John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

My involuntary physiological response to your last paragraph was rage. Your posts seem balanced and reasonable but they always end with your foot on the neck of Black people.

How can Black people discuss what we want as outcomes with people who expect us to understand the involuntary nature of Tourette’s, yet dismiss our own involuntary trauma responses to racial slurs - intended or not?

This goes back to our discussion about consensus and meaning-making.
You have eloquently written paragraph after paragraph about what people with Tourette’s go through, your empathy for them is clear. Yet my comment on the historical and ongoing nature of racial trauma is sidestepped. You ask questions but you are not really interested in the answers because you think you already have the answers. You believe you are arbiter of what counts as consensus, how meaning is made, what constitutes harm, and what is a fair trade-off. From that position, you have consistently dismissed Black trauma responses rooted in lived and historical experience. When we ask for safety and inclusion, your framed as one-sided or selfish or about 'rights over'. For you, this is a conflict between able-bodied people and disabled people.

You asked:

And that's the question I would ask those saying about considering black people, what do you want the outcomes to look like and what do you think you are losing out on in terms of rights? How can those rights be upheld without hugely impacting the employment, economic, social and mental health of someone with Tourettes?

So Black people should regulate their involuntary trauma response to protect the person with Tourette’s? What about our employment, economic, social and mental health?

We should be asking how do we get to a place where the involuntary neurological responses of people with Tourette’s can coexist with the involuntary trauma responses shaped by lived and historical racial harm.

Well done that man

While I appreciate that this slur was the only one that was broadcast, Davidson made a load of slurs. I can’t really understand why the impact on these two guys was so much worse than anyone else who had abuse shouted at them. None of them knew which if any made it to the broadcast. Knowing that was the only slur left in the BBC recording was horrible for them but that’s on the BBC (why?), not on him.

One black woman’s take.

https://x.com/kiyahwillis/status/2026843758634172653?s=61&t=gd6tu0Iz6JpyKXGLWMLGjg

From the UK side of the public discourse, Stan Collymore addressing Buzzfeed’s reporting on the event:

https://x.com/StanCollymore/status/2026444360355602761

https://nitter.net/StanCollymore/status/2026444360355602761#m

And so there should be. Although BBC internal investigations are about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

There going to be a BBC internal investigation into what happened:

nitter.net/michaelsavage/status/2026690603736522961#m

Disability Rights arguably lag behind all other areas of right provision in part because it's so individualised and there isn't the power of a large powerful lobby groups and many celebrity advocates.

They require in-depth knowledge of the concept of rights law, not just rent a quote copy and pasting off the internet.

I do think that trans rights activists are now latching onto this issue with disabled rights in a bid to defuddle and pretend their right provision is a lot more complex than it actually is.

I definitely wasn’t referring to someone with your experiences in my previous comment and agree with everything you’ve said. We have a very long way to go in the country when it comes to disability inclusion and this unfortunate situation at the BAFTAs has massively highlighted that.

And I disagree with all of the ignorant rhetoric we’ve heard about John’s condition. But when I’ve said there needs to be compassion on both sides, I’ve then had 50 replies telling me all the reasons why the two black men should be decentred and not directly acknowledged. There should be a balanced view for why both parties deserved to be there, both were let down by the organisations involved and why both deserve compassion and understanding in the aftermath. You yourself have conceded one gritted teeth line about MBJ and DL being ‘offended’, then proceeded to beat me over the head with multiple paragraphs of why the situation is far worse for JD and why you’re only interested in watching I Swear and not educating yourself on black history. So no, it’s not actually ‘enough’ because it’s not seeking a balance in the discussion.

And to be clear, all forms of racism are totally unacceptable and abhorrent. But let’s not equate the impact on white people who have been the dominant race for a millennium with other demographics who’ve faced centuries of discrimination, segregation and genocide because of their race.

To be fair that wasn’t as bad as some of the stuff I’m reading elsewhere online. I think as much as they didn’t know about the situation/Tourettes they were trying to be somewhat measured about it.

