After a tumultuous, scandal-plagued 40-day election campaign, Justin Trudeau and the Liberals have won a minority government in Canada, taking 157 seats. Trudeau will serve as the Canadian prime minister for a second term and the Conservatives will continue to form opposition. The Canadian Liberals lost seats from 2015 (when they won a majority) and will now have to gain support from at least one party to pass any legislation and fulfil its campaign promises in the coming years.

The election night wasn’t the nail-biting, too-close-to-call race many pundits expected (some said the ballot count could go into the morning), but it was still an eventful evening that ended with the divisiveness the election became known for. Instead of waiting their turns to speak — it’s customary to for the winning candidate to go last — Trudeau, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, and the NDP’s Jagmeet Singh all gave their election night remarks at the same time, each offering tepid calls for unity.

Here, we break down some of the election night’s highlights.

What were the final election results?

A party needs 170 seats for a majority government, and the Liberals squeaked through to land 157 seats, with support coming from Ontario and Quebec. The Conservatives, which will form the opposition, finished with 121 seats, a resurgent Bloc Québécois took 32 seats, the NDP garnered 24, and the Green Party took a historic 3 seats. This was a close race, with the Conservatives narrowly winning the popular vote, with 34.4% to the Liberals’ 33.1%, the lowest popular vote margin in Canadian history.

What were the biggest upsets?

The Liberals were completed shut out from every riding in Saskatchewan, which went completely Conservative. In Alberta, Conservatives won 69% of the popular vote and all but one seat, which went to the NDP’s Heather McPherson.

Last night also saw the first Green Party MP victory outside of British Columbia, with a historic win for Jenica Atwin in Fredericton, New Brunswick.

Yves-François Blanchet and the Bloc Québécois took a third of the popular vote in Quebec, becoming the most unexpected story of the election. The huge win for the party shows a major shift in the province’s politics and will provide a new challenge for the Liberals.

Finally, in a shocking upset, Liberal and former Olympian Adam van Koeverden unseated long-time Conservative and Deputy PC Leader Lisa Raitt in the Milton, Ontario riding after an 11-year term.

What does a Liberal minority government mean for the NDP?

Last night, pundits on Canada’s Public Broadcaster CBC credited the NDP’s showing to the “Singh save,” or in other words, the impressive last-minute push by leader Jagmeet Singh to secure more seats than earlier projected. It still wasn’t a great showing for the NDP — in 2015, it had 44 seats and this year it dipped to 24, enough for official party status, but taking a big hit in Quebec. Since the Liberals will have to work with another party if they want to get anything done, the NDP has enough seats to be a power player.

What did Justin Trudeau say in his victory speech?

Aside from the poor etiquette of speaking at the same time as his opponents, Trudeau gave an energetic victory speech in which he proclaimed that “Canadians rejected division and negativity” in their decision to re-elect the Liberal Party. “You’re sending our Liberal team back to work in Ottawa, with a clear mandate — we will make life more affordable, we will continue to fight climate change, we will get guns off our streets, and we will keep investing in Canadians,” the prime minister said. He spoke to Quebec and the Prairies directly, acknowledging his party’s dismal showing in each region. “Regardless of how you cast your ballot, ours is a team that will fight for all Canadians,” he said.

What did Andrew Scheer say about his loss?

Scheer conceded the loss, thanking his staff, family and voters and then delivered a speech that reiterated many of the talking points of his campaign. “Not only have they lost over 20 seats, but Mr. Trudeau has also lost votes and lost support in every region of the country,” he said. “Tonight, Conservatives have put Justin Trudeau on notice, and Mr. Trudeau, when your government falls, Conservatives will be ready, and we will win.” If you were expecting a humble or gracious concession address, this wasn’t it.

Did Jane Philpott and Jody Wilson-Raybould win their ridings?

Simply put, Philpott lost and Wilson-Raybould won. The embattled former Liberal members were forced out of the caucus after the SNC-Lavalin affair and chose to run as independents. Philpott lost to Liberal Helena Jaczek in the Markham-Stouffville riding while Wilson-Raybould edged out her Liberal opponent for a win in the Vancouver Granville riding as the only independent representative in the country.

Will Maxime Bernier continue on in his riding as a climate-change denying bigot?

Nope! The leader of the People’s Party of Canada was defeated handily by Conservative candidate Richard Lehoux by more than 6,000 votes. After creating his own party and running on a platform of hate and in opposition to science, Bernier not only lost his riding, but the future of his party looks bleak. The people have spoken.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

How A Liberal Government Could Impact Your Life

Canadian Celebrities Weigh In On The Election

How Abortion Became A Hot-Button Election Issue

Susie Cave can do no wrong with her ultra romantic label, The Vampire’s Wife. Now, in partnership with film and theatre costume designer Alice Babidge, Cave has created an otherworldly new collection, ‘Pussy Bow’, and enlisted her closest friends and collaborators to star in the campaign. 

The collection features exaggerated takes on all the hallmarks of Cave’s brand, from street-sweeping and sky-high hemlines, voluminous sleeves and tight cuffs, to the most sumptuous of fabrics. The lookbook’s all-star cast includes the inimitable Kate Moss, wearing the metallic Mayhem minidress, Keira Knightley in the eponymous Keira dress, all florals and bow sleeves, and a trio dressed head-to-toe in vampish black: Cave herself, her beloved singer-songwriter husband Nick, and fellow designer and old friend Bella Freud.

Shot by Casper Sejersen, further guests featured in the campaign include photographer Mary McCartney, who wears her American Chevron evening dress with Converse kicks, art director Simon B. Mørch in the ruffled lace Early dress, and legendary milliner Philip Treacy and husband Stefan Bartlett standing either side of Cave, who wears the glorious pussybow Total Mayhem dress. 

Cave, who was one of the industry’s most prominent models during the 1990s, has been shot by everyone from Helmut Newton to Steven Meisel but is now better known for being the contemporary actress and musician’s dressmaker of choice. Founding The Vampire’s Wife (named after an unfinished novel by Nick which ruminates on the muse and the creative process) back in 2014, her clientele includes the likes of Florence Welch, Dakota Johnson, Alexa Chung and Chloë Grace Moretz, all drawn to the hyperfeminine silhouettes and rich fabrics of her pieces.

The Vampire’s Wife has gone from cult label to red carpet-approved, but no matter how many household names champion her clothes, Cave’s aesthetic DNA is as palpable as ever. 

Pussy Bow is available online at The Vampire’s Wife from today.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Alison Mosshart's Rock & Roll Collab Is Here

Margherita Missoni On Family, Colour & Gen Z

Ganni On Bringing Their Copenhagen Cool To London

In 2016, Grace Lombardo received a devastating breast cancer diagnosis that resulted in a double mastectomy. As the mother-of-three struggled to accept her new appearance and the sense that she’d lost control over her own body, Lombardo decided to get a mastectomy tattoo across her breasts and ribcage to cover the scars the surgery left behind. This October, Lombardo stars in a Breast Cancer Awareness campaign for hot-tools brand GHD, which has empowered her to tell her story and show her tattoo to people all over the world. Two years after her mastectomy tattoo, Lombardo tells us, in her own words, how it’s changed her life. The following interview was told to Rachel Lubitz and edited for length and clarity.

I was diagnosed with breast cancer on April 19, 2016. I was 35 years old, had three kids under the age of seven, and was in the best physical shape of my life. I don’t carry any of the known genetic markers — I’m just one of those people who randomly got the disease young with no discernible reason.

29 days later, on May 18, I had a double mastectomy. I didn’t allow myself to do too much research. I just thought, This is what’s coming for me. That was hard, because I’m the type of person who craves control. I just had to let go completely and trust in the medical team. I was able to keep my nipples, so when they took the bandages off after surgery, my breasts kind of looked the same. Looking in the mirror was a different story — that’s when you see the gory details of all the stitching and the drains hanging off the sides of your body.

After a mastectomy, you have no physical sensation or nerve receptors in your breasts at all. I didn’t touch my breasts or interact with them for months; they were just off-limits to me. They feel really cold, because there’s no blood flowing to them anymore — no one told me that would happen. It took a while for me to truly realise the devastation of losing my breasts. When I did, months down the line, it was really tragic. It felt like a real loss of control and my femininity.

Around two weeks after I had my reconstructive surgery, there was a front-page article in The Chicago Tribune about David Allen, who is known for his beautiful mastectomy tattoos. Multiple family members and friends sent me the link to the story. I went to his website, looked through the pictures, and instantly knew I was going to do it, even though I had never had a tattoo before — I was just a regular suburban woman who drives a minivan. This was something I was going to be able to choose to do for myself, to cover up this area of my body that I hated to look at, and I was going to put something there that made me happy.

David makes it really easy: You send him a photograph of the area you want tattooed and you point out what you do and do not like, then he picks designs that he thinks will best achieve your goal. The one I ended up picking is an old French sketch of multiple roses that are towards the end of their lives. There was something about the metaphor there: It’s so beautiful, but if you really look at it, the thorns show that there are hard, pointy, scary things that happen, even to the most beautiful flower.

