’s first Indigenous justice and a Black immigrant from Trinidad and Tobago.”


The Chief Justice is Hispanic. Washington, by the way, is still two-thirds white.

The US Supreme Court would probably strike down this ruling, but the truth is, our system doesn’t even need it in order to be anti-white.

Just this weekend, 31 members of a white nationalist group called Patriot Front were arrested in Coeur d’Alene Idaho, on their way to protest a gay-pride event.

They were all booked on charges of conspiracy to riot. Riot? Jon Lewis studies violent extremism in America.

Right after the arrest, he explained what Patriot Front does: “Their playbook, according to Lewis, involves identifying local grievances to exploit, organizing on platforms like the messaging app Telegram, and ultimately showing up to events marching in neat columns, in blue- or white-collared-shirt uniforms, in a display of strength.”

Again, I ask: Where’s the evidence they would riot?

Even this hostile article called “Who are Patriot Front? An intro to the sinister US neo-Nazi group,” couldn’t think of a single violent act from these guys, let alone a riot.

It seems to me that their only crime is standing up for white people.

This was part of the event Patriot Front was going to protest. [[0:00 – 0:33.]] This is a man, by the way, which became clear when he squatted down and exposed himself – rather to the surprise of the little white children who were watching. Exposing himself to children was a felony under Idaho law, but, so far as I know he was not charged, unlike the members of the Patriot Front, who planned only to exercise their First Amendment rights.

The Democrats are now holding what they call “hearings” on the January 6 riot at the Capitol. They seem to have forgotten all about the BLM riots, especially the three days of mayhem in 2020, when mobs injured 60 Secret Service as they tried to break into the Trump White House.

It got so bad, the Secret Service hustled Donald, Melania, and their son Barron into an underground bunker.

This mob of curfew breakers at the White House later burned St. John’s Church, just across the street.

In the War of 1812, the British burned the White House but no churches. What happened to these rioters and arsonists? As the Washington Post reported, “D.C. police said they made 106 arrests from Saturday through early Monday, including dozens involving charges of felony rioting. But when the arrestees appeared in Superior Court on Monday, the U.S. attorney’s office dismissed rioting charges against most of the defendants. A handful still face that count.

Were any of them ever indicted, much less convicted? I can’t even find out. No one seems to care.

This is a little different from the merciless FBI manhunt for the January 6 rioters. Just two months after the riot, it was already “the biggest criminal investigation in U.S. history.”

The building was cleared in just four hours, but as of this week, “at least 865 people have been charged.”

The feds are still trying to track down and arrest every single person who was in the Capitol, even if he just walked through an open door, looked around, and went home.

Even the AP admits this is strange: “hundreds of people were charged only with misdemeanors such as illegal entry that typically do not land first-time offenders behind bars.”

Remember: After the attack on the White House, people charged with felony riot had charges dropped.

Some judges have sent those first-time offenders straight to jail. No community service; no probation. Judge Trevor McFadden, who has handled some of the Jan6 cases, is astonished: “In my experience as a judge and former prosecutor, it’s almost unheard of for someone who is essentially a first-time offender to get jail time for a nonviolent misdemeanor.”

But, as the AP notes, “In the Jan. 6 cases, 1 judge stands out as the toughest punisher.”

Who might that be?

Judge Tanya Chutkan, who was born in Jamaica.

She routinely hands out harsher punishment than prosecutors ask for. That, too, is almost unheard of. She says if you break the law in the name of civil rights, you deserve to walk. But Jan Sixers wanted to “overthrow the lawfully elected government.” Same crime, different outcome, depending on the judge’s politics. That’s what the rule of law means for Tanya Chutkan.

Back to the Supreme Court of Washington State. Just 10 days after George Floyd laid down his life for civil rights, the justices sent a letter to the state’s entire legal profession. Our pal Mary Yu drafted it, and it said: “As judges, we must recognize the role we have played in devaluing black lives.” When in their lives did this lot ever devalue black lives?

In a state that never had slavery or Jim Crow, and where only 6 percent of the population is even black? Or are they just reciting the creed of a new religion? They call the building they work in “The Temple of Justice,” so I guess I know the answer.

In their letter, the justices also wrote: “We can develop a greater awareness of our own conscious and unconscious biases in order to make just decisions.”

I’d say they have conscious biases – against white people.

Just like their buddy Judge Tanya Chutkan.

They don’t even pretend that justice is blind. It’s for punishing political enemies and coddling protected groups. There’s no blindfold on this lady.



Source link

By GIL