Words: Alexander Bradley (he/they)
CW: Ableism / Racism / Discrimination
When broadcasters censor ‘Free Palestine,’ but do not censor involuntary tics containing racial slurs, who is being defended? And who is being left out to dry?
This year’s BAFTAs should have been an opportunity to show a more tolerant, accepting, and diverse side of British society, but instead it served only to highlight a rot at the heart of the UK media establishment.
On the 22nd of February 2026, John Davidson, a Scottish man with Tourette’s – whose life served as the basis for the film I Swear – involuntarily shouted the N-Word at black actors Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo while they presented an award on stage. Despite a two hour gap between the filming of the BAFTAs and its broadcast on BBC One, the channel failed to censor or edit out the racial slur. It has been highlighted by critics and commentators that the BBC were, however, able to remove several of Davidson’s other offensive tics from the broadcast, and furthermore, chose to censor the words ‘Free Palestine,’ which were said by director Akinola Davies Jr. during his award acceptance speech.
To clarify some basic facts, Tourette’s Syndrome is a neurodevelopmental disorder and disability which causes involuntary physical and/or verbal tics. It does not impart to us a secret bigotry held by an individual, nor does it reveal to us a person’s hidden thoughts. That being said, when a tic contains a racial slur, it can still cause harm and offense. No one is ableist for feeling upset upon hearing the N-Word broadcast on national television. Neither Davidson, nor Jordan, nor Lindo, are responsible for the incident; yet many critics have argued that the BAFTAs are at fault. Star of the film Sinners, Wunmi Mosaku, expressed frustration at what she sees as ‘exploitative and performative’ conduct by the institutions involved, stating further that the ‘BAFTA[s] has a lot of lessons to learn.’ Mosaku is not alone in her frustration, with many other critics arguing that the BBC neglected to take any precautions that could have protected the various minority communities in attendance, and caused a great deal of harm in doing so. All three of the men involved have received harassment, and more broadly, social media and the wider news ecosystem was overrun with racist and ableist reactions for days.
In an exclusive Interview with Variety, Davidson expressed his disappointment in the BBC and the BAFTAs, stating he was informed that ‘any swearing would be edited out of the broadcast.’ Furthermore, Davidson highlighted that he ‘[has] to question whether [the placement of a microphone in front of his seat in the audience] was wise, … knowing [he] would tic.’
These comments betray an image of the BBC and BAFTAs – perceived by many critics and members of the British public – as institutions which care about diversity and inclusion, not as an actual material commitment, but instead as an image and brand identity. Creating a version of inclusivity which is able to award the able-bodied actor Robert Aramayo for playing a disabled man, but which is not able to accommodate to an actual disabled man in the audience; a type of inclusivity which can censor ‘Free Palestine,’ but cannot censor racial slurs.
Critics of the BBC have noted, that while emblematic of many of the issues plaguing the British media establishment, it is not alone in how it selectively enforces the censorship of offensive speech. Max Bassin, the drummer from American alternative band Geese yelled ‘Free Palestine’ during his acceptance speech at the BAFTAs musical equivalent – The BRIT Awards – only for his comment to be censored by ITV.
Throughout history, many violent and bigoted agendas have been defended through the guise of protecting minorities. The Birth of a Nation, America’s first real blockbuster film, glorified the KKK, justifying their violence by insisting it was necessary to protect white women from sexual violence perpetrated by black men. Anita Bryant’s anti-gay crusades of the 1970s were organised through a politcal coalition named Save Our Children. Many campaigns against transgender rights today use the guise of “protecting women and children” to advance an agenda which advocates the exclusion of trans people from public life.
Knowing this history makes analysing the current discourse around Israeli occupation and war crimes in Gaza all the more unsettling. In much of the same ways as before, advocates and supporters of Israel are using the guise of protecting Jews from antisemitism – a very noble and important cause in its own right – to suppress criticism of the Israeli occupation in Palestine, and the conduct of the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Anita Bryant said ‘Save Our Children,’ the advocates of Israel say ‘Stop Antisemitism.’
The question must therefore be asked with regards to the BRITS and BAFTAs. When broadcasters censor ‘Free Palestine,’ but do not censor involuntary tics containing racial slurs, who is being defended? And who is being left out to dry? Does mentioning the suffering of children in Gaza, over 20,000 of whom have been confirmed dead at the hands of the IDF, amount to dangerous antisemitism which needs to be censored? And if so, why do racial slurs not require – at the very least – the same level of censorship?
Inclusion is more than just symbolic gestures, it is a commitment to change the way that institutions are run, and the way that they serve their communities. It is not enough for the BBC to invite Black and Disabled people to their events, if they do not also put in the work to actually accommodate them. Much of the British media establishment is dominated by a class of privately-educated journalists and creatives, most of whom come from wealthy, white backgrounds which do not represent a wider cross section of British society. This often excludes people of colour, people from working class backgrounds, and people of queer and disabled identities. For inclusion to be more than hollow gestures and empty statements, British media needs to put creatives and journalists from every walk of life in the driver’s seat, not simply preach diversity and inclusion without putting power back into the hands of marginalised groups.
As the saying goes, ‘Nothing about us without us.’
