Kip Powick Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 OTTAWA—Three days after Canadians belted out "O Canada" to celebrate the nation's Olympic hockey win, Stephen Harper's Conservatives are asking whether the anthem should be changed.The phrase "In all thy sons command" has some women calling for a gender-neutral version, Industry Minister Tony Clement says, citing an email from a constituent."For 50 years ..... I've listened to our anthem and felt excluded by the line," Tina Prietz, 60, of Huntsville, Ont., wrote to Clement. "Yes, you've guessed it, I'm female."The Conservative government said in Wednesday's throne speech it will ask Parliament to examine the original......................full article here...http://www.thestar.c...nal-anthem?bn=1Well, there goes "manholes"and "manuals" ...I guess it would only be correct to have "personholes" and "personauls" instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 4, 2010 Author Share Posted March 4, 2010 From the Globe and Mail..........Throwing the anthem under the bus by...Robert Silver Finally, someone has had the courage to take on the hate-filled screed known as O Canada. And what timing. For the last two-weeks, as we played it over, and over again (fourteen times in all), we showed the world through our national song what a close-minded country we really are. As our athletes stood on the top of the podium, those weren't tears of joy or pride, no, they were the expression of shame knowing what was about to be played ostensibly in their honour. O Canada indeed. Luckily for us, Stephen Harper recognized our national anthem for the disgrace that it is. Sadly, in only going after the anthem for its (clear) sexism, he isn't going nearly far enough. As far as I can tell, the entire song is a giant Human Rights Commission complaint waiting to happen. Consider: Our home and native land. For every Canadian born in another country, Canada is not, in fact their "native" land. O Canada is thus anti-immigrant. Disgusting. True patriot love, In all thy sons command. Harper rightly sees this as the sexist cry that it is. With glowing hearts, we see thee rise. Sadly many Canadians don't have the gift of sight, this anthem is taunting them in a very un-Canadian way. We stand on guard for thee. To pacifist-Canadians, the continued militarization of Canada is nothing that should be celebrated. God keep our land. Atheists think it is up to all of us to keep the land during our lifetime before the nothingness of death begins. Church and state folks. Church. And. State. Extreme property rights folks also find this phrase vaguely socialistic given its notion that the land belongs to "us" as opposed to individuals who purchase their land on the free market and then protect said land with lots and lots of guns. Glorious and free. Inglorious and adscripted Canadians are deeply offended. Other than that, I think the anthem is fine, if a bit short given that after all of the offensive lines are removed, the anthem on a going forward basis simply reads "O Canada," which is a kind of lame anthem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 by...Robert Silver Finally, someone has had the courage to take on the hate-filled screed known as O Canada. ......As our athletes stood on the top of the podium, those weren't tears of joy or pride, no, they were the expression of shame knowing what was about to be played ostensibly in their honour. I nominate this guy for the hyperbole of the year award...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted March 4, 2010 Share Posted March 4, 2010 I nominate this guy for the hyperbole of the year award......While it's pretty early in the year, he's definitely got the jump on the competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CD Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Actually, if they were to go with this version, it would likely be a trademark infringement and Canada likely doesn't have enough money left to fight Oprah... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 My altered versionO CanadaThe place where we residewe are patrioticin someones kids commandwith beating heartswe do risethe near north moderately strong and mostly freefrom here and therewe stand and take it from theeso keepp our song and leave it bewe will not take it from thee we will not take it from thee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boestar Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 excellent news. This country (World) needs to stop woorrying about the little things and start worrying about the big things. And the general public that likes to complain about being offended by some small statement or comment that is not "PC" needs to get some stronger shoulders and suck it up. The world is becomming a bunch of whiners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 My 2¢ worth... GOD had a Son. His name was Jesus Christ. In all thy Son's command would refer to do all we do with regard to values put forth by Jesus Christ... I don't see anything wrong with that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 My 2¢ worth... GOD had a Son. His name was Jesus Christ. In all thy Son's command would refer to do all we do with regard to values put forth by Jesus Christ... I don't see anything wrong with that... You may not see anything wrong with it as you believe in Christ but there may be people who do not share your religion and are as every bit as patriotic as anyone else.The anthem has been changed and adapted many times through it's history and while I do not really care if it is changed, I do not think it is a bad thing. I don't see how having the anthem be inclusive of all genders is something to be fought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpperDeck Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Bottom line...a democracy, right? The majority of Canadians couldn't give a rat's patootie so end of story. Aha! But this is a "political issue" to be resolved based upon the opinions of those most likely to vote or who will vote as a block. Aha! Changing the anthem is irrelevant to most "new" Canadians (the largest voting block) and is anathema to the entrenched traditional Canadians and so---disposition of the issue should have been obvious to the Conservatives from the get go.....leave it alone!