General Urban Cambridge Updates and Rumours

[Bjays93]

I wasnt going to say anything more but I feel theres a couple points that have to be made. 

First off, people having the ability to choose how they are governed is inherently democratic. Not all democracies have to be parliamentarian democracies. If the people have the ability to choose how they're governed, and change their minds and change how they are governed down the line, then it is the will of the people that backs those who are governing and it is inherently democratic. 

Secondly, civil disobedience and disruption are fine in some contexts however I have to agree that we cant allow a minority to grind the country to a halt and trample on the will of the majority. If the majority of people are ignored by the government then creating significant disruptions is justified until the government listens but the government has a mandate to carry out the will of the people and the majority of the people (they dont always do this) but it means they shouldnt crater to the demands of 1 or 2%

Thirdly, the whole thing about the power structures from the past being racist and continuing to rely on them is in turn not neutral. What do you suggest we do then? Force the old indigenous system back on first nations? Let's see how well that goes, we'd just be continuing to dictate indigenous affairs then. 

Even if the current power structures were not founded from a place of neutral intent, as discussed the first nations now have the autonomy to change them, so any attempts to remove our colonial legacy must come from within. If they have the autonomy to change their systems and dont the ownice cannot be on us, and any attempts by the federal government to meddle in indigenous affairs now that they have autonomy is a continuation of our colonial legacy not vice versa. 

Finally, the issue of the drinking water is not a clear cut one. It's a two way street. Lack of government funding for clean water projects is an issue, but there are many examples where the government invested in water treatment facilities that became run down and neglected after only a year or in some cases find were never even properly allocated. The only real solution I see is for the government to stop insisting it handle all utilities and give reserves sovereignty over their utilities like everything else, then it is up to the reserves not the feds to ensure things like safe drinking water and the feds cannot neglect reserves or be held liable.

[tomh009]

...we have continued to break treaties and have failed to invest in infrastructure like water, right up to today.

I don't know what treaties have been broken recently (nor where to find such data) but I do believe investments continue to be made in drinking water, even if about 50 advisories remain.

   

I picked one of the remaining red ones (Marten Falls First Nation in northern Ontario, population 252, road access only in winter) at random, and found that much of the work (for that one) has been done but it's not operational yet. 

• Water Capacity Proposal
  200,000.00 $
  Completed
  
• Conferences (2017-2018) - Training Conference that Delivers Continuing Education Units for Water and Wastewater Operators
  245,000.00 $
  Completed
  
• Pressure Vessel Replacement
  36,840.00 $
  Completed
  
• Circuit Rider Training Program
  N/A
  Ongoing
  
• Operator Certification, Skills, Education and Training
  N/A
  Ongoing
  
• Water Treatment Plant
  N/A
  Ongoing
  
• Water and Wastewater Operations HUB Pilot
  N/A
  Ongoing
  

[plam]

Secondly, civil disobedience and disruption are fine in some contexts however I have to agree that we cant allow a minority to grind the country to a halt and trample on the will of the majority. If the majority of people are ignored by the government then creating significant disruptions is justified until the government listens but the government has a mandate to carry out the will of the people and the majority of the people (they dont always do this) but it means they shouldnt crater to the demands of 1 or 2%

The question of what makes an effective movement is an interesting one. There is probably a majority in support of more roads and a minority in support of more cycle infrastructure. But protests need to be somewhat disruptive to get on the radar in the first place.

[ac3r]

A minority should never get to govern a majority, but even that is tricky because a majority can feel compelled to support a minority political philosophy (as in the case of authoritarian nations, especially when they border on the extreme like North Korea or Nazi Germany).

I would have to automatically assume that anyone arguing in favour of minority representation/rule is neither BIPOC and/or has ever lived economically disadvantaged...

[danbrotherston]

I wasnt going to say anything more but I feel theres a couple points that have to be made. 

