As is always the case with these things, the position is nuanced.
Regarding Tourette's, involuntary tics are a symptom of the condition. The word "involuntary" is used for its true meaning. The tics can't be controlled. In fact, the more a person tries to control them, the worse they can often be. They are not revelatory of secret inner thoughts or subconscious bias. In fact, they're often expressions of the most horrifying or anxiety-inducing thoughts the person with Tourette's can conceive of in the moment. John Davidson didn't mean what he said - not in a flippant "it was an accident" kind of way, but in the sense that as a real and significant feature of his disability, he can't help what he says or when if tics are occurring.
The BAFTAS should have done significantly more to resolve what happened. Davidson had expressed anxiety about being seated behind microphones, which could have been dealt with in advance. They also could have cut the broadcast instead of airing the slur, and they could have offered a genuine apology and offered to facilitate some form of reconciliation between the parties if they had wanted it. But the solution isn't to say that someone like Davidson shouldn't be allowed to attend an awards ceremony celebrating a film based on his own life, or to condemn him as a racist for something he truly couldn't control.
I felt huge sympathy for Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo, because I can't imagine how awful it felt to hear that slur in that context (or any context). That's why the BAFTAs should have offered to aid with a genuine reconciliation after the event, which allowed space for all parties to be heard on what had happened. Whenever the rights and freedoms of different groups, especially groups who have been traditionally marginalised in the relevant context, butt up against each other, the only real way forward is to meet the conflict with empathy for all parties. There is often not a tidy solution, but understanding and a will to connect can go a long way.
The Martin Madden issue is not really comparable imo. I find this decision frustrating because I have ADHD (professionally diagnosed since childhood) and while I fully accept that neurodivergence presents differently in different people, I know right from wrong.
Madden's defence is that because his ADHD impairs his ability to pick up on social cues, he did not realise that his comments were being taken as anything other than jokey banter with women he considered friends. I find this hard to accept. I also struggle with social cues - when I was a child I found it hard to tell when people were making fun of me, and as an adult I struggle with things like oversharing and an outsized fear of social rejection. But I don't struggle to understand that sexualized jokes in the workplace are always inappropriate.
The tribunal found the following:
"The tribunal is asked to consider whether the claimant’s struggle to communicate with colleagues and adhere with social norms, was something arising in consequence of the claimant’s disability. From all the evidence we have seen and heard, we find that it was.
Making the comments, that were the subject of the disciplinary action, was an element of the claimant’s struggle to communicate with colleagues and adhere to social norms. His social boundaries were blurred and he did not observe social cues. He did not appreciate that his actions were inappropriate in the workplace. He did not realise what impact his comments might have on those he treated as his work friends. Once the claimant was explicitly told how the comments were being interpreted, he understood and stopped. In oral evidence he said he stopped talking to them because it was the only way he could control it. We accept this."
Essentially, the question of whether Madden's actions arose as a consequence of his disability was one of evidence. The Tribunal was convinced by the evidence on this point, and found that his comments were the result of his disability.
I think what I struggle with here is the fact that so often, men are allowed to use this excuse for their behaviour towards women. We're told to accept, over and over, that sexual harassment is because men don't know better, or it was just a joke, or they didn't mean to offend. It's hard to separate the enormous privilege men have in being forgiven by society for the harassment of women, from the fact of Madden having a disability which impairs his ability to observe social cues. Did he make these comments because of his ADHD, or because as a man he has been taught from birth that it's ok to sexually harass women, because it's just a joke and women need to get over it? As a woman with ADHD, the latter feels much more likely.