All the parties who have tried to get into the debates by challenging their exclusion in Court have failed. If you have a “legal browser” like lexis-nexis, enter Green Party into the search engine and you will get the court decisions.

I should also point out that the Green Party had very experienced legal counsel when it tried in 1988 (Steve Goudge- now on the Ontario Court of Appeal) and in the early 90s they had Ian Scott (former Ont. Attorney General and generally regarded as one of Canada’s best advocates).

I would never say never, but I think a legal challenge is doomed to failure, although it may be good politics.

There are no criteria for the debates. That’s the problem. And it is up to the private broadcasters, who are accountable to no one (who are the decision-makers, even?). I, along with many many others, believe that this should be under the purview of Elections Canada, not a private consortium. It is ridiculous that it is up to the parties to exclude their competition — of course they don’t want competition. There is no principle for denying the Greens — it’s purely based on self-interest of the parties.

Not everyone has the same standard for democratic participation as others. I just think that those who would exclude the Greens don’t hold themselves to the same standard as those of us who do support their inclusion.

I find it particularly galling for the NDP to say they support PR but not support the Greens inclusion in the debates. After all, if the NDP had their way (a PR system), the Greens would have 14 MPs already (4.5% of 308). Practice what you preach — either you believe that people’s first choice preferences deserve a voice or you don’t.

If Harper still won’t attend they should put a life size cardboard cut out of him in that cowboy outfit on stage. Same goes for the others. A cut out of Duceppe with that cheese hat. As to Layton, I’m sure there’s tons of him looking like a goof.

1) Are there not enough Green Party seats ? The (populist) Reform Party only had 1 seat in 1993 and Preston Manning was permitted in the debates.

2) Is there not enough Green Party support ? The Greens got much more support in their last election than the Reform Party did in 1988. Currently, between 1 million and 5 million Canadians are considering voting for the Green party in 2008. The establishment is so obviously feeling threatened by a progressive, populist leader whose party is the epitome of progressive, environmentalist policy.

3) The Green Party doesn’t have official party status ? Well, Neither did the NDP and Progressive Conservative party in 1997, but both were allowed to debate .

3) Are there not enough Green Party candidates ? The Greens ran candidates in all 308 ridings in the last election. Now, how many ridings do the Bloc run in again ?

Again, the authoritarian, secretive, manipulative, hypocritical Neo-Cons are behind this.

“You can’t have one leader on stage that has already endorsed the candidacy of another and signed an electoral co-operation agreement,” said Harper spokesman Dimitri Soudas, referring to a deal reached between May and Dion not to run candidates against each other in their respective ridings.

“When it comes to the debate, they can have May or they can have Dion,” he said.

“But they can’t have both.”

That sounds like the decree of a self-appointed dictator.

Canadian political parties have long had agreements not to run candidates in the riding of the leader of another party. But the Neo-Cons attempt at Green Party banishment and blindly authoritarian hypocrisy shows that that Harper is a ruthless, dictatorial, oblivious Neo-Con just like Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and Bush. Instead of free debate and genuine democracy, the Neo-Cons have (again) chosen blatant, partisan stifling and hardline repression of opposing viewpoints.

It seems the media asked 4 leaders if they would be willing to take part in a 5 person debate- included would be Harper, Dion, Layton, Duceppe and May.
Harper said No, he would not take part in a 5 person debate, a debate that included May. Dion said Yes, he would be willing to take part in a 5 person debate that included May but he would not take part in a debate that did not include Harper.

So if May was invited, Harper would decline and then Dion would decline because Haper declined.
I gather Layton also said he would not take part in a debate that included May. So if May was invited, Harper would decline, Dion would decline and Layton would decline.
I am not sure about Duceppe but assume he would be willing to take part in a 5 person debate that included May, but would not be willing to be the only person debaaing her-i.e. if May was invited and Harper declined, Dion declined and Layton declined, Duceppe would then also decline.

That seems to be the basic combination that led the media to not invite May. If they invited her the “best” they could get, and it is doubtful they could get that, was a debate between May and Duceppe. so May in, Debate out.

As discussed elsewhere the criteria the Greens use to argue for their inclusion are not accepted as determining the question, by the media. or the courts. There is no rule that says if you get 2% of the vote you get some election financing AND get to be in a Leaders debate or if you get 4.3 % of the vote and run candidates in 307 ridings you get to be in a leaders debate. Nor is it a question of whether you have 1 MP or 8, elected or “floor crossers”. If others won’t debate there can’t be a debate. There have been quite a few elections in Canada without leaders debates and there have been leaders debates without some parties that wanted in – without Greens,Communists whatever. The Greens know they will lose in court and are just playing that line for PR purposes- same way they can live with the Pr from not being in the debate.

I personally support leaving May out of the leaders debate for several reasons.
1. The reasona argued for including the Greens such as discussed above ( they get some election financing and have gotover 4% of the vote) I found in the past only mildly pesuasive but not by any means totally convincing.
2. I am disgusted by the deal with Dion in many of its ramifications, including the denial of democracy to the voters and the endorsement of Dion as PM. Any sympathy I might have had for the Greens, including but not limited to any sympathy for them getting into the deaders debate, started shrinking. Yes, i do think May and Dion do have a deal that preludes her being in the debate.

3. I found the deal with Wilson, the MP with the bad campaign practices, turned away by his own party, the final straw. he only reason May took him seems to be to give her the ultimate argument for getting in the debate. The claim: “See we got an MP, now you have to let me in”, was the ultimate turnoff, given all the circumstances.

See you on the campaign trail.

Don’t forget to remind them of this.