Excellent article highlighting some of the repercussions of this case, Graham. I have seen many racist (and irrational) comments on this site, but the thought of silencing these commentators is abhorrent to me. When you stifle freedom of expression you also stifle freedom of thought. Laws should govern actions (which includes speech if it is an incitement to commit a crime), not prohibit discussion or the formation of opinions. I read just as many things I disagree with as I agree with on blogs and so forth, possibly more - I would hate to live in a world where there was only one point of view!

Until a few months ago I had never heard of Andrew Bolt then for uni I had to do a media anaylsis of stories about his case. It was disappointing to note that many stories made no mention of the definition of Aboriginality and no mention of the historical context which made the issue of identification such a hot issue. It was back in the 1980s that the three part defintion - descent, self-identification and community recognition - was adopted. Yet 30 years later there seems to be ignorance of this and non-indigenous people seem to think it okay for them to comment or decide who is indigenous and who is not.
Larissa Behrendt and Anita Heiss have intellects the size of Stephen Fry's. That's why they have succeeded. They have also studied hard, worked hard and achieved solid records. The law may theoretically apply to everyone but many light-skinned Aboriginal people would not have the resources to take legal action. Where I live there are a number of people who are regarded as Aboriginal but in the eyes of many not "real" Aboriginal people, who presumably have black skin. This is especially hard on the kids growing up. This case was a win for them. There has been a lot of comment about freedom of speech but for people who are of indigenous descent, who identify as indigenous and are recognised by their community as such, and are treated under the law as such - isn't it about time the public accepted their identity without questioning it or holding them up to contempt and suspicion for "choosing" to be indigneous to gain "advantages". Freedom of speech in many media articles didn't extend to fully informing the public. Many journalists and commentators showed no sign at all of even being aware of the three-part test, which although not perfect, has been around for decades. The question of free speech needs to be balanced against the effect on fair-skinned indigenous people.

Jay & Antiseptic,

I quote from my 1st-year biology textbook:

"Human beings, like all other species, have differentiated in their characteristics as they have spread throughout the world. Local populations in one area often appear significantly different from those that live elsewhere. For example, northern Europeans often have blond hair, fair skin, and blue eyes, whereas Africans often have black hair, dark skin, and brown eyes. These traits may play a role in adapting the particular populations to their environments. Blood groups may be associated with immunity to diseases more common in certain geographical areas, and dark skin shields the body from the damaging effects of ultraviolet radiation, which is much stronger in the tropics than in temperate regions.

All human beings are capable of mating with one another and producing fertile offspring. The reasons that they do or do not choose to associate with one another are purely psychological and behavioural (cultural). The number of groups into which the human species might logically be divided has long been a point of contention. Some contemporary anthropologists divide people into as many as 30 “races,” others as few as three: Caucasoid, Negroid, and Oriental. American Indians, Bushmen, and Aborigines are examples of particularly distinctive subunits that are sometimes regarded as distinct groups.
The problem with classifying people or other organisms into races in this fashion is that the characteristics used to define the races are usually not well correlated with one another, and so the determination of race is always somewhat arbitrary. Humans are visually oriented; consequently, we have relied on visual cues—primarily skin colour—to define races. However, when other types of characters, such as blood groups, are examined, patterns of variation correspond very poorly with visually determined racial classes. Indeed, if one were to break the human species into subunits based on overall genetic similarity, the groupings would be very different than those based on skin colour or other visual features."

TBC

@Amanda, when someone claims to have been discriminated against on the basis of the colour of their skin, it is reasonable to make observations about the colour of that skin. There are plenty of laws to deal with racism, and even to deal with what Bolt wrote (if you believe it was wrong) - such as defamation or libel - but to put this into the realm of racial discrimination is thoroughly unjust. If the law as it has played out in this case were used in the same way against indigenous Australians and their discussion of white Australians, I doubt you would be so reckless in your attitude to free speech. This is not an objectively good outcome for anyone. Even if what Bolt wrote was incorrect, muzzling him means indigenous people (and other "minority" ethnic groups) will no longer be accountable for their words, actions, and privileges; and that isn't equality, that's reverse discrimination.

aka "Bolt is a racist - his use of eugenic assumptions and his belief that he has the right to determine another person's race based on his self-determined criteria identifies him as a racist."

Interestingly, Michael Mansell in Tasmania had the same issues, claiming 70% of people who identified as aboriginals, were not and were only doing it for personal benefits .. I'm sure though you already have condemned him as racist.

I do believe the "racist" tag is more fervently applied to Andrew Bolt since there is an leftist obsession that anyone who disagrees must be tagged, and his tag is "racist". Mostly by people who have not read what he writes but rely on second hand bilious sprays. Bolt is hated by the left generally as he has an uncanny ability to push the very buttons, regularly, they despise .. he holds a mirror up to them, and they don't like what he shows them about themselves.

Bolts complaint is with people who self identify to obtain advantage, of the resources set up to assist the disadvantaged. Perhaps it is his manner that causes offense, but it seems the sentiment is shared by many Australians.

Amanda, I don't know why anyone who comments on anything has to, for your benefit, supply definitions .. we all know what is going on we don't need to drown in the academic definition battles from 30 years ago.

The current debate, now pretty well silenced and the usual outcome, resentment from the victims, the average Australians. Of course they are expected to continue funding all manner of attacks on themselves.

The plaintiffs have won a minor battle, but not the war and probably have now polarized opinion, and not for the good of Australia but just the egos of a precious few.

Some people might think their claim to be offended, is merely protecting their own benefits. They are more like the people they love to hate and who they do not want to be identified with, than they want to admit.

So who are the real racists?

The debate is not silenced at all. Much of it though is at the same level of Bruce Ruxton who, in 1988, called on the Federal Government "to amend the definition of Aborigine to eliminate the part-whites who are making a racket out of being so-called Aborigines at enormous cost to the taxpayers". http://aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2000-01/01RN18.htm
It is difficult for publishers when there is a law case and the goal posts seem to have changed but responsible publishers like Graham don't seem to have a problem with anti-discrimination laws and this is similar. I am sure there were similar diiscussions about loss of free speech when these laws came in but I can't see that discussion of homosexuality has been stifled, for example see the discussion of gay marriage. However discussions of homosexuality aren't stuck in the 1980s.