An excerpt from the above linked-to article by Donovan Vincent follows:
Among the changes was a Jan. 26, 2014 entry about Fenbrook Institution, a medium-security prison in Gravenhurst, Ont., that Correctional Service Canada manages.
The current Wikipedia entry about the facility is benign, with straightforward descriptions such as the number of inmates, when it was built, and the fact that it has merged with Beaver Creek Institution.
But in the January 2014 Wikipedia edit — which is traceable to an Internet protocol address registered to Corrections — Fenbrook was described as having the “largest concentration of homosexual inmates in the entire Ontario Region.”
Another Wikipedia edit from 2011 described Peter North, a Canadian-born adult film actor, producer and director as a “big queer.”
The edits have been corrected but are still accessible online since Wikipedia keeps track of changes.
The story about the edits was first reported in the Ottawa Citizen and based on a Twitter account that flags anonymous Wikipedia edits from government computers.
My online response to the above linked-to article, including what I was unable to post (at least all at once) because the Star, which uses discussion software by Viafoura, disallows substantial posts, follows:
Whatever the bosses and politicians and journos say about this, the fact is that the corporatocracy state and the mafia capitalism that it embraces depends on gatekeepers like the yahoos within Correctional Service going on about queers. I’m sure that those yahoos are just as hostile toward commies and socialists and those who don’t, like them, trust what our law & order leaders tell us and go along with all that the authorities do and say. Gatekeepers, appointed and self-appointed, are meant to keep the people off balance any way they can (which includes all kinds of rule-breaking). They have enormous freedom to do that precisely because they have the ‘right’ political views. What are the right political views? I’ve already told you. You simply have to go along with what power – who can protect you – does and says, no matter what it is, just as in the conventional mafia.
In security, When you go for training, they tell you to be professional and that one of the things that can get you into trouble is swearing, which is something that can, potentially, create hostile witnesses. While instructors are telling you this, they are swearing. The lesson? There’s what is said and there is what is done and you must figure that out. ‘Professional’ may indeed mean trained and/or experienced. It also apparently means being smart enough to navigate the hypocritical rapids so as to stay employed, something that imparts confidence, which then becomes a mark of the professional. But it also means going through the motions and bending the definition of honest. (You’re supposed to care about the wider society, but you’re also supposed to meld with your company and help sell it to others, even though it might be the worst, tax evading, environmentally destructive, pro war business out there. But that’s okay. ‘If’ you are in the business, then you ‘have to’ acquire a certain flexible view of ethics. That too feeds into the definition of professional in security, although you won’t find it stated clearly.)