Ö÷²¥´óÐã

On TV, it was first Big Brother, then Shipwrecked. This week the 'gay adoption row' rumbles on: should we discriminate against Catholics or gay people? Ouch editor Damon Rose throws disablism into the arena.

So. Was Jade Goody being racist last week on Celebrity Big Brother? Most media outlets seem to think so. If you're like me, you may have been a little confused about what we were seeing on our TV screens, though. Was it racism? And would anyone have picked up on disablism at all, had it occurred in the house?

I've come to believe that Jade was indeed displaying casual racism. But it took me a few days to reach this conclusion because of its complexity. Truthfully, I was rather more disgusted by Danielle and Jack's comments which, to me, looked more sinister than Jade's behaviour. Jade has taken the full flack though because of her persistence, the tone of voice, her attacking nature - the TV friendliness of her unfriendliness, if you like.

I don't see myself as an apologist for racism, no no no, but I felt I was seeing something else. I thought Jade and her friends were jealous of Shilpa's class, her status, that she is a beautiful demure intelligent woman, and that she has a kind of poise and dignity they will never have. Oh and there's the small fact she has servants too - red rag to a bull?

I found myself saying: "She's not racist she's just a silly girl" - her outbursts reminded me of playground behaviour. "Why would a young woman from cosmopolitan London have any interest in being racist?" "She's classist if anything." "She's just jealous!"

What did happen is this: Danielle, Jo and Jade singled out Indian actress Shilpa Shetty as different. The three girls were bonding by attacking Shilpa, the one they saw as least like them, more disposable. Class and envy were definitely in the mix. There was probably a little bit of gender discrimination in there too as I'm sure Shilpa would have been treated differently if she had been male. But also racism. The class, her look, the way she spoke and held herself, it was all born of her cultural upbringing. So that's racism. But not just racism.

Let's get this right - racism is no worse than any other discriminatory ism. The fact that 'racism' seems to be the magic trigger to mass media coverage is just symptomatic of global jitteriness. Racial, cultural and religious intolerances are dangerous, what with our global village getting ever smaller. If it was generally felt disabled people had the ability and wherewithal to bomb buildings and transport systems, for instance, we'd be in a world with a very different kind of paranoia with red top newspapers calling for ramps to be removed in public places and broadsheets calling for understanding and free incontinence pads.

So how would the nation have taken to a bit of disablism, eh? How do you recognise disablism? Well if Stephen Hawking had made it into the house as was rumoured, what would we have seen? "Oi brainiac! You reckon you're so clever. I'm gonna burst your tires". I'm relatively sure we wouldn't have seen someone roundly bullying him: he's physically weaker, he can't walk, and he can't communicate as easily. It's coded into our genes not to hurt the vulnerable. But barriers would be there because there are fewer like-for-likes on a daily interpersonal level; some of the basics of living have been taken away from the prof: limbs and speed of communication for example.

How then would disability prejudice have been displayed? Probably with softened faces, cute words and louder voices. Maybe with subtle little things like: "let's not fill the professor's mug up as much as ours because he might spill his tea." Or: "let's wait to play spin the bottle until Stephen has gone to bed". Or "we'll keep the alcohol in a higher cupboard because the disabled fella is bound not to drink".

Would viewers look on and think, "They're being insensitive and divisive and nasty?" Or would they think: "That's nice of them; he might have scalded himself on all that tea if they'd given him a full mug."

Deciding, rather than asking, is disablism. Thinking that you're being nice but not consulting is disablism. It's one end of a complex set of prejudices. But would The Sun have known to take against any of these things? And is it as bad as racism? The key thing here is that it may have been done without any aggression. Aggression is ugly in any language. I'd like to think that some kind of national debate might have started up though.

Later this year, the Commission for Racial Equality, The Disability Rights Commission and the Equal Opportunities Commission are merging into a single body. Why? Well, amongst other things, it is argued that discrimination is complex, often multilayered, served up to individuals rather than to groups. One body to reflect the complexity of life. Shilpa is 'different', yes, but only in the context of who she is with. But why weren't they being racist towards Jermaine? Was this Asianism? Anti-Hinduism? A simultaneous oppression with no easy name to give it? This all has to be an argument for why a single equalities commission is a good thing.

But in a world where disablism is barely understood or sometimes thought of as kindness - even if it leads to joblessness, exclusion and unhappiness - surely racism and sexism are going to eclipse disablism in the new body?