Philip Jong

With the holiday season approaching, I wonder what the true meaning of Christmas is in a multicultural society such as Canada today. As a secular tradition, Christmas Day is originally a Christian celebration that marks the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. It is now celebrated worldwide, partly because of the widespread of Christianity and the influence of western culture in many countries. The tradition of winter festivals, such as the Natalis Solis Invicti celebrated by the Romans or the Yule celebrated by the Pagans, to which Christmas in part owes its origin as a festival holiday, has largely been forgotten by history. Instead, in modern times, Christmas is often celebrated in conjunction with or in place of other religious holidays. Hanukkah, a Jewish celebration that starts on the 25th day of Kislev in the Hebrew calendar, is observed by those who are seeking a Jewish alternative to Christmas, even though the Hannukkah festival can fall in as early as November and as late as January instead of December that is for Christmas.

Today, Christmas is recognized as both a secular and non-secular holiday. As a Chinese myself, I do not celebrate Christmas as a religious festival but an opportune holiday to spend time with my family. In a multicultural society, the new meaning of Christmas goes beyond that of the celebration of a single religion; it is an opportunity to celebrate family values and to be together with those who love us and those who we love back, regardless of religious beliefs.

This month the public witnessed the unfolding of two very differently held elections in the United States and Canada. In the United States, the midterm elections heralded the downfall of the Republicans and the ascension to power by the Democrats in both the House and Senate. In Canada, the municipal elections in Toronto (where I live) oversaw the domination of incumbent mayor David Miller over the two frontrunners Jane Pitfield and Stephen LeDrew. Notwithstanding any obvious dissimilarity in the landscapes of these two elections and in the policies by which they had been driven, an understated difference was the presence in the former and the absence in the latter of a major political controversy over which the respective voters had to contend. For the United States, the continuing war with Iraq had deeply divided the country during election and ultimately became an embarrassment for George Bush and his administration. By contrast, for Canada, the election was a low-key affair for which David Miller had coyly avoided any political scandal in the media that would have attracted unwanted criticism by the voters. In the end, the defeat of George Bush and the victory of David Miller stand as a great example in the study of elections in extreme. In politics, after all, no news is perhaps truly good news.

Last month many Muslims openly accused Pope Benedict XVI of insulting the religion of Islam during an academic address given at the University of Regensburg in Germany where he had seemingly characterized the teachings of the Prophet Mohammed as evil and inhuman. The controversial speech sparked much outrage and backlash among many followers of the Islamic faith, despite a prompt apology by the pontiff that the offending comment about the holy wars reflected neither his personal nor the Vatican’s view. At least one killing, that of Sister Leonella Sgorbati in Somalia, had been attributed possibly as retaliatory attack to the pope’s remark. While an informed (or even heated) exchange between two religions should never be discouraged (or snuffed), to this day I question exactly how many of these protestors were truly informed of the whole context in which the pontiff’s remark was made. Little was told of the fact that the inflammatory statement was actually not of his own words but a straight quote he made of the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Moreover, a complete reading of the text would reveal the fact that the pope was not at all arguing for a condemnation of the Muslim belief but, to the complete contrary, a rejection for the use of religion as a motivation for violence, Muslims or Christians. This observation proves that when a religion is so blindly followed among faith seekers without understanding the full context in which these beliefs should be asserted, then such practice is no different from that of simply acting out the roles in a fantasized tale, regardless what God or Prophet it may involve.

Early this month the world mourned the five-year anniversary of 9/11. To this date, my memory of this tragic event remains vivid. At the time, I was attending a conference in Washington DC and was only blocks away from the White House. Since that day, the world has learned of the ongoing threat of terrorism on the masses and the price we must pay to protect ourselves from fanatics whose moral and ideology differ from our own. More importantly, 9/11 reminds us that we do not live our lives in isolation from other people around the world and that plans to achieve peace must extend far beyond the arbitrary borders created by nations, ethnicities, and religions. Any attempt to achieve long-lasting peace and security by building rather than breaking the walls that divide the human race is doomed to fail. Even though one day the memory of 9/11 may finally fade in people’s minds, the lesson which the human race has learned from it must never be forgotten, since those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it again.

Last month, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking posted the question “In a world that is in chaos politically, socially and environmentally, how can the human race sustain another 100 years?” on Yahoo! Answers. The post generated unprecedented attention from both the media and public. Earlier this month he posted a follow-up message on Yahoo! Answers to his original question.

Notwithstanding the assertion that I am in no position to compare my opinion with that of an academic and intellectual of our times, I also question the ability of humankind to survive the next millennium, given our current path of self-destructive behaviors as a civilization. The conflicts we create within our species, such as warfare and famine, as well as those we create against our habitat, such as global warming and depletion of natural resources, will only grow larger as humankind continues to expand its dominance on this planet. We blind ourselves from the long-term consequences of our actions by the short-term rewards we reap from the supposedly technological and cultural progress we achieved over time. Before we can devote ourselves to expand the human race to the reach of outer space and other stars (as Hawking claimed), we must first learn to resolve the conflicts we have already created, for otherwise our fate is sealed regardless of where the human race lives on.

Currently there is a heated debate among internet stakeholders on the merits of network or net neutrality. Although the term was only coined in 2005 by Tim Wu, the fundamentals of net neutrality actually dated back to when internet protocol was first conceived to guide data exchange across a global network. At the most basic level, net neutrality guarantees the indiscriminate delivery of information packets across the internet, regardless of their sources or destinations. Proponents of net neutrality, including many academics and Tim Berners-Lee (the father of the World Wide Web), have advocated such unrestricted access as a basic right of freedom to information. Opponents of net neutrality, such as the telecommunication industries, have argued for their right to rely on market economics to prioritize access to information on the internet. The latter is based on existing practice by common carriers, such as in cable television, where consumers are charged to pay differently depending on the level of content delivery. However, such argument ignores the fundamental differences between the internet and traditional media channel on how information reaches its consumers. As an avid consumer, my right to access such information must never be determined by economics or politics. Any challenge to this right is simply censorship, regardless of the regulatory disguise under which this censorship may hide.

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.