FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Bafta's Controversy
Bafta's Controversy
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP 10 weeks ago
|
At yesterday's British Film and Television Awards two Black actors from the film Sinners were accepting an award when tourettes sufferer and campaigner John Davidson shouted out a very serious racial insult that was heard on the BBC coverage. He later left the event and has been criticised by some including actor Jamie Foxx.
Does this criticism show a lack of sympathy for disabled people, or did he cross an unacceptable line ?
Or do his rights as a disabled person take precedence over others rights not to be offended or insulted ?
I have not named the word but it is easily found online. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I must be too thick skinned, but any racial, gender or sexual slur is just water off a ducks back with me.
I wouldn't let it bother me.
However the problem is the BBC are a fool to themselves. Let in stay in the show wether accidentally or to grab attention is just incompetent.
Another review, another self regulation tack but the still fuck up. 100yrs? if not now, never.
Time to end the rot and clear off.
Throw it over to subs if they insist on subjecting the public to more bs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 10 weeks ago
|
"Why don't such broadcasts run one minute behind the event to ensure that unacceptable speeches, protests or occurrences can be moderated?"
I understand it did but they still broadcast which seems unfortunate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I happily pay a licence fee to keep commercials off the BBC. anything that inches it toward the sort of US style of 5 mins of adverts every 10 minutes is a step backwards. If you don’t like it, stop watching it, there are a few other channels now if you go beyond 5. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's complex because the incident sits at a confluence point involving disability, intent, harm and public accountability.
.
Even though it was involuntary because of Tourette's, that does not mean the harm caused by the word is any less real.
.
He may not be morally culpable in the same way a deliberate racist may have been, but harm was caused and event organisers have a duty of care to protect participants from foreseeable harm.
.
Disability rights protect equal access, dignity and freedom from discrimination. They are not a blanket exemption from all consequences of behaviour.
.
I believe the whole situation is hinged on control.
If his condition is neurologically uncontrollable, then moral blame decreases.
If the environment and his attendance was forseeable and hight risk, then organisational reponsibility increases.
If harm occurred, repair and accountability still matter.
.
Personally, the questions which seem relevant the most are :
.
1. Did the individual conduct their own risk assessment? Did they highlight their needs/condition to the organisers ?
2. Did the organisers conduct their own risk assessment ? Were they aware their was the potential for harm ?
.
I would like to hope that there was some communication in advance between the individual and the organisers.
.
No one walked away from this uplifted and in a good mood, but there can be constructive outcomes.
.
Moments when society is forced to grapple with uncomfortable truths.
.
- Certain conditions are real and sometimes deeply inconvenient to their owners and those around them.
- Racial hurt carries significant weight and that hurt does not dissolve because the intent was absent.
- Inclusion can sometimes create hard edge cases that test our principles.
- Harm and lack of intent can coexist.
.
I have compassion for disability but zero tolerance for racial harm, so this event does challenge my own thinking.
.
I have disabled friends and the general feeling is that inclusion is essential, but so is risk assessment, and participation sometimes needs proactive planning and foresight, by the individual (if capable), their carer (if one exists), and the event organisers themselves).
.
Barring the racial slur, no one did anything wrong.
.
But I feel a lot of people could have done things a lot better.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 10 weeks ago
|
"It's complex because the incident sits at a confluence point involving disability, intent, harm and public accountability.
.
Even though it was involuntary because of Tourette's, that does not mean the harm caused by the word is any less real.
.
He may not be morally culpable in the same way a deliberate racist may have been, but harm was caused and event organisers have a duty of care to protect participants from foreseeable harm.
.
Disability rights protect equal access, dignity and freedom from discrimination. They are not a blanket exemption from all consequences of behaviour.
.
I believe the whole situation is hinged on control.
If his condition is neurologically uncontrollable, then moral blame decreases.
If the environment and his attendance was forseeable and hight risk, then organisational reponsibility increases.
If harm occurred, repair and accountability still matter.
.
Personally, the questions which seem relevant the most are :
.
1. Did the individual conduct their own risk assessment? Did they highlight their needs/condition to the organisers ?
2. Did the organisers conduct their own risk assessment ? Were they aware their was the potential for harm ?
.
I would like to hope that there was some communication in advance between the individual and the organisers.