I had my tattoo done on the one-year anniversary of my mastectomy: May 18, 2017. That day held every emotion that I have available to me. We did it in about four hours. During the tattooing process, we talked about how I felt that my body had been mutilated, and had turned into something that was like a traitor to me. It was wild to sit in that chair and think that, just a little over a year ago, I didn’t see anything coming. Now I have a short, spiky blonde mohawk, new breasts that don’t do anything, and I’m getting a huge tattoo. I cried multiple times from the power of it all, and at the end, I tearfully thanked David for giving me a piece of my body back. I really felt that way. 

Part of getting the tattoo was saying, No way, cancer. Your time is up. I’m doing something for me in the place you tried to destroy. The great thing is that when I look down at it now, I don’t always think about the cancer. I figured I always would, but now, sometimes I look at it and think, That is so dope, and I’m so glad it’s there. I’m always shopping for shirts that have big arm holes, looking for ways to show it off, and it makes me feel cool whenever I’m at the gym and it’s peeking out of a sports bra.

My tattoo represents the ability to show other women that we have options and we can take back control of our bodies. There’s a million things I can’t do, but I can show this off and tell the story. 

That’s part of why this partnership with GHD was so exciting for me. David signed on with them for Breast Cancer Awareness Month, because they wanted to showcase mastectomy tattoos and women who have had them. They asked him who he’s tattooed who’d be willing to do this with them, and he said my name. They called me and I was like, ‘You got the wrong girl. I’ve got horrible hair.’ They were like, ‘That’s not what it’s about. We want a powerful woman who’s reclaimed her body with this tattoo.’ That’s all I needed to hear. 

As part of this campaign, I’m doing photoshoots with 30 people in the room who tell me I look beautiful and are listening to my story. It’s been such a magical experience for a person who’s had their ego taken away from them about how they look. I’ve met women all over the world now who aren’t comfortable telling people they’ve had a mastectomy — not even family sometimes. When they see what this tattoo has done for me and the fact that I’m willing to show it in a beauty campaign, it seems to transfer power over to them. That feels like a gift to me. I’ve said it before: Whether I’m done with breast cancer or I get it again, this alone was worth it. 

It’s hard to put into words the power this tattoo has given me. In my neighbourhood, everyone knew me as the poor mom who has cancer. Everyone was having to explain to their children why my children’s mom was bald. But now my identity is the badass mastectomy tattoo lady, and that feels 100% correct. I have this side of me that’s almost like my alter ego, the badass survivor who carries the art of war on my body. I don’t know if I’ve ever felt more like myself. 

Special thanks to the documentary Grace for providing additional footage of Lombardo and Allen. 

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Vulval Cancer Stole My Clitoris

CBD Might Help Breast Cancer Patients, Too

Is Sad Nipple Syndrome Really A Thing?

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Black History Is Happening Right Now

Reclaiming The Lost History Of Black British Women

Capturing The Experience Of Black Women In Europe

In 1961 Diane Munday was in her late 20s. Married with three kids under the age of four, she got pregnant. Instantly she was certain – with every fibre of her being – that she couldn’t have another child, physically, psychologically or financially. 

She wanted an abortion but the procedure was illegal. It’s hard to fathom that, with the so-called sexual revolution in full swing, the availability of the contraceptive pill for the first time and the advent of free love, Britain’s abortion legislation at the time consisted of a Victorian law – the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act – but it did. 

That piece of legislation made it a criminal offence for women to procure terminations and for medical professionals to perform them. Anyone who did so – including Diane – could be jailed for life. 

That didn’t mean abortions didn’t happen, though. It just meant they weren’t safe. Backstreet abortions were a feature of everyday life and, as Diane reflects now from her mid-century modern living room in the same semi-detached home she inhabited at the time of her abortion, “hospitals would keep beds open after payday for women suffering complications from botched procedures”. 

Some abortions were allowed, in very limited circumstances to save a woman’s life or preserve her health. This was because of the Bourne judgement of 1938, which allowed for a pregnancy to be ended if it made “the woman a physical or mental wreck”. However, these often came at a high price. 

Diane was fortunate in many ways. She was able to pay a decent doctor and “buy” a legal abortion, as she puts it. It wasn’t cheap. She says she was quoted £150 initially but managed to negotiate it down to “around £90 plus a psychiatrist’s fee” which came in at approximately a tenth of her husband’s annual salary at the time. Fortunately, there were no complications, though if either Diane or her doctor had been found out they could have been prosecuted and imprisoned. However, an acquaintance had not been so lucky. 

“As I was coming around from the anaesthetic, all I could think about was a family friend – she had been a dressmaker,” Diane says, sitting on an Ercol chair in her living room, sipping coffee. “She had been in a similar situation to me, but she didn’t have a chequebook to wave around in Harley Street so she went to a backstreet abortionist.”

She looks solemn for a moment and then says, starkly: “She died because my husband earned more than hers.”

In the decade that led up to the 1967 Act, abortion actually became the leading cause of maternal deaths. There were between 50 and 60 women dying each year as the result of an unsafe abortion. Diane notes: “I’ll never forget speaking to the doctors at St Bart’s hospital in east London, where I was working as a researcher. They kept beds open every week, after payday, because they knew how many women would be admitted because of serious complications like septic bleeding from backstreet abortions.”

It was after her own abortion, convinced that Britain’s restrictive laws were creating “one world for women with money and another for women without” that Diane began campaigning with the Abortion Law Reform Association. “I bought my health, my safety, I bought a mother for my children, I bought a wife for my husband,” she says. 

At the time, there was also a sharp focus on the fallout of the thalidomide disaster. In 1962, it was revealed that thousands of children had been affected by severe and even fatal foetal abnormalities after their mothers were prescribed the drug for morning sickness and sleeplessness. Because of the strict abortion laws in place, even women who knew their unborn baby might have been affected by the drug could not ask for the pregnancy to be terminated. 

“I’ll never forget the first time I stood up and said I had had an abortion at a Reform Association meeting,” Diane says, smiling. “There was a gasp from a lot of people in the room. We didn’t grow up hearing about abortions, you know, it was all very hush-hush. Even talking about it at all was radical.”

Today, women still use their stories as catalysts to bring about change. We’ve seen it on a global scale with the #MeToo movement online. What Diane and the other women did as part of the abortion reform movement was no different – they told stories, raised awareness, tried to change opinions and do away with stigma. They humanised an issue that those who were against abortion had done everything they could do to dehumanise. 

“After I told my story, a lot of people came up to me and told me that they hadn’t actually heard anyone speak like that about an abortion before,” Diane reflects. This decision to tell her story at a time when nobody spoke openly about abortion was radical. She was one of only a handful of women to do so.

“One by one, as I gave more talks, women from all walks of life would come up to me and say that they, too, had had an abortion. I realised then what a powerful weapon telling your story was – it made it clear that abortion was not about some nebulous woman in some nebulous place. It was me, them, here and now.” 

The Abortion Law Reform Association then sent a questionnaire to prospective MPs. One – a Liberal Democrat named David Steel – ticked the box which asked whether they would consider introducing a bill to reform abortion law if they were elected. 

Steel was elected in 1965 and his private member’s bill was selected in the House of Commons. That bill passed after an all-night sitting on 27th October 1967, becoming what we now know as the Abortion Act. 

Diane was there, in Westminster. “We stayed up all night,” she says, “just to keep things going.” But when it did pass she was in no mood for celebrating. 

“It sounds awful, but I was disappointed,” she reflects, coming to life and sitting bolt upright in her chair.

“We sat on parliament’s terrace, which looks out onto the Thames, and I couldn’t help but feel there was more to be done. Champagne was poured and I said, ‘I only want half a glass because the job is only half done’.”

This, she adds, is because she knew that the Act wouldn’t apply to Northern Ireland. “We were leaving those women behind,” she says. “I also knew that it didn’t go anywhere near as far as it should in England and Wales (the law works slightly differently in Scotland) so it was always my hope to be able to complete the job.” 

In order to get the Act over the line, concessions had been made. Two doctors were required to sign off on an abortion, they were only allowed to be carried out in certain places and, crucially, the 1861 Act was not repealed but legislated over. This meant that despite the legalisation of abortion, it was still technically a criminal offence. 

Trying to interview Diane about her campaigning is not always easy. She is impatient for change and, perhaps, tired of journalists asking her the same questions on a loop while nothing changes. 

“We compromised,” Diane says bitterly when I press her on her feelings about the ‘67 Act. “I always objected to the idea that doctors should sign off on a woman’s behalf – it is our decision what we do with our bodies. I’ve said ever since that it is my life’s work to see abortion decriminalised and made a medical as opposed to a criminal matter once and for all.”

Over the years, Diane has received abuse. Red paint was splattered across her car, to symbolise the blood of the children she had supposedly murdered through her successful campaigning. She has a thick skin but is barely able to conceal the fact that the anti-abortion lobby in Britain still riles her. 

She says she won’t rest until the 1861 Act no longer has any bearing on abortion law in Britain. 

“We need decriminalisation for theoretical and practical reasons,” she says. “The arguments for it are exactly the same as they were in the 1960s. Without it, women in 2020 will still be governed by an act of 1861. The world was different then, women’s place in the world was different. The world has changed but abortion law has not.”

More than 50 years after the 1967 Abortion Act passed in the House of Commons, Diane Munday is still here, still talking and still telling the same story over and over again because she knows that’s how to bring about real change. 

Please sign our petition and help us change the law to fix abortion provision once and for all.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Two Years After Me Too, What Has Actually Changed?

