Bafta awards controversy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The movie describes how poor his mental health already was and past suicide attempts. And now he has been humiliated on a global stage and people expect him to parade in public with a Scarlet A and get on his knees and grovel for forgiveness in the face of hate being directed at him.

Likey his team have secluded him away to try to keep him alive and well, a bigger focus for them than insisting he meet every individuals needs for the apology they want from him.

The BAFTAs really should have blocked it out. All three of the people involved got put into a very uncomfortable corner and at least if they had censored it they could have got in front of the issue before it blew up.

[Anonymous]

Oof, I hate that thread in this has been posted here, since there are barely any Black people in this forum. I’m sure this thread is filled with respectful and thoughtful discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie describes how poor his mental health already was and past suicide attempts. And now he has been humiliated on a global stage and people expect him to parade in public with a Scarlet A and get on his knees and grovel for forgiveness in the face of hate being directed at him.

Likey his team have secluded him away to try to keep him alive and well, a bigger focus for them than insisting he meet every individuals needs for the apology they want from him.

That sort of situation was a no win situation for him. If he didn't attend, he would feel like he was missing out on yet another thing due to his disability. If he did attend, it was very obviously going to go something like this. BAFTA made a massive mistake by airing his vocal outburts on TV. It was nothing short of cruel, to both him and to the people who were on stage when it happened. And honestly? Some situations aren't suited for all people. I have panic attacks on airplanes, so you know what, I don't travel on airplanes. I could, if I had to- and on rare occasions, I have done just that- but it's highly unpleasant for me and I have nightmares about it both before and after. Maybe this person's disability didn't make the evening highly unpleasant for himself, but he made it highly unpleasant for the other honored guests, and maybe he should have just declined the invitation. Is it fair? No. It is incredibly unfair. But sometimes, things are incredibly unfair. It's also unfair that my neighbor's son has a recurrent brain tumor and less than 6 months to live. It's unfair for him that sitting in the audience during that large public ceremony wasn't a good idea, but, it wasn't.

This reiterates a point from an earlier posting.BAFTA is ultimately responsible for this but they'll be the party most insulated from harm. Presenters and others were already subjected to the slurs. Davidson has had what might be the highlight of his life turned into an absolute horror in a global scale. If his mental health takes a turn for the worst, or God forbid he tries to end his life, this becomes a disaster. And, likely, fingers will somehow be pointed at Black people and people who don't want them to have to endure racial slurs.

I truly hope BAFTA loses a ton of money for gross negligence AND assumes all the responsibility for this mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie describes how poor his mental health already was and past suicide attempts. And now he has been humiliated on a global stage and people expect him to parade in public with a Scarlet A and get on his knees and grovel for forgiveness in the face of hate being directed at him.

Likey his team have secluded him away to try to keep him alive and well, a bigger focus for them than insisting he meet every individuals needs for the apology they want from him.

That sort of situation was a no win situation for him. If he didn't attend, he would feel like he was missing out on yet another thing due to his disability. If he did attend, it was very obviously going to go something like this. BAFTA made a massive mistake by airing his vocal outburts on TV. It was nothing short of cruel, to both him and to the people who were on stage when it happened. And honestly? Some situations aren't suited for all people. I have panic attacks on airplanes, so you know what, I don't travel on airplanes. I could, if I had to- and on rare occasions, I have done just that- but it's highly unpleasant for me and I have nightmares about it both before and after. Maybe this person's disability didn't make the evening highly unpleasant for himself, but he made it highly unpleasant for the other honored guests, and maybe he should have just declined the invitation. Is it fair? No. It is incredibly unfair. But sometimes, things are incredibly unfair. It's also unfair that my neighbor's son has a recurrent brain tumor and less than 6 months to live. It's unfair for him that sitting in the audience during that large public ceremony wasn't a good idea, but, it wasn't.

The BAFTAs would probably also have gotten a lot of backlash if they hadn't invited him. The movie is a big hit and is based on his life story and his disability and the stigma and struggle he has had and how disruptive it has been to every aspect of his life - if they had said, no we didn't invite him as his disability (that the movie about) could disrupt others and so we didn't want him here - I doubt that would have gone over very well. Excluding him from that event solely due to his disability would not have been a good look.

