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 really not sure these cases are equivalent.

In the Tourette’s case, we genuinely have an example of competing rights: the right of the Tourette’s person to be out and about, a person in the world - and the right of other people not to be distressed, humiliated or frightened by having abusive words shouted at them. A real case of conflicting rights.

In the trans case, though, what rights are competing? Women have a right to safety, privacy and dignity, yes. But what on earth gives men the right to usurp that right, by gate-crashing women’s single sex spaces? I see no male right at all that is in play here in such a way as to cause conflict. There is for instance no male right of access to unwilling women’s bodies or spaces. (I would also strongly deny that there is any kind of ‘right’ to perform fetishes in public - in fact quite the opposite, members of the public are entitled to refuse to be forced to cosplay in someone else’s fetish performance.)

So in the trans case I do not think there can be said to be an example of competing rights - unless you accept that men have a ‘right’ to require women to be unwilling observers or participants in male fetishes, or a ‘right’ to observe women in intimate contexts without their consent. And even postulating those unpleasant ‘rights’ reveals why ‘trans rights’ are a symptom of rape culture.

I think it's more the case that the argument from TRAs and their supporters was always. "Rights never conflict". The classic pie analogy. That position shut down any further discussion. Regardless of where you stand on trans issues, that was clearly a ridiculous position to take. The BAFTA debacle gives a clear demonstration of a 'conflict' of rights. I can't talk for the OP, but it seemed ironic at the very least that some of those talking about BAFTA/the BBC etc and 'how we manage conflicting rights', were some of the loudest shouters of "rights aren't pie".

ETA the conflict re trans issues was "How do we accommodate this group (usually TW) without impacting this other group (actual women)". Of course group 1 didn't give a flying fuck about group 2

Whenever rights appear to 'compete' I think it calls for risk assessment and appropriate mitigations that balance cost/benefit.
If, for example a man with dementia is prone to sexually inappropriate behaviour, even though he can't help it, most people would see it as reasonable to mitigate against the impact of his disability on others. If he was thought likely to inappropriately touch women, it may be decided that some situations were not appropriate for him to be present, because the protection of women outweighed the need to accommodate his disability.
Much of the controversy here arises from the fact there are those who feel there was no need to mitigate against the impact of John's disability because the onus is on POC to consider themselves unharmed, because he didn't mean it. Which is similar to the TRA argument that the TIM in the toilets is gentle and harmless and its women's perception of intent that needs to change.
This was an appalling situation, and I don't know what the answer is. My point really is that when rights appear to compete, people tend to come at it with their own bias and will typically be disinclined to even consider it as competion, believing their view to have the right of it. Which makes any compromise challenging.

Agreed. There are a small number of posters here, who because of heartbreaking personal experience, believe the full inclusion of the person with Tourette's must be prioritised far, far above the well-being of the two black presenters.

One even suggested that the actors shouldn't be warned in advance as they might then withdraw from presenting duties. They'd, after consideration, rather not risk having the N-word shouted at them on the world's stage in front of an audience of their famous peers. Apparently allowing them this choice is unacceptable?

The BBC/Bafta cynically used John Davidson to demonstrate their commitment to inclusion in a woefully unprepared televised act of their joint public piety. The BBC/BAFTA didn't think through all the very likely consequences, and seemed to expect just the odd F or C word. No big deal. It's not JD's fault, at all. But even in this aspect, why the close audience mike? And where was the poised bleeper tech person? Was there any remedial action plan at all in place?

And John, Michael B Jordan & Delroy Lindo are now paying a very heavy price for the BBC/Bafta incompetence and idiotic cruelty. It was all so avoidable.

But you want people to perform for you.
You want them to denounce something publicly, which they wouldn't normally do.
It is no longer enough to report and have something removed form the thread (as per the site's guidelines) you want people to make a statement, which would be insincere as they wouldn't normally do it.
A current theme with various groups is that its not enough to not be racist, you must be anti racist.

Nope. I don't want anything that people don't want to give. I expressed disappointment. That is not a demand for 'performance'.

So...I guess all those comments that people responded to on this thread, accusing the commenters of being ableist...they shouldn't have responded at all, according to site guidelines, just reported and stayed silent?

Why did people challenge comments they thought were ableist, but not racist ones?

Considering I see posters challenge blatant misogyny all the time on here, to the extent that it is, in fact, normal to denounce opinions that commenters think are unacceptable in addition to reporting, I was disappointed to see that almost no one challenged the racist remarks.

