Philip Jong

Last month the unionized workers from the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) staged an illegal strike, essentially shutting down the entire public transportation system in the city of Toronto, Canada. The strike shook up city traffic as many commuters were not forewarned about the TTC shutdown. The union defended its action by calling it an unethical lockout, while the management called it a wildcat strike. The Ontario Labor Relations Board immediately ruled against the union and served a cease and desist order to the workers to stop the illegal work stoppage. Toronto mayor David Miller also spoke against the union and stated that the workers’ action was in violation of our labor law. While the union clearly had many legitimate worker concerns such as occupational safety, the decision to stage an illegal strike without due process was a poor choice taken by the union—politically or otherwise. As public servants, TTC workers had a legal responsibility to the city to perform their job and to follow due process to resolve any outstanding dispute. Even though the strike ended soon within the same day when the union finally conceded, this ill-conceived action by the union had come at a great political cost—the cost of the much needed support from the public, who undoubtedly now holds a dimmer view of the union and its agenda.

Earlier this month the city of Toronto saw the opening of the Medicor Cancer Centre, a for-profit private clinic that provides cancer patients with medical services in return for a charged fee. Proponents claim that the clinic acts primarily as an advocate for cancer patients and its services rendered do not infringe the laws of the Canada Health Act. Opponents argue that the establishment of such a clinic merely creates a two-tier health care system that violates the spirit of universal healthcare in Canada. The center includes a team of medical physicians, naturopathic doctors, counselors, dieticians, physiotherapists, massage therapists, and other ancillary healthcare providers. To the clinic’s credit, while many (if not all) of these services are readily available to cancer patients free of charge via other means (such as through the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation), the convenience of one-stop “shopping” and the perceived continuity of care (including 24-hour access to a physician from the center) offered by the clinic may be appealing to cancer patients who can afford such care and who do not want to be burdened by the need to arrange similar services for themselves while battling their disease. However, the autonomy of an individual to choose private over public care must be carefully balanced by the potential abuse of these alternative care pathways that may undermine the equality and rights of all Canadians to receive appropriate and timely health care. It should also be noted that the clinic does not offer essential cancer services such as chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery. As such, the public must be made aware that the care provided by this clinic is not meant as sole substitute for traditional medical care delivered to cancer patients by public healthcare. Regardless of the ethical dilemma that is raised, this is a clear demonstration that health and wealth are inescapably intertwined.

As with sitcoms, reality television has grown over the past decade to define its own genre. The origin of reality television owes not to shows such as Survivor or The Real World but to programs such as Candid Camera and others from the 1950s and earlier. While the definition of reality television is still in flux, most depict situations of so-called unscripted events that feature ordinary people in real life situations. It is attractive television programming for the networks that produce it, for the participants who take part in it, and for the audience who watch it. For the networks, these shows are often cheaper to produce as they command no television stars who demand big salaries. For the participants (some of whom are making a living appearing on these shows), these shows offer the thrills, the materialistic rewards, and their fifteen minutes of fame. For the audience, the motivations behind watching these shows are likely multiple. For some, it is the rush from watching competition between contestants unfolding in real time. For others, it is the buzz from cheering on the winners or the underdogs. Unfortunately, many viewers also watch these shows for the guilty pleasure of seeing participants failed, humiliated, or dejected by their peers. Misery loves company! The latter motivation is a sad reflection of the selfish human nature brought out by these television shows. We must not forget that there is really no reality in reality television. It is as artificially created and prescripted as other television genres. The only difference is that both the participants and the audience choose to be blinded from it, in exchange for a momentary escape from their real daily lives.

Earlier this month the city of Toronto in Canada announced a plan to implement citywide wireless hotspot access to the internet. The plan would use radio access transmitting points mounted on street lamps to provide of a blanket of WiFi (Wireless Fidelity) coverage throughout the city to the public. The service would be run by a municipal-industry partnership between the city and Toronto Hydro. Such an initiative is similar to those already introduced in several other cities in North America, including San Francisco and Philadelphia. If successful, this framework will bring Toronto one step closer to the true vision of the Global Village put forth by Marshall McLuhan in 1961. Yet, while the ideal of a Global Village has been thoroughly debated to date, the practice to which this vision should be carried out has not been properly eluded. This is because any mass exposure of new technology is prone to be abused by a few individuals attempting to take advantage of the innocent public who is less familiar with such technology. For an electronic medium such as the internet, policing against such frauds and abuses on a global scale may not likely be possible. Without due diligence to implement measures ahead that will protect the public, I am afraid that this Global Village can easily be poisoned and all of us who live in it will pay an unwanted price for a technology that we still do not fully understand.

As envisioned by many Canadians, the Conservative Party of Canada had won the national election held last month and defeated the incumbent Liberal Party of Canada. The margin of victory, however, was a small one. The party felt far short of the number of seats needed to form a majority government. With even smaller number of seats held, the newly formed Conservative minority government is leaner and structurally weaker than the Liberal minority government which it has replaced. This translates to an uphill battle for the Conservatives in power when attempting to pass any legislation, since much wheeling and dealing will be needed to curry favor from at least one of the opposition parties in order to gain enough support in the House of Commons. Many of the platform agendas raised by the Conservatives are likely not to be realized in full without compromises to satisfy the oppositions. In other words, our government will remain as a fracture democracy whose own certainty in yet another national election ahead soon.