John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

Agreed. There are a small number of posters here, who because of heartbreaking personal experience, believe the full inclusion of the person with Tourette's must be prioritised far, far above the well-being of the two black presenters.

One even suggested that the actors shouldn't be warned in advance as they might then withdraw from presenting duties. They'd, after consideration, rather not risk having the N-word shouted at them on the world's stage in front of an audience of their famous peers. Apparently allowing them this choice is unacceptable?

The BBC/Bafta cynically used John Davidson to demonstrate their commitment to inclusion in a woefully unprepared televised act of their joint public piety. The BBC/BAFTA didn't think through all the very likely consequences, and seemed to expect just the odd F or C word. No big deal. It's not JD's fault, at all. But even in this aspect, why the close audience mike? And where was the poised bleeper tech person? Was there any remedial action plan at all in place?

And John, Michael B Jordan & Delroy Lindo are now paying a very heavy price for the BBC/Bafta incompetence and idiotic cruelty. It was all so avoidable.

You said it would be performative on your part. You said it. Not me.

And what about the rest of my comment, hm? No comment on the hypocrisy on display? No. I thought not. Honestly, it's disappointing.

You said it would be performative on your part. You said it. Not me.

And what about the rest of my comment, hm? No comment on the hypocrisy on display? No. I thought not. Honestly, it's disappointing.

I wanted to reply to this because I think it's important that people understand that words can cause a trauma response, which can be physically painful, emotionally painful, and disabling. If you care about women's rights or disability awareness, you should understand trauma responses.

I have Tourette's as well as PTSD. Both seem similar to me in that I have no control over either and they take away my control over my body and, especially with PTSD, my mind. If someone says or does something that reminds me of my trauma, I may have a trauma response. Like Tourette's, it's a physiological response that I have no control over. (As I said earlier ITT, I have more control over my tics than my PTSD bc I can sometimes redirect my tics. I have no control over my trauma response.)

My PTSD often involves "re-living" my trauma, including experiencing terror and pain. This can last a few hours or a few days, occasionally longer. It's incapacitating. I can barely function at all, much less do a good job of caring for children, work, social activities, etc. I wish I could ignore it but when I'm having flashbacks, I can't. It's horrible.

For some people there appears to be three areas
racist

not racist
and anti racist.

Words - are just words. Always.

Your last line is your issue not mine. How I choose to challenge racism is down to me, not you.
That you think that I find challenging racism insincere is not only you twisting my words. but shows that you do want people to do this publicly.

Surely one can only be either racist or anti racist? I mean, where's the neutral ground?

But you want people to perform for you.
You want them to denounce something publicly, which they wouldn't normally do.
It is no longer enough to report and have something removed form the thread (as per the site's guidelines) you want people to make a statement, which would be insincere as they wouldn't normally do it.
A current theme with various groups is that its not enough to not be racist, you must be anti racist.

Nope. I don't want anything that people don't want to give. I expressed disappointment. That is not a demand for 'performance'.

So...I guess all those comments that people responded to on this thread, accusing the commenters of being ableist...they shouldn't have responded at all, according to site guidelines, just reported and stayed silent?

Why did people challenge comments they thought were ableist, but not racist ones?

Considering I see posters challenge blatant misogyny all the time on here, to the extent that it is, in fact, normal to denounce opinions that commenters think are unacceptable in addition to reporting, I was disappointed to see that almost no one challenged the racist remarks.

But it seems you feel that challenging racism would be an insincere performance, on your part.

But you want people to perform for you.
You want them to denounce something publicly, which they wouldn't normally do.
It is no longer enough to report and have something removed form the thread (as per the site's guidelines) you want people to make a statement, which would be insincere as they wouldn't normally do it.
A current theme with various groups is that its not enough to not be racist, you must be anti racist.

I'm not 'demanding' anything, I'm expressing my personal disappointment at the silence in response to racist comments.

Performative in the context you're using means: "done or expressed insincerely or inauthentically, typically with the intention of impressing others or improving one's own image."

So no. Unless you're being insincere, or you're only speaking out to impress others and make yourself look good, it's not performative. Which means if you're telling me that you would be being performative, it says a lot more about you than anything else.

(Personally, I just argued against the racist comments because I think they're gross and hostile.)

Whenever rights appear to 'compete' I think it calls for risk assessment and appropriate mitigations that balance cost/benefit.
If, for example a man with dementia is prone to sexually inappropriate behaviour, even though he can't help it, most people would see it as reasonable to mitigate against the impact of his disability on others. If he was thought likely to inappropriately touch women, it may be decided that some situations were not appropriate for him to be present, because the protection of women outweighed the need to accommodate his disability.
Much of the controversy here arises from the fact there are those who feel there was no need to mitigate against the impact of John's disability because the onus is on POC to consider themselves unharmed, because he didn't mean it. Which is similar to the TRA argument that the TIM in the toilets is gentle and harmless and its women's perception of intent that needs to change.
This was an appalling situation, and I don't know what the answer is. My point really is that when rights appear to compete, people tend to come at it with their own bias and will typically be disinclined to even consider it as competion, believing their view to have the right of it. Which makes any compromise challenging.

