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 difference about not being racist and being anti racist is fairly new and just because you want to followit doesn't mean that we all need to and leads to further division.

As for the last paragrapgh you know nothing about me or whether I have beem vocal against racism. It suits your purpose and narrative to believe as you do. Again this feeds into dividing people.

But then the anti racism people are those that often believe that you cant be racist against white people and are happy to use slurs against them whilst being racist themselves..

I would also ask people to consider what rights we have and what we think are rights but possibly aren't.

We have rights to inclusion and accessibility. They have some caveats though. We do allow some discrimination both positively and negatively in some scenarios too, but there has to be a clear goal.

In terms of the trans / women's rights debate what is becoming apparent is that everyone has a right to access but that access can look different in some scenarios and you have to make allowances for this. Privacy and dignity are paramount but you can make alternative arrangements if you have a clear policy and treat people with respect. You can just ban. You have to take into consideration self exclusion as a potential issue too due to policies.

What you dont have is a right to validation. You don't have a right to force others to share your belief. You don't have a right to deny reality in certain situations. And actually you don't have a right not to be offended. You have a right to be protected from racial / sexual / homophobic abuse and harassment but what actually constitutes that? This last one is perhaps the tricky one and also relevant to Tourettes.

Everyone has a right not to be abused or singled out. They have a right to not be harassed. This all rests on that point of intent. Someone with Tourettes isn't being abusive. They maybe saying something offensive but it's not abusive and I think this is where it does get kinda sticky.

As I say I think one of the stumbling points is mistaking an offensive word for abusive behaviour. It is different and will meet different legal thresholds depending on the situation. I get the comparison with someone with dementia HOWEVER you also have an already identified harm that still meets a legal threshold (even though you can't prosecute it - the intent is sexual and consent isn't given) and is much more serious in nature too. And this ability to exclude still has the caveat of proportionality. Physically touching someone without consent and a the proportionally of exclusion by sex is different to saying offensive words without intent and therefore being restricted from going anywhere or working. It's that reasonable adjustments thing going in both directions.

Someone in the work place has a right to have a workplace which isn't hostile and they don't feel degraded. But you can't preemptively say to someone white with Tourettes "well you can't work with the black people" can you? Even if you are risk assessing because your risk assessment is going to look pretty damn shit with the word 'might because of disability'. Cos that's literally pre-judging them. At the same time, once you have an incident, a work place may be in a situation where they do have duty of care to an ethnic minority so the reasonable adjustment would be to allow the two to work separately and have limited contact. But this really really is a case by case in a way that the trans debate has tried to make itself but really isn't. Im

It's not a situation where you have identifiably vulnerable individuals (eg a rape crisis centre or women in a state of undress) in quite the same way. And the breadth of situations is much wider.

Tbh for the most part with people who have severe Tourettes the issues of sheer embarrassment and humiliation is going to mean you are much less likely to have people who are on a mission to be the centre of the universe. They want things to be stress free for some pretty obvious reasons. They are more likely to do things like John and actually preempt a situation they think might raise problems to a certain extent because of the the nature of their condition. It's not in their interest in terms of their own safety / mental wellbeing to enter certain situations without addressing it first. They are likely to be the person self excluding and remove themselves from a situation if they can for this reason. I don't think there is quite the same demand on others in the same way because they don't want to upset others. If that makes sense. Cos self preservation.

We are talking about rights to employment. We are talking about rights to public services and refusal of service. We are talking about rights to privacy Versus Rights to dignity, possible racial abuse (see my previous points about this), employment conditions and understanding possible harms.

In terms of comparison to the gender / sex issue it about what outcomes you want. Women want a right to privacy and dignity in certain sex based scenarios and they want safeguarding from a risk of violence. The solution sort is a respectful one with parallel provision to allow accessibility.

And that's the question I would ask those saying about considering black people, what do you want the outcomes to look like and what do you think you are losing out on in terms of rights? How can those rights be upheld without hugely impacting the employment, economic, social and mental health of someone with Tourettes? It needs practical solutions for everyday scenarios. And yeah I do think there's a lot of legal grey areas and issues that no one problem really knows the actual answer to.

