RCMP Investigations

Outing, Kinksters, & The Cpl. Jim Brown Investigation

UPDATE: Allow me to be transparently clear. The man is being investigated for 1) deliberately obscuring the division between his job and his personal life, in violation of the RCMP code of conduct he is bound to; 2) just how the fuck exactly he produced a critical witness in 1999, in relation to the Pickton case (which is cause for suspicion about whether or not he was involved in it, and to what extent, as this was never heard at the trial or the Missing Women’s Inquiry) — *see the bottom of this paragraph — and 3) just how deeply troubling his attitude and proclivities towards women are (as psychologist Dr. M. Webster has dropped enormous hints at since the story about the leaked photos first emerged). This matter is extremely serious, and multiple witnesses have begun to either lawyer up or come forward and cooperate with RCMP, in accordance with how they believe they ought to act on what they believe is being investigated.

* As part of a notice of civil claim for libel, Brown has aired details of his connection to the witness in 1999. A relevant quote describing the extent of his involvement in the investigation can be found in this entry.

I am being extraordinarily careful in not saying anything more than I am 100% certain of — I emphasize my own direct experiences. Seeing someone argue that my perception of the identity of a man in a single photo (who later phoned me to reveal his identity and demand I take it down) is inaccurate, therefore everything I have said between my two posts and in my recorded statement is merely speculative — so, you know, don’t take any of it seriously — is a just plain terrible argument (one which I would argue reveals a bias he has yet to acknowledge — he is essentially arguing that he is a better authority over my own experience than I am).

It is no coincidence that this terrible argument comes from someone who could have done a significantly better job of journalism for Erotic Vancouver (e.g., claiming that Dr. M. Webster’s profession isn’t published anywhere, when in fact it was stated in print in 24 Hours that he is a psychologist who has worked with RCMP for more than 30 years). Reive, I really still do care about you, and I value your insights and your writing talent. In fact, I especially value that you showed yourself a trustworthy person when I was most vulnerable to you — instead of taking advantage of me, you went above and beyond what could be reasonably expected of anyone, just to make sure I was safe. But please. Do not ignore or minimize what someone has to say just because it makes your pro-kink argument suddenly look bad, misguided, off-topic, or weak. That’s just bad journalism.

My suggestion for anyone reading this: use your fucking heads and start thinking for yourselves, instead of letting one of the most socially privileged and equally biased among you spoon-feed you his version of the story. And if you knew Cpl. Brown intimately, and you knew he was an RCMP officer (as virtually everyone he met in the kink community did) or had uncomfortable experiences with him, and yet you didn’t make a phone call to Coquitlam RCMP, you may very well have taken part in the obstruction of multiple simultaneous investigations (which have since concluded) into Cpl. Brown — I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night.

Just a few days ago, I was informed that a woman by the name of Jennifer, who ran a for-profit organization which held consent and confidentiality among its keystone values, has exposed three people as perverts to the RCMP (referred to as a “mass outing”). If this were an accurate statement, this would constitute a horrendous violation of privacy that the community concerned has already seen her participate in, as a lashing out against certain individuals over relatively minor disagreements. The community response is proportional to the belief that in fact, three people’s privacy has forever been torn away, and a massive “witch-hunt” of the local kink community is being deployed by the RCMP as I type this. However, it is a grossly inaccurate statement, and the widespread panic is flying right past the real issue at the heart of why this event took place: welcome to another post about the ongoing Cpl. Jim Brown investigation. You can read about my personal relationship with the man (which at times was rather intimate), and how my direct private experiences with him and other very important people whose lives intersect with this investigation, paint my perspective on this issue, here.

