Consent is a journal of ideas and opinions on individual freedom, 21

FINAL ARGUMENT

-Robert Metz

(Robert Metz is a founding member and president of Freedom Party, The following essay is an edited version of his final argument before an Ontario Human Rights Commission Board of Inquiry. The board was investigating an alleged "racist" comment made by London landlord Elijah Elieff in reference to Asian tenants occupying his buildings on Cheyenne Avenue. An official complaint against the landlord was filed with the Human Rights Commission by Chippeng Hom, a Cambodian tenant who was recruited by Rev. Susan Eagle for the task. Hom was represented by Geraldine Sanson who was appointed by the Human Rights Commission at taxpayer expense to do so. Since the respondent, Mr. Elieff, was not accorded the same privilege, Metz volunteered to represent the landlord after the fourth day of hearings by the board. Full coverage of the background details of this tragic miscarriage of justice have been published in past issues of FP's newsletter, Fre,edom Flyer (one of which was banned by the Board of Inquiry I), and are available to the reader on request The following argument was presented by Metz (who is not a lawyer) on September 28, 1993 to Board of Inquiry chairperson Ajit John who, as a member of the Law Society for Upper Canada, was appointed to hear the case by the Human Rights Commission. Though the board was obligated to render a decision by the end of October 1993, as of this writing there has still been no decision handed down. Bracketed references throughout the text refer to the transcripts of the hearings.)

REVIEW TASK FORCE, known also as the Cornish Commission. The WITHOUT PREJUDICE: task force was investigating the enforceability of SYSTEMIC DISCRI­ MINATION, the concept of bypassing an investigation of any specific Before I begin, I think it only fair to open with a few comments events leading to a Human Rights complaint in favour of being able to relating to my own personal involvement with this Board of Inquiry legislate and order remedies on the basis of racial and ethnic hearing ..• both as an individual who has agreed to represent Mr. Elieff, STATISTICS as they would apply to EMPLOYERS, LANDLORDS, and and as a representative of the Freedom Party of Ontario, which is an SERVICE PROVIDERS. officially·registered Ontario political party. I was most disturbed with the recommendations that came out of I believe that these comments are necessary, as they bear upon this task force. Among them were the establishment of tribunals with the this hearing heavily. I would put it to you that the forces that ultimately "power to make rules and procedures", that "will not be bound to follow brought me here were the very same forces that brought Mr. Elieff here. strict legal precedent", that would have "the power to compel As a consequence, I have some severe criticisms to make, not only evidence", and would have "exclusive jurisdiction... to determine all about the specific chain of events that have transpired thus far, but also questions of fact or law", and would be allowed to accept evidence about the PROCESS, POWERS, LEGAL JUSTIFICATIONS, and VERY "whether it is allowed as evidence in a court or not". NATURE of this Board of Inquiry, and indeed, the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION itself. These tribunals, it was recommended, should, "where a business is sold, have the discretion to add successor businesses as necessary I wish to preface my comments with the clear understanding that parties and to make any necessary order against them." The tribunals they are being made WITHOUT pREJUDICE towards any specific should have the "power to amend claims", eliminate "a full appeal individuals personally involved with the process of this hearing -.. that I right", and have "no requirement to record evidence." Worst of all, it have the utmost respect for all involved. was recommended that, apart from its own power to reconsider, "the Tribunal's decision should be final and protected from review from the As you know, I have not represented Mr. Elieff from the beginning courts." of these hearings. In fact, when these hearings began, I was only vaguely aware of a man called Elijah Elieff and of his predicament with These recommendations, Mr. Chairperson, which are only a few of his Cheyenne Ave. apartment buildings. the 88 specific recommendations made by the task force, WERE TO BE FULLY IMPLEMENTED BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1993. My interest in this case began as a secondary by-product of my interest in the Human Rights Commission itself. In April of 1992, I had IT IS NOW SEPTEMBER 28, and I would suggest to you that many, the opportunity to address the ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS CODE if not all, of these arbitrary and utterly unjustifiable powers are already

(conrd next pg.) ( ] Page2 Consent 21 August, 1994

(cont'd rrom prevo pg) It was at this point that I first began DENNIS BY HANK KETCHAM entertaining the possibiUty of representing Mr. fully entrenched in the proceedings I have ------~ Elieff, since by this time I was convinced that been witness to and participated in, and that something was afoot, and that clearly (to me, Mr. Elieff has been made a victim of a process at least) Mr. Elieff was not aware of what was that he could not possibly have understood or happening to him. His attention was, aher all, prepared himself for. focused on dealing with the particulars of a SINGLE COMPLAINT filed against him, while I know this now, but I did not know this the REAL nature of the COLLECTIVE ACTION when I first attended the third day's hearings being taken against him, and his vulnerability where _. . AS A SPECTATOR ._. I found myself to this action, went unnoticed by all. being ASKED TO IDENTIFY MYSELF, AND THE GROUP I REPRESENTED, FOR THE RECORD BEFORE THIS BOARD. Curiously, many other spectators who attended the hear­ ings were never asked to identify themselves. So it is that I find myself before you today, While this may not be unusual, I was surpr­ aher representing Mr. Elieff for six of 1\1e ten ised. days of the filing of evidence, in the pnenvi­ able position of having to present my argu­ ments before the very Board who's lAUTH­ No less was I surprised when I awoke the ORI1Y AND BIAS I am forced to address, next morning to read, in the pages of the "Do all fairy tales begin "No, some begin with, before certain members of the MEDIA:'whose London Free Press, a headline reading "Lon­ with 'Once upon a time'?" 'IfI am elected.' .. OBJECTM1Y I must challenge, before the don landlord finds fans in Freedom Party" COMPLAINANT and other witnesses '. (which is among the exhibits submitted to this ~hose CREDIBILl1Y I must challenge, and 4_ That the CONTINUAL PERSONAL board), and which reported that I and the ulti~ately, before the RESPONDENT, who must rely HARASSMENT of Mr. Elieff BY SUSAN EAGLE political party I represent had "PLANS TO upon my arguments and the decision , of this and the NEGATIVE. BIASED AND IN­ TURN LONDON LANDLORD ELIJAH ELiEFF board to have the record set straight regarding ACCURATE PUBLlCI1Y given by THE LON­ INTO A SYMBOL OF THEIR CAMPAIGN TO this matter in his favour. DON FREE PRESS to Mr. Elieff is all part of a PROMOTE THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE." campaign designed to justify to provincial and municipal governments --- and the public -_. Since we had no such plans, and no such that they should fund SUSAN EAGLE's dream campaign (and my subsequent letter to the OUR CASE: of a government·funded co-op housing pro­ editor which was published in the London ject. (See Oct. 29/91 London Free Press & S. Free Press made that point very clear), I could With these considerations in mind. I Eagle's Speaker's Corner & Free Press edi­ only conclude that the London Free Press, in intend to argue the following on behalf of Mr. torials.) some way, felt threa· Elieff: tened by the fact that 5_ That a SYSTEMIC EVASION of dealing we might find out more 1. THAT THE with the direct responsibility that TENANTS about this case than we "I find myself in the COMPLAINT ,filed have had in the continued conditions at the could otherwise learn unenviable position of against Mr. Elieff by Cheyenne Ave. apartment buildings is PRE­ from reading the pages Chippeng Hom LS NOT JUDICED to Mr. Elieffs defence not only of the London Free having to present my ONLY UNFOl,lt'JDED, before this Board of Inquiry. but also before Press. BUT TRIVIAL, ~flIVOL­ the municipality. health department officials, arguments before the OUS, and VEXAT~US; the London Free Press. and ultimately, the So it was, that very Board whose general public. nearing the end of DAY 2. That the BASIS FOUR of these hear· authority and bias I of the complaim was 6. That the campaign against Mr. Elieff is ings (when I was still generated by an ARTI­ a COLDLY-CALCULATED, WELL-ORCHESTRA­ attending as a specta­ am forced to CLE printed in tl:1.e LON­ TED LOBBY EFFORT. which has included tor) , I happened to address ___ II DON FREE PRESS, DIRECT PERSONAL HARASSMENT in the pass Hank Daniszewski which MISLEADINGLY form of picketing his place of business. the (the London Free Press IMPLIED that Elieffs direct lobbying of PROVINCIAL AND MUNICI­ reporter who wrote the comment reg,arding PAL GOVERNMENTS for funds to acquire his article) in the hall and asked him : How was is destructive and irresponsible behaviour at his buildings, and a continual stream of filed possible, in view of the fact that virtually every Cheyenne Ave. apartments constituted ,a racial complaints and work orders, all calculated to witne ss called by Mr. Elieff the previous day attitude. DEVALUE HIS PROPER1Y and to DEMORAL­ had recounted the involvement and tactics of IZE him to the point where he would either sell Susan Eagle, that his Dec 29/92 coverage of 3. That the PURPOSE of the complaint or have his building taken over. Susan Eagle is that day's hearings did not even mention this filed against Mr. Elieff was to crewe an a self-admitted PAID LOBBYIST and an IDEO­ once? environment of moral justification f9r the LOGUE who has a dream to promote. LOBBY EFFORT directed against him by His less·than-candid and somewhat SUSAN EAGLE, and to deflect his attention 7. That the specific events and charges embarrassed reply told me more than I'm sure from her ultimate objective: control or owner­ which have brought Mr. Elieff before this he wanted me to know. ship of his Cheyenne Ave apartment buildings. (conro next pg)

