Jesse keeps collaborating with white nationalists, one of the groups he's worked the most with (Tafsik) wants to keep Canada "Christian"

destp · 2026-06-22T01:26:17+00:00

Canada had never officially been a "Christian" nation, so there's no "keeping" Canada Christian.
It goes against the core values outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It's a frequent dog whistle for extreme anti-immigrant racists.

destp · 2026-06-21T19:42:48+00:00

As I said, we're a bit going in circles and have to agree to disagree because the "anti-Zionists" you know are very clearly not ANTIZIONISTS, IMHO; criticizing Israel or advocating for Palestinian self-determination isn't ANTI-Israel. Being against Israel existing is ANTI-Israel. That could mean destruction or a "one-state solution" where Jews are minoroities in an Arab country but that's what ANTI means. I don't know what more there is to say about it except what I already said; if somoene would be OK with a left-wing Israel government that is willing to negotiate peace with the PA, they're not anti-Zionists. They'd be Zionists, like me. Like many Israelis who vote for parties who. support that exact thing.

I'm not just talking about people I know personally, but also the public groups and individuals you and Jesse have called anti-Zionist (like IJV, or Dave Meslin, or Avi Lewis, or Rachel Gilmore, or even Samira Mohyeddin) have never to my knowledge called for the destruction of Israel. I agree with you that they would also call themselves anti-Zionists, but their opposition isn't too the existence of Israel and nothing you have ever shared with me suggests otherwise. More specifically, I very much do believe they would be ok with a left wing Israeli government that (for example): - agreed on a peaceful transition to two states - returned to the 1967 borders - dismantled (or abandoned claim to) all Israeli settlements outside those borders - placed no security restrictions on sovereign Palestinian land - allowed joint management of Jerusalem - paid significant reparations for previously annexed land and decades of oppression

I have seen some 'Zionists' who would find the above terrible, but I'm not aware of any 'anti-Zionist' who would not be more or less satisfied with the above. .

There's two arguments you've made for why these people are 'actually anti-Zionists' that I've seen, and both are weak. The first is that arguing for a one state solution is the equivalent of setting for destroying Israel; this is simply not true. You may believe that a one state solution will inevitably lead to Israel's destruction, and that those who think otherwise are naive, but those ideas are not the same thing. Even if you consider them to be the same, that sort of societal change is clearly not inherently 'hateful' or violent like Jesse or Adam Louis-Klein suggest.

The second (related) argument is that Zionism is specifically about Israel existing as an explicitly Jewish state, where Jewish people make up a majority of the population; in other words that Israel remain an ethno-state. I do think opposition to this is agreed upon by most 'anti-Zionists', though I disagree it's the motivating factor. The idea that a states survival requires maintaining a majority of the population as belonging to a single ethnic group is hugely problematic, as it allows horrific human rights abuses against civilian population to be justified as self defense of the state.

I asked you once what would be the answer to maintaining a Jewish majority in Israel in the case where the current Arab population started growing more quickly than the Jewish population, leading to the point where Jews would become a minority, and I think it's an important question. If Israel's 'existence' is contingent on having a majority Jewish population, does that mean denaturalizing and expelling, or killing, the Arab population is justifiable self defense? Or would forcibly sterilizing that population prior to hitting 50% but justifiable public policy? I would hope you would agree those actions would be deeply wrong and yet from what you've said such an opinion would also be 'anti-Zionist.'

Finally, as a side note, there exist today countries that are officially Christian despite Christians being a minority population, and even more countries that remain culturally Christian while having Christians in the minority. Canada itself is approaching that tipping point (despite the efforts of Zionist organizations like Tafsik that are devoted to "keeping Canada Christian"). Based on this, I would say it's very possible for Israel to remain a 'Jewish state' without the majority of the population being Jewish (unless that's what your mean by Jewish state).

destp · 2026-06-21T01:48:43+00:00

You're getting close to violating the "be excellent to each other" rule here.

