No. So, what does 'peaceful protest movement' mean? Do you actually mean non-violent? Is that how they would have described themselves ideologically or strategically (because that wasn't the case for many of them), or are you just describing them as that for some other reason?
And, as well as that being not true for some of the groups infiltrated, it does tend to suggest that it might be OK for the cops to do it to groups that were violent or whose actions resulted in some violence. Classic 'good' protester, 'bad' protester rubbish.
One of the depressing things for me about this whole saga is the amount of 'radicals' who seems to have got a bit confused about the role of the cops and their infiltration and have often ended up towing some odd liberal-type line about how it was a subversion of democracy and just not needed as all the groups were really well-meaning and lovely actually...
It's more that those who were 'radicals' in the 80s and 90s have moved on and some of them are quite respectable these days. Hence the tendency to view their youthful escapades as somehow being kind of a lobbying tactic within the framework of a liberal democracy.
There are those who are keen to get themselves in the paper and are quite enjoying the media attention - they're more than happy to play along with Guardian's line.
+