~~lIstice is truth in action. n - Disraeli August; 1994 Consent 21 Page 3

(cont'd rrom prevo pg) is seeking to add 'race' which is above there. It munity solution might be. Certainly. part of my Board of Inquiry hearing are now. and have is just adding that as a ground. None of the job is to PUSH PEOPLE ..... (Nov. 27/92, pgs. always been. BEYOND HIS CONTROL and other information is going to be changed. 136-7) thus not his responsibility. none of the allegations were changed. IT IS JUST THERE." (Nov. 1 6/92 pg. 4) And we have then-municipal councillor 8. That the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMIS­ PAT O·BRIEN. whose support was solicited by SION itself is being used in a frivolous manner. Despite Mr. Elieff's objections to its addi­ SUSAN EAGLE. and on whom it was openly for purposes unrelated to its mandate (though tion. and despite any specific grounds for reported in the London Free Press that : parallel to its mandate). as one element of the adding 'race' to the complaint. I believe that "O'Brien said he is confident the city will find over-all campaign against Mr. Elieff. the comment "IT IS JUST THERE" is particu­ members of the Cambodian community willing larly appropriate with regard to ALL the contra­ to file a human rights complaint if needed. vention grounds. 'They have to be counselled. there has to be 9. That both the HUMAN RIGHTS COM­ grounds for a complaint and they have to be MISSION and its BOARDS OF INQUIRY har­ shown how to do it --- I don't think that's a bour a PREJUDI- Going by the problem ... · (Nov. 10/89 London Free Press) CED VIEW OF THE pre-printed HRC MINORITY GROUPS -Going by the pre-printed H RC Complaint Form. a THEY PURPORT TO complaint form, a potential potential complainant O'Brien further reiterated his commitment SUPPORT. and that has only 19 possible to deal with Mr. Elieff on the video news clip complainant has only 19 possible grounds for com­ that was entered as evidence by Ms. Sanson. they ADVANCE grounds for complaint, thus RACIST AGENDAS. plaint. THUS FORC­ (Sept 12/93. pg 1292) "O'Brien says Elieff forcing all arguments into its ING ALL ARGU­ won't get away with his remarks ..... says the MENTS into its nar­ narrator. (It should be noted that O'Brien 10. That the narrowly-defined pre-determined rowly-defined PRE­ happens to be a member of London's Race NOTORIETY of this mandate_- DETERMINED MAN- Relations Committee --- and that he also case is due to the DATE. Clearly. it happens to live one block from the Cheyenne BIASED and in- would be to the Ave. apartments. which he has personally accurate coverage in the London Free Press. advantage of any complainant to fill in as many regarded an eyesore.) of the boxes as possible. irrespective of the 11. That the "poisoned environment" IS particular circumstances leading to the com­ The fact that an effort to seek out a the London Free Press publicity. and the plaint That certainly appears to have been the complainant was INITIATED ONE DAY AFTER persistent actions of Susan Eagle. case here. the appearance of the Nov. 8/89 London Free Press article ATIESTS TO THE FACT THAT Now, on to the specifics: THE ARTICLE ITSELF was the source of the THE COMPLAINT AND THE offensive implications attributed to Elieff. COMPLAINANT: 1. The COMPLAINT was NOT INITIA­ TED BY THE COM- One must ques· must preface my comments about the PLAINANT. tion the need for a complaint itself by making it clear that the copy "Hom is as much a complainant in the first of the complaint provided to me by Mr. Elieff is As per the testi­ place. Given the sup· NEITHER SIGNED. NOR DATED by the com­ mony of SUSAN victim of this proceed­ posed "moral outrage" plainant. However the text of my copy seems EAGLE. and as per by the community. consistent with what has been read into the numerous LONDON ing as is Mr. Elieff. We one would have assu­ record, and therefore I can only assume that FREE PRESS newspa­ already know that she med that any member there is a signed and dated copy in existence per articles, we know of that community somewhere. I have only a copy of a December that a COLLECTIVE was sought out, could have taken 2. 1992 letter to Mr. Elieff by Daniel Pascoe. EFFORT was made to advantage of Pt IV. registrar of Boards of Inquiry which suggests SEEK OUT A COM­ encouraged and Sec 31 (2) of the that the complaint is dated December 20. PLAINANT. an effort counselled to file a HUMAN RIGHTS 1989. that DID NOT EXIST CODE which states BEFORE AND complaint... " that: "The Commission My copy of Hom's unsigned ; complaint BEGAN ON THE DAY may INITIATE a com- lists contravention grounds of 'ancestry'. FOLLOWING the plaint BY ITSELF or at 'place of origin'. 'ethnic origin'. and 'harass­ appearance of the the REQUEST of ANY ment', though Mr. Pascoe's letter does not November 8. 1989 article quoting Mr. ElieWs person." Why didn't SUSAN EAGLE. PAT include the latter (harassment). It was during alleged racist comments. O·BRIEN. or the LONDON FREE PRESS the course of these hearings that 'race' and simply ASK the HRC to INITIATE a complaint? 'reprisal' have been added --- not by the It was NOT CHIPPENG HOM who sought complainant, but by the Commission itself. out the aid of the community. It was the Could it be that they did not want it known 'COMMUNITY'. meaning SUSAN EAGLE. that that one or more of them was conducting a When the grounds of 'race' was added to sought out the aid of CHIPPENG HOM. Said LOBBY effort to get Mr. ElieWs buildings? the complaint. at the beginning of the first Susan Eagle: ..... so therefore although it is HOW CONVENIENT it would be TO DEFLECT day's hearings. Mr. Elieff was informed by the CHIPPENG filing the Human Rights complaint. ATIENTION FROM THE COLLECTIVE LOBBY chair that "the box which is now blank under it came out of the process of about 20 families against Elieff by causing us all to focus on gathering together to discuss what a com- 'race ' will now be marked." "The Commission (cont'd next pg) "If's amazing how much time andmoney people will spend to get something Tor nothing. " - Karol Newlun Page4 Consent 21 August, 1994