How Our Government Betrays Women Seeking Abortions

The Women Who Stay With Problematic Men

On the morning of 10th April 1998, a new dawn broke in Northern Ireland – the Good Friday Agreement brought an end to the sectarian conflict known as The Troubles. After decades of violence, death and destruction among the Unionist and Nationalist communities that defined generations, the agreement ushered in a new era of peace and progress. 

At 4 years old, I was one of the ‘ceasefire babies’ – a generation that our parents believed would witness growth and change, reap expanding opportunities outside of traditions and army checkpoints. 

In the two decades since, it has been an imperfect peace, at once turbulent and static. Stormont (NI’s government) collapsed over 1,000 days ago and without a functioning assembly, paramilitaries strengthen, Brexit chaos looms large, vital legislation for the mental health crisis and domestic abuse falls away, and NI lags behind on urgent human rights issues – specifically, LGBTQ+ rights and abortion rights.

But this week, the Northern Irish people have once again woken up to a horizon-broadening political landscape, despite the mess of Brexit and Boris’ backstop. An amendment pushed through by Labour MP Stella Creasy was voted in by Westminster earlier this year, decreeing that should Stormont and its leading parties – the DUP (yep, the evangelical dinosaurs that have propped up the Tory government) and nationalist party Sinn Féin – fail to reform the executive before 21st October, Northern Ireland’s restrictive abortion laws would be overhauled. 

And so, NI has gone from having some of the world’s most constricting laws on abortion – the archaic 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, upholding that abortion is only available if significant risk to a pregnant person’s life can be proved, illegal even in cases of rape and incest – to the UK’s most liberal. 

Yet on this monumental day, four people will still travel from NI to access abortion elsewhere in Britain, like thousands before them. For many, a defining moment in their life will be compounded by the lack of vital healthcare afforded to our English, Scottish and Welsh counterparts. 

As this week approached, the DUP and the anti-choice movement attempted to bolster national and religious identity to stop reform. The DUP’s leader, Arlene Foster, met with religious leaders and paramilitary leaders, while party members Gavin Robinson and Jeffrey Donaldson have attempted to paint abortion as a partisan issue. 

For the nationalist community, the ongoing issue of the Irish Language Act has been pitted against abortion decriminalisation. Recently, while I was attending Saturday mass at home, my local Catholic priest preached emphatically about defying “English, Westminster intervention”. 

The Northern Ireland you probably see on the news can look conservative, two-dimensional and chaotic – especially with the DUP dominating discussions. But Northern Irish identity has always been textured and quirk-ridden. Characterised, yes, by religion and nationality, but neat social markers that were once ominous are now shared jokes, from how you say ‘H’ (‘haitch’ or ‘aitch’) to what refreshments are on offer after mass/church. 

If you’ve watched Channel 4’s Derry Girls you’ll remember a hilarious scene where they break down, absurdly, what’s Catholic and what’s Protestant. Who owns tea? Who has dibs on ABBA? People on Twitter even tried to work out Drag Race UK contestant Blu Hydrangea’s religious background. 

But in Northern Ireland, despite what our leaders want us to believe, we don’t live single-issue lives. I’m from a Catholic, Nationalist background but grew up in a DUP stronghold area, punctuated by paramilitary activity; in 1993, my father’s café was collateral damage in an IRA bomb. 

At school, my sex education was abstinence-based and shrouded by religion. Over the years I’ve campaigned for abortion rights. There have been some tough but vital family conversations about bodily autonomy, particularly with my mother who struggled with my pro-choice views. It almost fractured us but now I feel closer to her than ever, as we’ve found common ground – thankfully – as decriminalisation approaches. 

I’m not the only person whose life has been shaped by Northern Ireland’s abortion law. Now, as the legislation changes, many of us are able to take stock of how a future-facing, feminist perspective has changed our sense of our own identities. 

“Pro-choice activism has been the final nail in the metaphorical coffin of my Catholic upbringing,” Dr Maeve O’Brien, from County Tyrone, tells me. “It has ensured that my personal and social identity as an Irish woman from Tyrone is cemented in feminism, as opposed to any kind of identity shaped by the national question. Reproductive justice is the cornerstone of freedom for women, and neither the Catholic Church or Irish Nationalism, in my view, has this goal at their core.”

“I do not believe that ‘both sides’ should be engaged with in the abortion debate,” Dr O’Brien continues. “The objective of anti-choice fundamentalists is to go against EU law, WHO recommendations and to violate the human rights of women and girls. Such extremism should be de-platformed.”

Derry-based activist Shannon Patterson is from a Presbyterian, Unionist background. “Pro-choice activism for me 100% changed my sense of identity,” she explains. 

Going to an English university and becoming part of the Republic of Ireland’s Repeal the 8th campaign compounded it further for her. “I could no longer ignore how the world worked,” she explains. “I started quietly campaigning from England, my opinions were however left in England every time I flew home for holidays, and picked up again when I returned. I still felt guilt for removing the shackles of my upbringing, because NI wasn’t changing with me.”

“It was only when I had an abortion in England, safely and legally, that I really campaigned openly. I had to ask myself a lot of difficult questions, but having my abortion changed my life for the better. I joined Repeal – they gave me a platform and a voice. Activism gave me a new community, people who just wanted the world to be a kinder place for others.”

Many of the NI activists I speak to highlight the Irish Repeal campaign as a moment for interrogating their Irishness. “Post-repeal has only strengthened my convictions – continuing the fight in the north has brought out hardline misogyny from church and political elites,” says O’Brien. 

Rachel Watters, another NI activist who comes from a mixed Catholic and Presbyterian upbringing in Belfast, adds: “Being involved in a shared struggle and having a political education in what it means to be an Irish feminist changed my view of my identity.” 

“Now I would describe myself as an Irish woman before I would say I’m Northern Irish. Being involved in abortion rights campaigning has given me the chance to see that Irishness is not exclusive to the south or to people who have grown up always feeling Irish.”

The pro-choice movement recognises the delicate overlap of people’s politics, social dynamics, relationships and identities, best highlighted by the two hashtags used by campaigners: “#NowforNI” and “NowfortheNorth”, interchangeable, depending on whether people wish to define as Irish or Northern Irish. 

Emma Campbell of Alliance for Choice agrees: “The hashtags are really indicative of the identity issues here that we must respect.” A recent video from the group, #EqualityProds, rejecting DUP politician Gavin Robinson’s claims that abortion and equal marriage were partisan issues, featured a range of activists from the Unionist community declaring their support for change. “I’m proud to be a Prod for equality myself!” Campbell adds.

“Most people in Alliance for Choice – a movement of people from all backgrounds – put their social identity before their national one, but that doesn’t mean we don’t understand the people in NI who feel or vote differently. People don’t vote for the DUP because of their stance on abortion, they vote despite,” Campbell continues. “When the DUP isn’t succeeding – like right now – they try to turn it into one against the other.

“We consider ourselves part of an all-island movement because as far as we’re concerned, regardless of your politics, a change in the law for anyone on the island is beneficial for everybody,” she adds. 

The residual trauma of a conflict that polarised communities lives on in our politics; powers put in place by the Good Friday Agreement to satisfy ‘both sides’ have been actively used by political parties to halt progressive law reform. Though many feel they’ve moved past tribalist politics  – polls have shown people to be overwhelmingly more liberal on issues of LGBTQ+ and reproductive rights than our lawmakers would reflect – Northern Irish politicians still use identity as a bargaining chip. 

Danielle Roberts, also of Alliance for Choice, researched her PhD on the barriers to political participation for Unionist community women. “There was this idea that you have to choose between your Unionism or your feminism – if you’re a feminist Unionist, there’s no party for you,” she says. “People are still grappling with that.” 

“There’s a feeling in some parts of society that human rights are a Nationalist issue – but it isn’t, especially when issues like abortion, domestic violence or childcare provision are so out of step with Great Britain. We have to change those perceptions.” 

To soothe that tension, Campbell highlights that the group has had to “sell” Westminster’s intervention in NI laws to Nationalists as the repeal of British, colonial laws.

Both Campbell and Roberts highlight how pro-choice messaging has grown to be more inclusive, but it’s forever a learning process when it comes to diversity of race, class, accessibility and gender identity. The group uses the words ‘women and pregnant people’ in their campaigns to be inclusive of trans men; they provide refreshments and free transport to events where possible to help poorer people get involved; an upcoming workshop will centre disabled voices and the yearly vigil for Savita Halappanavar is led by a woman of colour. Their merch has also levelled up – the less confrontational and cerebral “Trust Women” slogans are now, proudly, “Abortion Rights Now”. Love Equality, NI’s largest LGBTQ+ campaign, stands in solidarity.

Eilish Graham, who is from Belfast but now lives in London, recalls how identifying openly as pro-choice was once more difficult. “Unlike today, it didn’t make you friends, even as recently as when I was at university around 2011,” Graham says. “It was isolating. Things have changed monumentally in such a short space of time.” 

Graham recalls feeling unwelcome in Queens University Belfast’s Catholic chaplaincy in the mid 2010s, when they were aware of her activism, and being ridiculed on the radio for her speech impediment when speaking about activism. Now, the university has an official pro-choice campaign group.

Many activists speak of the pro-choice community they’ve found – either online or in the real world – as a space for friendships and support networks. I myself met one of my greatest pals at a rally outside London’s Irish embassy, and we now co-run a pro-choice club night, Room for Rebellion, with other friends.

