It should have been a magical night for John Davidson.

His life, specifically a long battle with Tourette syndrome, inspired the BAFTA-nominated film, “I Swear.” The British awards gala invited Davidson to Sunday’s soiree to see if the film might go home a winner.

It did – actor Robert Aramayo won Best Actor honors over Timothée Chalamet and Leonardo DiCaprio – and the film itself won two other awards.

Yet Davidson’s chronic swearing – the signature issue facing those with his condition – swamped the event in more ways than one. Davidson’s profanity could be heard during early segments of the show, even though he wasn’t on-stage at the time.

Host Alan Cumming gracefully explained the situation to the audience, apologizing for the profanity and asking for compassion. Those with this condition utter inappropriate phrases without control or filter.

“You may have noticed some strong language in the background. This can be part of how Tourette’s syndrome shows up for some people as the film explores that experience…Thanks for your understanding and helping create a respectful space for everyone.”

The matter might have ended there.

Except Davidson uttered the N-word when black actors Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo of “Sinners” fame graced the BAFTA stage to present an award.

And the BBC, for some inexplicable reason, didn’t bleep the offending word despite a two-hour delay. The telecast was seen via E! in the U.S. 

Cumming offered a second apology later in the show, but that wasn’t enough for select participants and the media.

Jamie Foxx called the outbursts “unacceptable.” Actor Wendell Pierce slammed BAFTA for not doing more.

“It’s infuriating that the first reaction wasn’t complete and full throated [sic] apologies to Delroy Lindo and Michael B. Jordan. The insult to them takes priority. It doesn’t matter the reasoning for the racist slur.”

“Sinners” production designer Hannah Beachler didn’t accept the apologies. She also claimed she heard the word several times on Sunday, not just during the BAFTA ceremony.

“I understand and deeply know why this is an impossible situation. I know we must handle this with grace and continue to push through. But what made the situation worse was the throw away apology of ‘if you were offended’ at the end of the show.”

“Of course we were offended… but our frequency, our spiritual vibration is tuned to a higher level than what happened,” Beachler continued. “I am not steal [sic], this did not bounce off of me, but I exist above it. It can’t take away from who I am as an artist.”

Lindo said at a post-awards party that he wished someone from BAFTA had followed up with him following the N-word outbursts.

The N-word is ugly. Gross. Vile. Historically racist in profound ways. And the person who uttered it has a chronic illness that forces him to say the most inappropriate things at the worst possible times. 

Yes, that context matters. Deeply. And the timing was awful given that the “Sinners” team was on stage at the moment.

We’re still living in a moment when uttering that word, even without any cruelty attached, could capsize a career. Just ask Morgan Wallen. But not Hunter Biden.

The Legacy Media, specifically the entertainment press, has written story after story about the outrage in question. Hollywood talks a great deal about empathy, but it’s showing little for either Davidson or Cumming, the actor/host caught in the Tourette crossfire.

If there’s an outcry here, it should be aimed at the BBC and, possibly, E! Entertainment for failing the bleep the racial slur in question.

So why label this dustup “woke?” It’s simple. Woke regularly strips away necessary context, going straight to the outrage cycle. Had anyone said the “N-word” at an awards show it would be a major story, no doubt.

And it should be.

If someone with a very specific affliction said it, then it’s a different situation, which is exactly what we have with BAFTAgate.

The post BAFTA Meltdown Captures Woke Mind Virus to Perfection appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

"The ruling against Trump’s tariffs is a major victory for the constitutional separation of powers, rule of law, and millions of American consumers and businesses.

"In a 6–3 decision yesterday, the Supreme Court rightly ruled that, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, the president does not have the power to 'impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time.' The ruling is a major victory for the constitutional separation of powers, rule of law, and millions of American consumers and businesses harmed by these tariffs.

"This decision spared America from a dangerous, unconstitutional path. Under President Trump’s interpretation of the law, the president would have had nearly unlimited tariff authority, similar to that of an absolute monarch. That undermines basic constitutional principles. The Framers of the Constitution had sought to ensure that the president would not be able to repeat the abuses of English kings, who imposed taxes without legislative authorisation. ...

"In addition to upholding the separation of powers, the decision is a victory for the rule of law, which requires that major legal rules be clearly established by legislation, not subject to the whims of one person. Since first imposing the Liberation Day tariffs, Trump has repeatedly suspended and reimposed various elements of them. He has also imposed or threatened to impose IEEPA tariffs for a variety of other purposes, such as countering the supposed threat of foreign-made movies, punishing Brazil for prosecuting its former president for attempting to launch a coup to stay in power after losing an election, and most recently castigating eight European nations opposed to his plan to seize Greenland. Such gyrations undermine the stable legal environment essential for businesses, consumers, and investors, and create endless opportunities to reward cronies and punish political adversaries ...