First off, people having the ability to choose how they are governed is inherently democratic. Not all democracies have to be parliamentarian democracies. If the people have the ability to choose how they're governed, and change their minds and change how they are governed down the line, then it is the will of the people that backs those who are governing and it is inherently democratic. 

Secondly, civil disobedience and disruption are fine in some contexts however I have to agree that we cant allow a minority to grind the country to a halt and trample on the will of the majority. If the majority of people are ignored by the government then creating significant disruptions is justified until the government listens but the government has a mandate to carry out the will of the people and the majority of the people (they dont always do this) but it means they shouldnt crater to the demands of 1 or 2%

Thirdly, the whole thing about the power structures from the past being racist and continuing to rely on them is in turn not neutral. What do you suggest we do then? Force the old indigenous system back on first nations? Let's see how well that goes, we'd just be continuing to dictate indigenous affairs then. 

Even if the current power structures were not founded from a place of neutral intent, as discussed the first nations now have the autonomy to change them, so any attempts to remove our colonial legacy must come from within. If they have the autonomy to change their systems and dont the ownice cannot be on us, and any attempts by the federal government to meddle in indigenous affairs now that they have autonomy is a continuation of our colonial legacy not vice versa. 

Finally, the issue of the drinking water is not a clear cut one. It's a two way street. Lack of government funding for clean water projects is an issue, but there are many examples where the government invested in water treatment facilities that became run down and neglected after only a year or in some cases find were never even properly allocated. The only real solution I see is for the government to stop insisting it handle all utilities and give reserves sovereignty over their utilities like everything else, then it is up to the reserves not the feds to ensure things like safe drinking water and the feds cannot neglect reserves or be held liable.

I'm sorry, this whole thing is....painful.

What I suggest is that we all read the TRC report and implement that, it seems like a good start.

Off the top of my head, we should probably refrain from suggesting that this particular minority is "trampling" "our" will, given how consistently we have trampled their entire culture.

But I think you are missing the point on that topic. The will of the majority absolutely SHOULD have a back seat to the rights of that minority. It is not in how many people want something, there are basic human rights which should not be violated, which we have absolutely violated for years. The tyranny of the majority is a real and ever present threat. Hell, we see this daily, the "majority" drivers don't want to compromise their travel times so that cyclists and pedestrians can get around safely, although the situations are merely analogous, not even remotely similar in scope and scale of harm.

[Bjays93]

I wasnt going to say anything more but I feel theres a couple points that have to be made. 

First off, people having the ability to choose how they are governed is inherently democratic. Not all democracies have to be parliamentarian democracies. If the people have the ability to choose how they're governed, and change their minds and change how they are governed down the line, then it is the will of the people that backs those who are governing and it is inherently democratic. 

Secondly, civil disobedience and disruption are fine in some contexts however I have to agree that we cant allow a minority to grind the country to a halt and trample on the will of the majority. If the majority of people are ignored by the government then creating significant disruptions is justified until the government listens but the government has a mandate to carry out the will of the people and the majority of the people (they dont always do this) but it means they shouldnt crater to the demands of 1 or 2%

Thirdly, the whole thing about the power structures from the past being racist and continuing to rely on them is in turn not neutral. What do you suggest we do then? Force the old indigenous system back on first nations? Let's see how well that goes, we'd just be continuing to dictate indigenous affairs then. 

Even if the current power structures were not founded from a place of neutral intent, as discussed the first nations now have the autonomy to change them, so any attempts to remove our colonial legacy must come from within. If they have the autonomy to change their systems and dont the ownice cannot be on us, and any attempts by the federal government to meddle in indigenous affairs now that they have autonomy is a continuation of our colonial legacy not vice versa. 

Finally, the issue of the drinking water is not a clear cut one. It's a two way street. Lack of government funding for clean water projects is an issue, but there are many examples where the government invested in water treatment facilities that became run down and neglected after only a year or in some cases find were never even properly allocated. The only real solution I see is for the government to stop insisting it handle all utilities and give reserves sovereignty over their utilities like everything else, then it is up to the reserves not the feds to ensure things like safe drinking water and the feds cannot neglect reserves or be held liable.

