John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

He actually shouted 'paedophile' at Alan Cummings but that got edited out.

This is a man who has spent his life apologising for things he cannot help and who still got abused or beaten up anyway.

We know how a woke mob works. Apologising never works; it just makes them become more vicious because it is never about what someone has allegedly done, it is about them enjoying the power of bringing someone down.

Just more evidence that diversity, inclusion and #BeKind is a gravy train for self-absorbed grifters and hates actual women, actual lesbians and gay men, Jewish people, poor people and disabled people. They're just venomous, pampered Stasi informants who can't wait until they find somebody fresh to denounce and destroy.

The last couple of decades have really brought home how historical horrors happened. These people aren't happy until they make someone suicidal and yet they think they are the good ones.

I think one thing that people should be more aware of, particularly if they are looking at how this plays out in social media, is that this is the perfect issue for a particular brand of right wing trouble-maker to latch on to and amplify.

It is simple and effective - take a side in a culture war, especially one which is particularly divisive amongst people who might naturally be inclined to agree with each other (ableism v racism) and stoke the fires of argument, dialling up your righteous anger to full volume. Some people reading it will feel their own rage is justified, perhaps even feel they’ve not been angry enough. Other will push back, fighting fire with fire - which will cause even more escalation on both sides

It really doesn’t take much effort at all, once you’ve turned up the heat a bit you can step back and let other people drive the arguing.

As a society that now spends so much of our time communicating with words on a screen, with people who can portray themselves as anything they want to be, we have become incredibly vulnerable to having our reactions and our emotions manipulated like this. It is a real danger, and it has real world consequences.

Angry and divided people are far weaker. People who aren’t sufficiently cynical, people who do genuinely care are most at risk. They are the ones who will expend emotional energy in fighting online, often without realising just how much they are being manipulated. This often seems to get lost in the noise.

I understand why you would push for that because this case is very public, but bearing in mind he’s probably unintentionally offended thousands and thousands of people and will continue to do so, sets up a situation where people will still be expecting people with disabilities to apologize for the inconvenience they’re causing others, even when that is something completely beyond their control and that they have to deal with every single day of their lives.

Are these people more special than others, that you think they need a public apology? Or do you think he should spend his whole life apologizing. I imagine he does that a lot already.

This isn’t an attack. My initial reaction was to wonder why he didn’t do what he could to make it go away by apologizing. But after watching the QED documentary, “John’s not mad.” I thought about it some more and I think a public apology is actually the wrong way to go on the grounds that he really did nothing wrong and it sets a precedent.

The whole point is that it was not 'intended' to be a racial slur and here, intention is what matters.

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.

Strange how some don't need to call people the n word or 'fat sluts!'.

That's because only 10% of people with TS have coprolalia: it doesn't mean that it's intentional.

I, as a black woman, prioritise the feelings of black people over an able-bodied white male.

should have read:

I, as a black woman, prioritise the feelings of black people over a disabled person.

Race and disability are protected characteristics under the Equality Act, which requires equally favourable treatment of everyone with respect to their protected characteristics, as far as is possible and with only a few well-defined exceptions.

One of the exceptions is that it is lawful to treat a disabled person more favourably than a non-disabled person. Section 13(3) of the Act explicitly allows for this exception to direct discrimination, meaning it's possible to offer extra support or preferential treatment to address the needs of a disabled person.

Obviously it would be a bit heavy-handed to start trying to apply the Act to a celebratory occasion. But it does tell us what the legislature thinks about our responsibilities, as a society, to disabled people.

Anyway, I blame the organisers and broadcasters. I understand that the baftas are heavily rehearsed with stand-ins, so they should have war-gamed this scenario then directly briefed nominees and presenters, as well as adopting technical fixes to mitigate it. It's obvious they didn't, from the startled looks of the two gentlemen on stage. What were the organisers thinking??

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?

Again, one of the premises of I Swear is the problems and exhaustion that arise from having to spend a lifetime apologising for things you can’t control. This is not a one off accidentally hit someone in the face with a ball incident. This is just one incident out of hundreds that day multiplied by years.

