Greetings, friends. My name is Jess McLean, and I'm here to provide you with some blueprints

of disruption. This weekly podcast is dedicated to amplifying the work of activists, examining

power structures, and sharing the success stories from the grassroots. Through these discussions,

we hope to provide folks with the tools and the inspiration they need to start to dismantle

capitalism, decolonize our spaces, and bring about the political revolution that we know

we need. Welcome. Can you introduce yourself to the audience, please? I'm Alex Koch. I'm

the managing editor of News at The Maple. Now, I usually have guests on here, and I assume

folks know exactly what The Maple is. But let's pretend that there's somebody listening that

doesn't know yet. So what is The Maple, Alex? Yeah, so The Maple is an independent, 100%

reader-funded news publication that's dedicated to investigating stories that we think are

heavily under covered. and specifically stories that challenge the status quo in Canada. We

were launched in 2021, originally just me as the sole editorial employee. And then we merged

with our kind of sister publication Passage, which became the opinion section of the Maple.

And that's run by Davide Mastracchi. I didn't know that. It seems like you folks have just

been around longer than that, seems so established. If you folks check out the Maples website,

which is linked in the show notes, as we always do, I think you're going to notice a whole

lot of stories on there that you are not seeing in legacy media. Things that we are definitely

talking about. And if you've been listening, you know that we have heavily leaned on both

Alex and Davide's material. I see you have other contributors as well that we've had on the

show and we'll try to get on the show. Yeah, I think what really is drawing my attention

right now that is very pertinent to our audience, which is primarily activists, organizers, shit-disturbers

that are looking to do the same thing, you know, upend the status quo, is the time and energy

that you folks have spent on unraveling the Canadian arms trade. And I'd like to talk about

that, as well as some of the other material that is all just very related to of the way

the state, the Canadian state and capital, respond to the work that we're all doing. The pressure,

the movements, particularly Palestinian solidarity movements right now. I saw you tweet just about

an hour ago again that very few media outlets aside from, you know, Al Jazeera and La Presse,

specifically Canadian media, has picked up on the story that you most recently published

on the Quebec firm that has been contracted to make mortars for the state of Israel, or

potentially. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? And then maybe we can unpack why

that's not a bigger story. Because I think that's exactly what the audience will think when they

hear this and they've seen the work to get an arms embargo and the promises made by the liberals

and that this is kind of explosive in just its contradictions. Forget the fact that it's paired

with contributing to a genocide, right? It is one of those political kind of bombs that I

thought would have exploded a little bit more. Yeah, when I was first, I was tipped off about

this. So the United States recently authorized a $20 billion arms sale to Israel. So to be

clear, this isn't military aid, this is private companies who are contracted to sell equipment

to Israel. And within those press releases that US State Department released was mention of

50,000 mortar cartridges to be sold to Israel. And within that press release, it mentions

the Quebec-based firm, General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, or GDOTS for short, as

being the principal contractor in that aspect of the overall sale package, or potential sale

package. These goods haven't been sold yet, but they are expected to be sold to Israel

by 2026. So the reason this was made public is because it exceeds the congressional threshold

at which the State Department is required to notify Congress. However, they don't always

name the military contractors, I don't think. I haven't followed US arms trades too closely,

so I don't know how uncommon it is. But my understanding is that this is not always the case that they

name the principal contractor. So this was a little glimpse into the potential complicity

of Canadian suppliers in providing arms and military equipment to Israel. And to be honest,

when I first saw this, I didn't think I would be the first person to break this story. And

I certainly didn't think I'd be among the only ones in Canada to break this story. We published

it, I believe last Tuesday, and it was followed up with a story, a really good story actually,

from Al Jazeera, which got into the sort of the details of this, what's described as a

loophole by arms monitoring groups. It's called a loophole because basically, while Canada,

there are two mainstream arms exports to the world, I suppose, not just Israel. There are

direct exports from Canadian companies straight to the end user country, but there are also

those that go to the United States, which are largely unregulated. The Al Jazeera article

did a really good job and I encourage people to go ahead and read that. It explains why

that's the case, why Canada has this big gaping... hole in its arms export regulations and how

these goods go through the United States onwards to countries like Israel. That seems like an

expertly designed loophole though, not one that ended up by mistake. It seems all very convenient,

but we've heard many times before how that isn't even the only way Canadian arms trade continues

to Israel, the lethal versus non-lethal bullshit and It's endless as is the trades to Israel.

It's seemingly, despite the pressure that's mounted from below, and like I said earlier,

like the promises made inside the legislature, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of restraint

in terms of curbing this arms sale, which is why I think it's so important that you folks

press on. This isn't the first story that you have issued on the arms trade and the... lack

of fulfillment to those promises from the Liberals. But it is, I think, one of the more explosive

ones. I'm glad you made that point, because I wrote down press release and underlined it.