I'm sorry, this whole thing is....painful.

What I suggest is that we all read the TRC report and implement that, it seems like a good start.

Off the top of my head, we should probably refrain from suggesting that this particular minority is "trampling" "our" will, given how consistently we have trampled their entire culture.

But I think you are missing the point on that topic. The will of the majority absolutely SHOULD have a back seat to the rights of that minority. It is not in how many people want something, there are basic human rights which should not be violated, which we have absolutely violated for years. The tyranny of the majority is a real and ever present threat. Hell, we see this daily, the "majority" drivers don't want to compromise their travel times so that cyclists and pedestrians can get around safely, although the situations are merely analogous, not even remotely similar in scope and scale of harm.

Maybe you should stop and listen to what ac3r, an actual indigenous person, had to say, instead of speaking from your position of white privilege on how minorities should be treated. 

Minority rights are important absolutely, it's why they are literally written into our bill of rights and freedoms which is entrenched in our constitution. My comments on minority vs majority protest had nothing to do with race and ethnicity you inferred that. I was just saying as a general principle when it extends beyond peaceful protest to civil disobedience I think the time thats most acceptable is when a large portion, not 1 or 2% of people, support whatever is being protested about. 

Also an oil pipeline that was approved by the elected leaders of indigenous reserves has nothing to do with basic human rights, since that's the specific example we have been discussing. 

Despite being white, I've actually had the experience of being a minority and have had people be extremely racist towards me growing up in Asia. I am still incredibly privileged and recognize that, and I am in no way saying I have had the experience of minorities that have been oppressed for hundreds and thousands of years, but I do have just a sliver of an idea as to what it's like. 

If these were easy problems to discuss and fix then they wouldnt still be problems. Yes we cant allow the majority to trample on the minority, but as ac3r said, having a minority rule can be equally as problematic. Until your willing to acknowledge this there's no point in even having a discussion.

Edit: also define what on earth constitutes to a minority cuz I guess if 3% of canadians support an authoritarian government the 97% who support democracy should have their wills take a back seat. Yay authoritarianism (yes that's an extreme but it's the natural end result of your logical line of thinking)

[danbrotherston]

I'm sorry, this whole thing is....painful.

What I suggest is that we all read the TRC report and implement that, it seems like a good start.

Off the top of my head, we should probably refrain from suggesting that this particular minority is "trampling" "our" will, given how consistently we have trampled their entire culture.

But I think you are missing the point on that topic. The will of the majority absolutely SHOULD have a back seat to the rights of that minority. It is not in how many people want something, there are basic human rights which should not be violated, which we have absolutely violated for years. The tyranny of the majority is a real and ever present threat. Hell, we see this daily, the "majority" drivers don't want to compromise their travel times so that cyclists and pedestrians can get around safely, although the situations are merely analogous, not even remotely similar in scope and scale of harm.

Maybe you should stop and listen to what ac3r, an actual indigenous person, h ad to say, instead of speaking from your position of white privilege on how minorities should be treated. 

Minority rights are important absolutely, it's why they are literally written into our bill of rights and freedoms which is entrenched in our constitution. My comments on minority vs majority protest had nothing to do with race and ethnicity you inferred that. I was just saying as a general principle when it extends beyond peaceful protest to civil disobedience I think the time thats most acceptable is when a large portion, not 1 or 2% of people, support whatever is being protested about. 

Also an oil pipeline that was approved by the elected leaders of indigenous reserves has nothing to do with basic human rights, since that's the specific example we have been discussing. 

Despite being white, I've actually had the experience of being a minority and have had people be extremely racist towards me growing up in Asia. I am still incredibly privileged and recognize that, and I am in no way saying I have had the experience of minorities that have been oppressed for hundreds and thousands of years, but I do have just a sliver of an idea as to what it's like. 

