AN Edinburgh venue has accepted that it discriminated against a Jewish comedian when it cancelled his show at last year’s Fringe festival.
Stand-up comic Philip Simon had been due to perform his "Shall I Compere Thee In A Funny Way" show at the Banshee Labyrinth, on the city’s Niddry Street, at the 2025 Fringe. However, the venue pulled his act over what it said were his views on the conflict in Palestine.
In a statement given at the time to industry magazine Chortle, the venue said Simon had expressed views on social media and elsewhere that it said “align with the rhetoric and symbology of groups associated with humanitarian violations”.
Chortle reported that posts which the venue had flagged included one positive interaction with an AI-generated image of a lion waving an Israeli flag urging “pro-Israel” accounts to respond, another post calling the release of 1800 Palestinians as part of a ceasefire deal a “sickening ratio”, and a third showing he had attended a pro-Israel rally in London in January 2024.
After the venue's decision to cancel his shows became public, the performer said he had been singled out “just for being Jewish”.
“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,” he said.
“Anyone who knows me will know I have never expressed support for anything other than freeing the hostages and finding a way to peace.
“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.”
Simon took legal action against the venue, claiming it had discriminated against him on the grounds of “unlawful belief-based discrimination”.
This culminated in a hearing at Edinburgh Sheriff Court on Monday, where Simon’s lawyer, David Welsh, said “on the eve of the hearing” the venue accepted it had acted unlawfully.
The lawyer 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, he was very critical of the defender’s “conduct” throughout Simon’s legal action, saying it had “dragged out proceedings” despite knowing any defence was “untenable”.
He told the court this led to his client to incur “avoidable expenses at every stage”, and called on the court to award him 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.
He added: “There was never a need for the action to reach the court in the first place, if the defender had behaved reasonably.”
Responding, 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 Simon and said expenses relating to preparations for a substantive hearing would be awarded at the higher “solicitor-client” rate.
