Why you should be boycotting L’Oréal


by Sunny
25th June, 2009 at 2:36 am    

From The Times today:

L’Oréal, the French cosmetics giant, whose advertising campaigns proclaim “because you’re worth it”, was found guilty of racial discrimination for considering black, Arab and Asian women unworthy of selling its shampoo. France’s highest court was told that the group had sought an all-white team of sales staff to promote Fructis Style, a haircare product made by Garnier, L’Oréal’s beauty division.

The court ruled that Adecco, the temporary recruitment agency whose Districom division hired the hostesses, was also guilty of racial discrimination. The Paris Appeal Court had fined both L’Oréal and Adecco €30,000 (£25,500) and ordered them to pay a further €30,000 each in damages to SOS Racisme, the anti-racist campaign group, which brought the case. The court upheld the fines but told the appeal court judges to reconsider the damages.

Well done to the anti-racist organisation that brought forward the case.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Race politics






70 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    New blog post: Why you should be bocotting L’Oréal http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4961


  2. Tim Phillips-White

    RT @pickledpolitics: New blog post: Why you should be bocotting L’Oréal http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4961


  3. john lenti

    Boycott radist L’Oreal Cosmetics:
    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/4961


  4. William Brown

    Why you should be bocotting L'Oréal | Pickled Politics http://bit.ly/g4Fw


  5. Why you should be boycotting L’Oréal | Free Political Forum

    [...] Original post by Sunny [...]




  1. Jennifer Smith — on 25th June, 2009 at 6:05 am  

    Ridiculous, it’s now law that a company can’t choose it’s own employees because it might upset someone.

    Racial equality has been gained through blackmail. Don’t you just feel so stupid not to have earned it yourselves?

    What about hair products made specifically for African Womens hair, don’t suppose they’ll be a blond Dane in that one!

  2. billericaydicky — on 25th June, 2009 at 7:00 am  

    This reminds me of some of local MP Dianne Abbotts nuttier statements. When Homerton hospital in Hackney recruited Swedish and Finnish nurses she claimed that they wouldn’t understand the needs of black patients.

    She also runs a conference every year about the exclusion of young African Caribbean males from schools claiming it is racism. She overlooks the fact that it is only this group and not the girls from it or the Africans, Vietnamese, Turks, Chinese or any of the others. Mind you she comes across as a bit of a dickhead on TV.

  3. Shatterface — on 25th June, 2009 at 7:32 am  

    Why do we never see women in burkas in shampoo adverts?

  4. Shatterface — on 25th June, 2009 at 7:42 am  

    By the way – isnt Beyonce Black?

    Didn’t L’Oriel Paris & Coke run a promotion of products for Black women a month or so back to commemorate Mothers’ Day?

    And aren’t there a lot of feminists opposed to the beauty industry on the principle it demeans women, in which case we shouldn’t be calling to extend this oppression to those already disadvantaged by race?

  5. Denim Justice — on 25th June, 2009 at 7:49 am  

    I love how there’s an advert for the Hijabshop.com just underneath this post! Is that why the likes of Faisal left PP?

  6. munir — on 25th June, 2009 at 7:53 am  

    Shatterface

    “Why do we never see women in burkas in shampoo adverts?”

    Why do people who stress how much they want to help Muslim women spend their time mocking them?

    We rarely see women in burkas (sic) because
    1) Burkhas are only worn by women in Afghanistan.

    2) Women who cover their face are rare in the west- yet in the middle of the worst economic crisis since the 30s the President of France spends his time saying they shouldnt be in France (though their numbers are minute)

    Its classic demogagory – divert criticism of your economic policies by demonising a minority

  7. Random Guy — on 25th June, 2009 at 7:58 am  

    Last I checked, it is illegal to screen candidates by race. If the commenters here are suggesting that it is okay to, they should really piss off back to the 1800s.

