Alston and The West Australian had breached "s18c of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975". On 4 March 1998, the Race Discrimination Commissioner discontinued her inquiry into the case on the grounds that the cartoon was "an artistic work" that was published "reasonably and in good faith", and was therefore exempt from the s18c conditions under s18d of the Act. The Nyungar Circle of Elders rejected that finding, and asked for the case to be referred to the commission for public inquiry. A public hearing was held on 29 April 1999, and the findings released on 12 April 2001. The Commission found that the cartoon was in breach of s18c of the Act; specifically, it found that the cartoon: contained a demeaning portrayal of Yagan; reinforced a negative stereotype regarding alcohol and Indigenous Australians; contained derogatory references to the Wagyl, a religious figure; treated death in a manner offensive to Indigenous Australians; provided intimate details of the ancestry of individuals, in some cases "where the intercourse was not a matter of choice for the Aboriginal women concerned"; implied a diminishing of the race by the resultant racial mix; and reinforced a negative stereotype of Indigenous people taking advantage of government grants. The commission also found, however, that the cartoon was exempt under s18d of the Act, because it was done reasonably and in good faith. The reasoning was based partly on the overall coverage of the issue by The West Australian, which "provided a balance report... and an opinion which... encouraged unity in, and support of, the Aboriginal community". In such a context, the decision by then editor Paul Murray to publish the cartoon was found to be reasonable. Robert Bropho then sought a judicial review of the commission's finding, but his application was dismissed on 4 December 2002. Bropho then appealed against that decision in the Federal Court of Australia. On 6 February 2004, the Federal Court dismissed the appeal and ordered Bropho to pay all costs. Analysis According to McGlade, a number of academic commentators have expressed concern about the ruling, in particular that the protections offered under section 18c were being undermined by a broad interpretation of the s18d exemption. McGlade has argued that "it is extremely difficult to reconcile the serious finding of breach under section 18C with the subsequent finding of reasonableness under section 18D", and that "obviously the adverse findings made of the Commission could