Why would they issue a press release about this? Like, are they trying to get someone in trouble?

But you explained like it was kind of forced upon them. And I'm sure that made the Canadian

government pretty uncomfortable, but so far they seem to be able to skirt this issue. And

I imagine even if we press them, they will point to that loophole as something that's uncontrollable,

right? Is have they commented on this loophole? No, they actually, they promised me a statement

earlier this week. And I still haven't heard anything. And I imagine they haven't felt the

pressure to say anything precisely because major English language Canadian news outlets haven't

followed up on this story and haven't also been pressing foreign affairs, the foreign affairs

ministry for an answer on this. But you know, it's to really sort of spell out why this is

so explosive because back in March Your listeners I'm sure will be aware that Parliament passed

a non-binding motion to end arms and military goods exports to Israel the Trudeau government

later clarified that this would only apply to New export permits and essentially what they

said was that we won't we will delay approving new export permits. However, existing permits,

which we now know could total about $95 million worth of goods, will still be allowed to go

ahead. But crucially, all this time, despite even with those existing export permits and

those that were authorized in the first two months after October 7th, the Trudeau government

has repeatedly insisted that all goods going from Canada to Israel are for quote-unquote

non-lethal goods. Now, As arms monitoring groups quickly pointed out at the time, this is a

legally meaningless category. There's nothing in Canada's Export Control Act that specifies

what is a non-lethal military good. In fact, Global Affairs Canada has described as quote

unquote non-lethal items such as rifles, scopes, laser range finders, goods that are absolutely

essential to the operation of a deadly piece of military hardware but in themselves don't

deliver a killing blow. A rifle? Or a rifle scope. Understood. So it's like, you know,

you can aim at a target, but the scope itself won't. So it's, it's bullshit basically. Guns

don't kill people, people kill people. Exactly. It's the same, same absurd logic there. But

then this, this revelation from the US state department, um, you know, we're talking about,

we're not talking to be clear, it's like the manufacturing Quebec isn't sending full mortar

shells or mortar, it's cartridges. So it's a piece that's absolutely essential to the functioning

of a deadly piece of equipment. But this really just kind of explodes the Trudeau government's

narrative that all along it's been harmless goods that are flying. There's been absurd

examples that Jolie has, Melanie Jolie has floated in Parliament saying things like, oh well it

can include things like fire extinguishers and flak jackets, which we now know is just complete

nonsense. There are. goods from Canadian suppliers going to Israel, which can and very likely

will be used to inflict harm and death. Now when we're talking about the craft of journalism,

this seems like textbook things that journalists should be focusing on, should be covering,

should be exposing, right? Like this is the most basic possible example. Why is it that

more Canadian platforms are not covering this at all? what's going on there from your analysis?

I was like, I'm sure you have a theory too, Santiago. Like, well, let Alex go first. No,

it's an excellent question. And I'm sure there's not one specific reason. You know, like it

could be self-censorship. It could be just like, you know, we have evidence that there are news

organizations in Canada that refrain from covering these types of issues because they just don't

want to deal with the flak that they get from pro-Israel groups. Whether that's the case

here, I don't know. I don't have any proof that is the case here. To be honest, I just think

a lot of Canadian journalists at Legacy Outlets just don't care all that much about this issue

and that they're far more interested in things like, I don't know, trying to think of a dull,

mundane political issue of the day, but they simply don't see this as worth their time or

newsworthy. I've actually spoken to a journalist from the Globe and Mail back. last year right

when the Trudeau government admitted that it had authorised new military export permits

since October 7th. I was speaking to this journalist who told me that he didn't think it was newsworthy

which you know I guess you don't want to be crowding out rewriting press releases from

the Business Council of Canada about how we should be increasing military spending with

this nonsense. But yeah, it's a myriad of reasons. It's self-censorship, it's pressure from the

Israel lobby, it's journalists and legacy outlets who I think are just trained not to really

sort of see what we see as important and pressing issues that need to be covered. Since you brought

it up. The Israeli lobby, whether or not they're responsible for the suppression directly or

indirectly of some of these stories. I think some people don't appreciate just how big and

pervasive they are in Canadian politics. I mean, like they're understanding because of how it's

playing out, but there's a whole bunch of motivating factors for Canada to be involved in this bullshit,

right? Besides they don't even need lobbyists. But I mean, there is deep impact there. And

you folks have done a few stories now at the Maple on the size. and brashness of the lobbyists,

you know, just floating any rules that are there. I'm sure they're not the only lobbyists just

kind of bypassing the rules that are there to curb their influence. Yeah, can you perhaps

share some of that knowledge with us on just how much they're influencing the behavior of

politicians? Sure, yeah, this is definitely something that my colleague Davide covers in

a lot more detail. So I would just encourage people to go over and read these stories themselves

because they really do go into just degrees of detail and analysis that is probably exceeds

what I can do here. What I've looked at hasn't been so much about how they influence politicians

because unfortunately, we don't know very much about what these conversations are behind the

scenes. What we can see is how pro-Israel groups monitor media because the pressure groups that

try to influence this are actually very public and very open about how they do that. CIGA.

