Tag Archives: environmentalism

“Get the Fucking Indians Out of My Park”: Colonialism, Racism, and the “Ontario Political Police” Killing of Dudley George

On September 4, 1995, several members of the Stony Point nation entered Ipperwash Provincial Park, located on the eastern shore of Lake Huron in the area called, in statist terms, southwestern Ontario, with the intention of reclaiming their community’s land and a traditional burial ground. Within 72 hours of the indigenous community occupation at Ipperwash Provincial Park, one of the community’s members, Anthony O’Brien (Dudley) George was dead. He had been shot and killed by an officer of the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP), Kenneth “Tex” Deane, who had fired multiple rounds from an assault weapon at the non-threatening and unarmed George.

After the shooting of Dudley George many questions began to be asked. What role did the Ontario government play in pushing the OPP to move on the occupiers? Why did the OPP decide to march on the occupiers, taking an aggressive and confrontational approach (a full frontal assault) when there were already plans developed to address the situation through less aggressive means? Why were the OPP armed so heavily and with assault with assault weapons when it was known through a CSIS (Canadian Security and Intelligence Services) mole that the occupiers were unarmed?

Some partial answers to these questions would only come out in the criminal trial of Tex Deane and the public inquiry held a decade after George’s homicide by police. The shooting of Dudley George came a day after newly elected Premier of Ontario, Mike Harris ordered OPP to “get the fucking Indians out of Ipperwash Park” (Ipperwash Inquiry 2007). An aide in the Premier’s office notoriously proclaimed: “The government will not be seen as cooperating with the Indians.” This was only a day before Dudley George was shot and killed. Yet the deeper answers to these questions are rooted in the general history of colonialism and genocide in Canada and the specific harms inflicted on The Kettle Point and Stony Point communities.

At the heart of policing across the Canadian context is, as it always is in the case of settler colonialism, control of land, Indigenous land. In the Canadian state context policing has always been a military exercise in the service of displacement, dispossession, seizure, securing, and settling of land and, where deemed necessary, re-seizing and re-securing land in those cases where Indigenous communities have organized to reclaim their community lands. The examples in Canadian history are numerous and ongoing. A litany of state organized and state enacted theft. Nothing less. Organized crime at the highest level. The names of incidents of state violence in the seizure of Indigenous lands live in infamy. So too the cases of police assaults carried out in the re-taking of land re-claimed by Indigenous communities. Oka, Gustafsen Lake, Sun Peaks, Caledonia, to name only a few recent ones. And Ipperwash.


An Ongoing History of Colonial Crimes: Always an Ipperwash Crisis for Indigenous People

The great Shawnee war chief Tecumseh, whose relations moved to Kettle Point, received a lecture from his older brother Chiksika. He said:

“When a white man kills an Indian in a fair fight it is called honorable, but when an Indian kills a white man in a fair fight it is called murder… When an Indian is killed it is a great loss which leaves a gap in our people and a sorrow in our heart; when a white is killed, three or four others step up to take his place and there is no end to it. The white man seeks to conquer nature, to bend it to his will and use it wastefully…The whole white race is a monster who is always hungry and what he eats is land.” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 33)


The story of the OPP Ipperwash police assault and the killing of Dudley George is rooted in a historic theft of land by the Canadian government for purposes of war. On July 10, 1827, Chief Wawanosh would conclude a treaty that would see King George IV acquire around 2,200,000 acres of prime land in Southwestern Ontario. The treaty would see the establishment of the Kettle and Stony Point reserves with a measly 5000 acres combined. The treaty conference that gave rise to the Kettle and Stony Point reserves came from a concern over land squatting (theft) by white settlers. In return the Indigenous communities received a promise that the Crown would provide living payments “annually and forever” (Edwards 2001, 39). Yet the Crown came to this agreement clearly intending that forever would be a very short time, if the Indigenous population decreased and, indeed, disappeared. The genocidal intentions, or at least expectations, of government, settlers, and missionaries were not hidden beneath the surface.

Primitive accumulation in the Canadian context occurred according to a brutal explicit calculus. This was made clear in crude terms by Reverend Thomas Hurlburt, Methodist missionary to Kettle and Stony Point and the city of Sarnia. In 1864 Reverend Hurlburt wrote in a piece in the Lambton County Gazeteer and Genneral Business Directory to lay out the mathematics of genocide for the general public. He stated:

“This is the easiest and cheapest way to dispose of the Indians of North America; for they must be disposed of in one of three ways; killed in war or by drink or Christianized by missionaries and thus made useful members of society…

“Having been in the mission among the Indians for the past 35 years, and having lived and labored among them in that capacity, I am acquainted with most of the tribes from Texas to the Hudson’s Bay territory, as well as in Canada, I have taken pains to gather the statistics of various Indian wars—the Florida, Black Hawks and others, and I find it requires $25,000 to dispose of an Indian by war, in addition to one white man being killed for every Indian. To dispose of them by drink I found by the statistics of those tribes who had large annuities, and consequently drunk much, that it required about $2,000 to kill an Indian by whiskey…

“In taking the statistics of our own Indian missions, I find it requires about $200 to Cristianize and civilize an Indian, and train him twenty years and thus give him a chance for both his life and that which is to come. Thus it is seen that it requires as much to kill an Indian in war as would Christianize 125, and train them twenty years. It requires as much to kill an Indian by whiskey as would Christianize and save ten. There are 125,000 Indians in British North America.” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 41)


This is the market calculus, the marketization of genocide. It is the logic that would give rise to the horrors of the residential schools and cultural erasure. This is the ongoing logic of colonialism that would find expression, sometimes explicit, in the Ipperwash crisis. It has economic, political, and cultural aspects.

A letter sent by agent A. Dingman of Strathroy to Prime Minister John A. Macdonald on August 27, 1884 and marked “Confidential” told a story of systematic theft of the resources of the reserve lands. In the letter Dingman recorded the activities of a timber mill owner A.L. Smith who operated in the area. The mill had been set up by the capitalist to ensure cloaked thievery. Noting that white settlers had stripped non-reserve lands of resources, Dingman reports:

“and there is now absolutely no place from which it is practicable to get logs with which to stock the mill except they come off the Indian Reserves. It is situated in such an out-of-the-way place that any person so disposed could easily get logs off the Reserves and few people would be aware of the fact unless they were specially interested in finding it out….If the object was to plunder the Reserves of timber no better place could be found than the spot where the mill is situated.” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 42)


As was common across the area of Ontario, the capitalist represented himself as an agent of the government. Smith had even constructed a phony title for himself, “forest bailiff,” a position that did not actually exist in Ontario. In a scheme that brought together the recent push to Christianize the communities the capitalist concocted a deal to return some sawed boards to the community for sue in building a church the newly converted now wanted. As Dingman reported: “never a board was used on the church. This process was repeated time and time again until fully $5,000 worth of timber was cut and sawed into timber, but not one board went towards building the church” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 42). Still the cutting for profit brought the woods to the point of being barren of trees.

Dingman suggested that the trees at Stony Point might not survive another winter of plunder (Edwards 2001, 42). While settlers for miles around had fences for their farms, the Native farmers had no wood for their own fences (Edwards 2001, 43).

There were no charges brought by the Government of Canada against any of the settlers or capitalists who had stolen from the Indigenous communities. Nor was anyone held responsible for government corruption or incompetence (Edwards 2001, 43). The government of Prime Minister Macdonald protected capitalist interests in Treaty 242 of 1888 which gave the federal government permission to sell Native timber rights in exchange for minimal cooperation. Notably the failure of the government to meet wartime promises to provide compensation for wartime service in the War of 1812 persisted throughout the community. Similar struggles would play out over service in subsequent wars up through the twentieth century.

In 1927 a group of land speculators with connections in Ottawa turned their greedy eyes to reserve lands on the shores of Lake Huron. Band members were offered bribes of five dollars if they voted to surrender the lands to developers. An additional ten dollars was offered if the vote to surrender the lands was approved by council (Edwards 2001, 45). Despite the fact that the lands were located at Kettle Point, the vote (and the bribes) were offered to men of both bands. In the end the 33 acres of parkland were purchased by speculators for eighty-five dollars per acre. Half was resold immediately by the developers who had a pre-existing deal for three hundred dollars and acre. The Kettle Point band received $7706.20 for land that developers received $13,200 in selling only half.

Years later the Indian Claims Commission ruled that the federal government had cheated the community as government Indian agents abandoned the duty to protect by looking away as the deal went down. By that point cottagers had held the land for generations (Edwards 2001, 46).

In 1936 the Stoney Point community were deprived of more of their land, when the Province of Ontario purchased 108 acres of land that had been sold the previous year to private actors (Edwards 2001, 46). The land would be used for none other than Ipperwash Provincial Park.

When workers preparing the park uncovered evidence of a Native burial ground appeals were made to government by band council to fence that area off from development. Despite official letters from provincial and federal governments approving of this request the fence was never built. The area would become a picnic grounds complete with horseshoe pits (Edwards 2001, 46).

The history of land theft by capital, settlers, and government against the Kettle Point and Stony Point communities would continue as war loomed in Europe in the late 1930s. The Canadian government desired a military training ground in Ontario (centrally located in the province with the country’s largest population). Businesses desired a facility in the area sine they could profit greatly servicing and supplying the base. Local businesses saw dollar signs in providing the base with fruit, vegetables, grains, bread, oil, canned goods, garbage removal, etc. as had been the  case with a base at Pinehill Camp (Edwards 2001, 46-47). That base was closed due to lack of running water on site, a great loss for profit seeking local capital. Stoney Point provided an ideal site right on the shores of Lake Huron and with water running all through it (Edwards 2001, 47).

In addition to its beneficial geographical qualities, Stoney Point offered a political benefit in that the Natives of Stoney Point did not have the vote and could not punish the government or local representatives at the voting booth. Another benefit for the government was financial. The Department of National Defence appraised the Stoney Point lands in 1942 at fifteen dollars per acre, which was much less than market value for nearby non-reserve lands. Economically, Native lands were viewed as “non-productive” (as long as Natives held them) despite the fact that they were directly farmed for food and essential for community purposes. The notion that Indigenous held lands were non-productive is one that returned to the center of federal government ideology under the Conservative Party regime of Stephen Harper in the 2000s as his government sought to convert Indigenous lands to marketable properties.

While the land deal would be put to a vote of the Stoney Point community a letter from the Secretary of Indian Affairs was sent to the local Indian agent stating that the government was “prepared to use the War Measures Act if the  Indians refused a surrender” (Edwards 2001, 47). Some vote then. Some democracy. Appropriately, on April Fools’ Day 1942 the Stoney Point band voted on the  fate of the lands. Members fighting overseas would not even get a vote. Under the government plan they would turn over the full 2211 acres of their land, all houses, and farms for a sum of $50,000.