I've been watching American-made media/culture commentary podcasts and the level of awareness regarding Tourette's ranges from much lower to non-existent. There's a belief that tics can be redirected into something non-offensive or that the tics represent genuinely held beliefs. The link below is an example:

https://x.com/MiniKilla/status/2026344566337483080?s=20

Edited to include Nitter link for those without TwiX accounts:
nitter.net/MiniKilla_/status/2026344566337483080#m

@NewYearSameMe16 I'm not an overnight disability advocate, I have a disability myself and I'm used to seeing, and experiencing, the interactions of the DDA 1995 and the EA 2010 in the provision of services and employment.

The idea of implementing reasonable adjustments for those with disabilities, while codified in legislation for over 3 decades, is not often successful within employment and services: even today, in the age of WFH, employers will still turn down requests for reasonable adjustment s on the part of employees with disabilities, new buildings are still being built that don't adequately take into account the needs of those with wheelchairs/mobility issues, and the public transport sector seems designed by minions from Dante's circles of hell when it comes to allowing those with physical and mental challenges to use public transport, even the DWP has had policies of requiring those with disabilities to regularly attend medical assessments even in cases where the disability has no prospect of improvement.

Society says it wants those with disabilities to have as full participation as possible in public life but society's actions don't back that up.

Or maybe people have been aware of Tourette’s and John Davidson and his story for years, and couldn’t believe the ignorance of what they were seeing online about the circumstances and the condition, mainly from Americans (although there are a good few on here). And even with the internet and resources to hand and insight into the condition following the BAFTAs, are still talking pish and baying for blood, taking offence wherever they can find it, ignoring those who have acknowledged, more than once, the feelings of those who had to hear such a word, it’s never enough.

The hypocrisy of those decrying everyone as racist or not calling out apparent racism whilst displaying the most appalling racism towards white people has been… not surprising actually.

“In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist, we must be anti-racist” is a pretty famous quote from Angela Davis, a political activist who came to prominence in the 60s and 70s, so while the concept may be new to you, it isn’t for others. And I’m not telling you to follow anything, I’m explaining the difference between the terms.

I doubt that if you think calling out racism on an online forum is performative that you’re also marching at BLM rallies but I could be wrong. If this situation with JD didn’t involve two black men, would I be as vocal? Probably not because I wouldn’t have an understanding or personal interest in the other parties, so me getting involved would be performative on my part. Maybe some people becoming overnight disability advocates in order to shout down the people simply seeking a little compassion for the two black men who also had an horrible experience are the ones being performative.

I would also ask people to consider what rights we have and what we think are rights but possibly aren't.

We have rights to inclusion and accessibility. They have some caveats though. We do allow some discrimination both positively and negatively in some scenarios too, but there has to be a clear goal.

In terms of the trans / women's rights debate what is becoming apparent is that everyone has a right to access but that access can look different in some scenarios and you have to make allowances for this. Privacy and dignity are paramount but you can make alternative arrangements if you have a clear policy and treat people with respect. You can just ban. You have to take into consideration self exclusion as a potential issue too due to policies.

What you dont have is a right to validation. You don't have a right to force others to share your belief. You don't have a right to deny reality in certain situations. And actually you don't have a right not to be offended. You have a right to be protected from racial / sexual / homophobic abuse and harassment but what actually constitutes that? This last one is perhaps the tricky one and also relevant to Tourettes.

Everyone has a right not to be abused or singled out. They have a right to not be harassed. This all rests on that point of intent. Someone with Tourettes isn't being abusive. They maybe saying something offensive but it's not abusive and I think this is where it does get kinda sticky.

