An Anthem For All of Us

I've been reading, with some interest, the wide ranging opinions on the recent changes to Canada's National Anthem. In my opinion the change was a necessary one in that it became a truly inclusive anthem, finally.

This debate has been drawn down partisan lines as most issues have been since the death of the Progressive side of the Conservative Party. This one had the Liberals, NDP and Greens on one side, with the Bloc showing complete disinterest, and the Conservatives, if you believe their narrative, holding Canadian values above all else. They were, and are, protecting Canada from the ravages of the politically correct.

How, and more importantly, why, did it become a partisan issue? For those of you who live under a politically stationed rock the words “in all thy sons command” has been changed to “in all of our command.” This anthem, our anthem, and its words, are an important symbol of Canada and must be inclusive at every level. The words “all thy sons command” where changed from "thou dost in us command” in 1914, most likely to praise the men going off to WWI while ignoring the contributions to that war effort by all Canadian women. After all, they couldn't vote then so who cared?

Anti-changers must be asking: Are these words somehow a left-wing, progressive plot to raise taxes or outlaw yet another automatic weapon? Is it really just a part of a hidden agenda to lead us to a slippery slope to where our oath of allegiance will be replaced with some sort of feminist credo? Oh the horror! Seems, the conservative camp thinks these words are very important, for some odd reason.

The debate, such as it was, seemed to be little more than the opposition Conservatives opposing, which, in-the-end, is their job. Doing that job became a bit of a problem, however, as they bogged things down with procedural tricks. It seemed to become a “it's a Liberal bill and it must be blocked” exercise. Even some of their own members spoke sheepishly and noted the poor optics. Essentially, they became the GOP north. Obstructionist for the sake of obstruction.

Except for the heart felt and near heroic efforts by MP Mauril Belanger's to have his private member's bill moved forward regardless of the heartlessness of the official opposition, this was/is not an end to Canada as we know it. I made my position clear in a couple of Twitter tweets about inclusivity, gender balance etc. and moved on as have most Canadians.

But then I read a column by ever changing and shifting Andrew Coyne, who just can't seem to pick a lane, who spent the better part of 1000 words explaining how those who wanted to see this change were so literally minded he couldn't fathom the idea of how we could live with ourselves. From the first sneering demeaning paragraph to the arrogant misinformed final sentence, he got it all wrong. He did manage, however, to avoid using the words “politically correct” which he knows as well as I do, is the catchall used by the bigot to justify his or her bigotry.

It was reassuring though that he felt very sorry for our inability to see how meaningless those words in our anthem were. He told us how interchangeable words really are regarding gender, such as the use of the word 'guys' when used by girls. It's an almost carefree gender randomness that revels in our God given right to free speech. He did get a little confused about “all hands on deck” though since that is already gender neutral, or does he think only real he-men have jobs on boats?

So for Andrew, the entire issue for us literally inflicted in this issue is, all about context. He has somehow come to the conclusion that “all thy sons” does not in fact mean “all thy sons” after all, it's all in the context of the national anthem. So, does “stand on guard” mean, sit around if you want to? What an incredibly ridiculous thing to say.

This issue is about the meaning of Canada's National Anthem, and not the interchangeability of words based on one gal's (gender interchangeability) op-ed. Andrew would like to reduce the wording of this official song to something akin to street slang, or to tell the majority of Canada's population that context is all that matters. When we sing the national anthem at a hockey game can we change 'O Canada! Our home and native land!' to 'O Air Canada Center! Our home and native rink!' you know, keeping it in context. Of course not!

In-the-end, words mean what they mean today, they may not mean what they meant yesterday. Sons means sons written 102 years ago, all of us means all of us, written in 2016. The context from 1914, when the anthem was changed to use 'sons' no longer applies. Words do change, there is a constant shift and change in their meanings and intents. And anyone who makes their living from the use of words ought to be ashamed of him or herself for not knowing that simple truth. Words matter.