“To put it tritely, my CNR [Catholic, Nationalist, Republican] background family has been ‘on a journey’ due to my pro-choice activism, and I am proud to say we are a pro-choice house,” says O’Brien. “We now vote primarily in response to party stance on abortion rights – which means that Daniel McCrossan from the SDLP [a nationalist party, and an anti-choice candidate] for example, has lost first preferences in West Tyrone.”

“My friendships are exclusively with people who are pro-choice. Our bonds have only strengthened in the fight for decriminalisation in the north.”

Roberts adds: “I’ll wear my ‘Abortion Rights’ shirt to the shops and a woman with her trolley will just smile at me, or I was ordering a pizza last week and the woman taking my order said how much she loved my badge. Nice encounters like that are so much more frequent.”

Last year’s Life And Times Survey shows that Northern Ireland is largely pro-choice (75% in favour of reform); multiple women, like Sarah Ewart and Ashleigh Topley, have brought their cases to the courts and press, while thousands have protested in NI and beyond. 

While NI politicians attempt to protect the status quo and instil ‘us versus them’ politics, NI’s people are progressive, and proud of it. Growing up in Northern Ireland, our identity feels inherently political and something we continually have to fight for – our right to call ourselves Irish or British is in the courts, our peace structures are rattled by Brexit, our bodies and reproductive systems used as political pawns. Abortion law reform marks a political shift for the better – one that’s both personal and shared. 

As Campbell puts it: “We’re arriving into the 21st century together.”

Please sign our petition and help us change the law to fix abortion provision once and for all.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Theresa May: The Prime Minister Who Made No Sense

How Our Government Betrays Women Seeking Abortions

The Women Who Stay With Problematic Men

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Menstrual pad brand Always will no longer use the Venus symbol on its packaging, in a move that makes the products more inclusive of trans and non-binary customers. The symbol — a circle sitting on top of a cross — has traditionally been used to represent women. Always’ packaging change comes in response to customers urging the brand to make their period products more welcoming to people who don’t identify as women, but still menstruate.

According to CNN, Always’ parent company Proctor & Gamble announced the decision earlier today. “For over 35 years Always has championed girls and women, and we will continue to do so. We’re also committed to diversity & inclusion and are on a continual journey to understand the needs of all of our consumers,” the company said in a statement. “We routinely assess our products, packaging and designs, taking into account consumer feedback, to ensure we are meeting the needs of everyone who uses our products. The change to our pad wrapper design is consistent with that practice.”

Since Trans Visibility Day in March 2019, trans and non-binary customers and allies have been calling for the brand to change their design. “Could someone from Always tell me why it is imperative to have the female symbol on their sanitary products?” Twitter user Melly Bloom tweeted over the summer, via NBC News. “There are non-binary and trans folks who still need to use your products too you know!”

Activists are applauding the move. Steph deNormand, the Trans Health Program manager at Fenway Health, told NBC News, “For folks using these products on a nearly monthly basis, it can be harmful and distressing to see binary/gendered images, coding, language and symbols. So, using less coded products can make a huge difference. Trans and nonbinary folks are constantly misgendered, and a gesture like this can broaden out the experiences and open up spaces for those who need the products.”

The move has unfortunately sparked a transphobic backlash. The Daily Mail published an article about the packaging change with the title, “Transgender lobby forces sanitary towel-maker Always to ditch Venus logo from its products.”

Proctor & Gamble is standing by the decision — which they made in response to feedback, but which was not “forced.” In a statement to Snopes, they said, “After hearing from many people, we recognised that not everyone who has a period and needs to use a pad, identifies as female. To ensure that anyone who needs to use a period product feels comfortable with Always, we’re adjusting our pad wrapper design as part of our next round of product changes. As a global brand, our design updates will be adapted by multiple markets at various dates beginning in January/February 2020.”

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

What The American Trans Experience Looks Like

The Gender Identity Terms You Need To Know

Women Aren't The Only Ones Who Get Periods

From ghosting to breadcrumbing to benching, sometimes it feels like we need an entire dictionary of words describing annoying dating behaviours. Well, someone call Merriam-Webster, because there’s a new term to learn: Paperclipping.

We’re not talking about any old paperclips here, but a particular paperclip that millennials know very well: Clippy, the Microsoft Word icon that would pop up to ask if you needed writing a letter or formatting a resume. Microsoft retired Clippy back in 2007, but he lives on in our memes and memories.

So what does Clippy have to do with dating? This summer, illustrator Samantha Rothenberg used the infamous icon as a visual for a certain kind of flaky behavior. A post on her Instagram account, Violet Claire, shows Clippy voicing some too-familiar sentiments.

“Sometimes I pop up for no reason at all,” Clippy says in the illustration. “See, the truth is, I’m damaged, flaky, and not particularly interested in you. But I don’t want you to forget I exist.”

View this post on Instagram

Who remembers clippy? 📎 well he’s here to make sure you don’t forget him 🤠

A post shared by Samantha Rothenberg (@violetclair) on Jul 18, 2019 at 9:29am PDT

Rothenberg’s ‘gram went and viral, and now “paperclipping” has been covered by the New York Post, Glamour, and NBC News, among other publications.

“To me, paperclipping is when someone has you on the back burner and feels like you’re about to go cold. They’ll reach out — not in attempt to see you, or move things forward — but to re-stoke the flame and make sure you’re still an option,” Rothenberg tells Refinery29. “It’s wildly common, and there’s something empowering about putting a name to the action — now, rather than letting a papperclipper give you false hope, you can call it out for what it is and move on.”

If you’re guilty of paperclipping someone, stop that immediately, eharmony’s resident relationship expert Dr. Seth Meyers tells Refinery29. “People who paperclip others should think more about the feelings of the other person,” Dr. Meyers says. “The goal is to become more sensitive and compassionate in your relationships. Discontinuing this insensitive behaviour and becoming more sensitive can set the stage for the kind of emotional maturity they’ll need if they want to sustain a good relationship in the future.”

As for when your ex paperclips you? “While there are exceptions to every rule, a general rule to follow is to avoid people who have already shown you disrespect in the past,” Dr. Meyers says. “Research shows the best  predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.” 

While you can just ignore your paperclipper, you might decide to tell them you know what they’re up to. “I’ve had several people send me screenshots of them sending my comic to people who attempted to paperclip them,” Rothenberg says.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

The Wild World Of Viral Words

“Cockfishing” Is The New Dating Trend

When A Ghost Stalks Your Instagram Stories

On the heels of its new restrictions against posts promoting weight loss and cosmetic procedures, Instagram is rolling out yet another measure to combat the ever-growing influence of body alteration, an industry that takes up real estate on nearly every corner of the app. Namely, there will be no more plastic surgery filters.

According to a Facebook statement made by Spark AR, the company that creates Instagram Story filters, over the coming weeks, the Effect Gallery in Instagram Stories will eliminate all filters that give the effect of plastic surgery, and approval of any new plastic surgery-related effects will be indefinitely postponed. As far as the reasoning behind this update, the company shared in its statement that the goal is for “Spark AR effects to be a positive experience and are re-evaluating our existing policies as they relate to well-being.”

These filters run the gamut from the hyper-realistic to the fantastical to the futuristic, including the uber-popular Plastica. Of course, filters, by design, are intended to augment reality, and one can reasonably ask why those that provide a free face lift or lip filler are any more misleading than the myriad freckle or makeup filters still safe on the app. And then there’s the undeniable presence of dozens of third-party photo editing apps, which are what most people use to edit their Instagram photos anyway. (These are arguably worse, since the fact of their usage isn’t indicated the way IG Story filters are named at the top of the Story.) Needless to say, there will still be a ton of unrealistic imagery on Instagram — much of it masked as real.

But ultimately, this ban represents a step towards an Instagram that better prioritises the mental health of its users — many of whom are susceptible to believing the falsehoods peddled by detox tea ads or that the heavily-Facetuned photos gracing their feeds are totally authentic — and encourages transparency across the platform.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Instagram Just Launched A New App Called Threads

Instagram Is Officially Removing Its Following Tab

Trudeau Lived By The ’Gram. Will He Die By It?

If glitter has inexplicably become a thing you are into again, then chances are you’re familiar with Lemonhead LA. Founder Megan Dugan’s concoctions of high-shine sparkle blended into a sophisticated, non-sticky gel formulation are 2019 trend catnip. The glitter tears making headlines from Euphoria? That’s her product. As is the sparkle from Beyoncé’s well-documented Coachella performance makeup, Priyanka Chopra’s iconic look at the MET Gala, and countless red-carpet looks seen on Margot Robbie, Lady Gaga, and Dua Lipa. It’s nostalgic, fun, and, for £20 a pot, more accessible than most celebrity trends. 

It’s the kind of attention that any small indie brand owner would love. But often, particularly after posting a celeb shot, Dugan’s Instagram DMs are flooded with something uglier: allegations, derogatory comments, and threats. One time, a DMer told her to kill herself, another tried intimidating her with violence if she attended a certain L.A. beauty event. “Anything happy or that shows my success triggers it,” Dugan, 33, says from her company’s small office in North Hollywood, California. In moments like these, she’ll retreat from social media for a few days, leaving her burgeoning brand’s 132,000 followers hanging.