If these were easy problems to discuss and fix then they wouldnt still be problems. Yes we cant allow the majority to trample on the minority, but as ac3r said, having a minority rule can be equally as problematic. Until your willing to acknowledge this there's no point in even having a discussion.

Edit: also define what on earth constitutes to a minority cuz I guess if 3% of canadians support an authoritarian government the 97% who support democracy should have their wills take a back seat. Yay authoritarianism (yes that's an extreme but it's the natural end result of your logical line of thinking)

Your edit is ridiculous...you absolutely know that's not what I said, it is not the result of my logical line of thinking, and I don't appreicate you saying it is.

If 3% of the population want to vote for an authoritarian party, they have that right, and they do in fact exercise that right, as much as I disagree with it.

Choosing your government is a right, choosing the government for someone else is a will.

[tomh009]

Choosing your government is a right, choosing the government for someone else is a will.

Are you referring to the First Nations band councils and elected chiefs? If yes, each First Nation does have the ability to choose a traditional chief rather than electing one. Quoting Wikipedia:

The functioning of a band is controlled by the Indian Act, the legislation that defines the position of status Indians. The band government is controlled by a chief councillor and council. The number of councillors is determined by the number of band members, with a minimum of two in addition to the chief councillor. The Indian Act specifies procedures for the election of the chief councillor and council. Some bands make use of a policy provision (called 'custom election', which allows them to exempt themselves from these requirements in order to follow traditional procedures for the choice of leaders.

On the other hand, the province strictly controls the process of electing municipal and regional councils. I think this actually fits your description better.

[Bjays93]

Maybe you should stop and listen to what ac3r, an actual indigenous person, h ad to say, instead of speaking from your position of white privilege on how minorities should be treated. 

Minority rights are important absolutely, it's why they are literally written into our bill of rights and freedoms which is entrenched in our constitution. My comments on minority vs majority protest had nothing to do with race and ethnicity you inferred that. I was just saying as a general principle when it extends beyond peaceful protest to civil disobedience I think the time thats most acceptable is when a large portion, not 1 or 2% of people, support whatever is being protested about. 

Also an oil pipeline that was approved by the elected leaders of indigenous reserves has nothing to do with basic human rights, since that's the specific example we have been discussing. 

Despite being white, I've actually had the experience of being a minority and have had people be extremely racist towards me growing up in Asia. I am still incredibly privileged and recognize that, and I am in no way saying I have had the experience of minorities that have been oppressed for hundreds and thousands of years, but I do have just a sliver of an idea as to what it's like. 

If these were easy problems to discuss and fix then they wouldnt still be problems. Yes we cant allow the majority to trample on the minority, but as ac3r said, having a minority rule can be equally as problematic. Until your willing to acknowledge this there's no point in even having a discussion.

Edit: also define what on earth constitutes to a minority cuz I guess if 3% of canadians support an authoritarian government the 97% who support democracy should have their wills take a back seat. Yay authoritarianism (yes that's an extreme but it's the natural end result of your logical line of thinking)

Your edit is ridiculous...you absolutely know that's not what I said, it is not the result of my logical line of thinking, and I don't appreicate you saying it is.

If 3% of the population want to vote for an authoritarian party, they have that right, and they do in fact exercise that right, as much as I disagree with it.

Choosing your government is a right, choosing the government for someone else is a will.

Ok so what happens when two minority "rights" clash? Are minorities only defined by ethnicity or are there other factors like, political ideology, religion etc?

Also define choosing the government for someone else? Are the majority not choosing the government for the minority. 

Basic human rights are basic human rights and they should be universal, regardless of majority opinion, but as soon as an issue goes beyond that nothing and no one should take precedence other than the will of the majority (which in this context can include peoples from minority groups because the will of the majority is the collective of all canadians or all peoples of a country) 

My edit was to make a point, it's like people who claim to be moral relativists but then say its objectively wrong to murder someone. You simply cant make that argument as moral relativist (note I'm not trying to call you a relativist I'm just using an example to articulate myself)

You also conveniently ignored the rest of my response however this discussion is clearly not worth our time.

