# Parliament to consider changes to "O Canada"



## ballz (4 Mar 2010)

http://news.ca.msn.com/canada/video.aspx?cp-documentid=cbcc2010-0403-0757-0016-143136289200

 :


----------



## mariomike (4 Mar 2010)

"The Maple Leaf Forever" and "O Canada". 
In music only. I'll let the politicians worry about the words:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy6c7-buMZg


----------



## WLSC (4 Mar 2010)

: Never been change in french !!


----------



## Old Sweat (4 Mar 2010)

The following (less the pictures) page, which may be found at www.vancouverhistory.ca/archives_ocanada.htm, provides an account of the adoption of the English version:

Was Canada’s national anthem written in Vancouver? No.

To get the facts, come back with us to a gloriously sunny day in July, 1908 in Quebec City.

Brigadier-General Lawrence Buchan (left) was in command of the garrison at Quebec, at the head of 12,000 troops taking part in ceremonies marking the 300th anniversary of the city's founding. The Prince of Wales (later King George V) was reviewing the troops.

At one point the massed bands of the garrison played a stirring, patriotic air composed in 1875 by Quebec's Calixa Lavallee (right). The prince was so impressed by it that he asked, “What is that magnificent composition?” He was informed that the piece had no formal title and was known simply as “Chant Nationale.” (Note that this was 33 years after the tune’s composition.)


Lawrence Buchan was impressed with the music, too. He got a copy of the sheet music, which included the French lyrics by Adolphe-Basile Routhier (sung to this day by Canadian Francophones), and had them translated into English. He sent them to his brother, Ewing Buchan, then manager of the Bank of Hamilton in Vancouver. Ewing Buchan was very taken by the air and he and his family often sang it in their home at 1114 Barclay St. Daughter Olive provided the piano accompaniment. But Buchan was dissatisfied with the English translation of the French words to the tune and decided to write his own, a single stanza.

The opening four notes suggested to Buchan an obvious first line: “O Canada.”

The same two words began the French lyrics to the song. The air's first four notes, in fact, inspired a small mob of Canadians outside Quebec to begin their versions of the song with the same two words. But it must be said that not all the lyrics were inspired by pure patriotism: it seems a Toronto-based magazine, Collier's, an offshoot of the American publication, had offered a prize for the best three-stanza song in English, set to the Lavallee air.

It gets confusing here: The Canadian Encyclopedia of Music, in a long article, says: “The winner, announced August 7, 1909, was Mrs. Mercy E. Powell McCulloch, one of some 350 competitors. The English version most widely used, however, is the one by Robert Stanley Weir, published in November 1908 . . .”

It is Weir’s words, with recent modifications, we sing to this day.

Ewing Buchan (left) hadn't known about the Collier's contest but, says his son Percy, he would have felt no urge to enter if he had. “Having fallen in love with the beauty of the music, he had a conviction that his fellow citizens would likewise respond to the spirit of the air and would sing it if they had appropriate words.”

In 1947, at the urging of Vancouver's city archivist Major J.S. Matthews, Percy Buchan wrote a pamphlet on his father's creation of those now forgotten lyrics.

“It happened,” Percy wrote, “that in 1908-09 my father was second vice-president of the Canadian Club of Vancouver. The custom of the club was to open its luncheon proceedings with a toast to the King (Edward VII), followed by singing of the National Anthem, God Save the King, and to close with the first verse of The Maple Leaf Forever. Having O Canada in mind, he resolved to urge its substitution for The Maple Leaf Forever at all functions of the club and to that end devoted a considerable part of his leisure during the winter evenings of 1908 to quiet reflection on the matter.”

In the spring of 1909 Ewing sent the nine-line result to his brother in Quebec. Lawrence Buchan and a friend, Brenton A. MacNab of the Montreal Star, made a few minor changes, then Lawrence ran off a number of copies on small printed slips. He sent some to Ewing in Vancouver. A brief introductory paragraph stated that the words of the verse were the work of Ewing Buchan, rearranged by MacNab and Lawrence Buchan.

In the fall of 1909 the two brothers met for the last time in Vancouver, Lawrence Buchan contracted pneumonia during his western trip and died at 62 in October, a short time after his return to Montreal. “This event,” wrote Percy Buchan, “was a severe blow to Ewing and resolved him to bestow the entire credit for the Buchan version of O Canada on the general as a memorial in the minds of the Canadian people. That is the reason the stanza must forever bear the name of Lawrence Buchan.

“The song,” Percy continues, “had its introduction at the close of a luncheon meeting (of the Vancouver Canadian Club) on Wednesday, February 9, 1910, in old Pender Hall, situated on the upper floor of the present two-storey building at the southwest corner of Pender and Howe streets. [Remember he’s writing this in 1947.] After some brief introductory remarks by Captain William Hart-McHarg, a quartette, accompanied by Miss Grace Hastings at the piano, led the first singing of O Canada by a Vancouver audience and the first performance of the Buchan version within the Dominion . . . Eventually it became the custom of the club to close its meetings with the singing of O Canada instead of The Maple Leaf Forever.”

Ewing destroyed from his private files every trace of his authorship of the verse. But a letter to Percy from the general, written a few months before he died, makes it clear where the major credit lies.

Supporters of the Buchan version distributed some 40,000 copies to Vancouver school children and kept up steady efforts on its behalf for years. By 1929 the fight between the two factions, one pushing for Buchan's words, the other for Weir's, broke into print. (Some backers of the Buchan version referred to the competitive lyrics as "the Weird version.")

Then Prime Minister W.L. MacKenzie King, visiting the coast, heard the Buchan version sung at a meeting of the Vancouver Board of Trade . . . and liked it a lot. Better than all the others he'd heard, in fact. That really got the fur flying.

Which version would prevail?

Well, this is one story to which every Canadian knows the end. But, for the record, here are the words to “the Buchan version” of O Canada:

O Canada, our heritage, our love
Thy worth we praise all other lands above
From sea to sea, throughout thy length,
From pole to borderland
At Britain's side, whate'er betide,
Unflinchingly we'll stand.
With heart we sing, “God Save the King”
“Guide thou the Empire wide,” do we implore
“And prosper Canada from shore to shore.”

Note that both The RCR and the RWR claim Buchan, as he served with the later in the regular force, including in South Africa, and with the former in the NW Rebellion.


----------



## medicineman (4 Mar 2010)

For the love of God (or deity of your choice, if you so choose), how many freaking times will I have to relearn the English version of "O Canada" in my lifetime?  As noted above, at least the French version has remained unchanged (and oddly enough, I learned it in French before I learned it in English - another story).  Will political correctness ever end?

MM


----------



## 40below (4 Mar 2010)

I have no opinion on this topic but an anecdote. When I was living in Inuvik around 1998 or so, the Mounties provided security for territorial court, which I had occasion to sit in on. A new guy had come up from the south and his fellow officers informed him that he would sit in on court to get a feel for things and besides security, the RCMP's duty in the NWT included opening court for the day, which involved singing O Canada once the judge had entered.  He stood at attention and sang it beautifully and continued as the criminals, the court staff and the other members from the detachment who had come to court that morning broke up laughing, and it was only when the judge started losing it that he turned red and stopped.


