Freedom Flyer 24

the official newsletter of the
Freedom Party of Ontario

December 1993

BIASED, INACCURATE LONDON FREE PRESS
NEWS COVERAGE CONTINUES
DURING BOARD OF INQUIRY HEARINGS

LONDON (August 30 - September 1, 1993) - Still reeling from its failed attempt to avoid having its reporter, Greg Van Moorsel, appear before an Ontario Human Rights Commission Board of Inquiry, the London Free Press continued an irresponsible and biased coverage of the hearings into London landlord Elijah Elieff's alleged racist comments.

The articles were written by reporter John Hamilton who was in attendance at each day's hearings, but whose name did not appear on any of them after Metz directly challenged his previous false reports. (See "London Free Press Credibility Challenged by Board of Inquiry.")

"KILLER?"

Referring to Elieff's description of Van Moorsel as "an idiot, liar and killer," the paper's (August 31, 1993) out-of-context focus on the comments only served to further illustrate (to those who were witness to the comments) that it was indeed "involved in a plot to discredit landlord Elijah Elieff," as reported. In his broken English, Elieff referred figuratively to the paper's responsibility in "killing" his business and ruining his reputation, but the paper reported this comment in the literal sense.

The same August 31 article concluded by saying that Commission counsel "Sanson has said she intends to produce video evidence to support racism charges against Elieff." What the paper never reported was that when the video tape was later viewed at the hearings - which was a news item broadcast by CFPL-TV in 1989 - it only showed Elieff denying that he ever made such comments. Even more revealing, the video item reported that (then) municipal councillor Pat O'Brien "says Elieff won't get away with his remarks" while Susan Eagle's tenant group vowed to "demonstrate outside Elieff's Richmond Street business (a sandwich shop)" in an organized attempt to discredit the landlord's reputation.

COLOURED COVERAGE

On September 1, the paper's only mention of the hearings related to an entirely irrelevant - and dismissed - issue about a receipt "for a pink bathtub filed with the commission as part of Elieff's losses on his Cheyenne apartments." The receipt, which was clearly addressed to Elieff's home address and not to his business, had nothing whatsoever to do with Elieff's apartments, nor indeed were ANY receipts filed with the Commission for the purpose of illustrating financial "losses."

Selected receipts filed with the Commission were chosen specifically to illustrate the kinds of repairs that were necessary at the buildings - repairs that were clearly necessitated by the actions of his tenants, which is what Elieff was trying to say from the beginning. For example, on one receipt issued by Salmon Plumbing, the plumber made notes about his conversation "with two follows from Health Dept. Advised them that even a good drain doesn't take these objects..."

The objects referred to included "a rubber glove, plastic wrap, grease chunks, a stone, and sanitary napkin."

On September 2, the London Free Press ran a headline which read: "Elieff's rent income illegal, lawyer testifies at hearing.". But no lawyer "testified" at the hearing that day. (In fact, the ONLY lawyer to ever testify before the Board was the London Free Press' own lawyer, when the paper was forced to admit it had no taped recording of Elieff's alleged comments - a "testimony" the paper never reported.) The lawyer referred to in the article was Human Rights Commission counsel Geraldine Sanson who was making an accusation against Elieff and who was acting on behalf of the complainant, Chippheng Hom.

The article also went on to report the testimony of an official with a property management group who was quoted as saying that "Elieff spent less than four per cent of his rental income on upkeep of (his) buildings while owners of comparable buildings used about 17 per cent of income."

But the important fact the paper didn't report - and which was raised immediately by Metz in cross-examination - was that his estimate of four per cent was based on the small sampling of selected invoices (referred to above) provided to the official by the Commission, and not on Elieff's financial statements which were curiously not provided in arriving at that figure (since they reflected a much higher figure of expenditures).

More significantly, the official's reported comment that he "didn't see any evidence of any money being spent" or maintenance was based on his July, 1993 visit to the Cheyenne Ave apartments - long after Elieff had abandoned them (in 1992), only later to have them taken over by the buildings' mortgagor, the National Bank Of Canada.

The London Free Press concluded its September 2 article by inaccurately referring to its own November 1989 coverage accusing Elieff of "saying his Cambodian tenants acted like pigs out of a jungle." Not only was this report inaccurate, but there was never any quoted comment made by Elieff in reference to anyone's race at any time. All references to race were inserted by London Free Press reporters and editorial writers.

"Apparently," commented Elieff's representative Robert Metz, "the London Free Press' interpretation of a 'free press' seems to mean a press 'free' to say whatever it wants without being accountable to the truth."