    @Shatterface – #4 and 5: women in burkas in shampoo adverts! Brilliant idea! Anyway, there has got to be a new form of Godwin’s law for making random Islam-related statements in a post…

    Also, the promotion with Beyonce actually had them accused of ‘white washing’ the advert to make her skin lighter. If you had RTFA in the original post, you would know that.

  8. Random Guy — on 25th June, 2009 at 8:00 am  

    I think this also clasically illustrates the extent of racism in France – from the corporate level right up to the presidential level…puts a different angle on Sarkozy’s statements.

  9. munir — on 25th June, 2009 at 8:06 am  

    Denim Justice
    “I love how there’s an advert for the Hijabshop.com just underneath this post! Is that why the likes of Faisal left PP?”

    hahaha

    Theres a special bot that automatically generates such ads when the relevant subject is being discussed

    This happens on Muslim-hating sites where becuase they keep ranting about Muslims so ads for Muslim products . Its comical to see their outrage and anger at this

  10. munir — on 25th June, 2009 at 8:07 am  

    “Ridiculous, it’s now law that a company can’t choose it’s own employees because it might upset someone.”

    No ridiculous is talking about “Libertie, Egalite and Fraternite” while not giving jobs to people because of the colour of their skin or their name or their religion

  11. Golam Murtaza — on 25th June, 2009 at 8:15 am  

    Jennifer, I think the first line of your post actually misrepresents the offence L’Oreal has been found guilty of. From my understanding of the extract from the Times, the company has NOT been told “It can’t choose its own employees because it might upset someone”.

    It has instead been found guilty of a deliberate policy of taking on employees based on racial considerations instead of professional merit. Whether you think this judgement is fair or not, (on the basis of your reading of the evidence put by the prosection, the defence’s case e.t.c.) is a separate matter.

  12. Golam Murtaza — on 25th June, 2009 at 8:19 am  

    Oh, and as for the adverts on this site, that bloody awful skin lightening one has appeared again! (I know there’s nothing Sunny can do about it though).

  13. cjcjc — on 25th June, 2009 at 8:26 am  

    I love those advert-bot-generator things and what they come up with on various different sites.

    Anyway, here’s Agnes Poirier with a more balanced take on Sarko’s latest.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6565064.ece

  14. platinum786 — on 25th June, 2009 at 8:39 am  

    I see all the BNP supporters are out.

    What makes you guys think that some woman who covers her hair, asked to appear in a Loreal advert? The French courts have found Loreal guilty, on what grounds are you challenging them?

    I’m a head and shoulders guy myself…

  15. Jennifer Smith — on 25th June, 2009 at 8:51 am  

    munir, go to Birmingham or Luton. Lucky if you see a female face at all. Hijabs and Burkhas should banned in the West.

    We’re talking sales staff here and those products are mainly bought by white females.

    If it were my company, I would choose women to sell that products that best represented my target market.

    All this discrimination rubbish is enough to put companies out of business. Customer services people that can’t speak the language and companies being forced to take on employees that they don’t want or require.

    That’s discrimination!

    If you were selling hijabs, would you ask a white woman to sell them? NO.

    Typical, what’s yours, is yours, what is aimed at us, has to be shared.

    Earn the right for mutual respect, you’re not going to get this way! It just causes more bad feeling.

  16. Ravi Naik — on 25th June, 2009 at 9:11 am  

    Jennifer Smith: your argument cannot be applied in this case: the products in question are not specific for “European” hair. They are sold around the world, and could be easily advertised by black or Arab women. Obviously products that are specific to specific ethnic groups should only be advertised by those groups – nobody would advertise tanning saloons with black or Asian people. :)

    I do *not* I agree with the ruling though – the face of advertisement is discriminatory by nature: what is perceived to be beautiful comes over what is perceived to be ugly. You will open a pandora box with lawsuits like this one.