----------



## mariomike (5 Mar 2010)

Good grief. I just gave a listen - first time I heard it - to that Australia song you mentioned. Whatever happened to "Waltzing Matilda"? Until today, I thought it was the anthem!
Doesn't exactly get my tired blood pumping, like "La Marseillaise" never fails to.

I remember in school when they changed the Canadian flag. I must have been about ten years old. If I recall correctly, some of our teachers had some difficulty containing their displeasure.

Too bad Canada didn't have an Irving Berlin. 
Official or not, this has always been one of my favorites, but I guess now they would have to omit the first word:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnQDW-NMaRs


----------



## Old Sweat (5 Mar 2010)

Move on, folks. Nothing to see here.

The following column from the National Post's website is reproduced under the fair comment provisions of the Copyright Act:

Don Martin: Tories backpedal on anthem change
Posted: March 05, 2010, 3:36 PM by NP Editor 

Oh OK Canada, that plan to tweak the national anthem is dead.


After facing a blitzkrieg of backlash to a minor Throne Speech afterthought, which proposed a single line change to eliminate a gender reference in the anthem's lyrics, a senior cabinet minister confides the notion will be quickly and quietly dusty-shelved, never to see the light of actual committee study.


Cabinet ministers, flush with the success of a budget which slipped a final burst of spending into the books ahead of deficit-elimination cutbacks, were cursing the anthem change as a party anathema in the post-budget bar scene Thursday. 


The Prime Minister's Office is not officially changing its true patriot heart on the issue, probably because Stephen Harper is believed to be personally responsible for the insert under pressure from feminist Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth.  


And Senator Ruth isn't giving up the crusade. She issued a press release on Friday demanding "that the English version of O Canada be restored to include women and girls. The national anthem in English should reflect our constitution and the role that women and girls play in Canada today, not the prejudices of the past."


But influential  officials are reassuring Conservative MPs that the kerfuffle will be allowed to fade away -- and never to return to the agenda, even as a suggestion for further study.  


This has got to rank as the fastest back-away from a Throne Speech initiative ever. It's rare to find so many senior members of the government candidly opposing their leader's initiative or admitting local voters are infuriated by his move. 
Insiders who have polled the Conservative caucus found more than nine out of ten MPs are opposed to any anthem change. 


It has infuriated the Conservative base and captivated all political water cooler conversation, dwarfing debate about the Throne Speech and federal budget. If this was intended as a bad-news diversion, it worked so well the government may well need to unleash a diversion to this diversion.


Sensing it had a major oopsie on its hands, the government had reacted almost immediately.  


Barely an hour after the Throne Speech was delivered, an MP ‘talking point' was rushed out from the PMO insisting the government was "not taking a position.  We are simply suggesting that a parliamentary committee examine the subject and report back to Parliament."


That's politic-speak for backpedalling, if not running, away from an ugly mess. 


Some rank this as one of Harper's top four biggest mistakes, right up there with gratuitous arts funding cuts which infuriated the key battleground of Quebec on the eve of the 2008 election, the political financing elimination which created the opposition coalition and the February prorogation move which whacked the Conservatives down in the polls.  
That seems a bit too much significance for a word change, but keep in mind Quebec pundits say the $15-million arts funding reduction cost Harper his shot at a majority in 2008.


But for a government to propose an anthem alteration just (ital) three days (end) after Canada's patriotic tidal wave crested at the Vancouver Winter Olympics suggests Harper's tone-deafness to the average voter has become a pattern. 
True, the scope of the reaction caught many  by surprise -- and you can count me among them. But the timing could not have been worse and the Prime Minister clearly needs someone in an office filled with sycophants to grab his collar and shake these sorts of bad ideas out of his head.


----------



## ballz (5 Mar 2010)

The timing had crossed my mind too. Canadians just rallied around the flag and the anthem for 2 weeks, something we don't see as often as I'd like. Many people who probably never looked at the flag in awe or sang the anthem at the top of their lungs before experienced what it feels like to do so and to mean it. 

I also notice the mentions of the older flags/anthems/songs or whatever. I had to google what the old flag looked like and I had never heard of "The Maple Leaf Forever" until that YouTube link (although I had heard it on bagpipes before, I never knew what it was and never heard the lyrics).

For me and my younger peers, I grew up with one anthem and one flag, and it's all I've known, and I think it makes the issue a little more of an issue for me, because I always imagined that it's always been this way (although I knew it hadn't been).

If we change things all the time, it doesn't give people a chance to love them as much. Give the flag 100 years (so 2065), and pretty much everybody will have never seen another flag associated with Canada. It will symbolize Canada so much more. Same with anthems, or any other symbol. The longer they stand as a symbol the better.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2010)

The proposed change to the Anthem is probably not only a bit of an afterthought, but also serves as a honeypot to draw the attention and energy of people, allowing the government to quietly, you know, govern......

Just thinking out loud


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (5 Mar 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Good grief. I just gave a listen - first time I heard it - to that Australia song you mentioned. Whatever happened to "Waltzing Matilda"? Until today, I thought it was the anthem!
> Doesn't exactly get my tired blood pumping, like "La Marseillaise" never fails to.



Here are the lyrics to Advance Australia Fair



> Traveling in a fried-out combie
> On a hippie trail, head full of zombie
> I met a strange lady, she made me nervous
> She took me in and gave me breakfast
> ...




It has a catchy tune but I wish that someone had written lyrics to Waltzing Matilda that didn't suck.  Waltzing Matilda is Australia.


----------



## Kat Stevens (5 Mar 2010)

Or maybe this;



   Australians all let us rejoice
For we are young and free
We've golden soil and wealth for toil,
Our home is girt by sea:
Our land abounds in nature's gifts
Of beauty rich and rare,
In history's page let every stage
Advance Australia fair,
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia fair.

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross,
 We'll toil with hearts and hands,
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands,
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share,
With courage let us all combine
To advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia fair.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Mar 2010)

More here:


> O Canada, the Harper government is standing on guard for your lyrics after all.
> 
> Just two days after promising to ask Parliament to consider restoring the national anthem's original gender-neutral wording, the Tories have done an abrupt about-face.
> 
> ...


----------



## 1feral1 (6 Mar 2010)

Good one lads, and now a tad off topic, play the link. This song too is unique to Australia, and the words are quite inspiring to all Aussies, either born here, or naturalised.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jD3SkTyXzcE

For those that have visited this vast southern land, this might make you feel like you're back, and realise what lures and keep both me and my heart here. For those Aussies that left that are now elsewhere, it might make you homesick.

You might be hanging for a dark 'n stormy, or feeling 'morish' to fang down a few fresh lamingtons, or some of your neighbours nan's dinkum country style rissoles, or her fresh baked pavlova. These are all as Aussie as a mouth full of Territorian bull dust, or the sting of a bull dog ant, ha!

WRT O' Canada, I am happy they'll now not touch it (yet).

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## mariomike (6 Mar 2010)

Remember these disasters? :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bFCJ_YVrGY&feature=player_embedded#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1vSwn37qT0&NR=1


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Dec 2011)

Necrothread revived with the latest - more calls for the same....


