I just read this:
I can't decide what I think about the responses.
If a person usually uses the 'N' word as a tic, then maybe them not being in the audience would have been best at it's a very unpleasant and offensive word.
But must they have been there with regard to the awards anyway, so there wasn't really a choice to make for the organisers? Should they be excluded?
There is obviously no intention for offence and the tic is unable to be controlled.
What do you think?
Yes. Surely the whole point of raised awareness about Tourette’s is that we don’t ’make a fuss’ but just have understanding and acceptance of something that from someone else we would rightly find objectionable. At the same time I can understand why it was extremely uncomfortable for the presenters and audience to hear that word in that situation. It’s surely all about context and understanding - for example Little Simz was at that event and in her music she uses the same word and that’s considered acceptable. So I would argue that if someone with Tourette’s uses an offensive word we view it differently because we know they have Tourette’s. Surely the point of raised awareness about conditions such as Tourette’s is acceptance, understanding and non judgement. The BBC putting this on the news as a huge deal is attaching shame and judgement to what happened? Most of all I feel sorry for the guy with Tourette’s as this amount of attention must be stressful - but maybe in the long term it will increase understanding hopefully if people really give a lot of thought to this. As for the BBC editing out ‘Free Palestine’ - now that IS offensive. That’s censorship and preventing someone who is winning an important award from having the right to express his strongly held view about a genocide and racist/religious oppression. Just appalling.
Obviously the people in the audience would of heard it, but if it had been editied out, would we be having this discussion? Maybe we'd be having a different one and I understand the audience were told before hand about Tourettes.
I agree why didn't the BBC edit this out? If they had would we even be having this discussion?
We would because of the people who were in the audience and on the stage at the time.
It couldn't be edited out for those who heard it live.
I think that more preparation would have gone a long way ie talking to them first although I don't actually know if anything of this sort was done beforehand.
I agree why didn't the BBC edit this out? If they had would we even be having this discussion?
I have to say that I have a great deal of empathy for John Davidson. Most of his life he has had to deal with tourettes and remember seeing a documentary on BBC "John's not mad" (I was young then too) I remember the ridicule he was exposed to.
Unfortunately he used to shout out swearing words and inappropriate phrases. This has caused him no end of abuse including physical over the years.
I saw him on BBC breakfast a little while ago when the film was coming out and he was fine with little tics showing but nothing major. It could be heightened stress at an awards do being filmed that caused the offensive tics to come out.
He has no real control over them. Yes the N word is offensive but is ok for some black people to use in discourse with each other but is somehow now a national scandal because some disabled person blurted it out when he had no control.
The world needs to take a step back and breathe, be more tolerant and show understanding.
This uproar may cause a major setback in John's life.
Anything other than understanding is ableist discrimination.
Well absolutely. Why edit out free Palestine but keep that in?
It is damaging for the tourettes community to allow this situation to blow up the way it has. I don't know whether I think it should have been edited out or not, it is a reality of tourettes. But if you are going to leave it in then you absolutely have to educate the audience and viewers. He's been thrown on a public stage in a really negative way when he just tries to advocate and raise awareness of tourettes.
Yes - I agree. The guy with Tourette’s must be feeling mortified by this situation. The BBC could have edited out the sound of the racial slur before transmission to reduce offence to the viewers of the programme. Earlier in the transmission when I was watching I heard a shout and realised it was likely someone with Tourette’s connected to the film ‘I swear’ - it’s a common aspect of Tourette’s to shout offensive words - and presumably the presence of this film must have meant people in the auditorium must have realised it was someone with Tourette’s that shouted. We need to be understanding - this is not intentional and not in the persons control. It’s the BBC who could have reduced the offence. They edited out an award winner saying ‘Free Palestine’ - so how come they didn’t edit this offensive word out?!
John Davidson's statement in response:
He was there because of a film about tourettes that was made about him to raise awareness of tourettes so absolutely he should have been there. People with tourettes should not be hidden away or excluded because of a challenging condition they cannot help.
Absolutely it is difficult for someone with a protected characteristic like race to hear a slur like that but it cannot be helped by that individual and it's so important that that is understood. People with tourettes can be separated from any person who might ever be offended by one of their ticks.
The part that could have been handled better was the apology. One, there should have been a statement directed to the presenters rather than just the audience but two, it should have been a statement of explanation and education, not just a brushed over sorry if anyone was offended.
I think he definitely should be there. I haven’t seen the film but I have watched a few clips on YouTube and they are heartbreaking.
I can’t really believe people think he would do this with any intention. Like Cinnabar_wing mentioned they say the thing that is socially explosive not believed.
I wonder how he feels about himself now, probably pretty horrified that he said those things.
He is so brave to put himself out there to say I have a right to be here with every other human being. He is leading the way in hopefully more understanding about Tourette’s which can only be a good thing for all the people out there hiding away because of it.
I think it's very difficult, the word used was offensive, but someone with Tourettes really can't help it, I think this sort of thing is going to become more and more apparent as people gain more protected charactaristics and people who would previously be hidden become more visable.
Maybe everyone needs to take a breath and step back a bit and most of all think!
I can't decide what I think about the responses.
I’m thinking much the same way as you B.
Exclusion? No, because it would be unfair to discriminate because of a disability and it would set a dangerous precedent.
Should people be protected from hearing offensive/racial slurs, especially when they refer to certain groups of people based on skin colour/race/religion? Yes, but I can’t decide as to the extent and form this could take.
If he has a history of using that word, I totally get excluding him from the live audience. But at the same time, would that be discrimination?
I know that people with coprolalia can get very distressed about their use of offensive words. I didn’t watch the BAFTAs but perhaps if this were to be repeated, the organisers and the person with Tourette’s could plan ahead to minimise likely eventualities.
Most people with Tourette’s recognise trigger situations that can lead to tics so perhaps Davidson could have anticipated that this would happen, even though it was an involuntary action. I don’t know if there would have been a way for him to be present at the awards without people hearing his offensive words,
I can’t see how this matter can be resolved in a manner that would be satisfactory to all parties affected. AGhhh!
https://www.tourettes-action.org.uk/storage/downloads/1752072351_Factsheet---Coprophenomena--v1.pdf
(I'm sorry I can't read guardian articles, they have blockers on them)
I have uploaded screenshots.
I haven't seen it yet, but the film I-swear is about John Davidson's life. I don't think you use words as tics, I thought the whole thing was that it's almost the words you know are wrong are the words that can be manifested (please forgive my ignorance if I got this wrong, but saying he uses the word feels like a willing choice, so it's important distinction?).
Can you celebrate the film and the actor and yet the person who it is about is excluded? Then it's just a money exercise using him but not helping his cause? I want to see the film, it's actually local to me, and will help in understanding situations like this?? I think having a periodic disclaimer by the hosts would help remind people that it's a condition he can't help?
(I'm sorry I can't read guardian articles, they have blockers on them)