(cont'O from prevo pg) cockroaches. In testimony Hom denied that tunity to move in at rent-geared-to-income the apartment was shown to her (Nov 1 6. levels. ONE INDIVIDUAL's contrived complaint of p37). This glaringly contradicts the testimony racism I What a convenient way to evade the of Sultana Elieff. who repeatedly confirmed responsibility for the collective's actions I (3) In her third particular. Hom refers to that SHE showed apartment 1 7 to Hom and a Elieff asking her "Are you a good girl or a bad male companion. and that Hom liked the girl?" when she asked him to transfer to Which brings us to the complaint itself. apartment and that the apartment was "nice apartment #18 from #17. Hom claims that "he Taken in context not only with the testimony of and clean" before Hom moved in (Dec. 28. never explained when I questioned him as to other witnesses. BUT WITH THE TESTIMONY p146) . It also contradicts the testimony of Mr. what he meant," and flatly denies Elieff's OF HOM HERSELF. the GLARING CONTRA­ Elieff himself. and is inconsistent with the suggestion that "I said because you are a nice DICTIONS AND INCONSISTENCIES of her experiences of the various past and present lady you can pay whatever you want to pay claims constitute an EMBARRASSING degree tenants called to testify by Mr. Elieff. All any apartment that is vacant... .. (Nov 1 6. p43) of evidence of manipulation by others. So reported that they were shown their apart- much so that I did not ments BEFORE pay­ It is also in direct contradiction with the even bother to cross- ing first and last testimony of Sultana Elieff (Dec 28. p131-133) examine Ms. Hom -It would appear that the month's rent. and all who indicated that it was she who showed during my last oppor­ complaint has been so modified were generally satis­ apartment #1 8 to Hom. When asked whether tunity to do so. I fied with the condition as to suit the requirements of the such a comment was made to Hom. Sultana believe SHE IS AS of their apartments Human Rights Commission and Elieff replied: "No. You just said. 'My wife like MUCH A VICTIM OF when they first moved you, You good lady... · and went on to express THIS PROCEEDING its definitions, rather than to suit in. AS IS MR. ELiEFF. the actual circumstances_- that Hom was nice to both herself and Mr. Elieff --- and how surprised she was to hear In the same that Hom had filed a complaint against Mr. We already know point. Hom claims that Elieff. that she was sought out. encouraged and Elieff told her "Your custom like that cock­ counselled to file a complaint. according to roaches. What can I doT -- a comment Mr. The suggestion that Mr. Elieff would make both SUSAN EAGLE and PAT O·BRIEN. Howe­ Elieff has denied from the start. It is curious such a comment is also inconsistent with the ver. on Sept 1/93. under questioning by Ms. that this comment was purportedly made in personal treatment accorded to his tenants. as Sanson. Ms. Hom EXPLICITLY DENIED having May/8g. at least six months before the Nov. per the testimony of EACH AND EVERY ONE been counselled to file a complaint by either 8/89 Free Press article precipitated the search of Mr. Elieff's past and present tenants who Pat O'Brien or the LONDON FREE PRESS. for a complainant. (Sept 1/93. pg 1 388) And yet. when confron­ have come before this board. ted about a discrepancy between her testi­ (2) In her second point of the complaint's mony and her filed complaint under cross­ From a legal particulars. Hom examination by Mr. Elieff on Nov 16/92. she point of view. as an alleges that she responded by saying "I have to say before attempt to justify "had no choice but. there was a group of us who went up to the liThe London Free Press her grounds of to stay and suf­ Commission to complain about that. So there­ harassment. the in­ fer...... Mr. Elieff's fore I CANNOT TAKE THE CREDIT ALL BY has printed no less than six clusion of such a prejudiced view of MySELF ... .. (Nov. 16/92. pgs 42-3) suggestive in­ my Cambodian different versions of the ference. is under­ ancestry..... She standable. Accord­ That group. of course. was ..... a WHOLE testified that she alleged 'cockroach' ing to the HUMAN DELEGATION" that went to the HUMAN would move IF comment ... '1 RIGHTS CODE RIGHTS COMMISSION office to discuss "con­ SHE HAD MONEY (Definitions). cerns" (Nov. 1 6. p93) according to SUSAN (Nov 16. p35). 'harassment' need EAGLE's testimony. who obviously must have though under only occur once been present and who conveniently is the one cross examination by Mr. Elieff she im­ under such circumstances. and is further person Ms. Sanson did NOT ask Hom about mediately contradicted that testimony twice. evidence that the complainant was counselled being counselled to file a complaint. (There is stating that the reason she stayed in Elieff's to include this charge in her complaint. since certainly strong evidence of a close relation­ apartment buildings ..... is not because the such knowledge is not readily available. Given ship between Hom and Eagle. According to apartment is cheap or because I couldn't the English language difficulties of both the Eagle. "I have been in Hom's apartment AT afford it. It is ... because it is close to the bus complainant and respondent. the attempt to LEAST ONCE A MONTH OVER SEVERAL for me to travel and I don't have a car and it is twist the meaning of Mr. Elieff's benign and yEARS ..... (Nov. 16. p93) This would be AT close to the school for my children." (Nov 16. complimentary comments into something quite LEAST 36 VISITS OVER A THREE YEAR p45) PERIOD.) the opposite constitutes a shallow and means­ pirited affront to his dignity. Moreover. if Hom truly believes that she 2. BOTH THE PARTICULARS OF THE "had NO CHOICE but to stay and suffer...... we It would appear that the complaint has COMPLAINT AND THE COMPLAINANT would suggest that her obligation to stick it out been so modified as to suit the requirements LACK CREDIBILITY. at the Cheyenne Ave. apartments has more to of the Human Rights Commission and its do with the promises made to the tenants by definitions. rather than to suit the actual (1) In the first point of the particulars. Susan Eagle. One of these promises was that circumstances. Hom claims that upon her arrival in apartment if Eagle's co-op housing could be built, the 1 7. it was very messy and infested with current tenants would have the first oppor- (confO next pg)

"'lIonesly doesn 'l need nne print II - William H. Walton August; 1994 Consent 21 Page 5

(conrd from prevo pg) GED COMMENTS, let alone to go out of his WE WILL ALSO ARGUE THAT BY PART (4) In her fourth particular, Hom tells us way to distinguish between his CAMBODIAN (b) OF THE SAME SUB-SECTION, "UNDUE that she "learned of comments reportedly tenants, or VIETNAMESE ta.nants or his NON­ HARDSHIP" HAS BEEN "CAUSED TO THE made public by Mr. Elieff that he felt his ASIAN tenants. PERSON COMPLAINED AGAINST'. tenants of Cambodian ancestry regarded cock­ roaches as pets and that AS CAMBODIANS, In any event, by her own admission, the WE ALSO ASK THAT THIS BOARD OF They're like little pigs. They think they're still alleged comments were NOT MADE INQUIRY "ORDER THE COMMISSION TO PAY living in the jungle. '" DIRECTLY TO HOM. TO" MR. ELiEFF "SUCH COSTS AS ARE FIXED BY THE BOARD." First and foremost, there are no -- and (5 and 6) The last two points of Hom's have never been any -- comments attributed complaint are clearly catered to the mandate of to Elieff anywhere suggesting that cock­ the Human Rights Commission. Stating her THE COMMIS­ roaches are "pets". The SION'S CASE AND London Free Press has BIAS - VERSUS THE printed no less than six "We are here to ask that this complaint be different versions of the EVIDENCE alleged "cockroach" com­ dismissed on the grounds that it is trivial, ment, and none of them Throughout these entire used the word "pets", On frivolous, vexatious, and made in bad faith." proceedings, Commission Nov 11/89, the paper prin- counsel Ms. Sanson has expended a great deal of ted: "Your people are like BELIEF that Mr. Elieff's comments "CREATED cockroaches." On January 13/90: "Your time and effort trying to prove things that are A POISONED ENVIRONMENT" --- a term which people (are) like cockroaches." On Nov 17/92: is highly subjective, but consistently used in not in dispute: --- that Mr. Elieff's buildings at "You people like cockroaches." On Nov 95 and 105 Cheyenne Ave are in a constant 22/ other HUMAN RIGHTS cases, and citing Sec­ 92: "They like living like cockroaches." And on tions 2(1), 2(2), and 8 of the HUMAN RIGHTS state of disrepair; that there are numerous the same day, elsewhere: "Cambodians like to CODE, these points are merely an appeal to Board of Health complaint filings; that there live like cockroaches." the PROCESS of this board and to the has been harm done to the Asian community; legislated mandate of the HUMAN RIGHTS that Mr. Elieff's alleged comments are "notori­ Furthermore, Mr. Elieff did not "make COMMISSION. ous"; that there exists a "poisoned environ­ public" these comments, however misrepre­ ment BECAUSE of the notorious comments; that there are repeated instances of cock­ sentative and inconsistent they may have WE ARE HERE TO ASK THAT THIS happened to be. THEY WERE ALL WRIDEN roaches in the buildings; etc. etc.... COMPLAINT BE DISMISSED ON THE AND PRINTED BY THE LONDON FREE GROUNDS THAT IT IS, AS PER SEC 40(6)(a) PRESS, and certainly not by any desire on the OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, "TRMAL, Ms. Sanson has entered VOLUMES OF part of Mr. Elieff to do so. Moreover, Mr. Elieff FRIVOLOUS, VEXATIOUS, AND MADE IN BAD EXHIBITS which include not only copies of the has never personally made ANY RACIAL refer­ FAITH." various documents relating directly to her ences in connection with ANY OF HIS ALLE- evidence showing the obvious, but statistical reports, opinion polls, various precedents and a host of legal references.