Indigenous community members suggested a counter-proposal to lease the land to the federal government for the duration of the war but Ottawa rejected this. And why not? They had an ace up their sleeve. The vote showed a rejection of the government plan with the proposal being defeated 59-13 (Edwards 2001, 48). Never mind the “democratic” result. The government turned to their back up plan. On April 14, 1942, the federal government passed an order-in-council effecting an appropriation of the entire Stoney Point reserve.

Despite concerns among the federal Department of Justice about the legality of taking lands against the stated will of the community, the War Measures Act took the houses and land of the people of Stoney Point in the same manner as would also be imposed on supposed “enemy aliens” such as Japanese civilians (Edwards 2001, 48). Eighteen Stoney Point families were removed from their homes and lands and transferred to the Kettle Point reserve. They were merged into one band and reduced to one federally recognized chief. The Department of Indian Affairs which was supposed to look out for the interests of Indigenous communities (but rarely if ever did) raised not an eyebrow. In fact they viewed the move as a punitive measure to better oversee and regulate the people once they were in a closer space. One Indian agent even reported the dispossession and displacement as a great opportunity to round up a “few straggling Indians” (Edwards 2001, 49). To add insult to injury the government changed the name of the band from Stoney Point to Stony Point for unclear, bureaucratic, reasons. Their former land became Canadian Forces Base at Ipperwash (CFB Ipperwash).

Notably such a move for land expropriation would never have been considered against local white farmers or business property owners. Yet the area around the Stoney Point lands were being developed for less than essential purposes such as tourist resorts and weekend getaways for white visitors from the cities and from the United States. Those lands could have been appropriated with less impact on an existing community. The racist perspective of colonialism would not allow for consideration of such a move.

Residents of Stoney Point were moved without notification or even time to pack. As one displaced member Pearl George related: “When we came home, our house was up on jacks and our two log cabins were gone. They didn’t tell us anything…They never even let u know they were coming so we could pack up the little things. A lot of things were broken. They moved us to Kettle Point, to a swamp” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 49). Three of her children born at Kettle Point would die after developing intestinal problems that she attributed to the swamp[ water. The displaced felt like strangers in another land. As Maynard George, a son of Pearl, would state: It was sort of like in Bosnia where they put two different ethnic groups together. They did not allocate us good wood or housing. We could not become members of the band council or get any work on the reserve” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 50). This made no difference to government and likely never even registered at all. Other homes were simply levelled rather than moved. This was the fate suffered by the small church at Stoney Point as well as by many of the headstones in a nearby cemetery.

One can try to imagine the feelings of soldiers such as Clifford George who returned to a levelled land after having risked his life fighting in Europe (for the very state that was stealing and bulldozing his home while he faced enemy fire). He would  later reflect: “I came home to nothing. I’ll never forget the feeling I had when I first went there [to Stoney Point] and couldn’t find my mother’s grave. They had removed the headstones and there were bullet holes and trenches dug. They could only do that to an Indian. That would never happen to white people” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 52). With no home to return to George would move to a nearby town. He would be stripped of his legal Indian status. In his words: “I came back to find the real enemy was here” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 53).

The Canadian government had promised the Stony Point community that their lands would be returned to them at cessation of the fighting at war’s end. Following the end of World War Two the Transitional Powers Act replaced the War Measures Act setting the stage for a social transition to post-war conditions.

On May 31, 1946, the advanced infantry training center at CFB Ipperwash was closed. The Department of National Affairs and Department of Indian Affairs opened discussions about returning the confiscated lands to the Indigenous community. On December 31, 1946, the Transitional Powers Act expired and the stolen lands had still not been returned. Yet no extension was granted for the Department of National Defense to retain the Stony Point lands. The government had no legal basis to keep the lands. But it did.

In this context life went on. And grew. Dudley George was born on March 17, 1957 at Sarnia General Hospital. Anthony O’Brien George was the eighth of ten children in a family that lived at the Sarnia reserve after his family’s community was destroyed by the Canadian government 15 years before Dudley was born. Ironically he got his nickname Dudley after the character Dudley Do-Right a clueless Mountie featured in Saturday morning cartoons (Edwards 2001, 55). His family would move to Kettle Point when he was eight.

The efforts by Stony Point members to reclaim their land did not cease at any point during the period in which their lands were controlled by the Canadian government. Future Prime Minister Jean Chretien, then Minister of Indian Affairs noted in a letter to the Minister of National Defense in 1972:

“Since 1946 our respective Departments have been corresponding on the subject of the return of some 2,200 acres comprising Canadian Forces Base Camp Ipperwash which was appropriated in 1942 by the Department of National Defence under the War Measures Act….

“The Chippewas of Kettle Point have repeatedly requested the return of these lands which are needed to enable the Band to improve its economic and social position. Time has not altered the Indians’ view that they were wronged by the forcible taking of their reserve in 1942. Moreover, it was their understanding that the land was to have been returned to them at the end of hostilities.

“With cuts in the Canadian Forces Bases indicated it seems to me that this is an appropriate time to reconsider this matter and I would appreciate having advice as to your Department’s plans for Camp Ipperwash. The transfer of this land to the administration and control of this Department so that it could be returned to reserve status would be of great importance to the Kettle Point Indians and would remove a major source of dissatisfaction with the manner in which the Federal Government have dealt with this reserve.” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 58)


Nothing came of this of course. Of note, Chretien had become Prime Minister of Canada at the time the Ipperwash reclamation occupation, and shooting of Dudley George, occurred. Yet he did nothing as Prime Minister to improve a situation of injustice that he was clearly aware needed to be redressed and had be aware of for decades.

In 1950 the park superintendent’s wife had reported the discovery of human bones. By 1972 the government seemed to have forgotten about all discussions around fencing off the burial ground or about the discovery of bones.

The Canadian government made a payment of 2.5 million dollars to the Kettle and Stony Point band in 1980 as partial compensation for the base lands. This was accompanied by a promise that the lands would be returned when military use had finally ceased (Edwards 2001, 60). In March 1992 a report was tabled by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal People recommending that the federal government return the Camp Ipperwash lands to the Stony Point community.

The people themselves followed this recommendation up a month later when a gathering of 100 showed up at Camp Ipperwash to serve an eviction notice on the Department of National Defense. The government was given 20 days to leave the premises (Edwards 2001, 61). The group of 100 included members of the National Association of Japanese Canadians. Their representative Van Hori noted that his community had also lost their homes and had their land expropriated by the government during World War Two. He stated: “It took us forty-six years to get an apology and some kind of compensation…These people are still waiting” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 61). The Department of National Defense replied in August 1992 that there was still a need to keep the Camp Ipperwash lands.

For many in the community the time for waiting was over. Fifty years had passed since the government stole the lands. Forty-six years since the promised time of return. On May 27, 1993 the military base was reoccupied by an Indigenous group calling itself now the Stoney Point First Nation. They named the reclaimed lands Aushoodaana Anjibaajrg meaning “resting place.” Dudley George was among that original group of land reclaimers.

The occupiers built homes on the base, pitched tents, parked trailers. The soldiers at the base remained doing what exercises they could. The occupation grew to around 100 residents with dozens more visiting regularly and offering support. Indigenous groups from across Turtle Island sent visitors. The Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) offered solidarity in the form of timber for buildings and generators for power (Edwards 2001, 62). The happiness in the community was real. As Clifford George stated: “This is the first time in fifty years, since before the war, that we’ve all been together so close. We’re finally back together again, and that’s why we have such a good relationship….I’m back to stay. They’ll have to carry me off and they better lock me up because the minute they let me loose, I’ll come back again” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 62). The community elected its own chief and council (outside the formal structures of the colonial Indian Act). This was an assertion of self-determination and self-governance. Traditional teachings were practiced. A peace tree was planted over a traditional stone axe. A month in the first permanent structure, a church, was completed (Edwards 2001, 63).

The military kept up low level Bell 212 helicopter flights for reconnaissance shining lights into the occupation camp. According to Clifford George: “Sometimes they flew so low they raised dust. They scare the kids and old people. I’m all in favour of laying of charges of harassment against the military” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 64). The helicopter crews that harassed the Stoney Point people had flown missions in the colonial deployment in Somalia.

The media war was also initiated against the Indigenous occupiers. Media began to portray them as terrorists not as a cheated community striving after decades to get their stolen lands back. In this the media were replaying by now well rehearsed narratives of Indigenous resistance as terrorism or criminality. Such discourses had only recently been trotted out and repeated for national and even international audiences during the Oka crisis of 1990.

In the federal budget speech of 1994 the government announced plans to negotiate the return of Camp Ipperwash lands. No date was given.

Enough was finally more than enough. On July 29, 1995, Stoney Point occupiers drove a yellow school bus through the doors of a base hall and refused to leave. The military simply withdrew. By the end of summer community members had secured contracts to maintain the base at ten dollars per hour. There was no violence.

On Monday, September 4, Labor Day, 1995, the Indigenous protesters occupied Ipperwash Provincial Park, as they had, in fact, promised to do. There were about 35 occupiers in the park on the first evening. Police knew from the start that this occupation differed from other recent occupations such as Oka in Quebec and Gustafsen Lake in British Columbia. Their own briefing notes reported “no visible weapons” (Edwards 2001, 75). And their observers suggested the occupation was not well organized.

Still police right away put in motion plans to move more than 200 officers to the area along with caged Corrections Canada buses (Edwards 2001, 75). The Forest arena was commandeered as an arrest center. Police had also made arrangements with the Canadian military for use of armored personnel carriers. Project Maple was underway. The social war character of the police operation and response to Indigenous occupiers was unescapable. It would soon claim its casualties.


The Police Assault on Ipperwash and the Killing of Dudley George

Throughout Tuesday, September 5, and Wednesday, September 6, 1995, dozens of out of town officers appeared in the area near the camp and park. There was a mass mobilization of police force which seemed well out of proportion given the small numbers of community occupiers and the peaceful, by all accounts, nature of the protest.

Police roadblocks were set up on roads around the park and drivers were stopped and questioned. Indigenous drivers and passengers were subjected to particularly lengthy interrogations by police. The night of the police assault police shut down all roads around the park and military base sealing the protesters off from the outside world. Dozens of police vehicles, including containment vans, had been massed outside the park.

Numerous people, like Kettle and Stony Point band councillor Cecil Bernard, told OPP officers during the occupation that the occupiers were “good, peaceful people” (Edwards 2001, 1). They also noted that they felt that the officers did not care or were almost disappointed to hear this.

On the evening of the lethal police raid that killed Dudley George there were only about 25 people inside the park and this included some children (Edwards 2001, 2). The occupiers had no weapons in the park. In fact weapons had been banned by occupiers who realized they could not win in a shootout with police, which they did not seek anyway, and having weapons could be potentially disastrous.

