The BBC reports: China congress: Hu Jintao opens party meeting on leadership change
The terminology is crystal clear: in a dictatorship, it’s “leadership change”; in a democratic country, it’s “an election”.
Canadian law is sometimes considered less exciting than that of our American neighbours. One might think our supreme court deals with less dramatic matters than nationalized health care, gun rights, affirmative action.
A brief reminder then of an infamous case decided back in 2003: Authorson V. Canada. The court unanimously held that the Canadian federal government had the legal power to expropriate property, without compensation, if it so wished. (Our constitution does not require compensation, only “due process” — ie., lawful imposition of the statute.) The gist of it is that nothing is really ours. It’s the queen’s — or rather the government’s, and when push comes to shove, they may just come and take it from you.