    However, I agree that we should be aware that L’Oreal thinks that non-whites are not worthy of their products, and we should exercise the right not to buy their products until they learn their lesson.

    In any case, I hope no one tells Nick Griffin that shampoo is not an indigenous term or concept. :)

  17. munir — on 25th June, 2009 at 9:12 am  

    Jennifer Smith
    “munir, go to Birmingham or Luton. Lucky if you see a female face at all.”

    You are insane.

    “Hijabs and Burkhas should banned in the West.”

    nah – the BNP should

    Who’s even talking about hijabs?
    But I see how it works
    First Burhas should be banned
    Second hijab should be banned
    Finally Muslims should be banned

    Thats why we should fight any burka ban

    “We’re talking sales staff here and those products are mainly bought by white females. ”

    Suntan lotion is mainly brought by white females- should only white females sell it?

    “If it were my company, I would choose women to sell that products that best represented my target market. ”

    Pure idiocy. Since when does it matter where the staff come from? What kind of bigot cares about the race of the person selling you a product you want?

    “If you were selling hijabs, would you ask a white woman to sell them? NO. ”

    Why not? There are numerous products aimed at the Muslim community sold by non-Muslims. The product is important Jennifer not racial ideology. Most sane people would buy a good product from someone not of their “group” than a piece of tat from someone of their own group.

    Er Jennifer there are many white women who wear hijabs

    “Typical, what’s yours, is yours, what is aimed at us, has to be shared.”

    Read above

    Perhaps you could start a line of BNP cosmetics though the quality would be as crappy as the party itself. You wouldnt suceed since most white British people are normal. Which is why they buy products from all around the world rather than just British ones.

    “Earn the right for mutual respect, you’re not going to get this way! It just causes more bad feeling.”

    Hahah – my respect does derive from approval by BNP Nazi scum

  18. platinum786 — on 25th June, 2009 at 9:13 am  

    Jenny;

    We’re talking sales staff here and those products are mainly bought by white females.

    lol.Your right, use dirty Paki’s don’t use shampoo, heck we barely own hair brushes. We don’t even know what GHD’s are. Do yourself a favour, go find a Muslim woman and talk to her.

    Also Is the world split into Muslims or Not Muslims? I thought Indian people might have hair too, as might Chinese people, or does that one third of the worlds population not exist?

    If you were selling hijabs, would you ask a white woman to sell them? NO.

    As for white women selling Hijabs, well why not? I didn’t know much about selling double glazing until I was trained in it (ahh the student days). I’m sure as soon as a sales assitant knows what one is, she can sell it. Or he can sell it. Get this men sell Hijabs in shops, amazing eh!

    Customer services people that can’t speak the language and companies being forced to take on employees that they don’t want or require.

    This may come as a shocker to you, but unless you have a job opening, nobody forces you to advertise a job, hence they can’t force you to take on staff you don’t need.

    Also if your bank has an Indian call centre, blame the bank, not the Indians. The banks have actually moved all thier call centres to this country called India, full of Indians. They pay them about a tenth of what they pay British workers and make a huge profit from the savings. I would suggest you move banks. Natwest claim to have UK call centres.

    Typical, what’s yours, is yours, what is aimed at us, has to be shared.

    I don’t understand why you see it like that. Has anyone stopped you shopping at a Muslim owned shop? Or applying for a job in a Muslim owned business?

  19. platinum786 — on 25th June, 2009 at 9:13 am  

    where did the edit function go?!

  20. Ravi Naik — on 25th June, 2009 at 9:15 am  

    Thats why we should fight any burka ban

    If we have laws against public nudity, then there is nothing that prevents us from banning people who cover their face in public. I certainly think it is rude having people covering their face in public.