> Shirley Robinson spent 30 years in the Canadian military and figures she knows something about leadership. Hence, her message to Stephen Harper: Show some leadership and change O Canada to make it genderneutral.
> 
> "Stand up and be a woman," the former lieutenant-colonel said Thursday in expressing her frustration at the prime minister's hesitation to alter lyrics in the national anthem. "Our laws are very explicit; women and men are equal in this country. Our anthem should reflect that. He (Harper) should do the right thing."
> 
> Robinson's challenge was prompted by a Citizen article that reported the prime minister's unwillingness to address the issue again after have been burned politically last year when he used the occasion of a Throne Speech to float the idea of changing a line in O Canada - "in all thy sons command" - to something less gender specific. At the time, the suggestion met with overwhelming public opposition and was quickly dropped ....


Postmedia News, 9 Dec 11
Postmedia News, 8 Dec 11 - screen capture of article also attached in case THIS link stops working


----------



## Jimmy_D (9 Dec 2011)

Not this shit again


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2011)

Maybe we should just start singing "The Maple Leaf Forever" instead...


----------



## wannabe SF member (9 Dec 2011)

Only if we use the original Lyrics. The updated version is terrible.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Dec 2011)

> Maybe we should just start singing "The Maple Leaf Forever" instead...



Absolutely!

I wish the evil Harper would do this. IMHO, "O Canada" is boring and about as inspirational as a Rap tune.

Two of my grandchildren are in the US and they really like the US National Anthem. 

My granddaughter sings O Canada at the OK Barons games when they are playing a Canadian team. Last week, when she started singing, it almost sounded like "Oh say ...." vice "O Canada ...". Funny.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Dec 2011)

I know the woman's history. Chivalrous men don't malign women in public, so today I'll be particularly quiet.


----------



## medicineman (9 Dec 2011)

The only thing I have to add to this is that it would appear that some folks have WAAAAAAY too much time on their hands.

MM


----------



## RangerRay (9 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Maybe we should just start singing "The Maple Leaf Forever" instead...





			
				Inky said:
			
		

> Only if we use the original Lyrics. The updated version is terrible.



 :goodpost: s!


----------



## Strike (9 Dec 2011)

What annoys me is when a former member will spout off their rank so they can get some extra credibility in the press. Which usually results in average Joe Blo thinking that, if this person who used to serve if the CF thinks this, then all CF members must think this.

Who is this woman and why are we suddenly hearing about her now?


----------



## mikeninercharlie (9 Dec 2011)

She's a nurse who retired from the CF almost 30 years ago. If you were to ask her, she would tell you that as a result of her fine work in NDHQ  women are permitted to fly helicopters....


----------



## CountDC (9 Dec 2011)

dang - should have kept my promise and not read this thread.   :crybaby:


----------



## Strike (9 Dec 2011)

From the article:



> As far as Robinson is concerned, that pride is both false and rooted in ignorance. “I take great exception to people who don’t want wording changes (to the anthem),” said the former deputy director of women personnel for the armed forces. “They are a disgrace to this country. That anthem has to be changed.”



Wow.  So I'm a disgrace to this country because I don't agree with her point of view?   :

And then:



> Ritchie, like Robinson, argues that to dismiss concerns about the inclusiveness of the lyrics in the national anthem is to ignore not only their symbolic significance but also their psychological resonance. As it is, they said, O Canada effectively perpetuates attitudes that once denied women the right to vote, run for office, own property or be treated as equals in the workplace. *“Until the anthem is changed, women will not be thought of as fully equal participants in the life of Canada,” * said Ritchie, who spent her career as a lawyer in the federal justice department and was the first woman appointed as a federal Queen’s Counsel.



I'm pretty sure changing the lyrics in the national anthem won't change a nation's beliefs.  Women will always be seen as different until such time as parents stop placing gender specific colours on babies, buying girls Barbie dolls and boys matchbox cars and women stop putting false expectations on themselves that they have to work twice as hard as men to get half the recognition.


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Dec 2011)

mikeninercharlie said:
			
		

> She's a nurse who retired from the CF almost 30 years ago. If you were to ask her, she would tell you that as a result of her fine work in NDHQ  women are permitted to fly helicopters....



I remember her......and not fondly.

She gives nurses a bad name.


----------



## medicineman (9 Dec 2011)

In the same vein, why do we still have religious connotations wtih "God keep our land..."?

I guess it comes back to my previous comment of having too much time on their hands, too much hate in their hearts, and nowhere constructive to use their energies.  Of course, this is what we get/got paid to keep sacred - their right to think and say what they want, even if it is a little mentally challenged...

MM


----------



## Journeyman (9 Dec 2011)

Jimmy_D said:
			
		

> Not this shit again


My thoughts exactly when I saw who was behind this.   :


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Dec 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> My thoughts exactly



Mine too and I don't even know who she is.  Before my time.   



			
				Strike said:
			
		

> buying girls Barbie dolls and boys matchbox cars



Should have had my parents.  I had Matchbox cars and Tonka trucks as a kid.   :nod:


----------



## Strike (9 Dec 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Should have had my parents.  I had Matchbox cars and Tonka trucks as a kid.   :nod:



I had My Little Ponie and my neighbour had G.I. Joes.  We would have cavalry battles.   ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (9 Dec 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> I had My Little Ponie and my neighbour had G.I. Joes.  We would have cavalry battles.   ;D



 :rofl:

I have to thank you profusely for this. Good thing I wasn't drinking anything at the time.



			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Should have had my parents.  I had Matchbox cars and Tonka trucks as a kid.   :nod:



And I have indicated to my daughter that my grandson and  granddaughter will be at least trying to shoot a bow and arrow. Plus Stella has a Forward Operating Base named after her in my back yard.


----------



## Strike (10 Dec 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Necrothread revived with the latest - more calls for the same....Postmedia News, 9 Nov 11



Seems the article has been taken down.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Dec 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Should have had my parents.  I had Matchbox cars and Tonka trucks as a kid.   :nod:





			
				Strike said:
			
		

> I had My Little Ponie and my neighbour had G.I. Joes.  We would have cavalry battles.   ;D



I had a bag of dead batteries with a note attached saying 'Toy Not Included'


----------



## Maxadia (10 Dec 2011)

I had 55 acres, about 40 of it woods.  Best toy ever for any kid.


----------



## eurowing (10 Dec 2011)

You lucky bastards.  If I didn't wake up with a woody, I had nothing to play with all day!


----------



## ballz (10 Dec 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure changing the lyrics in the national anthem won't change a nation's beliefs.  Women will always be seen as different until such time as parents stop placing gender specific colours on babies, buying girls Barbie dolls and boys matchbox cars and women stop putting false expectations on themselves that they have to work twice as hard as men to get half the recognition.



Now this is funny/ironic http://sistersinarms.ca/film-subjects/shirley-robinson-ret-lieutenant-colonel/

"I found that I could probably convince some of the men better than I could convince some of the women. That may sound strange *but women are their (own) worst enemies.*"

Guess who said that? None other than this Shirley Robinson character. 

I don't know what she did or didn't do in her career for equality, but bitching and moaning about this certainly isn't helping her cause.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Dec 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I had a bag of dead batteries with a note attached saying 'Toy Not Included'


:rofl:

NOW I know what to get my kids for Christmas!  (As a gag gift, of course, but I would seriously do this!!!)