So what it looks like is, you know, some of these groups will organize mass email campaigns.

They'll cite a story, they'll flag it to their many thousands of followers and say, okay,

copy and paste. paste this template email or however they decide to do it on a given case.

We know the tactics, we use them too. Exactly. And then so this news editor who say has just

published a story that's remotely critical of Israel will suddenly be faced with hundreds

of emails in their inbox. And to be brutally honest, nine times out of 10, it isn't that

news editors are afraid that this Israel lobby group will get me fired or that we'll pull

our... sponsors or advertisers, although that definitely is a risk and it's definitely part

of their thinking, no doubt. But so much of the time, it's literally just like they just

can't be bothered to deal with it because it's a headache and they're already probably dealing

with a million and one other tasks because newsrooms are so cash strapped and starved at the moment

that it's like, well, I just don't want to have to deal with this nuisance, frankly. And it

works and it does cause journalists to self-censor to avoid covering these kinds of really important

stories. Yeah, I had one of those happen to one of my op-eds, Honest Reporting Canada wrote

an article attacking my op-ed and then luckily my editor just kind of laughed it off and I

was like, ah. whatever, and we just went from there, but. Well, I'm kind of mad we haven't

been flagged by those fuckers yet. I mean, someone share an episode with them. No, they don't

bother with the podcast, but they attacked Humber News like three times in the last six months,

so. That is a great point that you raised, Jess, that they haven't gone after, these kinds of

groups haven't gone after us either, and I think it's because they know they can't really. we

are the people who run the organization. There's not, they can't go over our heads and- We have

no boss. Exactly, yeah. And I also think it's like they're overwhelmingly focused on legacy

media outlets. And I actually think, you know, to their peril, to be quite honest, because

we're circumventing these legacy outlets with our own original reporting and people are reading

this stuff and it's being followed up in parliament in major outlets as well. sometimes not all

the time because we just gave an example but um you know what i mean it's like you know

i think that they are very much preoccupied with you know the post-media is the globe mailed

toronto star that kind of thing and apparently student journalists for some reason yes let's

talk about that peril that we put them in right the movement here in canada to disarm israel

right the It's essentially a hand in hand with the ceasefire movement, the Palestinian solidarity

movement, whatever. There's a lot of nuance there. But the pressure point and how we feel

Canada can play a role in ending the genocide in the occupation is to, is at the arms trade,

right? That's the pressure point that almost all have chosen. Weapons manufacturers are

the target across the globe. And if it wasn't for reporting like this, we wouldn't have the

tools necessary to continue. This is the greatest example, because if everybody just took the

statements from the Liberal Party as true, I know a lot of people take everything the government

says with a grain of salt, but they promised essentially to the layman, there would be an

arms embargo. And if no one had done the digging, there would be no grounds for the movement

to persist. It'd be like, what are you talking about? You already got what you wanted, move

on. But that was all smoke and mirrors. And maybe you can touch on that role that you folks

play at the Maple in highlighting those stories that aren't just untold stories, but they're

very pivotal to the work that is being done on the ground by activists and organizers.

And this is actually why I was more surprised that legacy outlets didn't follow up on the

Mortar cartridges story because if nothing else even if you're a legacy outlet that doesn't

particularly care about The genocide going on in Gaza at the very least it highlights the

Trudeau government has brazenly lied through its teeth Which I would think more you know

more outlets would be interested in because the Trudeau There's video that was shared by

world beyond war recently of Justin Trudeau directly saying to a protester a member of

the public saying we've stopped arms exports to Israel. This is just a brazen lie. And whether

it's because, and I do think there's an element, Canada's arms export system is quite complicated.

And you do wonder sometimes whether Trudeau and Melanie Jolie simply are just not informed

about this and just too dumb to understand the nuances of it. But I think it's much more likely

that they are fully aware and they are actually quite happily lying about this. But as for

the role we play, it's really just to kind of highlight the truth behind these political

narratives and how they are constructed. Another story we did recently was that back in February,

we got arms export data released by Global Affairs Canada and it showed the Trudeau government

had authorized $28.5 million worth of military export permits in the first two months of Israel's

genocidal campaign in Gaza. I filed a follow-up request to see how they assembled this data

package. And what we found was that political staff from Melanie Jolie's office had basically

tried to meddle with the ATIP disclosure process, which to be clear should be completely removed

from political staff. And they tried to insert a paragraph basically saying, all of these

exports are for a quote unquote non-lethal goods. So in other words, they wanted to insert the

government's political spin into a disclosure package. Luckily, ATIP staff over at GAC said,

no, you can't do that. That's highly inappropriate. So what we and activists on the ground are

