Covering up embarrassment?
The censors go to work on the OPS threat assessment on the Freedom Convoy; The OPS Professional Standards section investigates
I have previously called attention to the very unprofessional nature of the OPS’s Security Intelligence Section threat assessment of the so-called “Freedom Convoy” immediately prior to its arrival in Ottawa. This assessment was discussed in two previous columns, the first entitled “To Be or not to be Intelligence-Led,” posted on the morning of October 26, and the second, “The Freedom Convoy: OPS’s terrible intelligence failure,” on October 30 in the evening. An early version of the OPS threat assessment was also discussed in a critical media article published on October 25 by the online investigative news site, Press Progress. https://pressprogress.ca/ottawa-police-intelligence-unit-relied-on-dubious-and-politically-biased-information-about-convoy/
News flash. It now appears that the author of this threat assessment, Sgt. Chris Kiez, is under review by the OPS Professional Standards section. In addition to the biased threat assessment, the Professional Standards section confirmed it is “aware of and is reviewing” additional social media comments allegedly posted by Sgt. Chris Kiez, which railed against leftist indoctrination by teachers, “insane” government programs promoting diversity, and City of Ottawa candidates in the recent mayoral race who campaigned on an inclusivity platform. These social media comments were scraped and discussed in an article in “Press Progress,” by Luke leBrun, posted on October 31. https://pressprogress.ca/ottawa-police-reviewing-allegations-against-officer-who-prepared-convoy-intelligence-reports/
When asked in cross examination on October 31, former OPS Chief Sloly, who had previously defended Sgt. Kiez’s work, stated that he was unaware of the Professional Standards review of the OPS intelligence officer. As I noted in my previous columns, Sgt. Kiez’s work was also defended by his boss, Deputy Chief Bell.
This new revelation took me back to OPS records available in the Public Order Emergency Commission database. I had previously focused on version 4 of the Freedom Convoy Intelligence Assessment (and initially wrongly dated it as January 29—because that date is listed in the title of the report; the correct date of version 4 is January 28. I have corrected this error). It now appears that earlier versions of this threat assessment were not unpublished drafts, as I had assumed, but were part of a series of reports done by the OPS Security Intelligence Section, authored by Sgt. Kiez. The first version of the threat assessment was published on January 25, 2022—three days earlier than version 4. If versions 2 and 3 have been preserved, they do not appear to have been entered as records for the Public Order Emergency Commissions’ database. It would be a fair guess to say they were updates issued on January 26 and 27 but likely substantively similar to the other versions.
Comparing version 1 and version 4 reveals two things.
Version 1 can be found at this link if you want to be the comparison yourself. https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/files/exhibits/OPS00003086.pdf?t=1667279291
Version 4 is here https://publicorderemergencycommission.ca/files/exhibits/OPS00004039.pdf?t=1667279408
The first thing to note is that the most important, and heavily politicised, aspects of the assessment remained unchanged between January 25 and 28. The author’s outlook on the Freedom Convoy was fixed and pre-determined. The protest convoy was described in both versions of the threat assessment as a “spontaneous grass roots protest” gathering support “from the widespread population,” and evincing “a powerful manifestation of deep discontent with how people feel they are being governed.”
The second reveal concerns problematic redactions that appear in version 4, of text that is not redacted in version 1. We can now fill in the blanks, despite the best efforts of the censors. Who exactly imposed these redactions to version 4, and under what statutory authority, is not known to me. What is known is that redactions are not meant to be imposed on innocuous material with no security implications or to cover up embarrassing material. The Public Order Emergency Commission will have to take care that redacted material that comes to it is properly redacted to avoid compromising or corrupting its public record database.
Redactions to version 4 include passages related to the possibility that cellular communications in Ottawa could be impacted by heavy use by the Freedom Convoy and suggestions that OPS planners may want to contact area service providers to determine if communications could be maintained between the OPS planning team and convoy representatives in the event of bandwidth restrictions. Harmless stuff, surely.
Other redactions are more problematic and seem to be driven by a desire to avoid embarrassment. The following lines are completely redacted in version 4 but appear in version 1:
“The Convoy appears to be this sort of protest (a reference to the ‘yellow-vest’ movement in France), and as a result, the daily reports by OPP (Hendon) show that the convoy is steadily and continuously attracting support: financial, social, physical, and other. Multiple daily reports are needed to keep up.”
The only inference that can be drawn here is that the censors were anxious to damp down further references to similarities noted between the yellow vest protests and the Freedom Convoy, as well as the extraordinary fact that the author appeared willing to celebrate the similarity. What got lost was the important fact that the OPS intelligence section was directly referencing OPP Project Hendon reports, even if they were not able to properly communicate the findings from the Hendon series.
It doesn’t get any better with other redactions. In version 1 there is a statement that the best way to deal with fringe elements who might “detract” from the goals of the Freedom Convoy would be to ”have Special Events organizers reach out to Convoy organizers, asking convoy organizers to denounce any hint of violence in the online discussions surrounding the event.” These lines were redacted in version 4. Whether or not this is a form of cheerleading for the Freedom Convoy—and it appears to me it is--the basic point is that advice to operational planning is not considered part of a professional threat assessment.
Bizarrely, a later section of the version 4 threat assessment under the heading “Continued actions and considerations” is redacted in its entirety in version 4. We can read what it contained in version 1, absent any censorship. The redacted passages spoke of social media monitoring of the protest and of police actions, of the need for physical barriers to impede “weaponized vehicles,” and of the requirement for regular intelligence updates.
As I noted in my October 30 newsletter, I found suspicious the fact that the “Conclusion” section of the version 4 threat assessment of January 28 was redacted in its entirety. Suspicious proves right. We can read the entire (brief) conclusion section in unredacted form in version 1. Here is how it read:
“OPS Security Intelligence Section continues to research open source and social media, to investigate existing intelligence pieces and to liaise with its Federal and Provincial partners for any indicators of possible disruptions to the Convoy. Should this intelligence assessment change as a result of new information, this report will be updated accordingly and disseminated.”
There are two problems with redacting this passage. One is that it contains no sensitive information. That open source intelligence was being used as a prime means to collect information about the Freedom Convoy was clearly represented elsewhere in the threat assessment. But the emphasis in the conclusion on “indicators of possible disruptions to the Convoy” may have struck the censors as just a little too partisan for public consumption.
The threat assessment, whether version 1 or version 4, was rotten and indefensible as a professional intelligence product. To try to throw a blanket over some of the passages in version 4 for no good reason or to avoid embarrassment only adds to the rottenness.