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Dec 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure changing the lyrics in the national anthem won't change a nation's beliefs.  Women will always be seen as different until such time as parents stop placing gender specific colours on babies, buying girls Barbie dolls and boys matchbox cars and women stop putting false expectations on themselves that they have to work twice as hard as men to get half the recognition.



Put your boy in a pink outfit and send him to school and see what happens.  

In spite of the Thought Police trying to tell us otherwise, boys and girls are different, and generally go for and do different things.  

What the fuck that has to do with women not getting equal pay for equal work has gone totally over my head.  And of course it's so not a generalisation that all women expect to work twice as hard to get have the recognition.


 :


(Edited to correct spelling error)


----------



## aesop081 (10 Dec 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> Women will always be seen as different until such time as parents stop placing gender specific colours on babies, buying girls Barbie dolls and boys matchbox cars and women stop putting false expectations on themselves that they have to work twice as hard as men to get half the recognition.



So we can get rid of things like the CF champion for women then ?

The Canadian women in aviation conference ?

International women's day ?

I mean, we're all the same after all.................right ?


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So we can get rid of things like the CF champion for women then ?
> 
> The Canadian women in aviation conference ?
> 
> ...



While we're at it, lets get rid of Black History month, Aboriginal Recognition Day and anything else that strives to point out our _differences_.


----------



## GAP (10 Dec 2011)

Gay Pride parade?


----------



## cupper (10 Dec 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Gay Pride parade?



No, don't do that. Everyone loves a parade!


----------



## GAP (10 Dec 2011)

uhhh......okkkkkay........


----------



## Journeyman (10 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So we can get rid of things like....


Women's only gyms......solely because if you opened a "men's only" _anything_, the first people through the doors would be lawyers.


----------



## Tank Troll (10 Dec 2011)

I don't see what the problem is In Canadian Forces Women have it better than men, 

They can grow their hair as long as they want.

The can have their ears pierced (now with gold, silver or diamond studs)

There is no part of their body that they are required to shave on a daily bases.

If anything I want to be equal to them!


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Dec 2011)

Tank Troll said:
			
		

> The can have their ears pierced (now with gold, silver or diamond studs)



You can have your ears pierced.  You just can't wear earrings in uniform.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Dec 2011)

Let's settle this crap once and for all.  I nominate the following text as the national anthem:

"O, Canada!".

That is all.


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Dec 2011)

We anglos appear to be the only ones with a problem.  You don't hear Francophones bitching about such lines as "il sait porter la croix.."

I'll go you one further.  Just hum the tune, no words.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Dec 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> Seems the article has been taken down.


Thanks for the head's up - new link added, with scan attached as well.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> Now this is funny/ironic http://sistersinarms.ca/film-subjects/shirley-robinson-ret-lieutenant-colonel/


For a bit more grist for the mill, here's the Status of Women Canada Info-Machine's bio:


> Name: Shirley M. Robinson
> Role: Advocate for equality for women in the military
> Canadian Military Contribution: Long-time advocate for equality for women in the military
> 
> Lieutenant-Colonel (Retired) Shirley Robinson served with distinction in the Canadian military for some 30 years, taking on a variety of challenging roles on both the operational and administrative side of the forces. Shirley originally trained as a nurse, a profession she credits for her strong self-discipline. For decades, she has been a passionate and dedicated advocate for equality for women in the military – both in employment and in the conditions women face as they serve. While in the military, one of Shirley's key roles was as Deputy Director of Women Personnel. Hearing first-hand the experiences of discrimination and harassment faced by women in the military, she became convinced not enough was being done to address gender-based issues. Even in retirement, Shirley has dedicated herself to removing gender-based barriers in the military, opening doors so women can choose from the full range of career paths available today, including combat roles. Much of her work has been channeled through the Association for Women's Equity in the Armed Forces, which she co-founded in 1985. Shirley has authored a number of publications and articles on women in the military and their human rights. In 1992, she received the Governor General's Award in Commemoration of the Persons Case, in recognition of her outstanding contributions to the quality of life of women in Canada.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Dec 2011)

Did she write that herself?   >


----------



## mariomike (31 May 2016)

May 31, 2016 

Gender-neutral lyrics in 'O Canada' up for debate again in House of Commons
http://www.680news.com/2016/05/31/gender-neutral-lyrics-in-o-canada-up-for-debate-again-in-house-of-commons/
Another debate about O Canada is expected Tuesday in the House of Commons. 

The House of Commons is debating an effort by dying Liberal Mauril Belanger to render the national anthem gender-neutral, by replacing the line in the English version “in all thy sons command” with “in all of us command.”


----------



## Rocky Mountains (31 May 2016)

I am in favour of instituting gender neutral English the day after they institute gender neutral French and that ain't happening.  Why is it always an attack on the English language?

As with mankind that includes women, see definition 3.

 Full Definition of son

    1:  a human male offspring especially of human beingsb :  a male adopted childc :  a human male descendant

    2  capitalized :  the second person of the Trinity

    3 :  a person closely associated with or deriving from a formative agent (as a nation, school, or race)


----------



## mariomike (9 Jun 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I am in favour of instituting gender neutral English the day after they institute gender neutral French and that ain't happening.  Why is it always an attack on the English language?



June 9, 2016 

CTV News: "Conservatives block dying MP's bid to make O Canada lyrics gender-neutral"
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conservatives-block-dying-mp-s-bid-to-make-o-canada-lyrics-gender-neutral-1.2939012


----------



## Remius (9 Jun 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> I am in favour of instituting gender neutral English the day after they institute gender neutral French and that ain't happening.  Why is it always an attack on the English language?
> 
> As with mankind that includes women, see definition 3.
> 
> ...



You do realise that the anthem in French is already gender neutral right? And that both versions are pretty much not even litteral translations?  Not sure where you are getting that this is an attack on the english language.


----------



## gryphonv (9 Jun 2016)

Yeah Quebec is on the forefront in a lot of areas of gender neutrality, feminism, etc.

It is after all where 90% of those hyphenated monstrosity last names come from.

Never understood those. I've yet to see a triple or quad hyphenated name yet... not saying they don't exist.

With that said though, it shouldn't be changed. But nothing is sacred today for the PC bunch.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Jun 2016)

If it's such a problem then why don't they adopt "The Maple Leaf Forever" as the anthem?  It damn near was once already.


----------



## cupper (9 Jun 2016)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> It is after all where 90% of those hyphenated monstrosity last names come from.
> Never understood those. I've yet to see a triple or quad hyphenated name yet... not saying they don't exist.



I thought that it was because Quebec won't recognize a change in name if the wife decides to take her husband's name.

And why don't we just eliminate the words anyway. Since we have two official versions, and most times they use both versions in one go so no one knows what to sing.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jun 2016)

Man, those evil Tories. They even find a way to control the government as an official opposition. Its like the Liberals don't have a majority and couldn't force this bill through if they wanted, or something....


----------



## cupper (9 Jun 2016)

Next thing you know Trump will be the new CPC leader.  [


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jun 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Next thing you know Trump will be the new CPC leader.  [



Would O'Leary do?