The RCMP Aren’t Investigating Kink

I need to pick up a massive issue at the core of this kink community panic and throw it directly out of the conversation immediately. The RCMP doesn’t give a shit about kink, about who is participating in kink, or about how kink plays out behind closed doors between consenting adults; unless they are investigating one of their own officers (who happens to be kinky and therefore rub shoulders with a lot of kinky people in his personal and professional life) for misconduct on the job, or they are investigating someone (who happens to be kinky) for involvement in a major crime. There is nothing illegal about kink, it is not endangering children, and they are not investigating kink activities and communities among people who would otherwise be completely ignored, for they have perpetrated no crime and have had none perpetrated against them. There is no RCMP kink community “witch-hunt”, and if there ever was going to be, it would have already happened — 20 years ago. When I was giving my recorded statement to RCMP (who arrived at my door without solicitation or attempt to contact me by phone first), I spoke candidly and openly about my involvement in kink and sex clubs, and they neither batted an eyelash nor asked any probing questions about what I meant. It’s irrelevant, except as the context in which my personal relationship to Cpl. Jim Brown played out. They just don’t give a shit about what’s under my bed or specific details of kinky things I consented to do with him, because that’s not the matter they are investigating. Now that we’ve got that cleared up and can stop panicking about it for the rest of this blog post, I’m going to move on.

I Have Given A Statement To RCMP

As I have mentioned already, RCMP arrived at my door to solicit for a recorded statement about my blog post, in which I described my personal relationship to Cpl. Jim Brown and other important people whose lives intersect with the ongoing investigation into his life. RCMP contributed approximately 500 hits on that blog post from an RCMP web address that “doesn’t exist” when I click back on it. I don’t know how much of my blog content was posted to what appears to be an internal memo that is not being shared with the public, who within the RCMP first found it and how their attention was directed to it, who is responsible for writing this memo, or to which departments it was circulated. I also don’t know what else may have been included in that memo, such as any recommendations for further action (either cooperatively or against me — although one cannot be sued for libel for speaking the truth, so I was probably just feeling terrified and paranoid when I first saw that link in my referrers list). I suppose I should have expected that I would eventually be asked to give a statement when I saw that link in my referrers list. But what I couldn’t possibly have anticipated is that I would be among the first people (with the particular kind of insight into the man’s life that I have) to be asked for that statement. I also couldn’t possibly have anticipated exactly which department within the RCMP would arrive at my door (I hadn’t even heard of the department before they announced it).

I don’t know if anyone else who knew him so intimately has provided a statement to RCMP; however, I have been informed by at least one such person that her email correspondence with him will have been read in its entirety, when his email account was undoubtedly sifted through as a part of the investigative proceedings. In a truly strange twist of circumstance, she had not yet been contacted directly by RCMP as of this weekend, even though people who don’t know him at all (and yet have written about his national exposure as a pervert on the evening news) have been. I provided my primary method of contact with her during my statement. Nothing else about her identity, private life, or how I know her was solicited for, apart from a paraphrasing of how she felt she was treated by him, and her very legitimate concern that he might attempt to stalk her (a concern I share as well, given my history with him). It doesn’t take an astrophysicist to determine what this all means: they already know who she is, and can put 2 and 2 together themselves, concerning how we met each other. I’ll leave you to use your imagination, because it’s not relevant how we met, and the RCMP know this too. What is relevant is that we share this person in common, and share a particularly damning perspective of the kind of person he is, based on our direct personal experiences with him (and others like him — such as the one who phoned me to demand I take the screenshot of the evening news down).

My statement took the greater part of three hours, and the most specific questions I was asked concerned three kinds of events: the circumstances under which Jim and I met, the circumstances surrounding information Jim shared with me about creeps I had dealings with both through work and my personal life, and the circumstances surrounding my last contact with him (part of which was in Jennifer’s for-profit space; and part of which was on the website on which Jim posted the pictures that were recently leaked to CBC News, and subsequently multiple other news sources). Many, many, many more questions were asked about the chronology of my relationship with Jim; about my personal boundaries with other people and how my mental health status factors into those decisions; and about fishy-sneaky little things Jim did that blurred the boundary between his private relationship with me and the power dynamic that existed and evolved between us due to my passing remarks about a cell phone stalker, prior trouble with Edmonton Police Service while I was homeless, prior dealings with Coquitlam RCMP before I moved into a bachelor suite to live alone, and other matters that relied upon his professional capacities in order to proceed in the manner that played out between us. I made it clear that one of the things I have always done to protect myself against being blackmailed, manipulated, extorted, or exploited — especially by police — is living my life as transparently as possible (one who is already “out” simply cannot be “outed”). After all, given my particular mental health problem (which I don’t believe Jim was so obtuse as to fail to notice), I had to do something for my own safety.

