Freedom Flyer 24

the official newsletter of the
Freedom Party of Ontario

December 1993

PUBLICATION BAN PLACED
ON FREEDOM FLYER!

LONDON (September 27, 1993) - Citing a "danger in publicizing negotiations" relating to settlement attempts made by the Human Rights Commission (HRC), Board of Inquiry chairman Ajit John placed a publication ban on information that was already published and distributed by the Freedom Party of Ontario in its June 1993 issue of Freedom Flyer. The banned information relates to a deal the HRC offered respondent Elijah Elieff in exchange for dropping the complaint filed against him by one of his Asian tenants, Chippheng Hom. (See our issues index for more background information on this issue.)

Referred to as an "investigation" or a "settlement attempt" by HRC officials, the deal-making process is central to the way in which the HRC operates, given the fact that it initiates its settlement actions solely on the grounds of a filed complaint.

GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT?

It is also the most sensitive political issue facing the Human Rights Commission, since it directly relates to the Commission's systemic assumption that respondents are guilty, thus allowing them little or no opportunity to prove their innocence. In fact, the issue is so sensitive that it is against the law to refer to such "settlement attempts" during a Board of Inquiry hearing.

Freedom Party's publication of the details of the HRC's attempted settlement with Elieff was brought to Ajit John's attention by Commission counsel Geraldine Sanson, who had earlier been handed a copy of the Freedom Flyer article when it was reproduced and distributed along with an Fp media release.

Elieff's agent, Fp leader Robert Metz, argued that placing a publication ban on the already published information was "a little like closing the barn door after the horses had escaped," but John nevertheless maintained his position that no details of the "settlement negotiations" be made public in any way until all rights of appeal have been exhausted.

PUBLICATION BAN NOT ON EVIDENCE

The ban is particularly unusual, given that it does not relate to any (legally allowed) evidence in the case, and thus should have no bearing on the Board's decision. Fp's published details of the Commission's "investigation" of Elieff were based on information given to Fp directly by Elieff himself, who is the only individual possibly affected by its publication.

Thus we can only conclude that the "danger" in publicizing details of the deal offered to Elieff represents a threat only to the integrity and legitimacy of the Human Rights Commission itself. By knowing details of the offered deal, observers would be able to compare the difference between the HRC's original offer to settle with Elieff and the orders sought by Commission counsel at the end of a Board of Inquiry hearing.

"The injustice of the whole situation would become self-evident," says Metz, "and that's the last thing the Human Rights Commission wants us to know."