Acclaimed pianist loses Gaza speech case against Melbourne orchestra

Acclaimed Pianist Loses Workplace Discrimination Suit Against Melbourne Symphony Orchestra Over Gaza Remarks An acclaimed British‑Australian pianist lost his workplace discrimination claim against the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra (MSO) after a Federal Court judge found the orchestra cancelled a performance not because of the musician’s political views but to avert anticipated harm to its reputation and business. Justice Graeme Hill ruled that Jayson Gillham’s August 2024 recital was withdrawn to “address the anticipated adverse impacts” of his comments about Gaza, not because of his beliefs. “I find that the MSO did have a policy for not expressing support for either side of the Israel‑Gaza conflict,” Justice Hill said. He added, “I find that there is simply a custom or form that classical musicians do not make statements on delicate governmental or societal issues from the stage without support of the host.” The dispute stemmed from a short introduction Gillham delivered on 11 August 2024 during the premiere of a five‑minute piece titled *Witness*, composed by Connor D’Netto and dedicated to Gaza’s journalists. He told an audience of about 150 people that more than 100 Palestinian journalists had been killed by Israel since October 2023, when the Gaza war began, and that Israel was carrying out “targeted assassinations of salient journalists.” “The killing of journalists is simply a war crime under international law, and it is done in an effort to prevent the documentation and broadcasting of war crimes to the world,” he said. The Committee to Protect Journalists, an independent organisation that promotes press freedom, reports that 207 journalists have been killed in Gaza since October 2023. Following the remarks, the MSO received three complaints and cancelled a recital Gillham was scheduled to give on 15 August. The cancellation sparked roughly 500 complaints, after which the orchestra acknowledged the decision was an “error” and sought to reschedule the event. During the trial, the MSO maintained that its stage was not a platform for “expressing personal views,” while Gillham’s legal team argued that he possessed a legal workplace right to voice his political opinions and should not be penalised for doing so. On the final day of proceedings, Justice Hill urged both sides to try to resolve the matter themselves to avoid him “having to say the things I need to say in a judgment.” The Federal Court’s decision followed a three‑week trial that concluded the previous month, with about two dozen witnesses—including Gillham and senior MSO executives—providing testimony.