Why Naming Someone In A Statement To RCMP Is Not Outing

I also named the for-profit organization Jennifer was running while giving my statement, and referred to her and one other individual by their first names. But this is simply not the same as “outing” someone — either exposing them as a pervert or actually outing someone for being homosexual, queer, or trans*; it’s just not even remotely the same. I did not have to identify Jennifer or this other individual as perverts like me (or like Jim) in order to introduce them by name into the conversation and discuss the matter of the context of my last contact with Jim, or how this other individual felt as a result of Jim pursuing them fairly aggressively. It’s just like how I did not have to expound upon the identity, private life, or proclivities of the other person I know who shared a relationship with him, in order to bring up her concerns about his character. Naming someone in a recorded statement to the RCMP is not the same as, say, phoning up someone’s employer and telling them all about what their employee is doing on their time off (as Jennifer actually did once a few years ago). Or emailing compromising photos of someone to CBC News and providing that person’s online handle for the website from which the photos were extracted (as I can assure you, someone had to before a reporter for CBC News caught a whiff of it all).

When one is giving a recorded statement to police (or RCMP) and provides someone’s name (and even their contact information), unless they expound upon that particular individual’s private life and sexual preferences, they have not been outed. It’s as simple as that. I’ve had to do this before myself, when I was finally reporting the pseudo-snuff film I was convinced was a taping of a real double murder. I had described what I had seen to someone I knew personally, years earlier at the time, and they remarked that it sounded like I had been exposed to a snuff film. And a few years later, when this memory was triggered again for the second time, my psychiatrist told me it sounded like I had been exposed to the tapes Karla Holmolka and Paul Bernardo made of the crimes they perpetrated together. But what I had seen didn’t fit their modus operandi. And when I finally realized that, I suddenly realized what my friends had told me so many years earlier, and reported it to Edmonton Police Service. I thought I might have been the only person who has seen that video — what I believed was the last living moments of two women whose murders may not have been brought to justice while their grieving families wait — who would be willing to speak to authorities about it. Coquitlam RCMP came to question me about the letter I sent, and asked me for the names and contact information I had for the friends with whom I had discussed the matter so long ago. And again, I was not probed for the nature of my relationship with them or what they do in their private life, because it wasn’t relevant to the investigation. They were neither outed nor exposed.

I can’t say whether or not Jennifer provided names and violated their confidentiality, but to refer to the two things as though they are in the same sphere is how panic spreads among people who are already paranoid. I understand that a lot of people are in fear that she did violate the confidentiality of three people, because she is in possession of an enormous heap of confidential information on thousands of people who are or were local to the area — and who, like Jim — may have children or spousal relationships which would be at risk in the event that their extracurricular proclivities are vetted as has happened to Jim. I also understand that a lot of people simply do not understand what is being investigated, because they have so easily been manipulated to believe that it is a witch-hunt and lynching of a kinky pervert. Who also happens to be a white guy, or, you know, the category of person who used to join mobs who were hunting women down for suspected witchcraft to condemn them to death, or who used to hunt down and lynch Black people when slavery was abolished in the United States. Because there’s nothing carelessly insensitive about the use of these politically loaded metaphors when we’re talking about white men. Just like how comparing cisgendered straight white kinksters who are exposed as perverts, to systematic institutionalized discrimination and bigotry against gays, lesbians, bisexuals, queers, and trans* people (whether or not they are outed), isn’t at all carelessly insensitive. Moving on.