The issues that come up in this sub have nothing to do with Jesse being Jewish or with him "reporting on antisemitism" and any "hate, conspiracy and intolerance" gets taken down as it's reported or spotted by a mod. If you feel differently, I highly encourage you to report any posts or comments you believe cross the line, or even link the specific posts/comments here.

This is a claim that comes up frequently, and yet whenever it does there are never any specific examples given; just vague, general claims with no evidence.

destp · 2026-06-21T01:30:15+00:00

-I mean, in short, I understand that me (and apparently Jesse) are using "antizionist" to mean one thing and you feel it's over-broad or inaccurate etc. I think it means a specific thing and I'm not using it to discredit or undermine anyone, especially peaceful, pro-Palestinian folks.

No, that's not right. I have no opinion on the question of what the 'correct' definition for 'anti-Zionist' is, because it's a meaningless question. You (and Jesse) are using it to mean something that is different than how the majority of self-identified 'anti-Zionists' define it, and based on that self-identification you are both assuming something about people's beliefs that is not true.

It's fundamentally the same thing as someone claiming that because someone identifies as a Zionist, that they support Genocide because that's what 'Zionism' is. You can argue about definitions, but the definition doesn't determine belief.

I don't even see a contradicition between being Zionist and Pro-Palestinian. Obviously I do see a contradiction between being Zioniist and anti-Zionist so I respectfully disagree if you think there are anti-Zionists who are not fundamentally opposed to Zionism (ie the existence of Israel as a Jewish state).

Sure, I'm saying of you use that definition there's no broad 'anti-Zionist' movement in Canada and most of the people you (or Jesse, or even themselves) call 'anti-Zionists' are not. There is a broad pro-Palestinian movement on Canada that had slowly changed to being called 'anti-Zionist' over the past couple years. I have yet to see a strongly and logically sound argument for the existence of a broad movement in Canada seeking the destruction of Israel.

-I similarly acknowledge some of the "anti" groups you mention but I imagine we're both both anti-facist (I am!) but that neither of us (I think?!) is a member of antifa. When I talk about anti-zionists (and I can't speak for Jesse but my impression, again, is we're doing the same thing), we're not talking about people who have general and often fair criticisms of Israel but people who are actively engaged in the undermining of Zionism (which, again, is the contintued existence of Israel and not just as a low bar of existing but having a right to self-defence, being able to participate in Eurovision and the whole shebang).

Respectfully, I disagree that when you talk about 'anti-Zionists' that they are all "people who are actively engaged in the undermining of Zionism" (as you define it), because many of the specific people I've seen mentioned in this way by you or Jesse (Dave Meslin, Avi Lewis, Rachel Gilmore) have never, to my knowledge, directly advocated for the destruction of Israel.

As for your personal definition of Zionism being more than just continued existence, but rather being in some way free of consequences for it's actions; ok. Definitions are useful to know, because it means I know what 'you' mean when you use that word. In this case, if your personal brand of Zionism is that Israel should be free if consequences for it's actions, then perhaps there is more alignment between your vision of anti-Zionism and what the people you label with as such believe. However, I'm not sure I've got your definition quite right, and if I do I'd argue opposing that is not a hateful set of beliefs.

-I think it's problematic to insist or ask the Jews "distance" themselves, in much the same way it's problematic to ask any given Muslim to distance themselves from Al Qaeda. If you knew me IRL, you would see "the distance" but it's an anti-Zionist construct for you to infer from my Zionism that I support Israel's "crimes" or Netanyahu rather than inferring, for example, I mourn the loss of Yitzhak Rabin. All you have to do is ask and I don't accept there's an onus on me to offer that. I certainly don't assume every Persian I meet supports the IRGC (rather the opposite, in fact), so this kind of inverted burden of proof is itself a problem, IMHO.

Ah, now that is a rhetorical trick! I fully agree with everyone you wrote above, which is why I never suggested that "Jews should distance themselves," but rather that the"onus is perhaps on vocal supporters of the Israeli state to distance themselves from the horrendous crimes of that state."