In a perfect world, they absolutely would have invited him, and he would have thanked them for their kind invitation, and declined, with something along the lines of "I've learned over the years that attending something like this, where my tics will be loudly disruptive during a speech or presentation, just causes me undue stress and feelings of guilt and embarrassment, even when everyone is understanding and kind. Sticking to smaller, (and certainly untelevised!) gatherings is what keeps my mental health in a good place. But truly, thank you for the invitation." And then maybe they'd follow up with assurances that he would be welcome, and offer to have him come, and mingle before and after the ceremony, but watch the actual ceremony on a screen from the lobby (out of earshot from the speakers on stage), instead of in the general audience, if that would make him feel less anxious. There, I just solved the problem for next time!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A disability doesn’t give unlimited rights to interrupt other people’s events. Bafta was for many artists as a public setting. The guy had already been yelling slurs at attendees. He should have removed himself much earlier.

Perhaps he should have watched the ceremony in its entirety from wherever he went when he left the room because he did not leave the ceremony. He just left the room. There are pictures of him congratulating the actor who played him while the actor is holding the awards he won. He shouted during the first and second awards of the night. The categories that the actor won were presented much later in the ceremony. So technically he was still there and that worked out fine .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie describes how poor his mental health already was and past suicide attempts. And now he has been humiliated on a global stage and people expect him to parade in public with a Scarlet A and get on his knees and grovel for forgiveness in the face of hate being directed at him.

Likey his team have secluded him away to try to keep him alive and well, a bigger focus for them than insisting he meet every individuals needs for the apology they want from him.

That sort of situation was a no win situation for him. If he didn't attend, he would feel like he was missing out on yet another thing due to his disability. If he did attend, it was very obviously going to go something like this. BAFTA made a massive mistake by airing his vocal outburts on TV. It was nothing short of cruel, to both him and to the people who were on stage when it happened. And honestly? Some situations aren't suited for all people. I have panic attacks on airplanes, so you know what, I don't travel on airplanes. I could, if I had to- and on rare occasions, I have done just that- but it's highly unpleasant for me and I have nightmares about it both before and after. Maybe this person's disability didn't make the evening highly unpleasant for himself, but he made it highly unpleasant for the other honored guests, and maybe he should have just declined the invitation. Is it fair? No. It is incredibly unfair. But sometimes, things are incredibly unfair. It's also unfair that my neighbor's son has a recurrent brain tumor and less than 6 months to live. It's unfair for him that sitting in the audience during that large public ceremony wasn't a good idea, but, it wasn't.

The BAFTAs would probably also have gotten a lot of backlash if they hadn't invited him. The movie is a big hit and is based on his life story and his disability and the stigma and struggle he has had and how disruptive it has been to every aspect of his life - if they had said, no we didn't invite him as his disability (that the movie about) could disrupt others and so we didn't want him here - I doubt that would have gone over very well. Excluding him from that event solely due to his disability would not have been a good look.

In a perfect world, they absolutely would have invited him, and he would have thanked them for their kind invitation, and declined, with something along the lines of "I've learned over the years that attending something like this, where my tics will be loudly disruptive during a speech or presentation, just causes me undue stress and feelings of guilt and embarrassment, even when everyone is understanding and kind. Sticking to smaller, (and certainly untelevised!) gatherings is what keeps my mental health in a good place. But truly, thank you for the invitation." And then maybe they'd follow up with assurances that he would be welcome, and offer to have him come, and mingle before and after the ceremony, but watch the actual ceremony on a screen from the lobby (out of earshot from the speakers on stage), instead of in the general audience, if that would make him feel less anxious. There, I just solved the problem for next time!

Except part of the reason for the movie was to try and break down stigma and ignorance and decrease the exclusion of people with disabilities so it kind of seems really wrong for the movie to be making money and profiting onthat theme but the guy who is actually living it can't be accepted. I think the issue was more that there should have been more education and notification given to the guests and attendees and presenters and use it as a way of increasing awareness rather than using it as a way to further stigmatize and exclude him. His coprolalia based on what is in the movie has a wide range of socially inappropriate comments - there really isn't anyone who is 'safe' if he is seen as a bad person and people take it personally, he is going to offend everyone. The education they do in the movie is about ignoring it as any reaction tends to make it worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie describes how poor his mental health already was and past suicide attempts. And now he has been humiliated on a global stage and people expect him to parade in public with a Scarlet A and get on his knees and grovel for forgiveness in the face of hate being directed at him.

Likey his team have secluded him away to try to keep him alive and well, a bigger focus for them than insisting he meet every individuals needs for the apology they want from him.

