Freedom Flyer 23

the official newsletter of the
Freedom Party of Ontario

June 1993

Racism..?..?

Fp LEADER DEFENDS LONDON LANDLORD
AGAINST HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CHARGES

LONDON (February 2, 1993) - In an unexpected turn of events, Freedom Party leader Robert Metz agreed to represent London landlord Elijah Elieff before a Human Rights Commission Board of Inquiry - despite the fact that the hearings were already well under way and despite the fact that much of the public's perception of Elieff in the London area was that of a greedy racist slumlord.

BACKGROUND: A SAD STORY

Since 1989, Londoners have been reading in the pages of the city's only daily paper, the London Free Press, that Elieff had called the tenants of his Cheyenne Ave. apartments - the majority of whom are Asian immigrants - "little pigs" in reference to alleged conditions of disrepair and uncleanliness in his buildings. Despite the landlord's continuous efforts at repairs and replacements of equipment, he was unable to keep pace with the degree of vandalism and uncleanliness that constantly plagued his low-income apartment units. (A few years earlier, when he called authorities to help him enforce bylaw standards with a known problem tenant (non-Asian), he was shocked to find himself being charged with allowing the very conditions he had called authorities to address, conditions which were indisputably caused by the tenant.)

The paper's implication that Elieff's "little pigs" comment (which Elieff has continually denied making) represented racist motivations was immediately exploited by paid lobbyist and United Church minister Susan Eagle who, in addition to staging public events denouncing Elieff's character (which were given front-page prominence in the pages of the London Free Press), also organized a lobby to have Elieff's apartment buildings converted to government-subsidized co-op housing. (Interestingly, Susan Eagle is married to London Free Press columnist and union activist Joe Matyas.)

CONSPIRACY TO FILE A COMPLAINT

It was also due to the efforts of Susan Eagle, city government, and the London Free Press that London landlord Elijah Elieff now found himself before a Board of Inquiry, accused of making racist remarks. Eagle organized several "community" meetings in an effort to find someone willing to file a Human Rights complaint against the landlord, based on his alleged comments in the London Free Press. These efforts were also publicized in the pages of the London Free Press long before the complaint against Elieff was actually filed.

On November 10, 1989, London councillor Pat O'Brien (a member of the city's race-relations committee) told the London Free Press that he was confident the city would find members of the Cambodian community willing to file a Human Rights complaint: "They have to be counselled, there has to be grounds for a complaint and they have to be shown how to do it - I don't think that's a problem."

NO PROBLEM

Predictably, O'Brien was right: eventually the ideal candidate to file a complaint was found: Chipphend Hom, a Cambodian tenant in one of Elieff's two buildings who required the presence of an interpreter during the hearings. On December 20, 1989, Hom filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission that alleged discrimination on the grounds of race, ancestry. place of origin, and ethnic origin. Additional contravention grounds included harassment and reprisal.

According to Elieff, during their initial "investigation" of the complaint, two representatives of the Human Rights Commission offered to drop the matter against him if he would give Hom one month's free rent and make a public apology to his Asian tenants. Elieff says he refused their offer, sticking by his claim that he had never made any racist comments whatsoever and would therefore never agree to such a compromise. (Unfortunately, Metz was unable to verify the Commission's offer at the Board of Inquiry when he was informed that it was not legally permissible to discuss any deals the Commission might have made at a Board of Inquiry hearing.)

However, Elieff's contention was supported by an April 7,1990 London Free Press article which reported that "the Commission has skipped an initial fact-finding stage in its process because 'that's just a waste of time in this case, the views are so polarized,' said Rick Harrington, a London Commission officer."

BOARD OF INQUIRY

"The issues that the board deals with are matters that are in the public interest," continued Harrington in the same news article, "and this (Elieff's case) certainly has all the criteria covered."

In November 1992, three years after the initial filing of Hom's complaint against Elieff, the Board of Inquiry began its first two days of hearings. Elieff defended himself without aid of legal counsel. Testimony was heard from London Free Press reporter Greg Van Moorsel (whose story contained the originally published "pigs" comment), claiming that he had taken down Elieff's comments in shorthand and that he probably also had a tape recording.