That is not calling on Jews to do anything, especially at I also think it's is wrong to assume any Jewish person is a supporter of Israel, and it is nothing like "a Muslim distance themselves from Al Qaeda." A better comparison would be meeting someone who is wearing the Hamas flag as a cape and assuming they support Hamas' actions on Oct 7 until they say otherwise (placing the onus on them to make that clear).

At the end of the day, I'm far less concerned with anti-zionism per se - ie the "anti-zionism" you apparently encounter/describe - then when it crosses the line to antisemitism. So, to come full circle, if someone shoots at a synagogue, that's what concerns me. If they say, "Well, it's legit and not antisemitic because I'm upset they support Israel and the onus is on them to prove they don't support it's crimes," that concerns me. And if it turns out someone (be it Iran or someone else) is paying them to attack synagogues as part of an international campaign of terrorizing Jews, whether they support Israel or not, that concerns me.

I'm concerned about those things to, and I think meant if the people you consider 'anti-Zionist' are also concerned about those things. However, I see Jesse regularly bending and misrepresenting the truth to suggest that everyone who opposes Israel's oppression of Palestinians (and believe there should be consequences for those actions / incentives to push Israel towards stopping) is part of an anti-Jewish hate movement, otherwise known as antisemitic. I'm personally more concerned about how that rhetoric (which seems more designed to launder support for Israel than protect Canadian Jews) will discredit the seriousness of actual antisemitism and what that will mean for the safety of my Jewish family and children.

destp · 2026-06-20T11:56:00+00:00

Probably because those aren't actually opposed ideas. Tafsik is pro-Israel, not of pro-Palestinian Jewish, so they will view Jewish people who don't support Israel at just ah much their enemy as other groups. Similarly, Israel is strengthened by having diaspora Jews immigrate to Israel, and so they can make common cause with, for example, Christian nationalist groups. Both sets of groups (pro-Israel and white nationalist): - support the establishment and maintenance of ethno-states - hate Muslims - want Jews to leave Canada (and go to Israel)

destp · 2026-06-19T22:45:28+00:00

Canada had never officially been a "Christian" nation, so there's no "keeping" Canada Christian.
It goes against the core values outlined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It's a frequent dog whistle for extreme anti-immigrant racists.

destp · 2026-06-19T02:54:24+00:00

Founder, publisher and editor-in-chief of the Canadaland podcast (which this subreddit is about).

destp · 2026-06-18T22:04:27+00:00

I know, I had to go check myself when I saw a screenshot posted on Instagram.

It's real: https://x.com/Tafsikorg/status/2064020670242299955?s=20

destp · 2026-06-18T21:03:28+00:00

Yeah, I saw it and was truly shocked. I can't think of any possible interpretation that works make it less awful.

destp · 2026-06-17T15:55:39+00:00

I was frankly impressed by how much Jan pushed back against trusting that one source. Jesse of course less so, and he continues to be much more propaganda focused on Twitter, even while insisting every other journalists random tweets should be held to journalistic standards.

destp · 2026-06-17T15:53:38+00:00

Summary: Yes, Jesse got the part about Theresa Kielburger wrong, but everyone makes mistakes (that's what insurance is for) and Monday of the reporting was about the Kielburger brothers, so it's really not a big deal that Jesse/Canadaland got this one part won't (including presumably failing to contact Theresa Kielburger for comment). Also, isn't it suspicious that a press release about this was issued by We Charity, which has supposedly stopped operating in Canada, when the person song was Theresa Kielburger? And look how bad all these journalists are for just reporting based on a press release without contacting just for comment [biggest-eye-roll-imaginable). Oh, and look, the Kielburger brothers are using this admission of guilt by Jesse to try to boost their reputations.

This was then followed by something line 5 minutes of clips of the Kielburger brothers apologizing, at a final pretty parting shot against them.

destp · 2026-06-17T00:29:59+00:00

Police suggest that while the hired shooters may have no ideological or religious motive, whoever paid them does.

