I am also aware that the Commission and UGLE consider PHA regular
I also am aware of that. The UGLE recognition was in 1994, but they had denied recognition as recently as 1988. So, were prior decisions by the UGLE not to recognize Prince Hall due to racism, if not why had they denied recognition? The Commission also states "...We continue to be of the opinion that establishment of fraternal relationships with Prince Hall Grand Lodges remains the prerogative of each individual Grand Lodge" (2006 Commission Report).
ETJ is simply a guise for racism
Again, your opinion. As pointed out in the article I attached in my previous post, the Doctrine of ETJ has been used to defend a Grand Lodge's Territorial Sovereignty in cases other than PH recognition. In fact the UGLE acknowledges ETJ and admits that it "has
recently been qualified as being 'subject to exceptions'". This is from the same report quoted in my previous post:
"...A Grand Lodge must have undisputed authority over Craft (or basic) Freemasonry within its jurisdiction, and not be subject in any way to or share power with any other Masonic body.
This principle is expressed overseas as exclusive Territorial jurisdiction, but has recently been qualified as being "subject to exceptions" This qualification means the principle is not violated if Grand Lodges agree to share territory while remaining authority over Brethren under their jurisdiction
England does not ignore territorial sovereignty when it considers recognition..."
I am a strong believer in the Sovereignty of each Grand Lodge. If a Grand Lodge votes to recognize PH for whatever reason that is fine with me, but by the same token other Grand Lodges should not be demonized if they do not because they choose to honor long standing standards of recognition.