The police maneuvers that resulted in the killing of Dudley George were military in character. The riot squad, the Crowd Management Unit, that moved on the camp was made up of the OPP Tactics and Rescue Unit (TRU) a paramilitary formation (Edwards 2001, 3). They consisted of scouts and snipers. It was never quite clear how the decision to send in the TRU was ever arrived at and ordered.

At one point earlier in the evening they had almost claimed a different victim, also unarmed. A TRU sniper had eyed what he believed to be an Indigenous person with a rifle standing at the side of the road. He also saw what he believed to be the reddish glow from a night vision riffle scope. What happened next is chilling. The officer reported into his radio: “CMU [Crowd Management Unit] be advised party on road may have a weapon in his hand. Check CMU person on the road does have a weapon, does have a weapon. Everybody move. Right, left, quick right, left, quick right, left, quick right, left, everybody quick right. Left” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 3). The sniper dropped into position taking aim on the figure, awaiting the order to “Fire.” The man was that close to being dead. As automatic weapons trained on him snipers confirmed the perceived threat. A police scout: “Confirm one man with weapon—long gun” (Edwards 2001, 3). That close.

But the police were mistaken. A message from Constable Mark Beauchene to Acting Sergeant Ken Deane clarified that the man in the crosshairs did not actually have a gun at all. He carried a walking stick. The red glow from the night sight—a lit cigarette (Edwards 2001, 3). And he was that close to being killed right then and there. Under eerily similar circumstances of police error and confusion Dudley George would not escape with such fortune.

Still the CMU continued their ill advised march on the camp. Near the park entrance protesters would see about 30 of them marching toward them in a tight box formation. Years before concerns would be more constantly raised about the militarization of policing, this formation of the riot squad came forward in head to toe body armor, with shin and elbow pads, holding Plexiglas shields and steel batons. They wore heavy helmets not meant to communicate with those they were approaching (to serve and protect of course). Rather their intended communications were only with each other. The helmets were equipped with internal microphones.

Police began pounding on the shields with their batons, “shield chatter,” in the tried and true attempt to intimidate, distract, and terrorize. This was nothing less than a military formation on a military maneuver. It was designed to frighten and threaten and, if necessary, to inflict lethal force. It had no other purpose or intent.

In response the protesters were not fully intimidated. Some turned high powered spotlights on the officers. Lights, symbolically, ironically, illuminating a situation from the history of Canadian settler colonialism—the deployment of military force to drive Indigenous people off of their lands. And the protesters were explicit that they recognized and understood this. They responded to the CMU appropriately: “This is our traditional land. Our forefathers were here before you! Get back on the Mayflower! Go back with the Pilgrims” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 5). And: “You’re stealing our land! Go back to England! Get the fuck off our land!” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 5). The land reclaimers were justly defiant. They were no aggressive or violent. None of that mattered to police who were impatient to deploy force against the protesters (for reasons not immediately apparent perhaps but politically significant).

Riot squad officers initially made a raid against Indigenous people in the parking lot. Police adopted a spread formation, standing wide apart to look more menacing and to avoid projectiles (Edwards 2001, 5). Moments later the police charged the group again. Indigenous protesters were beaten, at least one into unconsciousness. Later in the attack a dog that was with the protesters would be shot and killed by police. In the end, in addition to Dudley George, 16-year-old Nicholas Cottrelle would also be shot in the volleys of dozens of bullets fired by police at Indigenous protesters. Cecil Slippery George would be beaten almost to death by police. A dog that was with Cottrelle on a bus the youth tried to drive out of danger was also shot and killed.

Ken “Tex” Deane, the officer  who shot and killed Dudley George, was armed with an East German Heckler and Koch submachine gun. It fired 800 rounds a minute. Deane had been on duty for sixteen hours. Another officer, Sergeant George Hebblethwaite, second in command of the riot squad, recognized that George appeared to be holding only a stick (Edwards 2001, 10). Yet, in what would be found in a trial and inquiry after the killing to be unwarranted and unjustifiable use of force, Deane opened fire anyway. Deane hit George with what were the second and third volleys of bullets he fired. The third volley delivered the lethal shot.

Dudley George’s sister Carolyn and brother Pierre tried  frantically to get their stricken sibling to the local hospital for urgently needed care. They placed him in a car and made a desperate run for the hospital. What played out was an horrific expression of police vengeance and pettiness. Police attempted at every turn to stop the vehicle carrying the badly wounded Dudley George and the frantic effort to save his life saw the vehicle circumvent several would be roadblocks and out-maneuver the police pursuit.  Incredibly they managed to get Dudley to Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital in Strathroy, Ontario. The nightmare did not end when they got there.

Police chose to arrest and detain Pierre George and Carolyn George, who delivered Dudley to the hospital, rather than get the dying man immediate medical attention. Young Nicolas Cottrelle, only 16, who was also shot by police would  himself be charged by police with attempted murder. With 28 blunt force trauma wounds across his body delivered by police, Slippery George was charged with assault. The laying of charges against people who have been violently attacked by police is a standard practice that is all too familiar to people who have engaged in political protests in Canada. It is a practice that has become routine.

Dudley’s brother Pierre and sister Carolyn, who had so desperately tried to save their brother’s life were put in the Strathroy town jail and each charged with attempted murder. Police at the jail refused to answer Pierre George’s repeated requests to find out how Dudley was. Somehow though they knew.

Dudley George suffered fractures of the seventh, eighth, and ninth ribs on his left side, a cracked collar bone, and had two large fragments of bullets in the subcutaneous soft tissues (Edwards 2001, 20). The young man, a beloved jokester, was declared dead at 12:20 AM on September 7, 1995, at nearby Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital, in Strathroy, Ontario.

Anthony O’Brien George (March 17, 1957–September 7, 1995), known to friends and family as Dudley, was the eighth of ten children born to Geneviève (“Jenny”) Pauline Rogers George and Reg “Nug” (Reginald Ransford) George.

Kettle and Stony Point Chief, Tom Bressette, described the sense of terror inflicted on the community by police. In his words: “Our elders were fleeing the community…They were afraid the army would come back with the police and kill them” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 22). The history of violence inflicted on the community and the immediate killing of their neighbor Dudley gave them ample reason to feel threatened. As would be revealed in the pubic inquiry held years later the community without fully knowing it perhaps had larger political reasons to be fearful. The government was fully prepared to deploy, indeed desired, police terror against the community to break the occupation.

The morning after the killing of Dudley George, Premier Harris refused to meet with Chief Bressette, Assembly of First Nations head Ovid Mercredi, and Ontario Chief Gord Peters. Harris referred to the occupation as illegal even though senior government ministers knew it was likely fully legal given the existence of burial grounds in the park (Edwards 2001, 118). The claim of Indigenous illegality was a claim Harris would repeat publicly even days later. After the killing the military tried to denigrate Dudley George by suggesting he had an “extreme criminal record” (Edwards 2001, 116). This was in no way accurate. He had one arrest as a youth (in an event for which white youth also involved were never even charged).


Racism and Colonialism Continued: Law and Order Conservatism and the Ipperwash Siege

The community members believed early on that Conservative Premier Mike Harris was responsible for the lethal police operation. Harris and his hard Right neoliberal Conservative Party government had only been elected three months before the killing of Dudley George. His government had made clear in their election campaign that they would make poor and working class communities scapegoats for social discontent and economic uncertainty. The suffering of the poor and unemployed would pay for social programs desired by the wealthy (through a massive transfer of social wealth away from services needed by the poorest members of society). They were an openly reactionary force for capital and fierce proponents of a neoliberal austerity agenda and tough on crime politics of repression.

Under the banner of their so-called “Common Sense Revolution” the Harris Tories launched a counter-revolutionary assault against poor people, welfare recipients, unions, students, community groups, and progressives of all types. At one point a year into his term Harris would target even sociologists (who were critical of anti-social government policy) labeling the discipline as “waste in the system” of post-secondary education.

Harris had, as official Opposition leader, made his racist views on Indigenous communities, and common sense, known to a group of business people (his people) at the Elmhurst Resort near Peterborough. According to Harris: “There’s a whole notion of guilt…because Native people haven’t fully adapted from the reservations [reserves] to being full partners in this economy. We can’t let that guilt preclude us from reaching a common sense solution” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 26). Common sense to Harris was justification for ongoing colonialism. Hs was, on the whole, an agenda of ramped up violence in service of primitive accumulation and renewed conditions for exploitation more favorable to capital (against policies and programs that offered some buffer for the working class and oppressed.

Among the changes introduced early by Premier Harris was the ending of employment equity legislation that would have had employers make plans to hire visible minorities, women, and Indigenous people (Edwards 2001, 26). This was the common sense counter-revolution for Ontario. Notably this agenda would be taken nationally when the revamped Conservative Party under Stephen Harper came to power between 2005 and 2015 with several veterans of Harris’s Common Sense Revolution as ministers in the federal cabinet.

From the start police were aware that they were being watched closely by the Premier’s office and Conservative Party. The first day of the operation Conservative MPP Marcel Beaubien arrived on the scene and was in communication with the government at Queen’s Park. The earliest government meetings expressed an intention to “remove the occupiers ASAP” (Edwards 2001, 80). The Conservative Party had campaigned on a hard law and order platform of zero tolerance for even minor offenses and the quelling of political dissent. The Premier’s office sought to use the excuse of break and enter or property damage to push it law and order agenda and sought signs of weapons.

Conservative MPP Beaubien released a press statement replaying racist claims about a two-tiered justice system that was soft on Natives, compared, again in racist fashion, to non[-Native people who were presented as “law abiding and tax paying citizens” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 82). The Indigenous community members were described as “irresponsible, law breaking dissidents” despite the fact that the occupation had not been declared illegal by anyone formally or charges prepared (quoted in Edwards 2001, 82). These claims played on racist tropes familiar in the history of Canadian colonialism and cultural erasure of Indigenous peoples. To add a further racist plum MPP Beaubien tried to distinguish between “your decent native citizen” and “thugs” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 82). Another referent from Canadian colonial discourse.

MPPs like Beaubien were ratcheting up tensions and calling on the Premier’s office for a forceful and swift intervention. Pressure was also coming from Conservative Party supporters. A letter from a local lawyer to the government was circulated saying in part: “The Conservative government had a large law and order plank in its platform—I want to see it live up to its election promises and my expectations. I want to see Ipperwash Provincial Park remain in the public domain, and I want the law enforced to see that it does” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 88). The letter writer raised the clichéd specter of anarchy and showed little regard for the wellbeing of protesters: “The time to act, and act decisively, is now. If people are hurt, so be it—the laws must be enforced to be respected….If illegal acts are tolerated, they spread. The end result is anarchy” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 88). This from a lawyer promoting illegal police action against Indigenous people who, on the basis of the known burial site on the lands were not actually acting illegally (which it turns out the government was aware of). An open call for potential extrajudicial execution of land defenders.

