Taking surveillance seriously

UPDATE: It was revealed a few days after publishing this, that the RCMP has re-activated Project SITKA, and no one is surprised.

If you’ve been living under a rock, and haven’t noticed the goings on in Wet’suwet’en territory of late, perhaps take a moment and get caught up. In short, a $6 billion, 670 kilometre Coastal GasLink pipleline project that touts “Indigenous consent” from 20 First Nations band councils, is being contested by Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs and their supporters. There has been ongoing military-style action by the RCMP since February 7th with arrests and detention of journalists. There have also been solidarity events across the country.

Things may seem confusing, because there are claims that the Wet’suwet’ten actually support this project, and there is plenty of media out there trotting out folks from the five out of six Wet’suwet’ten band councils who signed agreements in favour. However it is vital to understand that in 1997, the Supreme Court of Canada made it clear in Delgamuukw and reiterated in Tsilhoqot’in [2014], that the territories in question, along with the rest of the land in BC not covered by Treaties, were never ceded to British Columbia and therefore never ceded to Canada.

These supreme court cases also affirmed that the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs continue to exercise legitimate authority over the lands in question and they have not given their consent to Coastal GasLink. These hereditary leaders assert that Wet’suwet’en band councils have authority only over their individual reserves, because their authority came from the Indian Act. Now despite these supreme court decisions, folks are going to believe what they want to in order to marshal support for their position, but the take away from this really should be that this is a hotly contested issue, on lands that are in dispute, and that alone should slow this project down to a standstill while the issues are discussed properly.

By the way, Alberta teachers, your pension is being managed by AIMCo, who has a 65% interest in this pipeline. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada clearly identified the responsibility of educators and systems of education in the process of reconciliation, and it is absolutely incumbent upon you to insist that you divest from this project.

Hopefully you’re reading this and asking, “how can I help?” Here is a supporter toolkit that can guide you through this, with more background information and specific requests: WET’SUWET’EN SUPPORTER TOOLKIT.

All of this is the current backdrop, but what I want to remind you is that the Canadian government, and its paramilitary arm, the RCMP, are absolutely surveilling Indigenous peoples and our allies, whether they are on the front-lines or not, and this is unacceptable.

It is crucial to understand the state focus is on whether or not Indigenous people are able to sway public opinion, hence the very wide net that is cast when it comes to surveilling us. You may recall that Cindy Blackstock, who successfully fought to prove that Canada discriminates against First Nations children, was put under warrantless surveillance by the government, where her personal Facebook page was spied on, and information was collected about her, as well as her family and friends, and distributed to government officials. This included surveillance of minors, without consent of their parents.

So today, it is time to review Project SITKA. Whether or not this operation continues under the same name, or has another moniker, we won’t likely know for a few years, but the focus is almost certainly consistent. If you want a quick summary of Project SITKA, this article will help you out: The RCMP Used Police Databases and Social Media to Track Aboriginal Protestors.

During Idle No More, hundreds, and potentially thousands, of Indigenous people were profiled by the RCMP to evaluate their “criteria for criminality”. The 2014 report that was uncovered through an information request by Jeffrey Monaghan and Andy Crosby, listed 313 folk (whose names were mostly redacted from the released documents). It is very important that you look at how the evaluations were carried out.

Here is the RCMP document, so you can read it in full. It is called “PROJECT SITKA: Serious Criminality Associated To Large Public Order Events With National Implications.” Talk about a broad mandate!

This document shows there was a provincial break down, focusing on BC, MN, ON, QC, and NB/NS, profiling:

• most active individuals within the province
• subjects who travelled to the province to attend events
• organizations associated with provincial protestors
  

The RCMP state they focus on “public safety” and people who use “unlawful tactics at protests that pose a threat to public safety”. They admitted to surveilling 313 people, and determining that 89 of those people met the “criteria for criminality”. Project SITKA tracked some folks for at least FIVE YEARS, and some for even longer, back to the year 2000. And here’s the type of “protest” events they flagged:

• natural resource development protests
• anti-capitalist protests
• demands for a missing and murdered Indigenous women inquiry
• land claims issues
• Idle No More, in general

If you think the RCMP haven’t maintained an unbroken surveillance web that is still in place now, you’re engaging in heavy duty denial. In any case, “social media usage” figures heavily in this report. The RCMP bemoan how this makes things hard to predict. They rail against “misinformation, and wild accusations, particularly against police to provoke a crowd response”. As you’ll see in a bit, they rate certain folks “volatile protestors” based very much in how able these folks are to “sway public opinion”. Heavy online presence is rated a serious threat.

Okay so let’s look at those 89 folks they ranked as having “high criminality”. They:

• attended a higher number of events (than the rest of the 313 people surveilled)
• were capable of mobility (crossing provincial boundaries sent up huge flags, as though our territories don’t go beyond provincial boundaries???)
• were affiliated with several organizations
• interaction socially to each-other or via social media.
  

Despite identifying that there is no shadowy group or controlling Indigenous actions, and no indication of organized crime exploiting “the loose network associated to Aboriginal protests to pursue a criminal agenda”, surveillance was still extremely thorough and protracted. This report recommended changing the vocabulary used about Indigenous “protestors”, strategically shifting away from terrorist/militant/extremist, because those terms are not defined within the Canadian Criminal Code, and instead categorizing people according to “levels of criminality” which includes: background, motivation, and rhetoric. What that means, we’ll see in a moment, but hold on to your shorts because it’s wild.

