The excuse this time takes the cake. It’s complete B.S.
May also dismissed the consortium’s explanation that her presence would cause the other leaders not to show up.
Why wouldn’t the media cartel call those leaders’ bluff, and include May anyway? No party would dare miss being in the debates, and the Greens are not going to take this kind of abuse lying down. This is a national scandal. The media that is supposed to protect our democracy has corrupted it!
This completely changes the course of the election. The media has gone from reporting the news, to choosing our leaders. It’s beyond shameful, it’s criminal!
UPDATE:
As Scott has noted in a trackback, the ProgressiveBloggers almost completely unanimous (which is really quite something) have agreed that Layton, Harper, and Duceppe deciding that May shouldn’t be in the debates is a travesty.
This is of course much more on this story to come yet.
The mainstream media knows it too, and Andrew has come out on the side of democracy, I’m happy to see.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
penlan | 08-Sep-08 at 4:06 pm | Permalink
Agreed!
Zach Bell | 08-Sep-08 at 4:27 pm | Permalink
I hear so often from media outlets that they have a “duty” to be fair and objective. I keep hearing that they try to remove themselves emotionally from the issues of the day and deliver information to Canadians in a fair and equitable manner.
Excuse my language but that’s is quite frankly bullshit.
MrvnMouse | 08-Sep-08 at 4:40 pm | Permalink
This isn’t about how the media consortium is playing political games with the election. This story is more about how scared Harper, Layton and Duceppe must be of Elizabeth May to refuse to even show up and debate her if she is there.
These party leaders are simply showing how spineless they are. They won’t even show up if she’s there. Why? The only reasonable answer is they don’t believe they can handle a fair level debate with her and would lose miserably.
That’s the real story here.
Frankly Canadian | 08-Sep-08 at 4:42 pm | Permalink
I totally agree with this our media has hi-jack the democratic process here and in the United States as well. When will the people wise up to the fact that the Republican/Conservatives are nothing more than puppets of big business and are driving this planet into the ground at break-neck speeds.
Eric | 08-Sep-08 at 4:43 pm | Permalink
If this has you steamed as much as me, here is a place to start: the CRTC online complaints form.
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/RapidsCCM/Register.asp?lang=E
Who knows if it will help, but a few hundered thousand complaints can’t hurt
Scott's DiaTribes | 08-Sep-08 at 5:01 pm | Permalink
“Democracy took a beating today”…
If you were to look at the front page of Progressive Bloggers, you’d think all of our affiliates were Green Party blogs. But that’s not the case. I have of course read Green bloggers outraged at the decision by the broadcast consortium to …
Frankly Canadian | 08-Sep-08 at 5:25 pm | Permalink
Thanks Eric, I sent a complaint to the C.R.T.C. and hopefully many more Canadians do as well.
JimBobby | 08-Sep-08 at 5:31 pm | Permalink
Whooee! Let’s connect the dots. TV is entirely funded by advertising revenue. Advertisers are selling stuff. Most of that stuff is stuff nobody needs. If we really needed it, they wouldn’t have to spend millions selling it to us. The Green Party advocates reducing our needless consumption of the stuff that TV sponsors are selling. Reducing, re-using and recycling doesn’t fill the corporate coffers.
I find the fact that three leaders would come up with the same threat of boycotting to be very suspicious. I think the TV suits planted that option as one choice in a multiple choice questionnaire.
Smart maneuvering by the networks. The GPC threatened a lawsuit if Elizabeth were to be barred. By putting it on the so-called leaders’ shoulders, the networks wriggle out of responsibility.
The guy who comes out looking worst in all this is Jack Layton. We all expect the Con’s to steamroll over public opinion. The BQ knows it has little excuse for being in the debates when it only runs candidates in one province. They’d hate to be bumped off the stage by an upstart federalist nationally popular party.
Layton has made all the noises about proportional representation and democratic deficits. If we had PR, there’d be 12 or 13 Green MP’s but Layton comes out against Green participation. I’m happy to see a good number of NDP bloggers expressing their disapproval of Layton’s self-serving, corporate-serving, Con-serving hypocrisy.
I blogged on this, too, but I didn’t exactly use “family man” language.
JB
Wandering Coyote | 08-Sep-08 at 5:37 pm | Permalink
What a load of BS.
Travis | 08-Sep-08 at 6:09 pm | Permalink
She should have been allowed in no questions asked. My requirement for allowing an individual into the national debates as largely been if they have one MP for their party then they should be allowed in especially if the Bloc is going to be allowed into the English debates. The Greens had an MP so they should have been treated the same way the Bloc was treated in the 1993 election. Now, some will argue that the Bloc elected Gille Duceppe in 1990 during a by-election but he was elected as an Independent Member of Parliament so the Bloc didn’t elect anybody until 1993 so that argument goes out the window. The other argument I have heard is that they do have an MP but lack official party status in Parliament which would have meant that the NDP and PC should not have been allowed to take part in the 1997 election. The only other argument that I have heard and was mentioned by an NDP candidate in BC is that the Green Party is a single issue party. Which is not true but even if it were it still shouldn’t stop them from being included given we allow the Bloc who do largely serve and stand for only one issue Quebec sovereignty. However, Quebec sovereignty to be fair does cover a wide range of other issues such as how health care, education, immigration, language laws should be in Quebec. Just like how the environment affects the economy, health care, education and a wide range of other issues.
There is simply no logical reason why the Green Party should not be allowed into the debates.
