Blog

  • One step forward, one step back

    One step forward, one step back

    UPDATE Feb 3: Following the lead of the opposition parties, the conservative industry minister, Tony Clement, has informed the CRTC that they must revise their decision.

    Just as Canada now gets to lead the world with a now competitive cellular provider marketplace, we are shortly going to fall rapidly behind in the Internet service provider gig. Thanks to a decision rendered by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission (CRTC), all third-party Internet service providers (ISPs) who were using Bell’s infrastructure will now have to follow a new cost structure.

    Previously, Bell charged the ISPs about four cents per gigabyte. This in turn meant that these providers could offer packages with unlimited bandwidth to their customers. In my case, I had a $30/month plan whereby I was allotted 200GB a month. These deals were much better than what Bell offered their own customers, even though we all used the same network.

    Thanks to this new decision, my ISP will have no choice but to substantially match the fees of Bell. As of March 1st, my 200GB/month is no more – it’ll now be 25GB/month for the same price. I used 140GB last month, mostly due to our use of Netflix. If I lived in Quebec, the cap would be over double, at 60GB. I’ve been told that this is because Bell is in competition in Quebec with Videotron.

    Someone's take on the situation. Author unknown.

    In Ontario, this decision just wiped out all the DSL competition. Providers that use the Cable infrastructure from Rogers also have this decision apply, so all the competition there has been eradicated as well. The end result is that we’ll have the Bell-Rogers oligopoly. As we know from our experience with the same oligopoly on the cellular service front, this isn’t good. The two don’t compete for the lowest price; they compete for the highest price. When one increases price and/or decreases service, the other company follows.

    More information:

  • Ottawa Catholic School Board: Homophobia with better PR

    Ottawa Catholic School Board: Homophobia with better PR

    This was originally an update to my previous post about homophobia in Halton, but  I got pissed off enough that I thought it warranted it’s own post. The Ottawa Catholic School Board is just as homophobic, but they learned from Halton’s public relations disaster. They learned how to spin their anti-LGBT actions as equity and justice.

    Officials for the Ottawa Catholic School Board (OCSB) were interviewed by the Ottawa Citizen last week. According to Tom D’Amico, a superintendent for the Ottawa Catholic School Board, Gay-Straight Alliance clubs are banned in his schools as well. The reasoning, to quote the Citizen:

    Here in Ottawa, D’Amico said the English Catholic school board doesn’t use the name “gay-straight alliance” because the Assembly of Ontario Bishops — to whom school boards look for spiritual guidance — prefer a name that reflects a more general focus on equity and social justice.

    They Assembly of Ontario Bishops, which the school turns to for spiritual guidance, has this to say about gay students:

    Teachers must consult the following: Section 2357 and 2358 (always together) of the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1997.

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 2357 reads:

    …tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

    This is a brilliant marketing spin. It’s an anti-gay policy, under the guise of… equity and justice? Simple rhetorical question: are Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) clubs allowed? No. Would the same club be under a different name? Not if we’re to believe D’Amico. The Board wants something with a different focus.

    It seems they would approve clubs with a broader scope if it meant that LGBT students and the issues they have are marginalized. Heaven forbid there’d be a club in the Ottawa Catholic schools that’s specifically there to provide a safe space for queer students and their allies to discuss. Tom D’Amico noted:

    “A student who is openly gay in our schools, we want all of our students and staff to accept (them) … We don’t want to see them marginalized in any manner.”

    That reminded me of a quote by Michael Pautler, of the gay-students-are-lesser-beings Halton Catholic District School Board:

    “All students that attend school should be able to feel free of harassment and are protected from any forms of persecution or anything that makes them feel marginalized.”

    Seems like we have a different definition of what it is to be marginalized. Would the Ottawa Catholic School Board outright ban chess clubs or clubs for anime fans, citing that their focus wasn’t “general” enough? I don’t think so.

    I digress. The OCSB has the same policy as Halton, but the former had a much better public relations campaign. It doesn’t change the fact that both school boards are led by those who marginalize and actively seek to undermine students on a basis of gender orientation and identity.

