PAPERS REVEAL STRONG ANTI-PIPELINE STRATEGY
Kinder Morgan opposition group looks to seize ‘specific political moment’
At first hearing, the Action Hive sounds like something out of a kid’s role-playing game or perhaps the handle for a particularly aggressive group of beekeepers.
But lately it has figured prominently in the B.C. Liberal challenge to Environment Minister George Heyman for dining out with antipipeline activists on Jan. 30, the very day he launched his regulatory drive against the Kinder Morgan project.
In an effort to embarrass Heyman for getting cosy with the self-styled Kinder Morgan Strategy Group, the Liberals have been quoting from a trove of documents that expose its connection to militant environmental activism and intrigue.
The key item in the paper trail is the KM Action Hive Proposal, calling for “ongoing co-ordination of organization support for mass action disrupting Kinder Morgan construction.”
The proposal, which has circulated among some members of the anti-pipeline study group, leaves no doubt that the timing and objectives are mainly political.
“This group is coming together to support mass popular resistance to construction of the Kinder Morgan pipeline,” says the statement of purpose and shared goals.
“This is being organized to seize a specific political moment, with construction of the pipeline already underway and requiring mass opposition.”
Enter the Hive: “A coalition of organizations and grassroots groups, organized to provide support for and share information about mass, creative and non-violent direct actions.”
The Hive, as envisioned, meets at least once a week, has an active email list, and the money, experience and technical know-how for organizing protests, sit-ins, occupations, blockades and other forms of direct action.
Then there’s the Swarm: “Activists, small groups and the general public involved in mass actions that sign onto the action agreements (to be decided on by the initial Hive) and require support.”
The Swarm will be relied on to bring energy, creativity and momentum to the process. Also, one suspects, it will be asked to supply cannon fodder for the golimp and get-dragged-awayscreaming displays that underwrite media coverage of mass civil disobedience.
After laying out the proposed structure for the movement, the paper provides some examples of how the relationship should actually play out.
One: “Organizations in the Hive identify an opportunity for a mass action, organize and execute the action based on shared principles and basis of unity. After the action, the Hive organizations offer resources, training and followup for participants to organize their own Swarm actions.”
Two: “A small group has a plan for an action but lacks resources or training. They come to a Hive organization, request support for their action. The action lines up with our principles so Hive organizations co-ordinate to provide support as requested.”
Three: “A small group begins an action autonomously, realize they need support after the fact (i.e. people are arrested without legal support). Through resourcing already provided by the Hive, a legal infrastructure exists to support them.”
Four: “The Hive realizes there is a need for an ongoing space to create art and materials for actions. Organizations pool resources to rent a space. OR the Hive realizes there is an ongoing need for legal support and pools resources and reaches out to funders to raise enough $$ to ensure legal support is adequately resourced, to have space, phones, etc.”
Plus there’s this statement about how an existing entity can go about joining the Hive: “If you are a nongovernmental or other staffdriven organization, you will be required to commit staff time and some financial or in-kind resources to organizing. Staff will have to participate in (minimum) weekly meetings/calls. There is no minimum financial requirement as funding will likely be needed on a rolling basis as support and organizing dictates.”
In short, the Hive would appear to be as dedicated to recruiting worker bees and raising dollars, as it is to orchestrating any given act of civil disobedience.
Reading on, one also discovers a laughable contradiction between group principles and practices.
“We will promote a tone of respect, honesty, transparency and accountability in our actions,” pledges the Hive. “Whenever possible, we will organize in public, inviting participation in our actions.”
That’s principle. Now here’s practice for communicating within the Hive about plans to fight the pipeline:
“Limit written action planning to broad frameworks and strategy, and discuss tactics at in-person meetings whenever possible.
“If you need to circulate documents to members of your organization, make a copy of the document and share directly with them but keep link sharing off to prevent documents from being publicly viewable online.
“Whenever possible, substantive conversations and plannings will happen in person at weekly meetings. If that’s not possible, use Signal with disappearing messages on desktop and phone; try to avoid slack, email or texting. If you’re on a call, try to do voice calls from a private location and avoid using speaker phone if it is just you.”
The obsession with secrecy might account for what appears to be an arm’s length relationship between the Hive and the Kinder Morgan Strategy Group.
The two entities share the goal of wanting to stop the twinning of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline.
The Hive is pledged to provide updates about upcoming actions and to consult and engage the strategy group on communications, mobilizations and so forth.
But one also detects some distancing between the two, perhaps by way of providing higher ups — including dinner guest Heyman — with deniability if the direct action were to get out of hand.
This group is coming together to support mass popular resistance to construction of the Kinder Morgan pipeline.