Pave: BBR

Racism in French hiring is not news. Racism in France is not news.

That standing law against such practices is ever pursued is news.

YOU'RE WORTH IT - IF WHITE.*
L'ORÉAL GUILTY OF RACISM

PARIS July 7, 2007 (Guardian) - In a landmark case, the Garnier division of the [L'Oreal] beauty empire, along with a recruitment agency it employed, were fined €30,000 (£20,300) each after they recruited women on the basis of race.

... In July 2000, a fax detailing the profile of hostesses sought by L'Oréal stipulated women should be 18 to 22, size 38-42 (UK size 10-14) and "BBR", the initials for bleu, blanc, rouge, the colours of the French flag. Prosecutors argued that BBR, a shorthand used by the far right, was also a well-known code among employers to mean "white" French people and not those of north African, African and Asian backgrounds.

Christine Cassan, a former employee at Districom, a communications firm acting for Garnier, told the court her clients demanded white hostesses. She said that when she had gone ahead and presented candidates "of colour" a superior in her own company had said she had "had enough of Christine and her Arabs".

... Anti-racism campaigners in France hailed the ruling. Racial discrimination in employment is a huge problem in France with a recent survey finding three out of four firms preferred white workers.

... [Samuel Thomas of SOS Racisme] said consumers of L'Oréal products in the UK and the US would be horrified to learn about the racial discrimination.

We took a look ourselves. Here is a screenshot of the landing page of the Garnier/Fructis French site (100% white / 0% non-white), here a screenshot of the styling page on the American site (66% white / 33% non-white). (The site pages with comparable galleries.) We drilled through the entire French site and found no non-whites, only pretty white women. Many with talking hair.

------------------------------------
* "Two years ago L'Oréal's slogan was softened from 'Because I'm worth it' to 'Because you're worth it' after concerns in France that the original appeared too money-oriented."

Now how does changing the point of opinion from the first person to the third person dispel the supposed "money orientation"? Money must still be exchanged to obtain the product whether one buys it oneself or some admirer buys it. We would suggest the concern was that the former slogan appeared too nombriliste in a nation sensitive to its native nombrilisme being in plain view.

PFFT (What is this?): A nation of Republican values ½ | Rayonnement français 0