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.

No. 🤯

My friend doesn't do it at people. She will be in a situation and catch some staring. Her body's response might be to lurch and gurn at them, possibly with a verbal tics too. All whilst the rest of her brain is telling her to walk out the door. The effect is almost like her body is at odds with itself (which is exactly what it's doing). It actually hurts her because it's an unnatural movement being torn in two different directions. You can SEE it if you understand it.

She almost needs helping when it's that bad because she isn't fully in control. You can visibly tell she's not.

It's the situation. If people make comments she goes into a triggered mood of anxiety. Someone doing something or something in the situation is a trigger and her body responds to that. She doesn't.

It's difficult to explain.

It's really not about individuals. Her body is in fight or flight mode and responding to that. So it can and does respond to things her brain perceives as a threat or a risky situation. Anxiety over ticking badly and saying something bad is self fulfilling.

Delroy Lindo has complained about the lack of contact from BAFTA and I’ve said the same re all of that regarding the handling of the situation from them and the BBC.

I have absolutely not put this all on the disabled person; the perfect outcome would’ve been for JD to mention MBJ and DL in his statement and for them to respond acknowledging it was due to his disability and inviting more education and learnings from the organisations. The onus is not 100% on the actors just because they’re rich and famous.

Bollocks. Just bollocks. It offends equally and without discrimination.

No I think I agree with you here, except to single in on it wasn’t ‘him’ that shouted N, yes in the literal sense but I’d argue it was his tic.

Not always a visceral set off though, in the older documentary he shouts ‘Chopper has ginger pubes!’ when I don’t think Chopper was ginger (I could be wrong). In the group meeting with other sufferers they all joke about where the tics come from as sometimes they make no sense or have relevance.

I do understand all that, and it sounds horrible. Like an absolute nightmare to live with.

But you yourself said "Her body's response might be to lurch and gurn at them," (emphasis mine). So while she isn't doing anything 'at them' by choice, the condition is causing her body to do things 'at them'. Does that sound right?

I agree with your sentiment about there being no reason to be offended (I do think people have the right to feel shocked, possibly even sad, but not place blame or pass judgement) however

Do people get offended when a severely autistic person in a supermarket makes loud noises too? No. Because that would be deeply inappropriate, unwarranted and, indeed, offensive.

I'm sorry to say that they do.

I've been approached by staff when my son has been making vocal stims, tics, groans, shrieks and asked if I can move, I've had other customers stop and stare and pass comments that my son shouldn't be in the supermarket with me if he can't cope. He was coping, he was just making noises. Been told that quiet hour should be quiet and my son is disturbing the peace and upsetting people, when we need to go at quiet hour for his sake. He loves the supermarket and is learning valuable life skills there. The story of my life with a high needs autistic child isn't unique either. People love to be offended by the presence of people with disabilities, as though they are victims purely for us being present in the world. Contrarily, people also love to be offended when we bring any tech with us to help him stay quiet and protect their peace, whether that's in supermarkets, cafes and restaurants, theme parks and even at school. People just find disabled folk offensive and refuse to acknowledge their internal ableism and think acceptance should be conditional on being able to behave as normally as possible.

Fair enough, I do agree that there needs to be emphasis that it wasn't him choosing to shout it, it was his condition forcing him to do it very much against his will.

As for ginger pubes...very off-topic, but a lot of people who don't have ginger hair on their head still have gingery pubes 😂 So maybe Chopper did! But yes, I've read that sometimes the tics are just totally random verbal ejaculations. It must be mortifying to live with.

Ha yeah maybe he did. Out of interest have you seen the documentaries/I Swear?

Putting someone in a luxury viewing room in the context of him getting an award for highlighting the every day normal life struggles of people with Tourettes and how others want to hide them away / institutionalise them because their behaviour is difficult to cope with is doing exactly the opposite to what the film is trying to achieve in terms of awareness.

It's about being able to live in the same world as everyone else. And being free and safe to do that.

Well, I'll agree the condition causes the person to involuntarily say offensive words 'equally', as in to everyone, yes. Absolutely.

I've seen one from years ago. It was the late 00's when it aired, I think (my children were babies, so it's all a bit hazy). But not the most recent film, no. I'd like to, though.

That is like understanding somebody with OCD who washes their hands until they are raw as somebody who really like cleanliness.

Neurological conditions like this manifest in different ways depending on the environment. That does not mean that there is any control, or intent.

@RedToothBrushThank you so much for this. You’re incredible to say this. It’s very well explained & will hopefully help in a big way. Best thing I’ve read also. I heard a poster say JD should have stayed at home. It broke me, after all he’s been through. So perhaps they think my DD shouldn’t go to school or a school assembly incase 200 kids get offended. It could happen everyday for some TS sufferers.

Quote:
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.

No. You have said repeatedly that he shouldnt be allowed to and think of others.

Well actually in that situation there's fuck all anyone can do. Retrospective stuff doesn't help. Saying we should reflect on whatever only serves as punishment.

It all has to be about preparation and awareness.

Continuing to push a narrative that even remotely suggests it's racist or he's behaving in a racist way is doing that.

The explanation is his brain is doing something independently of his thoughts and control. His brain is responding to social anxiety triggers and effectively acting them out. It's almost like he's doing the thing his brain understands to be the worst thing about that situation. It's blind to race because it will do the most offensive social thing for any given situation. In reality you could read that as being the opposite to be offensive. His brain simultaneously recognises the risk of the situation in terms of social anxiety and then plays it out.

Imagine having that dream where you take all your clothes off in public because you are anxious about something. But your brain makes you actually do it. It's kinda like that.

I have made it clear that I know there is no control or intent.

But you seem to be trying to say that the fact that the tic was n--r has absolutely no relation to the fact that two black men were on stage whatsoever, and that it was a total coincidence the tic happened to be that word.

Read what I'm bloody saying. Your comments are tone deaf and upsetting.

There is a youtuber called sweet anita, she has both vocal and physical tics.

She has named her torrettes Terence she has done this as she considers her torrettes to take control.
Terance likes to say the worst thing at the most inappropriate moment.

But it worth looking her up on youtube, inparticular the streamer awards, both for the presenting of the award and for the red carpet interviews.

It may give those with little knowledge of torrettes a greater insite.

Other youtubers are available.

"You have said repeatedly that he shouldnt be allowed to and think of others."

I'm not quite sure what this means? And where have I said that? I suppose I may have said it shouldn't be allowed when I first heard about this issue, but I've read more on the topic, and it's not about 'allowing'. All a person who is uncomfortable can do is remove themselves from the situation, not expect him to be removed. I'm not sure what's wrong with being mindful of others too, though.

I haven't been saying that he is racist.

I don't disagree with any of the rest of what you say.

It's clear to see that you don't care about the blatant racism on this thread, though, which is disappointing.

Disappointing.