You can find part one here. And you can see the video of it right below.
At the end of that call I gave the Surrey RCMP my email address. I didn’t expect them to ever get back to me, but a few days later I received this email from Cpl. Vanessa Munn.
Which lead to the following email exchange over the next two days.
Cpl. Munn,Thank you. In fact I was just complaining to someone else about not hearing back from you and I am quite happy to see myself immediately stood up. I eagerly await your response.
To which she responded.
Good Morning Timothy,
After speaking to the officer in charge of this investigation, I have learned that there is a publication ban on the proceedings, so as much as I would like to provide you further information I am unable to at this time.
If you would like to understand more about the specific facts of this case you could attend the sentencing hearing. You can find court dates at https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/criminal/searchAccusedResult.do?serviceId=74475500
There is a BC Hate Crime Team which is comprised of members of the RCMP, New Westminster Police Service and other community agencies. They would likely be able to provide you with further information regarding hate crime and hate crime charges in general. The Team can be reached at 604-543-4903 or 604-598-4243.
As for your interest in hate crime stats they are available at Police-reported hate crime, number of incidents and rate per 100,000 population, Census Metropolitan Areas (statcan.gc.ca)
Thank you for your inquiry and best of luck with further research.
Well needless to say I was unimpressed by this, but I can’t really sum up the issues with her response without repeating what I wrote back to her. Sorry for the formatting issues.
Vanessa,Quite frankly that’s not nearly good enough. There does not appear to be a single good, non political reason for a publication ban in this case. It is beyond obvious and frankly insulting to the intelligence of the public to deny the political, anti-Christian nature of this publication ban. Who was the judge responsible for this? Who recommended this course of action? What possible arguments could be used?I asked quite specifically for you to give me the names of those responsible for deciding to not charge Kathleen Panek with hate crime charges, and you have utterly failed to do so. Furthermore, you then “helpfully” send me to a website that, due to the publication ban, does not give me a single worthwhile piece of information, only that there is a publication ban on all details in Kathleen Panek’s intentional burning of a church down to the ground. I do not have information on the judge, nor do I have any information on reasoning, nor do I have any information on future court proceedings, although it does in fact appear that there won’t be any.Finally, you gave me a generic list of hate crime statistics, that does not even include Surrey BC, and does not have any information on it other than a map of Vancouver. And no, not even with locations of so-called hate crimes, it’s just a map.You have intentionally wasted my time as a tactic meant to discourage the general public from demanding answers from what appears to be a completely anti-Christian and undeniably anti-democratic ruling, perpetuated in part by the Surrey RCMP. You and your superiors appear to have chosen power over legitimacy. I have to admit, even I was surprised by the utterly mask off oppression underway here through this system, that you have chosen to be a part of, but I will ensure that as many Canadians as possible see this behaviour, and that we get to the bottom of this regardless.Nevertheless, there are other cases right here in Surrey that you are going to provide me with answers for.Thank you for your time.
I’ll admit, I was seething. I had every right to be, although I may not have chosen the most productive course of action. I was actually so mad when writing that email that I accidentally repeated the second last paragraph again, and didn’t notice when editing it.
Well anyway, I thought that would be that, but I actually received a call from the Surrey RCMP, specifically Elenore Sturko, the head PR lady. As a result I didn’t have my phone on for the very start of this conversation, but all we missed are some pleasantries.
Sturko: … cause I’m on a foot patrol here in Newton right now. But Vanessa told me you could just call back to the detachment so I thought I would try and give you a call.
Me: Awesome Elenore thank you so much for calling I didn’t think I would ever get to you.
Sturko: Yeah you know what? The thing is that I’ve been out on an assignment. So, although I am still the media relations NCO I am working on the frontlines so that I can get reacquainted with the awesome stuff that people are doing on the frontlines.
Me: Awesome stuff I’m sure.
Sturko: So I’m happy to be with you now. I read your email, and I heard from the team that you’re feeling really frustrated with some of the outcomes we’ve had with our investigation.
Me: Well, frustrated is a fair evaluation of my emotional state right now. Downright suspicious may be more accurate. Now there are a few questions – you seem pretty up to date on what’s been going on here. This was a case you were familiar with, I hope.
Me: As the – the term is Media and Communications Officer, correct?
Sturko: Yeah I’m the Surrey RCMP Media and Relations NCO. So I’m in charge of media and relations for the Surrey RCMP.
Me: Okay, so just to reiterate here July 14th Kathleen Panek arsons the church, the Coptic Church in Surrey, British Columbia. July 19th she goes back and finishes the job. And there were a few questions I asked and wanted to get the answer to. Mainly though, why were there no hate crime charges leveled against Kathleen Panek when the Surrey RCMP is no stranger to hate crime charges. And on top of that, you know, why was the press release from the Surrey RCMP so sort of bland and generic.
