Exactly!

The "glares" could be a reaction to a wide variety of things. If I see someone in pink cords, I would glare at him/her, it's nothing to do with the race of the person. I just can't get over the tackiness of the cords.

Thats just cordist!!!!

At the end of the day, I think seperating beauty contests into these "niches" like white, black, big, small only serves to create a wider space between us. I see no reason why larger women, black women, little petite small breasted women cannot compete against the "barbie" doll's we have currently...because I would vote for any of the above before the standard "white teeth, perma tanned, back combed to the inch of their lives" look that is happening.

By using the "certain colour only" we are saying we are different from another race just because of our skin colour...and we arent! A skin colour is a skin colour, nothing more. Its our culture, our personalities, our souls that make us different from the next person!

I'm sorry but the irony in that has made me laugh (I'm a lover of irony!)

I see no problem with it.

In America we have Irish-American, among other heritages, Beauty Pageants and the Black girls don't complain about it.

If this was called "Miss Britian" and only Blacks were allowed then that would be another story but it's meant to target a specific group that I would assume is under-represented in the UK and I doubt it's meant out of hatred. Those Black women on the clip didn't seem to have this Racial Superioity complex.

Another very nice summation.

There are all sorts of specialist organisations with restricted membership in the UK. Provided they're not cutting off other people from essential services, (for example, the only bed and breakfast or guest house in the village refusing to serve gay or black people), it's unlikely to have broken any law IMO, unless it's done deliberately to incite racial hatred.

Can't help thinking of when the British National Party hired the wrong sort of DJ over the phone. At least they're an equal opportunity employer, albeit inadvertently.

Classic liberal stuff. Could it perhaps be because not that many black girls actually want to do it?

Exactly, I mean there are shampoos designed for black women, because their hair is different to white women's hair, I suppose they're racist for not using white models

You mean the point I raised in the post I wrote?


Because there are alternatives for those who are excluded. It's just like the way Digital Spy can ban racists and homophobes without infringing their civil rights, while a doctor wouldn't be allowed to refuse to treat them.

If it were the only bus company in the village then a blacks only bus company would be illegal, just as a whites only one would be.


Devastating rebuttal.


Link please.

Inequality in the present, even with the aim of combatting "discrimination of the past" just raises tensions, and does nothing to curb ill-feeling towards ethnic minorities. In fact it exacerbates tensions, and makes them appear to be charity cases who couldn't get a job otherwise... even if it's not the case.

Why do I need to provide a link, Mikey? It's a suggestion- hence the use of the words could it be....?

If we want to go down that road, then could someone provide a link to prove black girls are routinely discriminated against, and excluded from modelling at present?

Interesting. So by my reckoning, on a strictly logical basis, you could legally hold a "white women's fashion show" ~ unless of course, as I postulated previously, there is some clause relating to racial demography, within race discrimination legislation.

Let me immediately add, I don't think anybody should: this is a purely theoretical scenario, made in an attempt to establish and pin down what is seeming to be a somewhat nebulous law.



Absolutely spot on.

But they are queuing up to enter "Black Britain" contests?


It'd be difficult to prove because it'd be hard to find an employer who could admit it. One would have to talk to somebody who's read a lot of fashion mags and not seen many black faces on them, like Pam maybe.

Judging from the amount of Miss Englands we've seen who have been non-white, I'd guess they feel they have some justification in starting their own thing, though.

Unless it's done to deliberately incite racial hatred, yes. I'd be interested to hear another legitimate reason for holding a white women only fashion show in England today, though.

Now I think we are getting right into the kernel of the entire debate here.

Why is the one, incitement, and the other not ?

Sorry to press you on this Mikey, but I'm desperately trying to get my head round the legislation, in a logical way: one that demonstrates strict impartiality.

With a "Miss [insert minority group here] Britain" they could say they're holding it to combat under-representation in the national event. Miss [majority group] Britain has no such justification, because its members are adequately represented in the national competition. One could therefore conclude that its purpose is something other than that of combatting under-representation, because the majority group are not under-represented.

That's the theory as I understand it.

And you reckon that they all applied for normal modelling contests? It's like if they ran a modelling contest for girls with glasses- I would wager a lot of girls who didn't apply normally would apply, because of the novelty.



Ok... so reading a few magazines, annd not finding that many black girls is "proof" of discrimination? Hardly.


Not that I require proof, but I am mystified how you suddenly require links when I made a statement of suggestion rather than alleged fact.

There's not been that many Miss England's who wore glasses- should they start their own contest?

The more magazines you read, the more accurate the study would become in theory. The alternative is that the organisers are lying or stupid.


It just seemed counter-intuitive - why would black girls who couldn't be arsed to run for the national competition suddenly run for a black contest if they didn't want to be models.


Why not?

That makes sense. But is that theory enshrined in race discrimination legislation itself, or does it spill over into some other law, to do with incitement ?

Apologies if you don't know.

I don't know.

Thanks. Neither do I.

For that reason, I've actually e mailed the CRE for some clarification on the precise terms of the law.

Thanks, you said it all for me

I think I agree with you! You said the thing I was trying to say, but couldn't find the words Thanks!

But if black women didn't want to take part, surely this pageant would flop from lack of participants?

By stopping that pageant, will the world really be a better place? It is there to combat under-representation, and who are we to stop it? In a perfect world all people black, white, fat, thin, short, tall would all have equal represernation but that is not the world we live in. There is context and history which can never be forgotten.

Are you against Black magazines as well such as Pride? Or should we wait to see whether on the off-chance Glamour will feature hair relaxing kits and 'Silk n' Seal'?

I agree with the point, but how long do you wait for society to become more equitable? Do you sit back and hope that given time it will work itself out, thus doing nothing about the effects of prejudice upon people's prospects, or do you actively target it and basically say to those who are unhappy 'don't be so selfish'.

I did used to be in the former camp (when it comes to affirmative action that is: this beauty pageant rubbish is poor), but when you think about the size of the injustice we're talking about here, sitting back suddenly seems beyond laziness; it's almost contemptible.

Education and setting injustices right are the best way to lessen problems, not letting it go on because you might ruffle the mainstream's feathers.

Most of the great social changes have come without mass public consent.