  21. munir — on 25th June, 2009 at 9:17 am  

    Ravi naik

    “In any case, I hope no one tells Nick Griffin that shampoo is not an indigenous term or concept. ”

    brilliant. Actually alot of hygiene related turns come from Indian languges (eg pyjamas, shampoo) This is because some of the British traders who first came to India were, how could we put it- a bit lacking in the hygenic department. They had to be taught hygiene by their (mainly Muslim) Indian interlocuters

    The word soap comes from the Arabic sabun as it was the Arabs who brought soap to Europe. During the Spanish inquistion one way the inquistors could detect someone was a Muslim was that they actually washed (since Muslim have to wash 5 times a day for prayer)

    but shhh dont tell the BNP

  22. Ravi Naik — on 25th June, 2009 at 9:26 am  

    Tea is also not indigenous to Britain. It is the indigenous beverage of Asians. It was introduced in 1660s by a foreign princess married to King Charles II.

    Damn, Nick Griffin has a lot of work to do to get this country back to the indigenous roots of the British Isles and away from multicultural pollution.

  23. Halima — on 25th June, 2009 at 9:27 am  

    “If we have laws against public nudity, then there is nothing that prevents us from banning people who cover their face in public.”

    Maybe the law is wrong on banning nudity?

    Seems fair to me that people can wear nothing or everything should they choose?

  24. A Councillor Writes — on 25th June, 2009 at 9:29 am  

    Oh dear, Munir continues to disinform.

    Soap was an ancient babylonian invention and was used in Europe, especially for hair back in roman times. Yer actual roman prefered a strigil to scrape the muck off followed by a hot bath, but soap was particularly popular amongst Gauls and Germans. There are notes in Galen c 150 CE about soaps use in medicine. It is more than likely that the word soap comes from the Middle Latin sapo which appears to be of Germanic origin rather than from the Arabic.

  25. munir — on 25th June, 2009 at 9:29 am  

    Ravi Naik

    “If we have laws against public nudity, then there is nothing that prevents us from banning people who cover their face in public. I certainly think it is rude having people covering their face in public.”

    Why is it rude? Because you cant gawp at their faces?

    Look around you my friend there is public nudity everywhere (on posters etc)

    What if I think a woman with a dot on her head or a guy in turban or someone wear a kippeh is rude – should they be banned?

    In fact in France there ae places where public nudity is allowed- which makes Sarkozy comments all the more hypocritical

  26. chairwoman — on 25th June, 2009 at 9:31 am  

    Everything that Sunny says.

    And because they have a reputation for antisemitism. Please don’t ask me to post links because I don’t do that, but it is the case.

    And, finally, because their products are rubbish.

  27. Shatterface — on 25th June, 2009 at 9:54 am  

    Munir (7): I don’t support banning burkas, I support mocking them for the same reason I’d support a woman’s right to wear a t-shirt with ‘I am worth less than my husband and all men are rapists’ but reserve the right not to respect her for doing so.

    And you can only claim that’s the same as mocking Muslim women if you think they SHOULD be wearing burkhas as a religious requirement.

    But don’t let my belief women shouldn’t be hidden from sight lessen your paranoia and self-pity.

  28. Shatterface — on 25th June, 2009 at 9:59 am  

    Munir (22): so Muslim lands were over-run by filthy foreigners? You’re a racist as well as a misogynist.

  29. Shatterface — on 25th June, 2009 at 10:03 am  

    Incidentally, my office bans open toed shoes and – bafflingly – cullottes, even where they are longer than the alternative skirts.

    There are plenty of ridiculous double standards even where White women are concerned.

  30. Shatterface — on 25th June, 2009 at 10:08 am  

    Oh, and ‘gawp at their faces’? I’m surrounded by women with uncovered faces all day but I’m not walking round with a permanent erection.

    Munir, you really are repressed.