"The administration may try to reimpose many of the tariffs using other statutes, such as Section 232 and Section 301. But those laws have various constraintsthat would make it hard for the president to simply impose unlimited tariffs, as he could have done under his interpretation of IEEPA. As Chief Justice Roberts noted in his opinion yesterday, “When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms, and subject to strict limits,” and these others statutes all have limitations on the amount and duration of the tariffs they authorize, plus “demanding procedural prerequisites.” If Trump or a future president does claim that those other statutes give him unlimited power, tariffs imposed based on any such theory would themselves be subject to legal challenges. Yesterday’s decision signals that a majority of the Court is seriously skeptical of claims of sweeping executive tariff authority.

"Following the release of the Court’s decision, Trump announced his intention to use Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose 10 percent global tariffs. But Section 122 authorizes tariffs only in response to 'fundamental international payments problems” that cause 'large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits' (which are not the same as trade deficits used to justify the IEEPA Liberation Day tariffs), or “an imminent or significant depreciation of the dollar,' or if they are needed to cooperate with other countries in addressing an 'international balance-of-payments disequilibrium.' And Section 122 tariffs can remain in force for only up to 150 days, unless extended by Congress.

"The president is not a king, and is not entitled to practically unlimited power to impose tariffs. The Supreme Court was right to deny it to him."

~ co-litigant Ilya Somin on 'How the Supreme Court Spared America'

REUTERS: ''Embarrassment to their families': Trump denounces Supreme Court justices after tariffs ruling'
WASHINGTON, Feb 20 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump lashed out on Friday at the U.S. Supreme Court and the six justices who struck down his signature global tariffs - including two he appointed - in remarkably personal terms while hailing the three justices who backed him.
"Although previous presidents have sharply criticised Supreme Court rulings against them, Trump's lengthy tirade to reporters at the White House stood out for its contemptuous tone, as well as the personal nature of his scorn and praise...."

 

"Today’s ruling reinforces a basic constitutional principle: emergency powers are not a blank check for economic policymaking. The Court correctly recognized that tariffs function as taxes on Americans, and that authority belongs to Congress, not the executive acting alone under a perpetual state of emergency. Despite dire warnings, there was never going to be a financial crisis if these tariffs were struck down.
    "Ending the IEEPA tariffs restores predictability and reduces the uncertainty that has weighed on investment and supply chains. Businesses and consumers now get a reprieve from a costly policy mistake. Far from leaving the United States defenceless, the decision strengthens the institutional credibility that matters most when real emergencies arise."

~ Kyle Handley, Cato Adjunct Trade Scholar

"I rise today to address [Supreme Court Justice] Neil Gorsuch's concurrence.
    "The dude stuck a big red hot poker into the nether regions of no fewer than SIX of his colleagues.
    "For Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson (I’m paraphrasing, and tendentiously so, but it’s more fun): “You folks supported every cockamamie ‘emergency’ theory the Dems could come up. You gave the Biden administration clearly unconstitutional and unjustified powers during COVID, and you accepted a definition of ‘emergency’ so encompassing that the US has apparently been in an ‘emergency’ since before the Declaration of Independence. Now that a Republican is office, you have belatedly discovered that an declaration of an emergency is more plausible if there is actually some emergency. You people are clowns, and you should be embarrassed.” (Remember, these three are Justices that Gorsuch is JOINING, in his opinion; they are on his side!)
    "For Alito, Kavanaugh, and Thomas (again, I’m not quoting, not even close): “You folks opposed very action the Biden administration tried to take. Sure, the Bidenites claimed excessive powers. But COVID was at least plausibly an emergency, with both an urgent timeline and potentially dangerous outcomes. Yet you still had this very restrictive doctrine you kept parroting, about how the President can’t do things. That meant that you were basically playing “Calvinball,” with made up rules for why Democrats can’t do things. And now you say none of those rules (some of which were admittedly dumb) don’t apply when a Republicanis in office? And when there is no conceivable justification for invoking an emergency? You people are clowns, and you should be embarrassed.” (In fairness to Gorsuch, Kavanaugh in particular wrote an opinion so bizarrely self-contradictory that anyone would have had this reaction privately. But to put it in your concurrence? Damn!)
    "UPDATE: An afterthought: IEEPA was passed with a 'legislative veto.' Whatever else is true, the implied delegation was much less than Kavanaugh is claiming in his nonsensical screed."