That last point is more critical than you may realize. Ultimately the RCMP decides what charges get recommended to the Crown for them to prosecute. They can not recommend any hate crime/terrorism charges, and they don’t have to tell anyone. But they always have the excuse that they recommended hate crime charges, and the Crown was the party that refused to prosecute them. It’s a deliberately opaque process that is designed to obfuscate which party is responsible for throwing the fight.
But while the RCMP can throw their hands up and absolve themselves of responsibility for the Crown not charging Kathleen Panek, in this case, with hate crimes, they are absolutely responsible for the words that they say relevant to the matter. These police departments love saying things like “we are investigating as a hate crime,” when the politics align with their masters. As one example, that “Islam is Evil,” graffiti event, which is sandwiched by the two arsons, prompted the following quote from the Surrey RCMP.
[On the “anti-Muslim hate graffiti,” their words, not mine.]
“These types of incidents have a significant impact on the feeling of safety and security for members of our Muslim Community. Hate crimes and hate motivated criminal activity have no place in Surrey.” – Constable Sarbjit K. Sangha.
And this was their response to a church being arsoned to the ground.
Sgt. Elenore Sturko said the loss of the church has had a significant impact on members of the congregation and the greater community. “We hope that this announcement of an arrest and charges will bring some comfort to those who were impacted.”
You may notice the complete lack of references to hate crimes, or the “safety of our Christian Community,” or anything else like that. The Surrey RCMP could easily have made a statement to that effect, there’s no law against them even being wrong in retrospect. They didn’t, because they didn’t want to, and this is a pattern of behaviour that you’ll see from the blue antifa over and over again.
Now back to the video, where I’m still talking.
But I think we’ve moved past that, because what your coworker Vanessa Munn said is that she couldn’t tell me any of details I wanted to know or any member of the public, because some judge, perhaps at the recommendation of someone in the Surrey RCMP, put a publication ban on this case. Now I’ve –
Elenore Sturko: Yeah so if I could just break in here for a sec. When they make the decision to make the publication ban it’s not anything any recommendations of ours. It’s probably likely, and I’ll just – from what I know on the case there may be some mental health implications and medical implications for the person who is accused. And that may be playing a factor at this time in why they’ve chosen – I don’t know what the publication ban exactly covers.
Sometimes they cover uh, different parts of people’s confessions. Sometimes they cover different parts of medical situations and, but I’m actually not sure uhm what the publication ban would cover at this time.
So what I can tell you about the hate crime. Generally if things like arsons or even an assault, unless it falls within a very narrow category of the criminal code that actually hate crimes in Canada have a lot to do with things like the uhm, uh, proliferation of sort of propaganda materials with things that would be uhm, inciting hatred against a certain group. Like inciting other people to do riots or beating other people. Or someone who directly targets another individual.
For example they see a person of a certain ethnic persuasion, and for no other reason than their ethnic persuasion commits crime. For those, even in those cases what can often happen is that they will be charged with the base crimes, so assault and in this case arson, and then whether or not hate is a factor is something that’s actually used in sentencing by the judge.
What she’s saying now is partly, but shows how illegitimate the entire legal system is. We saw Judge Harry Van Horten, pictured above, refuse to sentence an Aboriginal women who attacked a White Woman, randomly, while screaming “I hate White People,” and then after the attack saying “The White Man is out to get me,” with racially motivated animus. It’s also not entirely true, because someone can be charged with hate crimes right from the get go, which should obviously be happening if they deliberately burned down a church.
Sturko Continued: And that’s things that probably uh may or may not be covered by the publication ban. And this is something that I don’t have a lot of information on. But you know I think maybe choosing to do psychiatric evaluations or certain types of other things that may be a factor.
Fake mental illness is an extremely common strategy that Globo Homo does to keep criminals out of jail. We’re seeing it with Jupiter Paulsen’s killer, Arthur Kollie. We’re seeing it with Waukesha BLM terrorist Darrell Brooks. And we’re seeing it here with Kathleen Panek.
Me: Yeah there’s a lot of things that could be happening, but almost certainly are not in such an obvious example where she burned down a fucking church. And was not charged with hate crimes. And by the way, you seem to think that I’m this newbie who’s never called into the RCMP before.
Sturko: No I –
Me: And I’m aware when I’m being given the run around here. This is a pattern of behaviour where I’ve dealt with three cases now, four actually, where we’ve had publication bans for quite frankly –
Sturko: The publication ban isn’t anything to do with the RCMP sir. It’s –
Me: Okay no that’s fine. Thank you for that information.