Use Your Brains, Kinksters — It’s Not About You

Please. There is no RCMP conspiracy to eradicate the privacy currently enjoyed by Vancouver’s harmless perverts. There is no witch-hunt, no lynch mob, and no indefinite detention in a mental institution or prison, presently picking up momentum on its way into the lives of unwitting enthusiasts of hair-pulling, rope bondage, and spankings. There is no juggernaut set on the path to destroying the lives of hundreds or even thousands of perverted people who have committed no crimes behind closed doors with consenting adults. Your privacy is no more at risk than it already has been for the entire duration of your involvement in this subversive sex culture. If an RCMP officer who happens to be kinky also happens to be investigated by internal affairs for misconduct, that matter concerns on-duty (and off-duty) violations of the code of conduct he is obliged by as an officer of the law. Such as by violating confidentiality of police files. Or using a police-issued vehicle as a rendezvous (by which I mean to emphasize the traditional Brazilian meaning of the word — a place to have sex). Update: the investigation into that rumour revealed that the rendezvous story was completely fabricated.

If an RCMP officer who happens to be kinky also happens to be investigated by major crimes unit for suspected involvement in a serial murder case he had a hand in investigating (and perhaps ignoring, actively attempting to cover up, or actively participating in), that matter concerns the extent to which he is involved (if at all) in a major crime. Update: These allegations have also now been proven to be fabrications. Such as by mysteriously producing a key witness without any explanation, and somehow getting away with never providing details of how they managed to produce said witness (Update! Brown has himself detailed his involvement in the Pickton investigation, including his relationship to that witness, as a part of his civil claim for defamatory libel. You can read a relevant quote that answers these questions, in this entry.) Or by appearing in a set of photos that depict a playing out of that major crime (and if those photos are manipulated or proven to be of someone else, and the investigation continues, perhaps it’s time to start asking yourself why). Update!! They were someone else.

It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to understand why when Jennifer phoned someone to inform them that she had passed on their name and contact information to RCMP (presumably while giving a recorded statement), she simply said it’s irrelevant why she took that course of action and then hung up when pressed further. It doesn’t take an nuclear fucking scientist to determine why that person would come forward, only for the purposes of sharing that limited detail on the matter, the fact that they have lawyered up, and the fact that they are not going to publicly address the matter any further. This isn’t about what consenting adults do behind closed doors (that doesn’t represent a crime and is therefore not of interest to RCMP). This is about serving justice to missing and murdered First Nations women and their surviving family members — if suspicions are affirmed as a result of this ongoing investigation (and since we now know Brown had nothing to do with the murders of those women or the photos that look like a re-enactment of those crimes, any concession at all on the part of anyone involved in this scandal that the photos that were aired are insensitive to the victims’ families, would sure go a long way). And since that super creepy phone call from the other icky guy, it’s now also about serving justice to a sexually abused child. I know it must be some really disappointing news to hear that the entire world doesn’t revolve around the private personal lives of a predominantly white, able-bodied, cisgendered, and heterocentric community of people, but too bad. Time to suck it up or stop fucking talking about it.

17 thoughts on “Outing, Kinksters, & The Cpl. Jim Brown Investigation

  1. It never fails to amaze me how far off the mark you always are in all your posts.

    Why not post about what you actually know instead of your cockeyed delusions?

    I was sent to this post by someone that found what you write crazy and funny. I think it’s just patehtic. Pseudo intelligence is one of your best qualities.


    • Ah-huh.

      I just… “imagined” RCMP monitoring the first blog post I wrote about this, and then “delusioned” two RCMP officers showing up at my door to record a 3-hour statement, and “crazied” conversations with women who have been targeted for this absurdly promiscuous and sexist pig’s sexual delights without regard for what they might want.

      You just keep telling yourself that.

      • you need some attention. i get that.

        Blurring the lines between the facts and your opinion is very transparent to the readers here. just because ya got a visit from the rcmp doesn’t mean your knee jerk reactions add up.

        some of us are smarter than the average bear. Please keep typing your delusions though. It’s cheap online entertainment! you go girl!