That sort of situation was a no win situation for him. If he didn't attend, he would feel like he was missing out on yet another thing due to his disability. If he did attend, it was very obviously going to go something like this. BAFTA made a massive mistake by airing his vocal outburts on TV. It was nothing short of cruel, to both him and to the people who were on stage when it happened. And honestly? Some situations aren't suited for all people. I have panic attacks on airplanes, so you know what, I don't travel on airplanes. I could, if I had to- and on rare occasions, I have done just that- but it's highly unpleasant for me and I have nightmares about it both before and after. Maybe this person's disability didn't make the evening highly unpleasant for himself, but he made it highly unpleasant for the other honored guests, and maybe he should have just declined the invitation. Is it fair? No. It is incredibly unfair. But sometimes, things are incredibly unfair. It's also unfair that my neighbor's son has a recurrent brain tumor and less than 6 months to live. It's unfair for him that sitting in the audience during that large public ceremony wasn't a good idea, but, it wasn't.

The BAFTAs would probably also have gotten a lot of backlash if they hadn't invited him. The movie is a big hit and is based on his life story and his disability and the stigma and struggle he has had and how disruptive it has been to every aspect of his life - if they had said, no we didn't invite him as his disability (that the movie about) could disrupt others and so we didn't want him here - I doubt that would have gone over very well. Excluding him from that event solely due to his disability would not have been a good look.

In a perfect world, they absolutely would have invited him, and he would have thanked them for their kind invitation, and declined, with something along the lines of "I've learned over the years that attending something like this, where my tics will be loudly disruptive during a speech or presentation, just causes me undue stress and feelings of guilt and embarrassment, even when everyone is understanding and kind. Sticking to smaller, (and certainly untelevised!) gatherings is what keeps my mental health in a good place. But truly, thank you for the invitation." And then maybe they'd follow up with assurances that he would be welcome, and offer to have him come, and mingle before and after the ceremony, but watch the actual ceremony on a screen from the lobby (out of earshot from the speakers on stage), instead of in the general audience, if that would make him feel less anxious. There, I just solved the problem for next time!

Except part of the reason for the movie was to try and break down stigma and ignorance and decrease the exclusion of people with disabilities so it kind of seems really wrong for the movie to be making money and profiting onthat theme but the guy who is actually living it can't be accepted. I think the issue was more that there should have been more education and notification given to the guests and attendees and presenters and use it as a way of increasing awareness rather than using it as a way to further stigmatize and exclude him. His coprolalia based on what is in the movie has a wide range of socially inappropriate comments - there really isn't anyone who is 'safe' if he is seen as a bad person and people take it personally, he is going to offend everyone. The education they do in the movie is about ignoring it as any reaction tends to make it worse.

Did nobody actually see the movie that was nominated?

[Anonymous]

I hope a lot of people do watch the movie, as a lot of what has happened in real life with the BAFTAs is already in the movie - including does he need to apologize for each tic, should be be able to attend public events, is he really a hateful person etc. He has dealt with it all before and I think the movie does a good job of humanizing him (and he still comes across as very imperfect) and also educating about the disability and helping people see how his tics are out of control and not representative of his beliefs.

I think a lot of people might reflect on this BAFTA event differently after watching the movie, More understanding of the coprolalia better helps people see him less as a racist or offensive person to have around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He had no intent so what is he apologizing for - the inconvenience of his disability?

If a blind man bumps into someone who loses their balance, is it physical assault? Should he be hit in turn and arrested for his physical violence?

There are quitea few conditions, including severe ASD where people have vocalizations that are uncontolled and involutary. That is the nature of the condition. Can it be bothersome - yes but that is what diversity is - accepting inclusion of people who are diverse and different from you.

You can't be against John Davidson but for Diversity, Equity, or Inclusion. You are either for both or against both.

Impact matters over intent. It’s amazing that you can’t understand if you do something without intending to, you still apologize for causing harm.

Some people would be on a 24/7 apology tour - especially parents of kids with significant autism whose behaviours can impact continuously. Basically you feel they need to apologize for existing and for having a disability. I had a client with a muscle disorder whose spasms meant I got hit / kicked often. I definitely didn't need an apology letter every time that demonstrated she truly understands the impact of her actions on me. This outburst isn't about intent even as it is uncontrolled and involuntary. Intent is usually related to someone not having the knowledge or understanding. People don't choose to have a disability. You have no idea likely how he modifies his day and his life continously - and the humiliation and pain he deals with daily with this disorder so your view that he should be hung in the town square because the disability / intent / controllability aren't relevant - shows you need to watch his movie more than anyone.