  31. munir — on 25th June, 2009 at 10:09 am  

    Shatterface
    “Munir (7): I don’t support banning burkas, I support mocking them for the same reason I’d support a woman’s right to wear a t-shirt with ‘I am worth less than my husband and all men are rapists’ but reserve the right not to respect her for doing so. ”

    Totally sick. the meaning of symbols is entirely subjective. You impute your own sick twisted mentality onto them. Have you ever try to find out the opinion of a Muslim woman who wears the burka? They do so because they believe it is a religious commadment.

    http://www.muhajabah.com/niqab-stories.htm

    It has to do with their relationship with God. men are irrelevant because their worth doesnt derive from male approval (and indeed many male family members are vehemently opposed to women wearing niqab)

    So if a woman dresses modestly she thinks all men are rapists!

    “‘I am worth less than my husband ”

    So what if she isnt married? And a woman who would rather men dont gawp at her is somehow condematory in your eyes. As if womens beauty must be always available for you to stare at!

    What you said is the equivalent of saying a scantily clad woman is saying “I am asking for it”

    Presumably you believe someone wearing a kippeh is saying “Christianity is a false pagan religion and Jesus was a fraud (God forbid)”

    “And you can only claim that’s the same as mocking Muslim women if you think they SHOULD be wearing burkhas as a religious requirement.”

    I dont personally following the opinion that niqab is Fard . hijab is though. But does that mean women who wear it should be mocked for doing so?

    It isnt obligatory for a Christian to wear cross – should they mocked for doing so ?

  32. Golam Murtaza — on 25th June, 2009 at 10:15 am  

    Oh for crying out loud, how has this come round to Muslims and Burkhas AGAIN?! Hang on while I scroll up the thread to see who dragged it into the debate. Ah, there we go.

    Before everyone completely loses sight of the purpose of the thread, let’s see how Jennifer answers Ravi Naik, Munir and Platinum…

  33. damon — on 25th June, 2009 at 10:41 am  

    I typed the name of the shampoo into google and I immediately came up with this advert on Youtube.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOsyyK5JnXU
    She’s not white.
    But as for sales staff and discrimination…. I’d never be hired to sell the stuff either. Being middle aged and a bit of a ”Phil Mitchell” in the hair department.

    Of course it’s horrible if consumers are so shallow that they are turned off by sales staff’s (or model’s) race, but it seems that selling is often just about image – and I probably wouldn’t get a job as a shop worker at Abercrombie & Fitch either.
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/06/25/girl-with-false-arm-was-kept-away-from-abercrombie-fitch-shop-customers-115875-21469027/
    It seems they only want pretty young things.

    And on ”Burkas” and hijabs. Can I suggest that muslim men wear them too? (Why not, if the requirements for ”modesty” are the same??)
    Watching Pakistan in the 20/20 cricket last week, I was struck by the Pakistan supporting fans as to not seing many hijabs, ”burkas” (or even women) in the crowd, and the young guys (who the cameras went too after every wicket or good shot), seemed to be very much into their hair and how they looked .. with lots of spikey hair-gelled styles on show, (while their sisters maybe encouraged to hide theirs).
    I wonder how those lively young guys would feel about being encouraged to wear a hijab too.

  34. Carmenego — on 25th June, 2009 at 10:51 am  

    @Jennifer Smith – What’s the wi-fi connection like under your bridge?

    @Shatterface #29 Yes, yes they were. The filthy foreigners married some of the indigenous beautiful women and now we have “Anglo Indians” like me and Alisatair MacGowan who are clean, beautiful, and love drinking beer and making broad generalisations about things we may or may not fully understand (for borderline comedic effect). Isn’t multiculturalism grand?

    Anyway, back to L’Oreal: I’ve been boycotting their products for years for various other unethical practices. Is there a bunker somewhere with lots of evil corporates scheming things like this for our entertainment/frustration?

  35. cjcjc — on 25th June, 2009 at 11:47 am  

    Well Munir – let’s listen to what a leading French Muslin has to say, shall we?

    “Paris, 23 June (AKI) – French president Nicolas Sarkozy’s rejection of the burka and the face veil are “in keeping with the republican spirit of secularism,” according to the rector of the Grand Mosque in Paris, Dalil Boubakeur, quoted by media.