As I say I think one of the stumbling points is mistaking an offensive word for abusive behaviour. It is different and will meet different legal thresholds depending on the situation. I get the comparison with someone with dementia HOWEVER you also have an already identified harm that still meets a legal threshold (even though you can't prosecute it - the intent is sexual and consent isn't given) and is much more serious in nature too. And this ability to exclude still has the caveat of proportionality. Physically touching someone without consent and a the proportionally of exclusion by sex is different to saying offensive words without intent and therefore being restricted from going anywhere or working. It's that reasonable adjustments thing going in both directions.

Someone in the work place has a right to have a workplace which isn't hostile and they don't feel degraded. But you can't preemptively say to someone white with Tourettes "well you can't work with the black people" can you? Even if you are risk assessing because your risk assessment is going to look pretty damn shit with the word 'might because of disability'. Cos that's literally pre-judging them. At the same time, once you have an incident, a work place may be in a situation where they do have duty of care to an ethnic minority so the reasonable adjustment would be to allow the two to work separately and have limited contact. But this really really is a case by case in a way that the trans debate has tried to make itself but really isn't. Im

It's not a situation where you have identifiably vulnerable individuals (eg a rape crisis centre or women in a state of undress) in quite the same way. And the breadth of situations is much wider.

Tbh for the most part with people who have severe Tourettes the issues of sheer embarrassment and humiliation is going to mean you are much less likely to have people who are on a mission to be the centre of the universe. They want things to be stress free for some pretty obvious reasons. They are more likely to do things like John and actually preempt a situation they think might raise problems to a certain extent because of the the nature of their condition. It's not in their interest in terms of their own safety / mental wellbeing to enter certain situations without addressing it first. They are likely to be the person self excluding and remove themselves from a situation if they can for this reason. I don't think there is quite the same demand on others in the same way because they don't want to upset others. If that makes sense. Cos self preservation.

We are talking about rights to employment. We are talking about rights to public services and refusal of service. We are talking about rights to privacy Versus Rights to dignity, possible racial abuse (see my previous points about this), employment conditions and understanding possible harms.

In terms of comparison to the gender / sex issue it about what outcomes you want. Women want a right to privacy and dignity in certain sex based scenarios and they want safeguarding from a risk of violence. The solution sort is a respectful one with parallel provision to allow accessibility.

And that's the question I would ask those saying about considering black people, what do you want the outcomes to look like and what do you think you are losing out on in terms of rights? How can those rights be upheld without hugely impacting the employment, economic, social and mental health of someone with Tourettes? It needs practical solutions for everyday scenarios. And yeah I do think there's a lot of legal grey areas and issues that no one problem really knows the actual answer to.

the difference about not being racist and being anti racist is fairly new and just because you want to followit doesn't mean that we all need to and leads to further division.

As for the last paragrapgh you know nothing about me or whether I have beem vocal against racism. It suits your purpose and narrative to believe as you do. Again this feeds into dividing people.

But then the anti racism people are those that often believe that you cant be racist against white people and are happy to use slurs against them whilst being racist themselves..

You can discriminate on the basis of disability if its a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. As in my example earlier, a man who's dementia caused him to inappropriately touch women would be likely forbidden certain spaces as a direct result of his disability, to achieve the legitimate aim of protecting others.
The disagreement here is how legitimate people think the aim of protecting POC from racist slurs is, and of so, what would be a proportionate level of discrimination against John to achieve this aim.
Obviously those who feel there is no legitimate aim because the onus is on POC to 'understand' think that there should be no justification for treating John any differently. People who think protecting POC from the impact of hearing racist slurs is a legitimate aim, have more of a dilemma.

Nope not at all; this is in the context of ‘not being racist’ in relation to ‘being anti-racist’ and understanding the difference and clearly you do not.

Do I support governments starting wars? No. Am I actively anti-war by way of protesting or starting discourse online about it? No because that would be performative as selfishly, it doesn’t affect my day to day life. I don’t support it but I don’t care about it enough to be vociferously outspoken about it. See the parallels?