Her brand isn’t the obvious choice for digital harassment: It’s cruelty-free, made in the U.S., gender-neutral, works on all complexions, and it doesn’t appear that she ripped anyone off when launching it back in 2015 — it’s glitter’s environmental impact that’s courting controversy. 

Fear over glitter, the feel-good sparkle we’ve been conditioned to love since kindergarten, seems to have come out of nowhere, but it speaks to a list of concerns that have gained traction as climate change and ocean pollution have become larger international issues. See, glitter is often made from plastic, and environmentalists say it can easily find its way into the ocean where it’s ingested by marine life, an idea that got little reaction just a few years ago. 

Too Faced got some bad press when the brand launched face masks with glitter in them in 2017, but it was nothing compared to earlier this year when cult millennial makeup brand Glossier was met with massive social media backlash after releasing pots of glitter. Like plastic bags and straws, glitter has emerged as a top target by environmentalists, and in its wake, many music festivals have banned glitter, popular stores are cutting it from Christmas displays and packaging, and there’s a growing movement to make it illegal in the same way microbeads were banned all over the world. 

In 2019, everything we use, be it out of necessity or recreation, is being viewed through a new lens of sustainability. Earlier this year, stories came out explaining that clothing made with synthetic fabrics — so basically anything that’s not cotton, silk, or other natural materials — are shedding microplastics in the wash that end up in the ocean, just one more ingredient in the growing plastic soup that is our sea.

The stress and anxiety of it can be debilitating for consumers hearing it for the first time, especially when there is often a socio-economic barrier to making choices deemed better for the environment. Organic is more expensive. A polyester dress is far more affordable compared to silk. And glitter? Gen Z uses it as a form of expression, it’s a linchpin in the aesthetic at LGBTQ+ celebrations, and makeup artists revel in being able to flex their artistry in a striking way.

It’s enough to put an environmental stress lump in your gut and leave anyone feeling like they are forced to choose between the things we’ve grown to love and the future of our planet. 

Still, Lemonhead LA’s Insta DMs are increasingly hostile. But is glitter really the worst thing the beauty industry is creating? Dugan says that glitter has simply become a scapegoat for the beauty industry’s massive pollution problem. “I’m making glitter,” she says. “I’m not the bad guy.” So do we really need to swap glitter for the dull, Portland-inspired garb that defined environmental looks and fashion of yore — or is there a middle ground?

All That Glitters…

First things first: What the heck is cosmetic glitter? And better yet, why do we like it so much? Unlike craft glitter — cosmetic glitter’s rougher, sharper cousin — the version in makeup is traditionally made from thin, sandwiched layers of pigment, aluminum, and a kind of plastic called polyethylene terephthalate (a.k.a. PET) that are cut optimally into tiny particles to best reflect light, says cosmetic chemist Ni’Kita Wilson. It’s the reflection that makes it so sparkly, and it’s the sparkles that draw us in. It’s something that recent studies claim might be appealing because it tricks us into thinking we’re gazing at shimmering water, something we’re hardwired to seek. 

This is also what makes it so potentially damaging. The sparkly stuff gets washed down the drain and into the oceans where fish find it, too. They easily mistake it for prey, says Jonathan Whitney, Ph.D., a postdoctoral research fellow at Pearl Harbor’s NOAA labs. Dr. Whitney previously studied a similar phenomenon with microbeads — the tiny spherical beads used in body wash, toothpaste, and various other products — which were banned from sale last year. Dr. Whitney’s team had found microbeads in the bellies of dead baby fish off the coast of Hawaii, but now he says glitter is even more dangerous.

“Both are too small to be filtered by water treatment plants, so both end up in our waterways and are likely to be eaten by marine animals,” he says. “Beads look just like eggs, and glitter looks like shimmery plankton. Most fish are attracted to shimmery objects that catch the light.” But it gets worse. “Microbeads, being smooth and spherical, actually have a better chance of being [pooped out] without severe damage to animals,” he says. “Glitter, on the other hand, has sharp edges that pose more of a hazard at tearing and perforating guts.”

Plus, those tiny fish work their way up the food chain to us, just one reason why it’s believed that we’re all eating plastic every year. 

Bio Is Better…Right?

Remember Glossier’s internet backlash after launching its Glitter Gelée? To make amends, the brand publicly responded by assuring consumers that the brand would reformulate with biodegradable glitter. Glossier declined to comment for this story outside of assuring us that the reformulation is in the works. But here’s the catch: While there are more environmentally-friendly alternatives coming down the pike, they don’t yet offer the same finish or sparkle, and how much better they are for the environment is debatable. 

Biodegradable glitter is still new — only one major manufacturer has released anything close. “We recognised that plastic glitter was going to be an issue back in 2010, back before anyone was talking about this,” says Stephen Cotton, commercial director of Ronald Britton, one of the largest pigment and glitter manufacturers in the U.K.

The company’s team of chemists got to work formulating a glitter made from plants, and in 2014, it released the first rendition of Bioglitter, a less-environmentally hazardous sparkle. It wasn’t perfect: Most of the plastic, but not all, was replaced by plant-derived cellulose. However, creating something with all the attributes of traditional glitter was still out of reach. Five years later and Bioglitter is still a work in progress; there are limited colours and shapes, and the reflective finish of traditional glitter has yet to be accurately mimicked. It’s pretty close, but like luxurious silk and its finest synthetic alternative, you can tell it’s not the same. 

While not perfect, there’s already a huge market for biodegradable glitter. Brands like Projekt Glitter and Today Glitter have popped up to offer loose glitter and they’re starting to experiment with gels, too, but the Bioglitter tends to come across matte once mixed into a sticky base. Cotton admits it’s not a fair fight just yet, but says that iridescent glitter should roll out later this year and he hopes to have a holographic offering in 2020. 

As of right now, Cotton reports that Sparkle, the most shimmery line from Ronald Britton, degrades up to 87% in fresh water in 28 days, but he says that the company has yet to test degradability in ocean water, so the actual impact is still relatively unknown. “We’re not going to save the planet,” he says — and he doesn’t feel like they need to, they’re just trying to do a little better by the environment. 

But Dr. Whitney points out that, although he fully supports any company developing alternatives to products with plastic, the long-term impacts aren’t readily known — especially with biodegradable glitter that still includes metals, like Bioglitter’s Sparkle line. 

“Sharp, metallicised pieces of cellulose could be just as destructive to a baby fish gut as sharp metallicised pieces of plastic,” Dr. Whitney says. “However, the cellulose should break down much faster, and therefore would not be a hazard for as long.” This isn’t to dull Bioglitter’s impact: The few weeks that it survives is just a fraction of the hundreds of years that plastic glitter is believed to need to degrade in the natural environment. 

Of course, Bioglitter isn’t the first, or last, to claim its products are better for the environment, so Sarah-Jeanne Royer, PhD., a postdoctoral research fellow at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, says that being skeptical is best. For example, she points to both studies and anecdotes shared within the scientific community where biodegradable products survive in natural environments for years without breaking down. “If the environment is not suited for degradation, it won’t break down,” she says, noting that truly dissolving into water or earth requires a suitable blend of pressure, UV rays, and bacteria. “Compostable and biodegradable isn’t the solution,” she says. “Finding something shiny that is natural is the key to solving this issue.” 

It’s a point that Dugan says she simply can’t get across to commenters. “You try explaining UV degradation in an Instagram comment!” she says. 

Biodegradability, microplastics, and the long-term ramifications of it all are tough to comprehend, especially since the scientific community is just starting this kind of long-term research. Sometimes it feels like there is bad news every day. After all, who thought about their plastic straw consumption a decade ago? Today we’re learning that just about everything we do is killing the planet, and it’s hard to know what’s what. 

Maybe trolling glitter companies is just a projection of the environmental stress lump we’re all suffering from — or maybe not. Either way, feeling like you’re being forced to give up the fun things in your life for the environment is a relatively new thing. It’s hard and there’s a learning curve, but it’s also fertile ground for making sure every choice we make is thought out. Did all your glitter make it into the trash and not down the drain? Do you need that new product wrapped, shipped, and carried in various forms of plastic? Are you even going to use the new product you’re considering purchasing? And if so, is there an alternative that could be better for the planet? These are questions that we all must ask ourselves. 

Back in L.A., Dugan tells me that, although she doesn’t feel like she’s doing anything wrong, she has a shelf of 30 Bioglitters on deck for special orders and new product formulations. She’s thinking about selling them loose with a separate adhesive to avoid any colours bleeding into her gel formulation, she just hasn’t cracked the code yet.

She assures me that she’s not planning to sell them because she thinks she’s doing something wrong, but she believes that people deserve an option — as long as they are willing to sacrifice the full-on sparkle of her PET-laced formula. “We’re just not there yet,” she says. And until then, she hopes the trolls realise that what they are asking for is more complicated than it seems.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Summer might be over but Man Repeller founder Leandra Medine is here to keep a rainbow of colours in our lives with the launch of her delightful new collaboration with high street giant Mango. Featuring chunky knits, billowing blouses and embroidered pinafores, the collection is the perfect antidote to dark nights and winter weather, drawing on a ‘70s-inspired palette of burnt orange, mustard yellow and navy.

The collection, which launches Monday 30th October, is Mango’s latest influencer collaboration project. Made up of 32 pieces, the capsule is the perfect concentration of the Man Repeller founder’s famously offbeat style, while also including ubiquitous classics like a series of denim basics.

