John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

Someone not wanting to risk being called the N word is prejudiced now??

Refusing to be within earshot of someone with coprolalia because you find their disability uncomfortable might be prejudiced.

This thread has been eye opening to see how little people understand about the condition.

Apparently according to Variety his team has reached out to the studio of Sinners in order to apologise(For something that was entirely involuntary.) And even then in the comments people are complaining that there hasn’t been a public apology. This really is all about performative outrage.

Why are you making this poor man's experience all about you?

You can feel however you want.

You keep going on and on and on about acknowledgment of feelings coming from a person with Tourette's. It's not a reasonable expectation to have, it's not appropriate and it is self-centred and immature.

Yes that was me who got that shouted at me. I was a young woman in my 20s walking down the street.

Yes, I was shocked initially and upset but it was IMMEDIATELY obvious that the man who had yelled it had no control whatsoever over what he'd said. And as I said, I didn't know a thing about tourettes and yet recognised that he had an issue he was not in control of. He didn't tell me anything after yelling that, I quickly realised what was going on, reassured him by raising my palm and walked on. I was certainly not going to demand an apology from him, as it wasn't about me or my feelings.

Having read a PP saying that John was let down by the BBC I think the baftas producers and the ones in charge of the editing and microphones are the ones who need to issue an apology. NOT the disabled man.

I didn't mention apologies, I said: do you think the adrenaline and emotion might linger for a while?

Personally, in that situation, as someone (like many women) with complex trauma around male violence, my body would immediately be thrown into flight/fight/freeze mode, I'd be flooded with adrenaline, frightened by the initial threat, and potentially experiencing somatic flashbacks.

Is that 'acceptable' to you, or am I somehow unreasonable and self-centred for daring to have my own trauma and context?

But you agree that information should be withheld from them so that they aren't in possession of all the facts, and can't make an informed decision about whether or not they want to attend?

But if a man yells "I'll rape you with a spiked stick" at a woman on the street, do you really expect the woman's negative emotions or fear response to vanish in a split second once he says, "I have Tourette's" - or do you think the adrenaline and emotion might linger for a while?

I certainly would not be a lunatic expecting an apology or acknowledgement from a person with Tourette's. This really isn't about me or my feelings in that scenario, you're just so self-centred you are unwilling to grasp this simple point.

That's terrible. It sounds like they've used Davidson to drum up publicity through controversy, entirely against his wishes.

Called the N word, or hearing the N word. There’s a difference.

"Warning the men of the possibility that they may be racially abused actually might have put them in a position where they declined to take part because of their own prejudices which I think is far from ideal."

Also, wow. Seriously??

Someone not wanting to risk being called the N word is prejudiced now??

Someone deciding that, actually, that situation would be too distressing for them, and so they don't wish to partake should not be allowed to make an informed decision?

You're actively saying, "I think that if these people are fully informed, then their decision to not attend because they are not equipped to handle that situation, or don't want to be put in that position, or that would be bad for their mental health, might be 'not ideal' so let's withhold information from them to make sure they attend"?

That's fucked up.

Following some posters' 'logic', who should 'apologise' or 'acknowledge' anything to John for triggering his Tourette's? John was feeling anxious. It's not very nice, is it? John is not offensive. John has a disability. He didn't choose it. It's not very nice either, is it?

It wouldn't be very nice to expect black people, women or anyone else who was there to apologise to John for triggering his Tourette's and causing him discomfort. It makes no sense. Why should they apologise for who they are or how they look. They didn't choose this. And it's not offensive.

@RedToothBrush
I'm saying you are utterly determined to see racism where there isn't any.

How have I done that?

It was used because the brain scanned the environment around him which at that time included them.

So, the form that the tic took was because of them being right there, and his brain knowing that'd be the most offensive thing to say towards/in front of them, so his condition made him say it.
I'm not sure why people have an issue recognising that? You've basically said the exact same thing, just torturously tied up in a load of extra words.

You are literally arguing that a disability trait can offend people of colour here, it's beyond belief.

There is nothing magical about disabilities that prevents people from feeling hurt, offended, upset etc. With words, or violence. Violence makes it easier to illustrate, as if someone gives you a black eye, then you have a black eye whether or not they did it on purpose or because of their condition. Them being disabled doesn't change the impact.

But if a man yells "I'll rape you with a spiked stick" at a woman on the street, do you really expect the woman's negative emotions or fear response to vanish in a split second once he says, "I have Tourette's" - or do you think the adrenaline and emotion might linger for a while?

I'm saying you are utterly determined to see racism where there isn't any. You have demonstrated this several times on this thread. You think something is racist and yet you haven't sought to report it. This allows posters you think are racist to continue to post rather than considering that it's so bad it should be removed and posters banned if appropriate. The history of the n word is terrible but it's also complicated by it's reclamation - it therefore has multiple meanings and usages which yes people do find hard to navigate at times. That doesn't mean they are racist.