----------



## Lightguns (10 Jun 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If it's such a problem then why don't they adopt "The Maple Leaf Forever" as the anthem?  It damn near was once already.



Its that whole verse about the Plains of Abraham that pisses of the people's republic likely holding it back.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Jun 2016)

I must admit, I have never read the words to the song, I only know the music.  Didn't know about that bit.  I can see why that was counted out and is a no go.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (10 Jun 2016)

There is also several different versions of the Maple Leaf Forever which completely exclude all the strong British lyrics. Personally I would rather see one of those as the national anthem (I would also rather see the Red Ensign back as the flag as well, even though I know it is unlikely to ever happen again).


----------



## gryphonv (10 Jun 2016)

The worse thing about all of this is that because the member has ALS and is essentially not going to last in a competant state for very much longer, the liberals are using that as a reason to rally behind the bill. They know this is a very dividing issue in Public. With very vocal numbers on both sides of the debate. But instead of doing a whipped vote which will accomplish the same goal but end with a taint on the liberals they are instead selling it as a dying mans wishes.

The fact a MP is dying should have zero to do with if a bill passes.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jun 2016)

gryphonv said:
			
		

> The fact a MP is dying should have zero to do with if a bill passes.



Valid point, but they prefer to do their 'electioneering' by tugging on the heartstrings of the voters, making it emotional as opposed to factual and logical.


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Jun 2016)

Completely agree. It'll be interesting to see if they revive the bill if he unfortunately passes away before the vote. It's a sad situation, but a divisive issue like you mentioned and that's no reason to circumvent democratic process.


----------



## Underway (10 Jun 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Valid point, but they prefer to do their 'electioneering' by tugging on the heartstrings of the voters, making it emotional as opposed to factual and logical.



Factual doesn't work with emotional issues.  Factual doesn't work in politics period (reference the current revolt against intellectualism). If you can find a lever to use against you opponent in politics you use it.  This plays to the thought that the CPC are the "nasty party" and plays directly to the Liberal base (and keeps those donations coming).  The PC's need to sort their crap out if they ever want to be the gov't again.  The conservatives are picking the wrong hill to die on.

If you want factual then [factual] "In all of us command" is pretty close to "thou dost in us command" from the original script that was changed to "in all our sons command", which I always thought was referring to the second person of the trinity.  But apparently it refers to soldiers.  Now women and trans persons (and any other category that comes up in the future) can and have died in combat so the words should be changed back to the original if you want to be a true conservative version.  The Liberals and NDP have tried factual.  The conservatives have blocked it (based on getting burned when they explored changing the words), so now it goes emotional.  [/factual]


----------



## Lightguns (10 Jun 2016)

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

> There is also several different versions of the Maple Leaf Forever which completely exclude all the strong British lyrics. Personally I would rather see one of those as the national anthem (I would also rather see the Red Ensign back as the flag as well, even though I know it is unlikely to ever happen again).



Coles Island, NB ESSO station, she still flies the Red Ensign like her Dad before her.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Jun 2016)

So what happens next? Do we change it again when atheists or polytheists say that the reference to God is offensive and not inclusive?


----------



## Lightguns (10 Jun 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So what happens next? Do we change it again when atheists or polytheists say that the reference to God is offensive and not inclusive?



Once you open the door, yes.  You will end up with 600 verses.  Everyone will get bored and head home before the game starts.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Jun 2016)

I am sorry, Underway but I can't agree with what you are saying. 

This has gotten emotional for the Liberals, not for the CPC which is only insisting on members introducing private members bill (which this is BTW - it's not a government introduced bill) following the procedure and not getting a bye just because they are ill.

First of all, this is not the first, but the umpteenth time this gentlemen tried to have this private member bill passed. Every time before, it died on the agenda - like 99.9% of private member bills - with people on all sides of the aisle at the time voting or positioning themselves on both sides of the issue. Nad the last time, it came to a vote and was defeated. This issue BTW, comes out of his personal fascination with it - nothing else. I don't hear any clamour anywhere in Canada to change the words of O Canada. If issues were rated by importance to Canadians, this would surely rate bottom of page 987 in the list.

So now this gentlemen gets terminally ill - and I have great sympathy for what he and his family are going through - and the House honours him unanimously by making him Speaker for the day. Fine. Nice honour. Within the purview of the House, respectful and at the same time, non-influential on the agenda of the nation.

But, no. His caucus colleagues (this did not come from him, I am personally convinced) feel sorry - probably realize this would be a nice gesture to him and convinced him to introduce his bill again so they could support it. They (the Liberal caucus) probably felt that it was a matter of little importance - like his one day tenure  as Speaker.

But unfortunately, it touches on a National symbol - the Anthem - and whenever you try and change anything in a national symbol, it evokes strong emotions in people (look, even a few posts ago in this forum, someone is still attached to the Red Ensign as Canada's flag  :nod. So you don't do it just like that, to make someone feel good. 

Anyhow, the bill is introduced, and like all private members bill it is given a small time slot (in this case - one hour) for full disposition. Now here, two possibilities exist: Either the Liberal House leader knew that it would elicit a strong response and require more time - but wanted to use this to make the conservatives look heartless when they certainly move to follow the rules, in which case they, Liberals, are playing politics with a dying man's wish - or they honestly believe that this would be disposed of nearly unanimously because "it 's a minor matter without consequences". I suspect it's this second case, but that makes the House Leader stupid where nationalism is concerned. I can't say I am surprised: nationalism has been discarded as irrelevant by the Libs ever since the days of Trudeau the father, who believed that nationalist sentiments were "passé" and did not matter - save when you want to counter Quebec's nationalism. Ever since, the Libs, as party (not individuals) has been devoid of pursuit of any nationalist agenda -and rather prefer to eliminate national symbols.

I any event, all the CPC has done, is refuse to extend the hour of debate on that same day since the debate could not be completed in the allocated time. And I agree with that: There are much more important issues to be properly debated than this one. This means that another time slot had to be found later. Then, because they are not sure that the member could be in attendance for final reading at that later time, the Liberal House Leader tried to have the Sponsorship of the bill passed to another member of the Liberal party (a minister no less), which requires unanimity and would be unheard of for a private member bill. Many  "no" were shouted from the opposition side, which ended that attempt (but we don't know if these no came from only the conservatives or if some NDPers also said no, or even if there were some no from the Liberal side).

The only thing I can say is this: Had this gentlemen not been dying, none of the actions of the CPC would have attracted any attention, and the bill dying off on the agenda (if it had even ever been brought up again), would have attracted no attention whatsoever. 

So who is playing politics in Ottawa? Everybody, including the Liberals just as much as everybody else. politics differently? Bull!


----------



## FSTO (10 Jun 2016)

I still call our National Holiday "Dominion Day" mainly because I hate the underhanded way the liberals got the name changed. 


I know, give it up, its just a word. But I'm always suspect of pretty much everything the Liberals do in the name of "National Unity".


----------



## Blackadder1916 (10 Jun 2016)

I am part of a generation that remembers the playing of (and singing along with) the National Anthem(s) at the beginning of a movie showing in a theatre (yes, there was a time when most people went to theatres to see movies), at the end of the television broadcast day (yes, there was a time when both TV channels did not play 24 hours a day) and at the beginning of the first class of each school day.  Now, being from the Rock, that meant all three anthems - God Save The Queen, O Canada, and Ode To Newfoundland (it was still, for some, far too recent and painful, that we weren't our own country).  Don't get me started on flags.