News coverage of the two days hearings in the London Free Press painted an image of Elieff as an egotistical, narrow-minded and bigoted landlord who did not care about his tenants, and who used his racial prejudices as an excuse not to carry out repairs or maintenance in his buildings - which now included regular sprayings for cockroaches which had purportedly arrived about the same time as some of his Asian tenants.

FREEDOM PARTY OBSERVES

The next two days hearings occurred December 28 and 29, 1992, and it was at this point in the proceedings that Freedom Party's Robert Metz, Robert Vaughan, and Jack Plant attended for the first time to observe the process of a Board of Inquiry hearing and to hear the evidence first hand. Their appearance at the hearing immediately attracted the attention of Ontario Human Rights Commission Counsel Geraldine Sanson, who requested that chairman Ajit John require everyone in the room to publicly identify themselves and their affiliation, despite the fact that the hearings are open to the general public.

The unexpected pronouncement of Freedom Party's presence at the hearing drew the attention of London Free Press reporter Hank Daniszewski, who interviewed leader Robert Metz about why Freedom Party would attend such a hearing. Metz discussed the party's involvement with the Cornish Task Force on systemic discrimination (See Freedom Flyer, Dec. 1992), and about his concern that governments are the major contributors to racist attitudes.

During the interview, Metz emphasized that fighting racism consists of citizens preventing governments from discriminating on racial grounds, not governments preventing citizens from doing so. Elieff's situation was described by Metz as an example of what could happen to landlords and service providers anywhere who find themselves subject to government legislation that deems them to be guilty of discrimination or racially motivated on the basis of statistics, and not on evidence.

DIFFERENT PICTURE

When the hearings, originally scheduled for 9:00 a.m., finally got underway in the afternoon due to a whole morning's delay caused by the failure of a court reporter to show up, it was Elieff's turn to call his own witnesses. Witness after witness relayed incidents and stories that completely contradicted what was being reported about Elieff in the London Free Press. All described Elieff as a kind, helpful landlord who even provided food to some of his down-and-out tenants.

Elieff was described quite candidly by some: Remarkably, two of the witnesses who showed up to testify on his behalf (Irina and Mike Sucur) were "not on speaking terms with Elieff," because they were angry with him for having allowed so many Asian tenants into his buildings. Because they could not keep up with the constant mess being caused by the now tenants, they were forced to quit their responsibilities as superintendents and move. However, after becoming aware of the descriptions of Elieff in the London Free Press, their anger over the injustice of what was being said about him overcame their anger with Elieff himself.

Significantly, all of the witnesses testified about their knowledge of Susan Eagle's lobby efforts in their building, including her efforts to ruin Elieff's reputation as a landlord.

It seemed that Elieff had an interminable list of witnesses who were past tenants or superintendents all willing to testify on his behalf, and every effort was made by the Commission to limit his evidence and witnesses. Given that the Commission's only "witnesses" were lobbyist Susan Eagle, Free Press reporter Greg Van Moorsel, and the complainant Chippend Hom (who, by Eagle's own testimony, had been "pushed" into filing the complaint), its attempt to limit Elieff's evidence was understandable.

LONDON FREE PRESS
TARGETS FREEDOM PARTY

On the morning of December 29, Fp leader Robert Metz awoke to the unexpected discovery that he had "plans to turn London landlord Elijah Elieff into a symbol of (Freedom Party's) campaign to promote the right to discriminate." At least that's what the London Free Press story headlined "London landlord finds fans in Freedom Party" reported. And glaringly, in the accompanying story dealing with the testimony of Elieff's witnesses (Tenants blamed for cockroaches), not one mention was made of the single fact that was discussed by every witness: the lobby efforts of United Church minister Susan Eagle.

Metz learned through a confidential source that the London Free Press (whose extreme socialist philosophy is diametrically opposed to Freedom Party's perspective) chose to run a separate headline on Freedom Party "to let the public know what Freedom Party's really all about" by associating the party with its negative coverage of Elieff. However, when he confronted reporter Hank Daniszewski about why no mention was made about Susan Eagle while Freedom Party received its own headline, he was told that it was the policy of the paper not to repeat the same information over and over again, and that the presence of Freedom Party representatives represented a "new development" in the story.