trying to do are basically just highlight that this is still very much an ongoing issue, that

things aren't as the Trudeau government has made them out to be, and to really just kind

of keep people informed as to what's really going on. And I would hope, accordingly, take

everything the Trudeau government says about this issue with a huge grain of salt and a

high degree of skepticism. Skepticism, yes, but you know, without the receipts, sometimes

you just sound like a conspiracy nut. Right? And yeah, and like you mentioned, the complexities

of some of these trades and we talked at the beginning of these loopholes that most people

would have no idea about. It makes it very, very difficult for the average person to hold

their government accountable. What kind of reach are you folks getting over at the Maple? Because

it's heartening when you said, you know, you feel your impact. That makes me happy because

it's hard to see sometimes when you're flooded with legacy media and you have to kind of go

looking for Canadian independent media now. I mean, my feed is full of it, but perhaps

not everybody else. So has it been difficult for you, especially with the changes made to

social media when it comes to Canadian media content and having to rethink the wheel? Yeah,

we've definitely had the Google or the Meta blackout as a result of the... truly government's

legislation, like, yeah, I mean, that did impact us for sure. But in terms of how we reach people

on, you know, some of these important issues, like, people notice if the information is important

enough, like even with the kind of media blackout we've seen in the most recent story, like,

it gets mentioned in parliament, like we've been cited by name in parliament, we've been

cited by name in international media, now just there and BBC News. I think at a certain point,

it does become a bit difficult or if not impossible to completely whitewash all this information.

But yeah, I mean, there's no question like any other outlet, like we've been, we've been trying

to navigate this issue and we're still figuring out ways to do that. Luckily that the primary

way that we connect with our readers is through like an email newsletter, which means, you

know, our subscribers are getting this stuff just straight to the inbox and are, you know,

reading it and then hopefully sharing it. Yeah. Well, but then of course, they can't share

it on, on Facebook or Instagram, which has been a, you know, an issue, but you know, there

are other ways to get this information out there. Unfortunately, we do still have to use the

website, formerly known as Twitter, despite its complete clown of an owner. But yeah, I

mean, it's, it's an ever shifting goalpost. I think that was your phrase, right? Like we,

you know, even if we figure out a way to navigate this issue, we just know on the horizon, there's

going to be something else that, that kind of is thrown at us and we just have to constantly

be on our feet to... Think about ways to get around that. But the email newsletter format

we have found has actually been quite useful just for just being able to connect with people

directly. And of course it also means we get direct feedback from our readers because they

can just simply reply to the email and we always like to hear from them. Of course we get like

any other publication, we get the hate mail that you would expect. from people who are

very hostile to what we're about. But of course, we also just get like- Who's sending them the

newsletter though? Well, that's the thing. I often wonder why these people on our, they

have to actively sign up to get on our mailing list. And I guess it's just the people who

like to be angry and to rage read, I suppose, which each to their own, I guess. But in a

more positive way, we get like some really valuable insights from our readers. Like people have-

Every time I do a story based on an ATIP release package like government documents, I include

it in the story itself so that readers can go and look at it for themselves. And we've actually

had cases where readers have said, oh, did you think about this as well? And it's allowed

me to follow up on even more details. So we really like to have that kind of close and

direct relationship with our readership. Complete side note, I saw that Aliyah Pabani was a recent

guest and she had signed up for the National Post's Israel newsletter. No one knows who's

writing it, but she didn't actually receive it. But I imagine that was for a bit of a rage

read. So I get that. And also when you talk about having to shift tactics, I mean, that's

something we talk about a lot on the show, because the state is forever shifting their tactics

on suppression and whatnot. Now, and you've done a lot of coverage watching Canadian government

figures react to both the Israeli lobby and the Palestinian solidarity movement. Has it

changed their behavior at all? I mean, I know it hasn't changed policy a whole lot, not materially,

but do you find, you know, that FOI requests are harder to get filled? Are there any kind

of shifts there that you could warn us about? where your job is perhaps getting more difficult

because I imagine you have pressed the government since at least 2021, the maple's been going

after information that folks would rather we not have. Has that task changed or your interactions

with politicians changed? It's a good question. As far as like FOI or ATIP requests go, there

are oversights and they are fulfilled by civil servants who are supposed to be impartial and

not. influenced by political staff in any way. So, regardless of whether the minister's office

would rather we didn't get something, it's not by law, it's not their call to make. Although,

of course, we've seen cases where they've tried to meddle and interfere with the process. So

this accounts for why we still are able to get some quite damning information through these

kinds of requests that clearly the government would rather we didn't know about. But in terms

of interactions with staff themselves, I mean, it's hard to say really. It's, you You do sense

impatience and hostility sometimes with political comms staff who are the sort of main point

of contact that we have. But it really is just like, that's all the Trudeau government has

at this point on this issue is really just a comms strategy because they've shown themselves

to be unwilling to substantively change the way Canada relates to Israel and the rest of

the kind of American empire. But what they do have is an ability to sort of like triangulate

their messaging to try and please all camps. But what I think is like different here is

that like, you know, part of it is our reporting and reporting and research of other groups

like, you know, Project Plowshares and World Beyond War and CJPME, who've like exposed really

damning information about the government's conduct on this file. But I mean, to be to be. brutally

honest, I just think Israel's conduct has just been so abhorrent and impossible to ignore.