“In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist, we must be anti-racist” is a pretty famous quote from Angela Davis, a political activist who came to prominence in the 60s and 70s, so while the concept may be new to you, it isn’t for others. And I’m not telling you to follow anything, I’m explaining the difference between the terms.

I doubt that if you think calling out racism on an online forum is performative that you’re also marching at BLM rallies but I could be wrong. If this situation with JD didn’t involve two black men, would I be as vocal? Probably not because I wouldn’t have an understanding or personal interest in the other parties, so me getting involved would be performative on my part. Maybe some people becoming overnight disability advocates in order to shout down the people simply seeking a little compassion for the two black men who also had an horrible experience are the ones being performative.

Or maybe people have been aware of Tourette’s and John Davidson and his story for years, and couldn’t believe the ignorance of what they were seeing online about the circumstances and the condition, mainly from Americans (although there are a good few on here). And even with the internet and resources to hand and insight into the condition following the BAFTAs, are still talking pish and baying for blood, taking offence wherever they can find it, ignoring those who have acknowledged, more than once, the feelings of those who had to hear such a word, it’s never enough.

The hypocrisy of those decrying everyone as racist or not calling out apparent racism whilst displaying the most appalling racism towards white people has been… not surprising actually.

@NewYearSameMe16 I'm not an overnight disability advocate, I have a disability myself and I'm used to seeing, and experiencing, the interactions of the DDA 1995 and the EA 2010 in the provision of services and employment.

The idea of implementing reasonable adjustments for those with disabilities, while codified in legislation for over 3 decades, is not often successful within employment and services: even today, in the age of WFH, employers will still turn down requests for reasonable adjustment s on the part of employees with disabilities, new buildings are still being built that don't adequately take into account the needs of those with wheelchairs/mobility issues, and the public transport sector seems designed by minions from Dante's circles of hell when it comes to allowing those with physical and mental challenges to use public transport, even the DWP has had policies of requiring those with disabilities to regularly attend medical assessments even in cases where the disability has no prospect of improvement.

Society says it wants those with disabilities to have as full participation as possible in public life but society's actions don't back that up.

I've been watching American-made media/culture commentary podcasts and the level of awareness regarding Tourette's ranges from much lower to non-existent. There's a belief that tics can be redirected into something non-offensive or that the tics represent genuinely held beliefs. The link below is an example:

https://x.com/MiniKilla/status/2026344566337483080?s=20

Edited to include Nitter link for those without TwiX accounts:
nitter.net/MiniKilla_/status/2026344566337483080#m

To be fair that wasn’t as bad as some of the stuff I’m reading elsewhere online. I think as much as they didn’t know about the situation/Tourettes they were trying to be somewhat measured about it.

And I disagree with all of the ignorant rhetoric we’ve heard about John’s condition. But when I’ve said there needs to be compassion on both sides, I’ve then had 50 replies telling me all the reasons why the two black men should be decentred and not directly acknowledged. There should be a balanced view for why both parties deserved to be there, both were let down by the organisations involved and why both deserve compassion and understanding in the aftermath. You yourself have conceded one gritted teeth line about MBJ and DL being ‘offended’, then proceeded to beat me over the head with multiple paragraphs of why the situation is far worse for JD and why you’re only interested in watching I Swear and not educating yourself on black history. So no, it’s not actually ‘enough’ because it’s not seeking a balance in the discussion.

And to be clear, all forms of racism are totally unacceptable and abhorrent. But let’s not equate the impact on white people who have been the dominant race for a millennium with other demographics who’ve faced centuries of discrimination, segregation and genocide because of their race.

I definitely wasn’t referring to someone with your experiences in my previous comment and agree with everything you’ve said. We have a very long way to go in the country when it comes to disability inclusion and this unfortunate situation at the BAFTAs has massively highlighted that.

Disability Rights arguably lag behind all other areas of right provision in part because it's so individualised and there isn't the power of a large powerful lobby groups and many celebrity advocates.

They require in-depth knowledge of the concept of rights law, not just rent a quote copy and pasting off the internet.

I do think that trans rights activists are now latching onto this issue with disabled rights in a bid to defuddle and pretend their right provision is a lot more complex than it actually is.

