John Davison BAFTA Tourette’s incident and competing rights

[slet]

It’s interesting how this is being discussed atm. I see Ash Sarkar has framed it as an example of competing rights between disabled people and victims of racism, forgetting about intersectionality. But there is a struggle from those on the extreme left to see how women’s rights are compromised by ceding to TRAs.

not expressing myself very well but thought it had some interesting parallels with the sex and gender debate.

I was just about to come and post pretty much the same thing. Turns out they were pie.

I'm loving the American accounts saying "what if he swore at the Royals"
and the Brits pointing out that he swore at the Queen while she was awarding his MBE

the lack of disability awareness is quite something

While it does highlight the issue of competing rights, the difference between this and the sex/gender debate is that both disability and race deserve equal protection and consideration under law.
The same cannot be said for the rights of women needing sex segregated spaces to ensure safety, dignity and privacy from men and the 'right' of paraphilic males to seek sexual pleasure and validation in female spaces.
We all know third spaces would ensure the 'right' of sex dysphoric people to be comfortable in public spaces and this could be preserved without infringing on women's rights at all. In comparison, balancing the rights of disabled people to be fully included in society and the rights of other people not to be racially abused as a consequence, is nowhere near as clear cut.

How can it be seen as a matter of competing rights? This wasn't a situation where there are specific rights relating to Tourette's on the one hand and being Black on the other hand. The guy with Tourette's isn't claiming a 'right' to free speech that includes the right to say that offensive word. And I haven't heard any Black person claiming a 'right' to silence him.

Both parties have the same entitlement to understanding and respectful treatment. and they were both let down by a very poorly managed situation. It's analogous to a situation in which someone needed to use a wheelchair to get onto the stage, but access was so poorly designed that the wheelchair fell onto an audience member, injuring them. No one would call that a conflict of rights!!

There have been plenty of people saying he should either not have been invited or should have been segregated in case he offended someone. Its clear that some think DEI is just for black people.

I haven't seen any comments that indicate that "some think DEI is just for black people". (I'm sure there are some on social media because, ... well, ... social media. I mean comments from people involved.)

As for 'segregation', well that's a loaded word but I do think that a risk assessment should have been carried out and that - possibly - in such a high-profile and stressful event it might have been better to arrange the seating arrangements differently. After all, the person who is likely to have suffered most from this is the guy with Tourette's himself. A period on stage and then attendance via a video link set up in another room might have been a possibility. Obviously that isn't something that would be acceptable in most situations, but this was a very unusual one.

What I'm thinking is that the organisers were in a complacent self-congratulatory mindset. They had in mind a prettified version of the disability that they were using to demonstrate their inclusiveness. Tourette's has become a fashionable cause and it is oh-so-easy to virtue signal by being open to its 'safer' manifestations. I expect they were hoping to look edgy and cool when he shouted something like 'fuck'.The whole thing feels exploitative to me.

I have always been of the view that trans-identifying people should limit their lives in some way so that they don’t have to use single sex facilities when they are out and about.

I think the same in this instance, to be honest.

If he knew he was likely to be shouting slurs, he should have managed this by excusing himself at certain points of the evening.

It’s not that clear cut.

‘Third spaces’ are misused. It’s children and women that suffer the most when there’s more private, mixed sex spaces in public.

People who can only use accessible toilets, don’t get a choice - they have to use mixed sex.

No idea what happens when your religion says you shouldn’t use mixed sex facilities but your disability means you have to.

Oh don't be ridiculous

Well what you are suggesting IS segregation. Hiding the disabled people away so they don’t upset people. It defeats the whole purpose of the film.

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.

There is a TikTok video by a young lady who was in the audience at the BAFTAs

During setup (phones on silent etc) it was mentioned that he was there and would swear.
He swore right through the evening.

The fact that the film crew did not edit out his word (they edited out others)
is a discriminatory fail against a man who needs safeguarding.

