No, when it comes to issues like domestic violence sometimes cultural context matters. Every culture has domestic violence but some cultures might be more reluctant to report it because it's more normalised or they think it will bring shame on their family or culture to expose it. Some cultures might be apprehensive to go to a shelter because they view it a certain way or don't think their cultural needs will be met there etc. How you talk to victims will need cultural context, and when you're at your must vulnerable sometimes it's just nice to be with your own 'kind' who you're most at ease with and who you know will understand what you're talking about.
What's most important are the outcomes and if we find that having more DV support organisations that cater to specific cultures means better outcomes than that's the most important thing rather than half baked definitions of what is and isn't racist.
It is good that you shine the light on the culture aspect, it is true that this is important.
And I did not mean that certain groups should not be a (sole) focus.
What I referred to was the incident of the mixed-race woman being turned away, as her being partially white would mean that she was more privileged.
This I find potentially discriminatory. So what if she has a few genes from a white lineage?
She could still have been brought up and abused in a black culture. Which is probably why she chose this charity. She might identify as black?
But because of her genes she was turned away.
So purely because of her race, heritage, parents/family. I find this to be wrong.
The fact that this continues to circle back to "but what's wrong with asking where your from?" ... Sigh. Ms. Fulani literally gave TWO answers to that question before understandably getting rustled by the continuation of the inquisition: her foundation's name and hackney. That is enough to show that this is just wilfully denying there's a problem.
If I ask anyone, because I don't know them or because their accent is not the average accent of the place we're in or just to chit chat, where they're from, I take their first answer as the only answer. It doesn't matter if that fits into my idea of what a citizen or inhabitant of said place looks like. Anything else is racism and I just hope we as a thread can go on to other topics because people are just outing their own closeted racism and it's kind of sad.
If even the royal family/the palace has seen this was wrong, it's silly that outsiders continue to deny it.
I find this a bit harsh and not true.
And frankly, if I would ask you where you were from and you said "tattle" and then "tattle headquarter" I would have thought you misunderstood the question.
It obviously is a topic worth discussing, as otherwise nobody would discuss it!
And also, given the noises made by Harry and Meghan, as well as the problematic Commonwealth tour, as well as the many references to colonialism and whether the BRF should apologise for slavery, I also think that his topic is very much linked to the BRF, and current, and maybe even more relevant than Kate's latest coat.
It is something that is being brought up again and again and in different ways - and personally I think NF brought it up in a clumsy way and with her own agenda - but I don't think that the BRF is going to be able to just ignore this topic and the issues associated with it.