We first met one of the people that infiltrated our group at a memorial held in late September in 2014 to mark the 5-year anniversary of the death of Adolfo Ich Chaman, a community leader murdered by a Canadian mining company in Guatemala. “Kat” approached one of the organizers, introduced herself, and expressed interest in getting involved. We shared that we had a new members’ orientation coming up in the next few months.
About a month later we received an email from a member of another activist group in the city asking us if we’d be interested in attending an “allies meeting” of groups who were planning on organizing around the upcoming Pan Am Games in Toronto. It had been recently announced that Barrick Gold was a major sponsor of the games, supplying the materials for the medals. After talking about it as a group, we agreed that attending this allies meeting would be a good opportunity for us and struck an internal MISN subcommittee to prepare for our attendance.
On November 3rd, 2014 we held a new members’ orientation for MISN, where people who were interested in joining the group could learn more about what we do and how we do it. A couple of us organized and facilitated the event and each took responsibility for facilitating small group discussions to learn more about prospective members and answer any specific questions they might have. In one of these small group discussions, we met Kat and “Alex”, who said they were a couple that was relatively new to the Toronto activist community and to social justice issues in general. They spoke in “we” language about their involvement with MISN, said that getting more involved in organizing was something they wanted to do “together,” and seemed pretty naïve about activism and politics in general. We gave them information about our next meeting but didn’t expect them to show up.
Alex came to his first general MISN meeting on November 24th, without Kat. At this meeting we discussed the idea of doing some organizing around the Pan Am Games for the first time. He was very enthusiastic about the idea of getting involved in Pan Am organizing and talked about how in the years he lived in Italy he saw the negative impacts of the Olympics on the country and so felt passionate about these issues. He then offered (on behalf of both himself and Kat) to join the Pan Am committee.
On December 8th, we held a Pan Am subcommittee meeting at a collective home that two of us live in. Kat and Alex both attended (despite the fact that Kat had not yet come to a general members’ meeting). It was a small meeting, with only five people present in total.
We felt disconcerted by some of the questions that they (Alex in particular) were asking. For example, Alex said, “I know that OCAP [the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty], for example, tends to use some pretty intense methods. But MISN doesn’t approve of that, does it?” He also kept name-dropping other activists in the city (sometimes mispronouncing their names, which we would then correct). We were careful not to share information about other groups and organizers despite their questions. At one point in the meeting we were talking about some recent news articles about various aspects of the Games (for example, the fact that a house was being built for gay athletes in the athletes’ village) and during this conversation Kat suggested that we start a Facebook thread to communicate about different places where we could have protests during the games. The suggestion was out of the blue, and we were already communicating via email, so we said no to that pretty quickly. They also kept speaking as though they were invited to the Pan Am allies meeting that we were preparing for, even though we’d only ever talked about a couple of long-standing MISN members going. They only backed down once we said very clearly that only two of us would be going.
In these introductory discussions we had with them, we were told that they both worked freelance (he “worked for a buddy” as a landscaper, she was self-employed as a dog walker). He told us that he had two kids from a past marriage who stayed with him sometimes. She lived with her sister in north Toronto. They were both very vocal about wanting to help in whatever ways were possible and about wanting to follow our lead. They kept offering unsolicited information about themselves and apologizing for things out of the blue.
After that meeting we debriefed quickly and discovered through this conversation that there were alarm bells going off in all of our heads throughout the meeting. Given our suspicions—that Kat and Alex were perhaps not who they said they were—we thought we should talk to others to get extra insight. After the meeting, some of us talked to Sam, someone we knew who had experience with undercover infiltration tactics during the Toronto G20. After hearing all the details they felt pretty strongly that our suspicions were warranted. They were able to confirm that many of Kat and Alex’s characteristics and behaviours were remarkably similar to those displayed by undercover cops tasked with gathering information about G20 activists.
The next day we “friended” both Kat and Alex on Facebook and they accepted our requests right away. What stood out to us right away was the very small number of friends they both had (about a dozen each), the small number of posts they’d made (about a dozen over a year), the lack of interaction with posts, the absence of photos of themselves, and the fact that they had both joined Facebook at the same time about a year ago. Alex’s profile picture was a generic Guy Fawkes mask and one of the first pictures that came up on his profile was an image of someone throwing a Molotov cocktail, which seemed pretty strange to us considering that he had only ever come off as pretty naïve and harmless (albeit domineering). He had also already voiced concern about “OCAP-style tactics” (read: threatening tactics, according to the police), so his promotion of a Molotov cocktail-wielding protester seemed strange. Kat’s profile picture was a wordmap with generic words like “freedom,” “humanity,” “equality,” “love,” and “fairness.”
Despite the fact that they said they were both new to social justice issues, the only Facebook events that Kat had attended all pertained to activist issues that have been historically targeted by Canadian policing and surveillance—explicitly anarchist events, events about black bloc organizing, resisting police violence, land defense, and a panel about the Pan Am Games. Her “likes” were mostly animal rights groups, land defense groups, a group related to Occupy, and MISN.
They each had one Facebook friend who at least one of us knew. We spoke to these friends and it turned out that neither one knew Kat and Alex at all. Before we even told one of them what was going on, they said: “The profile looks fake.”
We continued to pay attention to their behaviour but didn’t immediately kick them out of the group. At this point it was December. MISN decided to have a holiday party on December 20th, since we usually only saw each other in meetings. Kat RSVP’d but Alex said he couldn’t come because he had to take care of his kids.