I can well understand the necessity of her having to do so; in the absence of an objective argument linking the conditions at the ~EY KIPS I Cheyenne Ave. apartments to racial discrimina­ tion on the part of the landlord, she must T~E CA.RTOONS resort to focusing our attention away from the evidence at hand. It is clearly her hope that the A\?£ ON !!. ... decision this board may make will be more influenced by events and circumstances that have nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Elieff --- and that have a lot to do with the mandate of the Human Rights Commission and of the government which prescribes that mandate. In the absence of substance, she is trying to add weight to her case in the physical sense -- by flooding us with unfounded, prejudiced, and irrelevant --- but VOLUMINOUSLY DOCU­ MENTED --- arguments.

I do not envy her her task. She actually has little choice in this regard, as she must appeal to a PRESCRIBED WAY OF LOOKING AT THE EVIDENCE which is alien to common

(Conrd next pg)

• 'll'you have a job witIJout aggravations, you don ~t have a job_ ." - Ala/colm Forbes Page6 Consent 21 August; 1994

(cont'd from prev, pg) AGAINST them instead of in their FAVOUR I (In Ms. Sanson has argued that she wishes sense and to PRINCIPLES OF EQUITABLE his buildings, Asians are a majority; in LON­ ..... to demonstrate Elieff's comments were of a JUSTICE. It is a view that is PREJUDICED DON, Asians are a minority.) RACIAL NATURE and conduct which amounts AGAINST THE RESPONDENT AND IN to UNEQUAL TREATMENT." (Nov 16, p11) FAVOUR OF THE COMPLAINANT. To illustrate my point by way of analogy, Thus, the argument is a circular one: "UN­ consider the sign posted at the boundary of EQUAL TREATMENT", based upon a compari­ For example, Mr. Elieft was originally East Williams Township which was photogra­ son to circumstances not related to Elieff's quoted by the LONDON FREE PRESS as phed and printed under the banner 'SILLY properties or actions, therefore proves that his having said, (a statement he denies having SIGNS' in the LONDON FREE PRESS on Jan comments were of a "RACIAL NATURE", made) in reference to some of his tenants : 9/93. Under the sign which reads : "Welcome which in turn proves that he is guilty of "They're like little pigs. They think they're still to East Williams Township", is posted a "UNEQUAL TREATMENT". living in the jungle" (London Free Press, Nov. second sign reading: 'OINK IF YOU LInER'. 8, 1989). On CFPL television, Elieft was seen This does not an objective case for saying, while pointing to the vandalism and The commentary under the picture reads: discrimination make, yet this is the basis of damage in one of his common areas, and in "Is that in the bylaws? reasoning for the Com­ obvious response to a question that was It appears to be a small mission's entire case posed to him regarding the newspaper article: penance to pay for lit­ '"To prove discrimination on the against Mr. Elieft. ''I'm not saying they are pigs, but what they tering but the message grounds of race, one must are doing is only what pigs would do." Indeed, is UNMISTAKABLE." prove that the respondent's Consider Ms. San­ this was again confirmed when Free Press The commentary goes behaviour towards the son's following argu­ reporter Greg Van Moorsel read back his on to ask readers who ment: "The denial of original notes from his meeting with Elieft submit such pictures to particular race in question is basic living SERVICES (Aug. 3D, pg 657). explain what the sign measurably different from his that the complainant means, "if the meaning general behaviour towards continued NOT to To Mr. Elieft, this was a carefully rea­ isn't self-evident", others of different races under receive is based on ... soned-out response, clearly DISTINGUISHING which obviously was the same circumstances_' STEREOTYPICAL his opinion of HIS TENANTS in general, from not the case in this ASSUMPTIONS that his opinion regarding DESTRUCTIVE BEHA­ instance. Cambodian persons VIOUR. SEEM TO THRIVE in Now, applying the logic and perspective this kind of environment, that they don't Clearly, MR. ELiEFF'S comments were, of the Commission to this instance, would we deserve any better, and that THEY ARE TO and always have been, directed towards a assume that whenever a person of a minority BLAME FOR THE CONDITION OF THE BUILD­ certain type of BEHAVIOUR, not toward any status passes this sign, it is deemed to be a ING ..... (Nov 27, p50) inference of RACIAL BIAS. But because STA­ racial slur? Would the LONDON FREE PRESS, TISTICALL Y, the MAJORITY OF ELiEFF'S which appeals to one perspective regarding This again is part of the same CIRCULAR TENANTS happen to be ASIAN (though per­ the sign, appeal ·to that same perspective ARGUMENT. It DENIES THE RESPONDENT haps not all CAMBODIAN, which we are told is when dealing with Mr. Elieft, if he were to post the right to argue that certain tenants ARE the COMPLAINANTS ORIGIN), the view of the such a sign in his apartment buildings? I would responsible for the condition of the building, Commission is that this constitutes a racially­ suggest that the balance of probabilities of that WHICH IS CRITICAL TO HIS DEFENCE. motivated bias to Mr. Elieft's actions --- or being the case is very slim indeed. inactions as the case may be --- and we are This leads to what I earlier termed a supposed to ASSUME that he discriminates TO PROVE DISCRIMINATION ON THE SYSTEMIC EVASION of dealing with the GROUNDS OF RACE, ONE MUST CLEARLY TENANTS' responsibility in the maintenance of FARCUS- BY DAVID WAISGLASS BE ABLE TO ILLUSTRATE THAT THE RES­ their occupied premises and the common AND GORDON COULTHART PONDENTS BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS THE areas thereto. Ms. Sanson makes it sound as if PARTICULAR RACE IN QUESTION IS MEA­ it is sacrilegious to suggest that the TENANTS SURABL Y DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT FROM COULD POSSIBLY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS GENERAL BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS OTH­ EVEN ANY OF THE VANDALISM, GARBAGE ERS OF DIFFERENT RACES UNDER THE AND DAMAGE at the Cheyenne Ave apart­ SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. (The same principle ments. holds true for grounds of Ancestry, Place of Origin, and Ethnic Origin.) Because no PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS have ever been caught or fined for property Commission counsel has not only FAILED damage, we are to BLINDLY ASSUME that the TO DO SO, but has NOT EVEN MADE ANY conditions at the building ARISE OF THEIR EFFORT TO DO SO, being guided as she is by OWN ACCORD and that the LANDLORD the mandates and prescriptions of the HUMAN SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE. RIGHTS COMMISSION. Indeed, what she is trying to do is to prove that the condition of Mr. I must remind this board that each of the Elieft's apartments is NOT EQUAL TO THE sworn witness who testified to this board that CONDITION OF OTHER APARTMENTS which they assisted in the cleaning and maintenance are NOT OWNED OR OPERATED BY MR. duties around the Cheyenne Ave apartment "There is no sex discrimination here ... ELiEFF. because we don't hire men." (cont'd next pg)