Ironically the statement offered a note that expressed the very situation of the Indigenous community that had waited 50 years to get their land back. It read: “People begin to perceive the government cannot protect them and their interests—they begin to take steps to protect themselves” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 88). Meant as a threat this actually explained the situation of the land reclaimers who were being targeted for condemnation.

The appeals of the non-Natives and the racist messaging was not lost o the government which agreed with such sentiments. In meetings of the provincial Emergency Planning Committee, notes show clearly that the Conservative government would accept no compromise and would accept nothing, in fact, except the forced removal of the reclaimers. The government would not negotiate. Neither would they consider, incredibly, that the Indigenous people actually had legitimate claims on the lands. This intransigence was in place even as experts informed them that there were no legal grounds for removal of the occupiers. Stunningly, the government’s own files contained proof of the existence of the burial ground inside the park.

The government had already decided to seek an ex parte injunction against the Indigenous protesters. This would ban them from making any argument of their case in the courts, excluding them from the process. It was a measure usually reserved for extreme cases (Edwards 2001, 91). Excluded from the hearing they could not argue or provide evidence for their reasons for being on the land. The police were granted the ex parte injunction for four days.

Notes show that the government asked police to remove the protesters and showed frustration that the police did not do so immediately. The government wanted “to be seen as acting” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 89). The government even rejected possible assistance from Kettle and Stony Point band chief Tom Bressette. According to notes: “This government will not be seen as cooperating with the Indians” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 90).

Racism played an active part in the approach taken by police as well as by government. Protesters reported police hurling racist epithets at them throughout the occupation and police assault on the reclamation camp and saying Dudley George, by name, would “be the first” (Edwards 2001, 86). Police communication suggested that Native occupiers had been drinking even though there was no sign they were drinking and that they had, in fact, said they wanted no drinking among people at the site. According to police transcripts, OPP Superintendent Anthony Parkin said of the land reclaimers: “They’re probably all boozed up. They’ve probably been drinking” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 98). The police also suggested cynically that some occupiers were leaving because they knew trouble was coming. Yet they had actually left because they had school and jobs to go to (Edwards 2001, 98). This fact never occurred to police steeped in colonial racist ideology of unemployed, uneducated, Natives. The police also played on racist constructions of Indigenous people as untrustworthy and crooked. Toward this end the police spread rumors in the local area about native occupiers stealing gas. This was designed to stoke suspicion and anger among local farmers, business people, and town residents.

Police and government documents would show a close relationship between the provincial government and the OPP, even in contravention of law and public policy separating government from policing operations. OPP Commissioner Thomas O’Grady was a member of a joint crisis team that met regularly beginning one month before Dudley George was killed by police. So close was the relationship that the OPP had been nicknamed the “Ontario Political Police” (Edwards 2001, 120). The joint team was viewed as a legitimate vehicle for government.


Social War Policing and the Killing of Dudley George

In a case that underlines the state-capital nexus in policing, and the police as social war defenders of capital, the police also received an armored personnel carrier directly from the manufacturer, GM Diesel, in the nearby city of London, Ontario. Of note, the factory had a special agreement with the London police to provide it armored vehicles in times of police need. The only conceivable possible need was crowd control and anti-protest maneuvers.

The  infamous Chief of Police for London at the time, one Julian Fantino (known for racial profiling during his time as chief in York, Ontario and for keeping a list of gay men while in London) agreed to loan a vehicle to the OPP for the siege of Ipperwash. Fantino would, several years later, be head of the OPP at the time of the Six Nations occupation at Caledonia, Ontario. There the police would notoriously assault the occupation in violation of the recommendations that arose following the police murder of Dudley George. OPP under Fantino would also protect white supremacists who sought to attack the Six Nations reclamation.

The military nature of the police action was further reinforced with the use of air cover through helicopter flyovers. Occupiers had noted surveillance by low flying police helicopters as well as shoreline patrols by a police boat. The Indigenous land reclaimers were being encircled on land and in the air. And even by water. Around the clock. This was a full on military siege. At the same time they actually consisted of a grand total of nine people, including three children (Edwards 2001, 80). At one point a police helicopter buzzed so low on a picnic of women and children that it blew their food off the table (Edwards 2001, 86).

The OPP made informal requests for help to the Canadian military. OPP were in communication with the military over a plan to outnumber Natives ten to one (rather than the two to one ratio in effect when Dudley George was killed). Unfortunately for their plan available troops were preparing to fight an external imperial battle in Bosnia.


Surveillance and Police Spies

As in traditional military operations the state also deployed special ops against the occupiers. At least one spy provided information over a period of time to both CSIS and the OPP. The one identified spy was Jim Moses, a journalist who had contributed to various Indigenous media as well as mainstream outlets like the state broadcaster the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) and its investigative newsmagazine The Fifth Estate (Edwards 2001, 69). CSIS was particularly interested in involvement by or connections with the Mohawk Warrior Society, noted for activism and community defense at Akwesasne and Oka. Moses reported being paid around $2000 by the OPP over almost three years of spying on Indigenous groups. CSIS paid between 400 dollars and 800 dollars per month (Edwards 2001, 69).

Notably, over his period with the Stoney Point occupiers Moses could find and report no wrongdoing by the group. This despite the fact that it would have been beneficial financially for him to do so. Moses went on to stay with the occupiers at the military base. He never saw any guns at the occupation. He regarded Dudley George as a joker rather than a fighter or leader (Edwards 2001, 70). He expressed deep sadness at George’s killing. In his words: “Dudley was a happy-go-lucky friendly guy…I was sick. I felt empty…It was totally unnecessary” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 70). This from the police infiltrator.

The OPP also used officers posing as tourists to spy on Indigenous people along the park beach. In addition two undercover officers were placed in the camp posing as campers. They operated out of a trailer and a mobile home (Edwards 2001, 70). Notably they too had nothing threatening or ominous to report about the activities of the occupiers.

The OPP’s military Tactics and Rescue Unit had been formed specifically to address terrorism (in the period before 9/11). It’s deployment and dubious use in this situation show both the government view of Indigenous land defense and the misuse for purely politically opportunistic purposes various “anti-terror” mechanisms. Notably the police construction of Indigenous land defenders as terrorists continues in recent surveillance and response to Indigenous pipeline resistance in the twenty-first century.

The police, despite massive surveillance and  an infiltrator in the occupation camp, had no evidence, at any point, of any danger posed by the land reclaimers.  Yet the government took the extreme measure of gaining an ex parte injunction against the occupiers.


An Inquiry and a Killer Cop Convicted

In a rare turn of events in the Canadian state context, where police are almost never charged or brought to trial for killing civilian, the officer who killed Dudley George, Acting Sergeant Ken “Tex” Deane was actually charged and his case tried in a court of law. Deane put forward a defense that he believed Dudley George to be carrying a rifle at the time he shot the young man. The presiding judge did not accept this Defense and found Deane’s claims to lack credibility, a rare conclusion regarding police officer testimony in cases where officers are charged for killing someone. According to Judge Hugh Fraser: “I find, sir, that you were not honest in presenting this version of events to the Ontario Provincial Police investigators. You were not honest in presenting this version of events to the Special Investigations Unit of the Province of Ontario. You were not honest in maintaining this ruse before this court” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 198). Deane was found guilty of criminal negligence but sentenced to a non-custodial punishment. For killing Dudley George in cold blood Tex Deane was given a conditional sentence of two years less a day which was to be served in the community (Edwards 2001, 214).

Despite the conviction, Tex Deane did not lose his job as a police officer. He maintained his employment with the force for five-and-a-half years following the criminal conviction. Over that time Officer Deane appealed his conviction to the Ontario Court of Appeal and eventually all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Finally, in the wake of a hearing under the Police Act, Deane was additionally convicted of Discreditable Conduct. He was given the option of resigning within seven days or being fired and left the force. Deane would go on to work as a security guard, unsettlingly, at an Ontario Hydro nuclear station.

Tex Deane was killed in a car accident on February 25, 2006. Ironically perhaps, his vehicle collided with a truck near Prescott, Ontario while Deane was traveling to testify in the provincial inquiry called into the government handling of the Ipperwash crisis (Harris 2006).

Following the police killing of Dudley George the George family made ongoing calls for both the Government of Ontario and the Government of Canada to strike a public inquiry into the handling of the response to the land reclamation at Ipperwash by the province and the police. They wanted to know especially the nature and extent of government involvement in directing police operations against the Indigenous community protesters.

Finally, on November 12, 2003, a public inquiry was launched in Ontario. This only happened after the ruling Conservative Party lost the election of 2003 to the Liberal Party headed by Dalton McGuinty. The Conservatives had held to power and refused an inquiry into their actions for eight years.

While the inquiry was funded by the Government of Ontario it was carried out under a third party, Sidney B. Linden, who was deemed to be neutral. Linden derived his authority as a commissioner as covered by the Public Inquiries Act (Ontario). The public inquiry was given the specific mandate to examine and report on the events surrounding the killing of Dudley George. This was not a trial and no punishment would be levied. It was expected that the inquiry would provide recommendations covering interactions between police and Indigenous communities in future events of similar nature to the Ipperwash protests.

Evidence provided over the course of the inquiry was damning of the Conservative government’s racism and contempt for Indigenous communities. It also showed dubious government relationships with police and pointed to government pressures on policing in the nature of a police state. At one point a 17-minute tape recording was submitted that revealed a stunning conversation between OPP Inspector Ron Fox and Inspector John Carson, the OPP commander in charge of the Ipperwash case before Dudley George was killed. The two officers discussed Premier Mike Harris’s aggressive and racist perspective that that the government has “tried to pacify and pander to these people far too long” and to use “swift affirmative action” to remove the Indigenous people from the park (Ipperwash Inquiry 2007). It could be said that this was the only time in his period in office that Mike Harris supported any form of affirmative action.

Perhaps most damning was shocking evidence provided by former Ontario Provincial Attorney General Charles Harnick on November 28, 2005. Harniick testified that Premier Harris used extreme profanity while shouting, “I want the fucking Indians out of my park” (Ipperwash Public Inquiry 2005).

Former Premier Mike Harris did appear reluctantly before the inquiry on February 14, 2006. Harris denied in his testimony that he had ever made the statement attributed to him by Harnick (CBC News 2006). Notably, Justice Linden “found the statements were made and they were racist, whether intended or not” (Ipperwash Inquiry, Volume 1 2007, 677).

The evidentiary hearings portion of the inquiry ended on June 28, 2006. The final report from Justice Linden and the overall findings of the inquiry were released on May 31, 2007 (CBC News 2007). They concluded that the Premier’s office and the police had acted inappropriately and improperly in the events at Ipperwash.


