Ontario Press Council confuses complaints

JCT: I received a letter from the Ontario Press Council
about my complaint about the Brantford Expositor's untrue
editorial.

>From: "Mel Sufrin" <info@...>
>To: "John Turmel" <johnturmel@...>
>CC: "David Judd" <djudd@...>
>Subject: Re: Turmel Complaint about Brantford Expositor
>Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:25:51 -0400

Mr. Turmel:
I wrote to you on May 29, 2006, to advise you that the Press
Council had decided not to adjudicate your complaint against
the Expositor in connection with the article and editorial
about your actions at a provincial election meeting. The
Press Council's constitution says its "discretion on whether
to hear any complaint is absolute." In light of its
decision, I don't see any possibility of the Council
reopening the complaint.
Merl Sufrin, Executive Secretary

JCT: So I just wrote him back.

Re: Turmel Complaint about 2007 editorial
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.,
8-37 Colborne St. E.,
Brantford ON N3T 2G3,
Tel/fax: 519-753-0645
Email: johnturmel@...

June 23 2008

Mel Sufrin,
Ontario Press Council
2 Carlton Street, #1706
Toronto, ON M5B 1J3
Tel/fax: 416-340-1981/8724
Email: info@...

re: Expositor reply to "Turmel's Turmoil" editorial

>To: "John Turmel" <johnturmel@...>
>CC: "David Judd" <djudd@...>
>Subject: Re: Turmel Complaint about Brantford Expositor
>Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 11:25:51 -0400
>Mr. Turmel:
>I wrote to you on May 29, 2006, to advise you that the
Press Council had decided not to adjudicate your complaint
against the Expositor in connection with the article and
editorial about your actions at a provincial election
meeting. The Press Council's constitution says its
"discretion on whether to hear any complaint is absolute."
In light of its decision, I don't see any possibility of the
Council reopening the complaint.
>Mel Sufrin, Executive Secretary

I acknowledge you wrote in 2006 to advise me that the Press
Council had decided not to adjudicate my complaint against
the Expositor in connection with the articles and editorial
in 2006 about my actions at a provincial election meeting in
2006.
You now say the Press Council's constitution says its
"discretion on whether to hear any complaint is absolute,"
no matter how obvious or egregious the offence, and you
don't see any possibility of the Council reopening the
complaint.
I do not dispute that your constitution permitted you the
discretion to duck your advertised responsibility and let
the newspaper get away with its 2006 lies but I'm not asking
you to re-open the complaint of 2006, I'm asking you to deal
with the complaint about the new editorial from 2007.
Whether I use the same tape recording of the event to prove
the newspaper lied in its 2006 story about me to now prove
it lied in the 2007 editorial about me is immaterial to the
charge I have filed herein against the 2007 editorial.
The fact the Council was derelict in its responsibility in
2006 despite its absolute discretion to fail in its
advertised duty to adjudicate complaints does not absolve it
of having to deal with the complaint for 2007.
Because the Ontario Press Council let the paper get away
with its 2006 lies does not give the newspaper carte blanche
to treat the those lies as repeatable truths in 2007.
As you pointed out, the Council has the absolute discretion
to do nothing despite its stated function. But just because
you did nothing about the 2006 libel does not absolve you
from doing something about the 2007 libel.
Despite the Ontario Press Council ducking its responsibility
to deal with the lies in the 2006 story, I request the
Ontario Press Council fulfill your mandate and deal with the
lies in the 2007 editorial.
Yours truly,
John C. Turmel, B.Eng.

CC: "David Judd" <djudd@...>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]