I can't imagine it'll be interesting for anyone for us to spar back and forth in the comment section, but I'll just respond briefly:

The editorial line you're drawing here is totally invented. In a recorded conversation, people frequently use shorthand to refer to complex matters — "some people allege COVID-19 escaped from a lab," "plenty argue that the war in Iraq was waged on faulty premises." It is not a matter of laundering spurious claims through vague citations, it's referencing a clear point in the public discourse being made by various and credible sources, of which listeners are well aware. I'm not asking for different editorial standards "because it's Israel," I'm asking for the same standards.

I'm glad Paris opted to re-record the statement to make it even more forceful. But it doesn't change the fact that you cut other comments they made, on equally shaky grounds.

I would note that the fact that you have turned this conversation back to the idea that having a frank conversation about the war in Israel puts Jews in Canada at risk is exactly the kind of editorial judgement that I think makes having these conversations impossible at Canadaland. How can anyone ever discuss this topic when you apply this impossible, subjective test to their statements?

I am not blackmailing or bullying you. As you know, staff at Canadaland have long opposed you wearing all these hats at the same time, as it reduces the editorial independence of the newsroom. It's a concern that you know, full well, has been made by staff consistently for years. It's a type of conflict that you used to criticize when it came to other publishers. I came back to host Short Cuts because I was promised that there would be a division between ownership (you) and the show/newsroom. That didn't happen, you clearly stepped over the line, so I quit.