- Welcome to Languish.org.
Recent posts
#31
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by Tonitrus - Today at 02:28:12 PMAs fun as it is to revisit the past...bringing it back to the here and now...it would be a pretty bad idea.
#32
Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...
Last post by Grey Fox - Today at 02:23:32 PMWhy listen to the Federal government when it refuses to engage in good faith?
#33
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by Valmy - Today at 01:55:22 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on Today at 01:38:37 PMShould have never left.
Should have never occupied it in the first place. We kicked the Taliban out with barely a boot on the ground.
#34
Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...
Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 01:52:40 PMHow would this reduce the power of the Feds. It would render the language rights laws and secularization legislation invalid.
#35
Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...
Last post by Grey Fox - Today at 01:42:06 PMIf the federal government does get it's way, I can foresee a great reduction in the Federal government's power over the provinces.
Quebec already barely cares about the intricasies of federal power, if the Federal starts using a stick instead of honey, public opinion will turn quickly against it.
Quebec already barely cares about the intricasies of federal power, if the Federal starts using a stick instead of honey, public opinion will turn quickly against it.
#36
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by Grey Fox - Today at 01:38:37 PMShould have never left.
#37
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by Tonitrus - Today at 01:04:04 PMI'm sure this will go well...
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/18/politics/trump-bagram-base-taliban-afghanistan
https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/18/politics/trump-bagram-base-taliban-afghanistan
QuoteTrump admin has been quietly pushing to retake Afghan base from the Taliban for months, sources say
#38
Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...
Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 01:03:29 PMSeparately you might remember the story about a senior Tory backbencher in the last parliament who was catfished on Grindr and then blackmailed into providing contact details of other Tory MPs. He eventually announced this and went to the police about it and spoke about his guilt later (I have to be honest, I'm not sure I have much sympathy). But charges have been brought in that and it turns out it was a Labour councillor who did this to a few politicians 
Very, very weird.
QuoteEx-councillor charged with blackmail over Westminster 'honeytrap'
Oliver Steadman, a former Labour politician and mental health charity worker, is due to appear in court on November 3 charged with offences against five people
Aubrey Allegretti, Chief Political Correspondent
Wednesday September 17 2025, 11.10am, The Times
Oliver Steadman has volunteered with the Labour Party since 2018, according to his LinkedIn profile
ISLINGTON LABOUR
A 28-year-old former Labour councillor has been charged with offences including blackmail over the Westminster "honeytrap" scandal.
Oliver Steadman, 28, has been charged with blackmail and communication offences in relation to five victims in Westminster politics including MPs, the Crown Prosecution Service and Scotland Yard said.
He has been remanded to appear at Westminster magistrates' court on November 3.
The charges relate to an investigation that was carried out by the Met's Parliamentary Liaison and Investigation Team.
Steadman was arrested in June 2024 as part of police inquiries into the Westminster "honeytrap" scandal. His identity has been secret until now, given strict laws protecting the anonymity of arrested suspects.
At the time of his arrest, Steadman was a Labour councillor and worked at the mental health charity Mind as a public affairs and campaign manager, according to his LinkedIn profile. The profile also said he was a school governor and had volunteered with the Labour Party since 2018.
The Westminster "honeytrap" scandal emerged in April 2024, when MPs said they were messaged on WhatsApp by a person calling themselves Charlie or Abi.
Different personas were said to have been used to target gay and straight politicians, as well as other senior Westminster figures including advisers and journalists.
The Times revealed that William Wragg, then a senior Tory MP, had started speaking to the person behind the alleged "phishing" scam on the gay dating app Grindr, sending them sexually explicit images of himself.
Malcolm McHaffie, head of the Crown Prosecution Service's special crime division, said: "We have decided to prosecute Oliver Steadman with blackmail and five communications offences in relation to a total of five victims working within politics and Westminster.
"This follows an investigation by the Metropolitan Police Service which looked into messages that included alleged unsolicited indecent images sent to a number of people within parliamentary political circles between October 2023 and April 2024 using WhatsApp.
"Our prosecutors have worked to establish that there is sufficient evidence to bring this case to court and that it is in the public interest to pursue criminal proceedings."
Very, very weird.
#39
Off the Record / Re: [Canada] Canadian Politics...
Last post by crazy canuck - Today at 01:03:15 PMI have read the Feds factum - some inside baseball type law stuff to follow. Feel free to skip.
Some background - the Notwithstanding clause exists because without it there would have been no agreement from the Provinces* to create the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was the essential compromise balancing parliamentary/legislative supremacy with the new constitutional rights enshrined in the Charter.
How it works in practice - if the Notwithstanding Clause is used, it is invoked for a particular piece of legislation and often even more narrowly applied to particular sections of legislation. The effect of invoking the Notwithstanding Clause is that the protected legislation cannot be reviewed by a Court to determine if it breached a provision of the Charter. If the Notwithstanding Clause is not invoked then legislation can be reviewed by the Court using what is known as the Oakes Test.
