JCT: Expositor Editor David Judd refused to publish the web
site with the transcript of the event in my letter to the
editor and then said he stood by Michael-Allan Marion's
report on me though he had not stood by it when originally
complained about to the Ontario Press Council. Refusing to
publish the link to the transcript was an unfair deletion
so:

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

Wednesday Nov 7 2007

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

re: "Turmel's Turmoil" Expositor editorial

1. On Sep 29 2007, the Brantford Expositor published an
editorial titled "Turmel's Turmoil" which contained a
fabrication about me:

>Turmel's turmoil
>Brantford Expositor, Sep 29 2007
>Editorial

John Turmel might better be named John Turmoil. Trouble
often attends the independent candidate on the election
trail. He was kicked out in the first 10 minutes of an all-
candidates debate on cable television last week. Since then,
he has not been invited to at least four other debates....

[... And why would they invite him after the way he behaved
at an all-candidates' meeting for the federal election in
Brant in January 2006? Here's how an Expositor editorial
described Turmel's disrespect for the other candidates and
the audience:
Turmel had no business goading Christian Heritage
Party candidate John Wubs and shouting at the
moderator, other candidates and the audience to
the point that police were called.
Turmel repeatedly quoted passages from the
"Internet Bible" clearly intended to offend Wubs.
The Christian Heritage candidate finally spoke up,
saying he was offended. NDP candidate Lynn
Bowering and Liberal candidate Lloyd St. Amand
said they were offended, too.
Turmel shouted that he is educated and that others
at the debate were not. He called one member of
the audience an "ignoramus" and told another
person "you're not very bright."
As for the audience in general, Turmel said, "You
cannot possibly follow what I've said. You're not
intelligent enough."
Conservative candidate Phil McColeman called the
police. Two officers quickly arrived by which time
Turmel had calmed down.
But the damage had been done. About one-third of
the audience of 75 people had left. Children and
young people, who had come to see democracy in
action, were treated to an embarrassing incident.
An all-candidates meeting should be an exchange of
ideas. Instead, audience members were asking: "Why
should we have to listen to this stuff?"

2. On Oct 1 2007, I sent a letter of complaint to the
Expositor editor:

>Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 21:35:53 -0400 (EDT)
>From: turmel@... (John Turmel)
>Subject: Turmel Turmoil editorial same old fabrication
>To: opinion@...

Letter to the Brantford Expositor
opinion@...

Re: Editorial: Turmel Turmoil

Dear Sir:

In your Sep 29 2007, you could not condone the Pauline
Johnson principal for barring her adult student voters from
the ideas of one of the candidate but you argued that
Michael-Allan Marion's report on my behavior at a 2006
federal election candidates debate made her not being
democratic all okay. Even if Marion's report had been true,
barring me for caustic remarks is still not very persuasive
reason to dispense with democratically letting voters hear
all their available choices.

Just as I have had to complain about Marion fabricating the
story about Tim Philp ordering Brantford Police to eject me
from this 2007 Rogers debate for making continued caustic
comments, which I had not, I had to complain about him
fabricating these caustic comments I had not made at a
debate which I had taped back in the 2006 election.

http://yahoogroups.com/group/brantford/message/1644 is the
transcript of the tape I made contradicting the fabrication.

http://yahoogroups.com/group/brantford/message/1729 is my
complaint to the Ontario Press Council.

http://yahoogroups.com/group/brantford/message/1860 is the
Council's decision after you submitted no defence to the
tape. The council refused to adjudicate the matter. So you
somehow are under the impression that because the council
would not censure you for the fabrication, that made it all
true.

Even if people still believe that 2006 fabrication as you
obviously do, I still don't think it was good enough of a
reason for doing away with the democratic process in
Brantford politics. And of course, barring me from the
process because of my ideas is an even worse reason than my
mis-reported bad behavior.
John Turmel, Brantford

3. The Expositor printed my letter to the editor titled "He
should not have been banned" which rebutted the editorial
but the web site URL containing the transcript of the tape
proving my points was dropped because:
























































>Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:39:59 -0400
>From: opinion@... (OPINION)
>Subject: Re: Turmel: Good urls
>To: turmel@...

Mr. Turmel: These URLs link to a page urging readers to sign
up for Yahoo groups. I have removed them from your letter.
David Judd

4. An Editor's note at the end of my letter said:
"The Expositor stands by the accuracy of Michael-Allan
Marion's reporting about John Turmel."

5. I would point out that when I complained to the Ontario
Press Council about his 2006 fabrication and provided a tape
of the event, the Expositor refused to stand by the accuracy
of Marion's story before the Ontario Press Council. Faced
with a clear-cut case of abuse, the Press Council abnegated
its responsibility and refused adjudicate the matter.

6. The Expositor seems under the impression that the Council
letting them get away with their 2006 fabrication must mean
it's true. And they repeated it.

7. Printing my letter but cutting out the web site
containing the transcript of the tape proving my point is
like printing my "not guilty" but not my evidence.

8. I am again complaining about The Expositor publishing the
same lame fabrication as I complained about in 2006 and then
deleting the site of the transcript of the tape from my
letter. The same tape from the 2006 debate that proved the
fabrication then can prove the fabrication now now.

9. Having failed to fulfill its mandate that last time, I
hope the Council avails itself of this second opportunity to
censure the fabrication. Let's hope that The Expositor
saying they stand by their reporter's version does not once
again means they will "not."

Yours truly,
John C. Turmel

JCT: Let's see if the Council lets them get away with a
tape-proven fabrication again.


--
Abolitionist Debt Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer"
Turmel for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution
C6 to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel USENET blog: alt.fan.john-turmel