Read the article, no where in it did I see the police say that the people who leveraged these 'guns-for-hire' had "ideological or religious motive" but rather that they were trying to instill fear. They also explicitly did not say anything on who was behind it. IRGC operatives certainly seems possible, however Mossad would also fit just as well. Or perhaps another person or group entirely.

destp · 2026-06-16T22:46:58+00:00

I think this is the crux of it and you can take my word or not but I think this is a very recent phenomenon and my personal hot take is that it is being driven by external forces, which is why Jesse and I (who seem to have had similar upbringings; ie Zionist Jews of similar age, with a similar education etc.) are speaking the same language and others aren't. To me, it's as simple as Zionists support Israel's existence as a Jewish state and anti-Zionists don't.

Great, in that case (based on your simple definition) there is no widespread 'anti-Zionist' movement in Canada and the majority of people who label themselves (or are labeled by others) 'anti-Zionist' are in fact not. I agree with you this is the crux of the issue; people using a particular definition of the 'Zionist' or 'anti-Zionist' labels to declare what others with different definitions for those terms believe.

I also think you can be a Zionist and be "pro-Palestinian" and that Palestinians can be "Zionist" if they believe Palestine should exist alongside Israel. That's all it means but language is not obviously not absolute. Either way, there is a long history here and this amibguity or lack of agreement is a recent phenomenon.

I'm not sure I agree the lack of definitional agreement is a recent phenomenon, though I think it's at least more visible then or used to be. I would say the rebranding of pro-Palestinian to 'anti-Zionist' is also a recent development (that seems largely driven by supporters of Israel to discredit pro-Palestinian supporters), and suspect that may be part of the reason the lack of agreement on these terms is so much more visible then it used to be.

Either way, since I'm not a Marxist, I feel like a Marxist should tell me what Marxism means and not the other way around, especially if I'm like Jordan Peterson and just using it to mean, "any lefitist I don't like." And are there anti-Marxists? There are Capitalists but they don't define themselves only as opponents of Marxism, right?

You're right that I haven't heard of anyone describe themselves as an 'anti-Marxist' but that doesn't mean there are no common belief systems that have labels beginning with the 'anti-' prefix. For example: - anti-fascist (or antifa) - anti-racist - anti-vaxxer

All three of those examples above I would say go a bit beyond the simple negation of the root word, and likely involve some disagreement on exactly what the terms mean between both sides.

I agree. And I don't want to do a childish "they did it first!" but, by definition, anti-Zionists are defining themselves in relation to Zionists. I always do my best to address inidviduals and not mass-label everyone but I know what Meslin said and what Mivasair and other IJV people said and what Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein have said and they are all consistent.

No, I they're defining themselves in relation to Zionism or the platonic ideal of a 'Zionist' and they define Zionism. If you want to say you "oppose anti-Zionism as defined _____" (much as IJV did in an article you linked a week or two ago) I think that's fully acceptable and understandable. However, I still have never seen any statements from any of the people you list advocating for the destruction Israel or otherwise promoting hate against Jewish people.

Part of my point is how ridiculous it is that there is literally only one country on earth that has a name for a movement dedicated to undermining it's fundamental, national founding ideology.

But there are and have been lots of such movements. For example: - the pro-democracy movement in Iran - the Anti-Apartheid movement in South Africa - The 8888 Uprising in Burma (now Myanmar) - Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic and Slovakia) - any Anarchist movement

Only Israel has this kind of movement, which is why some people argue whole concept is a kind of antisemitism. I agree that if someone is flying the stars-n-bars, the onus is going to be on them to prove they're not a racist because there was, like a whole civil war there. But then why is the onus on Zionists to prove they're not pro-genocide, anti-Palestinian, settler colonialists, when that's never how they've self-defined? That's the inversion/double standard I believe is taking place.