"Wealth is always a relative matter. The more wealth you !JayD. the more relat;yes you hear from_ n - Saying August; 1994 Consent 21 Page 7

(Cont'd from prevo pg) It is at this point that I must argue my case This same prejudicial view of the Asian buildings. also testified to EYEWITNESS that the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION and its tenants was illustrated by Ms. Sanson when accounts of tenants' children throwing gar­ BOARDS OF INQUIRY, by their actions and she argued that "STEREOTYPICAL ASSUMP ­ TIONS are used as a reason for denying basic bage, vandalizing the property, breaking win­ decisions, harbour a PREJUDICED VIEW of the living conditions to PEOPLE WHO ARE MOST dows, etc ... very people they purport to support, and that in so doing, they ADVANCE RACIST AGEN­ VULNERABLE IN OUR SOCIETY ... " (Nov 16, DAS. p83). Are we to assume that all RACIAL They also testified that despite Mr. Elieffs MINORITIES are weaker and less able to repeated efforts at repairs, the same damage function in society than RACIAL MAJORITIES? would reoccur WITHIN MINUTES AND For example, consider the HUBBARD HOURS, seldom longer than a few days. They DECISION in the matter of the complaint of also testified to the INACTION OF AUTHORI­ ASHIT KUMAR GOSH against DOMGLAS INC., On what PRINCIPLE can such an assump­ TIES, including the police, to deal with the one of the authorities cited by Ms. Sanson. In tion be based, other than on some implied circumstances. his decision, Hubbard ruled: "While THERE IS PRINCIPLE OF RACIAL INFERIORITY OR NOTHING TO SUG­ WEAKNESS? GEST that Mr. Ghosh Yet, by asserting was harassed that some of his ·Commission counsel has not only failed to do so, but has not because of his race, EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES? tenants could possi­ in considering bly be responsible for even made any effort to do so, damages it is to be conditions in his being guided as she is by the remembered that the We HAVE BEEN ASKED, by this board, to buildings, Mr. Elieff is mandates and prescriptions of wrongdoer takes his MAKE ARGUMENT ON "EQUITABLE PRINCI­ being labelled a victim as he finds him. PLES FOR REQUIRING PARTIES TO CON ­ racist. Why? On the the Human Rights Commission_· His membership in a CILIATE." surface, simply VISIBLE MINORITY because HIS race is may have HAD In response to this, I must refer to Pt IV DIFFERENT from the ASSUMED RACIAL IDEN­ NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HARASSMENT Sec 38(1) of the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, "Th~ TITY of those who may be responsible for the but I have no doubt that that fact was ~ Board of Inquiry shall hold a hearing (a) to actions he has criticized. I am certain that if Mr. subjective element increasing his VULNERABI­ determine WHETHER a right of THE COM­ Elieff were Asian, or if his tenants were LITY and anguish." (p51 -52, Hubbard Deci­ PLAINANT under the Act has been infringed; Macedonian, his comments would never have sion) . (b) to determine WHO infringed the right." been considered racist. By requiring parties to conciliate ON THE But the REAL REASON Mr. Elieff has BASIS OF A COMPLAINT, the determination of been labelled a racist, is because of the WHO infringed the right has been bypassed. existence of the HUMAN RIGHTS COMMIS­ In other words, EVEN IN THE ACKNOWL­ EDGED ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE to Both the conciliation process and the Board of SION and its BOARDS OF INQUIRY which Inquiry hearings AVOID THE COURTS TO SETILE DISPUTES, suggest racism, this Board still has proceed on the pre ­ and which require that grounds such as mise that a com ­ RACISM (and the 1 8 other prescribed the power to levy "I must argue my case that damages AS IF plaint is valid. and grounds) must be present in order to effect a set about WEIGH - remedy. THAT WERE NOT the Human Rights THE CASE. Furth­ ING EVIDENCE ermore, it is Hub­ Commission and its Boards AND ARGUMENT It is all part of the Commission's general bard himself who toward an end that, movement towards the direction I previously admits that HE of Inquiry, by their actions with the exception referred to, which was being advocated by the sees VISIBLE of a dismissed com ­ Cornish Commission. and decisions. harbour a MINORITIES as plaint, only affects being VULNER­ prejudiced view of the very the DEGREE or USING STATISTICS, AND RATIOS, AND ABLE . SEVERITY of the FINANCIAL RECORDS, AND LEGAL DEFINI­ people they purport to Board's orders TIONS THAT OFTEN HAVE LlTILE OR NO against the respon­ IF THESE BEARING TO THEIR DICTIONARY COUNTER­ support... " dent, not the funda­ ARE THE TYPES PARTS, THE COMMISSION OPERATES ON mental justice of it. OF PRECEDENTS THE PREJUDICED ASSUMPTION THAT THIS TO WHICH I MUST REFER IN ORDER TO KIND OF "EVIDENCE" CAN SOMEHOW DEFEND MR. ELiEFF, I MUST RESPECTFULLY In Mr. Elieff's case, his steadfast convic­ ACCURATELY DEFINE THE DEEPEST AND SUGGEST TO THIS BOARD THAT THIS tion and belief in his innocence with regard to INNERMOST PERSONAL FEELINGS AND WHOLE PROCESS OF HOLDING HEARINGS the complaint filed against him, automatically ATIITUDES THAT INDIVIDUALS MAY HAVE IS TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. IF THE EVI­ precludes any discussion of conciliation, and ABOUT EACH OTHER, FOR WHATEVER REA­ DENCE PRESENTED DOES NOT HAVE TO targets him for a Board of Inquiry hearing. This SONS. THE COMMISSION FURTHER RELATE TO DECISIONS HANDED DOWN BY accounts for a (April 7, 1990) London Free ASSUMES, THAT ONCE HAVING DEFINED THE BOARD, WHY BOTHER WITH HEAR­ Press article quoting then-commission officer SOMEONE'S ATIrrUDE OR FEEUNGS AS INGS? Rick Harrington as saying that the commission BEING "POUTICALLY INCORRECT", THAT has skipped an initial fact-finding stage in its FINES AND ORDERS ARE THE CMUZED process because "that's just a waste of time in WAY TO SUPPRESS THOSE ATIITUDES. (Of course, this is exactly what the Cornish Commission has recommended I) (co nt' d next pg)

HThere is only one good, knowledge~ and one evil, ignorance. 7 .7 - Socrates PageD Consent 21 August, 1994