We each spent some time during the party trying to get to know Kat better and understand her story. She told us that she grew up in a small town near Kitchener, that she worked for herself, and that she and Alex had been dating for about a year, starting about the same time she moved to Toronto. She came off as very friendly, sincere, and motivated by empathy for the suffering of people and animals. She was also asked about Alex, his kids (whose ages she, admittedly, “wasn’t too sure of”), and both of their motivations for joining MISN. She couldn’t seem to give a clear answer about Alex’s motivations for joining MISN, aside from the fact that he’s just a “very passionate person” who gets swept up in things. We asked her some questions about events she’d claimed to have attended and her answers were inconsistent from what we knew about her from Facebook—she told us that she had never been to activist events before MISN events. After one particularly awkward conversation with Sam where she seemed stuck on her answers to things, she abruptly got up to go to the bathroom. After returning from the bathroom, she promptly left the party. Just before leaving, she asked Kate to confirm the date of the next Pan Am allies meeting, which she seemed to know off the top of her head even though she wasn’t even invited to it. This, along with her seeming so freaked out by her last conversation at the party and her not seeming to know much about her partner, definitely threw up red flags for many of us. When the party was over we jotted down some information about what she had said (and were really glad to have these notes later).
In the new year, leading up to our next subcommittee meeting, Alex went out of his way to ask for the minutes from the Pan Am allies meeting that he hadn’t been invited to. We never sent him these minutes. Kate also felt unsafe inviting them back into her home, so we had our next Pan Am subcommittee meeting in a public café on January 13th. Merle and Kate met up before the meeting to develop a facilitation plan, mostly because we had work to get done and Kat and Alex had derailed the last meeting. In our earlier engagements with Alex, we’d observed that he consistently spoke on behalf of Kat (even when she was there to speak for herself), and had already made it pretty clear that he had no problem with speaking out of turn, interrupting other people, and paying little attention to the stated agenda. As MISN is a group of mostly women, these recognizably sexist behaviours stuck out to us, so we wanted to have a plan to avoid rewarding this behaviour. It turned out that we definitely needed it.
Despite the fact that we clearly articulated in advance and at the beginning of the meeting that this meeting was about defining our goals and vision for our Pan Am organizing, Alex kept pressuring us to identify what our specific plans and tactics were going to be, and what the nature of MISN’s tactics have been historically. Even after we made a point to give him a clear definition of the difference between goals and tactics, he kept pressing us for this information. Throughout the meeting, Kat emphasized the importance of not alienating anybody through our tactics, making sure that people impacted by the games “knew we were there for them.” Neither of them really had any concrete ideas of their own as to what they were hoping to get out of this organizing. Another MISN organizer who had never met them before attended this meeting and confirmed that she found their behaviour to be quite strange.
At this point we all felt pretty sure that they weren’t who they said they were, but we couldn’t be absolutely certain at this point. The “proof” we’d collected so far was suspicious when understood as a cluster of facts, but each individual item was totally explainable when viewed on its own. However, we knew from the G20 conspiracy case that undercover cops have “handlers”—other police officers that “supervise” the undercover officers and keep in regular contact with them while they are in the field. Undercover officers typically meet up with their handlers after every meeting or social event they attended in an undercover role. It became clear that if the handler somehow made themselves known to us, then we would have definitive proof that Kat and Alex were, in fact, cops.
For Sam and Kate, this was the confirming evidence they needed in order to believe with conclusiveness that Kat and Alex were undercover cops. The two felt that the likelihood was slim to none that two police cars could happen to be responding to an emergency at Christie Station at the exact same time that this was happening.
The whole situation felt suspicious; even if Kat and Alex were just spooked by seeing Sam and called the police, there were so many facts that didn’t line up. Why would the sight of Sam have alarmed them so much? How did Alex even recognize Sam, when they had never met before (while Sam was already known to police for their organizing work and as a target of the G20 police infiltration)? How could they have placed a phone call to the police when they were underground? How and why would two cop cars show up with their lights and sirens on within seconds in response to a call from a civilian?
What had happened really freaked us out and it became evident to us how important it was for our safety to keep a strong commitment to clear communication and relationship maintenance throughout this process.
A few days later, Kat contacted Merle over Facebook. She asked Merle if she could call her; Merle’s initial reaction was to call the others and try and figure out what to do.
Merle responded via Facebook message saying she was busy and asked what Kat wanted to talk about. Kat again asked to talk on the phone and Merle, still questioning whether it was wise, held off on responding until the 20th, apologizing for her absence and asking to keep the discussion on Facebook Messenger. Kat responded with a long message telling Merle that she thought Sam was following her and ended by asking: “I just wanted to see what you know about Sam or how well you know them.” It was clear to all of us that her central objective in messaging Merle was to gather information on Sam.
Continue onto 4. Kicking Them Out…
 Ontario police have had a weird fixation on OCAP ever since what is commonly called the Queen’s Park Riot in 2000. There is some record of Waterloo Regional Police officers training to become part of the 2010 G20 Integrated Security Unit and using the lessons learned from policing failures surrounding this 2000 protest as a case study for how to communicate well, take good notes, and tell the difference between “protesters” and “anarchists” (Wood, 2014, p. 157).
 These kinds of questions are as much about gathering information about social networks as they are about gathering information about risk. Correcting them on the pronunciation of people’s names showed that we knew these people, or at least “of” them. Kat and Alex seemed to know a lot of activists’ names for two people who were supposedly new to the movement.