Scientologists
not detestable

[Re: “Scientology slagged,” News, April 10] Chris Barry’s piece is pure Scientology bashing. It shows not a journalistic viewpoint but the views of someone buying Anonymous hate propaganda. 

Replace the word Scientology by Catholic, Islamic or Jewish and the picture is clear. Anonymous is made of bigoted and intolerant individuals that include cyber-terrorists who are hiding their identities behind masks and Internet anonymity in order to avoid responsibility for their actions. 

Within less than two months of Anonymous’s campaign of hatred, churches of Scientology received 8,139 harassing or threatening phone calls, 3,674,937 malicious e-mails, 141,880,937 Web site attacks, 10 acts of vandalism, 22 bomb threats and eight death threats, and the list continues.

This is a campaign to incite hatred and violence. It is gross and it is not acceptable in Canada. For information on Scientology, check out: www.scientology.org

>> Jean Larivière, Director of Public Affairs,
Church of Scientology of Montreal

Olympic island

[Re: “Angel: Protesting the Olympics,” News, April 10] It’s very commendable to raise the political consciousness so as to make the world safe for democracy, but how about making the world safe for sport? Are we to guarantee human rights for everyone except athletes?

Anyone who believes the Olympics constitute a theatre of excellence for international talent will not tolerate interference by mundane ideologies. Considering how many incompatible viewpoints thrive simultaneously around the world, protests or disturbances can occur at this kind of event regardless of where it’s held.

So how can we protect the Olympics from being compromised? If the games belong to no nation and to all peoples, why don’t the authorities buy an unoccupied island, place it under neutral jurisdiction of the United Nations and with financial support from every participating country, conduct all proceedings there? This might sound drastic, but to insist on voicing our non-athletic grievances on the playing fields—and desecrating so many aspirations—is just as drastic.

>> L.S. Cattarini

Minority report

[Re: Best of Montreal ballot, April 10] Many of us don’t find the Best of Montreal contest relevant unless we are interested in commending our favourite hairdresser (yes, Dave) or voting Mikel Marton sexiest man AND woman in Montreal (my favourite tradition).

This year I’ve noticed a category that needs to be fucked with: Best Minority. I think it’s worth the time it takes to campaign against this designation; if a bunch of people spread the word, we could all enter “What the fuck is this category doing here?” and make the Mirror think twice about including it.

Remember that the poll requires that you answer 25 categories in order to have your ballot counted.

Why is Best Minority a problematic label for anyone?

The idea of a community of people voting to designate one “minority,” be it racialized, religious, or based on gender or sexual identity as being “the best” is both insulting to the named group and to “minorities” in general.

Historically, the idea of Asian Americans as a “model minority” has been perpetuated in North American discourse about immigration and race, with a bevy of consequences. 

The myth of the model minority has numerous harmful effects:

• It pressures members of the “named” group to live up to a simplified, colonized and stereotyped standard of success.

• It implies that other “others” could achieve success/avoid violence inflicted upon them etc., if only they behaved like the named “model minority.”

• It licenses members of majority groups to think of themselves as legitimate judges of who minority groups are and what they/we do with significant effects upon cultural discourses, such as those on immigration.

• It naturalizes the idea that minority groups are homogenous entities of people who more or less all embody the same qualities.

• It encourages minority groups to compete with one another for the approval of racist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic oppressive cultures. 

• It perpetuates the idea that “positive stereotypes,” that is, simplified and dehumanizing if laudatory ideas about members of minority groups, are a good thing.

>> Amélie Lessard

Ed. replies: The Best Minority category has been running since 2000. The first year, the winner was “People Offended by the Question,” with Jews coming in second. In 2001, Jews won, followed by anglos, gays, Italians and Jamaicans. In 2002, anglos won; in 2003, the Italians claimed their first victory. In 2004, the category, and others, were dropped, but they were brought back in 2005, due to popular demand, at which point the Italians were again victorious. In 2006 and 2007, anglos won. At any rate, the category is not meant to be a comment on the behaviour or worth of our city’s many minorities, but rather a fun way for people to cheer on their community, or the community of others. But feel free to vote that you are “Offended by the Question.

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!