Like it... A comms nightmare. Yeah, well, yeah. I mean, it's not as easy as it was in 2005

to just say, like, I stand with Israel, I support Israel's right to self-defense when we're seeing

these just daily videos. We're seeing Israeli ministers go out and defend rapists quite openly,

you know? It's a rogue state by any other definition. So like, I think the comm strategy is sort

of just like cracking under the sheer weight of evidence that we just have available to

us now. Which makes it really hard to understand the liberal party pulling out of Ottawa's Pride

Parade because of their pretty tepid statement of Palestinian solidarity. And that's sorry,

that's not to undermine people who fought to have that statement made and Do you think the

liberals are doing that a good job at managing their comms? Can we maybe try to look to the

future on how this is going to play out politically and the liberals kind of inability to suppress

all of these stories and manage just such a horrible onslaught of information that they

just can't, like you say, contradict? Yeah, I mean, it's clearly not working, right? They

have the most overtly pro-Zionist MPs in their caucus who are very clearly unhappy. They have

loud Israel voices acting as if the Trudeau government's meaningfully changed the way Canada

relates to Israel. I often think some of these people should show a little more gratitude,

honestly, to how craven and obedient the Trudeau government has been to Israeli interests. But...

But at the same time, you know, none of us are being duped. No one in the Palestine solidarity

movement is being duped by these kinds of like very farcical lines that they've been putting

out about the arms trade. I mean, I would say maybe they've been somewhat successful in the

arms file because they have successfully created this mirage of being like, yeah, we've halted

arms sales. They, they, they want a comms victory when they pass that non-binding motion and

I think successfully. unfortunately, deceive quite a lot of people that things had meaningfully

changed. Hopefully, that's now changing with these new revelations. So that's maybe one

area where they were able to kind of like quieten down the issue, at least, if not make it go

away completely. But I mean, in terms of like holding together their broader coalition, because

they you know, the Liberal Party does encompass elements of both camps, but clearly it's failing,

right? Like, you know, no one is happy with how. liberal governments handling this. And

that's the case with all politicians, progressive politicians at the moment, right? They have

not done enough to appease their leftist base and they surely haven't been centrist enough

or walk that line tight enough to please the Zionists either. Olivia Chow is a great example,

the entire NDP, especially the Ontario NDP are an example. It seems like no matter what they

do, they are not gaining points here. Yeah, I mean, that's what I'd say to these politicians.

It's like, no matter what, you're never going to please the pro-Israel groups and lobbyists

unless you're completely all in supporting anything and everything the Israel government does.

So why not at least stand on the right side of history? If you're going to incur their

wrath anyway, you might as well take a moral and principled stand. I really struggle to

understand this because it's clearly impossible to appease. pro-Israel forces, unless you're

absolutely all in with everything they do. Yeah, like how would you make a house father happy?

At what level would the Liberal government have to operate to make that man happy? And sometimes

I wonder that discontent that seems to be coming from within is just another ploy to just try

to please both sides or appeal to both sides and make it seem like they're doing something

that they're not. But That is good advice, Alex, but I think you can give them that advice on

so many issues where they're just playing short-term goals or, you know, they're testing the waters

before they speak and it's not really on morals or values. That's, I mean, that seems to sum

up a lot of our problems with a lot of things. But Pierre Pouliève doesn't mince words. He

is not playing both sides or even trying to. appease obviously any kind of leftist base,

the language around this issue and the possible policy changes. I mean, do you think there'd

be a substantive difference under a conservative government specifically as it relates to the

foreign policy with Israel and how it would respond to the Solidarity Movement? It's a

really important question. It's one myself and my colleague, Jeremy Appel explored in some

detail a couple of months ago. Like, you know, we are facing a very likely possibility of

a Pierre Poliev government when the next election rolls around. And so it's important to start

considering what that might look like, especially on this issue, but obviously every other issue

too. And the answer is, I actually think it would probably be substantively worse in several

ways. And I think we only have to look back to the Harper government conducted itself on

this file, just being extremely aggressively pro-Israel, voting against almost every UN

motion that dared utter the name of Palestinian rights. I think there'd be a much more heavy-handed

clamping down on the Palestine solidarity movement, although of course we have seen that under

the Trudeau government, but I think there's every reason to suspect that it would probably

go into overdrive under a conservative administration. Yeah, there's I think there's no doubt it would

be worse and more aggressive that, you know, we'd have to be very concerned, I think about

how Canada's role would shift to an even more belligerent one in the region as a whole. Like

I think Canada would potentially be an aggravating, small middle power in, you know, escalating

conflict with Iran with Hezbollah. Yeah, I think it would be a disaster. Sometimes it's hard

to imagine how we could have worse foreign policy but I'm so glad that you shared those possibilities

with us because I know we do talk a lot about politicians essentially all being the same

but yeah there definitely are some substantive differences with the conservatives. That is

going to make for an interesting election. Do you think this will play out in the campaign

itself or are they going to try to pretend it's not happening while they're stumping out there?