    Boubakeur said he supported a proposal by French MPs for a panel of deputies to look at the wearing of the burka “on the condition that they listen to what the experts on Islam have to say”.

    The burka marked “a return towards Islam’s past, in line with the preaching and vision of fundamentalists” added Boubakeur (photo).”

    http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Religion/?id=3.0.3457282869

  36. cjcjc — on 25th June, 2009 at 11:49 am  

    And on ”Burkas” and hijabs. Can I suggest that muslim men wear them too? (Why not, if the requirements for ”modesty” are the same??)

    In London there does appear to be a strict dress code for men accompanying burka-clad women: scruffy jeans and T-shirt.

  37. munir — on 25th June, 2009 at 11:55 am  

    cjcjc
    “Well Munir – let’s listen to what a leading French Muslin has to say, shall we?”

    You mean an appointee of the French state paid by them?

    Why not listen to the Muslim women who want to wear niqab? Or the French Muslims who oppose the ban?

    The issue is one of choice. If Sarkozy or Boubakeur dont want to wear niqab no one is forcing them – they dont have a right to force others not to.

  38. Sunny — on 25th June, 2009 at 11:56 am  

    By the way – isnt Beyonce Black?

    And they lightened up her face too.

  39. munir — on 25th June, 2009 at 11:59 am  

    damon
    “And on ”Burkas” and hijabs. Can I suggest that muslim men wear them too? (Why not, if the requirements for ”modesty” are the same??)”

    Muslim men are required to be modest- wear loose clothing etc. Look at any traidtional Muslim society
    and youll see mens dress like this as well as they covering their hari. The requiremnets for modesty arent the same though.

    Its not the equality of the UK where its allowed for an man to walk around bare chested and a woman similiarly can walk around bare chested.. oh wait

  40. Amrit — on 25th June, 2009 at 12:14 pm  

    Yay! It’ll be a relief to (hopefully) have new L’Oreal adverts where the models don’t look like a scary human colour chart, ranging from ‘pinky brown’ to ‘mild caramel’ (and that’s only if Beyoncé’s in there…).

    Thanks, Councillor, that was interesting! I like little factoids.

    ‘A leading French Muslin’ – now, I know it’s good to get things ‘straight from the horse’s mouth,’ but I never know that burkas/hijabs had the ability to talk!

    :-D Sorry, couldn’t resist.

    Shatterface, I am fangirling you on this thread.

    So, was L’Oréal guilty of doing this just in France? Having lived there a couple of years ago, I’m not surprised. I flicked through French Glamour with a friend and there were two black faces (both small, in features) and one model who may have been East Asian, but it wasn’t easy to tell.

    No even remotely non-white faces in any of the big adverts or fashion features, even over 300+ pages. I had no idea only white French women were into fashion…!

  41. Amrit — on 25th June, 2009 at 12:15 pm  

    Um, could someone please delete my first post, above this? Thanks. And where HAS the edit facility absconded to?

  42. Amrit — on 25th June, 2009 at 12:16 pm  

    And that’s ‘BOYCOTTING’!!!

  43. Shatterface — on 25th June, 2009 at 12:36 pm  

    Munir (39): The day I deny the right of women to walk around bare-chested will be the day I join a monastery.

    Right now, I’m wearing baggy bermuda shorts, sitting legs akimbo and with a cheeky testicle peaking out as testemony to my right to wear what I like.

  44. Ravi Naik — on 25th June, 2009 at 12:44 pm  

    Damn it, Shatterface. I was having my lunch.

  45. platinum786 — on 25th June, 2009 at 12:49 pm  

    You’d better see a doctor about your testicles shatterface. According to google Bermuda shorts are pretty long, if it’s dangling out of them, something might be broken.