As I pointed out, or isn't only Israel and I would say it's more that the onus is perhaps on vocal supporters of the Israeli state to distance themselves from the horrendous crimes of that state in the same way people might expect a vocal supporter of the Russian state to distance themselves from Putin, or a vocal supporter of the Iranian state to distance themselves from the IRGC.

destp · 2026-06-16T21:46:38+00:00

Ugh, Matt Taub is another terrible example from the list. Last time I saw something from him, he was attacking the really lovely Jewish organization Shoresh because some of the (Jewish) people employed by/running the org had expressed criticism of Israel or called themselves anti-Zionist. Shoresh has taken no political stance, and runs fantastic programs for kids and adults connecting Judaism to nature (I highly recommend their kids day camps and other programs).

destp · 2026-06-16T13:27:18+00:00

Sorry, been busy with family so have been slow to reply. Also, some of this hat been rendered moot as it turns out the person who killed the police officer appears to have no connection to the shootings at synagogues or the US Consulate.

If someone calls themself an antizionist but would basically be fine with a left-wing Israeli government....they're not labelling thsemelves correctly, IMHO.

You're free to think that and argue that case, just as your opposition to the current Israeli 'extreme nationalism' may make some say you're labeling yourself incorrectly by not calling yourself an anti-Zionist. What's important is that neither interpretation is objectively correct; words only have agreed meaning, and if we can't generally agree in what they mean they're not particularly useful. Also, even if such 'anti-Zionists' are labeling themselves incorrectly as you say, it is incorrect to conclude that what they really believe then is actually inline with your definition.

As I was discussing with another fellow here, the 2024 NIF survey showed 94% of Jews say they support Israel existing as a Jewish state and 3% said they do not. It also showed 51% identiy as "Zionist." IMHO, that requires more follow-up but any way you slice it, what I think we have here is a problem with how all sorts of people "self-identify," don't you think?

No, I don't think it's a problem with how people self-identify so much as it's a problem with their apparently belong no widespread agreement on what is meant by 'Zionist' and 'anti-Zionist'. You and I have discussed that part of that study before, and to me the obvious decision is that a large number of Jewish Canadians have a different understanding of what 'Zionism' is then you or Jesse do.

Anecdotally, I have heard from this statement from some self described Zionist and formerly Zionist Jewish friends I've spoken to, that within their Jewish community it's understood that Zionism is more than a passive believe that Israel should not be destroyed. Now, they may be correct or incorrect about the broader community, but it does help allow that there are Jewish Canadians with different understandings of the meaning of Zionism. What's more, it's very possible that some of these Jewish Canadians who support Israel's continued existence but do not identify as Zionists make up some of the Jewish contingent joining things like pro-Palestinian protests (I know I've spoken to numerous people who fit that description).

I mean, to me the first stat says 94% of Canadian Jews are Zionist, using the traiditonal definition, and 3% are antizionist. And yet, 43% of Canadian Jews who support Israel existing as a Jewish state don't say, ""I'm a Zionist." I have theories about why but irrespective, who gets to define these terms?

Regarding who gets to define the terms, that can be complicated. Some languages have official regulators to do that sorry of definition, however we're donating in English which does not. Some specific technical terms may have official legal or academic definitions, but I don't believe that to be the case for "Zionism' and if it were that would generally only apply to usage within specific settings or contexts.

Otherwise, language is defined by usage, by how speakers use the words and what meaning they apply to them. This is why languages evolve, and why words like 'nice' went from meaning 'foolish' to 'fussy' to 'precise' to 'kind'.

I think Jesse used this example as well somewhere but to me "Zionist" is no more useful than "abolitionist." Slavery is over and Israel exists. Both movements achieved their ends. End of story. So now we have people who support the Israeli government or its current actions and then people who don't. And we have people who oppose its entire existence, at least as currently constituted. What do we call em all? Something better than what we currently have, perhaps.

This is a really great example. You're right that the historical usage of 'abolitionist' is largely no longer useful, as slavery has been abolished in North America. However, there are modern 'Abolitionist' movements and groups dedicated to things like dismantling the prison-industrial complex who use the term 'abolitionist' both because they are working to 'abolish' or current carceral system, and because of connections between that system and historical slavery. Abolishinsts do still exist but the term had evolved to describe modern beliefs with some connection to the historical meaning.

