Yan Balistoy feels discriminated against by the theater. Now there is a surprising twist in the case.
The Neumarkt Theater is under pressure because it is said to have observed an anti-Semitic Lebanese law. Now the public prosecutor wants to close the case.
The accusations against the Theater Neumarkt, one of Zurich’s most famous theaters, were severe. Last December, actor Yan Balistoy said he was being discriminated against.
Since he began his employment in August 2021, he has only been cast in half of all the plays – because he is Israeli. The theater wouldn’t let him share the same stage with a Lebanese colleague.
Since the outbreak of war in the Middle East, this discrimination has been “unbearable” for him. Balistoy no longer works at the theater and the management has not renewed his contract.
Balistoy filed a criminal complaint for “discrimination and incitement to hatred” – against the chairman of the board of directors, the three directors and the in-house dramaturge of the Neumarkt Theater.
Now the public prosecutor has decided not to pursue the case any further. The conditions for opening an investigation are not met, according to a non-acceptance order from the Zurich public prosecutor’s office. It is available to the NZZ. “Under no premise” can it be said that Balistoy was disparaged as a Jew.
Yan Balistoy’s advisor, Sacha Wigdorovits, is outraged. He says: “The public prosecutor’s office has no great interest in prosecuting suspected anti-Semitic crimes.”
An alleged crime with a suspected anti-Jewish undertone that is not criminally relevant in the eyes of the public prosecutor – how can that be?
An actress vetoes it
The story begins after the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. While the war is omnipresent in the Middle East, Yan Balistoy writes an open letter to the Jewish community in Zurich. He describes strange events at the Neumarkt Theater. Balistoy is employed there.
Yan Balistoy feels discriminated against by Theater Neumarkt.
A Lebanese colleague vetoed him and refused to be on stage with him. She fears for her safety if her collaboration with an Israeli becomes public.
The actor writes that the theater management is incorporating “the anti-Israel boycott of Hezbollah into the work structures at the Neumarkt Theater.”
In fact, there is such a boycott law in Lebanon, which criminalizes both personal and business 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 ignore this law in everyday life.
The fact that such a law should be applied in a Swiss theater is met with widespread incomprehension.
The FDP is submitting proposals on the topic to the city parliament. The theater comes under media and political pressure. Especially since it is subsidized by the city of Zurich with 4.5 million francs annually and also receives a rent waiver of 700,000 francs.
Those responsible for the theater commissioned an external investigation by a law firm to examine the allegations. The result will be available in spring 2024. It turns out to be beneficial for the theater.
Only: The investigation only comes to the conclusion that there were generally no discriminatory conditions on the Neumarkt. The Balistoy case itself is not being investigated. The criticism remains loud.
In June, Yan Balistoy filed his complaint.
From the beginning of the conflict, it is unclear whether it is really discrimination, whether there is a labor law dispute behind it – or whether both elements are present.
The public prosecutor’s office has also dealt with these questions. She comes to the conclusion that the chosen “solution” was clumsy, but not criminally relevant.
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 adhere to the internal absence regulations,” for which he was repeatedly warned. That’s what it says in the provision.
Balistoy received his second warning for shooting a film with a star cast. This emerges from a letter that the Neumarkt Theater’s legal representative wrote to Balistoy’s lawyer and which is available to the NZZ.
Accordingly, the actor canceled a rehearsal at short notice because he was ill. At the time of the rehearsal, however, he was spotted doing a high-profile filming in Zurich main station. It must have been an advertising film for Switzerland Tourism 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 further filming dates at HB during the period in question.
This means the relationship worsens dramatically. Later, Balistoy will publicly denounce the separate occupation on the theater stage.
“No human right to a surcharge”
But regardless of this incident: Why is the rule that a Jewish actor is not allowed to appear on stage with a Lebanese actress not discriminatory in the eyes of the public prosecutor?
Discrimination occurs when a group of people is “comprehensively degraded,” writes the public prosecutor. However, those responsible for the theater were never interested in demeaning Yan Balistoy as a Jew or generally portraying Jews as inferior – as would be the case, for example, with a blanket ban on Jews.
On the contrary, those responsible wanted to hire him despite the Lebanese actress’ concerns.
It goes on to say: “The public prosecutor is not aware of any human rights from which a job seeker could derive a claim to a specific job under his or her own conditions.”
The order also shows how those responsible for the theater see the situation: They have tried their best to find the best possible solution to this actually insoluble situation. They neither wanted to put an ensemble member and their family in danger nor did they want to discourage Balistoy from being employed.
His own behavior is also important for the public prosecutor. The actor knew about the regulation before he signed his contract and accepted it. Accordingly, he showed understanding for the actress’s situation and agreed.
The public prosecutor writes that it seems “irritating and, at best, abusive of the law if he was aware of the problem from the start and agreed to the proposed approach, only to then subsequently accuse those responsible of racially discriminatory behavior.”
A dilemma that “shouldn’t exist”
The public prosecutor’s office considers the actions of those responsible to be 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 saw themselves in a dilemma. “According to local understanding, such a dilemma simply should not exist.”
According to the public prosecutor’s office, the separation should probably have been foregone and instead the Lebanese actress should have been given “the choice regarding further cooperation.” The actress would have had to either accept that she would be on stage with Balistoy or leave the ensemble.
But none of this is relevant under criminal law.
The theater’s chairman, Thomas Busin, reacted with relief to the NZZ. “We are pleased with the factual and clear assessment,” he says. The allegations “not only damaged the reputation of our company, but also cast doubt on our integrity as an employer and ourselves as people.”
Balistoy himself has filed a complaint with the High Court against the non-acceptance order. This is also available to the NZZ.
It says that the only reason why he was only used to a limited extent on stage was that he “is of Israeli origin and Jewish faith.” To claim that he is not treated as a second-class citizen is absurd.
An indication of systematic discrimination is that the rule theoretically applied to all actors of Israeli origin. If there had been, they would not have been allowed to appear together with the Lebanese actress either.
The theater also adhered to a Lebanese boycott law. And by discriminating against Balistoy, it publicly spread this racist law.
Finally, Balistoy’s lawyers suggest “other reasons” that would have persuaded those responsible for the theater to only allow him to perform to a limited extent. These “could not be ruled out with certainty” without questioning the accused. It remains unclear what “other reasons” these could be.
Balistoy’s demand is clear: the higher court should persuade the public prosecutor to take another case.
