Features
Anti-Semitic incidents on the rise in Toronto
Introduction: We have been following, with dismay, the steady reporting on anti-Semitic incidents in Toronto as reported in the CJN newsletter (which is the latest incarnation of what used to be Canada’s flagship Jewish newspaper). A little while ago we were contacted by a Toronto freelance writer by the name of Ori Belmont, who asked us whether he might be able to begin contributing articles to this paper.
We asked Ori to write something about the shocking rise in incidents of anti-Semitism in Toronto within the past couple of years – that seem to have risen with the advent of Covid.
Here is what Ori sent us:
The city of Toronto has long suffered through a shameful and sordid history of both violent and subtle forms of anti-Semitic activity. From incidents such as the barbaric Christie Pits riots which occurred during the depths of the Great Depression and Hitler’s rise to power, to the despicable diatribes and revisionist views and works of Ernst Zundel, the shine on the seemingly opulent city by the lake has long ago grown dull.
The recent spate of anti-Semitic attacks in Toronto has once again emboldened those who wish to isolate the city’s Jewish population. However, the response by the city’s Jewish community – compelled by, and fuelled with anger and the desire to educate the perpetrators of such heinous acts with information of an evidentiary basis – has galvanized us.
Jews in Toronto, according to the 2018 Annual Hate Crime Statistical Report commissioned by Toronto Police Services, continued to be victimized at a level that exceeded hate crimes which targeted other groups.
The report noted that of the all hate-motivated crimes in the city during 2018, 36% of them directly targeted the Jewish community. There were 50 such examples during the year.
On Wednesday, March 2, anti-Semitic graffiti that appears to be from the same perpetrator was discovered at three Toronto schools – Central Technical School, Rosedale Heights School of the Arts and Malvern Collegiate Institute.
The recent spate of anti-Semitism in Toronto has surged over the past few months. On February 8, a misguided group of students at Charles H. Best Middle School used construction paper to draw a swastika, apparently unable to grasp the gravity of the message that it conveys. Prior to this, students at the same school cornered a Jewish student and performed the Nazi salute. The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) no longer places an emphasis on teaching the significance of hate crimes on a mass scale as a part of its curriculum. These sordid and despicable acts are the result.
The TDSB is aware of a third anti-Semitic incident in February which involved a Jewish teacher. On February 17, a teacher at Valley Park Middle School in North York was surrounded by students who allegedly gave her the Nazi salute. She is a child of parents who survived the Holocaust.
In yet another act of anti-Semitism which occurred during the month of February, Pleasant Public School – located in the Bathurst and Steeles area, a pocket with a high concentration of Jewish residents – two students appeared to give a Nazi salute to a teacher. A letter was subsequently sent home with the school’s students that described this episode of hatred.
The school’s principal, Brian Fong, has said that the students in Grade 6 will take part in a session with an educator who speaks about anti-Semitism and the importance of heeding the lessons learned from the Holocaust.
“In terms of immediate action, we are in the process of arranging a program with Michelle Glied- Goldstein, a well-known and respected educator from “Carrying Holocaust Testimony” for all our Grade Six students.”
The ascending wave in anti-Semitic incidents at Toronto schools began in 2017. At Upper Canada College (UCC), two parallel investigations – internal, and involving the police – were launched from an incident that occurred on April 26, 2017. A student in Grade 7 observed that his locker was covered with anti-Semitic symbols. This is a systemic issue that must be addressed by adjusting the curriculum to ensure that children and teenagers fully comprehend the magnitude and implications anti-Semitism specifically, and of hate in general. B’nai Brith Canada, The Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies, and other prominent Jewish groups have made it abundantly clear that commonly used myths and tropes play a significant part in understanding why these acts take place.
It is not only public schools in Toronto that have seen an increase in anti-Semitism. For example, Eitz Chaim Hebrew Day School experienced at least three incidents in the spring of 2017. In addition to the usual array of vandalism with Nazi imagery adorning the property, astonishingly, a group of students threw stones at children who were doing nothing more than what we expect them to do at recess – enjoying themselves in the playground.
Ori Belmont is a freelance writer based in Toronto, Canada
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.