It is time limited - The Notwithstanding Clause is not a one and done act. The protection from Charter review is time limited and if the Notwithstanding Clause does not continue to be invoked (every 5 years) then the protection lapses, and the Court may now review the legislation using a Charter analysis. The rationale for this is that successive governments (5 years is beyond the term of any one government) have to make the political decision to protect the legislation from Charter scrutiny.
What is the Oakes Test - I am going to summarize a year long constitutional law course into a couple of lines here so be understanding. It's a two part test. First, the court determines if there was a breach of a Charter right. If the answer is no, that is the end of the analysis. If the answer is yes, the Court goes on to determine if the restriction of the right is justified in a free and democratic society. I won't describe this part of the test - that is where most of the year long course is spent.
What is the issue before the SCC - The Feds are taking a very controversial position that upends our constitutional norms. They say that if the notwithstanding clause is invoked, the Court should still be able to conduct the first branch of the Oakes test to determine whether the legislation breaches a Charter right, and (here is the really controversial bit) if a the legislation does breach a Charter right the Court may then conduct a judicial review to determine whether the decision to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause was reasonable.
Judicial Review and the reasonableness standard - This is also a year long course, so again be understanding that this is a brief summary. On judicial review the court does not ask itself whether it thinks the result of the decision is reasonable (this is what used to also happen under US law and you may remember JR and I talking about the USSC changing that test), rather it looks to see if the decision maker's reasons for making their decision are reasonable.
If you read this far, here is the payoff. If the Feds get their way what will happen is the reasonableness of the decision to invoke the Notwithstanding clause will be scrutinized by a Court looking to see if the government has provided a reasonable justification for engaging in a Charter breach. And that sounds an awful lot like the second branch of the Oakes test.
The tldr - if the federal government position succeeds, the Notwithstanding Clause will collapse into government having to justify breaching the Charter, and the fundamental constitutional compromise that was made to create the Charter will be undermined.
*Not Quebec, but that is a whole other topic.
Some background - the Notwithstanding clause exists because without it there would have been no agreement from the Provinces* to create the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was the essential compromise balancing parliamentary/legislative supremacy with the new constitutional rights enshrined in the Charter.
How it works in practice - if the Notwithstanding Clause is used, it is invoked for a particular piece of legislation and often even more narrowly applied to particular sections of legislation. The effect of invoking the Notwithstanding Clause is that the protected legislation cannot be reviewed by a Court to determine if it breached a provision of the Charter. If the Notwithstanding Clause is not invoked then legislation can be reviewed by the Court using what is known as the Oakes Test.
It is time limited - The Notwithstanding Clause is not a one and done act. The protection from Charter review is time limited and if the Notwithstanding Clause does not continue to be invoked (every 5 years) then the protection lapses, and the Court may now review the legislation using a Charter analysis. The rationale for this is that successive governments (5 years is beyond the term of any one government) have to make the political decision to protect the legislation from Charter scrutiny.
What is the Oakes Test - I am going to summarize a year long constitutional law course into a couple of lines here so be understanding. It's a two part test. First, the court determines if there was a breach of a Charter right. If the answer is no, that is the end of the analysis. If the answer is yes, the Court goes on to determine if the restriction of the right is justified in a free and democratic society. I won't describe this part of the test - that is where most of the year long course is spent.
What is the issue before the SCC - The Feds are taking a very controversial position that upends our constitutional norms. They say that if the notwithstanding clause is invoked, the Court should still be able to conduct the first branch of the Oakes test to determine whether the legislation breaches a Charter right, and (here is the really controversial bit) if a the legislation does breach a Charter right the Court may then conduct a judicial review to determine whether the decision to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause was reasonable.
Judicial Review and the reasonableness standard - This is also a year long course, so again be understanding that this is a brief summary. On judicial review the court does not ask itself whether it thinks the result of the decision is reasonable (this is what used to also happen under US law and you may remember JR and I talking about the USSC changing that test), rather it looks to see if the decision maker's reasons for making their decision are reasonable.
If you read this far, here is the payoff. If the Feds get their way what will happen is the reasonableness of the decision to invoke the Notwithstanding clause will be scrutinized by a Court looking to see if the government has provided a reasonable justification for engaging in a Charter breach. And that sounds an awful lot like the second branch of the Oakes test.
The tldr - if the federal government position succeeds, the Notwithstanding Clause will collapse into government having to justify breaching the Charter, and the fundamental constitutional compromise that was made to create the Charter will be undermined.
*Not Quebec, but that is a whole other topic.
#40
Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...
Last post by Sheilbh - Today at 12:48:25 PMQuote from: HVC on Today at 11:42:35 AMLooks like a toddler who's ecstatic to be at the grown up table.From the internet:
Quote
When your child has had the best day at the theme park, and you have had a very long day taking them round the theme park
