I’m the pianist the MSO tried to silence. Now it wants to silence all artists

I am a concert pianist who has performed with major orchestras around the world. On August 11, I performed the world premiere of Witness by Australian composer Connor D’Netto at the Iwaki Auditorium in a solo recital presented by the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra.

This haunting new work was dedicated to Palestinian journalists killed in Gaza, and before playing it, I felt it was important to share this context with the audience.

Pianist Jayson Gillham.

“Over the last 10 months, Israel has killed more than 100 Palestinian journalists. A number of these have been targeted assassinations of prominent journalists as they were travelling in marked press vehicles or wearing their press jackets,” I said.

“The killing of journalists is a war crime in international law, and it is done in an effort to prevent the documentation and broadcasting of war crimes to the world. In addition to the role of journalists who bear witness, the word witness in Arabic is shaheed, which also means martyr.”

As an artist concerned with human rights, I believed this background would deepen the audience’s understanding of the piece. I did not expect what followed.

The next day, the MSO terminated my contract and cancelled my scheduled Melbourne Town Hall performance. On November 7, it filed its written defence to my workplace discrimination claim in the Federal Court.

Its position is extraordinary. It wants to make artists like me disappear entirely from workplace law.

According to the MSO’s defence, I exist in a peculiar legal limbo. I am not an employee; I am not a contractor. In fact, it claims I have no connection to the MSO whatsoever. Yet paradoxically, it maintains it can dictate what I can and cannot say, cancel my performances at will, and deny me any avenue for legal recourse.

Let’s be clear about what this means: if the MSO’s position is accepted, no engaged artist with any of Australia’s six state orchestras would have any legal protection from discrimination whatsoever. Not just regarding political expression, but on any ground – gender, race, sexuality, religion, or any other protected attribute. This is not hyperbole; it is the logical conclusion of its legal argument.

This case extends far beyond my individual situation. It arrives at a time when other prominent Australian voices face similar challenges. Journalists Mary Kostakidis and Antoinette Lattouf are currently battling their own legal cases defending their right to free expression. These are not isolated incidents but represent a troubling pattern of attempts to silence dissenting voices.

The potential implications for Australia’s artistic community are profound. If major cultural institutions can claim they have no legal relationship with their performing artists, while simultaneously asserting control over their speech, we face a future in which artists must choose between their conscience and their career. This creates a chilling effect on artistic expression that undermines the very purpose of art in our society.

Consider what this means for young artists contemplating their futures. Should they expect to work in an environment where they have no workplace protections? Where their engagement can be terminated without cause if they express views that make management uncomfortable? Where they must constantly self-censor for fear of offending the wrong people?

This is not the future I want for Australian arts. Our cultural institutions should be bastions of free expression, not enforcers of silence. They should protect artists’ rights, not seek to eliminate them through legal technicalities.

The MSO’s defence represents a critical juncture for artistic freedom in Australia. Its position effectively asks the court to create a class of workers who exist outside the protection of our discrimination laws. This would set a dangerous precedent that could affect generations of artists to come.

As this case proceeds, I call on the broader arts community to consider its implications carefully. This is not just about one pianist or one orchestra – it’s about defining the relationship between artists and institutions in our country. It’s about whether we truly value artistic freedom and are willing to protect it under law.

The MSO management needs to reflect carefully on whether it wants its legacy to be the erosion of artists’ rights in Australia. Its current position not only threatens the legal protections of countless performing artists but also risks damaging the reputation of one of Australia’s most respected cultural institutions.

The choice before the management is clear: it can continue down this path of denying artists’ basic legal protections, or it can acknowledge that artists deserve both respect and legal recognition. The entire arts community will be watching its decision.

Jayson Gillham is an internationally acclaimed concert pianist who has performed with leading orchestras worldwide.

The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.