BBC accused of fuelling BAFTAs furore

In respect to John Davidson’s request to Variety, we have referred to Tourette’s as a ‘condition’ rather than a ‘disability’

Speaking to Variety, John Davidson has been able to speak to the recent controversy at the BAFTAs which was televised on the BBC. He’s done so in the hope it will foster more understanding and awareness about Tourette’s. The BBC’s apparent editorial choice to broadcast this involuntary racist slur has unsurprisingly resulted in widespread upset. Concerningly, it has sparked heated animosity between our Black and disabled communities in the UK.

We have since learned the BBC seemingly reassured executives from Warner Bros it would not broadcast the slur.

Now, Davidson’s own words have raised further questions around the BBC’s intentions. Going further, it sparks fresh concerns that the BBC may have deliberately left this offensive incident in the cut. This carries considerable weight given the absence of other inappropriate slurs that came as a result of Davidson’s tics.

As a result, the hole the BBC has dug for itself is getting deeper by the day.

Davidson: “Please don’t judge me. Please understand this isn’t who I am.”

Scottish campaigner Davidson is the real-life inspiration for I Swear, a film highlighting the challenges for people with Tourette’s. Davidson had reached out to the Sinners team after the incident to offer his apology to Michael B. Jordan, Delroy Lindo, and production designer Hannah Beachler.

During his interview, he was asked how it feels to have Tourette’s. In response, Davidson gave a glimpse into how these involuntary tics have put his safety at risk as a result of the offence caused:

Very often, the media focuses on my particular type of Tourette’s, which is called coprolalia — the involuntary use of obscene or offensive language. This symptom affects 10% to 30% of people with the condition and is not a criterion for diagnosis. However, it is one of the hardest tics to manage and can be very distressing for those living with it. Many individuals report discrimination and isolation as a result.

I have been physically beaten to within an inch of my life with an iron bar after tic-ing a comment to a young woman whose boyfriend and accomplice ambushed me one evening.

Adding:

The real challenge isn’t the tics themselves, but the misconceptions surrounding them. Understanding the full range of Tourette’s helps reduce stigma and supports everyone living with the condition.

When socially unacceptable words come out, the guilt and shame on the part of the person with the condition is often unbearable and causes enormous distress. I can’t begin to explain how upset and distraught I have been as the impact from Sunday sinks in.

Davidson made clear that he has no forewarning of these tics, saying that whilst some can suppress them briefly, the very act of suppression resembles a coke bottle being shaken. Informing that the tics come like an explosion of fizzy pop, he added:

For me personally, my brain works so fast and the tics have always been so aggressive that I have no idea when they are coming or what they will be. I have almost no ability to suppress, and when the situation is stressful, I have absolutely no choice but to tic — it simply bursts out of me like a gunshot.

“I ticked perhaps 10 different offensive words on the night”

The awareness campaigner highlighted that those with the condition find these tics show up in ways that are deeply offensive for themselves. This makes the condition feel ‘spiteful’ for those living with it. Stating that it is the ‘last thing he believes’, Davidson gave examples of other tics on the night that didn’t make the BBC cut.

Of particular concern is the knowledge that apparently of 10 offensive outbursts on the night, the BBC kept just one:

For example, when the chair of BAFTA started speaking on Sunday, I shouted, “Boring.” On Sunday, Alan Cumming joked about his own sexuality and, when referencing Paddington Bear, said, “Maybe you would like to come home with me, Paddington. It wouldn’t be the first time I have taken a hairy Peruvian bear home with me.” This resulted in homophobic tics from me and led to a shout of “pedophile” that was likely triggered because Paddington Bear is a children’s character.

I would appreciate reports of the event explaining that I ticked perhaps 10 different offensive words on the night of the awards. The N-word was one of these, and I completely understand its significance in history and in the modern world, but most articles are giving the impression I shouted one single slur on Sunday.

Davidson also speaks about the poignant moment this should have been for the campaigner before effectively being sold out by the BBC. Despite all he had to overcome to be there, he positively referred to the acceptance he felt at the BAFTAs:

After living with Tourette’s for almost 40 years, I was aware of how physically and mentally difficult it would be for me to attend. I also had a serious heart operation only five weeks ago. I put every ounce of energy and concentration into being able to attend.

I was thrilled to see that on the night, everyone — including some of the most well-respected and famous people from the film world — cheered at my name and applauded. I stood and waved to show my appreciation and acknowledged that this was a significant moment in my life, finally being accepted. It started as one of the most memorable experiences of my life.

Serious questions for the BBC

This should have been a watershed moment where British society was able to learn more about the condition of Tourette’s, whilst finally reducing unwelcome stigma on those powerless to the harm it can cause. In reality, the BBC’s decision has directly worsened that deeply painful stigma. On top of the absence of other involuntary tics in the final cut, a quote from Davidson’s interview strengthens calls for intense scrutiny of the BBC. It also reinforces Labour MP Dawn Butler’s demands for transparency in its decision-making process.

Davidson stated:

StudioCanal were working closely with BAFTA, and BAFTA had made us all aware that any swearing would be edited out of the broadcast. I have made four documentaries with the BBC in the past, and feel that they should have been aware of what to expect from Tourette’s and worked harder to prevent anything that I said — which, after all, was some 40 rows back from the stage — from being included in the broadcast.

Arguably suggesting the BBC saw some advantageous content to come from someone living with such a debilitating condition, he added:

As I reflect on the auditorium, I remember there was a microphone just in front of me, and with hindsight I have to question whether this was wise, so close to where I was seated, knowing I would tic.

We wrote yesterday about Butler’s call for the BBC to explain itself, saying:

Labour MP Dawn Butler has written to the BBC following its recent decision to air an involuntary racist slur. Tourette’s campaigner John Davidson shouted the N-word at the BAFTAs, and both Black actors visibly shuddered when they heard it before composing themselves and continuing. Butler has now asked for an “urgent explanation” from the broadcaster. Their choice to air the slur led to widespread hurt against both the Black and disabled community.

The BBC successfully, and conveniently, cut any mention of Palestine from the broadcast. This demonstrates it’s ability to axe or censor content, so why the double standard? This BAFTA incident would suggest they simply didn’t want to, raising questions once again about whose interests the broadcaster serves.

Willful negligence?

Understanding that the lion’s share of Davidson’s tics had been removed signals the selective approach the BBC appears to have operated in. After all, it’s ironic that they chose to cut the reference to ‘paedophiles’ amidst a couple of high-profile arrests connected to a convicted paedo Jeffrey Epstein.

As Butler also reminded, they cut reference to Akinola Davies Jr’s call for achieving justice and recognition for the ongoing oppression of Palestinians, Sudanese and Congolese. Furthermore, those in charge can’t even deny awareness of the concern, with the request from Warner Bros to censor the n-word.

Therefore, arguments that bosses at the BBC saw value in its selective choice to keep the ‘n-word’ in the cut are harder to deny. Consequently, all responsible for such a scandalous decision must be held to account for the harm it has negligently caused.

Featured image via the Canary