Sturko: I wish I could tell you more, to be honest, because I think you would feel more satisfied if you did know more. From what I know of this investigation, when certain information was relayed to me about the motivation it was confusing to me, but made sense.
Which is why we wanna *inaudible* to reassure the public that, based on what we know uhm from the investigation, she actually, and possibly because of different medical concerns or mental health concerns it actually is, surprisingly, not related to religion or to the church at all. Other than fortunately uhm, that’s where she chose to commit arson.
So I feel very terrible that I can’t give you more. And I’m not trying to give you the runaround.
Me: Okay let’s bring this down a little bit emotionally. Because I think – you’re giving me some good information here. Apparently the publication ban had – or at least was not the decision of the Surrey RCMP.
Sturko: Nor do we recommend, like that’s not our discretion. We wouldn’t have had any reason to make a publication ban in this case. There’s no other evidence to protect, there’s no witnesses to protect, and there’s certainly no – from our point of view there wasn’t any other investigation they need to protect. We gave everything over to Crown. And so, likely, in this case, it has something maybe to do with a health concern for the accused.
Me: For the perpetrator of the crime, okay.
Sturko: Yeah, that person right? So maybe she’s mentally ill.
Me: Maybe she is, maybe she is.
Sturko: Sir, there’s a good possibility there. Without spilling the beans on this here I’m just letting you know that that could play a significant role which would really point the direction of why maybe the judge has chosen that route at this point. She has plead guilty so we know that their lawyers are working together with Crown prosecutors and the judge to try to find appropriate sentence for her.
I think it goes without saying that the “appropriate sentence,” they’ll “find,” for her will be the absolute minimum sentence they can possibly get away with. Maybe even less than minimum, if they can find her guilty, but not responsible due to made up mental illness.
And they’re probably working to determine – so you know she’s admitted that she did it. The judge didn’t find any reason in the evidence that was collected that he should charge her with a hate crime and potentially, without me spilling the beans to you, potentially there’s a mental health thing going on with this person.
Yeah who could possibly think there was any evidence of a hate crime for the burning down of a church in a clearly non-random attack, considering she attempted to do the same less than a week prior? A bigotphobe, that’s who.
Me: Uhm, how do I say this politely. The idea – you said something to the effect of “she just has a mental illness, and I guess she’s a real pyromaniac and she just, you know, randomly chose this church-“
Sturko: I didn’t say that!
Me: Well, the problem is because there’s a publication ban I kind of have to read between the lines here. You said there’s a mental illness.
Sturko: No you can’t read between the lines that she’s a pyromaniac and she’s mentally ill. I’m letting you know there are other factors. You know, even if there’s a publication ban people in the public are still welcome to go to sentencing and hear the statement of facts. To attend court cases and find out. It’s just that, at this point in the process the RCMP isn’t at liberty to disclose uhm, things for you. And your best bet for more information is to contact crown counsel, the BC Prosecution Service.
Sturko once again deliberately tries to waste my time. Even if I went down to the courts, and wasted hours upon hours of my time, the publication ban ensures that I can’t publish what I found. The same is true for BC Prosecution Services, which I called, and who didn’t tell me anything anyway. The publication ban is not just for the RCMP, it’s for everyone.
I would like to deal – to share more with you to let you know that we – of course we considered the possibility in our investigation that hate could be a motivation. Particularly because at the time the arson took place there were other church fires and stuff that were uhm, potentially aligned with people’s concern over residential school legacy.
Me: People’s concerns…
Sturko: Yeah, right? So we like that’s obviously something that we looked at.
Me: I wasn’t actually agreeing with you there but sure.
Sturko: Well that’s something that we could look at but, based on the information that we obtained and the facts as they presented themselves to investigators, within the definition of a hate crime in Canada it didn’t fit. But whether or not in the sentencing the judge would determine that hate was a motivator, it could play a part in sentencing. It’s just that to be charged with that, an actual hate crime, there is a certain sort of actus reas that a person has to do and those things were not met, within the –
Me: Okay, so burning down a church doesn’t meet the definition of hate crime? But, three days prior to this, someone wrote “Islam is Evil,” graffiti, which you’d think would be protected speech in Canada, and that definitely, definitely meets the criteria of a hate crime according to the Surrey RCMP yourself, in your own press releases by uh, I don’t have her name right now, Constable Sarbjit K. Sangha, I hope I’m pronouncing that correctly.
We’ve been over this before earlier in this piece. The double standard is very much in your face.