Because that'll be impossible every single stop. Like this is going to be such a messy election

should there be one while this is ongoing because I mean, they can't even go out to dinner let

alone announce campaign stops everywhere. So like I'm looking forward to harassing them.

But do you think it will, the media will allow it to play a role in the elections? I think

it'll depend in large part where the war is at that point. So we're about a year away from

the next election you know, has it escalated by that point? Are we in a fully fledged proxy

war with Iran? If that's the case, then I think it will probably be impossible to ignore. But

I still think it won't be a leading, I mean, sadly, I sort of doubt it will be a leading

national issue. It might be really important in certain individual ridings where there are

like large communities who, you know, lean one way or the other on the issue. So it might

be a difference of a handful of MPs. I don't know. I'm really bad at electoral analysis

and calculations, but that would be my feeling. I mean, just given now, like how brazenly we've

seen Israel doing what it's doing now, and it's barely registering as a national issue. It's

hard for me to imagine this being a pivotal issue at the level of a federal election, unfortunately.

Yeah. It is unfortunate because I think it's not just that single voter issue, like we're

seeing it played when you talk about the elections to the south, where folks are being accused

of sabotaging the entire democracy by bringing up the fact that Kamala has participated in

this herself, and all the other things that you could list off that are problematic with

that candidate. And it's, it's not just a single issue. forget the fact that it's a genocide,

you know, that has to be stopped, that we're not inundated with all of these images. But

it's telling you exactly where these powers that be will stand on all our forms of resistance.

When you see how they're treating protesters outside of the DNC or throughout the United

States, obviously we're seeing that here. The idea that it could worsen under conservatives

is kind of terrifying, but you know, it's just that... inability to force our progressive

politicians to the right side of history, like you described it, you know? It's because they

have faced incredible pressure, all of them, and the NDP has shifted in language, but you

know, that's kind of an easy shift for them to make where they politically stand right

now as fourth party. It wasn't all that risky. It came really late and it's kind of weak to

begin. Like, we don't have to unpack that. But it's just, I think it's demonstrating to people,

these candidates, what they will do when you try to really challenge them on anything and

how immovable they seem on certain things that are of the utmost importance. So yeah, it's

very frustrating that these stories don't gain more traction so that people are more informed,

but it's also heartbreaking to think that people look at this as a side issue. Yeah, and you

know, like I mentioned, Poliev earlier and how, you know, things would almost certainly be

worse, not just on the question of Palestine, but a whole range of other issues as well.

And this is the constant thing that's invoked. Like I remember in the 2019 election, it was

the climate election. Every time you spoke about the liberals failures on that file, of course,

it was invoked, well, take a look at what the conservatives will do. And it's used to cajole

people into maintaining just a completely untannable and unacceptable status quo. It's the constant

thing we or facing in media and in activist spaces. I will say, I mean, I think the NDP,

you know, I'm very cynical about the NDP. But I think I have to hand it to Heather McPherson,

like on the issue of arms exports to Israel, that specific item, like she's really been

pushing hard on that. And has really like been a useful voice to keep this issue, even though

it's not, unfortunately, a central constant new cycle national issue. I think she's played

an important role in keeping the issue alive. So I think some credit is due there. But yeah,

I mean, on the whole, like we're facing a really, unfortunately, a difficult time in keeping

this on people's radars, especially when you can so easily invoke the bogeyman of like,

you know, and it is a real bogeyman. Let's be clear, like the conservatives described it,

right? The conservatives are a very grim prospect. But I also don't think people should allow

themselves to be bullied into voting for something that's It's just unacceptable just because

of that. Well, it also to ask people to suppress this knowing how the news cycle works. Right,

when Palestinian solidarity activists have worked so hard day and night for ten months now to

keep this in the news cycle, to do drastic things, disruptions, so that we will keep talking about

it. because the images are daily. So the news is not reporting on these daily images until

they are so absolutely atrocious and they go viral and whatnot. But to ask them to not talk

about it until after November, or should there be a Canadian election or the by-elections

to kind of, don't spoil the vote by bringing up a genocide, is to essentially ask them to

dissolve their movement for a few months and pretend that it's not happening, because maybe...

maybe they'll thwart off some really ugly policy changes that'll make their job harder. And

it really is gaslighting to like, expect people to like the people to change, rather than,

oh, I don't know, the parties to be better on the issues. Absolutely. Yeah, it's always it's

always on the shoulders of people who are supposed to be. driving policy and democracies and election.

