Having To Prove An Accusation Equates To Jim Crow Laws

That’s what Nimrod Chapel Jr., president of the NAACP in Missouri says.

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Americans used to getting warnings about the potential dangers of traveling overseas, but this summer, the NAACP put out an extraordinary warning about travel here at home — in Missouri.

The warning advises “extreme caution,” saying travelers could be subject to “discrimination and harassment.”

“They’re legalizing discrimination in the state of Missouri,” says attorney Nimrod Chapel Jr., president of the NAACP in Missouri.

He says a bill recently signed into law by Republican Gov. Eric Greitens is so dangerous that he has a name for it.

“The Jim Crow bill,” he says, “because in the eyes of the NAACP that’s what it was breathing life into.”

Currently, you can file a discrimination claim in the state of Missouri if things like race, religion and gender are a “contributing” factor to discrimination.

But later this month, alleged victims of discrimination would have to prove it is the “motivating” factor — and Chapel says that’s extremely hard to do.

So, now in Missouri if you claim discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or age, you have to be able to prove it.    Apparently, the bases of “because I say so” is no longer good in the Show Me State and now you actually have to Show Me your proof.

Because of that, the NAACP is up in arms and is issuing travel warnings not to travel through Missouri.   I hope people actually heed their warnings as the section of I-70 between Kansas City and St. Louis is too heavily traveled as it is.   Maybe this will make it safer if people stay away.

This entry was posted in Misc. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Having To Prove An Accusation Equates To Jim Crow Laws

  1. taminator013 says:

    I wish we would pass a law like that to keep them from visiting PA……………

  2. Leonard Jones says:

    I am not sure if I am using the correct legal term, but I think it was called desperate
    impact. It is the result of liberal court decisions that take into account “historical”
    racial injustices that were used in place of actual proof or evidence against an
    individual, a company, etc.

    In many cases, a defendant was presumed guilty, not based on ACTUAL evidence in
    which an ACTUAL case of discrimination was proven in a court of law. All you had
    to do was simply prove that the plaintiff MAY have had a great grandparent who
    was a slave, based solely on his or her skin color and the defendant was fucked
    in the ass and thrown in the snow before he even stepped foot in court!

Comments are closed.