Bolt's contention wasn't racist by the way. At least in my understanding, he was questioning a system that's setup to allow certain people to claim special treatment based on very tenuous ancestral ties. Should someone be able to label themselves aboriginal on the basis of some distant ancestor, despite the vast majority of their relatives being white and the opportunities afforded them the same as a regular white person? Does this not undermine such a system existing in the first place - one that ostensibly was created to remedy a perceived imbalance between white Australians and indigenous Australians?
He lied about so many things, about so many people, in those articles.
Knowingly.
To push an agenda based on race.
If he’d argued along the lines that you have, without completely making things up, he wouldn’t be a rightly convicted racist.
My memory may be faulty but the case revolved around his objection to people who had no discernable aboriginal appearance (i.e. professional aboriginals) receiving benefits that were aimed at aiding people living in remote communities.
From Wiki:
The articles suggested it was fashionable for “fair-skinned people” of diverse ancestry to choose Aboriginal racial identity for the purposes of political and career clout.
Ironically, the prominent Aboriginal activist Noel Pearson later stated: “The essence of indigeneity … is that people have a connection with their ancestors whose bones are in the soil. Whose dust is part of the sand. I had to come to the somewhat uncomfortable conclusion that even Andrew Bolt was becoming Indigenous because the bones of his ancestors are now becoming part of the territory.”[33
EMBATTLED human rights chief Gillian Triggs is now calling for the “Same-Sex Marriage” bill to be renamed because it discriminates against people who don’t identify as a man or woman.
In a show of political correctness gone mad, the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), wants it changed to the “Definition of Marriage” bill.
“The draft title of the Act unnecessarily and inaccurately excludes couples which are neither ‘the union of a man and a woman’ nor ‘same sex’,’’ the federal government agency has told a Senate inquiry into the bill.
“The proposed amendments to the Marriage Act would enable two people to marry irrespective of their sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.
“This would also include couples in which one or both parties have something other than ‘male’ or ‘female’ recorded on their birth certificate.’’