You missed the point. It’s not about his intent but the IMPACT of what he said. His disability isn’t an excuse to not apologizing for the harm he caused.

He didn't cause harm.

Are you just trolling or do you really believe that?

I believe that. If my infant throws up on my nice sweater just as I am about to leave for work - I do not feel the infant caused me harm and that they need to take responsibility or the impact of their actions. I do in fact consider that it was involuntary, uncontrolled and there was zero intent to soil my clothes as it is simply part of being an infant. How would you want me to hold my infant accountable and responsible for the harm they caused and the impact on me and my day?

I don't see my infant as harming me nor do I see copralalia as harming me. When things are involuntary and uncontrollable and due to factors outside the control of the person - I see them as such.

If you have to compare a disabled adult to an infant to defend their decision to remain in a public place when they want to scream the n-word, you are ableist yourself.

He felt he had the right to stay no matter what came out of his mouth. Make of that what you will. But don’t compare it to an infant with indigestion.

Both might intend no harm, but one is fully aware he might cause it and decides it’s worth the risk.

Psychiatrist here-you are completely wrong.

I am an adult who became disabled at middle age. I would not want a psychiatrist who infantilized adults with disabilities.

Does this guy have a disability or not? If people think he can and should control and make apologies for it, it then it sounds like they don't believe his disability is real.

No, actually, if you’ve bothered to read the comments and understood them, you’d see that most understand that he can’t control his tics AND that he should apologize when it’s likely that he’s inadvertently hurt someone— just as all of us should.

You want to make his whole life an apology and that’s wrong.

I haven’t said anything at all about “his whole life”, so, you’re arguing with yourself here.
The most important thing in the one sentence that I wrote is the word “AND”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The movie describes how poor his mental health already was and past suicide attempts. And now he has been humiliated on a global stage and people expect him to parade in public with a Scarlet A and get on his knees and grovel for forgiveness in the face of hate being directed at him.

Likey his team have secluded him away to try to keep him alive and well, a bigger focus for them than insisting he meet every individuals needs for the apology they want from him.

That sort of situation was a no win situation for him. If he didn't attend, he would feel like he was missing out on yet another thing due to his disability. If he did attend, it was very obviously going to go something like this. BAFTA made a massive mistake by airing his vocal outburts on TV. It was nothing short of cruel, to both him and to the people who were on stage when it happened. And honestly? Some situations aren't suited for all people. I have panic attacks on airplanes, so you know what, I don't travel on airplanes. I could, if I had to- and on rare occasions, I have done just that- but it's highly unpleasant for me and I have nightmares about it both before and after. Maybe this person's disability didn't make the evening highly unpleasant for himself, but he made it highly unpleasant for the other honored guests, and maybe he should have just declined the invitation. Is it fair? No. It is incredibly unfair. But sometimes, things are incredibly unfair. It's also unfair that my neighbor's son has a recurrent brain tumor and less than 6 months to live. It's unfair for him that sitting in the audience during that large public ceremony wasn't a good idea, but, it wasn't.

The BAFTAs would probably also have gotten a lot of backlash if they hadn't invited him. The movie is a big hit and is based on his life story and his disability and the stigma and struggle he has had and how disruptive it has been to every aspect of his life - if they had said, no we didn't invite him as his disability (that the movie about) could disrupt others and so we didn't want him here - I doubt that would have gone over very well. Excluding him from that event solely due to his disability would not have been a good look.

In a perfect world, they absolutely would have invited him, and he would have thanked them for their kind invitation, and declined, with something along the lines of "I've learned over the years that attending something like this, where my tics will be loudly disruptive during a speech or presentation, just causes me undue stress and feelings of guilt and embarrassment, even when everyone is understanding and kind. Sticking to smaller, (and certainly untelevised!) gatherings is what keeps my mental health in a good place. But truly, thank you for the invitation." And then maybe they'd follow up with assurances that he would be welcome, and offer to have him come, and mingle before and after the ceremony, but watch the actual ceremony on a screen from the lobby (out of earshot from the speakers on stage), instead of in the general audience, if that would make him feel less anxious. There, I just solved the problem for next time!

