• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Fmr MCpl Patrik Mathews - facing U.S. federal charges/alleged white supremacist

"......'Hands in the air': RCMP raid home of army reservist accused of ties with neo-Nazi group...."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/patrik-mathews-reservist-accused-neo-nazi-group-1.5253212



Cheers
Larry
 
From the CBC article:

Some experts estimate the membership in The Base is around 50 to 100 members.

Estimates are over 60 ISIL fighters have returned to Canada. ISIL fighters who actively participated in a terrorist group. No ERT raids. Some reservist who allegedly is part of an online hate group and allegedly is recruiting for them gets the full ERT cordon and search on his home a week after reports of the investigation has leaked.

Why are we not treating both groups the same here?  :facepalm: 

 
PuckChaser said:
From the CBC article:

Estimates are over 60 ISIL fighters have returned to Canada. ISIL fighters who actively participated in a terrorist group. No ERT raids. Some reservist who allegedly is part of an online hate group and allegedly is recruiting for them gets the full ERT cordon and search on his home a week after reports of the investigation has leaked.

Why are we not treating both groups the same here?  :facepalm:

Easy hit for some major political points.

He probably registered those firearms as well.  Quick application of the firearms act in the name of public safety with a nice show of force to dissuade his comrades.

These dummies don't seem like very sophisticated criminals/militants for that matter.  More like a bunch of idiots that play Mr. Dress Up on the weekends.

 
The Winnipeg Free Press had an article on the front page and an editorial.
The author of the article really did a hatchet job on Gwen Borque. Not too impressed with his bias or that’s the way I perceive it.


 
I heard this in a TV exchange last night: "Explosive headlines do not make explosives experts."
 
>Some reservist who allegedly is part of an online hate group and allegedly is recruiting for them gets the full ERT cordon and search on his home a week after reports of the investigation has leaked.

I'm hoping we get a press release explaining why it was necessary.  I care about civil liberties much more than I care about harassing any of the gangs in this country.  I don't want the tolerances of the country to be as narrow as the tolerances of the CAF (with which I agree).
 
Hamish Seggie said:
The Winnipeg Free Press had an article on the front page and an editorial.
The author of the article really did a hatchet job on Gwen Borque. Not too impressed with his bias or that’s the way I perceive it.

I don't know if the Winnipeg Free Press journalist participated in the media teleconference with Col Bourque or which reporter asked the specific question that forms the basis of the "hatchet job".

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/canadas-military-will-take-aggressive-actions-with-extremist-soldiers-defence-minister-vows-557361812.html
. . .
Bourque stressed Mathews does not currently have access to military weaponry and seemed to downplay Mathews' experience with explosives, saying his training in this area was "rudimentary."

However, a military source told the Free Press explosives are the "bread and butter" of all combat engineers.

While there are members of the army reserves with more advanced training, the source said Mathews spent months learning how to use explosives and has participated in countless exercises involving explosives.

It is not known when the military investigation will conclude. It is also unclear what action — if any — the forces will take against Mathews, although Bourque said there are several options at their disposal, including termination.

During the interview, Bourque seemed unfamiliar with the violent neo-Nazi organization; when a reporter asked if the military had confirmed Mathews is a member of The Base, she got confused and thought the reporter was referring to a military base.

Maybe the Free Press reporter, like me, came to a judgement (though opposing) by listening to the presser as it was ongoing live.  I specifically remember the question being put to Col Bourque and (probably like her) my first thought was "why is this reporter asking about the soldier being on the base, doesn't he know that reservists don't live and work on bases - what the f*** is this arsehole talking about - he should have some basic background about how the military works before getting into a related story".  It was only when he explained what he meant by "base" did his question make sense to me.  The reporter wasn't clear in his question - one of the things I learned long, long ago about communication and interviewing (on my JLC) was that it's a two way street and it is important for the interviewer to know the context and terminology that the interviewee expects.

I thought that Col Bourque handled herself reasonably well during the presser.  If it had been me, I probably would have replied to the "base question" similarly to my thought in italics in previous paragraph.
 
Brad Sallows said:
>Some reservist who allegedly is part of an online hate group and allegedly is recruiting for them gets the full ERT cordon and search on his home a week after reports of the investigation has leaked.