I don't know if this recent attempt to change the lyrics is really a big deal for most Canadians.  Do most even know the words?  Or is the reality more along the lines of this attached (amended, with tongue in cheek) version of the legislated song that shows the words in English, in French, and in reality.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Jun 2016)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> ..........  Do most even know the words?



That is just the point.  The words are getting changed so often, that many don't know the words.  Our American neighbours don't have that problem.  Why do we have to be so subject to "Good Idea Faeries" wanting to change things just so that they can proclaim that they have brought about change, for good or bad.


----------



## Lumber (10 Jun 2016)

It's not so much that they want to change the words. For me, it's two things.

1. That they want to change the words because of some PC BS.

2. That they want to change the words to something that is grammatically incorrect and sounds shitty to boot.


----------



## Jed (10 Jun 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> It's not so much that they want to change the words. For me, it's two things.
> 
> 1. That they want to change the words because of some PC BS.
> 
> 2. That they want to change the words to something that is grammatically incorrect and sounds shitty to boot.



Pretty much my sentiments on this issue.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jun 2016)

I am more worried this is to distract people from more important matters


----------



## Blackadder1916 (10 Jun 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That is just the point.  The words are getting changed so often, that many don't know the words.  Our American neighbours don't have that problem.  . . .



Really?  That's the reason why Canadians don't know the words?  How often have the lyrics been changed in the thirty-five or so years since it was legally adopted as our National Anthem?  Zero.

As to Americans knowing theirs better . . . some surveys (dated, I admit, but I was too lazy to see if there is anything more up-to date) would indicate that ignorance abounds on both sides of the border.

Whether "Jose, can he see" the words or remember them from school days, back in 2004, the likelihood was only one third would get through the song.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/study-shows-americans-dont-know-the-national-anthem-as-well-as-they-think-72013107.html


> WASHINGTON, March 9 /PRNewswire/ -- Nearly two out of three Americans
> (61 percent) don't know all of the words to our National Anthem, the Star-
> Spangled Banner, according to a recent Harris Interactive(R) survey.  Has
> America lost its voice?  Many music experts say yes, and it's due to budget
> ...




Now, up here in the land of The Maple Syrup Forever, the study (in 2010) was aimed at students and found about two thirds generally knew the words, though I imagine that capability would diminish with increasing years since leaving school.  I was, however, pleased to see the mention of Newfoundland at the top of the heap.

http://www.canada.com/life/many+teens+know+lyrics+canada/3022581/story.html


> VICTORIA — O Canada, our something, something land.
> 
> If you can only mumble and hum your way through the country's national anthem, it turns out you're not alone. A study by the University of Victoria, released Wednesday, found only 67 per cent of high school choir students knew the lyrics to O Canada.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lumber (10 Jun 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I am more worried this is to distract people from more important matters



Like the purchase of a very expensive flying vehicles?


----------



## Journeyman (10 Jun 2016)

Badges  :nod:


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jun 2016)

Interesting that there's no discussion about the French lyrics, which sound like a recruiting ad for the Crusades.  "Car ton bras sait porter l'épée, il sait porter la croix" a rough translation "You're ready to carry a sword and the cross".


----------



## dimsum (10 Jun 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Interesting that there's no discussion about the French lyrics, which sound like a recruiting ad for the Crusades.  "Car ton bras sait porter l'épée, il sait porter la croix" a rough translation "You're ready to carry a sword and the cross".



I've always wondered about that.  Is it that the Franco population just doesn't care?  Or has there been a movement to change those too in the past but squashed?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (10 Jun 2016)

Don't even roughly translate Dapaterson, the clear meaning of this part properly translate is "We shall evangelize, even by force".

And for those who do not know the history of this "anthem": It was composed as an Ode for the Saint-jean-Baptiste celebrations before even Confederation was conceived. It was considered a French-Canadian rallying song for the French Canadian Nation. It had five verses - the current wording used for the National Anthem is just the first verse.

Their was no doubt or discussion when it was written: "Canada" and "Canadian" in that song only referred to French-Canadian - descendant from the original French colony - and only to the territory of what had been New-France (so for instance, it did not include the Acadians). The "anglais" were not considered "Canadians" at that time but British, and almost occupiers.


----------



## Remius (10 Jun 2016)

The word sword is clearly offensive to some.  Let's change that to hockey sticks or pens... :

The motto of carrying the sword was also used in a pretty cool ww2 propaganda poster.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Jun 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Don't even roughly translate Dapaterson, the clear meaning of this part properly translate is "We shall evangelize, even by force".
> 
> And for those who do not know the history of this "anthem": It was composed as an Ode for the Saint-jean-Baptiste celebrations before even Confederation was conceived. It was considered a French-Canadian rallying song for the French Canadian Nation. It had five verses - the current wording used for the National Anthem is just the first verse.
> 
> Their was no doubt or discussion when it was written: "Canada" and "Canadian" in that song only referred to French-Canadian - descendant from the original French colony - and only to the territory of what had been New-France (so for instance, it did not include the Acadians). The "anglais" were not considered "Canadians" at that time but British, and almost occupiers.



Therefore racist too... tsk tsk tsk


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Jun 2016)

Weir's original lyrics from 1908 contained no religious references and used the phrase "thou dost in us command" before they were changed by Weir in 1914 to read "in all thy sons command"

I can accept that if it were changed back to that.


----------



## Jed (11 Jun 2016)

Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> Weir's original lyrics from 1908 contained no religious references and used the phrase "thou dost in us command" before they were changed by Weir in 1914 to read "in all thy sons command"
> 
> I can accept that if it were changed back to that.



I sure can see why Weir changed his original awkward phrasing.  No matter how this plays out I (and probably 10's of thousands) will never sing the words now being proposed.

Really, it's very similar to when some minister or church hierarchy people decide they need to revamp how people say the Lord's Prayer. What gives with these do gooder Idea Fairies?


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Jun 2016)

Seems others are asking the same question I did:

Changing O Canada: Is God next?

Pity the poor Pagans. Don't they have rights? 

And what about the Rastafarians? To say nothing of the Satanists.

Such questions won't seem so weird once the attention turns away from Liberal MP Mauril Bélanger's heroic bid to update the rusty words of the national anthem. That's because his bill leaves untouched some other words.

Those concern — can we talk about this? — an even touchier topic: the Christian God.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Jun 2016)

What about the Pastafarians?  The FSM shouldn't be left out in the cold void of space in this.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jun 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> What about the Pastafarians?  The FSM shouldn't be left out in the cold void of space in this.



Praise be to the Spaghetti Monster, it is through him we remain al dente.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Praise be to the Spaghetti Monster, it is through him we remain al dente.



Ramen.


----------



## Dija (11 Jun 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Seems others are asking the same question I did:
> 
> Changing O Canada: Is God next?
> 
> ...



From my point of view God should not be removed from O Canada. Not for any particular religious inclination, or the prevention of blasphemy or anything like that no, but because of history. 