    I’m not even gonna begin to ask what you where doing to break it…

  46. Kulvinder — on 25th June, 2009 at 12:56 pm  

    What about hair products made specifically for African Womens hair, don’t suppose they’ll be a blond Dane in that one!

    They put dogs in hair products?!!!?

    With regards to ‘black’ people objecting to ‘non-black’ people selling cosmetics aimed at them; some are against it some aren’t. One of the causes of the Lozells riots was after all anger amongst a minority of ‘black people’ that ‘asians’ were serving them.

    That minority of ‘black people’ were rightly seen as bigotted and the majority of ‘black people’ don’t appear to have a preference over who serves them – those asian run businesses are still solvent today; and obviously with the population demographics of the country taken into account any woman who is a member of an ethnic or racial minority is almost certainly not going to be served by ‘one of her kind’.

    The interesting point about all this is whereas a minority of ‘blacks’ objected to ‘non-black’ sales staff/assistants; L’Oréal’s executives were apparently of the opinion the majority of ‘white’ people would object to ‘non-white’ sales staff.

    Under the circumstances trying to make the argument that ‘black/non-white’ people would object en-masse at being served by a ‘white’ person is idiotic.

  47. Kulvinder — on 25th June, 2009 at 1:03 pm  

    Incidentally im confused by the use of the phrase ‘political correctness gone mad’; granted its contemporary usage is generally meant as some sort of bah humbug fist shaking sentiment, but if a person who is darker than you is serving you at a makeup counter (are you buying tanning products!) is ‘pc madness’ what exactly are you endorsing? even apartheid allowed black people to work in shops.

  48. Sunny — on 25th June, 2009 at 1:31 pm  

    Does the ‘edit’ function not work??

    It works for me. Does it not work for PP anymore?

  49. chairwoman — on 25th June, 2009 at 1:34 pm  

    Not for me!

  50. zaffer — on 25th June, 2009 at 1:56 pm  

    Time to bring out the coconut oil

  51. munir — on 25th June, 2009 at 2:09 pm  

    Kulvinder
    “The interesting point about all this is whereas a minority of ‘blacks’ objected to ‘non-black’ sales staff/assistants; L’Oréal’s executives were apparently of the opinion the majority of ‘white’ people would object to ‘non-white’ sales staff.”

    This is after all France not the UK. Where neo-Nazis ont win two european seats – they win 12% of the vote and run off for the presidency. I know many people from ethnic minorities in France who cant get jobs because the employers say while they are not prejudiced, the customers wont accept them. Its even worse if they wear a headscarf.

    Thank God for British tolerance

  52. 1mongrel — on 25th June, 2009 at 2:42 pm  

    Ravi (22). Tea’s not indigenous to India either, the story of how it got there (Along with Chillies, Tomatoes, Potatoes, Rubber etc) is like something from a James Bond novel. A Tale of British daring do. I think they’re entitled to their chai.

    http://www.plantexplorers.com/explorers/biographies/fortune/robert-fortune.htm

  53. munir — on 25th June, 2009 at 3:04 pm  

    1mongrel
    “Ravi (22). Tea’s not indigenous to India either, ”

    Tsk tsk wonder how long before the BJP/VHS/RSS starting campaigning against the alien implant of tea which must be uprooted from holy Bharat

  54. Chris Baldwin — on 25th June, 2009 at 4:21 pm  

    Isn’t it amazing that even on a post as seemingly innocuous as this, about a hiring practice you’d think everyone would agree was racist and unfair, people still pop up to rant about how unfairly L’Oréal are being treated.

  55. Shatterface — on 25th June, 2009 at 4:54 pm  

    One thing I’d definitely like to see the back of is the term ‘flesh coloured’, which was meaningless enough even when they were just targeting White people.

  56. London Muslim — on 25th June, 2009 at 10:32 pm  

    Ironically the advert next to this article is called “How I lightened my skin”.