.
No one walked away from this uplifted and in a good mood, but there can be constructive outcomes.
.
Moments when society is forced to grapple with uncomfortable truths.
.
- Certain conditions are real and sometimes deeply inconvenient to their owners and those around them.
- Racial hurt carries significant weight and that hurt does not dissolve because the intent was absent.
- Inclusion can sometimes create hard edge cases that test our principles.
- Harm and lack of intent can coexist.
.
I have compassion for disability but zero tolerance for racial harm, so this event does challenge my own thinking.
.
I have disabled friends and the general feeling is that inclusion is essential, but so is risk assessment, and participation sometimes needs proactive planning and foresight, by the individual (if capable), their carer (if one exists), and the event organisers themselves).
.
Barring the racial slur, no one did anything wrong.
.
But I feel a lot of people could have done things a lot better.
"
Very well put, thank you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Was the word that John Davidson (who has suffered mental, verbal and physical abuse, assault and ridicule because of tourettes syndrome since the age of 14) not the same word as we hear in songs/music (sung/said by people who suffer with no syndrome whatsoever) almost every single day?
It's a strange world we live in.
Keep up the agenda!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 10 weeks ago
|
"Does this criticism show a lack of sympathy for disabled people, or did he cross an unacceptable line?
Or do his rights as a disabled person take precedence over others rights not to be offended or insulted?
I have not named the word but it is easily found online."
Firstly there is no “right to not be offended”. Freedom of speech comes with the right to offend people. This has precedent in case law at the high court and so therefore applies to all courts below the Supreme Court.
That doesn’t mean there’s no consequences but there aren’t any legal consequences unless you can get your case heard by the Supreme Court.
In answer your first question I think both apply. It shows a lack of sympathy for their disability as they have little or no control over their outburst, but it sounds like the outburst also crossed a line.
Finally, nobody has more “rights” than another. Everyone thinks they and their family are more important than anyone else, and to you that’s true. But we all have the same rights.
So someone got offended, so what? Either offend back or rise above it. Either develop a thick skin, ignore people or yell back if you get offended. All these non crime hate incidents are over people thinking them being offended means a law has been broken.
Grow up and grow a backbone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 10 weeks ago
|
"If they invited a blind person who accidentally bumped into someone and knocked their drink over them would they be making such a fuss?
Why should any other disability be considered different?"
That's a very good way to put it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I really don't see the issue here. The film "I Swear" is about a Tourettes campaigner and it got 6 BAFTA nominations. Anyone likely to attend would have known what the film was about, and should have expected that someone with Tourettes would be in the room.
Someone shouting out rude words was entirely to be expected, and was a perfect opportunity for all the luvvies to show how accepting and inclusive they are. I can understand that the host needed to apologise because those listening at home might not have been prepared, and I thought he did that well.
Given the situation, no one has an excuse to be offended. Those that are clearly think their 'rights' are more important than other people's. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 10 weeks ago
|
"I really don't see the issue here. The film "I Swear" is about a Tourettes campaigner and it got 6 BAFTA nominations. Anyone likely to attend would have known what the film was about, and should have expected that someone with Tourettes would be in the room.
Someone shouting out rude words was entirely to be expected, and was a perfect opportunity for all the luvvies to show how accepting and inclusive they are. I can understand that the host needed to apologise because those listening at home might not have been prepared, and I thought he did that well.
Given the situation, no one has an excuse to be offended. Those that are clearly think their 'rights' are more important than other people's."
I believe I Swear is based on John Davidson's life and the clue is rather in the title! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 10 weeks ago
|
"BBC broadcast it. They should have been more diligent, excuses ‘working in a truck’ apparently.
It was OK for David Lammy to say ‘no more white saviours’ when commenting on bbc children in need. "
Agree about the BBC, another fuck up.
Different rules for the cretin Lammy of course.🤦♂️ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"BBC broadcast it. They should have been more diligent ..."