I’m really not sure these cases are equivalent.

In the Tourette’s case, we genuinely have an example of competing rights: the right of the Tourette’s person to be out and about, a person in the world - and the right of other people not to be distressed, humiliated or frightened by having abusive words shouted at them. A real case of conflicting rights.

In the trans case, though, what rights are competing? Women have a right to safety, privacy and dignity, yes. But what on earth gives men the right to usurp that right, by gate-crashing women’s single sex spaces? I see no male right at all that is in play here in such a way as to cause conflict. There is for instance no male right of access to unwilling women’s bodies or spaces. (I would also strongly deny that there is any kind of ‘right’ to perform fetishes in public - in fact quite the opposite, members of the public are entitled to refuse to be forced to cosplay in someone else’s fetish performance.)

So in the trans case I do not think there can be said to be an example of competing rights - unless you accept that men have a ‘right’ to require women to be unwilling observers or participants in male fetishes, or a ‘right’ to observe women in intimate contexts without their consent. And even postulating those unpleasant ‘rights’ reveals why ‘trans rights’ are a symptom of rape culture.

If you demand that it is seen to be done then you are wanting people to be performative.

I don't even know how I did that apart from being fat fingered. That's the worst gif to have come up too. I'm so sorry sorry.

I can't apologise enough.

In addition to RTB's point about it having been previously agreed with John, he was shouting things from the audience. Editing out audience noise so you can hear the intended speakers more clearly is routine. It's not discriminatory if you're doing it to everyone.

I dont actually know why they had mics in the audience space at all (and would like to know if they had them throughout the audience or only by John's seat).

It's not about being performative, it's about making sure a space doesn't tolerate or appear to endorse racist language.

When similar comments were made about Tourette's, they were challenged, vigorously. But racism? Silence.

The issue here is you can only make accomodations for Tourettes by awareness and explanation. You can't actually stop what they are saying. They are always going to offend. And they will offend in what is essentially a none discriminatory way although some individuals will be more upset by it than others. Their intent is never one that is self centred or malicious. It's a truly awful condition.

In a situation where someone is having a severe bout of Tourettes tics, they are actively very vulnerable and at risk at that moment. They come about due to stress so trying to minimise that and prepare people in advance is necessary because it reduces the potential impact in many scenarios. However it can be in literally any situation from walking down the street, to dropping the kids off, to shopping that the impact happens and is very visible.

And being completely honest you can't stop people being offended. That's the nature of the disability. There is no nuance. There is no compromise which doesn't restrict the life of the person to being homebound or institutionalised.

In terms of the issue for sex and gender, genderists demand validation and compliance that goes beyond wanting rights and respect. They are actively rejecting third party spaces that can be used by everyone - the point is they are using the women in spaces and using others for validation. Transwomen also are not the most vulnerable in every scenario unlike is the case for someone in the midst of a Tourettes episode.

This means the harms and balancing of rights issues are massively different.

You aren't getting another group who are being impacted negatively more than others in the same way. There isn't issues over intent and motivations. There are third party solutions available. There aren't doubts over medicalisation and how you treat different cohorts - it's a medical condition that doesn't rely on fantasy wording and power and control dynamics. It has a clear set of diagnostic criteria and can be described in a way that would have a clear legal definition.

I got really upset by the thread last night because I have a friend with Tourettes. Having spent time with her doing normal things it brings it home how awful the condition is. It's exhausting just being around her. If she's having an episode it's immediately obvious what it is from her physical tics as well as her verbalisation which is notably different from normal communication. It's identifiable even if you didn't know she had Tourettes. You'd be able to work it out she had it. Indeed telling people what's going on they say "well we thought that was the case but we weren't sure" because they havent seen Tourettes 'in the wild' so to speak and for the most part the explanation is enough. Mainly cos her distress and discomfort is very much on display. You can't fake it.

I am comfortable with her being around my son. We have explained it and he gets it. It can be funny. It can be heartbreaking. It can be offensive. It can be embarrassing for those around her. It can put them at risk too. The best thing to do is literally to ignore it because it reduces the stress and anxiety and the tics are more likely to stop and stop more quickly. Staring, making comments or going on about how awful someone is behaving only makes the problem worse which isn't what anyone involved wants.

Honestly if you spend time with someone with severe Tourettes you would soon get over the concept of being offended even if they were saying the most offensive thing ever because you can visibly see the trauma and distress it's causing the person doing it. Even if you initially get upset, you very quickly realise just how awful the condition is and how there isn't offense made. Frankly if you are getting offended I question your own empathy levels - if you are expecting respect and tolerance you need to be able to give it too.