I'm hoping we get a press release explaining why it was necessary.  I care about civil liberties much more than I care about harassing any of the gangs in this country.  I don't want the tolerances of the country to be as narrow as the tolerances of the CAF (with which I agree).

You won’t, because it’s none of your business. From what has been reported, police announced that they were executing a warrant on the residence. That tells me that they were able to persuade a judge or justice that grounds existed to enter the residence to search for something. It may have been evidence of a criminal offense, it may have been a judicial authorization to search for and seize firearms due to a revocation by a firearms officer. It may have been both. As for why ERT was present, that will have been based on their risk assessment, which would be based on much more information than you or I have access to.

Police are not in the habit of routinely holding pressers to explain why an authorized search was carried out in a specific fashion. I think you *can* be assured that this wasn’t simply a matter of him holding ‘wrong’ views and having an ERT team show up as a result. There would have to be much more to it than that in order to get judicial authorization. And at the end of the day, the police are still bound by privacy legislation that precludes them from explaining to your satisfaction why they did what they did.
 
I wonder if the ERT had EOD assets since the target was an explosives expert

Kidding, but serious question about firearms.

Can the RCMP contact their firearms office and say we suspect so and so may be violent, can you revoke his firearms licence? Where the CFO then could revoke someone's license making them illegally in possession of firearms which the RCMP could then go before a judge and a search warrant for said firearms?
 
Jarnhamar said:
I wonder if the ERT had EOD assets since the target was an explosives expert

Kidding, but serious question about firearms.

Can the RCMP contact their firearms office and say we suspect so and so may be violent, can you revoke his firearms licence? Where the CFO then could revoke someone's license making them illegally in possession of firearms which the RCMP could then go before a judge and a search warrant for said firearms?

Not precisely that easily, but the same end can be achieved. S.117.04 of the criminal code allows police to apply to a justice for a warrant to search and seize firearms or other prohibited/restricted weapons/devices on the grounds that it’s not desirable for the safety of that person or of any other that they possess firearms. There are also ‘exigent circumstances’ that allow for this to be done with a warrant if the grounds for a warrant are met but it would be impractical to obtain one (usually this is in the context of an emergency self harm / domestic violence situation).

I’m less clear on what happens on the CFO side of things, though i know they are routinely notified of criminal matters that could trigger firearms license revocations.

I’m not speculating on this specific case. What we do know does conceivably fit this set of circumstances. I could certainly see police applying for such a search and seizure in the case of someone known to have firearms and who is reasonably suspected to be advocating political violence.
 
Hamish Seggie said:
The Winnipeg Free Press had an article on the front page and an editorial.
The author of the article really did a hatchet job on Gwen Borque. Not too impressed with his bias or that’s the way I perceive it.
The author of the article tried to infilatrate the group & got the scoop on this.

Yeah, he doesn't understand the military - BIG time ...
 
>You won’t, because it’s none of your business.

Everything agents of the government - who ultimately all work on behalf of all of us - do is our, hence my, business.  I don't mean police need to provide info on their own initiative with each investigative step they take; I'd only expect them to do so if directed.  Who so directs?  I'd like the political masters to at least confirm there was some solid justification.  Right now, I see nothing that changed except the public shitstorm.  The guy was under investigation and it's just coincidence that the police decided to move at this time?  Doubtful.  There was a pressing need to take him into custody?  Apparently not for long.

The more people hide behind "none of your business", the more sunlight I want to shine on them and the more I want to limit their power.
 
"a military source"

Who, exactly, I wonder?  I call bullshit - a Res F member may have spent a total of "months" on courses and may have participated in many exercises over, say, 8 years, but to give the impression of "months" of hands-on with one particular skill is misleading.  "A military source" should know better.
 
Brad Sallows said:
>You won’t, because it’s none of your business.

Everything agents of the government - who ultimately all work on behalf of all of us - do is our, hence my, business.  I don't mean police need to provide info on their own initiative with each investigative step they take; I'd only expect them to do so if directed.  Who so directs?  I'd like the political masters to at least confirm there was some solid justification.  Right now, I see nothing that changed except the public shitstorm.  The guy was under investigation and it's just coincidence that the police decided to move at this time?  Doubtful.  There was a pressing need to take him into custody?  Apparently not for long.

The more people hide behind "none of your business", the more sunlight I want to shine on them and the more I want to limit their power.

