An Edinburgh Festival Fringe venue has accepted that it unlawfully discriminated against a Jewish stand-up comedian after cancelling his show last year.
Philip Simon was scheduled to perform a solo show, Shall I Compere Thee in a Funny Way, at the Banshee Labyrinth on Niddry Street.
However, the venue removed his act over comments he made regarding the ongoing conflict in Gaza.
In a statement provided to trade magazine Chortle at the time, the venue claimed Mr Simon had shared opinions on social media and elsewhere that “align with the rhetoric and symbology of groups associated with humanitarian violations”.
Responding to the decision on social media, the performer asserted he had been cancelled “just for being Jewish”.
He said: “The reason I was given is that my views concerning the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Palestine… are in significant conflict with our venue’s stance against the current Israeli government’s policy and actions.”
“Anyone who knows me will know I have never expressed support for anything other than freeing the hostages and finding a way to peace,” he stated.
“It is sad to think that these views could conflict with anyone who wants to see a lasting peace in Israel and Gaza.”
He added: “I am still processing the concept that in 2025 I can be cancelled just for being Jewish.”
Mr Simon launched legal action against the venue, citing “unlawful belief-based discrimination”.
The case reached Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Monday, where Mr Simon’s lawyer, David Welsh, revealed that “on the eve of the hearing” the venue admitted it had acted unlawfully.
The advocate told the court: “The defender conceded that the defender discriminated against the pursuer, contrary to the provisions of the Equalities Act.”
He added: “Following the defence’s concession… the whole issue of liability has now been resolved in the pursuer’s favour. The pursuer has been entirely successful on the question of liability.”
However, Mr Welsh offered strong criticism of the defender’s “conduct” throughout the lawsuit, saying it had “dragged out proceedings” despite knowing any defence was “untenable”.
He told the court this led his client to incur “avoidable expenses at every stage”, requesting that the court award expenses incurred to date.
“Given that all the expenses to date have been dealt with on the question of liability… I would say that entitles the pursuer to the expenses of the case to date," he told the court, adding: "There was never a need for the action to reach the court in the first place, if the defender had behaved reasonably.”
In response, the venue’s lawyer, Darren Cox, disputed whether it would have been possible to settle the matter pre-litigation.
He said not all costs incurred to date related to the question of liability, and called for a decision on expenses to be deferred “until the end”.
Judge Sheriff Roderick Flinn told the court: “In this case parties have agreed by joint minute that the defender discriminated against the pursuer, contrary to the provisions of the Equalities Act 2010.”
He added that the defender had acted “unreasonably” in leaving it until August 5 to accept it had discriminated against Mr Simon and said expenses relating to preparations for a substantive hearing would be awarded at the higher “solicitor-client” rate.
Read MoreIsraeli minister calls for killing of ‘30 to 40’ people in Gaza every night
Blair and Kushner in Middle East to try to save Trump’s Gaza peace deal
Iran working to finalize Hormuz agreement with Oman, and other news from the Middle East
Princess Eugenie announces name of baby girl with nod to late Queen Elizabeth
Family of bus driver shot dead outside London pub ‘heartbroken’
‘Petty’ council dispute breaks out over volunteer litter pick