The RCMP notes that keeping “protestor profiles” will help in the “operational response” (aka RCMP action) to Indigenous “protests” and occupations. The RCMP recommends learning more about causal roots and holisitic underpinnings to these events, not so it can oh you know, change institutionally or anything. Na. Understanding the issues will help the RCMP predict locations of “protests”, “highlight negative influencers” as well as folks and “indicators?” with more “positive influence”. They are assessing “threats” and “assets”, of course.

Okay so let’s look at the appendices, where they lay out how they group Indigenous peoples according to “levels of criminality”. There are three “personalities and tactics of individual protestors”: passive, disruptive, and volatile.

Passive is defined as soft-commitment, peaceful protest, seeking media attention, using emotional language, broad mix of tactics, solution oriented, consultative and widespread us of the Internet. This is most people according to the RCMP.

Disruptive is very committed and have established networks. They may engage in peaceful arrests, non-violent disruptions, they use dramatic words and symbols, stage media stunts, and have heavy used of the Internet. This is about ten to fifteen percent of folks apparently.

Now look at how they class volatile. Three to five percent, mostly men, young, lower income, “anarchist oriented”, small, strong networks. Violent planned actions (but violent isn’t defined), “inflammatory language” (also not defined), provokes police reaction…that’s a weird one, because police “react” to the things defined as passive and disruptive too. Ah yes and the volatiles record actions, are critical of “peaceful” protestors, make “outrageous demands” (like Land Back?), make “wild accusations” (like what? Seriously, LIKE WHAT, like Canada discriminates against First Nations children?), and have heavy Internet use.

Anyway, the RCMP will look at Indigenous folks who fit any of these criteria, and decide if they are a Suspect, a Person of Interest, or an Associate. It’s wild because this document keeps explaining that these aren’t actually defined terms under the Criminal Code. They claim they’ll eventually stop looking at folks categorized “passive” but they’ll keep records of “disruptive and volatile” people. They also assess groups.

What is the most notable about these criteria is the focus on whether or not individuals or groups are able to get their message out, and have it believed. That is the biggest threat factor. Use of the internet, public credibility, and so on. They assess the “risk” according to the following:

Pay attention to the criteria listed. Protests deemed of the highest risk (risk of what? Risk isn’t really defined other than it justifies further surveillance and RCMP intervention) are those that sway public opinion the most. If the group is well known and credible, has experience with protests, if their members are committed to their cause, if they have access to resources, can get media attention, are supported by other groups, well organized, have articulate leaders, highly proficient in social media, the issue is easy to understand etc etc etc etc. Cripes. The better you are at getting your message out, the more dangerous you are, apparently.

I’ve been using this document as a fun party activity since it was released because holy shit. It’s hard to see with all the stamps and poor resolution, but it’s a “Personalities and Tracts of Individual Protestors checklist” to help determine how dangerous someone is. Are you “anarchist oriented”? You’re volatile, and dangerous. Do you use “inflammatory language” (like maybe, Smash the State?) bad. Planned actions, versus “peaceful protest” (not planned? Huh?) are bad. Do you use what the RCMP may consider dramatic language or symbols on the internet, like raised fists, Land Back slogans, or who knows what else? Do you record actions? Bad, bad, bad, bad.

And remember, these are not clear, objective definitions. These are subjective criteria according to the RCMP. It’s how THEY see YOU, not how you understand yourself, and not even how others may see you. These check lists and criteria are scarily open to state interpretation, and may justify warrantless surveillance of you, your family, your friends, whether you’ve been on the front line or not.

How confident are you that you’d be assessed as “passive” according to your offline and online activities? Try doing a self-assessment using their checklist, or have someone fill it out for you. Look at pictures of Indigenous peoples at events…are raised fists, warrior flags, signs about the illegitimacy of Canada passive, disruptive, or volatile according to the RCMP? Add up your totals according to how many times you think you’d be rated passive, disruptive, or volatile. If Your disruptive and volatile scores added together, are higher than your passive score, this document explains that you are a legitimate target of surveillance.

The point of all of this is to be aware that surveillance of Indigenous peoples in Canada is much more widespread than you are probably aware of, and that the criteria used to determine what level of “threat” we pose to “national interests” is extremely subjective. As well, if the “risk” becomes so much higher because of our ability to sway public opinion, then we have to understand that undermining that ability is going to be a core function of policing in this country. Discrediting Indigenous peoples and spreading disinformation becomes a CRUCIAL national security tactic. Hence the recent massive interference with journalists during the raids on Wet’suwet’en people and their allies.

Think about all of this. Think about security culture, and whether or not you and your organizations practice it. Think about where you get your information from, and think about what kind of society you want to live in, and whether criminalizing Indigenous peoples for asserting their inherent, constitutionally, and supreme court affirmed rights is something you believe in. Most importantly, be aware that the state overtly does not want you to be “swayed” by Indigenous peoples as we articulate our struggles, and you can push back significantly by ensuring you become more educated on these issues. The first step to taking surveillance seriously is to recognize that it’s happening much more than most folks want to believe it is.

êkosi.