From non-broadcast media there appears to be a fairly broad consensus: The Green Party leader should be allowed to participate in the leaders debates.

Networks have lost their journalistic backbone (Chantel Hébert, The Star)

The Green party had a better case for participating in the televised debates of the 2008 campaign than the Bloc Québécois and the Reform party in 1993. Having opened the door 15 years ago to parties that were blatantly not in the running for power, why did the networks not stand up for Elizabeth May in this campaign?

In the 1993 election, the established parties were just as opposed to the addition of new debate players as the NDP and the Conservatives are today. They brought at least one solid objection to the fore and it was the fact that neither the Reform party, nor the Bloc Québécois, could claim to be national parties.

Reform had not yet extended its wings east of Manitoba. Moreover, Preston Manning was not bilingual. In the end, it was decided he would limit himself to an opening statement in French. Lucien Bouchard, on the hand, was granted full participation rights in both debates, a privilege his successor enjoys to this day.

The Green party runs candidates in every province and May is fluently bilingual. Over the past 12 months, the Green score in the national polls has ranged from 7 per cent to 13 per cent. Support for the Bloc Québécois over the same period has never exceeded 9 per cent.

Dion emerges smelling like a rose (Don Martin, National Post)

But as the only party leader to endorse the Green leader's participation, Mr. Dion claims the moral high ground as free-speech defender and polishes his credentials for women voters, even though a stellar Elizabeth May performance risks draining support away from the Liberals.

Let Elizabeth May speak (Former Prime Minister Joe Clark, The Globe and Mail)

Jason MacDonald, a spokesman for the network consortium, is quoted as saying that three parties - those led by Stephen Harper, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe - all opposed the participation of Ms. May in the so-called leaders debate, "and it became clear that if the Green Party were included, there would be no leaders debates."

That's blackmail. If these three men want to boycott a genuine debate, let them have the courage to do so openly. Let them also explain why, in a year when U.S. party establishments could not shut out an Obama or a McCain, it is appropriate for the Canadian party establishments to muzzle a significant voice for change.

I am not a supporter of any of the existing federal parties, including the Greens. But I am alarmed, and surprised, by how tightly the government now controls Parliament, how easily parties put their own interest ahead of the public interest, and how mean our public debate has become. We have to break that pattern, and one way to begin would be with a more inclusive leaders debate. I urge more Canadians to press these three leaders, and the broadcasting consortium they hide behind, to reconsider their exclusionary decision.