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.

This pretty much sums it up for me.

They weren't CALLED anything. A man with a disability said an unfortunate word in front of them (not TO them) because he couldn't help it . Oh woe and much gnashing of teeth etc. 🙄

As a woman, I wouldn’t bat an eyelid at a man saying fuck in my vicinity and neither would most women as it wasn’t in my direction, in front of thousands/millions and it’s a mundane everyday situation.

As a black person, having the N word shouted while I was on stage in front of a global audience on a night of celebration for my achievements would cause hurt and humiliation.

I think you can quite clearly see the difference and ‘vulnerability’ isn’t the issue.

Exactly that - 'performative outrage'

I think this young woman explained things really well and helped me to understand how difficult and tiring living with this neurological condition is:

Part One
https://www.tiktok.com/@sh4ysgrwm/video/7609862556240334094

Part Two:
https://www.tiktok.com/@sh4ysgrwm/video/7609867437638487310

"Yes, the onus is on the two famous actors to show grace to the man who has a life destroying condition." I agree.

Has Lenny Henry weighed in yet? I can only imagine the level of indignant bullshit he'll bring to the conversation.

I looked up corporolalia to find out exactly why some people neurological impairments use language which they know is offensive when they are ticking.

Someone described it as like trying to not imagine a pink elephant when someone has said pink elephant. That sort of make sense.

I still think it is fine for the peoples being called N*gger to be affronted by it. We don’t know in what context have heard that word before and they can have some feelings about it. We don’t have to choose sides here,

And year all the faux outrage about the BBC missing it (clearly accidentally) is a bit boring.

Quoting myself because I want the OP to see this and I feel it may have got lost in the ongoing racism argument last night. It took a while for me to articulate my thoughts.

OP it wasn't only you who had these thoughts when the competing rights issue came up. It's not the same thing no, but there are some aspects which are familiar.

Paedo/fat/bald/ugly/ginger/skinny/skanky Cunt etc

No when the two woman were on stage he, involuntarily tic’d and shouted slags/slappers I believe as they were the corresponding taboo words.

Tbh in a brake fail situation you would be unwise and to say sorry and actively advised not to because the other party may interpret that as an admission of liability.

If your brakes have failed there may be someone else who is liable. I mean you took them into the garage that morning to get them fixed, were told they were fixed and it turned out they weren't and the garage are liable...

In a sense your example is unintentionally good though for this reason. It is a scenario where the person with Tourettes doesn't bare liability because they can't be held responsible for the use of the words they say because their faulty brain is doing the driving not them. And by the same token saying sorry can be interpreted by some as an admission that they are responsible and liable. Even though they aren't.

The report button is that way. Take it up with management.

Oh, so he did actually tic when female presenters were on stage? I didn't realise that.

But yes, I'm not sure why people want to simultaneously argue that Tourette's can cause a person to tic the most offensive thing possible for the situation they're in or person they're interacting with, and that it wasn't (involuntarily) 'aimed at' the two people on stage. It's a weird hill to die on.

So you don't care about blatant racism, you only want to argue about the minute details of Tourette's? Alright then. Jeez.

It's a weird hill to die on.

It's really not. Tourette's tells you to say the most inappropriate thing under stress in any environment, it's not aimed at anyone and it's not capable of offending. It's an act that can't be categorised this way.

If you argue otherwise, it's a weird hill to die on.

So why then are the words chosen dictated by the person that the Tourette's sufferer is speaking to, or focusing on? 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'.

If someone with Tourette's said to a woman (as I think was said on this thread?) 'I'll rape you with a spiked stick!' is that genuinely not at her, in your opinion?

And why do you mean, it's not capable of offending? Offence is not defined by the giver but by the receiver, when it comes to feelings. One could not intend offence but still cause it. That happens all the time!

Obviously, if one discovers the person didn't intend to say what they said, or to hurt your feelings, that will mitigate how you feel to a greater or lesser degree. But a person cannot dictate what another person may feel.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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