LONDON (December 6, 1996) - The London Free Press, which was both a catalyst and hostile witness in the racism complaint against London landlord Elijah Elieff, reported the Divisional Court's appeal ruling as an event worth celebrating, with the December 6, 1996 headline: 'Tenants rejoice at racism decision.'

The headline reveals the paper's ongoing bias, given that no tenants were present during the two-day appeal hearing before the Ontario Divisional Court, and that the only evidence of 'rejoicing' was on the part of Reverend Susan Eagle, who is not a tenant. Moreover, ALL of the tenants who appeared before the original Board of Inquiry (with the exception of the complainant, who was recruited by Eagle) spoke strongly in favour of the landlord, and chose to testify specifically because they were very upset and disgusted with the unsubstantiated bias of the London Free Press.

"One would think that an outcome worth celebrating would be one where discrimination was found NOT to exist," says Fp president Robert Metz in reaction to the London Free Press coverage. "But instead, some people actually seem happy that discrimination exists! What does that tell you about their motives?"

Unfortunately, even though Metz introduced himself as a contact for Elieff to Free Press reporter Michelle Shephard, the paper's coverage of the ruling did not include any reaction from Elieff's side of the issue.

This was more than an oversight, since Metz made it a point to inform Shephard that he had represented Elieff before the original Board of Inquiry and that he would be available for background information, reaction, or comment. He made it clear that Elieff's current occupation as a transport truck driver kept him out of town most of the time. In addition to providing his business card containing a phone number, fax number, e-mail and website address, Metz also provided Shephard with copies of Fp's 'Final Argument', as it appeared in Consent 21.

Despite these efforts, the paper reported that Elieff was "not available for comment".

However, with predictable bias and regularity, the Free Press was quick to seek out and print the comments of Reverend Susan Eagle: "This is an acknowledgement of the wrongdoing of the landlord..." Eagle, another hostile witness before the Board of Inquiry against Elieff, was, and still is, the driving force in the campaign against him.

The London Free Press not only failed to make even a minimal effort for balanced coverage, but went so far as to reject a direct offer of balance by Metz in a letter to the editor.

In his letter, Metz put his own 'spin' on the Divisional Court ruling, by using direct quotes from the ruling to illustrate that there was no victory for the Human Rights Commission, and that the balance of the appeal was dismissed.

"Moreover," wrote Metz, "the judgement acknowledged that 'it seems clear that the complaint and these proceedings resulted from articles published in the London Free Press in November 1989', and that the racially 'poisoned environment' at the former Cheyenne Ave apartments was a direct result of reporting in the London Free Press."

"My own reading of the decision is at variance with your interpretation," responded Free Press associate editor Gary May in an unexpected February 3, 1997 letter to Metz. He then went so far as to accuse Elieff of being "the instigator" of the whole affair.

"Surely you would not condone the Free Press ignoring such inflammatory comments made by Mr. Elieff?" he challenged.

May's unexpected personal response to Metz's letter, which was simply intended for publication in the paper's editorial section, would indicate that a raw nerve was struck.

Ironically, the answer to May's question was already made explicitly clear in Metz's original letter:

"As Mr. Elieff's representative before the original Board of Inquiry," wrote Metz, "I can state for the record from my own personal observation that never once did Mr. Elieff utter any reference to anyone's race in his descriptions of conditions at his former Cheyenne Ave apartment buildings. All racial references were added, assumed, and emphasized by London Free Press reporters. According to the testimony of Free Press reporter Greg Van Moorsel at the Board of Inquiry hearings, this practice is called 'putting a spin' on the story.

"From the beginning of the Cheyenne Ave controversy to the most recent Ontario Divisional Court decision, the London Free Press has grossly, consistently, and repeatedly misrepresented Mr. Elieff's case to its readers."

Metz invited Free Press readers to visit Freedom Party's on-line Web Site at "https://www.freedomparty.org/cheyenne.htm" for a complete accounting of Elieff's story, including London Free Press coverage and excerpts from the original Board of Inquiry transcripts.

"In this way," concluded Metz, "Free Press readers may have an opportunity to see both sides of the story and judge for themselves the merits of this case."

"I thank you for bringing your views to my attention," concluded May, "but after considerable investigation and discussion with those involved, I feel it is not necessary for the Free Press to take further action."

May did not identify "those involved" with whom he conducted a "considerable investigation", but they did not include either Metz or Elieff.

As of this writing, Metz's letter remains unpublished.

Contrary to Susan Eagle's interpretation of the court ruling, "there was no 'wrongDOING' on Elieff's part," stresses Metz, "since the court remained satisfied that he treated all of his tenants the same, regardless of race. It was solely the court's interpretation of Elieff's THOUGHTS (about tenant cleanliness and responsibility, not race, from Elieff's point of view), and his expression of those thoughts to a newspaper reporter, that constituted Elieff's 'crime' of 'unequal treatment'.

"Thought crime has come to Ontario."

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002