  2. I’m sure your blog was picked up by the RCMP in searches. They probably have alerts set up for relevant terms. You did, after all, provide links and tags that would facilitate google searches. no mystery there.

    I’m following this whole story with some interest as I know, albeit, very casually, a few involved in parts of the story.

    I agree with you on this not being about kink, per se, although that is what the media and the public latch onto. I also agree with you about the disturbing trend in the bdsm community ( and it IS a community….in the same way a trailer park is a community) toward violence against women and children. I don’t think this trend, manifested in the ,now, infamous pseudo-snuff photo set, is exclusive in ( or even more prevelant in) the kink community but it is definitely a widely adopted fetish within it.

    Our society is composed of pseudo-snuff. From movies, films, music, news reports and their re-enactments, religious stories, and games. This photo set places a huge spotlight on our attraction to sexualized violence and killings – particularly violence against the less powerful.

    Is Brown more dangerous because he participates in re-enactments and it becomes known than those wacking off furiously to an episode of law and order:special victims unit in the privacy of their bedroom? I honestly don’t know the answer to that one.

    I would like a full investigation into the Picton killings because I do believe there was police involvement. There was also public involvement. That involvement was apathy and a lack of empathy for the victims and a failure to cry out for justice as would have been done ( but would have been completely unnecessary) had people been disappearing from the suburbs.

    I’m not in anybody’s ” camp” on this. I don’t really like jennifer ( but don’t hate her either) and I don’t really like Jim ( or hate him). I would recognize some of the people outed if I saw them but I don’t count them among friends. More like passing acquaintances. I imagine the cops will be making the rounds and more people will be contacted. More people might offer up names ( or leads) in an effort to help. Some might offer up names just to be assholes and cause trouble for those they have a grudge against because that’s how it goes in the trailer park.

    Time will tell.

    • Agreed. There are some very minor points I am less 100% in agreement with, such as the tagging (there were none when the first entry was posted, and they still found it), but I’m not going to go at length nit-picking about it.

      Jennifer has caused some serious fucking trouble in our trailer park — I mean community — since she first entered it (I’ve had lengthy unsolicited conversations about that history with people who were right there for it). And she’s tried to cause astronomically disproportionate problems for me directly over the most minor of disagreements. But just like when her husband posted to the discussion group thread — which is little more than an attempt to minimize and diminish the threat anyone else is entitled to feel, without acknowledging the power dynamic involved on either side of the problem — he wrote the exact same format response to me with a few substitutions.

      Unlike Unhelpful Husband (TM), I’m actually trying to educate people on what the problem actually is, rather than diminishing or minimizing the threat they feel without providing any sort of explanation whatsoever of why anyone should believe what I have to say.

      • trying to educate?

        hard to imagine learning from someone with so many axes to grind, so many people that you need to gossip about to anyone who listens, so many friendships that you couldn’t hold onto. So much anger. So much mental and emotional instability.

        yeah.. your mother teresa saving us all. give me a break! We can’t believe a word you say except that we know your opinions are unfounded and hilarious!


        • Did I call myself some sort of a Mother Teresa? No. I’m a Satanist and an anarcha-feminist. I’m going to say shit that disturbs your shit. I’m going to say shit that makes me sound like a hard-ass. I’m going to say shit that you don’t like.

          That’s who I am, and I haven’t made any attempt to hide this.

  3. Pingback: Microaggression & Red Flags: Rape Culture 301 « HaifischGeweint

  4. Pingback: “But What About Meeee!” Or How To Cover Up A Cover-Up « HaifischGeweint

  5. Pingback: Three-Month Summary: Action Against Misogyny « HaifischGeweint

  6. Pingback: Police & Privilege « HaifischGeweint

  7. Pingback: Information, Speculation, & Misinformation « HaifischGeweint

  8. Pingback: The Words “I’m Sorry” | HaifischGeweint

  9. Pingback: Jamie’s story: three months | Crommunist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s