Sturko: You know it just – like I’m trying to communicate to you they are all based on circumstance. If the person had burned a church down because they are targeting a church and hate Christianity. That, and you know they specifically burnt the church because they’re motivated by a hatred, by a bias against Christianity, uhm, hate, they may have committed a hate crime, or they may have had hate play a factor in their sentencing. But we, in our investigation it did not fit that. It did not, that wasn’t a factor, unfortunately.
Me: It wasn’t a factor, just her generic mental illness which happened to through pure coincidence lead her to target a church not one time but two times with arson in a pattern that fits with the 68 churches that have been arsoned, desecrated or otherwise vandalized this summer alone here in Canada. Have any people been charged with hate crimes for the burning down of churches, the desecration of churches, or the vandalism of churches here in Canada, to your knowledge?
Sturko: Whether or not other investigations, which I don’t have information on because they’re outside of my jurisdiction, whether or not they have been hate crimes or whether or not they have resulted in charges against anyone person or persons, I don’t have any knowledge of. I can only tell you with certainty that in the case of our investigation they were able to identify and charge, and now a person’s pled guilty. And based on that investigation, based on what they believe the motivation that was behind that arson was, was that it did not meet the criminal code definition of a hate crime in Canada. And I have no knowledge that whether or not hate will be a factor in the sentencing, from this individual.
Let me show you that criminal code once again.
I mean there’s a certain point where to even make the logical argument for hate crime charges is to grant the premise that I need to make the logical argument for hate crime charges.
Me: Okay. You’re giving me a lot of good information here, but I want you to just clarify something. You keep saying that whether something is or is not a hate crime is up to the, what is the legal term, purview the jurisdiction, the –
Sturko: Well no have you checked out the criminal code of Canada?
Me: I have the Criminal Code of Canada I just looked at it, it’s in a different tab right now.
Sturko: Okay, because under the criminal code only certain acts are actually considered hate crimes in and of themselves. That you don’t actually have to do any other crime, but if you do those particular things, hate crime charges. But, any other of those charges in the massive criminal code of Canada.
Me: Well I’m so happy because I’m going to read this to you right now.
Sturko: If you do those. Sir you, sir –
Me: I’m going to read this to you right now. Hate motivated mischief. Section 434.1 of the Criminal Code addresses hate motivated mischief. “When motivated by bias, prejudice or hate damaging or defacing places of worship, schools, seniors residences,” etcetera etcetera, “is a criminal offense.”
Sturko: Okay but I’m going to have to stop you though because you used the word “motive.” And I’m telling you that, based on the investigation, the person’s motive actually wasn’t to specifically target a religious organization. They did not have the mens rea of committing a hate crime against a church because it probably didn’t know they were burning a church.
Me: They just accidentally burned the same church twice.
Sturko: You know, are you, you know I – I just don’t know how else I can explain this to you.
Me: Well I think there –
Me: Hold on, there’s another question I have to ask.
Sturko: You’re dissatisfied with our – okay.
Me: Well I think everyone is dissatisfied, you keep saying me.
Sturko: Okay. (Said annoyingly I might add).
Me: Everyone is dissatisfied with this explanation which is probably why there’s a publication ban. I don’t think there’s a single person who’s going to watch this.
Sturko: *whines in the background interrupting me*
Me: Who was the judge who gave the publication ban?
Sturko: I don’t know the judge because once it goes to court we honestly let the justice system go its course and we look for the next file.
Me: Well how can I find out who the judge is, because I went – your colleague Vanessa Munn gave me a website that gave me no information because all it said is “there’s a publication ban.”
Sturko: Well Corporal Munn is doing the best that she can based on the information even the police are given and I’m confident that Corporal Munn has given you all that she can at this point, which is why I wanted to give you a call. She’s done her best. We don’t have any information that we’re even legally able to provide you at this point. But why don’t you call the public prosecution service, and they are the ones that are prosecuting this case. They are the ones who will know the name of the judge. They will know the next appearance. And they probably will be able to provide you with more information.
Me: I have done that exact thing on a different case, and I can tell you right now that they give you the runaround and give you no information. And I’ve spent 20 maybe 30 hours trying to find out basic information, specifically the Yannick Bandaogo case, I’m sure you’re familiar with that, where I couldn’t find out basic information like “which judges were even assigned to the case,” “which judges ordered the publication ban,” etcetera etcetera. So frankly, –
Sturko: That’s out of my purview.
Me: Well frankly I think that this behaviour, I said before there’s a pattern of behaviour by the RCMP.