(cont'd from prevo pg) Equitable principles? Not by a long shot. these witnesses were called in to express their opinions or expertise in areas deemed this case, the views are so polarized." appropriate and necessary by this Board. SUMMARY: NINE TO THREE: Worse, once before the board, he is Given the numbers. it is alarming how forced to respond to one or more of the 19 many inconsistencies, contradictions, and We have heard a great deal of evidence prescribed allegations as they are presented LACK OF CREDIBILITY appear in the testi­ on the Complaint form, and is effectively pertaining to the physical conditions of Mr. Elieff's Cheyenne Ave buildings. We have monies of the complainant's THREE wit· handicapped from arguing the full context of nesses, versus the CONSISTENCY and CRE · his situation, since his defence depends upon heard a great deal about whether or not the terms "pigs" "cockroaches" "good girl/bad DIBILITY of the respondent's NINE witnesses. focusing on a different culprit. One would assume, given the odds, that more girl" and others were or were not appropriately inconsistencies would appear given a greater used. For example, to make an analogy, if this number of witnesses. But that has not been were a CRIMINAL trial, and Mr. Elieff was the case. charged with a crime, But have we spent as much time surely evidence Moreover, the weight of evidence offered showing that Mr. X going deeper than "FundamentaIlY. there that, to what WE by the other miscellaneous witnesses tended committed the crime to favour the respondent's arguments. would exonerate Mr. are three witnesses believe to be, as per Elieff. Yet, this is not Pt III Sec 28(f) , the the principle on which supporting the com­ SOURCE of this ten­ SUSAN EAGLE, who is one of the Com· mission's three witnesses against the respon­ this board has pro­ plainant's case. (while) sion and conflict? ceeded. We have dent, has testified to this Board that she is a HIRED, and therefore PAID employee of been constantly Unfortunately, there are nine witnesses "FOUR UNITED CHURCHES" (Nov 16, p76) reminded that SUSAN no. EAGLE or the LON­ supporting the respon­ who "HAVE DESIGNATED SEVERAL BUILD­ INGS" (Nov 1 6, p94) in the Cheyenne Ave DON FREE PRESS 11 Fundamentally. are (figuratively dent's case. area. and that even as early as 1984 the THERE ARE THREE churches she works for were "ASKING CITY speaking) "NOT ON PERTINENT WIT­ TRIAL HERE", yet Mr. COUNCIL TO TAKE ACTION ... BEFORE any NESSES supporting Cambodian or Vietnamese people moved in." Elieff's response to the complaint has consis­ the complainant's case: CHIPPENG HOM who (Nov 1 6, p8D) tently maintained that THEY are the initiators is herself the complainant; SUSAN EAGLE, of the whole process that has brought him to whose interest in Mr. Elieff's Cheyenne Ave this hearing. apartment buildings includes plans to have SUSAN EAGLE has also been very actively involved in a LOBBY CAMPAIGN to them turned into co-op housing; and GREG The HUMAN RIGHTS CODE also states in VAN MOORSEL of the LONDON FREE PRESS replace Mr. Elieff's apartment buildings with Pt III, Sec 28(f): "It is the function of the whose Nov 8/89 article containing Mr. Elieff'~ co-op housing. This campaign has included an Commission .. . to inquire into incidents of the alleged comments was the precipitating event appeal for funds to the provincial government, CONDITIONS LEADING OR TENDING TO leading to the complaint being filed. and her activities and plans have been well LEAD TO TENSION OR CONFLICT based upon documented --- AND EDITORIALLY SUPPOR­ TED --- in the pages of the London Free Press. identification by a prohibited ground of discri­ Supporting the mination and take appropriate action to eli­ respondent's case, This should not minate the SOURCE of tension or conflict." THERE ARE NINE "Given the numbers, it is alarming be surprising, given PERTINENT WIT­ how many contradictions appear From Mr. Elieff's view, this function has NESSES: ELIJAH her connections to in the testimonies of the com­ not been performed properly. From his point ELiEFF, who himself the paper and the of view, and with a great deal of evidence to is the respondent; plainant's three witnesses, versus fact that SHE IS support him. the "conditions leading to the SULTANA ELiEFF. the consistency of the respon­ MARRIED TO JOE conflict" between him and his tenants ori­ ZORANCO ELiEFF. dent's nine witnesses_" MATYAS, a long-time ginate with SUSAN EAGLE'S LOBBY and with AND KATRINA LONDON FREE PRESS reporter and the repetitive racial references to his tenants ELiEFF, who are columnist, and who in the LONDON FREE PRESS. members of his family and who each have worked in his Cheyenne Ave apartment build­ once covered the religious articles of interest at the paper. He has attended these hearings Mr. Elieff sees the conflict as being one ings; and MIKE SUCUR, IRINA SUCUR, KEITH ACKWORTH, JOHN PIPE, and MARIE TWICE to the best of my knowledge, since I over control and ownership of his buildings --­ have represented Mr. Elieff, and it was he who MOWAT, all of whom were past or present a struggle between himself and SUSAN I asked to have identified at the last day's tenants of the buildings in question, and some EAGLE. hearings. of whom were directly involved in the main­ tenance efforts to keep the buildings and But instead of focusing on this issue, he property in proper repair. With the biased publicity and support must deal with the trivial matters of whether he afforded her cause in the LONDON FREE said "good girl or bad girl" to one of his PRESS, Susan Eagle has been able to con· tenants. or whether his opinions regarding the Also called as witnesses by the commis­ sion were TOM PARTALAS, NAVY CHAN, vince the community at large that Mr. Elieff is a behaviour of those who damage his property prejudiced, stubborn, and bigoted landlord. constitutes racial discrimination. JAMES DALY, and DARLENE CLARK. All of (.. .FINAL ARGUMENT conrd on bacK cover)

S'lJrute force bends. Fair argument convinces. n Vergilio Zoppi August; 1994 Consent 21 Page 9 REPRESENTING THE INDIVIDUAL

Elections In A Free Society

-William Frampton

(William Frampton is Freedom Party's Regional Vice-president, Eastern Ontario. An earlier version of this essay appeared in our Consent Special #1 (Can We Survive Democracy?) which was published in December 1990. This updated version includes a projection of how the last federal election might have turned out if Canadian voters used an electoral system called the Single Transferable Vote (STV). Mr. Frampton, who brilliantly represented Freedom Party before the Special Joint Committee on the process for amending the Constitution of Canada (transcripts available), has also advocated the STY to numerous other governmental bodies.)

The proper role of government in society is to protect individual must accept the bad along with the good. The voter's 'X' falsely implies rights. In order to carry out this function, the institutions of government complete endorsement of the candidate he votes for. must be designed with the individual in mind. Regrettably, this is not the case with the system used to elect governments in Canada and the Traditional political parties wield power over individuals in two United States. ways: (1) They have significant power to make legislators tow the party line, and (2) they restrict the choices open to voters. Both countries have inherited the electoral system used in Great Britain. This is known in political science as the single-member simple Legislators who dissent from the party line and vote according to plurality system, or less formally as "first their conscience risk withdrawal of their past the post" This electoral system party's support in future elections. If they reflects the philosophy of simple majority run as independents, the most likely out­ rule, and subordinates the individual voter "Election results are heavily come is that they split votes with the official and taxpayer to special-interest groups and influenced by electoral party candidate --- and another candidate political parties. wins the seat There are rare exceptions to boundaries, and seats can this rule, but few enough to keep most In the last few years, the public has legislators firmly in line. grown increasingly cynical about the effec­ be won and lost before any tiveness of political institutions. Politicians votes are cast. I. Votes are only meaningful in an elec­ now stand lower in the public's regard than tion if they produce an elected representa- almost any other profession one can think tive. Voters who support unsuccessful can­ of. but many people may not realize that the didates have no more effect on the outcome than they would if they system used to elect our governments has a great deal to do with this. stayed at home. In the 1 993 federal election, only 53% of the 13,596,508 votes were cast for successful candidates. One of the In Canadian and American elections, whether federal, state, or winners received just 31.7% of the votes in his constituency I provincial, the candidate who receives the most votes in each constituency is elected_ Sometimes the winner may actually have a Even more bizarre, the separatist Bloc Quebecois, which ran in majority of the votes cast, but increasingly there is no such majority, and only one province and came fourth in terms of votes, won enough seats the winner merely has a larger minority share than the others. In either to claim the title of official opposition. Is it any wonder Canadians are case, he or she supposedly represents everyone in that constituency. getting restless?