Describing the concept behind the super cute collection, Medine said: “Imagine a New Year break in a European ski resort combined with an American university campus in the 60s and add a couple of embroidered floral prints.” And if that isn’t enough for you, the collection also makes use of recycled materials, meaning you don’t need to feel too bad about purchasing the whole lot.

Medine already has a wealth of experience when it comes to clothing collaborations, having previously teamed up with brands like Superga, PJK and Atea Oceanie. However, this latest fashion project is perhaps her most stellar yet, bringing together bold prints and striking accessories to create a truly eccentric and Man Repelling style.

Shop the collection in Mango’s UK stores and online from 30th October.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Roksanda x lululemon Is Here & We Want All Of It

Get Retro: The Polo Shirt Is Autumn's Coolest Top

Vinyl Is The OTT Trend We're All Trying

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by British Fashion Council (@britishfashioncouncil) on Aug 8, 2019 at 8:28am PDT

The nominations are in: 2,500 key members of the fashion industry have spoken and drawn up a shortlist of the brands and individuals worthy of celebration at 2019’s Fashion Awards, and this year’s ceremony is set to be as glittering as ever. 

The annual awards, which act as a fundraiser for the British Fashion Council’s talent initiatives, seek to “recognise creativity and innovation in fashion, celebrating exceptional individuals whose imagination and creativity has broken new ground in fashion globally over the past 12 months, as well as brands and businesses that have transformed the possibilities of fashion today.”

It comes as no surprise that industry wunderkind, Daniel Lee, who took the helm at influencer and editor favourite Bottega Veneta in 2018, is nominated for Accessories Designer of the Year: his naked sandals and pouch bag have dominated our Instagram feeds all season. Others nominated for the award include Gucci’s Alessandro Michele, Loewe’s Jonathan Anderson, Dior Men’s Kim Jones, and Jacquemus’ Simon Porte Jacquemus. 

Lee’s transformation of the Italian house (some have hailed it the new Céline post-Phoebe Philo) has also earned him a nod for Brand of the Year, Designer of the Year Womenswear (won last year by Givenchy’s Clare Waight Keller, designer of Meghan Markle’s wedding dress), and the prestigious Designer of the Year. Jones, Michele and Anderson also feature again among the nominees for Designer of the Year, joined by Miuccia Prada. 

Nominees in the Urban Luxe category – won last year by Virgil Abloh with his label Off-White – include Alyx, Fenty by Rihanna, Marine Serre (whose moon print hosiery you’ll have spotted all over the streets of fashion month), Martine Rose and Moncler Genius. British Emerging Talent nominees for womenswear include London Fashion Week highlights Kiko Kostadinov, Matty Bovan, Phoebe English, Rejina Pyo and jewellery designer Alighieri. 

Model of the Year 2018 was won by Kaia Gerber, who is nominated once again alongside Adesuwa Aighewi, Adwoa Aboah (who took the crown in 2017), Adut Akech and Winnie Harlow. Earlier this year, it was announced that Giorgio Armani would be receiving the Outstanding Achievement Award – Prada won last year – while Naomi Campbell would be the recipient of the Fashion Icon Award.

One of the most thrilling features of The Fashion Awards is the NEW WAVE: Creatives list, which recognises 100 of the industry’s movers and shakers, from hairstylists and makeup artists to set designers, creative directors and digital influencers. Trailblazers include photographer Campbell Addy, commentator Diet Prada, and filmmaker Fenn O’Meally. 

Ahead of the ceremony, which takes place on 2nd December at the Royal Albert Hall, BFC Chair Stephanie Phair said in a statement: “I would like to congratulate all the nominees of The Fashion Awards 2019. Each and every one of them is being recognised for their creative excellence and innovation. I look forward to celebrating them alongside the rest of the industry from across the globe.”

See the full list of nominees below.

Accessories Designer of the Year

Alessandro Michele for Gucci
Daniel Lee for Bottega Veneta
Jonathan Anderson for Loewe
Kim Jones for Dior Men
Simon Porte Jacquemus for Jacquemus

Brand of the Year

Bottega Veneta
Gucci
Jacquemus
Loewe
Prada

British Designer of the Year Menswear

Craig Green for Craig Green
Grace Wales Bonner for Wales Bonner
Kim Jones for Dior Men
Martine Rose for Martine Rose
Riccardo Tisci for Burberry

British Designer of the Year Womenswear

Daniel Lee for Bottega Veneta
John Galliano for Maison Margiela
Jonathan Anderson for JW Anderson & Loewe
Richard Quinn for Richard Quinn
Simone Rocha for Simone Rocha

British Emerging Talent Menswear

Ben Cottrell and Matthew Dainty for Cottweiler
Bethany Williams for Bethany Williams
Kiko Kostadinov for Kiko Kostadinov
Phoebe English for Phoebe English
Sofia Prantera for Aries

British Emerging Talent Womenswear

Laura and Deanna Fanning for Kiko Kostadinov
Matty Bovan for Matty Bovan
Phoebe English for Phoebe English
Rejina Pyo for Rejina Pyo
Rosh Mahtani for Alighieri

Business Leader

Alexandre Arnault for Rimowa
José Neves for Farfetch
Marco Bizzarri for Gucci
Marco Gobbetti for Burberry
Remo Ruffini for Moncler

Designer of the Year

Alessandro Michele for Gucci
Daniel Lee for Bottega Veneta
Jonathan Anderson for JW Anderson & Loewe
Kim Jones for Dior Men
Miuccia Prada for Prada

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by British Fashion Council (@britishfashioncouncil) on Oct 22, 2019 at 9:35am PDT

Model of the Year

Adesuwa Aighewi
Adut Akech
Adwoa Aboah
Kaia Gerber
Winnie Harlow

Urban Luxe

Alyx
Fenty
Marine Serre
Martine Rose
Moncler Genius

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

We Asked Cool Girl Georgia Moot What Love Means

Mango x Leandra Medine Is Here & It's Glorious

Kate Moss & Keira Knightley Star In New Campaign

When cult skincare brand Sunday Riley was outed on Reddit for encouraging staff to pen fake reviews on beauty retailer Sephora’s website, fans were shocked – and rightly so.

These reviews are what convince us as consumers either to spend our hard-earned money on a product or to leave it in the basket. Skincare obsessives worldwide place their trust in online retailers to feature honest judgements from people who have tried and tested the products in question.

It wasn’t long before the accusations on Reddit prompted an investigation by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC). According to the BBC, the inquiry concluded that brand founder, Sunday Riley had pointed staff in the direction of Sephora’s website to leave false reviews. An email quoted in the FTC investigation also mentioned that staff were encouraged to “dislike” negative reviews so that they would eventually be removed from the site.

This week, it emerged that Sunday Riley managed to avoid a fine from the FTC. Instead, the company was reprimanded and charged with two violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act. A settlement was made to ban Sunday Riley (the company) and Ms Riley herself from posting false online reviews in the future.

Understandably, consumers weren’t happy about being deceived by the brand and the FTC’s rather lenient decision, and took to Sunday Riley’s Instagram page to vent their frustration. Underneath a post advertising the brand’s new A+ High Dose Retinoid Serum, one Instagram user wrote: “I’m really disappointed. I have numerous Sunday Riley products. I didn’t know anyone who used the line because it’s expensive. I trusted those reviews to help guide me and to find out that Sunday Riley herself encouraged her people to post fake reviews, it’s very upsetting. These products are great. They speak for themselves. You didn’t need to do this. I’ll think twice before I purchase any more Sunday Riley.”

Another customer commented: “Disappointed in this brand’s behaviour and outcome of the investigation. If you want to keep your loyal customers and build your consumer base in future, I would highly recommend issuing an apology for this behaviour. I will not be using your products if you can’t be honest about what you did and apologise for it.”

View this post on Instagram

One thing that you shouldn’t leave hanging is your skincare. Our A+ High-Dose Retinoid Serum contains nutrient-rich ingredients like Hawaiian white honey, cactus extract, and ginger, to give your skin a healthier, calmer and more even glow. ✨🌵 #sundayriley #retinoidserum 📸 @jack.designs

A post shared by Sunday Riley (@sundayriley) on Oct 21, 2019 at 1:08pm PDT

One follower said that the lack of a response from Sunday Riley in light of the investigation and the revelations have let people down. Fans have also noticed that the brand has been messaging people back, but only if the comment is complimentary. “It’s kind of unfortunate that you don’t care to respond to the people who are taking the time to share their feelings about your scandal,” said one customer. “At this point, your comms team should be focusing on damage control and responding to literally everyone. But you still only pay attention to the positive. Lol what a joke.”

In response to the settlement, one customer said: “The argument that everyone else does it too is reductive and doesn’t do anything to even attempt to solve the issue. The FTC should have, in my opinion, issued a harsher punishment rather than essentially issuing a warning not to do it again. That would have potentially set a precedent and an example to hopefully spur other companies who also may be guilty of the same or similar infractions to change their ways or face similar punishments.”

Interestingly, Rohit Chopra and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter of the FTC voted against the settlement and believe that it sends the wrong message to the marketplace, as reported by the BBC. “Dishonest firms may come to conclude that posting fake reviews is a viable strategy, given the proposed outcome here,” they said in a joint statement. “Honest firms, who are the biggest victims of this fraud, may be wondering if they are losing out by following the law. Consumers may come to lack confidence that reviews are truthful.”