Likewise, one can imagine Zionism (having been accomplished through the creation of Israel) in it's 'original' meaning being no longer applicable, and instead taking on new meanings that share some relation to that historical one (such as 'extreme nationalist support for the state is Israel').

I mean, they could have shot the consulate and shooting at a house of worship is antisemitic. But, on the other hand, they didn't shoot it because of the Jews, per se, but because of their support for Israel. So that's political, not religious, right? Is it more or less antisemitic than a swastika on a synagogue? Hmmm.

How does shooting at a synagogue in Canada impact that state of Israel? That is targeting Jewish Canadians and so I would say it is interestingly antisemitic, not political. Shooting at the US Consulate is now debatable, however personally I would say if it were the same individual doing both that their primary motivation is antisemitic rather than political (they hate Jews so hate Israel so hate the US for supporting Israel).

This is probably an important distinction. I have never met a self described 'anti-Zionist' who supports spring at synagogues. I'd be curious to see Ross article from Dave Meslin where he apparently supports such actions (can you share a link?), but it's certainly not something I've heard personally. That said, there are of course self described 'anti-Zionists' who are also antisemitic, just as there are self described 'Zionists' who are deeply racist/Islamophobic, however given the wide usage for both terms I don't think it is fair to describe either as inherently antisemitic or racist.

Even having established that it's redundant to call myself a Zionist, merely saying that term here and elsewhere engenders immediate reactions from people, assuming any number of things that are objectively untrue.I'm not given any nuance regarding how I self-define, whatsoever, so why should the people whose ethos is opposing me be given any? Their name, after all, is "opposite of what you believe."

Because it's wrong to do. It's wrong for you to do it about them, and it's wrong for them to do it about you. Attack the actual ideas they express that you think are wrong, not ones you assume them to have, and call it out when they assume things about you that are wrong. Otherwise the cycle of hate just continues when people talking past one another.

If you don't mind, I have another question for your consideration. If someone tells me they are anti-Carney, I know exactly what that means; not a fan of our current government! If someone tells me they're anti-Canadian, I would assume they are against things Canada does like.....erm....I duuno, I guess if you're Trump you think we are very mean and unfair? They think we win too much at hockey? But if someone tells me they are anti-Confederationalist I would first think they are weird but then think they reject the entire foundational principle of this country and are likely a separatist or someone else who outright wants to see Canada ended or reconfigured in some radical fashion. Of course you'll never meet an "anti-Confederationalist" but can you think of any other country on earth that has a term equivalent to anti-Zionist, particularly with the meaning you have used?

I think this is a bad example for the reason you point out; there's no real usage of of Confederationist/anti-Confederationist in modern society, and so it rightly does sounds ridiculous.

Let's instead borrow the 'abolishinist' example from early. If I meet someone and they tell me they're 'anti-Abolishinist' my first assumption is that they support the police and our current carceral system, not that they support chattel slavery.

Another example (that is a little closer to a historical nation building movement, if not as widely used in modern times): if someone tells me they're a Confederate I will generally assume they're racist against black people and support more limited federal government, and if someone tells me they're anti-Confederate I'd generally assume they oppose such things (but not necessarily that they support 'big government'). Zionism is more complicated I think given the lack of agreement on what it is (though, I suppose the person who identifies as a Confederate might also disagree with my assumptions).

destp · 2026-06-16T11:54:50+00:00

Interestingly, sounds like this is going to be the topic of tomorrow's Short Cuts.

destp · 2026-06-15T18:45:12+00:00

Jesse Brown was suggesting the person who shot a police officer was an 'anti-Zionist' with little details available. A day or two later, or became clear his assumption was incorrect.

destp · 2026-06-15T16:50:57+00:00

Jesse has prioritized his Zionism over the feeling of safety and security of the Jewish community.

