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'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.

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?

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

How have I done that?

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.

"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.

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

That’s not what the poster said. Reasonable adjustments have to be made, excluding John, sending him off to another room wouldn’t be reasonable.

You could argue letting ALL the actors know in advance (which I think they did?) know that there’s a Tourette’s sufferer in the audience, explain what tics are, you might hear involuntary offensive language which have no malice intent etc etc and they can make their own mind up whether to attend or not.

Going up to any black actor in advance and saying ‘one of John’s tics sometimes presents as the N word’, could be a reasonable adjustment as a forewarning for all the obvious reasons, or it could be prejudicing John from the outset because of
his disability, to be labelled a potential racist etc and the reason for them not to attending, if this is what they decided to do in this situation. It’s clear very little understand tics.

Do you not see? Do we go up to anyone else and say ‘oh this person has a disability that might make you feel uncomfortable so it’s ok if you decide not to attend’. No, absolutely not.

I’m also failing to see all this racism. I asked the previous poster who is displaying their own appalling racism on their own thread and no examples were forthcoming.

This is insane.

I've used myself, and my very real trauma as an example, and I'm being called self-centred and 'making something about me' for explaining that kind of interaction would probably cause a trauma response for me in that situation, on the feminist section. It's actually a little upsetting.

It's nice to know that no other condition, trauma, or personal boundary matters, except that of the man with Tourette's.

People are wrong for feeling upset, people are prejudiced if they want to stay away and shouldn't be informed they may be racially abused, the N word isn't that big a deal, the two black men probably use the N word so shouldn't be upset, that it's impossible to cause offence due to a disability, and so on.

There's absolutely no nuance at all.

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

For me too, I thought the condition was well know, I've been stunned to see how wrong I was.

I haven't been surprised by the lack of compassion and tolerance from the New Left though, they're all month and no trouser when it comes to practicing what they preach at the rest of us.

Oh wow, way to show you don't understand the history of oppression that goes with the n word. Swearing at someone is not even remotely anywhere near a ballpark as serious as using the n word. Saying 'fuck' is not REMOTELY the same as calling a black person an 'n'.

I can't believe the racist ignorance on this thread.

Using the 'n' word is the SAME as swearing at someone? Wtf? Is this level level of ignorance black people have to face? In 2026?

I guess we had better make sure not to tell women that someone is a transwoman ahead of time, lest it prejudice them too. (Not an exact analogy, but close enough).

Somehow I doubt that would be accepted on FWR, but not forewarning black people and other people of colour that racial insults may be said is prejudicial and wrong.

You don’t seem to understand the condition at all. It’s been explained over and over again. TS causes the sufferer to use the most offensive terms in the specific circumstances. The N word is the most offensive term in the presence of people of colour. The only thing it demonstrates ‘consciousness’ of (and I don’t think that is quite the right term for an involuntary tic) is the words offensiveness. Most people are aware of the word (otherwise the use of the term ‘the N word’ wouldn’t be understood) and are aware of its offensiveness.

So someone who may know that they might be triggered by it due to their own conditions, shouldn't be allowed to protect themselves?

The only condition in the world is Tourette's, it seems.

Offensive language does hurt and can cause extreme distress.

At present many are censored from voicing their views calmly respectfully with regard to a wide range of issues, some of the language used wasn't just minor it was deeply offensive and are at the most extreme end of the spectrum. I understand that this was a ceremony where a film about someone's life was being honoured but I believe that actions - maybe an operate room etc should have been used. I think that as much for JD as others as he is clearly extremely upset by his actions, what we shouldn't do in my view is normalise those actions even though they are due to his disablity as we would be accepting that language as ok in certain situations.