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steam Driven Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 You may not see anything wrong with it as you believe in Christ but there may be people who do not share your religion and are as every bit as patriotic as anyone else.The anthem has been changed and adapted many times through it's history and while I do not really care if it is changed, I do not think it is a bad thing. I don't see how having the anthem be inclusive of all genders is something to be fought.What I believe is immaterial. The person who wrote it believed in God, the people who adopted it as our anthem believed it to be a true representation of our thoughts, hopes and aspirations as a Country. It has nothing to do with the gender of the people who populate this land.I don't see how an anthem inclusive of ideals of helping your neighbour, taking care of those less fortunate than ourselves, of hope and charity, of honouring those who have gone before us is something to be fought and changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon The Loon Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 What Canada believed in was then, not now.What is now is a product of multi-culturalism.All who want to retrograde to what is now, need write their MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 An interesting perspective on multiculturalism. Salman Rushdie His speech starts at 13:30. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moeman Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 What Canada believed in was then, not now.What is now is a product of multi-culturalism.All who want to retrograde to what is now, need write their MP.I agree. That said, why even have a "National" anthem? How about "Go Canada Go!"? Or, how about "Go "insert my province or city or county or R.R. or Neighbourhood, or Community, or Religion or previous Nationality married with their present Nationality like Indian-Canadian, or whatever you want followed by GO!" ???Where does it stop? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 If multiculturalism means giving up our history, our beliefs, our ideals, and anything else that may be important to us then I vote to end multiculturalism!!!But then I don't think multiculturalism means any of that - but too many have taken it too mean exactly that.We can keep our collective/historic culture while accepting others, of different cultures, into our country. Unfortunatly, it seems that many believe being 'multicultural' means they have 'rights' while other believe they have to 'accomodate' those rights."I want all the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown of my feet by any." Mahatma Gandhi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.O. Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 If some folks in a certain province have their way, this won't matter as much by the time the next winter Olympics roll around. They want athletes from Quebec to compete for Quebec rather than for Canada. Since Quebecers won so many of our medals, looks like Canada would be an "also-ran" if this were to come true. To them, I say ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 I wonder how those athletes feel about that? My hunch is they were happy to be representing Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Quebec funds their athletes from provincial coffers more than any other province. I suppose you could extrapolate out to the rest of Canada funding their athletes as they receive more in transfer payments than any other province.Steam, not trying to start a bun fight but the original O Canada was gender neutral and had no mention of God. I like what the anthem stands for but do not see an issue to make it more inclusive to all genders. We can agree to disagree on what "all thy sons command" refers to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Cronin Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 An interesting perspective on multiculturalism. Salman Rushdie His speech starts at 13:30.Thanks for that link. He's right on the money! ...he's got Red Blood, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inchman Posted March 8, 2010 Share Posted March 8, 2010 Steam, not trying to start a bun fight but the original O Canada was gender neutral and had no mention of God. I like what the anthem stands for but do not see an issue to make it more inclusive to all genders. We can agree to disagree on what "all thy sons command" refers to.God is not mentioned until after the "all thy sons command". The phrase "True patriot love, in all thy sons command" means that Canada commands true patriot love in all of its sons."Sons" can be interpreted as "citizens". This is why some wanted to change it to "us"... Canada commanding true patriot love in all of "us".That's my take. Personally, I think Sons covers all citizens regardless of gender.Nevertheless, I consider the Anthem as sacrosanct as the Charter of Rights. It should only be changed if absolutely necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 8, 2010 Author Share Posted March 8, 2010 Inquiry on the National AnthemRe "in all thy sons command" here is a record of the 2001 inquiry containing an explanation of that line.InquiryTwo points..The "Inquiry" is one man's opinion and he is suggesting how and why it was written...no hard facts or actual evidence to buttress his points."Sons command"...if there was a religious connotation would it not read "son's command" ((possessive)) ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 8, 2010 Author Share Posted March 8, 2010 Couple of points right back at ya. - Lastly, I see no need to change any of the wording. Agree 100 % +1000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEFCON Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 "Nevertheless, I consider the Anthem as sacrosanct as the Charter of Rights. It should only be changed if absolutely necessary."'Not withstanding' the reality, the Consitution is not "sacrosanct" in any way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RussD Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Nevertheless, I consider the Anthem as sacrosanct as the Charter of Rights. It should only be changed if absolutely necessary.Thankfully someone thought differently in years gone by. Here are the lyrics from the 1906 Richardson version (translated from the original French):" O Canada! Our fathers' land of oldThy brow is crown'd with leaves of red and gold.Beneath the shade of the Holy CrossThy children own their birthNo stains thy glorious annals glossSince valour shield thy hearth.Almighty God! On thee we callDefend our rights, forfend this nation's thrall,Defend our rights, forfend this nation's thrall."Don't know it I get the bit about annals gloss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kip Powick Posted March 10, 2010 Author Share Posted March 10, 2010 Thankfully someone thought differently in years gone by. Here are the lyrics from the 1906 Richardson version (translated from the original French):Don't know it I get the bit about annals gloss I'm guessing here but I think it means , "don't anyone mar, (stain), our glorious years , (annals) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.