Refinery29 UK has reached out to Sunday Riley for comment.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Here's The Truth About Biodegradable Sheet Masks

Tandem Is Just Like The Ordinary – & It's Vegan

Are 'Bad' Skin Days Affecting Your Mental Health?

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

If you had told me 14 years ago that I would spend my days posting makeup-free selfies on the internet and talking about my feelings, I would have laughed in your face. Fourteen years ago I had just been diagnosed with rosacea: a chronic skin condition which turns my face bright purple, makes it burn, itch and pulse with heat, and has completely changed my life.

I started talking publicly about my skin around six years ago. I already had a beauty blog where I did nail art tutorials, talked about my love of lipstick and life in London, but it was only when I opened up about my biggest insecurity – my skin – that I really started to see the power of the internet. The community I found there could give me back the strength I thought rosacea had taken from me.

In the past six years I have used my blog and social media channels to support, educate and encourage others to open up about their skin. It isn’t easy. I still feel incredibly nervous every time I post a photo showing my ‘real’ skin. I’m taking my biggest insecurity and plastering it all over the internet. I may as well have a flashing neon sign saying, “Hey trolls! Here, I’m making it really easy for you,” but I continue to do it because I’ve seen the impact it has. I get messages from people every single week who tell me that seeing someone else who looks like them is empowering, that it makes them feel less alone and that it helps them to see their own faces as normal, accepted – and beautiful.

In the past I have spoken about the wonderful skin positivity communities that come together on Instagram especially, and how useful the platform has been to unite and support us. But something happened recently that left me incredibly disappointed: the emergence of their internal guidelines that class faces like mine as ‘undesirable’.

As I have done countless times before, I posted a photo showing my face with my rosacea glowing in all its glory. It was a photo taken by Sophie Harris-Taylor for her Epidermis series, which aimed to raise awareness and show that skin doesn’t have to be perfect to be celebrated. I was proud to feature in such an empowering and emotional project, so I tried to turn my post into an advert on Instagram. In simple terms, I paid money so that Instagram would show my photo to people who I thought might be interested. This is something that happens every day on social media.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Lex Gillies – Rosacea/Beauty (@talontedlex) on Aug 20, 2019 at 11:17am PDT

However, my image was automatically rejected. Why? Because it allegedly featured “images that excessively focus on body parts or depict unlikely before-and-after results. This can make people feel bad about their state of health.” Frustrated and confused, I appealed, as I felt as though my image was rejected incorrectly. I pointed out that my photo was designed to do the opposite. It was there to encourage people, to show them that their skin was normal.

Two weeks later I received a response to my appeal from Facebook (which owns Instagram). It said: “Here’s what’s preventing your ad from running: We don’t allow ads that focus on aspects of a person’s body to highlight an undesirable or idealised body state.” The message then went on to list the things that are considered ‘undesirable’ which, outrageously, include acne, eczema and dermatitis. Rather shockingly, the guidelines that meant my image was blocked took into consideration things like ‘eating live animals’. I had to read that quite a few times for it to sink in. Was my image really on par with this?

Upsettingly, social media does have previous form for censoring the skin positivity community. Last year, the psoriasis community became a target. According to members, their hashtags were blocked, images were allegedly removed and whole accounts reportedly hidden from followers because the content was deemed inappropriate. A petition was set up to stop censorship and is amassing new signatures every day. I’ve personally witnessed photos of eczema, acne, vitiligo, birthmarks and scars being hidden from the timeline or severely limited in reach. In other words, you could follow someone expecting to see their content but it may be kept hidden due to its ‘inappropriate’ nature.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Lex Gillies – Rosacea/Beauty (@talontedlex) on May 24, 2019 at 12:08pm PDT

Of course, this is absolutely necessary in some cases. Self-harm scars are often hidden as they can be triggering for some individuals. But you don’t have to be an expert to know that you can’t trigger acne or rosacea by looking at a picture. It doesn’t happen. Put simply, these images – and more importantly, these people – are being concealed because their faces don’t fit a very narrow beauty ideal. They are not ‘desirable’.

To play devil’s advocate, I can see what these social media guidelines were trying to achieve. As someone who is immersed in the skin positivity community, I regularly see charlatans pushing ‘cures’ and ‘easy ways to heal’ and they are often promoted under ridiculous (and usually Photoshopped) images. To try to combat this, certain social media channels seem to have put a blanket ban on anyone wanting to promote a photo showing a visible skin condition. This seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Either the algorithm needs to be tweaked or Instagram’s internal staff training needs a shake-up, because it should be made clear that my image was not harmful, selling a potentially dangerous product or designed to cause offence.

I recently wrote a blogpost to try to process how I felt and to see how the rest of the skin positivity community felt about this word being used to describe us. Very quickly, the hashtag #undesirablesofinstagram was used all over the world alongside photos of ‘undesirable’ faces. It makes me so emotional to look through the hashtag and to see people who look and feel like me. To some people, this may seem like a storm in a teacup, but I think it’s a sign of a wider issue in our society. We are surrounded by perfection (often Facetuned, Photoshopped, filtered or otherwise tweaked) and whether we consciously acknowledge it or not, it does impact us. I’ve read countless think pieces, studies and papers on the effects of social media and retouching in particular, and on an anecdotal level, I know that it affects me – even though I realise that a large number of images I see online are altered.

I contacted Instagram for a comment for this article and I am so thrilled to be able to say that, as of this week, the wording of the official guidelines has been changed. As a direct result of the #UndesirablesOfInstagram campaign, and the incredible support of the skin positivity community, the word ‘undesirable’ no longer features at any point in their guidelines. The wording is now much clearer: “We don’t allow ads that contain unexpected or unlikely results. Ad content must not imply or attempt to generate negative self-perception in order to promote diet, weight loss, or other health related products.”

I am so pleased that Instagram did the right thing. I never wanted Instagram to be ‘cancelled’ or for people to boycott the channel. I just wanted the outdated and hurtful guidelines to be changed. Social media can be an incredible tool for positivity, support and inclusivity, so I hope this is a sign that the platform is evolving to embrace those of us who look a little bit different.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Skin Positivity Is Only For Pretty, White Women

The Right Way To Talk To Your Doctor About Skin

Tandem Is Just Like The Ordinary – & It's Vegan

Vanessa Kirby and Claire Foy’s turns in The Crown may or may not have had something to do with it but the past few years have been dominated by a particularly ladylike aesthetic, or as we like to call it, grandma’s dressing-up box. You know the look: all freshwater pearls, tightly cropped cardigans, pleated hoop skirts and silk scarves. Everyone from Gucci to Burberry championed the return of feminine formality, with kitten heels, trench coats and brooches taking centre stage on the catwalks of fashion month. 

Now, though, we’re turning to another grandparent for sartorial brownie points. Gone are the trappings of lady-of-the-manor femininity; for AW19 it’s all about old man dressing. Borrow your grandad’s slacks and reading glasses, add a sweater vest, upsize your current cardi and replace dainty mules with chunky brogues. There are no strict rules but silhouettes are generally slouchy, shades of grey have replaced beige, and comfort comes first (ideal for cosying up as autumn settles in).

We’re looking to JW Anderson, Victoria Beckham and Preen for heritage argyle knits, ASAI and Alexachung for tweed blazers, and high street favourites COS and Arket for relaxed trousers. Mainstays like Grenson and Churches are the places to find your last-forever brogues, although the high street has plenty of leather and vegan alternatives, too.

Here’s to loose-fitting silhouettes, hibernation-appropriate fabrics and heritage prints. Move over, grandma – AW19 is the season of grandpa style.

The Sweater Vest

Sure, you might associate the sweater vest more with Chandler Bing than the sartorially switched-on, but this season, everywhere from Burberry to Arket has a sleeveless knit on offer. The beauty of this versatile winter warmer is that it can be styled with almost anything. We’re wearing ours over plain white tees, crisp white shirts, printed ’70s blouses and black rollnecks. 

The Slacks

It’s time to park your flared denim and make way for a new kind of trouser. The slack should feel like something Diane Keaton might wear in Annie Hall: a loose-fitting silhouette in a durable material such as tweed or brushed cotton. Chocolate, slate, dove, sand… No matter what hue you choose, your shirt, knit or tee should be firmly tucked in and preferably secured with a vintage leather belt.

Argyle

Huzzah! The traditional Scottish pattern is no longer reserved for dads on a golf weekend. Look to Molly Goddard’s jazzy colour palette for a contemporary take on the print or stick to classics like Pringle of Scotland; the brand synonymous with argyle recently collaborated with H&M on a fantastic range of cosy jumpers. Our favourite colour pairings are mocha and pink, like this Oliver Bonas number, or acid shades like green and yellow.

The Blazer

The blazer is nothing new but colourful ’80s power shoulders and sleek Saint Laurent cocktail jackets have made way for all-out grey. The bigger the lapel, the better, and this season we’re adding silk pocket squares, not glitzy brooches, to the jacket. Layer over everything from your favourite knit to a plain white tee.

Corduroy

The Graduate-esque corduroy is having its moment in the sun thanks to brands like Gucci, Alexachung and ASAI. Sure, pastel hues and ice cream shades are sweet, but we’re sticking with autumnal colours, from ginger nut to hot chocolate. Quality is key here: seek out fabrics with the deepest of ridges.