There is a reason countries don't change their national anthems often. The long an anthem remains the same the more it becomes ingrained in the culture of it's citizens. O Canada offers us insights into the political state of Canada in the early 19th Century. With "O' Canada, we stand on guard for thee. God keep our land, glorious and free." we see how Canada began to change and adapt to it's new status in international politics in the early alliances of what would later become the founding members of NATO. Through World War One and Two Canada changes to meet it's allies abroad, and we can still see how Canada, a vast and multicultural country, banded together far better than some more culturally stringent countries would. 

The words should not change, not because of ending any godly appeasement, but because reframing the snapshot of Canadian history granted to us in our anthem to reach a wider audience isn't making it more welcoming or more effectual, it's diluting it. We look and see Canadians reaching to the highest power they know to ask for Canada's continued freedom and sovereignty in the period of political turmoil making up the meat of the 19th century. Canadians looking to the highest power they know for their country isn't about divinity, it is about patriotism. No matter what race, class, or creed is presented to Canada we still manage to adapt and perform on the international stage because of how our country knits itself together for self preservation, and this instinct to hope at the deepest level for the country's betterment is what O' Canada is bringing about.

O' Canada is about keeping well, and getting better. In my opinion, the message doesn't need to be changed.


----------



## kratz (11 Jun 2016)

I agree with your comments Dija.

Through many influences (government interference, gender and language politics), our nation has rebranded itself more often in the past 50 years than most corporations.

There is no need to change O'Canada.


----------



## CombatMacguyver (12 Jun 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "Car ton bras sait porter l'épée, il sait porter la croix" a rough translation "You're ready to carry a sword and the cross".



Ehhh... that's a pretty brutal translation.  It can be taken as "since your arm knows how to carry the sword, it also knows how to carry the cross"

You can interpret that a few ways, one being "sure you can fight, but you can also bring peace"  But yea, good point.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Praise be to the Spaghetti Monster, it is through him we remain al dente.



Change the flag colours to match a rainbow.  Pot leaf instead of maple leaf.  Remove God from the lyrics so it doesn't upset other religions or us atheists.  Remove sons so it's gender neutral.  Remove command  because it's an example of the fascist dictator government trying to control the people.   Include an apology to the first Nations,  remove 'our land', because that's settler talk,  mention safe spaces.    

Sounds about right.    

My future plan for the anthem and flag aside, for some reason changing the anthem doesn't surprise me but it also doesn't bother me.   

What does bother me is all the other issues we could be tackling instead,  which are arguably more important,  are in limbo.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Jun 2016)

What's that saying again....

Oh yeah, bread and circuses.

Plenty of both thus far in this government.


----------



## Loachman (12 Jun 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Include an apology to the first Nations,  remove 'our land', because that's settler talk



"O Canada! Our home on native land".

It only requires changing one vowel and dropping one consonant.

Pretty low cost to mask another huge increase to the deficit or something similar being snuck through...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jun 2016)

Using a small but acrimonious controversy to hide the larger move: Gerald Butts could teach Hilary and Donald a thing or two....


----------



## cupper (13 Jun 2016)

Lets make it completely gender neutral and remove all references to God, before we offend a radicalized Islamic homophobe and he goes and shoots up a gay nightclub.

Ooops, too late.

To quote Taylor Swift, "Haters gonna hate, hate hate." 

All this PC BS is going to achieve is make Canadians look that much awkward at international sporting events because we can't remember the currently acceptable words to our National Anthem.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Jun 2016)

Don't give a shit about how they change it, I'll continue to sing it as it was taught to me as a child and I have always known.  The Liberals can all get stuffed.


----------



## NavyHopeful (14 Jun 2016)

:ditto:


----------



## Loachman (14 Jun 2016)

I wasn't born here. It's not my "native land". I mentally substitute "chosen land".

I don't sing anyway, for good reason, but stand at attention, and then give people shit for carrying on their petty conversations while it's been playing.


----------



## medicineman (14 Jun 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Don't give a crap about how they change it, I'll continue to sing it as it was taught to me as a child and I have always known.  The Liberals can all get stuffed.



Growing up in Ottawa for early school years, I actually learned it in French first, then English...then relearned it in English when they changed the words however long ago it was.  Still get messed up trying to sing it bilingually though...I can only really do it in one or the other.  

As for the nature of the thread...PET Jr needs to cure his CRIS ASAP and deal with things of actual national importance.  

Also, to PET Jr if you happen to be reading this - WakeTFU and squash this Bill as a big oopsey, since it's wasting the salary I'm paying you and the time and salary of the other folks we're paying in the Houses of Commons and Senators to argue over something that is in fact politically correct BS because some people think they're more special than the rest of us AND forget they're Canadians, FULL STOP.  That's Canadian without the hyphen of whatever ethnic, religious, or sexually oriented group they belong to.

:2c: Cdn

MM


----------



## gryphonv (15 Jun 2016)

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/dying-mp-present-as-house-votes-225-74-to-change-o-canada-1.2947565

wish I could say I was surprised.


----------



## cupper (15 Jun 2016)

:facepalm: FFS.

The terrorists have won.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Jun 2016)

We need to do this because an MP is dying.


----------



## medicineman (16 Jun 2016)

Only in Canada...

MM


----------



## Lumber (16 Jun 2016)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Only in Canada...
> 
> MM



Well, yeah, where else would you see modification to the Canadian National Anthem made?................


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Jun 2016)

Pretty sure MM meant that only in Canada would we adopt a bill just to make a dying member of Parliament feel good.

Parliament is not the Make a Wish Foundation.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Jun 2016)

I question why this is such a big deal - it's actually returning the anthem to closer to its original form.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Jun 2016)

It's a big deal because outside of the HoC most of Canadians are not interested in this happening and did not request it.  This is the HoC being a self licking ice cream cone when there are as far as I am concerned (and I am not alone) more pressing matters they should be spending their valuable time on.  (meeting deadlines for Assisted Dying legislation come to mind).  If it isn't broken, and honestly there is no massive hue and cry that it is, then, don't mess with it.  This same MP has made numerous unsuccessful attempts in the past with what is obviously his pet project to get it passed and into force.  If anything, I am more alarmed at the French lyrics than the English ones.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Jun 2016)

Well, they're certainly earning their self-awarded 8% pay raise.  

No one can tell me this legislation isn't well worth the $170,400 we're paying each of them (except the PM, who apparently can't afford nannies or his wife's lifestyle on a mere $340,800).


----------



## Remius (16 Jun 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I question why this is such a big deal - it's actually returning the anthem to closer to its original form.



And most don't even know why it was changed in the first place.  And a generation from now most people won't even realise there was a change made unless it gets changed again or their grandparents are still yelling at clouds.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Jun 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, they're certainly earning their self-awarded 8% pay raise.
> 
> No one can tell me this legislation isn't well worth the $170,400 we're paying each of them (except the PM, who apparently can't afford nannies or his wife's lifestyle on a mere $340,800).



Even Sunny Skies have to have a cloud or two.  I can only imagine how he must wonder how he'll stop living paycheck to paycheck like the rest of us...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jun 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I question why this is such a big deal - it's actually returning the anthem to closer to its original form.





