Quebec libertarianism
up in smoke

Regarding your anti-smoking law coverage of late [“End of a smoky era,” April 13.]:

“Nature moves too slowly; I think we need to follow the example of our neighbours in Ontario,” he said to me. It was late January, and I was speaking with Quebec Health Minister Philippe Couillard about his new anti-tobacco law. I had just asked Mr. Couillard, “Aren’t half the cafés in Quebec already 100 per cent non-smoking? Why do we need a law like the one you’re proposing when things are changing naturally?”

Other statements Couillard has made since I first met him that day in January convince me that he does indeed look to Ontario for his direction. In late May of last year, he even reproduced a completely absurd statement that Ontario’s anti-smoking activists repeat often: “It would take a tornado to adequately ventilate a bar or restaurant where there is tobacco smoke.” Really? How is it that we can adequately ventilate mine shafts more than a kilometre below the earth, or underground parking garages? Disturbingly, neither the English nor the French language media seems to have questioned the Minister regarding such an absurd statement.

Do we really want Quebec to become more like Ontario? Although Ontarians are quite nice, the government’s role in their lives isn’t. In fact, the Ontario provincial government seems to view Ontarians as sheep that can’t be trusted to think or make choices for themselves. I can’t think of any other way to explain the numerous laws aimed at controlling people’s behaviour over there.

For example, I have to break two laws just to engage in one of my favourite pastimes in Ontario: cycling to a park with my picnic lunch, a bottle of wine and a friend. This is illegal, since I don’t cycle with a bike helmet, and having some wine with your picnic is also forbidden there. Even at outdoor concerts, Ontarians are not allowed to have a beer unless they go to a special segregated “beer garden” far from the stage. No wonder they like to come to Quebec for New Year’s Eve and other holidays—their own government has made it impossible for them to relax and enjoy themselves!

And now Mr. Couillard wants to copy Ontario’s anti-smoking crusade. Whatever we think about smoking, freedom-loving Quebecers should oppose the Ontario approach to this issue. Once we accept that government should coerce us to protect us from ourselves, there’s no end to it. More restrictions on alcohol, a tax on “junk” food, mandatory helmets for everyone, orders on how to raise our children—all pursued with our own tax money and, obviously, against our will (otherwise, why the need for a “ban” or a law?).

Of course, Mr. Couillard and his health-militant allies would have us believe this is a public-health issue—never mind the easy ventilation solution. Apparently we should also never mind that they’ve spun the insignificant results of studies on second-hand smoke in order to make us believe it’s a real threat (give me a study with a risk-ratio of 3.0 or above and we’ll talk, Mr. Couillard), or that they claim to know the economic impact this ban will have on businesses better than the business owners themselves.

Before we even know it, Quebec will have become a sterilized, conformist, francophone version of Ottawa and Toronto. Thanks, Mr. Couillard!

» Dr. David Romano Co-Founder, Citizens Against Government Encroachment, www.cagecanada.ca

Let the butcher be

In response to the sanctimonious, evangelical vegetarians who wrote long-winded diatribes against the Best of Montreal butcher cover [“Bashing the butcher,” Letters, May 11]: More people would be vegetarian if more vegetarians had a sense of humour and stopped quoting the same old statistics all the time. Lighten up and leave your tired rhetoric at home!

» Sean Mallard

Policy puzzlement

I’m writing about the article written by Samer Elatrash, “Naming rights,” about “a Quebec government policy demanding that immigrant and refugee services groups hand over names of their clients” [May 11].

I found it to be very one-dimensional and void of any information proper to the policy. All it explained was the view that the policy would complicate the situation refugees face when using community services, without offering any other counterpoint, aside from the government’s wish to provide “better services” to this demographic. Hardly a compelling point. It would be nice to have a follow-up or at least go into some analysis of what this obscure policy would achieve.

» Dan Martin

BOM winners!

Congratulations to Margit Tauchner, Simon Mallette and Amelia Robinson, winners of the top three prizes in the Best of Montreal contest. Other winners are Dan Daoust, Alina Vasilescu, Pat MacKenzie, Carl Cordova, Barbara Asselin, Claudia Almeida, David Waisglass, Jonathan Taillefer, Jen Babcock, Thierry Lavergne, Chantal Jodoin and Pierre Pouliot. We will contact you shortly about your prizes.

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!

Send your comments, compliments or criticisms to:

Letters to the Editor,
c/o Montreal Mirror,
465 McGill, 3rd Floor
Montreal, Quebec
H2Y 4B4

You may also fax us at (514) 393-3173, or reach us by e-mail:

Letters to the Editor

All letters should include your name, address and daytime phone number.

If you wish to reach someone in particular, here's a list of people involved with the production of the newspaper and this site.