Conflict over discrimination at Neumarkt theater takes unexpected turn

The accusations against the Neumarkt Theater, one of the most famous theaters in Zurich, were severe. Last December, actor Yan Balistoy declared himself a victim of discrimination.

Since he started working in August 2021, he has only performed in half of all plays – because he is Israeli. The theater did not allow him to share the same stage with a Lebanese colleague.

Since the start of the war in the Middle East, this discrimination has been “unbearable” for him. Balistoy no longer works at the theater and management has not renewed his contract.

Balistoy filed a criminal complaint for “discrimination and incitement to hatred” – against the chairman of the board, the three directors and the in-house playwright of the Neumarkt theater.

The public prosecutor decided not to pursue the case. The conditions for opening an investigation have not been met, according to a non-acceptance order from the Zurich public prosecutor’s office. It is at the disposal of the NZZ. “Under no pretext” can it be said that Balistoy was decried as a Jew.

Yan Balistoy’s advisor, Sacha Wigdorovits, is indignant. He says: “The prosecution has little interest in prosecuting suspected anti-Semitic crimes. »

An alleged crime with an alleged anti-Jewish connotation that is not criminally relevant in the eyes of the prosecution – how is this possible?

An actress vetoes it

The story begins after the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. While war is omnipresent in the Middle East, Yan Balistoy writes an open letter to the Jewish community of Zurich. It describes strange events that occurred at the Neumarkt theater. Balistoy is employed there.

A Lebanese colleague vetoed him and refused to go on stage with him. She fears for her safety if her collaboration with an Israeli becomes public.

The actor writes that the theater management integrates “the anti-Israeli boycott of Hezbollah into the working structures of the Neumarkt theater.”

In fact, there is such a boycott law in Lebanon, which criminalizes personal and professional contacts between Lebanese and Israelis.

Theoretically, Lebanese are even prohibited from speaking to Israelis abroad. This also includes joint public appearances at events. However, many Lebanese people ignore this law in everyday life.

The fact that such a law must be applied in a Swiss theater arouses widespread incomprehension.

The FDP submits proposals on the subject to the municipal parliament. The theater is under media and political pressure. Especially since it is subsidized by the city of Zurich to the tune of 4.5 million francs per year and also benefits from a rent exemption of 700,000 francs.

Theater officials commissioned an external investigation by a law firm to look into the allegations. The result will be available in spring 2024. It proves beneficial for the theater.

Only: the investigation only leads to the conclusion that there were generally no discriminatory conditions on the Neumarkt. The Balistoy case itself is not under investigation. Critics remain strong.

In June, Yan Balistoy filed his complaint.

Since the start of the dispute, it has been unclear whether this is actually discrimination, whether it is a labor law dispute – or whether both elements are present.

The prosecution also looked into these questions. She comes to the conclusion that the “solution” chosen was clumsy, but without criminal relevance.

There is no evidence that the theater did not renew Balistoy’s contract because of his ethnic or religious background. However, there are signs of a dispute between him and his former employer.

According to the theater’s account, Balistoy “repeatedly failed to comply with the internal rules regarding absences”, for which he was warned several times. That’s what it says in the provision.

Balistoy received his second warning for making a film with a star cast. This emerges from a letter that the legal representative of the Neumarkt Theater wrote to Balistoy’s lawyer and which is available to the NZZ.

As a result, the actor canceled a rehearsal at short notice because he was ill. At the time of rehearsal, however, he was spotted doing a high-profile shoot at Zurich Central Station. It was to be an advertising film for Suisse Tourisme with Roger Federer and the South African comedian Trevor Noah. Balistoy plays an assistant director.

The film was shot three weeks before his warning. According to SBB, there were no other filming dates at HB during the period in question.

This means that the relationship deteriorates significantly. Later, Balistoy publicly denounced the separate occupation of the theater stage.

“No human right to a surcharge”

But regardless of this incident: why is the rule prohibiting a Jewish actor from going on stage with a Lebanese actress not discriminatory in the eyes of the prosecutor?

There is discrimination when a group of people is “generally degraded”, writes the public prosecutor. However, theater officials never had any desire to demean Yan Balistoy as a Jew or to portray Jews as inferior – as would be the case, for example, with a blanket ban on Jews.

On the contrary, those in charge wanted to hire her despite the Lebanese actress’ concerns.

He continues: “The public prosecutor is not aware of any human rights from which a job seeker could be entitled to specific employment under their own conditions. »

The order also shows how those in charge of the theater perceive the situation: they did their best to find the best possible solution to this truly intractable situation. They did not want to endanger an ensemble member and their family, nor did they want to discourage Balistoy from being employed.

His own behavior is also important for the prosecutor. The actor knew the rules before signing his contract and accepting it. As a result, he was understanding of the actress’ situation and agreed.

The prosecutor writes that it seems “irritating and, at best, against the law if he was aware of the problem from the start and accepted the proposed approach, only to then accuse those responsible of racist behavior.”

A dilemma that “should not exist”

The public prosecutor considers that the actions of those responsible are non-discriminatory. But she still clearly criticizes them.

It is “shocking” that the existence of “any anti-Semitic Lebanese law” could lead to a situation in which those responsible are faced with a dilemma. “According to local understanding, such a dilemma simply should not exist.”

According to the prosecution, it would probably have been necessary to abandon the separation and give the Lebanese actress “the choice of further cooperation”. The actress should have either agreed to go on stage with Balistoy or left the ensemble.

But none of this is relevant to criminal law.

The president of the theater, Thomas Busin, reacted with relief to the NZZ. “We are satisfied with this factual and clear assessment,” he said. The allegations “have not only damaged the reputation of our company, but have also cast doubt on our integrity as an employer and ourselves as people.”

Balistoy himself filed a complaint in the High Court against the non-acceptance order. This is also available for the NZZ.

He states that the only reason he has only been used to a limited extent on stage is that he “is of Israeli descent and of Jewish faith.” To claim that he is not treated as a second-class citizen is absurd.

A sign of systematic discrimination is that the rule applies in theory to all actors of Israeli origin. If there had been, they would not have been allowed to appear alongside the Lebanese actress either.

The theater also adhered to a Lebanese boycott law. And by discriminating against Balistoy, he publicly broadcast this racist law.

Finally, Balistoy’s lawyers cite “other reasons” which would have convinced theater officials to only allow him to perform to a limited extent. These “could not be excluded with certainty” without questioning the accused. We still don’t know what “other reasons” these are.

Balistoy’s request is clear: the higher court must persuade the prosecutor to take up another case.