Except part of the reason for the movie was to try and break down stigma and ignorance and decrease the exclusion of people with disabilities so it kind of seems really wrong for the movie to be making money and profiting onthat theme but the guy who is actually living it can't be accepted. I think the issue was more that there should have been more education and notification given to the guests and attendees and presenters and use it as a way of increasing awareness rather than using it as a way to further stigmatize and exclude him. His coprolalia based on what is in the movie has a wide range of socially inappropriate comments - there really isn't anyone who is 'safe' if he is seen as a bad person and people take it personally, he is going to offend everyone. The education they do in the movie is about ignoring it as any reaction tends to make it worse.

I stand by my opinion that putting the burden of ignoring it on people who are also experiencing a major professional achievement, on television, while screams of "F*** YOU!!" are being directed at them (by someone who wishes he were not screaming it, obviously) is unreasonable. In a grocery store, sure. On a bus? Sure. But if I'm trying to take the SAT and the person next to me is screaming the N word over and over, that's not fair to me, and no, I'm not going to accept that I just have to ignore it and bomb the test because inclusion is important. Do you see the difference? I am positive he doesn't mean to offend anyone or cause any harm. I am positive that the world needs to learn to be inclusive of people with coprolalia, when they're aware that someone has that disorder and are given a heads up. I'm also positive that people should not be told they need to just ignore it and accept it when it's being loudly directed at them, on an international stage, at the pinnacle of their career, accepting an award.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't you seen the videos of people post anesthesia who say offensive things? Are people really triggered and offended by those vidoes and expect apologies? Usually the people in them are laughing and not taking it personally as they understand what the person coming out of anesthesia is saying is not under their control. But most people on here seem to think those people are extremely offensive and should be apologizing for their comments and that being under sanesthetic does not give them a right to say anything inappropriate and they need to be held responsible.

I think people are used to being able to reflexively demand other people apologize. They are frustrated that it doesn't seem to work in this case.

Well, there are other options. Apologies are designed to indicate to people who you’ve hurt in some way that your intention was not to hurt them. Most sincere apologies are met with forgiveness. Without an apology, the consequences for many behaviors are likely to be very different. So, are those of you who don’t believe that apologies are necessary advocating for the kinds of consequences that saying offensive things to people you don’t know will often provoke? If so, you probably don’t have Davidson’s long term best interests at heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is kind of interesting that people who have been discriminated against themselves for being black are now in this thread pointing the finger at a different demographic and saying they have no right to be in society, we don't want to mix with them in public, they need to stay at home hidden away, they should not be invited to social events, they should keep to themselves and stay away from us.

No one has said anything like this — except you PP. Either you’re being deliberately obtuse, or you’re doing the best you can. Peace out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haven't you seen the videos of people post anesthesia who say offensive things? Are people really triggered and offended by those vidoes and expect apologies? Usually the people in them are laughing and not taking it personally as they understand what the person coming out of anesthesia is saying is not under their control. But most people on here seem to think those people are extremely offensive and should be apologizing for their comments and that being under sanesthetic does not give them a right to say anything inappropriate and they need to be held responsible.

I think people are used to being able to reflexively demand other people apologize. They are frustrated that it doesn't seem to work in this case.

Well, there are other options. Apologies are designed to indicate to people who you’ve hurt in some way that your intention was not to hurt them. Most sincere apologies are met with forgiveness. Without an apology, the consequences for many behaviors are likely to be very different. So, are those of you who don’t believe that apologies are necessary advocating for the kinds of consequences that saying offensive things to people you don’t know will often provoke? If so, you probably don’t have Davidson’s long term best interests at heart.

There are people of all ages and races with coprolalia and I think the view that they owe an apology to anyone who is offended by any of their tics puts a massive burden on them. Many people tic very frequently and continuously being asked to come up with an apology for any offense each tic may have caused or offense taken by those who don't understand may not even be practically feasible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How do you all know he (or his team) didn't reach out to the two men or others after the fact?

DP here — Because his non-apology was released and has been getting a lot of attention internationally. If he or his team understood the concerns that are being raised and attempted to address them in a positive way, don’t you think they might want to call attention to it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is kind of interesting that people who have been discriminated against themselves for being black are now in this thread pointing the finger at a different demographic and saying they have no right to be in society, we don't want to mix with them in public, they need to stay at home hidden away, they should not be invited to social events, they should keep to themselves and stay away from us.

No one has said anything like this — except you PP. Either you’re being deliberately obtuse, or you’re doing the best you can. Peace out.

I could probably find you a hundred comments in this thread about excluding him.