Africa-Press – South-Africa. The two women who turned to the courts after the Clicks TRESemmé advert furore in 2020, said they did so because just having conversations about race and discrimination was not enough.
Instead, they said, it was important for the courts to pronounce on racial discrimination matters.
The two appeared before the South African Human Rights Commission’s inquiry into racial discrimination and discrimination in advertising on Friday.
They asked that their names and pictures not be published. They were identified as Witness X and Witness Y.
Witness X said: “The main reason we sought the help of the courts is that we believe once a decision has been made… that this is not acceptable, adverts should not be demeaning; it would be law and we would not keep coming back to the issue.
“The other thing would be keeping the conversation going. It’s not something we should speak about for a week and forget about it.”
She said while there were organisations that regulated the advertising industry, they had never imposed sanctions that deterred companies from producing discriminatory adverts.
She said once courts ruled on issues, the industry needed to work at putting in tighter controls on their systems.
The advert – in which a black woman’s hair was described as “dry and damaged”, “frizzy and dull” – sparked protests at Clicks stores across the country. It also led to TRESemmé products being removed from shelves. Last week, the Equality Court in Cape Town ruled that the advertisement had not discriminated against black women.
Only one ad agency signed up for anti-discrimination training after TRESemmé furore – regulator
Both Witness X and Witness Y said they abided by the court decision and understood that appearing before the commission was not about appealing the court decision, but a continuation of a conversation around race and discrimination.
They said it was important for advertising agencies to have diverse staff to ensure that advertisements like that were not produced.
“Had we had enough black women represented in spaces where decisions are made and adverts are put out, I don’t think we would be sitting in this position. I would not sit in a room where black women are demeaned and keep quiet. If they really wanted to include black women in a positive light, they could have done that. They could be more inclusive in the process of developing the advert itself,” said Witness X.
Witness Y on the other hand said she also believed there should be legislation governing advert production.
“There should be a law in place to ensure that advertisements are structured in a way that includes everyone and respects everyone. Large corporates also need to know that it is not okay to take out adverts that are offensive… there needs to be a law that is in place that can govern how adverts are put out there.”
They said going to court was also sending the advertising industry a message that black women would not tolerate discrimination. They said sanctions against companies that produced discriminatory adverts should be “stinging” to deter others.
Witness X said:
Witness Y said she felt the advertisement was demeaning and offensive.
Friday is the last sitting of the week-long hearings.
The Independent Communications Authority of South Africa was supposed to give testimony after the two women. Due to technical issues with streaming the proceedings online, the hearing was adjourned.
The commission said a second round would be held later this year.
Never miss a story. Choose from our range of newsletters to get the news you want delivered straight to your inbox.
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
