“Your letters make serious allegations about breaches of the law by MSO,” the ABL statement says. “They are wrong and Mr Gillham knows they are wrong. Mr Gillham has made outrageous demands of the MSO for compensation and other relief. They will never be met.”
Loading
The statement adds that Gillham “abused his position by using an MSO concert to air his political opinions. He did so improperly. As was inevitable, it caused distress to many members of the audience.
“What occurred is not and never has been about free speech.”
Gillham’s statement revealed his initial letter to the MSO from Marque had asked for a public apology; an affirmation of artists’ rights to speak freely; compensation for reputational damage arising from his performance being cancelled; future performance opportunities to repair his professional standing; a commission of a piano concerto by a Palestinian composer; and a donation to the Edward Said National Conservatory of Music in Palestine.
Marque Lawyers contend that the MSO’s actions “constitute direct discrimination because of political belief or activity, which are protected under the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic), and also violate protections under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).”
Asked on Monday whether artists should be able to voice their political views on stage, Victoria’s minister for creative industries Colin Brooks said, “all art is inherently political” and artists would, “by their very nature” seek to express themselves.
“We know there are really difficult times at the moment, and people are concerned about world events and other things and, not surprisingly, artists who, by their very nature, express themselves,” Brooks said.
“We see people’s views being expressed, but [it] needs to be done in a way that’s a safe place for everybody, and that’s the work that I think many institutions are doing at the moment – finding a way for that to happen.”
In response to the letter from ABL on behalf of the MSO, Gillham said he was “deeply disappointed by the tone and content”, adding that “the letter mischaracterises the events that transpired and fails to address the serious issues raised in my initial correspondence”.