Features
Larry and Tova Vickar and Jewish Heritage Centre recognize Siepman family for World War II rescue efforts
By MYRON LOVE
If you are visiting the Asper Jewish Community Campus and you make a left turn at the Berney Theatre, you will come to the Freeman Family Foundation Holocaust Education Centre.
Just to the right of the entrance to the museum, you will find an area recognizing a number of very special men and women who risked their lives and those of their families to save Jews during the Shoah– 11 commemorative plaques – two of which commemorate Dutch immigrants to Winnipeg who helped to hide Dutch Jews during the Holocaust – and the other nine recognizing individuals from several countries in Eastern Europe.
Soon, there may be an additional name added to the list.
Alexander and Gisjbertha Siepman and their sons, Maarten and Christiaan, were vegetable growers in the village of Nootdorp in rural Holland. For three-and-a-half years, they hid the Jewish Bonevitz family in their home.
The Winnipeg connection is this: After the war, Maarten Siepman and his wife, Johanna, immigrated to southern Manitoba where Maarten continued to pursue market gardening.
On May 2, 1992, as reported in a story in this newspaper at the time, acting Israeli Consul General Oren David came to Winnipeg from Toronto to present the family with a Certificate of Honour and medal on behalf of Yad Vashem.
However, 1992 was a long time ago and the Siepman story of heroism – while still kept alive by Martin and Johanna’s children and grandchildren, was little known outside the extended family.
Now, thanks to the efforts of community leaders Larry and Tova Vickar, that story may become more widely known. The president of the Vickar Auto Group first became aware of the Siepman story in early November as Larry and Tova were preparing to travel to Israel for the official opening of the new Stephen J. Harper KKL-JNF Hula Valley Visitor and Education Center in the northern Galilee.
“I was talking to Ryan (Siepman – Vickar Community Chevrolet service manager) about our trip to Israel and he mentioned that his grandfather’s and great grandparents’ names are inscribed at Yad Vashem among the Righteous Among the Nations and told me their story for the first time,” Vickar recalls. “Ryan said that he would like to visit Yad Vashem himself one day and see where his grandfather’s and great grandparents’ names are inscribed at Yad Vashem.”
Vickar was so impressed by what he heard from Ryan that – on Thursday, December 12, he and Tova hosted Ryan, his parents John and Jane, his brother, Shawn, his sisters, Jennifer and Kristine and their families and Ryan’s aunt (and John’s sister) Wilma, during an evening at Rae and Jerry’s, where he presented Ryan and John with framed photos of the plaque at Yad Vashem, accompanied by photos of the trees that were planted in 1974 at Yad Vashem in memory of the Siepman Family.
“While Yad Vashem was not part of our itinerary, I made a point of going there to take pictures of the plaque,” Vickar said.
Thanking Larry and Tova on behalf of the Siepman Family, John Siepman recalled that for many years after the war, his dad spoke very little about the war years. “It was only after the Jewish community approached him in the early 1990s and honoured him as one of the Righteous Among the Nations that we learned about what he, his parents and his brother did during the war.”
John Siepman noted that his father was 19 when war broke out. “For Holland, the war was over in five days,” he said. “Our father wanted to do something to resist the Germans. His minister urged him to join the underground.”
In the previous report about the Siepman Family in the JPN in 1992, Martin Siepman (who passed away in 2007) had noted that the Dutch Resistance helped to hide close to 100,000 people – the Bonevitz family among them. “We didn’t know the family,” he was quoted as saying. “We had no previous connection with them. We only knew that they were Jewish and needed our help.
“We weren’t heroes. We just did what we felt we had to do.”
John Siepman picks up the narrative. “No one could know that our family was hiding a Jewish family. The Bonevitz family couldn’t leave the house during daylight hours. And, when Nazis did come by the house, my grandmother would ring a bell to warn the Bonevitz family to slip out of the house and hide among the beanstalks until the danger had passed.”
John Siepman added that his dad really appreciated a free trip to Israel – paid for by Harvey Sarner, a Jewish philanthropist from California – after the Yad Vashem recognition- as well as a subsequent trip to Washington, D.C.
Belle Jarniewski, the executive director of the Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada, notes that three-quarters of the Netherland’s Jews were murdered during the Shoah – the highest number of Jewish victims in Western Europe, and among the highest proportion in Europe overall. Many students who have been influenced by “The Diary of Anne Frank”, have imagined that this was the general narrative – of the Dutch hiding Jews. In actuality, that has become somewhat of a national myth. The truth is that the Nazis were able to count on the support of the Dutch Nazi Party, which had a membership of some 100,000. Dutch police assisted the Germans in rounding up Jews slated for deportation to Nazi extermination camps in Poland, and the national railway company transported Jews to these destinations.”
