Taking the stand on Day 5 of the South African Human Rights Commission national investigative inquiry into racial discrimination and discrimination in advertising, two Clicks complainants told the commission that Clicks was unfair to black women.
In 2020, Clicks published a hair care advertisement that displayed black women’s hair as “dry” and “frizzy” while white women’s hair was “fine” and “flat“. This elicited complaints from the public after the advert was circulated on social media, leading to some of its stores being closed.
Witnesses X and Y told the commission that the Clicks advert, as well as Unilever, affected them personally including black women in South Africa and the whole of Africa.
Testifying on the Clicks matter, complainant Y explained that the issue started when the advert was broadcast in 2020, portraying black women’s hair as dry and frizzy. She said naturally, blacks and whites do not have the same hair texture and black hair should not be seen as a problem.
However on the approach to the matter, witness X said they took the matter to the Equality Court because it felt unfair to black women. She said they wanted to make it known that as black women, they would not leave the issue lying down because they have come far with racism and it should stop.
“We took the matter in our personal capacity because it is personal to us, my hair is mine and it’s personal,” witness X said.
They shared with the commission that they were aware of the Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) but did not know how they operated and if they could have helped them take the matter to court.
Witness X clarified that representation matters. She said if one is going to advertise on a platform that appears to eevryone, surely that should accommodate all races and not exclude others.
She continued that the Clicks advert used black women in a negative light because they subjected their hair to being normal and fine, after using these hair products.
Speaking on the hair issue in South Africa, complainant Y said she would only speak about South Africans and not individuals globally. She gave an example of young girls in South Africa being afraid of going to school because of the thought that their hair could be an embarrassment to them. She said Clicks had their way of seeing black women’s hair.
When asked about the impact of the advert, witness Y said the impact lies within them as a society because it affects everyone. She said getting comments such as their hair was inferior pained them because it affected their confidence as well. “I have nieces that are attending school but due to these comments, they are even afraid of going to school with loose hair because they think it is untidy,” she said.
Both witnesses X and Y said the advert was demeaning, disrespectful and offensive. Meanwhile witness Y said it took her back further that if they are raising their girls in a place that is not good enough, then what are they doing? “We should appreciate our beauty in all manners,” she said.
Adding to that, witness X said there were not enough conversations about this matter and at least with the help of the courts, things might be levelled.
“If black women were supported in the advertising spaces then maybe racist adverts would not appear on our screens,” X said.
Furthermore, complainant Y said they needed to have laws in advertising spaces that could ensure that adverts were structured in a way that they respect everyone. “Large corporations should know that it is not right to have adverts that suppress other people,” she said.
Witness Y told the commission that Clicks employs many black women and, before issuing the advert, they should have gathered them and asked their views about the advert, instead of broadcasting it.
X said sanctions imposed on them would be very harsh but at least warn other companies not to do the same thing.
Political Bureau
