Me, Too! Me, Too!

Green party admission to leaders' debates has brought Canada's other political crazies out of the woodworks

With Green party leader Elizabeth May set to participate in the televised leaders' debates -- despite her party having never elected a single, solitary MP -- many of Canada's other political crazies want a spot in the big show, too.

"The parties that are in the House are treating it like a private fiefdom, they're trying to pull up the drawbridge behind them and exclude other parties and new ideas," said Christian Heritage party leader Ron Gray.

"A democracy requires an informed electorate," he added. "To preempt the voter's decision by excluding one important voice is anti-democratic."

But in the 2005/06 federal election, only 28,152 voters voted for the anti-abortion, anti-gay social conservative Christian Heritage party. That's good for a 0.19% of the popular vote.

Is the Christian Heritage party really an "important voice"? Not bloody likely.

Marijuana party leader Blair Longley also thinks that, gosh-darn it, it's all just not fair.

"It's so unfair it goes off the scale," Longley sniffed. "We've been complaining forever and ever. Marijuana Party candidates are routinely excluded from debates, all over the place, all the time."

"If you're below the two-per-cent (threshold), you're nothing," Longley noted.

And for good reason, too. It's one thing for the debates to have to moderate a leaders' debate amongst four (now five) different leaders. Add a burnout douchebag who's probably stoned to the mix?

Not a pretty picture.

In the 2005/06 election 9,171 voters cast their ballot in favour of the Marijuana party. One presumes that a good deal of their constituency must have had an epiphany on election day: "if the only political issue I care about is the legalization of marijuana, I am clearly too fucking stupid to vote."

Of course, there is one fringe party in Canada that could actually make a somewhat legitimate claim to a spot in the leaders' debate: the Communist party, who elected Fred Rose in 1943, when the party ran candidates as the Labour Progressive party.

Unfortunately for the Communist party (and fortunately for the rest of us), however, the Communist party will still have to field candidates against the Marxist-Leninist party, splitting what is quite literally the pinko-commie vote.

Of course, neither party would stand a chance of electing an MP anywhere. There are three reasons for this: Communist. Marxist. Leninist.

Commanding a potential 10% of the popular vote, the Green party has certainly grown in status far beyond the meager dreams of these other fringe upstarts. But with the party finally claiming a place at the televised debate -- even with a leader acting as nothing more than a proxy for the Liberal party -- one has to wonder how long it may be before the network consortium relents and lets all these other crazies in, too.

Then again, Parliament (on a good day) already resembles an unruly kindergarten classroom. Why shouldn't the leaders' debate follow suit?

This Week in Political Irrelevance...

Canadian Communist Party apparently still exists

It's been said that old communists don't die, they just fantasize about a communist future.

Such was the case with the Communist Party of Canada this past week, as they met on the University of Alberta campus "to discuss a communist future".

Apparently, the fact that communism has no future has been entirely lost on them.

"[The Alberta election] will be an important testing ground," said Communist party leader Miguel Figeuroa. "Defeating the Tories in Alberta would go a long way to defeating them across the country, which would be in the best interest of the vast majority."

It seems that the historical tradition of the leaders of parties supported by the vast minority claiming to represent the vast majority remain intact.

He declined to comment on whether or not he'll be holding his breath until such a defeat occurs (although one can certainly hope he will).

"The re-election of the Harper Tories, especially if they get a majority, would be extremely detrimental to the future of our country, for our sovereignty, for preservation of the environment," Figueroa announced. "They’re representing the interests of Big Oil and Big Capital, not the long term interests of our country or our globe."

Figueroa also failed to comment on the Communist Party's links to big hammer and big sickle.

It all turns out to be fairly heady stuff. Just listening to Figueroa, one would think that communism wasn't a momentous disaster in virtually every country in which it was imposed, and that some of the most egregious violations of human rights weren't perpetrated by communist regimes.

Then, one remembers that they were.

Of course, old communists like Figueroa like to try and soften their message by speaking about their brand of "social democracy". Then, they say things like this: "You can’t have genuine political democracy when the economy is profoundly undemocratic. Capitalism runs rampant; globalization is increasing disparities between the rich and poor. ... Rights working people had fought for decades to win—trade union rights, social programs like healthcare and education—are all coming under attack."

"The idea of counter-posing the individual to the needs of the community as a whole has been brought to its zenith under capitalism," he continued. "You get ahead at the expense of others; it’s a cutthroat society, law of the jungle. Is humanity doomed always to have such attitudes? We don’t think so. But of course, it’s not going to happen overnight."

At the end of the day, individuals like Figueroa are still talking about communism, while pretending that a miraculous transformation of human nature will somehow make this glorious wonderland possible, and indulging in the fantasy that, by golly, if only they could get Mixed Member Plurality voting in place, maybe they could even get their foot in the political door.

Meanwhile, Figueroa, elected as Communist Party glorious leader in 1992, has continually been reelected to the position. Whether one should consider this a statement on the health of the communist movement in Canada, or a lack of aforementioned democracy within the Communist Party (gee, who'd've thunk that?), one may judge for oneself.

When people like Figueroa simply refuse to accept their irrelevance (although it's hardly as if their acceptance of this fact matters), one thing is for certain: at least they keep things interesting -- even if it's only by making amusing spectacles of themselves.

Then again, considering that Figueroa and his so-called "round table" discussion barely managed to warrant mention in a University newspaper, it seems the Canadian Communist Party isn't even relevant enough to do that properly.