This claim to represent all constituents is clearly fallacious. On However, in examining alternatives to the present system, it is such diverse issues as abortion, capital punishment, free trade and important to address the root cause of this problem. government spending --- to name j~st a few -- there is always some disagreement about what, if anything, should (conrd next pg) be done. As a result, the elected member must always choose which of his constituents he will represent on each issue. In doing so, he or THE WIZARD OF ID BY BRANT PARKER and JOHNNY HART she inevitably chooses not to represent the others.

Even those who vote for the winner cannot be properly represented by this system. 'X' -voting forces the elector to vote as though he considers his preferred candidate ideal and all the others abominable. It presents the voters with a "package deal" in which they

"There is no iuture in any job_ The iuture lies in the man who holds tlJe job_ "Or. George Crane Page 10 Consenl21 August, 1994

(cant'o from prevo pg) obtains a majority. Another variation on this still be elected against the wishes of a theme can be found in the runoff elections significant portion of the electorate. The Election results are heavily influenced by used in some American primaries. Japanese system does not reduce the power electoral boundaries, and seats can be won of political parties significantly, so we must and lost before any votes are cast. The consider others. practice of drawing boundaries to favour one The alternative vote would eliminate party is called 'gerrymandering' after Elbridge minority representation and make legislators Gerry, a nineteenth-century governor of Mas­ slightly less dependent on their party. Howe­ Many European countries use variations sachusetts. Gerry rigged the election of 1812 ver, it still reflects the philosophy of majority of proportional representation (PR) . In these when he redrew the state Senate boundaries. rule and cannot prevent electoral bias. These systems, constituencies return as many as ten His Republican-Democrats were narrowly problems are inherent in any system based on or twenty members, and the seats are divided defeated in terms of votes but won a landslide single-member electoral districts. among the parties in proportion to the consti· victory, taking 29 of 40 seats. Many cases of tuency vote. The voter does not choose gerrymandering have been documented in the Since it is impossible for any single individual candidates but instead votes for a United States. elected member to represent the manifold party list. Most countries using this system opinions and interests of his constituents, the allow the voter to indicate personal pre­ ferences within a party list, but some do not. If It is sometimes suggested that this can be problem can only be resolved by adopting an the party wins five seats, its top five candi­ prevented by making all constituencies equal electoral system which provides the voters dates are elected. in size, but this is not the case. A simple with more than one representative. There are example will illustrate the problem. Consider a numerous alternatives small country with an evenly-balanced two­ to choose from, and List systems of party system. The East Party and West Party the problems dis­ proportional represen­ each wins 50% of the vote overall and 80% in cussed above can only liThe only electoral tation make it very dif­ their home regions. If four equal constituen­ be solved by adopting ficult --- if not impos­ cies are created, the outcome will still depend one of them. There is system that can solve sible --- for the govern­ upon how the boundaries are drawn. Two no other way to all the problems ing party to practice alternative outcomes are shown in the box remove the element of gerrymandering. below: majority rule and limit inherent with other However, the power the power of political wielded by political systems is the single liP 30 parties. parties is almost as (a) liP 130 EP 30 EP 130 transferable vote great as in single­ Japan uses a member systems. multi-member plurality (STV)." Since most voters opt liP 130 liP 30 system that has been for the straight party EP 30 EP 130 dubbed the single list, a candidate's posi­ non-transferrable vote. If the constituency has tion on that list has a major influence on his five seats, then the top five candidates are chances of being elected. The prospect of elected. Whatever the number of seats to be being moved down the list --- and out of office liP 60 filled, the elector has only one vote. If the --- keeps most legislators firmly in line. liP EP 90 (b) 130 party he decides to support fields more than one candidate, he must then decide which of In addition, the voter can support only liP 60 them to support. one party. Even if he casts a personal vote, his EP 90 vote is arbitrarily counted as a vote for that EP 30 liP 60 Gerrymandering is more difficult with this candidate's party when seats are allocated. As EP 90 system, but not impossible. The constituen­ a result, his vote could help elect another cies vary in size, usually returning a minimum candidate from that party --- even when he The outcome in (a) produces two seats of three members. This allows the party in does not support that candidate I List PR still for each party but that in (b) does not. With power to produce three-member constituen­ leaves the voter subordinate to political par­ precisely the same distribution of votes, EP cies where they are strong and larger ones ties, and therefore it is not a good alternative. now wins three of four seats and most of WP's where they are weak. The goal of such a votes are literally wasted. On these boun­ strategy is to win where the party is strong The only electoral system that can solve daries WP would need a swing of 10% to win and draw in other areas -- to lose nowhere. all the problems described above is the single a majority of the seats. EP could win three transferable vote (SlV). This is a multi­ seats with as little as 41 % of the vote. Political parties exercise almost as much member preferential system devised in the clout in this system as in "first past the post." nineteenth century and popularized by John Periodically there are calls for reform of An incumbent who finds himself dropped by Stuart Mill. It gives the voter the widest this system. The usual suggestion is to his party still faces the prospect of splitting the possible freedom of choice and produces change to the alternative vote, which is used vote if he decides to run for re-election. A approximately proportional representation. The in Australia. In this system, the voter chooses party can ruin its chances if it nominates too Irish parliament, the Australian Senate, and the as many candidates as he wants, marking a '1' many candidates -- they would simply split the Tasmanian state legislature are all elected for his first choice, a '2' for his second choice, party's vote and give seats to other parties. using STY. It is also used by several non­ and so on. If no candidate wins a majority, the governmental organizations, including the lowest one is eliminated and his votes are Church of England. All votes cast for unsuccessful candidates transferred according to second preferences. are still wasted, and those voters are not This process continues until one candidate represented in the outcome. Legislators can (cont'o next pg)

'Most rules Tor success won 'l work unless you do. n The Furrow August 1994 Consent 21 Page 11

(cont'd trom prevo pg) new blood into the legislative chamber without Political parties wield much less power having to throw out the government in the under SlY than under any other system. None The details of its use vary from place to process. of the candidates can be elected without place, but the general procedure is the same. reaching the quota unless the others have all The elector has one vote, and ranks the been eliminated. Consequently, the candi­ candidates in order of preference from 1 to 'n'. Voters in Tasmania took advantage of this date's standing with the voters is more impor­ Irish voters can make their ballots non-transfer­ feature when they went to the polls in 1 986. tant than his position within his party. The able by not ranking all the candidates. When Fifteen of the thirty-five incumbents were voters decide who will represent them --- not the voting is completed, the first preferences defeated, including the Speaker of the Legisla­ ture and two former Cabinet ministers. Despite the party hierarchies or the electoral boun­ are counted and the electoral quota is deter­ daries. mined. The number of votes a candidate this, the party standings remained exactly the requires in order to be elected is determined same as before the election. as follows: One objection that is sometimes raised When vacancies occur, they can be filled against the SlY is its alleged complexity, but this is a spurious argument. The fact that the {T otal number of votes cast} divided in either of two ways. A byelection -- known to counting takes longer is not a serious dis­ by {Total number of seats + 1}. plus L Americans as a special election - can be held to fill the vacant seat, just as it is now. But the advantage. The most important feature of an vacancy can also be filled using a procedure electoral system is how well it accommodates In a four-seat constituency with 100,000 known as a "count-back," in which the un­ the individual citizen, not whether the results votes cast, the quota would be: (100,000 / 5) successful candidates at the previous election are known an hour after the polls close. + 1 = 20,001. It is evident that if four are reconsidered. The retiring member's votes candidates each had 20,001 votes, no other are distributed as though he or she had not The individual is not well served by the candidate would possibly have more. been elected, and the votes are recounted single-member plurality system. This system from that point. This allows his supporters to reflects the philosophy of majority rule, pro­ Once the first preference votes are coun­ decide who his replacement will be and avoids duces "representatives" who are elected ted, candidates who have reached the quota the expense of a byelection. against the expressed wishes of many voters, are declared elected. Their surplus votes are and gives political parties undue power over all transferred according to the voters' second The constituency size is an important citizens. preferences. consideration for elections held under SlY. If the constituencies are too large, the ballot The single transferable vote (STV) is the If the quota is 20,001 and candidate 'A' grows too long and the counting process is only system that seems to solve all of these has 21,000 votes, his surplus of 999 is more involved. If they are too small, it is problems. Therefore, it has my vote as the transferred. Which 999? Since there can be no possible to gerrymander them. The optimum best system that meets the requirements of a answer to this, all 21,000 ballots are transfer­ size is probably five seats, with a minimum of free country. red --- but weighted by 999/21,000 so that four and a maximum of seven. only 999 'votes' are transferred.

