Using Sexual Seduction to Undermine Peaceful Activism

peaceful protest

According to today’s Guardian, the London Metropolitan Police have issued an apology and a generous settlement to four female activists tricked into having sexual relationships with undercover cops who infiltrated their political organizations. The apology and settlement comes four years after the women filed suit against the police, claiming damages for emotional trauma.

Assistant commissioner Martin Hewitt, who issued the apology, maintains such relationships are illegal and contrary to police policy – that they only occurred owing to “a failure of police supervision and management.”

He claims the undercover cops’ superiors had no idea they were fucking activists. Activists (such as myself) with direct experience with government infiltration and disruption of their political organizations will recognize this is total bullshit.

Police and intelligence operatives have a long history of deliberately using sex (the old “honeypot” strategy)  to infiltrate and disrupt peaceful protest activities. This has been well documented in academic research and journalistic investigation, including a 1992 MIT study study into undercover police and intelligence activity, a 1995 University of Leicester study into British undercover seduction and a We Are Anonymous article about an undercover FBI agent named “Anna,” who lured animal rights activist Eric McDavid into a sexual relationship. Following his release from a nine year prison sentence, in January 2015 Eric was interviewed on Democracy Now.

The real story behind today’s apology is that five years ago six undercover cops were exposed for infiltrating peace and animal rights groups. The women they seduced recognized their photos and in 2011, began the difficult and distressing process of initiating legal action. If, as the Met claims, the behavior of the six undercover cops was so at odds with official policy, you have to ask 1) why none of the undercover cops have been criminally charged and 2) why it took the police four years to settle and apologize to the victims.

I think it’s pretty obvious that sexual seduction is a standard accepted strategy in undercover operations. The only difference here is the police got caught doing it.

While the Guardian article fails to identify the six undercover cops by name, they are profiled in a January 2015  Green is the New Red article.

  • Police Constable Mark Kennedy (see Mark Kennedy: the spycop who disappeared into the cold) posing as Mark “Flash” Stone, infiltrated Nottingham environmental and leftist networks for approximately eight years (~2001-2009). During this period, he had sexual relationships with at least two activists, one lasting at least four years. Kennedy has always maintained his superiors knew about his sexual relationships. He also denies that sexual relationships with targets were forbidden. In a 2011 Guardian article, he claims they were encouraged. “Sex was a tool to help officers blend in, the officer claimed, and was widely used as a technique to glean intelligence.” I believe him.
  • Bob Lambert, posing as Bob Robinson, infiltrated leftist and animal liberation networks, using a job at Greenpeace London as an activist cover. Lambert has admitted to having sexual relationships with four women while working as an undercover cop in the 1980s. Lambert  posed as a left-wing animal rights activist from 1983 to 1988, fathering a child with an unsuspecting activist during his deployment. At present he works as a lecturer in Terrorism Studies at the University of St Andrews and a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University’s John Grieve Centre for Policing.
  • Detective Constable Jim Boyling, 28-years-old, posing as Pete James Sutton or Jim Sutton 34-years-old, infiltrated the pro-bicycle movement Reclaim the Streets for five years (1995-2000) as a lead organizer, as well as having contact with additional environmental campaigns. During this period he had sexual relationships with two of the activists he was assigned to monitor. He married one of them and had two children with her prior to their divorce.
  • Mark Jacobs, 44-years-old, posing as 29-year-old Marco, infiltrated anarchist, anti-globalization, animal rights, and other social justice networks for five years (2004-2009) in the Cardiff area. Jacobs was known for taking on logistics and financial roles in his circles, and used the reputation he built within the Cardiff Anarchist Network (CAN) to infiltrate the Dissent! anti-G8 planning committees. During 2008, Jacobs maintained a sexual relationship with two female activists.
  • Sergeant John Dines, posing as “John Barker” infiltrated London Greenpeace and various anti-capitalist groups from around 1987-1992. He worked with the Metropolitan Police’s Special Demonstration Squad and began infiltrating Greenpeace following the departure of Bob Lambert. In 1990, Dines began a sexual relationship with an activist he abandoned in 1992.
  • Mark Jenner, presenting himself as “Mark Cassidy,” infiltrated UK protest groups from 1994-2000 as an officer in the Metropolitan Police’s Special Demonstration Squad under the direction of Bob Lambert. During his tenure, Jenner was married yet maintained a five year relationship (1995-2000) with a 29-year-old female activist, living with her in a London.