Saskboy | 08-Sep-08 at 6:13 pm | Permalink
Also sent a complaint to the CRTC. Ultimately though, those at fault are Layton and Harper.
The things that go through my head » Blog Archive » May not included in the Leader’s Debates | 08-Sep-08 at 8:25 pm | Permalink
[...] is a terrible outrage. This is not a real democracy when you can exclude the leader of a major party with a sitting member of parliament. What complete [...]
Louise | 08-Sep-08 at 8:53 pm | Permalink
#1 “TV is entirely funded by advertising revenue.”
Wish it were so. Haven’t you heard about the CBC?
#2 Y’all need to get a life. You’re embarrassing yourselves.
Take a look at the various parties standings in terms of popular vote in the last two elections and tell the rest of us just how relevant Lizzie May and the merry fringe festival are:
2006: Cons = 36.27%; Libs = 30.2%; Dips = 17.0%; Bloc = 10.48% (30% of the population of Quebec); Greens = 4.48%; Everyone else = 1.57%
2000: Cons = 37.68%; Libs = 40.85; Dips = 8.5; Bloc = 10.70 (30% of the population of Quebec); Greens = .81%; Everybody else = 1.46%
You might also note that the first four on the list have actually managed to elect members to Parliament. Lizzie thinks she’s more important than she really is. How pathetic!
Saskboy | 08-Sep-08 at 9:15 pm | Permalink
1. CBC is only 1/4 of the broadcast consortium. That TV station is also funded in part by advertising.
2. Tell us all knowing Louise, how much popular vote nation wide did the Reform Party have prior to the 1993 election?
Louise | 08-Sep-08 at 9:58 pm | Permalink
RE. Reform, I haven’t got a clue nor do I care.
RE. CBC, tell me something I don’t know.
What ever happened to freedom of the press, Saskboy? That’s also a pillar of democracy. The broadcast consortium should be free to make whatever decision it wants regarding it’s up-coming program. May and the Greens are just having childish tantrums. Free speech does not guarantee one an audience. That has to be earned.
Saskboy | 08-Sep-08 at 10:03 pm | Permalink
Reform: You cared so much about pop-vote a few minutes ago. What happened? ;-)
Press: Why did they ask for permission from the other party leaders then, oh great free press expert Louise?
Zach Bell | 08-Sep-08 at 10:14 pm | Permalink
In the 1988 election, reform had about 2% of the vote. Deb Grey won a by-election the next year and then the reformers were let into the debates.
The CBC is funded in the majority by taxpayers. About one third of its revenue comes from other revenue streams…that could all be categorized either definitively or loosely as advertising.
Of course you don’t care about relevant information Louise which is why you don’t care about the very good reason that your reasoning is terribly flawed. You are asserting a test of credibility that is undemocratic and arbitrary…it doesn’t make any sense.
First past the post elections are inherently undemocratic as a candidate can win without a majority of the votes. I would argue that the greens certainly have earned their audience, i don’t know why you would argue otherwise.
Well…strike that. I know why, I just don’t think it’s reasonable. You’re saying that if the greens had received just one tenth of the votes but if it was concentrated in such a way that it was enough to elect a single candidate, they would be viewed as credible. Since they have in fact not elected a single candidate but have managed to attain the votes of hundreds of thousands of Canadians…that doesn’t lend them any type of notable credibility. Hmm…seems like an odd test.
The greens have garnered the votes of over half a million people in Canada which tells me that they are a political party of note in our country. The very fact that this debate among bloggers and others is taking place is proof. They certainly have the credibility and influence required to be in the debates. The test you are asserting Louise, is unreasonable.
Zach Bell | 08-Sep-08 at 10:23 pm | Permalink
Oh one more thing. it’s worth making note that the Social Credit elected 5 members to parliament in the 1979 election with under 600,000 votes.
All this number talk got me to digging around in Wikipedia. I’m 25 and I feel nostalgia about elections in the 70’s. Wierd no?
Louise | 09-Sep-08 at 4:45 am | Permalink
Reform: Reform: You cared so much about pop-vote a few minutes ago. What happened? ;-)
Press: Why did they ask for permission from the other party leaders then, oh great free press expert Louise?
==================
Because they have the right to make those kinds of decisions. Sheesh.
Louise | 09-Sep-08 at 4:52 am | Permalink
“Deb Grey won a by-election the next year and then the reformers were let into the debates.”
“the Social Credit elected 5 members to parliament..”
Zach, you’ve admitted the key difference, right there.
Zach Bell | 09-Sep-08 at 8:38 am | Permalink
But you failed to address the key point I was making. The first past the post is simply a redistribution of votes in a particular manner. Why is this a better test of credibility than popular vote numbers when FPTP is a system of election that actually allows someone without the confidence of the electorate to represent them?
What I was pointing out was the indeed the social credit elected 5 members to the house…with almost the exact same vote percentage. Why are the socreds more credible than the greens in 1979 simple because their votes were concentrated? If anything, wouldn’t that actually make them LESS relevant to the rest of the nation?
You got some splainin’ to do Louisey.
Zach Bell | 09-Sep-08 at 8:39 am | Permalink
And uhh…sorry bout the typos.
Zach Bell | 09-Sep-08 at 11:49 pm | Permalink
Didn’t think she had an argument for that…I haven’t seen even a single rebuttal to that slagging of “FPTP as a credibility test” yet.
Saskboy | 09-Sep-08 at 11:50 pm | Permalink
It doesn’t matter to Louise if there’s a credible argument. Any fight will do to kill time and brain cells.