John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

From that article:
The real challenge isn’t the tics themselves, but the misconceptions surrounding them. Understanding the full range of Tourette’s helps reduce stigma and supports everyone living with the condition.

When socially unacceptable words come out, the guilt and shame on the part of the person with the condition is often unbearable and causes enormous distress. I can’t begin to explain how upset and distraught I have been as the impact from Sunday sinks in.

And

Tourette’s can feel spiteful and searches out the most upsetting tic for me personally and for those around me. What you hear me shouting is literally the last thing in the world I believe; it is the opposite of what I believe. The most offensive word that I ticked at the ceremony, for example, is a word I would never use and would completely condemn if I did not have Tourette’s.

I am often triggered by what I see and/or what I hear, and this part of the condition is called echolalia. For example, when the chair of BAFTA started speaking on Sunday, I shouted, “Boring.” On Sunday, Alan Cumming joked about his own sexuality and, when referencing Paddington Bear, said, “Maybe you would like to come home with me, Paddington. It wouldn’t be the first time I have taken a hairy Peruvian bear home with me.” This resulted in homophobic tics from me and led to a shout of “pedophile” that was likely triggered because Paddington Bear is a children’s character.

I would appreciate reports of the event explaining that I ticked perhaps 10 different offensive words on the night of the awards. The N-word was one of these, and I completely understand its significance in history and in the modern world, but most articles are giving the impression I shouted one single slur on Sunday

And

Sometimes you feel like you are making real progress in educating people on the condition, but there is so much more needed. Comments following the BAFTAs where people have said things like, “I need to stay inside,” “I wouldn’t say these things unless I thought them,” and “I am racist deep down” are deeply upsetting for me, and show there is still so much to do.

There are numerous examples of this last point on this thread I might add.

I think you're selecting a very small part of what I've said and adding to it things I haven't said or implied.

John had about 10 different tics, all offensive, and swears. He was promised they would all be censored. All but one word was censored.

I put forth an argument to say that I don't think censorship should be the standard, but it was what all parties agreed to as a safeguard and it fell through and has now put a big red target on John's back as a racist, for which he isn't.

From that article:
The real challenge isn’t the tics themselves, but the misconceptions surrounding them. Understanding the full range of Tourette’s helps reduce stigma and supports everyone living with the condition.

When socially unacceptable words come out, the guilt and shame on the part of the person with the condition is often unbearable and causes enormous distress. I can’t begin to explain how upset and distraught I have been as the impact from Sunday sinks in.

And

Tourette’s can feel spiteful and searches out the most upsetting tic for me personally and for those around me. What you hear me shouting is literally the last thing in the world I believe; it is the opposite of what I believe. The most offensive word that I ticked at the ceremony, for example, is a word I would never use and would completely condemn if I did not have Tourette’s.

I am often triggered by what I see and/or what I hear, and this part of the condition is called echolalia. For example, when the chair of BAFTA started speaking on Sunday, I shouted, “Boring.” On Sunday, Alan Cumming joked about his own sexuality and, when referencing Paddington Bear, said, “Maybe you would like to come home with me, Paddington. It wouldn’t be the first time I have taken a hairy Peruvian bear home with me.” This resulted in homophobic tics from me and led to a shout of “pedophile” that was likely triggered because Paddington Bear is a children’s character.

I would appreciate reports of the event explaining that I ticked perhaps 10 different offensive words on the night of the awards. The N-word was one of these, and I completely understand its significance in history and in the modern world, but most articles are giving the impression I shouted one single slur on Sunday

And

Sometimes you feel like you are making real progress in educating people on the condition, but there is so much more needed. Comments following the BAFTAs where people have said things like, “I need to stay inside,” “I wouldn’t say these things unless I thought them,” and “I am racist deep down” are deeply upsetting for me, and show there is still so much to do.

There are numerous examples of this last point on this thread I might add.

See, I don't think censorship is the way forward either. Acceptance with restrictions isn't inclusive to me.

The issue of erasure vs inclusivity is not exclusive to people with Tourette’s. Just because a word carries little or no weight in White spaces does not mean White people get to decide its weight in Black ones. The history attached to that slur does not disappear because it wasn't intentional. Impact on others matters.

What’s happening in this thread and others is racially motivated downgrading of that history and the impact of the slur to Black people because it’s inconvenient to the narrative being pushed. If this was supposed to be a teachable moment for the film, there were countless alternatives that could have been used in editing. They will still have been offensive just not racially loaded.

I’m not entirely sure how I feel on the “it shouldn’t have been broadcast” point.

This is his reality, and it is the way any one of us might experience someone who suffers from this if we were to meet them or just be close to them. The response ought to be one of sympathy and understanding, and an ability to detach the awful things he is compelled to say from any real meaning. However hurtful these words might be if said with intent, our rational brains should take a step back and treat the tics as noise, signifying nothing.

The more people who understand and can respond like that the better. That awareness might one day just help stop a sufferer from being abused or even physically attacked for something they said. But how do you get to that point of awareness? Most people won’t ever watch a documentary about this condition. Does awareness come from simply showing a sufferer living their life, including participating in an awards show, without them being hidden away, or censored.

ideally I think that is probably what should happen. But sadly we don’t live in an ideal world, and a large television audience clearly isn’t (yet ) in a place where they can respond to this in an accepting, non-judgmental way.

Instead people have acted angrily and emotionally, and a lot of very unpleasant things have been said. Instead of increasing understanding it has polarised people and driven them further apart.

I think that is a sad comment on us as a society. As a group, particularly a very large group, we tend to react poorly, and in this case people have been hurt as a result.

Perhaps that should have been obvious, but I can imagine some well meaning people thinking that, just maybe, the public would have been a bit better than that.

I hadn't read before that Davidson had been assured that his tics would be edited out of the broadcast (apologies if it's been mentioned but the thread has moved fast). If so then BAFTA and the BBC have absolutely fucked him over by not keeping their word on that

Yes, it's bad enough having the condition on a day-to-day basis, without it being broadcast to thousands of people.

on the other hand, if there is such a thing as a silver lining, it has very effectively demonstrated the issues.

I’m not entirely sure how I feel on the “it shouldn’t have been broadcast” point.

This is his reality, and it is the way any one of us might experience someone who suffers from this if we were to meet them or just be close to them. The response ought to be one of sympathy and understanding, and an ability to detach the awful things he is compelled to say from any real meaning. However hurtful these words might be if said with intent, our rational brains should take a step back and treat the tics as noise, signifying nothing.

The more people who understand and can respond like that the better. That awareness might one day just help stop a sufferer from being abused or even physically attacked for something they said. But how do you get to that point of awareness? Most people won’t ever watch a documentary about this condition. Does awareness come from simply showing a sufferer living their life, including participating in an awards show, without them being hidden away, or censored.

ideally I think that is probably what should happen. But sadly we don’t live in an ideal world, and a large television audience clearly isn’t (yet ) in a place where they can respond to this in an accepting, non-judgmental way.

Instead people have acted angrily and emotionally, and a lot of very unpleasant things have been said. Instead of increasing understanding it has polarised people and driven them further apart.

I think that is a sad comment on us as a society. As a group, particularly a very large group, we tend to react poorly, and in this case people have been hurt as a result.

Perhaps that should have been obvious, but I can imagine some well meaning people thinking that, just maybe, the public would have been a bit better than that.

Sorry everyone I have been busy at work and trying to keep up with this but sad that it has resulted in such vitriol from some posters.

it really wasn’t my intention to cause a bun fight.

I was just interested in the parallels with FWR.

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.

I didn't need to google Delroy Lindo as I already knew he was born in Lewisham, as so was I, and he occasionally gets mentioned by the council as being one of the famous people from there. You were trying to imply his childhood was affected by the worst excesses of US racism when it wasn't, because he didn't grow up there. I've no idea how much racism he experienced once he moved to the US, but reckon it's reasonable odds that San Francisco in 1968 was far better on that score than somewhere like Mississippi. I don't doubt that having the N word unexpectedly shouted at him, live TV or no live TV, would be unpleasant for him, and I feel sorry for him that that happened. There wasn't any need for you to misrepresent his background in order to make your point though.

OK, have read a piece this morning that contains new (to me) information that throws significant new light on this. It's the Jason Okundaye article in the Guardian. He was at the ceremony.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/25/baftas-bbc-n-word-john-davidson-black-disabled-people

Towards the end, this paragraph crystallise s things:

What I cannot countenance is the BBC’s decision not to edit out the N-word tic, despite there being a delay in broadcast. Producers have claimed that they “didn’t hear” the slur as they were working from trucks. Even if this was the case, Davidson has said he was told by Bafta that any swearing would be edited out of broadcast (he has also raised the issue of being sat in front of a mic) and Warner Bros reportedly raised the issue with Bafta and was assured that the word would be removed before broadcast. It also doesn’t wash considering that the decision was made to edit “Free Palestine” out of Akinola Davies Jr’s winning speech. And why did nobody speak to Jordan and Lindo after the incident?

I hadn't read before that Davidson had been assured that his tics would be edited out of the broadcast (apologies if it's been mentioned but the thread has moved fast). If so then BAFTA and the BBC have absolutely fucked him over by not keeping their word on that, and that for me is now the crux of the issue. He was told that he and others would be protected. They weren't. As the article goes on to say:

everyone has been failed – Davidson made to look like an avatar for British racism, black people left to feel confused and angry while instructed to remain graceful and tolerant.

Whoever made promises and whoever then didn't keep them should be named so they don't get to do this ever again.

I can think of several, maybe not quite as bad, but some are damn close. Pedo, rpist, wife beater, molester, nonce, Nazi, murderer. I can also think of several for just about any group you could mention.
That being said, the BBC should have done a better job with editing. I also think enforced segregation of people with tourettes would be evil. Why make a film, show a film, award a film if only to then further disadvantage the subject of that film?