Fortunately there exists a mechanism by which you can learn everything you’re legally entitled to know. Here you go. It’ll cost you $5 and take about 5-10 minutes to submit the request; I’ve done it before and it’s pretty easy.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/en/making-a-request-the-access-information-act

Alternatively you can probably submit a request through Manitoba court records for any related filings e.g., Informations to Obtain for search warrants and such.

 
Why waste $5?  I've seen PR conferences before; another one would not be unusual.  If the grown-ups don't feel a need to explain why it was important to do this now instead of a few weeks or months ago, or that this is the first inkling they have of this group, its membership, and what it's all about, then they won't.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Why waste $5?  I've seen PR conferences before; another one would not be unusual.  If the grown-ups don't feel a need to explain why it was important to do this now instead of a few weeks or months ago, or that this is the first inkling they have of this group, its membership, and what it's all about, then they won't.

I’m gonna take a second to take the opportunity to apologize- my last reply was unnecessarily condescending, and I was accurately and fairly called out for that. Sorry for that; there was nothing you said that was deserving of scorn.

There is some stuff they can and will release; some stuff they can’t and won’t. By and large people want to know a lot about why police do certain things, but often there are significant legal barriers to saying much. It results in a lot of actions being necessarily opaque. Often it eventually becomes possible to speak of due to some things becoming public record through various legal proceedings, but often by the time that happens interest has faded.

I have to resist speculating on this case because it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to. I will say that I don’t find any of what we’ve seen surprising given what I know about the authorities police have to act in certain cases. I don’t find how it was done surprising given some of the things we already know, and the reasonable inference that those investigation the file know more than we do.
 
Brad Sallows said:
I care about civil liberties much more than I care about harassing any of the gangs in this country. 

I am quite the opposite, especially if it concerns groups of people preparing for a non-existent *war* within our borders.  Do you really think the word "harassment" fits in this particular case? 

Brad Sallows said:
>You won’t, because it’s none of your business.

Everything agents of the government - who ultimately all work on behalf of all of us - do is our, hence my, business.  I don't mean police need to provide info on their own initiative with each investigative step they take; I'd only expect them to do so if directed.  Who so directs?  I'd like the political masters to at least confirm there was some solid justification.  Right now, I see nothing that changed except the public shitstorm.  The guy was under investigation and it's just coincidence that the police decided to move at this time?  Doubtful.  There was a pressing need to take him into custody?  Apparently not for long.

The more people hide behind "none of your business", the more sunlight I want to shine on them and the more I want to limit their power.

Why would political masters need to confirm they were justified?  You're worried about 'shining light'...I'm more worried about the folks running around preparing for the "imminent race war".  I'd rather the RCMP and political masters take precautionary actions to stop stupid, dangerous people from doing stupid, dangerous things.  *An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure*

I'm not seeing a possible Enemy of the State storyline here...personally, I think this topic is far, far more concerning and one you should be demanding answers from your political masters about.  :2c:
 
>I'd rather the RCMP and political masters take precautionary actions to stop stupid, dangerous people from doing stupid, dangerous things.

I believe I understand the sentiment, and actually share it, but that is superceded (negated, in effect) by my belief that people have the right to be stupid and dangerous, to form associations among themselves, and to talk about stupid and dangerous things openly provided they are not conspiring to commit crimes or imminently going to commit one.

I welcome any plausible scenario which inspires confidence in the authorities.  Some scenarios that do not:

1. They didn't know about the group.
2. They knew about the group, but not the member.
3. They knew about the group and the guy, and assessed a threat meriting seizures and arrests, but chose not to act until recent circumstances forced their hand.  (Major embarrassment still to come if this is the case and facts to that effect emerge.)
4. They knew about the group and the guy, and assessed no threat meriting action at this time, but decided to stage a show because of political embarrassment.

If the group is such a problem, I would have expected a lot of other noise before now and more to follow.  Otherwise I am inclined to view this as (4).
 
FSTO said:
Don't worry, the likes of Jesse Brown and Canadaland will be all over this as proof that the White Patriarchy CAF is rife with white nationalists.

And as predicted CanadaLand breathlessly reports that "WE HAVE A NAZI PROBLEM IN CANADA!"

Go to the 23 minute of this podcast.
https://www.canadalandshow.com/podcast/227-scandal-what-scandal/

But on second thought, what else is our media to think when they are utterly ignorant of the Canadian military?
 
Back
Top