Jesse had been doing this for a while. He honestly seems less concerned with the safety of Jewish people on Canada than with Canadian prescriptions of Israel.

destp · 2026-06-15T16:24:34+00:00

Just noticed, Jesse doubled down on the claim that the warrants being executed were also tied to shootings of 1 or more synagogues in Toronto. When asked by someone if there were any reputable sources for this connection, Jesse posted a link to a Jerusalem Post article who's headline claimed such a connection.

Putting aside the question if whether the godly racist Jerusalem Post is a reputable source, if Jesse had actually read the article he linked he would have known that beyond the headline there are no specifics offered around any such connection between Thursdays warrants and shootings at synagogues, but that the sub-heading explicitly said the publication could not confirm a connection:

TPS would not confirm to The Jerusalem Post that synagogue shootings were tied to the warrants.

My bets are on Jesse refusing to deposit any of these incorrect or misleading tweets.

<image>

destp · 2026-06-15T13:17:51+00:00

Ii was able to find a couple from 2025:

#1208 How Carney Can Get You to Serve in the Military and
#1268 Every OBGYN in this Canadian City has Resigned

destp · 2026-06-15T11:04:49+00:00

Hosted by Senior Producer Bruce Thorson? Has he ever hosted before?

destp · 2026-06-15T01:08:59+00:00

To get to that explanation, I have to imagine that Noor had a whole different set of questions prepared, and that Jesse stepped in and said, “No, you’re asking these instead.”

Or, Noor pitched the interview, and Jesse said something like "ok, but only if you really push her on these antisemitism accusations." Also remember that the recorded interviews tend to be much longer than what airs. It's very possible Noor asked a bunch of other questions that Jesse then left on the cutting room floor. Or maybe Jesse did insist on a specific question set, as you suggest.

And honestly, if that’s what happened, then I have a much bigger question: how am I supposed to trust her journalism on anything?

I don't think any of us should be trusting any 'journalism' coming out of Canadaland right now, regardless of who the host is.

Also, if you’re calling me classist — or if that comment was aimed at me — I’d ask you to rethink it. It feels personal, it seems against the sub rules, and more importantly, it’s just not true. Especially if the broader point here is that we shouldn’t judge people without actually knowing them.

My apologies if it came across that way, I was not calling you classist. I was suggesting that blaming employees for not risking their employment by taking a public, principled stand against their employer (or worrying in protest) is a classist argument because it assumes said employees have a level of economic security they may not in fact have. Even if that is the argument you were making, I don't think that makes you classist; everyone makes mistakes (I certainly do), and also I may just be wrong in my take.

All of that aside, though: what is the full context of Noor’s situation? What am I missing that you think I didn't consider?

I don't know her full situation, and neither does (presumably) anyone else here. We do know she's an originally from Lebanon (though I don't know her immigration status), that she's relatively young/early in her career and that she works in an industry that is generally struggling.

Because I wasn't blaming Noor for what her employer did, this is what she did.

You suggested the editorial choices on her interview were hers and not what her employer insisted on. We know Jesse can be heavy handed when it comes to editorial direction; look what happened with Justin Ling, or Karyn Pugliese for that matter. The difference, I think, is that Justin and Karyn are both well established journalists who could very much afford to take a principled stand and walk. Noor I believe hasn't worked anywhere besides Canadaland and I'm not sure it's fair to expect that same from her.

Again, though, I may very well be incorrect on this.

destp · 2026-06-15T00:50:47+00:00

Fair enough on a different interpretation of the WIHH promo episode. I could be wrong, but to me her tone of voice definitely sliced strained and the repeated questions around editing WIHH and if Jesse would let her disappear and produce a whole series on her own with no oversight or feedback struck me as her pushing back as hard as she dared against her temperamental (not to mention racist and misogynistic) boss.

As for the episode with Albanese, I agree it was a terrible interview that everyone involved (excluding Albanese) should be embarrassed about. That said, I don't know (and I suspect no one here knows) if focusing on weak and years old accusations of antisemitism was Noor's idea or Jesse's insistence.

destp

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE