New Politics
New Politics: Australian Politics
The price of speaking out: Art, Palestine and the MSO
0:00
-19:25

The price of speaking out: Art, Palestine and the MSO

The Jayson Gillham ruling exposes how artistic freedom becomes highly conditional when Palestine, powerful lobby groups and commercial interests mix.

Subscribe and receive the exclusive New Politics Quarterly. Your subscription (just $5 a month) keeps our journalism going and strengthens independent media in Australia. Support one, support all.

The Federal Court might have ended pianist Jayson Gillham’s legal battle with the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, but its decision leaves a far more consequential issue unresolved: how much freedom do artists genuinely have when their political expression conflicts with the interests of cultural institutions, donors and influential lobby groups? Although the judgment was framed narrowly as a workplace law decision rather than a ruling on freedom of speech, its practical message extends well beyond one musician and one cancelled performance.

Gillham’s offence was not an attack on a community, nor an expression of racial or religious hostility. He introduced Connor D’Netto’s composition Witness – in front of just 130 people – by dedicating it to Palestinian journalists killed in Gaza. The MSO’s response demonstrated how quickly an artistic comment can be whipped up into a crisis once Palestine enters the conversation. Once “commercial reputation” becomes sufficient grounds for removing a performer, artistic freedom is no longer a principle – it’s a conditional privilege, permitted only while sponsors, donors and boards remain comfortable.

The central issue here is the obvious double standard. Expressions of solidarity with Ukraine are routinely welcomed, while support for Israel has never resulted for professional consequences. MSO chair Edgar Myer publicly condemned Hamas in 2023 without sanction, yet Gillham’s comments about Palestinian journalists led to the cancellation of his performances. The court accepted that the orchestra would also have acted against an artist making an equivalent statement supporting Israel, but the broader history of Australian cultural institutions gives artists good reason to question whether political neutrality is being applied consistently.

This legal case might specifically apply to Gillham, but its effect will be much wider. Artists watching from the sidelines will understand the warning: political expression is tolerated until it challenges the wrong interests. Australia’s arts organisations speak constantly about courage, diversity and artistic freedom; Palestine has become the test of whether they mean any of it, and it’s a test that they have failed.


Discussion about this episode

User's avatar

Ready for more?