Cherokee dancers
not dissed

Regarding the end of the Fête Nationale parade and the Cherokee dancers [Photo of the week, June 29]: I was at the event and did not hear any booing. A group did chant “En français!” when they were addressed in English, without a translator. However, the Cherokee dancers were warmly applauded when they announced that they spoke Cherokee.

The event continued with the help of a translator, who should have been there from the very beginning to contextualize the event and make some links between common struggles to promote a diversity of identities in North America and create alternatives to linguistic hegemony and homogenization.

» Pierre Minn

All that non-jazz

Wow, at least there’s someone in this city who noticed the very same thing. I was ranting with a friend two days ago about the same matter: where’s the jazz? Surely, as Raf Katigbak pointed out [Riff-Raff, “Jazz is a four-letter word,” July 6], it would be too dry to stick only to jazz. Then again, you shouldn’t call it the Jazz Fest—duh!

I was there, walking in the crowd with a friend of mine. The souvenirs were all around us, the prices silly, the place crowded. I was amused by a little girl on one of the main stages—she was incredible. And then she sings a song by Natasha Bedingfield and I was like, “What? This has something to do with jazz?” So I kept walking, and on a little stage—less crowded, almost ignored—there was a band of four guys playing jazz. I felt cheated. Like going with your girlfriend on a date and she calls her friends every five minutes to see what’s going on.

I think they could do a little better next year. Just to be sure, I’ll read the program before going into that crowd.

» Antonio Francisco Magaña Gomez

Don’t smoke ’em if you got ’em

Ventilated smoking areas are not a solution to the problem of second-hand smoke. This is just wishful thinking. No level of exposure to drifting smoke is risk-free, and designated smoking areas with ventilation systems don’t eliminate exposure. That point was highlighted in a report by the U.S. surgeon general a few weeks ago.

I fail to understand how the “concerns” of the smoking activists warrant serious consideration in this publication or any other. The only substantive point they’ve made is that the studies of second-hand smoke fail to meet some arbitrary risk ratio that they seem to have pulled out of their ass. While this may be true, it proves absolutely nothing.

As far as I’m concerned, if you want to smoke anywhere near me, the onus is on you to prove that it’s safe.

» Matthew Skala

Since when does the Mirror make a habit of running boldfaced lies in its Letters section? Here is the responsible thing you should be telling people: If anyone still has any serious doubts about the health hazards of cigarette smoke indoors, just ask your doctor the next time you see him or her. And I’m talking about an actual practising medical doctor, not some dude with a PhD and an agenda.

» Matt

Scott Jones accuses me of “scare tactics” because of my warnings about the slippery slope of smoking bans and other “for your own good whether you like it or not legislation. [“Smoke-free satisfaction, June 5]. I would suggest that he is guilty of the scare tactics, along with a good number of anti-smoking activists, when they would have us believe that second-hand smoke is such a significant threat.

Neither Mr. Jones, nor anyone else to my knowledge, can point to a study on second-hand smoke that shows a risk ratio anywhere near the accepted danger threshold of 3.0. To provide some perspective, the U.S. EPA began this whole second-hand smoke scare with a 1992 study that estimated a risk ratio of 1.19 for lifetime spouses of smokers (a ratio of 1.0 means no risk, and below that means exposure actually improves your health). In the same study, they rated chlorinated tap water as a risk of 1.5—meaning it was safe enough to continue putting in your drinking water. But because 1.19 is not a zero risk, health militants can go around scaring people about the absolutely minuscule dangers of second-hand smoke.

Unfortunately, protecting people is not what Bill 112 is for—it’s actually about harassing us for unhealthy lifestyle choices and making politicians look like they’re actually doing something for public health, while they ignore the smog surrounding entire cities. So don’t expect to see strict fuel-efficiency standards for our vehicles any time soon (car exhaust fumes harm others, don’t they?), but do expect new public scare campaigns and coercive legislation on junk food, alcohol, the need for mandatory safety helmets and even deodorant and perfume use.

Although the MDs continually remind us what’s bad for us, political scientists like myself must insist that our whole liberal society is based on John Stuart Mill’s maxim: “Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” I should also add that political scientists generally have more training in statistics than Medical Doctors.

» David Romano, Ph.D. (Political Science),
co-founder, www.cagecanada.ca

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.