I am frustrated because there has been a constant desire to centre the two black men in this scenario. That is inappropriate for the situation. Yes they were let down and put in a situation which was very difficult but that's also different to being racially abused. It wasn't a hate attack. It wasn't intentional.

The determination to make it into something more and suggest an underlying level of racism was completely ignorant. If anything the Tourettes reflects societal recognition of it being utterly unacceptable to say some words.

You are intent to make a much bigger deal of the situation than it should be. Which actively harms those with Tourettes. You are actively choosing to persist to harm. This is an exceptionally rare case where yes it does require black men to be big about it and say this isn't nice, I am unhappy but actually I'm not the one who should be being centred here because of the circumstances and there is only a limited amount more that could be done in this situation. If I had known in advance I still may have been shocked and upset because the reality of the situation is different to being told it's theorectical. I am a public figure who has to be professional and realise my own actions have impact even when I'm affronted. This isn't the hill to die on though as it will make me look like a cunt who doesn't apply my own life lessons to others where appropriate.

There's actually limited amounts more that are reasonable adjustments for both parties. Excluding John in the context of his award wasn't even an option. Warning the men of the possibility that they may be racially abused actually might have put them in a position where they declined to take part because of their own prejudices which I think is far from ideal. The possibility of furore from that was a reality. The BBC broadcast the sound but not the visuals of the incident which the men on stage could see. This might cause offence to the wider audience but it's not necessarily the same level of offence to the men on stage because they can see what's happening and can tell it's a medical incident. People at home (including people who didn't watch the BAFTAs and don't know the context of the presence of the man) are jumping in to voice and opinion based on how they view the word. That's not a meaning that applies to every use of that word though. It holds a status as a word with multiple levels of meaning usage and intent. In this situation the usage and intent is even more complex because of who has said it and actually I think some people have been trying to convey this point. Perhaps badly at times because not everyone is articulate but I still think it's one that should be stated as it's relevant. It is a difficult subject to talk about.

I take the view that sometimes the things that are hardest to talk about in our society are the ones that need to be talked about most.

I struggle to work out apart from better informing other guests (which may still have lend to a social media storm if the men were told they may hear racially offensive words and had decided they weren't willing to participate) and the failure to mute the word, how it could have been handled better. And actually to a point erasing the reality of Tourettes in the context of the award and the film may not be right anyway because it almost over sanitises the experience of being in a room with someone with Tourettes and you may have had a situation of the men in stage looking bewildered and upset which also could have done them an unfair disservice in its own right.

The reality of the condition is you may be exposed to it in everyday life without warning and the reality is that yes everyone should act graciously as possible in that scenario. It's obvious and clearly different to someone hurling abuse. It doesn't necessarily help anyone to pretend differently.

Apparently there was a microphone on the table a two hour delay they had edited out other things but for some strange reason didn't edit this its manufactured hate and dramatics they assured him they would protect him as they have in the past and they didn't

What do you think he should be apologizing for? His condition, his involuntary words, is he not trying hard enough in his purity spiral for you.

While South London in the 50s and 60s wasn't exactly a racial utopia, it was hardly the Jim Crow era US.

Well he called Alan Cummings, a white man, a paedo if that makes you feel any better. Away and educate yourself on tics.

He did address it but it makes no sense to simply include MBJ and DL because there were plenty of other black audience members too. Singling out MBJ and DL in this instance would have been offensive to any other black participants of the show who would have felt excluded from his statement.

He acknowledged he was causing distress and he removed himself when he realised the tic was becoming prolific.

Saying, 'the tic was aimed at the two black men on stage' is a good shorthand for, 'the only reason that particular tic was used was because of the two black men on stage'.

This is where you're misunderstanding and misrepresenting. These are two completely different things.

Tourette's is triggered by the environment. A person may well express something inappropriate in any given situation when they are feeling anxious, whether there are others around or not. Trigger isn't a particular individual. Anxiety is the trigger for the reaction. Thus what is said isn't aimed at anyone, there is no decision making process involved here.

Anxiety would make the brain scan the environment. It is therefore fundamentally diferent to say that 'the only reason that particular tic was used was because of the two black men on stage'. It was used because the brain scanned the environment around him which at that time included them. It was used because he knows the word is not appropriate and his condition resulted in involuntarily blurting it out. This in itself tells you all you need to know about him.

A disability trait cannot be categorised as offensive because the person virtually has no ability to act otherwise. It's neutral.

You are literally arguing that a disability trait can offend people of colour here, it's beyond belief.

That is an acknowledgement but no way is it an apology.

For a start, there is no mention of the particular incident and nowhere does the word. "sorry" or "apologise" appear.

And it should.