~ Michael Munger from his post 'Gorsuch! A concurrence for the ages'

The killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of ICE agents in Minnesota rightly sparked outrage over the misconduct of federal agents. But these abuses don’t have to lead to death to be grave violations of constitutional rights.

In October, ProPublica published a list of 170 documented cases of American citizens detained by ICE, and what those individuals endured in the process. One such case is that of George Retes, and it serves as a microcosm of some of what the mass deportations agenda is doing to Americans. 

On July 10, 2025, George Retes was driving to his job as a security guard on a Southern California farm when he encountered an ICE roadblock surrounded by protestors. Next thing he knew, his car was filled with tear gas and swarmed by federal agents who broke his windows and pepper-sprayed him. They proceeded to drag him out of the car, push him to the ground and put their knees on his body to immobilize him. From there he was transported to the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles.

George says he was detained in an isolation cell for three days, incommunicado, without being presented to a judge or being allowed to contact legal representation. He was denied access to a shower to wash away the tear gas and pepper spray. Eventually, he was released without being charged with a crime and with no explanation for what happened.

George’s detention came in the midst of a raid in Camarillo, California, on a marijuana farm as part of the government’s “mass deportations” agenda. But George isn’t an immigrant to be deported — he is a U.S. citizen born and raised in Ventura, Calif., and an Iraq war veteran. 

Soon after his detention, George would find out how challenging it is to hold the federal government accountable. He decided to try anyway and filed a complaint against the federal agencies involved in his detention under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), which he was required to do before he could sue. On February 18, he was finally able to file a lawsuit.

Retes argues that his detention violated his constitutional rights—including his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. “Any detention has to comply with the demands of the U.S. Constitution,” said Marie Miller, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, who’s representing him. “For any detention, you need reasonable suspicion to stop someone, and probable cause to arrest them,” Miller further explained. “There’s not really evidence that officers could [reasonably] believe this U.S. citizen had broken the law, much less immigration law.”

Regardless of what authority ICE may claim to have to detain George, they have none that can trump the U.S. Constitution.

How could federal agents have known that George is a U.S. citizen? He told them, explicitly, and even told them he’s a veteran. 

“I’m a [U.S.] citizen, I’m just trying to get to work,” he said. Miller says George even told the agents where his ID was inside the car. “No one seemed interested,” she stated. “They didn’t seem to disbelieve him. They just seemed to not care.”

This seeming indifference from federal agents regarding the questionable legality of their purported actions — not to mention their brutality — should alarm every American.

George has been using his First Amendment right to free speech to raise awareness about his case— and the federal government reacted to that. In September, the Department of Homeland Security posted on X that George “became violent” when federal agents confronted him for “blocking” their route. “CBP arrested Retes for assault,” the post reads, and denied that U.S. citizens were wrongfully arrested. But if this is true, why didn’t they charge him with a crime? And why didn’t they address George’s claims that he was held incommunicado for three days?

The tactics employed by federal agents against George and against other individuals—some of which we’ve seen with the killings of Good and Pretti— are unacceptable for anyone, whether they’re here with government permission or not. We cannot normalize this behavior in America.

As Miller poignantly pointed out, “No one is above the law. . . If federal officers can violate our basic rights with impunity, then those rights are just words on a page.”

Rights should never be simply words on a page. Like our Founding Fathers explained, they are inalienable and should be respected— especially by the government, whose very job is to protect them. No “mass deportations” agenda can involve the violation of Constitutional rights. 

Individual rights are being erased and basic freedoms sacrificed on the altar of “mass deportations.” This is beyond the pale. Retes took an oath to uphold this nation’s core values as a member of the military, and now he is upholding those values at home. “I’m calling out the federal government not just for what they did to me, but for what they are doing to others. I’m continuing to fight for this country, now as a civilian.” 

We should take inspiration from him, and demand better of our government. Its agents don’t have to shoot you to violate your rights, and their abuses (long suffered by immigrants) are already showing up at Americans’ doors.

Agustina Vergara Cid is a columnist for the Southern California News Group. Follow her on X: @agustinavcid

To be clear, none of this has much to do with actual right-wing or conservative political thought. If you’re wearing tweed and reading Sir Roger Scruton, please carry on.

The influencer ecosystem I once inhabited was the Chernobyl-ass Frankenstein of right-wing politics. A radioactive, reanimated corpse stitched together from clout, resentment, and cocaine, which desperately needs to be taken out back and shot for everyone’s good (it’s own included). Unfortunately, monsters are hard to kill

– Lauren Southern