But it seems you feel that challenging racism would be an insincere performance, on your part.

Your last line is your issue not mine. How I choose to challenge racism is down to me, not you.
That you think that I find challenging racism insincere is not only you twisting my words. but shows that you do want people to do this publicly.

Surely one can only be either racist or anti racist? I mean, where's the neutral ground?

For some people there appears to be three areas
racist

not racist
and anti racist.

You said it would be performative on your part. You said it. Not me.

And what about the rest of my comment, hm? No comment on the hypocrisy on display? No. I thought not. Honestly, it's disappointing.

I wanted to reply to this because I think it's important that people understand that words can cause a trauma response, which can be physically painful, emotionally painful, and disabling. If you care about women's rights or disability awareness, you should understand trauma responses.

I have Tourette's as well as PTSD. Both seem similar to me in that I have no control over either and they take away my control over my body and, especially with PTSD, my mind. If someone says or does something that reminds me of my trauma, I may have a trauma response. Like Tourette's, it's a physiological response that I have no control over. (As I said earlier ITT, I have more control over my tics than my PTSD bc I can sometimes redirect my tics. I have no control over my trauma response.)

My PTSD often involves "re-living" my trauma, including experiencing terror and pain. This can last a few hours or a few days, occasionally longer. It's incapacitating. I can barely function at all, much less do a good job of caring for children, work, social activities, etc. I wish I could ignore it but when I'm having flashbacks, I can't. It's horrible.

The difference is:

not being racist: I’m not racist but I don’t care if everyone else is, nothing to do with me

Being anti racist: I’m not a racist and I’m against anyone who is

Strange that you didn’t reply to @OtterlyAstounding’s great points around people vociferously denouncing ableism but are on mute when it comes to racism and think calling it out is ‘performative’?

I'm so sorry.

I understand and can empathise regarding trauma responses from my own experience, and I can only imagine that having Tourette's on top of that must be a double whammy, and so difficult. It sounds exhausting.

I'm saddened that so many people on FWRs don't seem to understand how involuntary and consuming trauma responses can be, or that insults of the type a person with coprolalia might say, can be a major trigger for a survivor of family violence or sexual violence.

It seems strange to me that they can understand a woman might be triggered by a man's mere presence in a women's refuge or changing room, but not that they might be triggered by a man ticking threats or slurs.

Yes it would be performativbe on my part to do something just to make you feel better.
What about that don't you get?

As for the rest, Some of what has been claimed to be rasict isn't
Some of what is racist I have reported. As per the site rules.

I and others are not here to perform for you.

As for the rest, again I am allowed to respond to what I want to respond to not to what you want to be resposnded too.
It is dissappointing that you don't understand that.

Its also dissappointing that you don't accept that others have also reported racist comments but don't need to seek the validation of others to make themselves feel good about it.

There is a lot of racism on the site of late. Ranging from the quite explicit that gets deleted, to the more subtle. The endless threads defending right wing parties, constant 'concern' about EDI (or DEI as they tend to call it) and white people being allegedly discriminated against.
I've been on a few this week and quite honestly, it's exhausting. The misrepresentation and misinformation, the twisting and turning, and every time you cut off one lie, stereotype or exaggeration, like hydra, they come back with two more.
I'm inclined to see them as a vocal minority, but they get about a lot and sometimes ignoring seems better than getting oneself embroiled in the same old same old.
But yes, I agree with you.

I think this perfectly sums up this thread and the whole situation.

The comments about JD meaning to say it, or that people with Tourette’s should be shut away have been disgraceful and show we still have a long way to go with understanding this disability and many others. On the flip side, suggesting MBJ and DL’s feelings are totally secondary or don’t matter at all because they’re rich celebrities or because the N word is used in rap or in their movie has been hugely disappointing also. So much more education needs to be done on both sides.

As for the rest, again I am allowed to respond to what I want to respond to not to what you want to be resposnded too.

Yes. Of course you are. It's very telling what you choose to respond to, though.

NewYearSameMe16

not being racist: I’m not racist but I don’t care if everyone else is, nothing to do with me

And we are back to changing the meaning of words.

A running theme.

If you need to be told why people are defending a disabled man who is accused of being racist when he wasn't after the many replies. Maybe you should go back and re read the threads.
This will also answer your questions about hypocrisy.
If you are prepared to take onboard what posters are saying.