Not in Vain: Victory to the Occupiers and the Return of the Lands

The killing of Dudley George can only be considered a state atrocity, an extrajudicial execution carried out on behalf of a government that sought to show it was tough of protesters and, more, an upholder of the colonial power relations at the heart of the Canadian state. But Dudley George’s death was not in vain. His people would emerge victorious in this particular struggle despite the efforts of the Ontario government. Unfortunately this victory, and confirmation of the rightness of their struggle, would only come 12 years after Dudley George was killed.

On December 20, 2007, the Ontario Provincial government, now under Liberal Party direction, made a public announcement that it would finally return the full acreage of Ipperwash Provincial Park to its proper inhabitants, the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation (Gillespie 2007). This initial announcement did not make full return of the lands immediately since the land was placed under co-management by the provincial government and the Indigenous communities for an unspecified period of time. The government also announced that there would be consultations carried out with nearby local communities (non-Indigenous). Then-Aboriginal Affairs Minister Michael Bryant suggested that the land would be turned over to full Chippewa control at the end of this consultation process.

The date finally came on Thursday May 28, 2009, when then-Ontario Aboriginal Affairs Minister Brad Duguid formally signed control of Ipperwash Park over to the Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation (McCaffery 2009). The full settlement was only finalized on April 14, 2016, a delay for the community of more than 70 years after the government’s promised return of the end of World War Two. The land was turned over to the community along with a  payment of $95 million. The Federal government was represented in the signing over by Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan and Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Dr. Carolyn Bennett. Signing the agreement on behalf of the First Nation was Chief Thomas Bressette (Bridge 2016).

It should also be noted that some members of the community have opposed the agreement as too little too late. Pierre George was engulfed in flames during a protest prior to the signing.


CODA: They are the Government. We Can Never Trust the Police

Peter Edwards gives a sense of the hegemonic view of policing held by most media members, but which Indigenous communities hold with skepticism. According to the reporter:

“It’s a basic understanding in a democracy that police keep a professional distance from politicians It has to be this way. Otherwise, police would soon find themselves ordered to crack down on the political rivals of whoever is in office, ass happens in Third World police states. That would be the certain death of democracy.” (Edwards 2001, 24)


Well then democracy in Canada is already dead. Killed by police. As each of the cases of activists killed by police in Canada shows the ruling politicians and political parties do not keep a distance from police. Regularly they engage with, direct, and/or pressure police to act with violence for political purposes and toward political ends. The police killing of Dudley George was no different in this respect.

One Indigenous woman offered an alternative view of the hegemonic perspective on [police as peacekeepers. In her view: “They [the police] are the government. We can never trust the police” (quoted in Edwards 2001, 25). This is a clear sighted and correct criminological analysis of the historic and contemporary character of policing in Canada. Despite what the national mythologies might have one believe.


Further Reading

Bridge, Terry. 2016. “Feds’ 1942 Land Expropriation Dispute Resolved with Land’s Return and $95-Million Payment to Chippewas of Kettle and Stony Point First Nation.” Sarnia Observer. April 14. http://www.theobserver.ca/2016/04/14/feds-1942-land-expropriation-dispute-resolved-with-lands-return-and-95-million-payment-to-chippewas-of-kettle-and-stony-point-first-nation

CBC News. 2006. “Harris Denies Ever Using Profane Slur Against Natives.” CBC News. 16. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/harris-denies-ever-using-profane-slur-against-natives-1.592725

CBC News. 2007. “George Family Braces for Ipperwash Inquiry Report.” CBC News. May 31. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/george-family-braces-for-ipperwash-inquiry-report-1.633839

Edwards, Peter. 2001. One Dead Indian: The Premier, The Police, and the Ipperwash Crisis. Toronto: Stoddart

Gillespie, Kerry. 2007. “Ipperwash Land Returned to Indians.” Toronto Star. December 21. https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2007/12/21/ipperwash_land_returned_to_indians.html

Harris, Kate. 2005. “Key Ipperwash Witness Killed in Highway Crash.” Globe and Mail. February 27. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/key-ipperwash-witness-killed-in-highway-crash/article20409136/

Ipperwash Inquiry. 2007. Report of the Ipperwash Inquiry, Volume 1. Toronto: Government of Ontario

Ipperwash Public Inquiry. 2005. “Ipperwash Public Inquiry. Transcript of November28.” http://mail.tscript.com/trans/ipperwash/nov_28_05/text.htm

McCaffery, Dan. 2009. “Ipperwash Park to Re-Open in 2010.” London Free Press. May 28. http://nationtalk.ca/story/ipperwash-park-to-re-open-in-2010-london-free-press


RCMP Killer of Indigenous Anonymous Activist James McIntyre Exonerated by IIO Despite Not Filing Report

There is little expectation that officers who kill civilians in Canada will be in any way held accountable (even minimally). This expectation is even further diminished in cases in which police have killed social activists in the course of upholding or defending the state capitalist status quo. Clearly in such cases the officers are carrying out their fundamental purpose of maintaining dominant structures of social stratification and hegemonic order. And in this they must be assured full protection and legitimation. Thus it is almost certain that they will not be taken to task under such circumstances for killing someone who challenges that order or threatens to make a public show of reasonable opposition to established order.

The official investigation into the RCMP officers who killed Indigenous Anonymous activist James McIntyre while he was protesting the Site C dam megaproject in British Columbia and the conclusions drawn by the Independent Investigations Office (IIO) is in no way surprising then. The IIO exonerated the officers involved including the cop who fired the shot that killed James McIntyre despite the fact that the officer failed even to file an internal report on the killing which is required under law. The IIO could only state with futility:

“As of the time this decision is being issued, it does not appear that the subject officer has completed any reports or notes of his recollection of the incident. The IIO has, and continues to engage with the RCMP on the necessity of officers completing timely reports.” (IIO 2016)

Adds the IIO spokesperson Marten Youssef: “They are required to write timely reports, timely accounts, detailing their account of what happened. It appears as of the time of writing this case that the subject officer in this investigation did not comply with that policy.” (quoted in Kurjata 2016)

And there is nothing to suggest that the killer cop received so much as a stern word or cross look for this violation, let alone any sort of actual punishment. Yet the IIO concludes that the officer did nothing wrong despite the absence of any report.

The failure of officers involved in the killing of civilians to file reports of to file reports in a timely manner is notorious in British Columbia, a fact the IIO has raised repeatedly. Indeed officers often watch media coverage before filing a report in those cases where a report is actually provided. Clearly police in the province view the legal requirements under which they are supposed to operate as something of a joke or at most a matter of personal convenience rather than a legal requirement of their job. As in other cases the officers view themselves as above the law—they are a law unto themselves.

Furthermore there is no mechanism to compel officers to interview with the IIO in the course of its investigation. That is, officers choose whether or not they will interview with the supposedly independent investigation. One can well guess the choice killer cops tend to make. So in the case of the RCMP killing of James McIntyre the IIO had no interview testimony from the officer responsible for killing McIntyre.

Notably witnesses interviewed by the IIO varied in their accounts of how James McIntyre responded to police (approached, lunged, jabbing, coming towards, etc.). They were inconsistent in portraying the threat, if any, that the victim posed. There is no sense that James McIntyre posed a threat beyond police to the public. In addition the witnesses do make clear that James McIntyre was shot almost immediately as police told him to drop his knife (which some witnesses suggested was described as a “weapon” rather than a knife by police). Some witnesses noted having unreliable sight lines. One witness noted not being able to see after being hit by pepper spray from police (and before the fatal shot was fired). A witness officer admits that McIntyre only became agitated after being pepper sprayed. Yet the IIO somehow concluded that the officers did nothing to provoke McIntyre. Despite all of this the IIO wrapped their investigation and exonerated the officer, who remains unnamed.

Police did not even know until afterwards that McIntyre was not the man they had received a call about a protester at an event promoting the Site C project. That man was local farmer Terry Hadland. Hadland described his reasons for ripping up maps and turning over tables at the event: “I triggered the whole darn thing because I didn’t want Hydro to get away with smooching up to the public” (quoted in Kurjata 2016). He was deeply impacted by the police actions that killed James McIntyre. In his words:  “Oh, I was devastated. I felt awfully guilty. I could hardly believe that…it was surreal, especially as I began to realize it was me they were out for” (quoted in Kurjata 2016).

It remains to be seen what response Anonymous might have to the conclusion of the IIO investigation. The National Post reports their interview with an Anonymous activist previously. The activist is quoted as saying there would be retaliation in the event of a cover up:

“Our message to whoever will be making those kind of decisions (is) that we are a very talented and patient and courageous crew and even if it takes us many months or many years to figure out what went wrong, we will sniff out your dirtiest laundry, procure it from wherever it’s hiding and find the highest flagpole in the windiest part of the public square and hang it up for everyone to smell and everyone to see.” (quoted in Humphreys 2016)


If not a cover up, the IIO investigation certainly leaves important questions unanswered. While raising many others.


Further Reading

Humphreys, Adrian. 2016. “RCMP Officer Cleared in Shooting Death of B.C. Activist that Sparked Anonymous Revenge Campaign.” National Post. November 16. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/rcmp-officer-cleared-in-shooting-death-of-b-c-activist-that-sparked-anonymous-revenge-campaign

IIO. 2016. Public Report of the Chief Civilian Director: Regarding a Fatal Officer-Involved Shooting on July 16, 2015 Involving the Dawson Creek RCMP. http://iiobc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/07-16-2015-Dawson-Creek-Firearm-Death-2015-000104.pdf

Kurjata, Andrew. 2016. “Police ‘Begged’ Site C Activist to Put Down Knife before Shooting Him, Witness Says.” CBC News. November 16. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/police-begged-site-c-activist-to-put-down-knife-before-shooting-him-witness-says-1.3853759

Anonymous No More: The RCMP Killing of Anonymous Activist James McIntyre (Activists Killed by Cops Series)

The first decades of the twenty-first century have seen new strategies and tactics of social resistance and activism. Among these have been the largely online actions of groupings like Anonymous, a decentered manifestation of people using online strategies and tactics to confront real world injustices. A global phenomenon Anonymous has inspired and involved activists in the Canadian context as well. While Anonymous is viewed as an online grouping its members live and organize in specific locales where they are active in their communities working on issues of social and environmental justice. And it is in such locales that some have been killed by police and security forces. Such was the case of James McIntyre, a 48 year-old man shot and killed by RCMP, an Anonymous activist who was protesting a destructive BC Hydro megaproject, the Site C Dam. Wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, a popular mask worn during protests, McIntyre, who worked as a dishwasher at a local restaurant in Dawson Creek, was claimed by Anonymous as a comrade. In response to McIntyre’s killing the online activists promised actions against the RCMP and the agency’s national website went down on Sunday, July 19.