Vocally defending a disabled man accused of racism isn’t performative for you because you genuinely care enough about it. Calling out racism is performative for you because while you don’t support it, you don’t care enough to speak on it. It’s pretty simple and obvious but you don’t want to admit that.

The sowing of division and misinformation dressed up as reason. The video link, that is. @UtopiaPlanitia

I also had thoughts similar to those on the OP, in that it is another situation where the rights and feelings of people with different protected characteristics collide. And very interesting indeed to see some similarities to the usual topics discussed on FWR. One side trying to explain and discuss, the other side overtaken in outrage and offence and no debate.

From what I understand, John’s form of Tourette’s can be universally offensive, because of the nature of his brain tic identifying and failing to suppress the absolutely worst thing to say/do in any particular moment. An equal-opportunities offender if you like. I find it very interesting that the BBC managed to edit out all of John’s other tics that evening, and we’re not discussing instead, for example, the homophobic “abuse” of Alan Cummings when John ticked “paedo” or the misogynistic “abuse” of women on stage with a tic of “slag”.

i generally lean towards incompetence rather than malice to explain cock-ups, but if it is really a cock up rather than a mistaken attempt at generating public discourse on racism then it shows again how badly the BBC is doing these days. I don’t know whether BAFTA or the Beeb was responsible for briefing Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo but it was very poor if they were put in that situation without some advance warning. I got the impression from several first-hand accounts that everyone present had been briefed, but maybe the “everyone” were the plebs in the audience and not the A-listers back stage.

The issue he is that you cant discriminate on the basis of disability. That means in fairness you possibly can warn in advance without risking that.

Whilst it was possible that he would have a racist tic, it's also possible he wouldn't. That is an issue.

He was actually gracious enough to allow others to be warned (and under the circumstances he Tourettes isn't a secret) about the possibility but I suspect that actually legally he has a right for his privacy about a medical condition. However in other circumstances actually he wouldn't have to and equally if it's in the street it's irrelevant anyway.

You have to keep in mind that someone with Tourettes doesn't always tic too. So in declaring some has Tourettes and may have racist tics you are opening them up for discrimination over something that might not actually happen too.

Whilst I do get your point (despite your determination to make out I'm being a twat to black people) I'm actually being conscious of the law and what is actually practical and possible in every day circumstances.

It still remains the case that unless you think people who may have tics have to be locked up or immediately leave a situation it they do (which might put them at significant risk) or never go to certain places. Which clearly isn't ok.

Again it comes back to intent and making people understand that behaviour isn't reflective of racism and thus cannot be treated as such. This it is classed as a lower form of harm that if the same word is used in hate when assessing how you deal with a situation. This might not be how an individual might respond to the situation but legally it's likely this is the situation.

It would be interesting if you ever had a situation which went to court... Would you bring a court case in this area? And if you did what would be the outcome you would be looking for? It's be interesting to think about it in these terms as a thought experiment.

I will leave you to ponder. I am not looking for an answer to this question btw. Just asking you to ponder the point.

I personally think JD actually did and has given a 'fair amount of ground' that I suspect legally he possibly doesn't have to and that technically an employer or an organiser couldnt legally expect and ask from him as a result in the absence of an event having yet occurred. But I doubt few will even appreciate or acknowledge the situation from this position because they assume that the neutral starting point is that everyone had to be told because of their rights. I actually think the position would be in a workplace, that it's rather more complex... I don't know what the employment rate is for people with Tourettes with coprolalia but I suspect it ain't great to begin.

If you need to be told why people are defending a disabled man who is accused of being racist when he wasn't after the many replies. Maybe you should go back and re read the threads.
This will also answer your questions about hypocrisy.
If you are prepared to take onboard what posters are saying.

A running theme.

NewYearSameMe16

not being racist: I’m not racist but I don’t care if everyone else is, nothing to do with me

And we are back to changing the meaning of words.

As for the rest, again I am allowed to respond to what I want to respond to not to what you want to be resposnded too.

Yes. Of course you are. It's very telling what you choose to respond to, though.