“I have often wondered what I would do in such a situation: Could I do the right thing to save the life of perfect strangers?” says Jarniewski, who is also a child of Holocaust survivors. “It is one thing to risk one’s own life, which I hope I would do, but it is another thing to find the courage to risk the lives of one’s children. That was the risk these wonderful men and women took”
“Individuals like Martin Siepman and his family and others like them are truly to be admired for the tremendous kindness and courage they showed in a time of utter darkness.”
It is written in the Talmud that whoever saves a life saves the world entire.”
“We hope to add the name of Martin Siepman and family to the list of those honoured as Righteous Among the Nations at the Freeman Family Foundation Holocaust Education Centre.”
Features
Hair straightening at Sets on Corydon
Features
Ontario Online Casinos Let Players Set Daily, Weekly and Monthly Deposit Limits
A deposit limit sets a ceiling on how much money someone can add to an online gambling account. In Ontario’s regulated market, players can choose limits covering 24 hours, seven days and one month, with the website’s system enforcing the amounts they select.
The settings are straightforward, but the timing deserves attention. A daily allowance may sit within weekly and monthly caps, while an increase can involve a waiting period. For adults using Chrome on a Chromebook, understanding these account rules starts with knowing where to find them.
Finding the Settings and Choosing a Period
Deposit controls sit within the gambling website’s account menus. The Tooniebet Ontario responsible gaming page is an operator-specific resource readers can consult alongside their account settings. ToonieBet is operated by Canadix Limited and regulated by the AGCO under an agreement with iGaming Ontario.
Ontario’s standards require an easy and obvious way to set financial and time limits during registration and afterward. Players must be offered deposit and loss limits when signing up, and the controls must remain easy to reach and change once an account is open.
Menu names differ between sites. Published examples place deposit limits under account settings or responsible-gaming tools, where players can select an amount and a period.
Each type of limit measures something different. Deposit limits cap money added to the account. Loss limits restrict net losses after winnings are taken into account, while time limits govern playing time. iGaming Ontario’s player guidance explains all three.
For Chromebook users, these settings are managed through the website’s account interface. Chrome’s own permissions handle separate browser functions, such as access to location information.
How Several Limits Apply to One Deposit
Players can have daily, weekly and monthly limits running together. A deposit must fit within every active cap.
Take a hypothetical account with limits of CAD $40 daily, CAD $100 weekly and CAD $250 monthly. These figures illustrate the process.
If someone has already deposited CAD $90 during the weekly period, the remaining weekly allowance is CAD $10. That becomes the most they can add, even when the daily limit has more room. Reaching the monthly cap would likewise block another deposit until some monthly allowance becomes available.
This is why checking all active limits matters. A new day may bring fresh daily capacity while the weekly or monthly total remains close to its ceiling. The longer periods continue to apply as the shorter one refreshes.
When Money Drops Out of a Rolling Window
The next question is when previous deposits stop counting toward a cap. Some sites use rolling periods, which track elapsed time from individual deposits.
Published Ontario policies include daily windows of 24 hours, weekly windows of 168 hours and monthly windows of 720 hours, equivalent to 30 days. Under that approach, each deposit frees up its corresponding allowance once it falls outside the window.
Suppose someone has a CAD $100 rolling weekly limit and deposits CAD $25 on Friday, followed by CAD $75 on Saturday. Seven days after Friday’s deposit, CAD $25 becomes available again. The other CAD $75 returns seven days after Saturday’s deposit.
Leaving the restored Friday allowance unused means it combines with Saturday’s restored amount. At that point, the full CAD $100 is available. Reviewing deposit dates and times helps explain how much room remains within a rolling period.
Changing a Cap Takes a Separate Step
A limit refreshing follows the schedule already attached to the account. Raising that limit requires a request and a wait.
Ontario’s standards require at least 24 hours before a player’s request to relax or remove an established limit can take effect. The existing limit remains enforceable during the cooling-off period.
Operators publish their own timings. Documented examples include a seven-day wait for deposit-limit increases or removals. Another published schedule allows increases after one day for a daily cap, seven days for a weekly cap and 30 days for a monthly cap.
Lower limits take effect immediately under these published policies. Some policies also restart the waiting period when a player requests another increase while an earlier change is pending. The effective date shows which amount currently applies.
Other Controls and Support
Deposit limits work alongside loss limits, time limits, short breaks and self-exclusion. Together, these give players ways to restrict account funding, gambling activity or access.
Ontario-regulated online casino play is restricted to adults aged 19 and older who are physically in Ontario. Gambling involves financial risk.
For concerns about your gambling or someone else’s, ConnexOntario offers free, confidential information and referral support around the clock. Call 1-866-531-2600 or text CONNEX to 247247. Standard message and data rates may apply.
Features
What “Best Odds” Really Means When Comparing Gambling Review Websites
The phrase best odds appears frequently in gambling discussions, but it is surprisingly easy to use imprecisely. MonsterBetList is primarily a casino review and rankings website, not a dedicated live sportsbook odds comparison terminal. That difference is central to evaluating what its reviews can and cannot establish. A casino rating may explain payout conditions, licence information and bonus restrictions, while a claim about the best available price on a sporting outcome requires a different kind of evidence altogether.