McIntyre, a Métis man, who expressed concern for the land and opposition to destructive development projects was described by his cousin Keith LaRiviere as sharing a deep concern for “the soil and our ancestral values” (Trumpener 2016a). McIntyre was opposed to the Site C dam project which is understood by Indigenous communities to be an assault on the land as well as a destroyer of culture and a threat to communities. For McIntyre, as for many activists, the project is simply another example of state and business acting in pursuit of shared interests in profit against the health and wellbeing of nature and Indigenous communities. According to LaRiviere, McIntyre was worried impact of the Site C dam on local Indigenous communities and landowners (Trumpener 2016a).

This killing by RCMP occurred in a twenty-first century context in which much concern has been raised about police violence and repression against protesters, particularly those who oppose environmentally harmful projects. Earlier in 2015 the Canadian government passed new legislation giving police institutions increased powers under a rubric of “anti-terrorism.” This is also a context of growing mobilization, organizing, and activism against ongoing colonialism and for Indigenous sovereignty and against ecological crisis and climate change.


The Killing of James McIntyre

On Thursday, July 15, 2015 RCMP officers in Dawson Creek, B.C. shot and killed a man, later identified as James Daniel McIntyre. McIntyre was killed while standing outside of a local restaurant, the Fixx Urban Grill, where a BC Hydro open house on the contentious Site C dam project was being held. Police were responding to calls about disruptive behavior involving another man but encountered McIntyre instead, shooting him after minimal engagement. The incident was at least partly recorded by a witness, Mike Irmen.

Initial reports suggested James McIntyre was wearing a Guy Fawkes mask at the time he was shot. The Guy Fawkes mask (representing the English rebel involved in a plot to blow up parliament) has become a popular and recognizable symbol of protest, particularly as the public symbol of hacktivist grouping Anonymous. The mask has been adopted by activists since its appearance in the popular film V for Vendetta a futuristic, dystopian movie about anti-corporate activism based on the graphic novel of the same title penned by the anarchist Allan Moore. Curiously, McIntyre’s sister, Wanda McIntyre suggested afterward that her brother disliked wearing masks. In her recollection: “He didn’t really like masks. Maybe that’s one of the reasons he didn’t pursue his welding (career), just that claustrophobia of having something on your face. I know that he had a mask that I ordered for him [a Phantom of the Opera Halloween costume]. That’s the only mask I knew he had” (quoted in Wakefield 2016). While there has been no formal confirmation, witness accounts suggested the mask was a Guy Fawkes mask and this would fit with McIntyre’s identification with Anonymous.

Before the protest James McIntyre tweeted from his twitter account @jaymack9:

“Ready 4 our little showdown? Our people r going 2 b in place at that meeting in Dawson Creek(BC Hydro).”

— jay mack (@jaymack9) July 16, 2015

As in other cases, police first gave priority to restraining McIntyre in handcuffs, as he lay dying, rather than offer any medical assistance.

The Independent Investigations Office initially reported, apparently following police, that the man who caused the disturbance at the Site C dam event was McIntyre. Yet it was afterward revealed that McIntyre was not the man who caused the disturbance that apparently led to police being called in the first place. It appears too that police had a mistaken assumption about McIntyre when they encountered him, believing him to be the person who had acted out during the event in the restaurant. This sort of misidentification is a common occurrence in many cases of police causing harm to civilians leading officers to believe someone poses a threat they do not pose and reacting with higher levels of aggression or violence. There is an assumption in such cases that force must be deployed immediately and police act in a prejudicial way in confronting a non-threatening victim.

No further details have been given or clarification offered regarding what threat, if any McIntyre might have posed. For example, it is not clear why, if he posed a threat, no one viewed it as serious enough to point out beforehand or to contact police, while police were contacted simply for someone being loud and apparently wrecking some displays at the meeting. No details have been provided publicly even to clarify how police came to target McIntyre or what led matters to move quickly to a killing by police.

Police claim they took appropriate steps to de-escalate the encounter. Yet witnesses reported hearing only screaming by police and suggested the encounter was fairly brief before police shot the victim.

There has been no independent confirmation that McIntyre carried or displayed an actual knife at the time police encountered him. The IIO did conclude that a knife was at the scene but did not confirm its connection to James McIntyre. Nor has there been any information provided publicly by police or witnesses to suggest that if McIntyre had a knife he used it in a threatening manner toward police or moved in a threatening way toward the officers.

The man who actually disrupted the Site C event later came forward as Terry Hadland, a Peace Valley wheat farmer who has opposed Site C for decades. He reported that he did not know McIntyre and had not even met the young man prior to the event at Fixx Urban Grill. Yet he now feels a debt to the young man killed in a police intervention meant for him. According to Hadland: “(McIntyre) created a diversion so I could get away. He stepped up and took that shot for me, that’s for sure” (quoted in Wakefield 2016). A terrible and stark realization. And why should anyone be executed by police simply for protesting environmental harm and destruction and in defense of land and communities?

A year after the RCMP killing of James McIntyre and the initiation of the IIO investigation, Terry Hadland says he has never been interviewed by investigators from any service. With disbelief he says: “They have never gotten ahold of me. No, never” (quoted in Trumpener 2016b). Hadland finds this particularly strange given that his actions in tearing up maps and tipping tables triggered the call to RCMP that would result in McIntyre’s killing. In Hadland’s account: “I triggered the whole darn thing because I didn’t want Hydro to get away with smooching up to the public” (quoted in Trumpener 2016b).

After being escorted from the meeting Hadland reported getting in his care and driving directly home. He only heard about the killing the following day. The news hit him hard. In his recollection: “Oh, I was devastated. I felt awfully guilty. I could hardly believe that … it was surreal, especially as I began to realize it was me they were out for” (quoted in Trumpener 2016b).

The lack of any interview with Hadland was not for his lack of trying to provide one. Upon hearing of the killing of McIntyre Hadland says he immediately rushed over to the Dawson Creek RCMP Detachment and spoke with an officer for around 20 minutes (Trumpener 2016b). In his telling: “I said, ‘look it, you guys have been duped, because I didn’t do anything down there for you to go down there and shoot somebody” (quoted in Trumpener 2016b).

Incredibly the police wanted to hear none of what he had to say. He remembers vividly that the police “patted me on the back and sent me home” (quoted in Trumpener 2016b). Police tried to present McIntyre, who had given some cover to Hadland as a threat to him. In classic fear panic language RCMP claimed: “It’s a good thing you were there because maybe this guy was really dangerous. And if you hadn’t been there, and a 911 call made, maybe something else would have happened” (quoted in Trumpener 2016b). This is a revealing commentary and it shows the “us versus them” view of the world in which everyone is a dangerous threat or a victim that so strictly frames police perspectives and impels their often lethal actions.

Terry Hadland still has no idea why he has been neither charged for his actions that evening nor interviewed despite his efforts to have his account heard. He says: “I haven’t heard a word. The investigation, I don’t think it can be thorough until they have spoken to me, and they haven’t” (quoted in Trumpener 2016b).

The long-time Site C opponent, who describes himself as a technically challenged old farmer says he has had no association with Anonymous and did not know McIntyre. Sadly, he acknowledges: “But we are now linked forever, he and I” (quoted in Trumpener 2016).

While still under investigation by the IIO for killing McIntyre, the RCMP undertook a separate investigation of McIntyre. They searched his apartment and seized a variety of personal items. For some reason these included model trains according to Veronica McIntyre. The RCMP E Division did not provide any comment on the status of that investigation in response to inquiries from journalists.

Another Anonymous tweet, from Anarcho Anon, on the Saturday following McIntyre’s killing reported that the apartment at which his family lived was raided by police following the shooting. Police claimed that that raid was unrelated. They offered no explanation about why the raid was carried out so close in time to the killing of James McIntyre or what it involved.

The IIO has refused to identify the officers involved in the shooting. Unlike cases of police killings of civilians in the United States, in the Canadian state context police officers who kill are rarely, if ever, identified publicly. Only in cases in which charges are formally brought by the Crown, which are also extremely rare, will officers be named. This is an issue that critics of police brutality and advocates for greater accountability have long raised.

IIO spokesperson Kellie Kilpatrick has stated that the IIO has not dealt with a case with “as many moving parts and changing landscapes as this one” (quoted in Bein 2015). Kilpatrick suggests that the shooting of James McIntyre is one of the most difficult cases the IIO has ever examined. In her words: “This is the first time that we’ve had such a significant change in the information we’re reporting” (quoted in Baluja 2015). Yet apart from the facts of misinformation from police about McIntyre’s conduct at the event and the misidentification of another person who was the actual reason police were called to the scene, Kilpatrick has not said why the case is so difficult.

The officer who shot McIntyre was reportedly assigned to administrative duties, returning to active duty after a period of six months. An April 7 letter from the Ministry of Public Safety that appeared in a Dawson Creek city council agenda noted that three officers took off-duty sick leave after the shooting Wakefield 2015). The Dawson City RCMP has a total of 25 members.


A Climate Change Disaster and Threat to Indigenous Communities: Site C

The Site C dam project is a BC Hydro megaproject planned for development in the Peace River Valley in northeastern British Columbia. The proposed 60 meter high mega dam at Site C would flood more than 100 km of the river valley. In addition to the obvious immediate impacts of flooding critics point to the risks of landslides as banks of the reservoir erode with the passage of time. The Site C dam would be the third dam in the valley, added to two existing dams on the Peace River. A major investment for industrial capital the Site C dam project is valued at $8.8 billion.

The Peace River Valley is the home of Treaty 8 First Nations, their hunting, fishing, and trapping grounds. The area is one of the most significant wildlife corridors in the migration corridor from Yellowstone to Yukon (Wilderness Committee n.d.). It is also the site of important old growth boreal forests. The development of the Site C project represents a direct threat, an assault really, on Indigenous communities, cultures, lives, and survival.

The land under threat of flooding is also among the most important agricultural land in northern British Columbia. It is noted for having the only class one soil north of Quesnel (Wilderness Committee n.d.). Many farms will be destroyed if the project goes through. The destruction of such significant agricultural land has raised serious concerns in a period of growing encroachment on agricultural lands. This concern is added to broader concerns about food security particularly for Indigenous communities, and given the destruction of wildlife habitat and food sources on which Indigenous people rely. The project will also submerge valuable carbon sinks (Wilderness Committee n.d.). Mainstream environmentalist David Suzuki has identified the Site C project as a climate change disaster (quoted in Prystupo 2016).

The British Columbia Liberal government claims that it needs the energy provided by Site C to meet provincial needs. Yet this is a political claim. The needs being met are not those of local or provincial residents (regular individual civilians) but rather the desires of multinational capital in the province. In particular the project is about meeting the energy demands of extractives industries, the oil, gas, and mining companies. BC Hydro reports conclude that current demands can be met through energy conservation. Attention can also be given to alternative energy forms. Site C is a public subsidy to the extractives companies. As the Wilderness Committee puts it: “It’s an $8 billion taxpayer subsidy to a dirty fossil fuel industry that needs cheap energy to expand” (n.d.). Incredibly, the federal/provincial Joint Review Panel found that not only was the need for the electricity to be generated by the project not clearly demonstrated but the alternatives to the project had not been assessed. Critics suggest that they were not even considered because the interest is not in meeting residential demands but rather is solely concerned with industrial demands of corporations.

