If you’ve read through the 50 pages of the decision, you can clearly see the bias. 5 witnesses were simply ignored, including 3 experts because they were white and did not toe the line of DEI. The defense said “look at what other evil things were said by other people” and “this is okay because it was during Apartheid” the court decided simply that “well, if they did it, so can you” without any further argument, evidence that this was not discriminatory.
The leap of faith you have to make to come to the agreement where they clearly have to agree this was calling for violence and then “but bad things happened in the past so it’s okay”. It is exactly the DEI argument written into law. Both sides of this coin can be bad, apartheid is bad, the Zimbabwe president call for his machine(gun) as they stated as a defense that this happens in other countries, is bad too, that does not make a modern reinterpretation of Kill the Boer, (which they admit at one point meant Kill the Whites back during Apartheid) “good”.