For more details on the female victims and the supervisors who failed to adequately monitor the behavior of their spycops see The spycops and their supervisors remain accountable (fraud, abuse, rape…

photo credit: Chicago Fur Free Friday 2010 via photopin (license)

Standing Up to McDonald’s Bullying

McLibel

Directed by Fanny Armstrong and Ken Loach (2005)

Film Review

The documentary McLibel tells the inspiring story of two London Greenpeace activists who stood up to a giant multinational corporation in the longest court battle in English history. Helen Steel and David Morris (the defendants) technically lost their case when the judge awarded McDonald’s (the plaintiffs) 60,000 pounds ($90,000) in damages. Nevertheless they clearly won in the court of public opinion, especially after the European Court of Human rights ruled in their favor in 2004.

For me the best part of the film is the beginning, which examines discovery documents showing that London Greenpeace was infiltrated by 17 spies from two different detective agencies hired by McDonald’s. Infiltration by corporate informants is far more difficult to document than FBI or police spying – private corporations that spy on activists have no accountability under the Freedom of Information Act or comparable state and local laws.

According to court documents, there were as many spies as activists at some meetings and some spies assumed major responsibility for organizing campaigns.

How UK Libel Laws Suppress Free Speech

Britain has very different libel laws than the US, and they have a very chilling effect on free speech. In the UK, an individual sued for making defamatory statements is required to prove – beyond a reasonable doubt – that these statements are true.

In 1990, five London Greenpeace activists received libel writs for a leaflet they were distributing in front of McDonald’s. The writ threatened to take them to court unless they apologized for their actions. Three apologized. Steel and Davis refused to apologize, and in 1994 McDonald’s started court action against them.

As Britain provides no legal aid in liability cases, they had to defend themselves. McDonald’s, in contrast, spent 10 million pounds on lawyers and expert witnesses.

Steel and Davis were fortunate to receive pro bono legal advice from an experienced lawyer, in addition to invaluable assistance from the McDonald’s Support Campaign. In addition to fundraising to pay legal costs and witness airfares, this support group also organized media outreach, support protests and help them start a website, McSpotlight, in 1996. The website launch provided a major breakthrough in the case, as it enabled them to circumvent the corporate media and go directly to the public with their story.

What Steel and Morris Had to Prove

The specific statements (from the leaflet) that Steel and Morris were obliged to prove were

1. That McDonald’s food was unhealthy.
2. That they treated workers badly,
3. That their advertising deliberately manipulated and exploited children
4. That their production practices were detrimental to the environment
5. That their production practices helped perpetuate animal cruelty

Steel, Morris and their supporters persuaded an impressive array of international experts to testify on their behalf, including renowned nutrition researchers, a former Ronald McDonald impersonator and former cattle rancher Howard Lyman.*

A PR Disaster for McDonald’s

After nearly three years, the judge ruled the defendants had proved roughly half their claims. The initial damages he awarded (60,000 pounds) were reduced to 40,000 pounds on an appeal. Nevertheless, the trial was a total PR disaster for McDonald’s. The media storm surrounding the case caused “fringe” concerns raised to be shared by a broad cross section of the public. As a direct result of the McLibel case, McDonald’s began showing quarterly losses and shutting stores in 2002.

They have made no attempt to collect the 40,000 pounds from Steel and Morris.


*Howard Lyman is a former US rancher turned vegetarian and animal rights activists who (along with Oprah Winfrey) was unsuccessfully sued (in 1998) for “food disparagement.”