[danbrotherston]

Your edit is ridiculous...you absolutely know that's not what I said, it is not the result of my logical line of thinking, and I don't appreicate you saying it is.

If 3% of the population want to vote for an authoritarian party, they have that right, and they do in fact exercise that right, as much as I disagree with it.

Choosing your government is a right, choosing the government for someone else is a will.

Ok so what happens when two minority "rights" clash? Are minorities only defined by ethnicity or are there other factors like, political ideology, religion etc?

Also define choosing the government for someone else? Are the majority not choosing the government for the minority. 

Basic human rights are basic human rights and they should be universal, regardless of majority opinion, but as soon as an issue goes beyond that nothing and no one should take precedence other than the will of the majority (which in this context can include peoples from minority groups because the will of the majority is the collective of all canadians or all peoples of a country) 

My edit was to make a point, it's like people who claim to be moral relativists but then say its objectively wrong to murder someone. You simply cant make that argument as moral relativist (note I'm not trying to call you a relativist I'm just using an example to articulate myself)

You also conveniently ignored the rest of my response however this discussion is clearly not worth our time.

There was nothing "convenient" about it, I simply didn't want to have a discussion with someone who I feel is going to misrepresent what I say...so I think we've found something we agree on.

[danbrotherston]

Choosing your government is a right, choosing the government for someone else is a will.

Are you referring to the First Nations band councils and elected chiefs? If yes, each First Nation does have the ability to choose a traditional chief rather than electing one. Quoting Wikipedia:

The functioning of a band is controlled by the Indian Act, the legislation that defines the position of status Indians. The band government is controlled by a chief councillor and council. The number of councillors is determined by the number of band members, with a minimum of two in addition to the chief councillor. The Indian Act specifies procedures for the election of the chief councillor and council. Some bands make use of a policy provision (called 'custom election', which allows them to exempt themselves from these requirements in order to follow traditional procedures for the choice of leaders.

On the other hand, the province strictly controls the process of electing municipal and regional councils. I think this actually fits your description better.

Actually my comment was in reference to BJays93 statement that the logical conclusion of my position is that if 3% of the population supported an authoritarian government, that we'd all have to submit to their will because they're a minority and choosing one's government is a right.

I'm not taking an absolutist position here, and I really don't know enough about the First Nations governance, or the Indian Act to have an opinion about that, beyond the fact that historically we have not respected their rights or sovereignty and I really don't get the sense that we've entirely solved those problems today either.

[nms]

Just to toss my two cents in, I proud of the work that has been done for the past many decades as Canada continues to sort out its relationship with the Indigenous peoples. I think a milestone for Canada-Indigenous relations was the Berger Commission (1974-1977) which was a Royal Commission to consider two pipeline proposals in the North. The commission considered the environmental, cultural, social and economic impacts of the proposed pipelines. Ultimately the Commission was a turning point in the history of resource development in Canada specifically because it kickstarted (or restarted depending on your perspective), the land-claim settlement process.

I am also proud of the work that the federal government has done to chip away at the water crises on the various reservations.  It's not been perfect but it's been slowly, if inexorably moving forward. Compared to planning, development and completion of other infrastructure projects in this country, some of the projects have been proceeding at a relatively quick pace. 

The relationship is far from perfect, but it's moving in the right direction.

[Acitta]

Dead-end street in Hespeler ripe for revitalization  

Engage Cambridge: Milling Road Streetscape

[Acitta]

City Council endorses design for Fountain Street Soccer Complex; Conestoga College to contribute $1.5M

[Bjays93]

There's a crane up on hespeler road between Munch ave and can amera parkway. Anyone have any insight as to what is getting built there?