• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    4
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Nope. If it did it would have included both lines together. It literally lables anyone Hispanic as being a terrorist right from the get go.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      71 year ago

      No, the bill clearly has a three part definition of a terrorist. One part is race related, but the other two that must be satisfied are about gang activity.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      There’s an “and” in the second statement. It requires all three to be true.

      Still a horrible racist law. If they want gangs to be labeled terrorists, just drop the Hispanic requirement and go after all of them.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        Shouldn’t the “and” be in the first statement as well to link them all together?

        Any person who is of Hispanic *and

        member of a gang *and

        Convicted of yada yada yada.

        The way it is written doesn’t link the first two together. It’s its own statement of law.

      • FuglyDuck
        link
        fedilink
        English
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’re correct, however, by including “Hispanic” as a qualifier, excludes convicted gangbangers who are not Hispanic.

        While it is true to say that the law doesn’t include all Hispanics… it’s also true to say it doesn’t apply to white gang members or any other. Which means that while Hispanic gang member are terrorists, non-Hispanic are not terrorists, just …gang members…

        It’s fucking racist.