  • Homophobia in an Ontario Catholic School Board

    Homophobia in an Ontario Catholic School Board

    The Halton Catholic District School Board serves 29,000 elementary and secondary school students in the municipalities of Oakville, Burlington, Milton and Halton Mills. It has enacted a policy to ban Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) clubs from forming in their schools.

    For those who aren’t familiar with GSAs, they’re support groups for queer students and their allies. A safe haven where students can talk openly, free of the pressures and ridicule they might encounter at home, in their community, or at school.

    Mrs. Alice Anne LeMay, chair of the Halton Catholic District School Board defends the ban on such clubs. From the article in Xtra:

    “We don’t have Nazi groups either,” rationalizes board chair Alice Anne LeMay. “Gay-straight alliances are banned because they are not within the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

    “If a gay student requests a gay-straight alliance they would be denied,” she says flatly.

    Mrs. Alice Anne LeMay

    In other words, the Catholic church demonizes gays, and therefore so will her school board. To equate this kind of support group to something akin to Nazi-ism is sadly indicative of her overall views of that segment of the students under her care.

    Michael Pautler, the education director of the school board noted:

    “All students that attend school should be able to feel free of harassment and are protected from any forms of persecution or anything that makes them feel marginalized.”

    Indeed they should Mr. Pautler. Yet it must be hard for a queer student not to feel marginalized, when their own school enacts policies to marginalize them. It must be hard to feel free of persecution and harassment, when their own school is headed by someone who believes that their very existence is flawed, and denies them the opportunity to create the one space where they would be free of harassment and persecution.

    When you deny support groups to those who need them, what do you think happens? When those who need support don’t get it, what do you think happens? I’ll give you a hint: the suicide rate for gay teens is four times that of their straight counterparts. We’re talking lives here.

    This is prejudice, pure and simple. And no tax dollars of mine should be supporting this kind of idiocy.

    Shame on you Alice Anne LeMay.

    Update January 17th: The Ottawa Catholic School Board also doesn’t allow Gay-Straight Alliance clubs. They learned from Halton’s public relations mistakes though. Instead of equating gays with Nazis, they said they don’t allow the clubs in name only “because the Assembly of Ontario Bishops — to whom school boards look for spiritual guidance — prefer a name that reflects a more general focus on equity and social justice.” That’s a really nice marketing spin.

    Simple rhetorical question: are the groups to explicitly support LGBT students allowed? No. Why not? Because the Church doesn’t want them. They want to marginalize it’s purpose by incorporating issues, under the guise of equity and justice. Cognitive dissonance much?

  • Paul, Part III

    Paul, Part III

    Following the events of Part I and Part II of my encounters with Paul’s telephone stalking, he’s now back at it. For the last few days, I’ve kept getting calls from “Private Caller.” I’d answer, and the person on the other end would immediately hang up.

    Since WIND does not hide numbers when you look up your phone records online, I was able to get the phone number of the person calling me. It’s a cell phone number with Telus mobility.

    I called back using Skype. “Hey it’s Paul, I’m unavailable, leave a message.” Paul now has a cell phone. So, after having called me incessantly from work, from home, and then doing the latter by blocking his caller ID, he’s on to his newly acquired cell phone.

    The Logs: (Thus Far)

    21 Dec 09:59 AM 613315XXXX Incoming 00:04 Seconds
    21 Dec 07:55 AM 613315XXXX Incoming 00:02 Seconds
    20 Dec 03:15 PM 613315XXXX Incoming 00:03 Seconds
    20 Dec 08:33 AM 613315XXXX Incoming 00:00 Seconds
    20 Dec 07:46 AM 613315XXXX Incoming 00:03 Seconds
    18 Dec 04:08 PM 613315XXXX Incoming 00:03 Seconds
  • To my uncle Gord

    To my uncle Gord

    My uncle Gord passed away yesterday, after a long battle with cancer. Miss you. Here he is with my two fantastic cousins.