I’m on voyager atm and don’t see post text for that reason. So I cannot see if this part has been included there:
But Justice Graeme Hill ruled that Mr Gillham’s concert was not scrapped because of his political beliefs.
Rather, it was to “address the anticipated adverse impacts” of the pianist’s comments on the orchestra’s business and reputation, he ruled.
Fucking weasel argument.
Adverse comments about genocide. Damn. Imagine that
Opposing genocide is hardly a ‘personal view.’
The MSO got 3 complaints after he made comments at an event attended by 150 people, factual comments at that, and freaked out and cancelled his next performance?
What a shameful lack of moral backbone.
You know what, it’s the MSO that took that decision, it’s people with names and faces. Let’s see and remember who these people are, so that they can’t claim in the future to have *always been against this".
So I listened to Ette Media’s interview with J.Gilham he says in that interview the 3 complaints were from the same group. One complaint on the day, and two subsequent emails/communications later.
I took a look at the Summary Judgement found here. I’ve got questions regarding how the two acts in question interact and the difference in the judge’s interpretation of their interaction compared to the plaintiff’s interpretation. I think i’d have to look at the full judgement to understand that but haven’t had time.
From reading the summary it seems a fairly tenuous legislative path that Gilham and his team were making their claim based on.
Big picture? Yet again, it seems the outsourcing of the employee-employer relationship to be one of contractor has undermined any claim that could be made like this. No wonder employers live to have so many contractors instead of employees.
But here is where I totally agree with you.
Possible avenues of appeal aside. While there may be no legal pathway to hold MSO to account for their actions in this case or for their reprehensible stance not standing against a genocide, (see quote from judgement below), they have acted with no regard to the moral imperative to stand against crimes against humanity and war crimes. The general public, and more importantly patrons must remind and when opportunity arises hold the people now leading the MSO and the organisation itself to account for their cowardly action in this case and for their cowarsly inaction in the broader issue.
We are a nation of cowards if we are collectively too scared or lazy to stand against the murder and starvation of children.
the Court finds that the MSO did have a policy of not expressing support for either side of the Israel-Gaza conflict. The description of that conflict in the MSO’s policy might not be “neutral”, but the MSO was committed to not supporting either side. Judgement Links