When all surpluses have been transfer­ red, the lowest candidate is eliminated. His or The 1993 Canadian Federal Election Under STV her votes are redistributed among the remain­ ing candidates according to the second and, if necessary, lower preferences. This process of Liberal Reform PC BQ NDP transferring surpluses for elected candidates Newfoundland 5 2 and eliminating the lowest candidate is repea­ Nova Scotia 7 1 3 ted until all the seats are filled. Prince Edward Island 3 1 Under SlY, every vote counts, since the New Brunswick 6 1 3 voters can transfer their support to other Quebec 25 7 43 candidates if their first choice is not elected or Ontario 60 18 18 3 piles up a landslide victory. They no longer need to worry about wasting their vote: if they Manitoba 7 3 2 2 are impressed with a particular candidate who Saskatchewan 5 4 1 4 they think may not attract enough votes to win Alberta 8 15 3 election, they can indicate second and third choices. British Columbia 10 13 4 5 Northwest Territories 2 SlY means people power as opposed to Yukon 1 party power, since it allows individual voters to choose between candidates as well as parties. If a voter thinks an incumbent member of his Totals 138 55 44 43 15 preferred party is not doing a good job, he can vote against him without voting against his party. This allows the voter to replace legisla­ Above: The 1993 Canadian federal election as it might have turned out based on 63 tors they are unhappy with and substitute multi-member constituencies and the single transferable vote (STV). Actual seat totals members of the same party. They can bring could vary slightly depending on voters' allocation of lower preferences.

"The greatest mistake you can make is to be continually :fearing that you'll make one_ .. - Elbert Hubbard Page 12 Consenl21 August, 1994

(. .. FINAL ARGUMENT cont'd from pg 8) TO LIVE in the Cheyenne apartments ..... (Nov PONSES and DO THINGS COLLECTIVELy .. ... She was even able to express her "MORAL 16, p109), both the testimony of Chippeng Were it not for her efforts, "NOT ONE SINGLE OUTRAGE " against Mr. Elieff on the front Hom and Eagle's own editorial printed in the TENANT WAS WILLING .. . TO FILE PAPERS pages of the LONDON FREE PRESS when LONDON FREE PRESS make it very clear that (AGAINST) MR. ELlEFF ... .. (Nov 27, p136-7) she seized the opportunity to exploit an LOCATION and the existence of a "vibrant innocent but truthful comment made by the Cambodian community" are reasons why To date, SUSAN EAGLE's campaign has landlord that was reported in the by now anyone would want to live there. Not to been remarkably successful in that her only famous FREE PRESS article of Nov 8/89. mention the cheap price. remaining obstacle to acquiring control of Mr. Eliett's buildings is the matter of Her harassment of Mr. getting the necessary govern­ Elieff has gone to the extreme ment funding to make her move. of having pickets placed outside "Can we avoid asking ourselves if (rent his downtown Submarine shop control) isn't a disincentive for tenants As you know, Mr. Elieffs where, as she has testified to buildings are now under this board, it was her intention to keep their apartment units in good POWER OF SALE, his Sub­ "TO PUT PRESSURE on (Eliett) condition?" marine Shop is closed and out AS A BUSINESSMAN. Not as a of business, and he is now LANDLORD, but as a training to pursue the career of BUSINESSMAN. Not at his a truck driver to earn a living. APARTMENT BUILDINGS, but at his SUB­ In addition to all the aforementioned MARINE SHOP . things Susan Eagle has done, she has also instigated the filing of many RENT REVIEWs Thus the THREE WITNESSES who effec­ arguing that ..... under NEW (RENT CONTROL) tively have placed Mr. E1ieff before this board Her harassment of Mr. Elieff has been LEGISLATION, WE CAN APPLY ON THE CON­ REALLY REPRESENT ONE SINGLE INTER­ continuous, relentless, and determined. Seiz­ EST. ing every opportunity to file every type of DITION OF APARTMENTS TO ROLL THE complaint possible about Mr. Eliett's buildings, RENTS BACK... (EVEN BEYOND LEGAL org anizing tenants' meetings', seizing his rents LIMITS)" (Nov 27, p123) and having them directed into a trust' fund, FINAL REQUEST: actively searching for a complainant to file a This certainly helps explain why Mr. Elieff HRC complaint. moving his tenants out into has been purportedly charging "illegal rents", We would once again ask that this com­ some co -op housing called the GENESIS as it. was phrased by the LONDON FREE plaint be DISMISSED as per Sec 40(6) (a) of CO -OP (Nov 16,p78) etc. etc., SUSAN EAGLE PRESS, but CAN WE AVOID ASKING OUR ­ the HUMAN RIGHTS CODE, as being "trivial, with th e support of the LONDON FREE PRESS SELVES IF THIS ISN'T A DISINCENTIVE FOR frivolous, vexations, and made in bad faith." has made Mr. E1iett's life miserable from their TENANTS TO KEEP THEIR APARTMENT first meeting onward. UNITS IN A GOOD CONDITION? We would also ask that this Board of Inquiry "order the commission to pay to" Mr. Though EAGLE has testified that ..... it is SUSAN EAGLE has told us that a part of Elieff "such costs as are fixed by the Board." BEYOND ME WHY ANYONE WOULD WANT her work is to "FIND COMMUNITY RES-

CONSENT Number 21: August 1994, is published by tne Freedom Party of Ontario. Editor: Robert Metz; SUbscription Rate: $25 for SIX Issues. CONSENT welcomes unsolicited manuscripts, submissions, cartoons, quotes, and comments. Letters to CONSENT are published In Freedom Party's orrlclal newsletter, rreeoom r/yllr. Opinions expressed In tnls publication do not neceSSarily renect Freedom Party pOlicy.

FREEDOM PARTY OF ONTARIO Freedom Party of Ontario IS a fUlly-registered Ontario political party. Contnbunons are tax-{;redltable. Statement of Principle: Freedom Party IS founded on tne prinCiple that: Et'l!IY 1IlC1tV!Oll8/, III me peeceflllPIIl1i11l1 0/pel1iollel flllI1llmellC lies 8Ilebsolll/e 11£1111 to illS or/IeI' OWlI/11e, hbelty, elloplZlpel1y. Platform: that the p illpose 0/got'l!mmellt IS to PIZl/eCt IndiVidual freedom of chOice, 1101 to restnct It. Annual Membership & Support Level: $25 minimum (tax-creditable) ; Provincial Executive: 011/8110 Pre.'Foelll: RObert Metz; Vice-pre."oeIlC 011/8110: Lloyd WalKer; 011/8110 Secre/8lY: Robert vaughan, Reglolla! Vice-pnwoellC Eesi'Bm 011/8110: William Frampton; ,-:/Ile/Fi118l1CIa! Ol»ce/:' Patti Plant; Executive Officers: JacK Plant, Barry MalcOlm, Barry Fitzgerald; Party Leader: JacK Plant TO ORDER BACK-ISSUES OF CONSENT or FREEDOM FLYER, or simply to request more Information on Freedom Party please call or write:

FREEDOM PARTY OF ONTARIO, P.O. Box 2214, Stn. 'A', LONDON, Ontario N6A 4E3; Phone: (519) 681-3999; OFFICES: 240 Commissioners . Road West, LONDON, Ontario, N6J 1 Y1.