Sturko: What is that behaviour though. Because –
Me: The behaviour here in this particular case – well first of all in terms of the judiciary – the publication ban on these cases, you know this is bad. You know this is anti-democratic. You know that people don’t support not –
Sturko: Okay but –
Me: No, no, no, no. And the RCMP recommends, or gives the results of the investigation to the judge[actually Crown], which is then used to justify these publication bans. You never really explained why someone having a mental illness could even possibly result in a publication ban in the first place.
Sturko: Well that’s not for me to decide or tell you, because it’s not up to the RCMP.
Me: Well it kind of is for you to tell me, it is for you to tell the public. Because people have a right to know why someone having a mental illness.
Sturko: *talking over me the whole time* Public Prosecution Service Canada, or in this case maybe BC Prosecution Services are the ones who can explain to you what happened in this case. Because once our –
Me: Well can they though? Because there’s a publication ban. Can they explain? That’s the whole point of the publication ban isn’t it Elenore?
Sturko: Well sorry to hear – sorry that you’re disappointed that I can’t give you a better explanation. The core process is currently underway. You’re welcome to try to – you know I have nothing to – there’s nothing for me to gain by not telling you the information about where the court is taking place, I just simply don’t know. And it’s really not my responsibility to find out for you.
So you know I uh, the onus is on you. If you wish to pursue further to find out more about the case, all I can tell you is that the BC Prosecution Service, or Court Services of British Columbia would be the ones who would give you that information.
Me: Mmmm hmmm.
I’m not going to rehash what I said in the call, but it’s obvious that she’s trying to waste my time. I wasn’t particularly impressed with this, but after a certain point there’s not that much more productive work that can be gained by debating the blue antifa.
Me: The information on why there’s a publication ban. Just to clarify, the information that you’re saying I’m going to get –
Sturko: No, I – I don’t know what they’re going to tell – You know what Timothy I don’t know if they’re going to tell you the answers you want. All I can tell you is that those are the people to ask. I’m not guaranteeing you’re going to get information. I’m not guaranteeing that you’re going to find a satisfactory answer to the quandary that you have as why there’s no hate crime charges, or –
Me: Again, you keep saying me. I speak on behalf of the public here. Which is why there’s –
Sturko: How, how do you speak on behalf of the public.
Me: Okay let’s put it up to a poll, if the general public supports this publication ban. And I’m going to read a quote. I need to read a quote from,
*Sturko keeps interrupting*
This is a quote from you.
Sturko: No I don’t need to listen to the quote. I’m well aware of the things I’ve said. I stand behind the things I’ve said. I don’t think we’re gonna find a resolution. I’m going to ask you to stop calling the Media Relations line. And I’m going to refer you to the –
Me: Well I have a different case that I’ll call about later, has nothing to do with this one, at least, you know, theoretically.
Sturko: Okay, and what media outlet do you work for?
Me: I’m independent, I publish –
Sturko: Okay so where can I find your reports?
Me: Well why do I have to tell you that?
Sturko: So that I – well. Because it’s –
Me: You have no right to ask me these questions.
Sturko: You know what here’s the thing if you want to participate as a member of the media and asking questions for Media Relations then I should be able to follow up and see in which way this information is being used.
Me: Well what do you mean in which way this information is being used, what does that have to do with anything?
Sturko: Okay Timothy you have a nice day. I’m going to have to ask you to not call back on this line.
Me: Really getting a servant of the people vibe here. Thank you for your help Ms. Sturko.
Sturko: I’m not “Ms. Sturko,” to you. But what else can I tell you other than we don’t have any more information to give you.
Me: Well ultimately if it’s true that you don’t have any further information, you can’t give me any justification for why there’s a publication in this case.
Sturko: *talks over me* well it’s not – go to the court.
Me: And you can’t give me a single example of an anti-Christian hate crime that’s ever been prosecuted here in British Columbia or Canada more broadly, can you?
Sturko: I’ve never looked it up, to be honest sir I’ve never looked it up.
Me: Okay, I just feel like if someone burned down a synagogue, or a mosque, you would be charging them with a hate crime. And I think I speak for everyone when I say that.
Sturko: Okay, well you’re entitled to your opinion, so thanks for the chat.
Me: Okay Ms. Sturko, I hope we can chat again.
Sturko: Alright, take care.
Well there you have it, the last of my calls to the Surrey RCMP for this issue in particular. I called them twice more for a different issue, but not this one. In any case, I think the facts speak for themselves.
And as for Elenore Sturko, only today when writing this up did I find out that she’s quit the RCMP and moved on to something more obviously political.
But remember, it might seem like we have a political police force here in Canada, but that’s just a crazy conspiracy theory. They just need to desperately hide everything they do from the public that they exist to protect and serve.