Odds and ratings answer different questions
Sports betting odds represent a price offered on a specified outcome. A review rating is an editorial judgement built from multiple criteria. These two numerical systems cannot be substituted for one another. A bookmaker rated highly for service may offer a less competitive price on a particular match, while a service with a more attractive price may impose different limits or verification rules.
Similarly, a casino review can discuss return-to-player statistics, but RTP is not the same as sportsbook odds. RTP describes a theoretical long-run percentage built into a game model. It does not tell a reader what will happen in one session and it is not an individually negotiable market quotation.
What makes sports odds comparable?
A fair odds comparison starts with identical selections: the same event, outcome, market rules and settlement conditions. Comparing a three-way football result with a draw-no-bet price is invalid because the products pay under different circumstances. The observation time also matters; displayed prices can change quickly as market information or trading decisions evolve.
The numerical format should be standardised. Decimal odds provide one convenient representation, but American and fractional formats express the same underlying idea differently. Converting these formats is straightforward. What matters is the net price, the operator’s rules and whether the quoted offer remains available when reviewed.
Overround explains the hidden cost of many markets
In a simplified two-outcome market, dividing one by each decimal price produces an implied probability. If the implied probabilities add to more than 100%, the excess is commonly described as the bookmaker’s overround. It is one way of understanding the margin embedded in prices, although individual market structure and adjustments can complicate the interpretation.
This concept explains why the word best should not be attached to a price without context. A strong headline may look appealing yet represent an ordinary margin after calculation. More importantly, any single quote is time-dependent. Genuine comparison requires a dated observation and equivalent market rules; broad editorial praise is not enough.
What casino rankings can establish instead
MonsterBetList publishes casino reviews and guides addressing licences, bonuses, payout experiences and responsible gambling. Those topics are relevant to evaluating consumer risk and service quality. A report about the length of a withdrawal process, for example, can be useful if its methodology is transparent. A bonus review can help identify restrictive wagering requirements that marketing headlines omit.
However, a casino ranking should not be presented as evidence that its highest-rated operator consistently offers the best sports prices. Unless a site publishes repeated market-by-market comparisons, that conclusion is not supported. Readers benefit when publishers clearly distinguish what was measured from what readers might assume was measured.
Bonuses can complicate comparisons
A sportsbook may offer free-bet tokens, cashback or other promotions. Their effective value depends on conditions rather than the largest number printed in a banner. Some credits are not withdrawable as cash; others require qualifying selections, minimum odds or a deadline. Casino welcome bonuses often introduce wagering requirements, game-contribution rules and limits on withdrawals. Combining these products under one generic promotional score can hide important differences.
For instance, a large matched deposit might require extensive play before bonus-related funds become eligible for withdrawal. The required betting volume is not a promise of profit. The presence of a promotion may therefore make comparisons more complex instead of simpler. Clear disclosures should precede any judgement about value.
Editorial independence and methods
Review sites sometimes state that rankings are editorially independent. Such a statement is relevant but does not replace evidence of consistent testing. Readers should look for the criteria used, the date of each review, whether real transactions were examined and how negative findings are treated. If one platform receives detailed testing while another is scored on marketing copy, the ranking loses comparability.
Commercial incentives should also be visible. Referral relationships or sponsorships do not automatically make every observation inaccurate, but they create reasons to ask how rankings are insulated from revenue. A publication that explains its methodology and corrections process gives readers a stronger basis for trust than one that simply declares its winners.
Licensing and dispute rights before price claims
A marginally attractive price is of limited value when the operator is not legally available to the reader or does not provide meaningful avenues for redress. Regulations vary by jurisdiction, and a licence in one country may not authorise service in another. It is prudent to verify the legal entity behind a brand and the current status of any licence through official records.
Consumers should also review identity verification, account restrictions and dispute resolution procedures. These operational conditions influence the actual experience of using a gambling service. A sensible evaluation includes them before discussing promotions or theoretical market advantages.
Why guaranteed-profit language is a warning sign
No ordinary review or odds list can guarantee that an individual will win money from gambling. Claims of certain returns often omit the fact that results are uncertain, prices move and transactions are subject to restrictions. Casino games generally incorporate a house advantage, and sports outcomes remain uncertain regardless of a persuasive analysis. The safest response to absolute promises is scepticism.
Readers should also avoid treating gambling as a means of addressing financial problems. Chasing previous losses and increasing stakes to recover money can deepen harm. Consumer-oriented coverage is more valuable when it explains risk and offers realistic options for stepping away.
Conclusion: define the claim before ranking the service
“Best odds” is a specific comparative proposition, not a synonym for a high casino rating. MonsterBetList can be examined for its published casino research, review structure and risk disclosures, but those materials should not be stretched into claims they have not tested. Clear definitions, dated evidence and honest limitations are the foundations of trustworthy comparison journalism.