The issue he is that you cant discriminate on the basis of disability. That means in fairness you possibly can warn in advance without risking that.

Whilst it was possible that he would have a racist tic, it's also possible he wouldn't. That is an issue.

He was actually gracious enough to allow others to be warned (and under the circumstances he Tourettes isn't a secret) about the possibility but I suspect that actually legally he has a right for his privacy about a medical condition. However in other circumstances actually he wouldn't have to and equally if it's in the street it's irrelevant anyway.

You have to keep in mind that someone with Tourettes doesn't always tic too. So in declaring some has Tourettes and may have racist tics you are opening them up for discrimination over something that might not actually happen too.

Whilst I do get your point (despite your determination to make out I'm being a twat to black people) I'm actually being conscious of the law and what is actually practical and possible in every day circumstances.

It still remains the case that unless you think people who may have tics have to be locked up or immediately leave a situation it they do (which might put them at significant risk) or never go to certain places. Which clearly isn't ok.

Again it comes back to intent and making people understand that behaviour isn't reflective of racism and thus cannot be treated as such. This it is classed as a lower form of harm that if the same word is used in hate when assessing how you deal with a situation. This might not be how an individual might respond to the situation but legally it's likely this is the situation.

It would be interesting if you ever had a situation which went to court... Would you bring a court case in this area? And if you did what would be the outcome you would be looking for? It's be interesting to think about it in these terms as a thought experiment.

I will leave you to ponder. I am not looking for an answer to this question btw. Just asking you to ponder the point.

I personally think JD actually did and has given a 'fair amount of ground' that I suspect legally he possibly doesn't have to and that technically an employer or an organiser couldnt legally expect and ask from him as a result in the absence of an event having yet occurred. But I doubt few will even appreciate or acknowledge the situation from this position because they assume that the neutral starting point is that everyone had to be told because of their rights. I actually think the position would be in a workplace, that it's rather more complex... I don't know what the employment rate is for people with Tourettes with coprolalia but I suspect it ain't great to begin.

I also had thoughts similar to those on the OP, in that it is another situation where the rights and feelings of people with different protected characteristics collide. And very interesting indeed to see some similarities to the usual topics discussed on FWR. One side trying to explain and discuss, the other side overtaken in outrage and offence and no debate.

From what I understand, John’s form of Tourette’s can be universally offensive, because of the nature of his brain tic identifying and failing to suppress the absolutely worst thing to say/do in any particular moment. An equal-opportunities offender if you like. I find it very interesting that the BBC managed to edit out all of John’s other tics that evening, and we’re not discussing instead, for example, the homophobic “abuse” of Alan Cummings when John ticked “paedo” or the misogynistic “abuse” of women on stage with a tic of “slag”.

i generally lean towards incompetence rather than malice to explain cock-ups, but if it is really a cock up rather than a mistaken attempt at generating public discourse on racism then it shows again how badly the BBC is doing these days. I don’t know whether BAFTA or the Beeb was responsible for briefing Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo but it was very poor if they were put in that situation without some advance warning. I got the impression from several first-hand accounts that everyone present had been briefed, but maybe the “everyone” were the plebs in the audience and not the A-listers back stage.

The sowing of division and misinformation dressed up as reason. The video link, that is. @UtopiaPlanitia

Nope not at all; this is in the context of ‘not being racist’ in relation to ‘being anti-racist’ and understanding the difference and clearly you do not.

Do I support governments starting wars? No. Am I actively anti-war by way of protesting or starting discourse online about it? No because that would be performative as selfishly, it doesn’t affect my day to day life. I don’t support it but I don’t care about it enough to be vociferously outspoken about it. See the parallels?

Vocally defending a disabled man accused of racism isn’t performative for you because you genuinely care enough about it. Calling out racism is performative for you because while you don’t support it, you don’t care enough to speak on it. It’s pretty simple and obvious but you don’t want to admit that.

You can discriminate on the basis of disability if its a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. As in my example earlier, a man who's dementia caused him to inappropriately touch women would be likely forbidden certain spaces as a direct result of his disability, to achieve the legitimate aim of protecting others.
The disagreement here is how legitimate people think the aim of protecting POC from racist slurs is, and of so, what would be a proportionate level of discrimination against John to achieve this aim.
Obviously those who feel there is no legitimate aim because the onus is on POC to 'understand' think that there should be no justification for treating John any differently. People who think protecting POC from the impact of hearing racist slurs is a legitimate aim, have more of a dilemma.