Given the fact that Metz had several years worth of Free Press news clippings on Elieff's situation which repeated the same "information" over and over again, and that Freedom Party's presence at the hearing had nothing whatsoever to do with the story, it became evident that the London Free Press was not an objective source of information in this case and that it had its own political agenda to push. Metz informed Daniszewski that he had already faxed a letter to the editor of the London Free Press addressing the inaccuracies in his coverage, but said nothing about his suspicions.

FREEDOM PARTY
TARGETS LONDON FREE PRESS

As a consequence of these and other overly suspicious circumstances, Metz agreed to represent Elieff at his next hearing date, scheduled for February 2, 1993. With the invaluable help of Fp executive Jack Plant who researched dozens of London Free Press news reports on Elieff's case, and with correspondence and legal documents provided by Elieff, it soon became clear that Elieff was the target of a well-planned and orchestrated lobby campaign whose ultimate goal was to take over and convert his apartment buildings into a government-subsidized co-op housing project. Smearing Elieff's personal character and reputation was merely one element of the effort to devalue his property and force him to sell.

Since the only purported evidence of any racial comments made by Elieff came from the pages of the London Free Press, the first action Metz took was to subpoena the alleged recording of Elieff s original comments, which the Board of Inquiry was told was "in a sealed envelope along with shorthand notes" in the possession of Mary Nesbitt, city editor for the London Free Press. In an earlier conversation with Nesbitt, when Metz requested the recording voluntarily, he was promptly informed that the tape and notes were both "the property of the London Free Press,' and that they would not be provided voluntarily.

NO TAPE EXISTS

After receiving a subpoena to produce the alleged recording, solicitors for the London Free Press immediately informed the Board of Inquiry that no such recording exists:

"Please be advised that Ms. Nesbitt does not have nor has she ever had possession or control over any such taped recording, nor is she aware of its existence. She has consulted with Mr. Van Moorsel and he is now virtually certain that no taped recording of Mr. Elieff's comments was made. In any event none can be located."

LONDON FREE PRESS REFUSES TO REPORT FACTS,
CEASES TO REPORT HEARINGS

Despite the appearance of London Free Press counsel at the February 2 hearing announcing the nonexistence of the tape recordings, no mention of that fact was made in the paper's February 3 coverage of the hearings. Instead, the paper attempted to insinuate that Freedom Party was tampering with the inquiry process by "leaking evidence" (an accusation made by lobby supporters of Susan Eagle) and once again printed a repeat of the same past "information" that Daniszewski told Metz it was the policy of the paper not to do.

Not surprisingly, the February 3, 1993 Free Press coverage was also the last coverage given to Elieff's Board of Inquiry hearings, even though the hearings lasted the balance of the week and that the paper had always given unduly prominent coverage to Elieff's "racist" comments in the past.

NOT OVER YET

As of this writing, at least five more days of hearings are scheduled before the Board of Inquiry: August 30 - September 1, and two more days for closing arguments at the end of September. The hearings have already dragged on for a full seven days, at a tremendous financial cost to taxpayers.

For Elieff, the consequences of the complaint filed, along with many corollary activities directed against him, have already cost him one business (a sandwich shop which was targetted by Eagle's protests), a decline in the tenancy rates in his buildings (from nearly 100% to less than 50%), thousands of dollars in fines, penalties and legal fees, a total loss of any meaningful income derived from his buildings, and the potential loss of these buildings due to his current inability to meet his utility, tax, and mortgage commitments.

Consider also the additional time and money spent by other participants in this issue, including Freedom Party, the Human Rights Commission, London's municipal council, the London Free Press, the Ontario government, and the many witnesses who appeared.

"It may seem a waste of time, considering it is all over an alleged 'little pigs' comment," commented Fp leader Robert Metz, "and realistically, it is!

"But Freedom Party's concern in this case is to address the fundamental injustice of the whole Human Rights process and to expose its inevitable misuse by those with a hidden political agenda," said Metz. "No case could be a better illustration of this abuse than this one."

Freedom Flyer readers will be updated on new developments in the case in future issues. Fp leader Robert Metz also plans to write about his experiences and observations on the case in an upcoming issue of Consent.