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.

The racism on their other thread is off the scale wild. Apparently racism towards white people is acceptable and I can’t believe Mumsnet is allowing it. KKKaren’s was one nicety and apparently acceptable.

No, I just had your post there on 'quote' and then forgot to remove it! Sorry!

Well, I said he didn't mean to do it , he was probably feeling horrible for saying it and he would say sorry.

Maybe the first two still stand but he certainly hasn't said sorry and no-one who wasn't trying to twist themselves out of shape to defend him, would accept that waffle statement issued as an apology.

All he has to say is:

" i did not mean to say it. I was not responsible. i wish with all my heart it hadn't happened and I apologise with all my heart for the distress I know it caused. I hope everyone accepts that I am not responsible but that does not make me immune to the fact that this terrible word caused harm."

His statement so far is the sort of thing a smarmy politician would put out. It is not an apology.

I hope he puts out something heartfelt that is.

It’s been reported that his team reached out to them yes.

it will clearly never be enough though.

You should have seen the thread on here a few day ago, one person said they thought people with Tourette’s should be locked up in asylums. I have seen people being utterly disgusting on both sides, people saying that John should train himself, that he is being racist deliberately and that he should have not been invited or kept away. Others have said that anyone who was offended by the racism aspect needs to get over themselves.

This whole incident has revealed disgusting views on both sides, it’s hideous.

Did you use it as an opportunity to explain Tourette's?

ETA the idea of 'something heartfelt' sound really performative TBH

The level of vitriol over this compared to Tarantino using the N word backstage in a Golden Globes press conference in 2016 is interesting. It’s but a drop in the ocean compared to the furore that is currently being made over a working class disabled man with a very real and very debilitating disorder.

It’s bleeped out but he said the full word at the time.

Tarantino is a white man who makes frequent use of the N word in several of his movies(Approximately 16 times in Pulp Fiction and 39 times in Jackie Brown to name but two. Even where there’s some genuine context for the word(The Hateful Eight and Django Unchained) I’d argue that the number of times he uses it could be considered to be gratuitous. Unlike John, who used it involuntarily because of a severe disability, I suspect that Tarantino uses so frequently because he enjoys it. Not necessarily that hates POC, though I do think that he fetishises them, but it makes him feel cool, daring and edgy and he is only too happy to throw the N word around liberally but then he’s a cool, very famous and much admired Hollywood director who has cast some of Hollywood’s biggest names in his movies.

Again, one of the premises of I Swear is the problems and exhaustion that arise from having to spend a lifetime apologising for things you can’t control. This is not a one off accidentally hit someone in the face with a ball incident. This is just one incident out of hundreds that day multiplied by years.

I can think of several, maybe not quite as bad, but some are damn close. Pedo, rpist, wife beater, molester, nonce, Nazi, murderer. I can also think of several for just about any group you could mention.
That being said, the BBC should have done a better job with editing. I also think enforced segregation of people with tourettes would be evil. Why make a film, show a film, award a film if only to then further disadvantage the subject of that film?

Strange how some don't need to call people the n word or 'fat sluts!'.

That's because only 10% of people with TS have coprolalia: it doesn't mean that it's intentional.

I, as a black woman, prioritise the feelings of black people over an able-bodied white male.

should have read:

I, as a black woman, prioritise the feelings of black people over a disabled person.

Race and disability are protected characteristics under the Equality Act, which requires equally favourable treatment of everyone with respect to their protected characteristics, as far as is possible and with only a few well-defined exceptions.

One of the exceptions is that it is lawful to treat a disabled person more favourably than a non-disabled person. Section 13(3) of the Act explicitly allows for this exception to direct discrimination, meaning it's possible to offer extra support or preferential treatment to address the needs of a disabled person.

Obviously it would be a bit heavy-handed to start trying to apply the Act to a celebratory occasion. But it does tell us what the legislature thinks about our responsibilities, as a society, to disabled people.

Anyway, I blame the organisers and broadcasters. I understand that the baftas are heavily rehearsed with stand-ins, so they should have war-gamed this scenario then directly briefed nominees and presenters, as well as adopting technical fixes to mitigate it. It's obvious they didn't, from the startled looks of the two gentlemen on stage. What were the organisers thinking??

I didn't need to google Delroy Lindo as I already knew he was born in Lewisham, as so was I, and he occasionally gets mentioned by the council as being one of the famous people from there. You were trying to imply his childhood was affected by the worst excesses of US racism when it wasn't, because he didn't grow up there. I've no idea how much racism he experienced once he moved to the US, but reckon it's reasonable odds that San Francisco in 1968 was far better on that score than somewhere like Mississippi. I don't doubt that having the N word unexpectedly shouted at him, live TV or no live TV, would be unpleasant for him, and I feel sorry for him that that happened. There wasn't any need for you to misrepresent his background in order to make your point though.

The whole point is that it was not 'intended' to be a racial slur and here, intention is what matters.

I understand why you would push for that because this case is very public, but bearing in mind he’s probably unintentionally offended thousands and thousands of people and will continue to do so, sets up a situation where people will still be expecting people with disabilities to apologize for the inconvenience they’re causing others, even when that is something completely beyond their control and that they have to deal with every single day of their lives.

Are these people more special than others, that you think they need a public apology? Or do you think he should spend his whole life apologizing. I imagine he does that a lot already.

This isn’t an attack. My initial reaction was to wonder why he didn’t do what he could to make it go away by apologizing. But after watching the QED documentary, “John’s not mad.” I thought about it some more and I think a public apology is actually the wrong way to go on the grounds that he really did nothing wrong and it sets a precedent.

I think one thing that people should be more aware of, particularly if they are looking at how this plays out in social media, is that this is the perfect issue for a particular brand of right wing trouble-maker to latch on to and amplify.

It is simple and effective - take a side in a culture war, especially one which is particularly divisive amongst people who might naturally be inclined to agree with each other (ableism v racism) and stoke the fires of argument, dialling up your righteous anger to full volume. Some people reading it will feel their own rage is justified, perhaps even feel they’ve not been angry enough. Other will push back, fighting fire with fire - which will cause even more escalation on both sides

It really doesn’t take much effort at all, once you’ve turned up the heat a bit you can step back and let other people drive the arguing.

As a society that now spends so much of our time communicating with words on a screen, with people who can portray themselves as anything they want to be, we have become incredibly vulnerable to having our reactions and our emotions manipulated like this. It is a real danger, and it has real world consequences.

Angry and divided people are far weaker. People who aren’t sufficiently cynical, people who do genuinely care are most at risk. They are the ones who will expend emotional energy in fighting online, often without realising just how much they are being manipulated. This often seems to get lost in the noise.

Just more evidence that diversity, inclusion and #BeKind is a gravy train for self-absorbed grifters and hates actual women, actual lesbians and gay men, Jewish people, poor people and disabled people. They're just venomous, pampered Stasi informants who can't wait until they find somebody fresh to denounce and destroy.

The last couple of decades have really brought home how historical horrors happened. These people aren't happy until they make someone suicidal and yet they think they are the good ones.

He actually shouted 'paedophile' at Alan Cummings but that got edited out.

This is a man who has spent his life apologising for things he cannot help and who still got abused or beaten up anyway.

We know how a woke mob works. Apologising never works; it just makes them become more vicious because it is never about what someone has allegedly done, it is about them enjoying the power of bringing someone down.

You only have to google Tourettes for a minute to gain some understanding, which doesn’t in any way minimise the hurt caused by the slur.

Tbf I am middle aged and from West London (v multi cultural and quite a lot
of rich people too) the n word is completely taboo and has been for decades unless you are POC, my teen can’t believe anyone has ever even said it out loud. I feel for everyone in this scenario, including those watching it around the world. It’s not that hard.

Sorry everyone I have been busy at work and trying to keep up with this but sad that it has resulted in such vitriol from some posters.

it really wasn’t my intention to cause a bun fight.

I was just interested in the parallels with FWR.

Key phrase here is ‘not quite as bad’. Those words haven’t got hundreds of years of oppression attached to them (the Nazis were the oppressors so in that case, quite the opposite). As mentioned with all the other examples people have given, all of these could be said to anyone and mean nothing because they’re factually incorrect, so really not the same at all. If cunt was shouted while they were onstage, no one would be talking about it (mainly because the BBC would’ve been sure to edit that out).

Not sure if the second paragraph was directed at me but at no point did I say John should be segregated or excluded. I said both parties deserved to be there and should’ve had more support from BAFTA/BBC.

What has happened to nuance in recent times?

Why can’t people accept that John’s form of Tourette’s makes him behave this way and he absolutely did not mean the slur AND that Michael and Delroy can feel terribly upset about hearing that sort of language directed at them? Why do we have to pick sides and decide who suffered worse? This situation is horrible for all round. People have quit/lost their jobs and there is upset and humiliation all round. Shouldn’t this be a time to learn more about Tourette’s AND the impact of racial language? And have a little bit of sympathy for all involved? John shouldn’t have to bow and scrape but Delroy and Michael shouldn’t have to shrug off their feelings either. There is space for all involved to have their feelings without everyone else telling them who is right and wrong.

It is possible to feel for all those affected without lowering yourselves to arguing who suffers more or who is the worst. Racism is unacceptable. Disablism is unacceptable. We should use this situation to educate and understand, not attack those who already have enough to cope with.

Also, I have read three threads so far since the incident on Mumsnet, and @mnhq have allowed some horrific racism and disablism to pass. These boards are not tightly monitored enough and it shows.

OK, have read a piece this morning that contains new (to me) information that throws significant new light on this. It's the Jason Okundaye article in the Guardian. He was at the ceremony.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/feb/25/baftas-bbc-n-word-john-davidson-black-disabled-people

Towards the end, this paragraph crystallise s things:

What I cannot countenance is the BBC’s decision not to edit out the N-word tic, despite there being a delay in broadcast. Producers have claimed that they “didn’t hear” the slur as they were working from trucks. Even if this was the case, Davidson has said he was told by Bafta that any swearing would be edited out of broadcast (he has also raised the issue of being sat in front of a mic) and Warner Bros reportedly raised the issue with Bafta and was assured that the word would be removed before broadcast. It also doesn’t wash considering that the decision was made to edit “Free Palestine” out of Akinola Davies Jr’s winning speech. And why did nobody speak to Jordan and Lindo after the incident?

I hadn't read before that Davidson had been assured that his tics would be edited out of the broadcast (apologies if it's been mentioned but the thread has moved fast). If so then BAFTA and the BBC have absolutely fucked him over by not keeping their word on that, and that for me is now the crux of the issue. He was told that he and others would be protected. They weren't. As the article goes on to say:

everyone has been failed – Davidson made to look like an avatar for British racism, black people left to feel confused and angry while instructed to remain graceful and tolerant.

Whoever made promises and whoever then didn't keep them should be named so they don't get to do this ever again.

Yes, the reason why this clip is being used as a racist baton is because the BBC allowed it. They had two hours to remove it, if things could not be heard the they needed to have a multilevel approach as the one they used clearly did not work.

To say ‘but we didn’t know’ is simply not good enough.

How the hell have I misrepresented his background?? If you think a black child in the UK, at a time where there were signs in windows saying ‘No blacks, no Irish, no dogs’ did not experience racism, you clearly have a monkey playing the cymbals in your head. Furthermore, he was a CHILD when he moved to the States and you don’t need to be a historian to understand what black people went through during these times across America. How dare you try to play down his experiences to make this situation seem less than what it is, shame on you.

This is a fantastic explanation, red. All your other posts are equally informative, but this one really struck me. The entire thread has been massively enlightening. Thank you.

I, like many other people, thought Tourette's was largely about shouting out fuck and cunt. And yes, there have been jokes about it. As a society, saying the taboo is often used in humour.

But I have a completely different perspective now. I hadn't realised, stupidly probably, quite what a burden it is for the sufferer.

And your description of 'apologising or not' really rang true.

Not least because you can apologise, and then do exactly the same thing, or worse, a nanosecond later. And what does that make you look like? So I agree, explanations, not apologies.

It's obviously not a condition that can be curated in any way. It just is what it is. And more people who realise it, the better.

I also agree that people are more than likely to be offended. Hence the need to raise awareness. We can't have people like Jamie Foxx saying it's all deliberate.

But more than anything, I simply can't imagine how dreadful it would be to know that your entire life is spent hurting or offending not just total strangers, but possibly people you love, care for, etc. Even if your stress levels are better with your close circle, they will still be witness to your condition out in public.

It's a bloody life sentence.

And, in a spectacular display of irony, or maybe serendipity, John's outburst has probably done more to stimulate the conversation than the bloody film.

I hadn't read before that Davidson had been assured that his tics would be edited out of the broadcast (apologies if it's been mentioned but the thread has moved fast). If so then BAFTA and the BBC have absolutely fucked him over by not keeping their word on that

Yes, it's bad enough having the condition on a day-to-day basis, without it being broadcast to thousands of people.

on the other hand, if there is such a thing as a silver lining, it has very effectively demonstrated the issues.