It's like, yeah, gaslighting is exactly the right time. I don't want you to play like armchair

quarterback because I think we're all kind of hyper aware of, you know, what would I do kind

of approaches. But knowing what you know and what you've worked on, I'm not going to say

in the last 10th month, just period. Do you have any advice for folks building movements

when it comes to staying atop of the news cycle or perhaps finding pressure points that are

media related or media assisted. You know, for example, we had somebody on here, you talked

about being mentioned in the legislature and the author was like, I should have sent it

to a couple MPs or MPPs. Like, I should have really fed this to somebody who was working

on it and whatnot. It was like a tip, you know, for folks on how to stay relevant and manage.

manage media, I suppose, but. I actually think the movement as it is right now has done a

really decent job of this. And to be honest, I kind of take a lot of cues from them in a

lot of instances. So yeah, I mean, and what they've been doing is like, yeah, just maintaining

contact with people in parliament and identifying those who are sympathetic to the cause, keeping

the information up to date constantly and really. effectively debunking the lies that have been

told. Like it was World Beyond War who highlighted Justin Trudeau lying through his teeth saying

that we've like halted arms exports to Israel and kind of drawing attention to that fact.

So and I think the directness of the language is important, like calling it a lie as you

see it. Like, you know, there's a lot of there's a tendency and a lot of like media outlets,

especially to sort of say like false claim or, you know. Misinformation is my favorite one.

Disinforma. Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's just a lie. You can call it

that. Like it's, uh, as long as you're not in the legislature. Yeah, that's true. Yeah. You

get kicked out if you say that to us people. Exactly. I understand you giving folks like

Heather McPherson credit for first what they do in the legislature. But you know, for me

that those are just words in that room. There needs to be actions, uh, behind them. And,

and when they're not, you almost know that they're just words. Yeah. I think. World Beyond War

is like, just they've got their teeth into this issue and they're gonna shake it until something

comes loose. Like it's not, they're not allowing people to move the goalposts on them so much,

you know? We are gonna hold it here. We're not gonna be distracted by the claims of anti-Semitism

or the claims that, spoiling the vote and all of that. You know, it's just eyes on target,

keep at it and finding ways to blow it up over and over again. So. I imagine, and I've seen,

I'm not just imagining, if you go on the Instagram pages of a lot of these organizations, so World

Beyond War is one of them, but they're not the only one. I mean, the Palestinian solidarity

groups, like there's local ones, there's national ones, they have been blowing up your story.

Totally. They're not only sharing your work, which is important, but they're using the information

you've provided them to create their own shareables and highlight this constant battle to stop

the arms to Israel. That's like a free asset you've provided a lot of people, which we really

do appreciate. You mentioned being reader supported. Do you believe like that is what allows you

to tell these stories that normally people that wouldn't surface? It's definitely a big part

of it because, you know, the crucial element, it means that like, we can afford to upset

some people. Like we don't have like one donor who's paying, you know. our salaries for example,

so that we have to be terrified of losing. It also means that like we're accountable to like

a much larger pool of people. Like it means that like there's not like sponsors or donors

that like, people can go after and try and sort of hive off of our organization. It means,

yeah, it affords obviously a lot of editorial freedom for sure. But you know, there are other

news outlets out there that like are funded in a slightly different way that still do really

fantastic and important work. Like obviously the breach has done really important stories

on this file as well and they have a slightly different model to ours. But you know, we all

make it work in our own way and we all are able to do this work one way or the other. You got

to make it work, right? With whatever you got. Did you notice? an uptake in your readership

when Canada land imploded under Jesse Brown's escalating genocidal tendencies? Like what

is going on? We don't have to talk about Canada land, but I imagine folks were looking for

alternate sources around then. And I, you know, I saw folks pointing them towards Narwhal or

Maple or the Breach. The Orchard, Jeremy, we'll link folks to all of the stories that we've

mentioned here so you can give some love to the independent media that really fuels a lot

of the work that we do. I also, I wanted to take a second and ask you, but I don't know

if you'll be able to, we might have to edit this out. Davide keeps teasing his audience

with a story that's been percolating for some time. Even saying, you know, he hasn't been

able to publish in a while. We've been starved of his stories because he's been working on

something. Do you want to tease our audience a little bit or are you not allowed? I, unfortunately