The level of vitriol over this compared to Tarantino using the N word backstage in a Golden Globes press conference in 2016 is interesting. It’s but a drop in the ocean compared to the furore that is currently being made over a working class disabled man with a very real and very debilitating disorder.

It’s bleeped out but he said the full word at the time.

Tarantino is a white man who makes frequent use of the N word in several of his movies(Approximately 16 times in Pulp Fiction and 39 times in Jackie Brown to name but two. Even where there’s some genuine context for the word(The Hateful Eight and Django Unchained) I’d argue that the number of times he uses it could be considered to be gratuitous. Unlike John, who used it involuntarily because of a severe disability, I suspect that Tarantino uses so frequently because he enjoys it. Not necessarily that hates POC, though I do think that he fetishises them, but it makes him feel cool, daring and edgy and he is only too happy to throw the N word around liberally but then he’s a cool, very famous and much admired Hollywood director who has cast some of Hollywood’s biggest names in his movies.

Did you use it as an opportunity to explain Tourette's?

ETA the idea of 'something heartfelt' sound really performative TBH

You should have seen the thread on here a few day ago, one person said they thought people with Tourette’s should be locked up in asylums. I have seen people being utterly disgusting on both sides, people saying that John should train himself, that he is being racist deliberately and that he should have not been invited or kept away. Others have said that anyone who was offended by the racism aspect needs to get over themselves.

This whole incident has revealed disgusting views on both sides, it’s hideous.

It’s been reported that his team reached out to them yes.

it will clearly never be enough though.

Well, I said he didn't mean to do it , he was probably feeling horrible for saying it and he would say sorry.

Maybe the first two still stand but he certainly hasn't said sorry and no-one who wasn't trying to twist themselves out of shape to defend him, would accept that waffle statement issued as an apology.

All he has to say is:

" i did not mean to say it. I was not responsible. i wish with all my heart it hadn't happened and I apologise with all my heart for the distress I know it caused. I hope everyone accepts that I am not responsible but that does not make me immune to the fact that this terrible word caused harm."

His statement so far is the sort of thing a smarmy politician would put out. It is not an apology.

I hope he puts out something heartfelt that is.

No, I just had your post there on 'quote' and then forgot to remove it! Sorry!

The racism on their other thread is off the scale wild. Apparently racism towards white people is acceptable and I can’t believe Mumsnet is allowing it. KKKaren’s was one nicety and apparently acceptable.

“Choose not to be harmed — and you won’t feel harmed. Don’t feel harmed — and you haven’t been.”

What does those posts have to do with me and what I said in the quoted post? Nothing as far as I can see.

Good. And although you won’t see this I hope you fucking educate yourself properly on Tourette’s. You don’t get to call others prejudiced while being guilty of being just as prejudiced back.

How did you explain it to your child?

His tic is not.

"And I did not agree with you because you've made comments in response that were ableist and self-centred where it's really not appropriate."

What comments?

And no. The world is not out to get me. I have a very happy life actually, thanks. But my experiences mean that I can understand why some people might react badly to tics, and deserve compassion themselves. That's basically it. The gist of my point has been: it is not unreasonable for people to feel upset. That's it, really.

Not the same. In your example you intended to throw the ball, but threw it poorly. Someone with Tourettes isn't trying to say something and comes out with the wrong thing.

It's less like someone misthrowing a ball, and more like an apple falling from a tree. If it lands on your head it might be painful, but it's not offensive because there's no intent. And you wouldn't demand an apology from the tree (I hope, although after the past couple of days I'm beginning to wonder).

This is deflection.

I did not comment on every single post on this thread. Does it mean I agree with all posts I didn't comment on? No. I think there were offensive, minimising and racist comments made. But those posters did not engage with me or my views about disability and its acceptance. You did, repeatedly. And I did not agree with you because you've made comments in response that were ableist and self-centred where it's really not appropriate.

Is it OK for you to jump to conclusions about me the way you did? No.

You seem to be coming from a place of deep hurt and many of your posts come off as 'the world is out to get me'. I don't walk your path and I'm sure this didn't come from nowhere. But you're getting really carried away here and if you actually pause and consider what many posters are trying to convey instead of firing off your emotions it will perhaps help you see that all that needs to be done here is acceptance of a person's disability and moving on without expectations.