There going to be a BBC internal investigation into what happened:

nitter.net/michaelsavage/status/2026690603736522961#m

And so there should be. Although BBC internal investigations are about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

From the UK side of the public discourse, Stan Collymore addressing Buzzfeed’s reporting on the event:

https://x.com/StanCollymore/status/2026444360355602761

https://nitter.net/StanCollymore/status/2026444360355602761#m

While I appreciate that this slur was the only one that was broadcast, Davidson made a load of slurs. I can’t really understand why the impact on these two guys was so much worse than anyone else who had abuse shouted at them. None of them knew which if any made it to the broadcast. Knowing that was the only slur left in the BBC recording was horrible for them but that’s on the BBC (why?), not on him.

One black woman’s take.

https://x.com/kiyahwillis/status/2026843758634172653?s=61&t=gd6tu0Iz6JpyKXGLWMLGjg

Well done that man

My involuntary physiological response to your last paragraph was rage. Your posts seem balanced and reasonable but they always end with your foot on the neck of Black people.

How can Black people discuss what we want as outcomes with people who expect us to understand the involuntary nature of Tourette’s, yet dismiss our own involuntary trauma responses to racial slurs - intended or not?

This goes back to our discussion about consensus and meaning-making.
You have eloquently written paragraph after paragraph about what people with Tourette’s go through, your empathy for them is clear. Yet my comment on the historical and ongoing nature of racial trauma is sidestepped. You ask questions but you are not really interested in the answers because you think you already have the answers. You believe you are arbiter of what counts as consensus, how meaning is made, what constitutes harm, and what is a fair trade-off. From that position, you have consistently dismissed Black trauma responses rooted in lived and historical experience. When we ask for safety and inclusion, your framed as one-sided or selfish or about 'rights over'. For you, this is a conflict between able-bodied people and disabled people.

You asked:

And that's the question I would ask those saying about considering black people, what do you want the outcomes to look like and what do you think you are losing out on in terms of rights? How can those rights be upheld without hugely impacting the employment, economic, social and mental health of someone with Tourettes?

So Black people should regulate their involuntary trauma response to protect the person with Tourette’s? What about our employment, economic, social and mental health?

We should be asking how do we get to a place where the involuntary neurological responses of people with Tourette’s can coexist with the involuntary trauma responses shaped by lived and historical racial harm.

(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.)

Just to clarify since there is some misunderstanding about redirection, I can't redirect my tics for several hours, like I might have to for an awards show. Most people I know who can suppress or redirect their tics can only do it for a short time (a few minutes to maybe half an hour) and it takes a lot of effort. But many people with Tourettes can do it for a short time.

Out of curiosity if red said she understood how you felt, would you get angry?

Because that's impossible isn't it?
What response are you expecting?

Can you elaborate on what you are asking?

@Socrateswasrightaboutvoting

So Black people should regulate their involuntary trauma response to protect the person with Tourette’s? What about our employment, economic, social and mental health?

We should be asking how do we get to a place where the involuntary neurological responses of people with Tourette’s can coexist with the involuntary trauma responses shaped by lived and historical racial harm.

Thank you for saying this. Watching people who claim to be arguing for people with disabilities minimize trauma responses and suggest that it was just words has seemed unreal to me. Trauma responses are a disability. How are you advocating disabled people by suggesting that trauma responses, which are just as physiological as Tourettes, aren't as important or that people should rise above them? It's basically saying that one disability is worth more or is more important than another.

I'm also upset by those who act like John is somehow responsible for his tics bc he knows that the n word or other things he shouted (pedo, etc) are vile and likely to upset people. Of course he knows that but he can't control what he shouts. Many times, when I shout something I don't even know I was going to say anything, much less what I was going to say or that I was going to shout it. I'm as surprised as everyone else.

The minimization of trauma responses seems especially odd on FWR bc it's a big reason many women don't want to share loos and other single sex facilities with transwomen. Doing so triggers a trauma response for many. It makes me so angry that policy makers didn't seem to even consider that many women have this problem. (To be clear, that's not the only reason for SSS but it is a common one and one that I think people on this forum would be aware of and care about.)