The idea that anyone is being racist, homophobic, etc etc when you see such an episode first hand is really laughable.

Where I have a problem with this current debate is the problem with discussion on the subject on social media is it's coming from people who have had no experience of this and don't have the visual feedback to also consider. Its a theoretical debate not one based on reality. It's a social media story and social experience into thoughts and politics instead of a reflection on the actual condition. It's all about just focusing on the word(s) used not the full behaviour manifestation. As soon as you see this this, it has a very different context and people can see it as well just focusing on the word and the concept of offense being the best all and end all. A tic is visual not just verbal.

The two actors on stage would have seen that from where they were stood. If they don't have prior knowledge and experience of Tourettes it could have completely thrown them and bewildered them. That wasn't fair. But no one was being racist.

They should have been better prepared and informed in advance - for both them and John's benefit. But honestly if you want people with Tourettes to be part of society as anyone else you just have to roll with it unfortunately. Otherwise you are advocating for active significant discrimination on the basis of disability. Being offended by it is unavoidable in certain scenarios but it's not actionable against the person doing it due to their capacity issues and their intent and this is the really important factor. Someone choosing which sexed space to use, is actively free to make that choice in that moment. They have a deliberate attempt to access wrong sex facilities. They have capacity to do this. If they reject third spaces again this is an active choice that isn't available for someone with Tourettes.

There was a massive duty of care failure that occurred by the organisers and broadcasters. This falls on them not the individuals concerned. It has to be a preemptive rather than reactionary response in terms of how you make accomodations and balance rights (which actually isn't a realistic thing to do in many situations - for example if you are out at a restaurant, leaving the restaurant could put someone much more at risk outside from passers by and just changes the situation rather than stopping it). You cant punish or force apologies.

And no he shouldn't apologise for a disability. It should be an explanation instead.

Even then the person is still at risk. And apologising doesn't really help the situation a lot of the time if the next thing you say is a whole bunch of other abusive stuff.

Honestly, I've really not seen many medical conditions I think are this appalling. It's a slow life long torture that impacts on every level of a persons life. You can't compare it to the sex and gender issue. Frankly I think it's offensive to do so and shows a very low level of understanding of the condition.

You have no idea how racist that sounds. Treating people differently because of how much melanin they have in their skin....

It would have been discrimination to exclude John Davison from the awards ceremony. Why then wouldn't it discrimination to edit out the words he said?

Are they doing that to anyone else?

I'm torn if I'm honest. I think we run the risk of sanitising the reality of Tourettes with censorship especially given the situation and the purpose of the film. Part of me does think that rather than normalising censorship of Tourettes tics that we just have to ignore it no matter how awful it is. BUT it also upset him as much as it's upsetting others so it's clearly wasn't the answer in this situation.

Plus I do think one of the issues with the whole scenario which I mentioned up thread is that you are only hearing the audio, which in itself lacks context.

If we could see and hear him, you have a much better understanding that it's a Tourettes tic. That makes you process the situation differently because your own response is different because you have more context from which to feed back what is happening and what the intention is.

One of my friend tics turns out to be constantly touching my arm. It's extremely irritating but I also knew immediately the first time she did it she was finding me calming somehow from reading the situation. So you kind of put up with it through gritted teeth. She later explained that touching things can help because it gives her brain an alternative stimulation which helps distracts it from the intrusive thoughts which made a lot of sense. Her brain was essentially reassuring itself and she'd focused on me as a 'safe individual'. I have no idea why she did this. There were others there who know her much better than I do. I perhaps understand anxiety issues better because of my own issues. I don't know. She explained it as form of grounding which is a technique for dealing with anxiety which I've heard of before. She was also using fidget spinners for the same reason.

To me just putting up with it and just getting on and ignoring it was very instinctive. It was not just merely being polite. It seemed to be what she was needing in that moment so I went with it. As I say I didn't know she had Tourettes before this occasion until I was in a situation where she couldn't exactly hide it. And even then she didn't immediately explain it.

It's a case of getting all the visual, verbal and other social cues that help you understand the situation. When you remove just one element of that you don't necessarily appreciate what's happening in full. Communication is a whole range of things. How we understand others isn't just from what they say, its how they say it, the context of what they say, their body language etc etc.

I guess it's probably a reasonable adjustment for all concerned especially because he requested it. It makes sense to edit vocal without all that behind that too.

I don't know. I don't know how you would live with it on a day to day basis. I don't know how you get people to understand that it's effectively someone acting out their worst nightmare in public and having no control of it and help them to understand there's very little that we can do to mitigate the situation apart from explaining and just carry on. I don't know how you manage an unmanageable situation.