  57. dashenka — on 26th June, 2009 at 5:51 pm  

    Jeniffer Smith is absolutely right! just stole my speech!

    products, targeted at white women,should be advertised by white women

    munir post 52 – ethnic minorities often blame racism for not being hired. that is stupid and weak position/ I think your friends were underqualified, let’s face the truth

    and of course customers should be served by somebody whos face is hidden – it is scary not matter who she or he is – muslim or someone else, desiring to hide his face.
    no visual contact, discomfort for lacking the reaction recognisition, total disorientation))) isn’r it is obvious

  58. dashenka — on 26th June, 2009 at 6:07 pm  

    munir, let me ask you a questions – you see racism everywhere, are nor you tired to live in such a horrible country? why don’t you to your motherland& or historical motherland in you were born in United Kingdom?

  59. Ravi Naik — on 27th June, 2009 at 8:04 am  

    Tea’s not indigenous to India either, the story of how it got there (Along with Chillies, Tomatoes, Potatoes, Rubber etc) is like something from a James Bond novel. A Tale of British daring do. I think they’re entitled to their chai.n

    I said Asia, 1mongrel. The Chinese drank it as a beverage for thousands of years, and Indians used it as medicine. I am just saying that what we consider today as inherently British – Tea – is not indigenous, but a product of multiculturism. And so is this (life abroad in the British forces):

    “The food is outstanding, but we’re going to come home weighing 25 stone, there’s a lot of deep fried food. But ask any British serviceman what food they miss most and they’ll say curry.”

  60. Golam Murtaza — on 28th June, 2009 at 7:37 am  

    No Dashenka. Jennifer is not right. She (and you) have completely failed to answer the arguments made against her original post by myself, Platinum, Munir and Ravi. I’ll keep this nice and simple for you. L’Oreal has been found guilty of racial discrimination in its recuitment of employees. Racial discrimination is illegal.

    If you object to the fact that racial discrimination is illegal in this part of the world, then I suggest maybe it is you who should consider moving elsewhere.

  61. dashenka — on 28th June, 2009 at 3:46 pm  

    Golam, I am not living in UK or even Europe and I am glad

    You really think that I am reading all the comments? I don’t! but for you I will try to find yours and answer it so it is a little bit to early to say that I have completely failed something, OK?

  62. Golam Murtaza — on 28th June, 2009 at 8:02 pm  

    No problem.

  63. dashenka — on 29th June, 2009 at 8:45 am  

    I don’t really see how it was proven that salespersons were or weren’t hired because of their skin colour. the ones who had been denied were complaining? maybe the company just found the suitable salesmen and had stopped searching and it happened so that all of them were white? maybe it wasn’t trying to keep racial balance on purpose, just trying to find staff as soon as possible? these cases are not so obvious and simple…

    anyway, where is a huge company like L’oreal with its money – where always be some “anti-racism” organisations with their will to get some “cash”

    and I don’t really any of munir’s and the others questions, only the rethorical ones)))) would you Golam kindly show me them (not right now, any time suitable for you))) in order not to convict me in ignoring them? just a little later maybe

  64. Golam Murtaza — on 29th June, 2009 at 5:52 pm  

    I’ll keep it brief.

    If you agree with the principle that discriminating between job applicants on the basis of their race is wrong, then I have no argument with you. That discrimination is what L’Oreal was accused of doing and that accusation was accepted by France’s highest court. If you still have a problem with that judgement, then I think your problem is with the French court, not with me. Do you have access to certain information that the court’s lawyers did not?

    It is also worth pointing out that L’Oreal was trying to recruit people to sell shampoo, NOT a product targeted only at white women. Last time I checked non white women use shampoo too. So there was no justification for excluding non white job applicants.

    By the way, I’m Asian, live in England, and like it here.

  65. dashenka — on 2nd July, 2009 at 8:38 am  

    any discrimination is wrong, it is obvious. but I really want to find out how it was proven…

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.