When he shouted ‘shut the fuck up’ at the BAFTA president or yelled ‘paedo’ at Alan Cumming, how do you think they felt? Probably a bit shocked and thrown off. But ultimately it’d be the same for anyone hearing those words as there’s no historical significance or personal connection to them.

Delroy Lindo however, has probably experienced someone actually yelling that at him in his 73 years on earth. MBJ may have heard stories of people shouting that word while one of his ancestors was lynched. After coming from nothing, working for decades in the industry, they make it to a room and stage like the BAFTAs and they hear that word? As others have said, in that moment they probably felt like whatever we do, wherever we go, we’re still just seen as n**rs. Do you see the difference? The word carries so much historical and lived pain that it was horrible to watch them experience this.

That linked video underlines what a lot are saying which is that we know John isn’t racist, that’s not the point at all. The point is it's possible to suitably acknowledge the absence of intent and the presence of harm at the same time.

"Everyone has a right not to be abused or singled out. They have a right to not be harassed. This all rests on that point of intent. Someone with Tourettes isn't being abusive. They maybe saying something offensive but it's not abusive and I think this is where it does get kinda sticky."

I feel like this massive focus on intent over all else, and this insistence that intent is what defines impact, is unrealistic. I understand that legally, it's pointless to hold someone accountable for something they have no control over and aren't doing with intent, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a negative impact on the recipient.

We can see that in the example of a man with dementia groping women. A woman might feel less violated, knowing that he has dementia, but she equally may not, and she absolutely may still feel violated and notably impacted. And the man should not be permitted to be in places where he can do that.

"Someone in the work place has a right to have a workplace which isn't hostile and they don't feel degraded."

Now, of course, words have lower impact than physical touch, so they're a much less severe situation than groping. But should a person of colour really be expected to listen to racial slur tics on a daily basis, if someone's Tourette's is severe? And if the person is kept apart from people of colour because of that, then what about the others they may be around?

Should a woman be expected to have to listen to someone call her a 'fat whore' every day? Does the lack of intent really mean someone shouldn't be bothered by a work environment that is filled with slurs? Hearing that over and over, whether meant or not, could be depressing and degrading, and it is unreasonable to say a person shouldn't be bothered. Especially considering some of the people someone with Tourette's may be working with could have their own conditions or trauma that mean the tics have more impact.

Obviously people with Tourette's should ideally be able to have jobs, but equally I don't think it's fair to demand that employees put up with antisocial tics if they're constant, day in and day out. It's great if they are fine with them, but I don't think they should be blamed or called ableist if they aren't comfortable with that.

Some people with severe Tourette's might be better suited to roles that don't have constant close contact with co workers or the public, to minimise impact, much like people with social anxiety might be better working in non-customer facing roles. Sometimes our abilities or disabilities do impact the work we can do, although employers should try to make every possible adjustment.

Absolutely agree with all of this.

I have to say that the minimisation of trauma responses feels like bad faith to me, precisely because posters on this topic understand the impact of them when it comes to the trans issue.

This thread is so frustrating and textbook whataboutery.

I can't imagine what it must be like having to navigate the world with Tourettes and PTSD. I can only hope the film spreads awareness and forces more productive discussions than this one.

I really don't understand why accepting that trauma is real and involuntary is so difficult. It takes nothing away from the devastation of Tourette’s. The suggestion that a trauma response - whatever caused it - is something that can just be “risen above", or exists to infringe on the rights of others, is absurd. Who would choose trauma? It’s physiological, involuntary, and no less real than a tic.

I agree that attacking JD for something he cannot control, or suggesting he should shut himself away, is appalling and should be challenged. That’s not a solution either. It’s not hard to see that some of the loudest voices seem less interested in Tourette’s itself and more focused on using this moment to deliberately deflect attention from the harm caused to Black people.

FWR is a funny old place.

So when you talk about the trauma response @Socrateswasrightaboutvoting do you mean that’s the same if a black person hears the N word:
from another black friend
in a song
from someone aggressively saying it as a racial slur
from a disabled person saying it becuase they’re disabled?

Because you seem to be saying that black people are unable to understand context or that this single word is traumatic whatever the context. And we know that can’t be true because there would be a huge outcry from the black community every time the word is used in a song or in a film.

I’m not denying the word is horrible. But context is important.