The fact that many (mostly American) people are so ableist
says more about them than him

Being out with my friend this isn't always wise. Where do you go? She's gone outside before and we've had to chaperone her because it attracts attention - unwanted attention. Dangerous attention. It's fucking scary.

The best thing to do is to effectively Keep Calm and Carry On in many situations. Ignore it so the anxiety and stress reduces for everyones sake. You can't actually stop it or suppress it. There isn't a broom cupboard to hide in if you are on the bus. Going somewhere alone isn't a wise move in this state. Being visible may be a better option.

Given the nature of the ceremony and why he was invited, it's even worse.

My friend's reality is life never leaving the house if she had to abide by this idea. That would include taking her son to school, going to the shops, accessing public services or having health care (which she needs - she has to get medicine to try and keep the Tourettes under control). It's just not feasible. It has a much more significant impact on access issues compared to a urinary leash type scenario.

Everyone at that award ceremony had been told in advance that Davidson would be there and what he was likely to do.
https://www.bafta.org/media-centre/press-releases/a-statement-from-bafta/

If they chose to ignore that information or didn’t bother doing any further research, that’s on them.

A man in a woman’s space is actively harmful. A man saying offensive words because he has a disability is not actively harmful.

This whole episode proves that there are a lot of people whi think that some protected characteristics are more important than others.

I was once standing at a bus stop with my young child when a man joined us at the stand. He had some tics going on but I guessed what it and didn't say anything or look at him etc. He then turned to me and said that he has tourettes so he might shout out but he's not dangerous or anything. I just smiled and thanked him for letting me know.

Don't get me wrong, if had commented on any aspect of my physical appearance etc. I would have probably been upset or embarrassed but I also thought at the time how stressful and tiring it must be for him to be constantly worrying what he might say if he's telling strangers upfront about his tourettes in the street.

I think John was totally let down by the BBC; they had ample live delay that they could have bleeped the word. I don't think disability should be hidden away or apologised for but I think it could have been foreseen that it exposed John to harm; both online and possibly in person. I think a pp was right that they were hoping for a few edgy swear words so they can be all cool and right on.

You're absolutely right. I should have been clearer - I meant additional third, or technically fourth spaces (disability provision should be preserved). Single sex facilities should be the default. Trans rights activists should campaign and fund-raise for their own additional neutral spaces if they are not happy using facilities in line with their sex.

I think the words Live Broadcast and Tourettes would be ones that any half decent producer with adequate knowledge of Tourettes would have been it complete terror of. It was fairly insane and misguided to do tbh, unless they had full understanding that he could and probably would say literally ANYTHING offensive and they would have a social media storm over it.

It's like their brains fell out over the whole thing tbh.

I accept that Tourettes has nothing to do with feminism.

I also accespt that the eternaly offended who call women bigots
are highlighting their own intolerance
by hounding a disabled man

The Equality Act 2010 has its faults
but the fact that it includes EVERYBODY
is better than the US 'hierarchy' of grievance

(and yes, I am aware that an illegal hierarchy has operated, but the courts see reality)

It’s not a right to free speech. That implies it’s something he really wanted to say, and so should be able to. It’s a right to not have his access to events etc restricted due to his disability.

ETA. That may have been what you’re saying. I think I’m going blind.

Anyway, it’s interesting, to me at least, that some of the loudest “not pie” people are now having to navigate a situation in which it may very much be pie.

I found Ash Sarkar's reaction very interesting. First time she has proper skin in the game, her intersectional matrix collapses.

If tics are always possible (and they are), should he never go out?

It wasn't live. That makes it even worse

Yes it has to be stressed that it's an accessibility and access issue with prejudices and personal safety issues thrown in for good measure.

It's not remotely about freedom of speech.

DHs comment was why on earth did they have audience audio?

TV stations can turn down the crowd noise and put in fake noise if they wish. This has done this for the live broadcast of Israeli Eurovision entry for two years so the BBC will definitely have the capability of doing this (as it's a leading broadcaster).

Regardless of anything else anyone thinks of this incident, I do not understand why it wasn't edited out of the broadcast.