The Glasses Chain

What would your reading glasses be without a thoroughly grandpa-style chain? Influencers and editors alike were seen with chains attached to their sunnies at London Fashion Week in September; now that the sun has well and truly disappeared, move them over to your specs instead. We’re going for Staud’s tortoiseshell number.

The Brogue

Ah, the classic brogue. Daintier shoes have dominated the past few seasons – think of the kitten heel, mule and naked sandal – but the return of stomping boots brought a more masculine approach to footwear. We’re rolling up our trouser hems and wearing with argyle socks and patterned tights.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Get Retro: The Polo Shirt Is Autumn's Coolest Top

This Is The Cutest Handbag Trend For Autumn

6 Ways To Wear A Mini Skirt & Boots This Autumn

Once in a while, Netflix drops a creepy movie that sends the internet reeling. (Hi, Bird Box and all its many memes!) This October, the Netflix movie sending Twitter into a tailspin is Eli, a new horror film about a sick boy (Charlie Shotwell) whose parents Rose (Kelly Reilly) and Paul (Max Martini) send him to a special institute so that Dr. Horn (Lili Taylor) can cure the autoimmune disease. In case you already suspected, all is not what it seems: The twist ending of Eli is so unexpected and dramatic, fans aren’t sure how to feel.

Umm did anybody else watch Eli on @netflix because JESUS what a twist #eli pic.twitter.com/Nupl8GFhkl

— beth ✨ (@feistyfacexo) October 18, 2019

Woah. #Eli on Netflix was better than I thought it’d be. What. A. Twist. pic.twitter.com/XQKDBHH9LI

— ⚡️ l i v ⚡️ (@ollivia_anne) October 19, 2019

Watched Eli on Netflix. Fairly standard ghost story, but still pretty well made. And then a ridiculous twist that had me like… pic.twitter.com/rGdVkNtDbg

— Eric Vespe (@EricVespe) October 19, 2019

Sorry but Netflix’s Eli didn’t really work for me. Not a fan of the twist.

— ZAK is a Vampire 🎃 (@Zakiyyah6) October 23, 2019

In the film, Eli’s mum is particularly enthusiastic that Dr. Horn, a “miracle worker,” will fix the illness that keeps Eli confined to his home. However, when Eli gets to the haunted manor of an institute, and finds himself the only patient, things get…weird. 

Eli starts experiencing very unsettling supernatural phenomenon, which is dismissed by everyone as nothing more than a side effect of his (very painful) treatments. It’s only his window visitor Haley (Stranger Things star Sadie Sink) who encourages him to explore the theory that Dr. Horn killed all her other patients: Haley has never seen any of the others leave. 

Obviously, something very sinister is up with the institute, but it’s nearly impossible to predict Eli’s real deal until pretty late into the movie.

After Eli finds files that show other patients were killed by Dr. Horn, he pleads with his parents to leave, but despite his protests, they stop him from escaping. They know that Eli doesn’t really have an autoimmune issue: The reason Eli wasn’t allowed outside for all those years was because — ready for it? Eli is actually the son of the devil. 

how this go from a sick boy who can’t go outside, goes to a suspicious treatment center and feels ambushed by everyone to being the son of the devil and that’s why them kids been dying at this place???

and got the nerve to be named Eli 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

— unfriendlyblackhottie. (@lawren_notloren) October 18, 2019

The whole time I thought eli on Netflix was about a kid who’s sick lmao it’s a whole ass demon devil exorcist movie lol

— ♡Annette (@Nettyy_) October 23, 2019

HELLO what is this netflix Eli movie that ended up being a freaking SON OF SATAN kind of movie???? what the fuCK

— julia (@mapleparadox) October 21, 2019

Eli’s mother was unable to conceive a child, so she prayed to Satan in order to get pregnant. The devil promised it would be totally chill to give birth to the spawn of Satan, but as Rose notes in the film, the devil always lies. (Had Rose done a little bit of research, she would have realised quickly that this was, in fact, an incredibly stupid plan.) Rose kept Eli away from the world so that he wouldn’t hurt anyone as his powers progressed, in hopes that she could one day have Eli “fixed” of the problems caused by his disturbing parentage. The treatments given to Eli by Dr. Horn — a nun as well as a doctor — were just infusions of holy water, which caused Eli immense pain but suppressed his evil powers. 

After seeing how strong Eli is, Dr. Horn moves forward with her real plan. She’s killed all of the other spawns of Satan who came under her care, and has to do the same to Eli in order to “save his soul.” Eli, however, doesn’t take this very well. Using his newfound powers to murder the doctor and her nurses, Eli confronts his parents about the truth. Despite everything, Rose wants to protect her child, but Eli’s dad sees that this whole “child of the devil” thing will only go badly for everyone. Paul attempts to kill Eli, but he’s simply too strong: Using his telekinetic powers, Eli literally causes Paul’s face to explode, making Satan Eli’s only remaining daddy. 

Dad’s face blew up real good….. #Eli

— Saltydawg (@Saltydawg) October 19, 2019

Eli escapes the institute with his mother, and is greeted by Haley. She is also a child of Satan (“dad gets around,” she jokes) and wants to introduce Eli to his real father. Rose, whom Eli tells Haley he still trusts, drives them away from the burning hospital.

While some people were on the fence about the bonkers ending, other people were like: Sequel, please.

Watched the @netflix Paramount acquisition #ELI last night. Nice, tight, effective little horror film, with a good cast and an enjoyable twist. When it was over, I immediately wanted to see what happens next, because shit just got REALLY interesting. Sequel please.

— Robot Monster Burnett (@BurnettRM) October 23, 2019

@netflix , I see that a lot of people have been voicing their dissatisfaction with the movie #Eli, so I too wanted to #ChimeIn. First off….I.LOVED.It! Yes – the ending was a total 180. Like…#WTF. But it was great. Great cast. Great plot. We need a sequel! #NetflixOriginal ✌🏽

— Brandon Patterson (@BrandonHeath86) October 22, 2019

It is so sad to hear that #ELI dont have a sequel. I think it is another #chillingadventuresofsabrina

— ZuanBaba (@SyazwanBaba) October 21, 2019

I, for one, would totally watch a spin-off show about these three people trying to make it work as a normal family. It could happen: The devil works hard, but when it comes to crazy content…Netflix works harder.

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

Everything Leaving Netflix This November

These Netflix Shows Are Terrifying

The Best Amazon Prime Horror Movies

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

It was a showdown between Young Millennial and Old Millennial, between socialist renegade and billionaire frat bro, between US Congress and Big Tech.

On Wednesday, members of Congress grilled Mark Zuckerberg about data privacy, hate speech, fake political ads, and more, in a hearing that was originally supposed to be about Facebook’s Libra cryptocurrency project but ended up being about pretty much everything Facebook-related, which seems appropriate given the tech giant’s questionable role in politics. But it was Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who, in her inimitable way, took him to task about whether Facebook allows politicians to lie in their ads.

“Would I be able to run advertisements on Facebook targeting Republicans in primaries saying that they voted for the Green New Deal? I mean, if you’re not fact-checking political advertisements, I’m just trying to understand the bounds here, what’s fair game,” Ocasio-Cortez asked.

“Congresswoman, I don’t know the answer to that off the top of my head, I think probably,” Zuckerberg responded.

“Do you see a potential problem here with a complete lack of fact-checking on political advertisements?” she asked, to which he responded, “Well, Congresswoman, I think lying is bad, and I think if you were to run an ad that had a lie in it, that would be bad. That’s different from it being…in our position, the right thing to do to prevent your constituents or people in an election from seeing that you had lied.”

She then asked whether Facebook would take down political ads with blatant lies in them. “In most cases, in a democracy, I believe that people should be able to see for themselves what politicians that they may or may not vote for are saying and judge their character for themselves,” Zuckerberg said. (So the answer is no, then.)

“So, you won’t take down lies or you will take down lies? I think that’s just a pretty simple yes or no.”

Complete exchange between @RepAOC @AOC and Mark Zuckerberg at today’s House Financial Services Cmte hearing.

Full video here: https://t.co/heT7Psnlp1 pic.twitter.com/0iiWtfU5gQ

— CSPAN (@cspan) October 23, 2019

Many on the internet took note not only of what Ocasio-Cortez asked Zuckerberg, but of how she asked it. People responded with fire emojis, old-and-young-millennial comparisons, and even Succession memes.

“In your ongoing dinner parties w/ far right figures some of who advance theories that white supremacy is a hoax …” @AOC exposing the casualization of techno-capital racism: “DINNER PARTIES” https://t.co/xrvojKS0DJ

— Minh-Ha T. Pham (@minh81) October 23, 2019

AOC versus Zuck is the young millennial-old millennial showdown we don’t even deserve.

— Irin Carmon (@irin) October 23, 2019

i mean come on, this is too easy pic.twitter.com/PFhUbIAFX7

— Brian Grubb (@briancgrubb) October 23, 2019

And finally, could he have said “Congresswoman” any more times?!

I just need Mark Zuckerberg to stop saying “Congresswoman”

— natalie g (@nataliereports) October 23, 2019

Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?

30 Times AOC Had The Perfect Comeback For Haters

AOC Reveals How She Copes With Public Speaking

AOC Sets The Record Straight On Twitter Blocking