This whole "fixed" election date fiasco is generating just buckets of entertainment, and no one is more entertaining than official Stephen Harper fluffer Sandy Crux, who is adamant that the new rule clearly doesn't apply to Yo, Harper! because, well, something to do with having a minority or something.
In any event, Sandy reasons thusly:
(16) Fixed Election Dates — An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act (Bill C-16), passed May 3, 2007 (Link) is an Act primarily for majority governments since minority governments can fall at almost any time when the opposition express a lack of confidence in the government. (Revised August 24, 2008)
What the fuck does that drivel even mean?
So Sandy wants to claim first that the new law applies only "primarily" to majority governments? But that obviously means that it does not apply exclusively to majority governments -- as in, it also applies (even if not "primarily") to minority governments as well. In other words, it applies (and try to follow me here) to all Canadian governments.
See how that works? Did you follow that? Please tell me you followed that because I really don't want to have to explain it a second time. In short, using Sandy's own prose, we can conclude that the vaunted Fixed Election Law applies to, well, everyone.
But wait. That can't be right.
Because, as you can see, Sandy links to the National Post, which takes the position that the legislation is, in fact, not binding at all. And why is Sandy doing this? Because, Sandy, being one of the stupidest Ph.Ds on the planet, is desperately trying to defend Dear Leader from the accusation of breaking his promise, and the only way she can do this is to contend that that legislation does not, in fact, stop Stephen Harper from calling a snap election.
Which means (and we're almost there) that Sandy, in leaping from Stephen Harper's genitals to his defense, must (and let me stress this, must) take the position that the legislation has no actual power. And yet, having now clearly staked her entire argument on the claim that the legislation is, in fact, non-binding, she continues to claim that it still represents an "accomplishment." Go figure.
Sandy Crux, boys and girls: When Ph.D.s go horribly, horribly wrong.