Site C was granted environmental assessment approval by the governments of British Columbia and Canada on October 14, 2014. This despite the fact that the Joint Review Panel concluded that Site C would cause irreparable damage to local First Nations communities and fish and wildlife populations (Wilderness Committee n.d.). The BC Liberal government approved construction of the dam on December 16, 2014.

As the prospects of legal challenges from multiple constituencies arose the Premier of British Columbia Christy Clark stated, in anti-democratic fashion, her intention to get construction on the dam “to the point of no return” before a political election in May 2017 could lead to a change in government and possible repeal of the project. BC Hydro has estimated that by the time of the election around $4 billion of construction contracts will be locked in place (Hunter 2016). As of September 2016, construction has moved well along despite opposition.

Scholars and scientists have also raised grave concerns about the Site C project, in terms of environmental impacts and in terms of government obligations to seek and achieve informed consent from Indigenous communities prior to any possible development and to meet Treaty obligations more broadly. In May of 2016 more than 200 high profile Canadian scholars signed a letter expressing their deep concerns about the Site C approval process. The elite Royal Society of Canada wrote a separate letter directly to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau calling on the federal government to halt construction on the project. The letter from “Concerned Scientists” outlined their intersecting concerns in the following language: “Our assessment is that this process did not accord with the commitments of both the provincial and federal governments to reconciliation with and legal obligations to First Nations, protection of the environment, and evidence-based decision-making with scientific integrity” (quoted in Cheadle 2016). The federal government rejected the appeal and the Environment and Climate Change Minister Catherine McKenna announced that the government had “no intention to revisit the Site C environmental assessment” (quoted in McCarthy 2016).

The Treaty 8 First Nations from the Peace River Region are actively and courageously opposing the Site C project. They are defending their communities, cultures, land, and Treaty rights against interests of major multinational capital, local corporations, and provincial and federal governments in Canada. In April of 2016 BC Treaty 8 First Nations filed a legal challenge to the project with the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Both the BC Treaty 8 First Nations and the Peace Valley Landowners’ Association have undertaken legal challenges to the project in the federal court of Canada. BC Hydro attempted to have these cases expedited to allow them to continue on their 2016 construction schedule. The court dismissed their request. Court challenges are also being brought by Alberta Treaty 8 First Nations. The Blueberry River First Nation has brought forward a “sweeping challenge” which gets to the heart of Canadian state and Indigenous relations in Canada. Their case cites “a century of broken treaty promises to be able to continue practicing their traditions on the land” (quoted in Gillis 2015).

These are some of the stakes in this important twenty-first century struggle. The battles over Site C raise current issues of colonialism and decolonization, land claims, Indigenous sovereignty, ecological integrity and climate change, and social justice. These are the issues that motivated James McIntyre to oppose the Site C project and to take an active stand in doing so. Inevitably these are the struggles that he put his life on the line for. In the support of government and corporate interests and against Indigenous, social, and ecological justice the RCMP were willing to kill. And did kill.

Keith LaRiviere has continued to act and speak out against the Site C dam since his cousin’s killing. LaRiviere has participated in protest events such as the Paddle for Peace, a canoe demonstration against Site C in 2016. And this matters to him, not only for James but for the land and community. In his view: “It’s not just a family issue, this is an environmental issue” (quoted in Trumpener 2016a). And it is an issue that has galvanized broad support in defense of the land and communities and against Site C. Against the community opposition the supporters of Site C are largely the state and capital.

This is a message that James McIntyre was working to get out. The RCMP silenced that particular voice but the message continues as has community organizing against Site C. As LaRiviere suggests: “He was worried about the Peace country being destroyed by another dirty project. If that’s Jim’s message, don’t stifle his voice” (quoted in Trumpener 2016a).

In response to the killing of McIntyre, BC Hydro postponed several scheduled job fairs for Site C that were to have been held in northern British Columbia that month. The postponed job fairs were scheduled for the communities of Chetwynd, Fort St. John, and Tumbler Ridge. They also said they would review their policies and procedures around public meetings. In public statement BC Hydro announced: “BC Hydro is currently evaluating its policies and procedures for public meetings. The postponement of the job fairs will give us time to complete this task…Our intent is to ensure the safety of our staff and members of the public” (quoted in CBC News 2015b). This move was viewed by many commentators and opponents of Site C alike really as a measure to keep opponents out and critical voices from being heard.

A moderate environmental group, the Wilderness Committee, also decided to cancel a protest planned for the week McIntyre was killed outside of BC Hydro’s Vancouver offices. This was a strange choice given that McIntyre was killed opposing a project the Wilderness Committee also opposes. A better option might have been to protest at an RCMP detachment in the Metro Vancouver area. That would have honored McIntyre’s commitment and sacrifice.


On Anonymity

Anonymity has become a marker of modern life in industrial capitalist society and the mass politics of liberal democracy. Anonymity is built right into the key structures and institutions of everyday life in modern capitalism. In work, people are anonymous producers playing a part that is often indistinct, general, replaceable, lacking the uniqueness of skilled, artisanal work. This is an aspect of the alienation from labor that Marx so famously addresses.

In politics, mass democracy renders political action, by definition, an anonymous, nameless, unidentifiable, indistinct activity behind a screen at a ballot box every four or five years. The political actor, rendered as a voter, is further made anonymous between elections in the mass regurgitation of incessant, nameless poll results.

In the urbanity of capitalist life, which has now, for the first time in human history, compelled most people on the planet to live in cities, residents live in close proximity to people they do not know, who do not know them, and experience literally thousands of anonymous interactions with people every year, from buying a newspaper, to getting on the bus, to attending a concert, to simply passing in the street.

Anonymity finds perhaps its most idiomatic or iconic moment in time spent online in which people can post intense, intimate feelings or thoughts in forms, such as online comments, twitter, or websites and blogs, which are strictly anonymous.

It is perhaps characteristic of the age and social structure of contemporary capitalism then that activism has taken the form of anonymity and the anonymous. Indeed, perhaps the most striking political formation or manifestation online is quite literally known as Anonymous. This makes sense both because the internet allows for anonymity but is also representative of the surveillance powers of the capitalist state and corporations that seek to destroy anonymity and name and identify anyone who goes against the state capitalist consensus of accumulation, exploitation, and compliance. Anonymity offers the activist the mask of secrecy and privacy that the state is so determined to deny.

Anonymous is the name of a decentered, loose affinity group of online activists and hackers. Their decentered nature means they are largely formless and structureless. As communications scholar and McGill University Professor Gabriella Coleman suggests: “Anonymous is a little bit hard to define, because it’s a collective name that anyone around the world can take” (quoted in Early Edition 2015).  They share mostly an action orientation and an identity, important narrative practices, and symbolism. It is a banner that can be adopted by diverse users as needs and circumstances arise (Shantz and Tomblin 2014).

By their nature in being an anonymous grouping that seeks privacy and avoidance of security their members are largely unknown, nameless, unidentifiable. Gabriella Coleman suggests that what is known of the demographics of the grouping places most of its members as youth between the ages of 15 and 35. Much of the demographic information known about Anonymous comes from those members who have been arrested. Thus, that information might say more about the people who are caught than about the broader participant group.

Anonymous provided James McIntyre an ideal expression for political action. It reflected his introverted nature and love of privacy. It reflected his preference of being alone, unidentified, rather than being a public figure or socially recognized. Keith LaRiviere identified his cousin’s major characteristics as “isolation and [a] huge brain” (quoted in Trumpener 2016a). This, it would seem are major characteristics of many who find affinity with, and/or act on behalf of, Anonymous. For LaRiviere: “Making a statement with that mask makes all the sense in the world to me for Jim, because he was alone in his life,” (quoted in Trumpener 2016a).

Anonymous activists approach activism through a mix of new and old tactics from denial of service attacks and hacks to whistleblowing or public shaming.  Coleman notes that Anonymous was initially known primarily as a prankster grouping gaining notoriety for internet pranks. Since 2008 they have turned to direct action and political campaigns, projects, and interventions. Among the issues they have become known for taking involve state or corporate intrusion on privacy, issues of censorship, opposition to surveillance, and matters of free speech.

With the emergence of Black Lives Matter and movements against police brutality since the police killing of unarmed teenager Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, the group has actively supported civilians opposing police violence. Operation Ferguson provided support for protesters speaking out and mobilizing against the racist policing practices of the Ferguson force that killed Michael Brown. They have worked to see the names of officers involved in the killing of civilians released publicly. They have also brought attention on disruptive and interfering police officials and police association representatives who have operated to shield police who kill civilians or who eek to blame the victims. Since Ferguson this work has continued in cases involving police harm to civilians in the United States and Canada.

In terms of activism Anonymous has been most well-known for DDOS, or distributed denial of service, attacks in which overwhelming traffic is directed to a target website causing the server to shut down. The site becomes inaccessible. This is a way to shut down an offending institution’s online venues and potentially cost money, supporters, and/or sponsors. Anonymous has also publicized confidential documents and publicized information in a form of whistleblowing to the public (Shantz and Tomblin 2014).

More recently the group has turned to doxing. This practice has been used to “out” offending individuals by releasing their names and private information such as phone numbers or home addresses. This particular tactic has been used in cases of police violence to name relevant officers involved. Anonymous usually follows through on its threats in cases like the policing killing of James McIntyre. Although it might be noted that the impact is usually one of publicity or shaming more than severe consequences for government or corporations. As Coleman suggests: “They don’t usually make a call and then do nothing. Many times they will exaggerate what they will do” (quoted in Early Edition 2015). In Coleman’s assessment, in a case like this the most credible and impactful threat would likely be doxing.

In one particularly significant action against Canadian government and security forces Anonymous took responsibility for shutting down the websites of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS), the Canadian government’s spy agency, in an appeal for Canadians to oppose Bill C-51 in 2015. C-51 is a repressive piece of legislation that became law as the Anti-Terror Act of 2015. It contains provisions that give CSIS investigative powers, allow for the criminalization of so-called bad thoughts only (rather than terrorist actions), and allows for the criminalization of economic activity such as strikes, boycotts, or blockades. It also extends possibilities for criminalization of protests, particularly those against energy projects. The law also gives police additional powers to arrest people pre-emptively.

While primarily viewed as an online phenomenon, every once in a while we are reminded that any activism also occurs in the real, material world where all activists must live, work, love, and play. This fact is violently reinforced when, as in James McIntyre’s case, an Anonymous member is killed by a security force. After the RCMP killing of James McIntyre, Anonymous claimed that McIntyre was the fourth of its members to be killed by security forces around the world in four years.