I can, um, because there's just a few, you know, sourcing things we still have to sort out and

make sure everything's like, you know, fully on board. I don't want to promise something

that we might not actually be able to deliver. So yeah, unfortunately I can. Okay, well, we'll

leave it in anyway, because you're just all enticed now to make sure you subscribe to the

maple if you haven't already, because you just don't know what might drop. When it comes to,

you know, working in, you know, media journalism, is I guess, like, we're talking about some

of the failures of like mainstream media to cover things, right? And I was just and obviously,

like, with platforms like the maple, you're trying to expose all of these. Truths, right,

that aren't getting exposed, but I've been wondering, I guess, about the importance of truth lately

because it doesn't seem to matter much whether or not something is true or not it just matters

how something is spun So I guess my question is about, like, putting in all of this effort

to try and find the truths What do you see the value behind that as being? Hm. That's a great

question. I mean, the immediate term value I hope is that it sort of forces, uh, forces

the government to remain on the defensive and to keep, you know, adjusting its narrative

accordingly until it's untenable to do so, and that they're actually forced to do something

to save face. Um, but kind of more largely, I just, I mean, I hope it just serves as a

historical record, um, you know, if nothing, ideally you want to stop the genocide happening

right now, but. you know, realistically, the government doesn't show any sign of actually

wanting to end Canada's complicity in that. So at the very least, like I hope it's it just

remains part of the record and that people look back on this time and see what was really going

on despite the constant lies that we've just been fed this whole time. That's a good way

of putting it, I think. Because it can be very frustrating where There's so much work that

goes into trying to fight a narrative only for absolute nonsense to seem to dominate what

people actually take from anything, right? And what people will believe. Yeah, we live in

such a moment, in such a distorted moment with just such an, like, I guess what really sparked

it was, like in... We've been, over the last few weeks, we've seen a lot of historical moments

happen back to back and just the immediate narrative that you see in the public has very little

to do with any facts at all, right? And just like, I guess I've been reflecting on my, cause

you know, I went to journalism school and I've been reflecting on kind of what I wanna do

now. I'm done that and There's a certain cynicism of like I guess how Just seeing the response

to everything. There's a cynicism of like is this effort all wasted just for The truth not

to even matter anyways Yeah, no, I feel that a lot It is like pretty like sad and demoralizing

sometimes when you know You you know this information and you put it out there and like yet nothing

changes. It can be frustrating and yeah, it can be immiserating as well. But yeah, I mean,

I just hope there's like a way we can have an impact in the longer term at the very least

and that, you know, the story of this genocide is told in a correct way, at least in some

point in the future, if not right now. That makes me mad though. That makes me mad. And

that's such a heavy fucking burden too. But like one, we're all willing to do, but the

historical record comment is what I'm stuck on. You know, that hurts to think that's its

only impact. So I assure you it's not. Cause like whether you're getting mentioned in the

legislature or whether, you know, it's shared thousands of times or tens of thousands of

times. The impacts are real, they're measurable in individuals reading them. They go out into

the world better informed, like you're not, they didn't just absorb it and it's in their

head, right? It manifests itself in all kinds of ways, not the powerful, I don't give a fuck

if they're listening, they know, they already know. But it's like the readers, the listeners

that get it, that have more ammo, that have validating

They have the ability now to present this to the people around them that are swayable. All

right, and they go into doing the work that we talk about daily here of organizing and

building connections, but with a better understanding. The impact is always immediate upon reading.

You can't see it though, right? Like you might get an email back and you know, and those feel

good. Like every time we get a message in our DMs or whatever, it's like, I love when they

talk about a specific episode. you know, where the, I didn't know that. Thank you for sharing

that. Like that will make my, that drives me for like a week. Like I really get boosts.

So you have to know that those are just the people who bothered to email you or DM you

or even knew how, right? Like I know they can just reply to your newsletter, but you know

what I mean? Like that is happening over and over and over again. And so the facts matter.

Yeah. Absolutely. I just don't want anyone to lose heart, right? Because the work that Santiago

does and Alex and his comrades at the Maple, it fucking matters. Even if you don't see it

play out in politics. It matters. It matters. You make sure you support these folks. I want

to thank Alex and the people at the Maple for doing what you do. If I were to put a list

at the bottom of this episode of all of the times we've referenced your work, it would

be a huge chunk of our content, right? Like we were really excited to get you on here and

to hear your point of view and share the maple with our viewers, just, just in case they didn't

know who you were, but I, I think they did. Um, so thank you, Alex. Yeah, it was a pleasure.

Thank you for having me on and I'm glad our work is useful for you guys to, to. to share

out there and thank you for doing that. We appreciate it a lot. Thank you. That is a wrap on another

episode of Blueprints of Disruption. Thank you for joining us. Also, a very big thank you

to the producer of our show, Santiago Helu-Quintero. Blueprints of Disruption is an independent

production operated cooperatively. You can follow us on Twitter at BP of Disruption. If you'd

like to help us continue disrupting the status quo. Please share our content and if you have

the means, consider becoming a patron. Not only does our support come from the progressive

community, so does our content. So reach out to us and let us know what or who we should

be amplifying. So until next time, keep disrupting.