No they shouldn't. The words were part of the event and, after they were explained by the host, everyone should have understood the situation. The BBC should take no blame here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 10 weeks ago
|
"When John Davidson went into Buckingham Palace he shouted "I've got a bomb". When the Queen awarded him with his MBE he shouted "Fuck the Queen" and she made no reaction or comment. "
I saw that, good for Camilla 👏 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When John Davidson went into Buckingham Palace he shouted "I've got a bomb". When the Queen awarded him with his MBE he shouted "Fuck the Queen" and she made no reaction or comment. "
Isn't the "I swear" movie based on his story? Such a wonderful movie  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I really don't see the issue here. The film "I Swear" is about a Tourettes campaigner and it got 6 BAFTA nominations. Anyone likely to attend would have known what the film was about, and should have expected that someone with Tourettes would be in the room.
Someone shouting out rude words was entirely to be expected, and was a perfect opportunity for all the luvvies to show how accepting and inclusive they are. I can understand that the host needed to apologise because those listening at home might not have been prepared, and I thought he did that well.
Given the situation, no one has an excuse to be offended. Those that are clearly think their 'rights' are more important than other people's."
Thanks for pointing out the link between the movie, Tourretes and the Bafta awards |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 10 weeks ago
|
"When John Davidson went into Buckingham Palace he shouted "I've got a bomb". When the Queen awarded him with his MBE he shouted "Fuck the Queen" and she made no reaction or comment.
Isn't the "I swear" movie based on his story? Such a wonderful movie "
It is. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"When John Davidson went into Buckingham Palace he shouted "I've got a bomb". When the Queen awarded him with his MBE he shouted "Fuck the Queen" and she made no reaction or comment.
I saw that, good for Camilla 👏"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 10 weeks ago
|
"I really don't see the issue here. The film "I Swear" is about a Tourettes campaigner and it got 6 BAFTA nominations. Anyone likely to attend would have known what the film was about, and should have expected that someone with Tourettes would be in the room.
Someone shouting out rude words was entirely to be expected, and was a perfect opportunity for all the luvvies to show how accepting and inclusive they are. I can understand that the host needed to apologise because those listening at home might not have been prepared, and I thought he did that well.
Given the situation, no one has an excuse to be offended. Those that are clearly think their 'rights' are more important than other people's.
I believe I Swear is based on John Davidson's life and the clue is rather in the title!"
THIS |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
As we all know now nobody did anything wrong other than as recently suggested by Mr Davidson himself that as he and the BBC had worked together before in the past it was maybe not the wisest of moves to place a mic near him in a live broadcast.
Having said that if there is such a thing as 'silver linings' the world's understanding of the often harrowing stigmatising and debilitating effect Tourette's can cause has been raised many fold in the public eye. That can only be a good thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The outburst should have been greeted with the same level of compassion (maximum) and outrage (none) as someone with severe special needs pulling down his pants and crapping on stage.
The complicating factor for many was that, in contrast to the above example, this incident was offensive to another group (blacks). This seemed to affect the levels of compassion and outrage. Perhaps we can have compassion and empathy for both affected parties, with no outrage. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why don't such broadcasts run one minute behind the event to ensure that unacceptable speeches, protests or occurrences can be moderated?"
It wasn't sent out live. They had a significant delay (hours) and could have stopped it. Just typical Bbc incompetence |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"It wasn't sent out live. They had a significant delay (hours) and could have stopped it. Just typical Bbc incompetence"
I don't think it was incompetence. I'd be willing to bet that they had a discussion, and decided to leave the words in. They'd heard Alan Cummings' apology, and I'll bet they thought that leaving the word in was being inclusive and helping to highlight the issue of Tourettes sufferers.
That's just guessing on my part, but I think that's what happened. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Why don't such broadcasts run one minute behind the event to ensure that unacceptable speeches, protests or occurrences can be moderated?
It wasn't sent out live. They had a significant delay (hours) and could have stopped it. Just typical Bbc incompetence "
I didn't realise.....blimey. Shouldn't the BBC have carefully edited the incident? After all, their news editors seem to have a track record for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The outburst should have been greeted with the same level of compassion (maximum) and outrage (none) as someone with severe special needs pulling down his pants and crapping on stage.
The complicating factor for many was that, in contrast to the above example, this incident was offensive to another group (blacks). This seemed to affect the levels of compassion and outrage. Perhaps we can have compassion and empathy for both affected parties, with no outrage."
Well said indeed. Unfortunately there are those that will be outraged and offended often without considering the situation as a whole |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