An Anonymous Life

McIntyre’s friends and family described him as a gentle, quiet man who did not interact much with people directly. He was said to be quite intelligent and thoughtful. McIntyre was said to be very close with his family regularly attending family gatherings. He had only moved out and into his own apartment a few years before police killed him. Even then, a devoted son and family member, McIntyre rented his apartment a floor above his mother’s apartment. McIntyre’s mom, Veronica, said he often talked about the Site C project which greatly troubled him.

James McIntyre was raised along with four siblings by Veronica, a single mother. He spent his early years in the Dawson Creek area attending elementary school in Pouce Coupe and Central Middle School in Dawson Creek. The family moved to Grande Prairie, Alberta where McIntyre graduated from St. Joseph Catholic High. Following high school James joined his brothers in the trades, working several years as a welder primarily at mills in northern British Columbia and Alberta. (Wakefield 2016). McIntyre returned to Dawson Creek in 2008. He worked at Chances Casino and Le’s Family Restaurant.

An afficionado of model trains from an early age, McIntyre used the internet to connect with model train enthusiasts from all over. In the words of his sister Wanda McIntyre: “He was train crazy. His apartment was kind of small so he couldn’t have a big layout. He got a computer I think probably for the train aspect” (quoted in Wakefield 2016). His interest in model trains and use of online media to discuss them may have opened new venues for his broader interests in environment and land.

Unassuming and a dedicated worker, McIntyre had received notice in the local newspapers only once, for winning an employee award for his work as a dishwasher, before his sensational killing by police garnered international media attention. McIntyre worked as a dishwasher at a local restaurant and casino and apparently loved the job as it afforded him time to himself away from the attentions of others.

Family described McIntyre as “straight edge,” eschewing smokes, drugs, and alcohol. According to his cousin Keith LaRiviere: “He didn’t go out and play. He didn’t join the baseball team with us. He didn’t drink. He didn’t have a girlfriend. He didn’t drive a car. He wouldn’t cross the road except at a crosswalk. He was soft” (quoted in Trumpener 2016a). McIntyre was a hard worker who saved his money largely to attend model train conventions, attending events in Prince George, Berkeley, California, and Reno, Nevada (Wakefield 2016). The owner of Le’s Family Restaurant, Le Nguyen described McIntyre as a “normal guy” (quoted in Wakefield 2016).

Committed to environmental care, McIntyre developed his own recycling program to sort bottles and cans at work in the absence of an employer developed program. McIntyre recycled the materials at Chances Casino taking them to bins outside a Walmart near the casino. According to his sister Wanda McIntyre: “He was very much an environmentalist, he was always trying to recycle and do stuff like that, but he wasn’t an extremist. I don’t know how he even found out about it, whether he knew someone who was into it and brought him into the fold, I had no idea. He never talked about it to me” (quoted in Wakefield 2016). His mother shared this perspective. She knew her son was concerned about the environment but did not speak with him about how and why he came to be actively concerned about the Site C project specifically. In her recollection: “I don’t know why he got involved with that Site C dam. He was concerned about that. I guess it was just the environment, and he felt for the people there. (That’s) why he voiced his opinion” (quoted in Wakefield 2016).


Anonymous Responds

Anonymous identified McIntyre as a “fallen comrade.” The response by Anonymous to the police killing of James McIntyre was named “Operation Anon Down” and was designed to achieve “justice (and vengeance if necessary) for our fallen comrade in Dawson Creek” (Early Edition 2015). They released statements calling for accountability for the officers involved. They tweeted messages directly to the RCMP.

“Ohai @rcmpgrcpolice we would like to report a murder of one of our comrades by some of your officers. Shall we expect justice or cover up?

7:45 PM – 17 Jul 2015”

The Anonymous statement after the killing of James McIntyre went further:

“In their statement, Anonymous also said that “an RCMP officer mercilessly shot and killed a masked anon without provocation or cause,” and “if Canadian police were as brave as Canadian nurses they could deal with people with knives without hiding behind bullets.”

“We will most certainly avenge our own,” the group said, adding that they will also fundraise to cover the costs of the burial of their fallen comrade.

“If we do not receive justice, rest assured there will be revenge,” they said. “Behind this mask is an idea, and ideas are bullet-proof.” (Bein 2015)


In response to the RCMP killing of James McIntyre, Anonymous called on people to protest at RCMP headquarters in every province. The day after Anonymous released a statement on McIntyre’s killing, the RCMP’s national website was shut down for several hours. RCMP sites in British Columbia and Dawson Creek also crashed on the Sunday following McIntyre’s killing (CBC 2015a).

Then Public Safety Minister Steven Blaney said the threats were taken seriously but offered little insight into the government response. In a public statement he offered this platitude on passive democracy: “There are many ways this country enjoys freedom to express our democratic views. I invite those who want to express their views to use democratic ways. Those who don’t expose themselves to face the full force of the law” (quoted in Kane 2015). The government said it would leave matters of investigation to the Independent Investigations Office, a strange response since that agency only looks into harms caused to civilians by police. It has no mandate to investigate perceived threats to government websites.

Indeed, the RCMP did carry out some investigation into social media activities of Anonymous following their threats on the RCMP website. Minister Blaney did note that the government viewed security issues as a priority and dedicated funding to work with capital (private businesses) to target electronic threats. This made clear the role of government in acting as a security service for capital (at working class taxpayer expense). For the government, according to Blaney: “We are constantly monitoring cyber security and cyberattacks” (quoted in Kane 2015).


Conclusion: The Death of Truth

According to Keith LaRiviere: “Jim didn’t deserve to die in a brutal manner. The man lying on the ground was not a criminal. He was a victim of police violence” (quoted in Trumpener 2016a). Wanda McIntrye cannot say what the family would hope to get from any investigation into her brother’s killing. Regardless of the investigation’s outcome, her brother will still be as dead. In her words: “We’re still in shock. I guess the outcome is what the outcome is, whatever we say or do. It’s not going to change the fact” (quoted in Wakefield 2016).

Dawson Creek Mayor Dale Bumstead appears to share the perspective that this killing did not need to happen. In his words” Somebody lost their life yesterday, senselessly in my view, and I just hate the fact that it happened in my community” (quoted in Baluja 2015). People in British Columbia have long raised questions about the disproportionate use of lethal force by police, RCMP in particular, in small towns and especially small northern towns.

The details of his killing by police, as is typically the case with regard to police killings of civilians in Canada, will likely not come out publicly. As James McIntyre’s cousin Keith LaRiviere is left to conclude: “The truth is with Jim. The truth is with a dead man” (quoted in Trumpener 2016a). Wanda McIntyre is left with a similar feeling. In her view: “There’s no answers, and the only person with the answers is gone” (quoted in Wakefield 2016).

While appreciating the sentiment involved, that is not entirely true. RCMP officers involved in the shooting, and certainly those who killed James McIntyre, surely have some answers as to what happened that night in Dawson Creek. But, as is typical in the Canadian context when police kill civilians, the police are not required to provide those answers and there are virtually no mechanisms for a thorough, truthful reporting of events anyway.


Further Reading

Baluja, Tamara. 2015. “Dawson Creek Police Shoot Man Who Refused to Throw Away Weapon, Witness Claims.” CBC News. July 17. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/dawson-creek-police-shoot-man-who-refused-to-throw-away-weapon-witness-claims-1.3158360

Bein, Sierra. 2015. “Everything We Know about the Death of an Anonymous ‘Comrade’ in RCMP Shooting.” Vice News. July 20. http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/everything-we-know-about-the-death-of-an-anonymous-comrade-in-rcmp-shooting

CBC News. 2015a. “Activist Group Anonymous Vows to Avenge Dawson Creek Shooting.” CBC News. July 18. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/activist-group-anonymous-vows-to-avenge-dawson-creek-shooting-1.3159093

CBC News. 2015b. “Site C Job Fairs Postponed after Man Shot Outside Dawson Creek Meeting.” CBC News. July 22. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/site-c-job-fairs-postponed-after-man-shot-outside-dawson-creek-meeting-1.3162600

Cheadle, Bruce. 2016. “Royal Society of Canada, Academics Call Site C Dam a Test for Trudeau Liberals.” The Canadian Press. May 24. http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/royal-society-of-canada-academics-call-site-c-dam-a-test-for-trudeau-liberals-1.2914588

Early Edition. 2015. “Anonymous: What Is It and How Serious Are Its Threats?” CBC News. July 21. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/anonymous-what-is-it-and-how-serious-are-its-threats-1.3160906

Gillis, Damien. 2015. “Landowners Launch Site C Dam Court Challenge, First Nations Next.” Common Sense Canadian. http://commonsensecanadian.ca/VIDEO-detail/landowners-launch-site-c-dam-court-challenge-first-nations-next/

Hunter, Justine. 2016. “Site C Not the Best Choice for B.C.’s Energy Needs, Report Author Says.” Globe and Mail. March 4. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/site-c-not-the-best-choice-for-bcs-energy-needs-report-author-says/article29024804/

Kane, Laura. 2015. “Safety Minister Says Anonymous Threats against RCMP Taken Seriously.” Canadian Press. July 21. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/safety-minister-says-anonymous-threats-against-rcmp-taken-seriously-1.3162661

McCarthy, Shawn. 2016. “Ottawa Pushes Ahead with Site C Dam amid Opposition among Academics.” Globe and Mail. May 24. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/royal-society-of-canada-academics-call-on-ottawa-to-halt-site-c-project/article30127279/

Prystupa, Mychaylo. 2016. “Site C is a Climate-Change Disaster, Says Suzuki.” The Tyee. February 23. http://thetyee.ca/News/2016/02/23/Site-C-Climate-Disaster/

Shantz, Jeff and Jordon Tomblin. 2014. Cyber-Disobedience. Re://Presenting Online Anarchy. London: Zero Books

Trumpener, Betsy. 2016a. “Unmasked: The Face of Anonymous Activist Shot Dead by RCMP.” CBC News. July 14. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/anonymous-activist-was-gentle-innocent-metis-man-says-cousin-1.3677750

Trumpener, Betsy. 2016b. “Retired Farmer Whose Site C Protest Triggered RCMP Shooting Never Interviewed by Investigators.” CBC News. July 18. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/retired-farmer-linked-to-r-c-m-p-shooting-of-anonymous-james-mcintyre-never-interviewed-by-iio-1.3684141

Wakefield, Jonny. 2016. “’I Will Never Know What Got Into Him’: One Year Later, Family Members Masked Man Shot by RCMP.” Dawson Creek Mirror. July 14. http://www.dawsoncreekmirror.ca/dawson-creek/i-will-never-know-what-got-into-him-one-year-later-family-remembers-masked-man-shot-by-rcmp-1.2297766

Wilderness Committee. n.d. “Stop the Site C Dam.” https://www.wildernesscommittee.org/sitec