May v. Duffy

By: Contributor · October 9, 2008 · Filed Under Environmental Law, Humour, Media Law, Politics · Add Comment

It’s one of the few times when a title like that won’t be a legal case.

Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, took on television journalist Mike Duffy.

Duffy suggests that May can say whatever she wants because she would never be in power. Some Liberals envision a Dion cabinet with May as Minister of the Environment.

But May doesn’t take issue with that swipe and instead objects with Duffy’s characterization of her quote, questioning his journalistic integrity.

h/t Deb Prothero

Updates

Post tags: Elizabeth May, green party, Mike Duffy

Federal Election Strategic Voting Tool

By: Lawrence Gridin · October 3, 2008 · Filed Under Politics · 3 Comments

With the federal election just two weeks away, many are still scrambling to decide which name they should tick off on the ballot.

A friend of mine turned me on to an interesting Google Maps mashup which allows you to enter your postal code and see an estimation of the latest poll results for your riding.

The tool is designed with strategic voting in mind.

It is a pro-environment leaning website, and the goal of the authors is to see the Liberals, NDP, Bloc, and Greens win the most seats in the house of commons. Therefore, the website makes recommendations about which of these three parties you should strategically vote for in a particular riding to shut the Conservatives out of a seat.

However, even if you are a Conservative voter, you may still be interested to see how your candidate is doing in the latest polls.

I highly recommend checking it out.

The website is Vote For Environment / Voter Pour l’Environnement.

Post tags: Bloc, Conservatives, election, federal election, green party, Green Party of Canada, Liberals, NDP, New Democratic Party, parliament, proportional representation, strategic voting, voting

Update: Greens to be Represented in Leaders’ Debates

By: Lawrence Gridin · September 10, 2008 · Filed Under Politics · 4 Comments

Just moments ago it was announced that Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party, will in fact be appearing in the upcoming televised election debates.

The consortium of broadcasters – representing the CBC, Radio-Canada, CTV, Global TV, and TVA – decided today to allow Ms. May to participate in the debates.

It’s no secret that the reason for May’s exclusion was the pressure brought to bear by the leaders of the other parties. Prime Minister Stephen Harper and NDP leader Jack Layton had threatened to boycott the debates if the Greens were allowed to participate.

It was claimed by the NDP and Conservatives that Elizabeth May was nothing more than Liberal leader Stephan Dion’s cheerleader, and that having both of them present at the same debates would unfairly skew the discussions.

While the Liberals and the Greens have indeed made strategic agreements to cooperate on some issues (and not to compete for a seat in May’s riding) they are still independent parties with independent agendas. Hopefully May’s participation in the debates will make this fact very clear to the Canadian public.

May cites the public outrage at the affront to democracy created by these “backroom threats” as the reason for the broadcasting commission’s change of heart:

“It’s grassroots power of the people,” she said.

“People from all walks of life were incensed … I had a lady this morning at the Pictou (N.S.) Tim Hortons say to me, ‘I’ve been Conservative all my life, I’m not voting Tory again,’ because she found it so offensive.”

(Source: CP)

After the NDP decided to back down from the boycott threat, the Tories quickly followed suit. Conservative spokesman Kory Teneycke took the opportunity to disown the policy, claiming that it was an NDP idea all along:

“It appears the NDP has changed their position. Our position has been to support the NDP on this point of principle. We are not going to be the only ones to boycott the debate,” [Conservative Spokesman Kory Teneycke] said.

(Source: Globe and Mail)

“The truth of the matter is the NDP took a position and we agreed to back them because we, like the NDP, thought that this was unfair on principle,” said Sen. Marjory LeBreton, the Conservative campaign co-chair.

“But if Jack Layton has decided to change his position, I mean, we’re not going to stand in the way of her participating in the debate.”

(Source: CP)

I for one am looking forward to a more democratic debate. It doesn’t matter which party you support; the more viewpoints and choices that Canadians are exposed to, the healthier our political process will be.

Post tags: boycott, debate, election debate, election law, Elizabeth May, green party, leaders' debates, televised debate, threats

Green Party Barred from Election Debates

By: Lawrence Gridin · September 8, 2008 · Filed Under Administrative Law, Constitutional Law, Politics · 6 Comments

Déjà vu.

Though political support for the party continues to grow, a consortium of Canadian broadcasters has yet again decided not to allow the Green Party to participate in the leaders’ debates.

This is despite the fact that the Green Party, which is headed by Elizabeth May, recently acquired its first Member of Parliament when Independent (former Liberal) Blair Wilson decided to don the party colours.

Previously, the need to have at least one MP was put forth by the consortium as a prerequisite for participation in the debates.

As of last week, the Greens have an MP, but their request for participation was denied anyway.

Public interest – defined as having more than 5% support in a recent national poll – was another requirement.

According to the latest Strategic Council poll (PDF), the Greens have about 9% support across Canada. Out west, this number is as high as 12%, compared to just 18% for the Liberals.

Indeed, the Greens are ahead of the Bloc Québécois in nation-wide support. The Bloc is a separatist party with the explicit goal of tearing the fabric of Canada apart, and one which does not even field candidates outside of Québec. Nevertheless, while Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe will be appearing in the debates, Elizabeth May will not.

Michael Byers, the NDP candidate for Vancouver-Centre, supported the decision of the consortium. He is quoted calling May the leader of a “single-issue party:”

“My leader, Jack Layton, is running to be prime minister and so are the leaders of the other parties,” Byers told CBC News on Monday from Vancouver. “This is a leaders’ debate. It’s not an environment ministers’ debate.”

(Source: CBC)

The wholly incorrect perception of the Greens as a single-issue party is precisely the problem that Elizabeth May is unable to address now that she has been denied access to the debates.

May said in a statement that she is considering pursuing legal action against the TV networks. Not that I have much (read: any) knowledge of election law, but unfortunately I doubt that there’s a case here.

As undemocratic as it seems, the televised leaders’ debates are produced by private TV networks. Though the CBC is a Crown corporation – with the mandate to foster Canadian unity and promote the expression of diverse ideas - there is good case law suggesting that any legal action on May’s part would fail.

It’s been tried before.

In National Party of Canada v. Canada Broadcasting Corp. (1993), 106 D.L.R. (4th) 568 (Alta. Q.B.), the court decided that the CBC was not subject to Charter scrutiny when it denied the National Party the opportunity to participate in the leadership debates. The Supreme Court of Canada refused to grant expedited leave to appeal.

Along these same lines, in Natural Law Party v. Canada Broadcasting Corp. (T.D.), [1994] 1 F.C. 580, the Federal Court held that:

“In my view, the CBC is acting as a broadcaster and not as an agent of the government in its participation in the Broadcasters’ Consortium.”

and further that

“It is not the function of the government or indeed the courts to dictate to the news media what they should report. The broadcasters are exercising a function that is very central to the democratic process. But it is a function that they perform quite independently of government.

…

What the applicants are really asking this court to do is to dictate the content and the agenda of the political debate in the forthcoming federal general election. It is for the leaders of the various political parties to decide of their own free will and accord, without any coercion from this court, whom they want to debate and when and on what terms such debates should take place. It is not for this court to dictate the agenda of political debate.

The Green Party has retained Toronto lawyer Peter Rosenthal to spearhead the legal fight.