			
				Remius said:
			
		

> And most don't even know why it was changed in the first place.  And a generation from now most people won't even realise there was a change made unless it gets changed again or their grandparents are still yelling at clouds.



The wording is immaterial. It's a big deal because it went against the wishes of a majority of Canadians who said they didn't want it changed. The Libs did change it though, against those wishes, in order to make one of their own happy. In other words, the Libs don't care about consensus, they only care about what, they perceive, is good for the liberal party.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jun 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I question why this is such a big deal - it's actually returning the anthem to closer to its original form.


Meanwhile, Tories vilified for returning to original CAF ranks and heraldry.


----------



## Lumber (16 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, Tories vilified for returning to original CAF ranks and heraldry.



I like my executive curl and being a member of the RCN, thank you very much, Mr. Harper.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, Tories vilified for returning to original CAF ranks and heraldry.



Did I do that?

This bill took zero time that wouldn't have been spent on another stupid private members bill.

Also, where are the stastics showing the numbers for and against (I found the 2013 poll) Further, when have issues of equality been decided by a popular vote? 

I can't wait for them to remove God next.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jun 2016)

Some traditions are protected, often at great cost.  Some are not, and cannot be eroded quickly enough to suit some people.  This creates social tension.


----------



## jmt18325 (16 Jun 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Some traditions are protected, often at great cost.



Are a few words really that sacred?


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jun 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Are a few words really that sacred?



Why do you hate freedom?


----------



## Remius (16 Jun 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Some traditions are protected, often at great cost.  Some are not, and cannot be eroded quickly enough to suit some people.  This creates social tension.



Sure.  The reference to "sons" was added later in reference to Canada sending her sons to war in WW1.  No issues with that.  But, given that we have seen women in combat and dying in combat in our most recent conflict, changing it back more or less to the original version to be more inclusive and recognize that fact and many other facts that women have contributed to this country shouldn't be an issue.  Some traditions are also changed, often at great cost as well.

What I don't buy is PC, "this is 2016" or doing it because some MP with a rather undistinguished career but a devastating disease have his day in the sun.  

Some people oppose change.  Their right to do so.  But the world changes. As I mentioned before, in a generation no one will notice, just like very few people still rail against the maple leaf over the red ensign.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Jun 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Why do you hate freedom?


When did you stop beating your wife?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jun 2016)

I don't care about the words. I don't even sing the last changes.

What I'm disgusted with is the way the Grits forced the vote on the back of a dying man. It's about the lowest, cheesiest trick in the book that I can remember a Canadian government doing.

Then they whip their vote to defeat the CPC motion on ISIS genocide. Not because it's wrong. Not because the world agrees with the CPC. Not even that the UN has already decided that ISIS is pursuing said genocide, contrary to what the Grits are saying in Parliament.

They voted it down because is was tabled by the CPC.

They are not governing on behalf of Canadians they are governing solely on behalf of their party and supporters. 

The Trudeau liberals are apologists for Islamic terrorism, a phrase that Trudeau cannot even say. This is simply because he is concentrating on the Muslim vote, which fits right along with their immigration policy. 

They don't care about Canadians, they care only about becoming re-elected. They have turned on and broke promises to almost every group that got them elected, except the Muslims.


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 Jun 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't care about the words. I don't even sing the last changes.
> 
> What I'm disgusted with is the way the Grits forced the vote on the back of a dying man. It's about the lowest, cheesiest trick in the book that I can remember a Canadian government doing.
> 
> ...




Must....not....post...because....I.....like....recceguy......

Breathe 1234, exhale 1234....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jun 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Must....not....post...because....I.....like....recceguy......
> 
> Breathe 1234, exhale 1234....



Square breathing John. Square breathing. ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jun 2016)

Get a room, you two ...  ;D


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 Jun 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Square breathing John. Square breathing. ;D





			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Get a room, you two ...  ;D




 :facepalm:  I opened that door!!!!

 :blotto:


----------



## medicineman (16 Jun 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Well, yeah, where else would you see modification to the Canadian National Anthem made?................



What OGBD said...I said that because I'm really kinda torqued about this whole process and how it occurred, apart from the fact nobody asked me (ie my MP, or even our dope smokin PM for that matter) my opinion and just rammed a Bill through the Commons because a poor soul with a terminal disease brought it up for the enteeth time and someone wanted to feel good about it.  Only in Canada would a law be passed in the federal legislature just because it was a dying man's wish to see the words of the National Anthem changed and the government in power had the votes to make sure it happened...especially as this really is something that should have been done by a national referendum.  Instead, our PM, someone who really ought to know better given his lineage, just seems to want to make a mockery of our parliamentary system.

MM


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jun 2016)

medicineman said:
			
		

> What OGBD said...I said that because I'm really kinda torqued about this whole process and how it occurred, apart from the fact nobody asked me (ie my MP, or even our dope smokin PM for that matter) my opinion and just rammed a Bill through the Commons because a poor soul with a terminal disease brought it up for the enteeth time and someone wanted to feel good about it.  Only in Canada would a law be passed in the federal legislature just because it was a dying man's wish to see the words of the National Anthem changed and the government in power had the votes to make sure it happened...especially as this really is something that should have been done by a national referendum.  Instead, our PM, someone who really ought to know better given his lineage, just seems to want to make a mockery of our parliamentary system.
> 
> MM



C'mon MM, he's his father's son. Neither Trudeau care what us commoners think. They are elitists who don't really exist in our real world. He was taught that only he matters. The rest of us are peasants to be dictated to.


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 Jun 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> C'mon MM, he's his father's son. Neither Trudeau care what us commoners think. They are elitists who don't really exist in our real world. He was taught that only he matters. The rest of us are peasants to be dictated to.



Okay,

Now you are out of order.

That last Regime showed Canada what living under an angry Duke means, one that ruled with his iron fist.

PM Justin Trudeau, is getting a little too much of the blame, regarding the mess left behind by the duke, and his decade of decay.  Our Government has been in power six months, and you want him to step up, as he is stepping around the shit left behind???

As I used to say, I shall retire to Bedlham!!


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jun 2016)

>Are a few words really that sacred?

No.  I'm not fussed by changes to anthems, or flags, or most of the other paraphernalia.  But I want all cultures' traditions to be equally liable to be changed - or just plain thrown away - in pursuit of whatever reasons justify the evolution of traditions.


----------



## YZT580 (16 Jun 2016)

At least your so called angry duke had the courtesy to ask normal Canadians about making changes to the National Anthem before he attempted to ram it through Parliament and then backed down when he realized that Canadians liked the anthem just the way it was.  The current change is a slap in the face to the original authors who penned it the way it is written to honour the
61000 dead and 172,000 wounded during WW1.  You know, the ones who demonstrated the "true patriot love".  Recce is absolutely correct, it is one of the lowest actions I have witnessed in a Canadian PM in years and demonstrates a total disregard for Parliament and contempt for the average Canadian citizen who have just had their rights trampled on.


----------



## the 48th regulator (16 Jun 2016)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> At least your so called angry duke had the courtesy to ask normal Canadians about making changes to the National Anthem before he attempted to ram it through Parliament and then backed down when he realized that Canadians liked the anthem just the way it was.  The current change is a slap in the face to the original authors who penned it the way it is written to honour the
> 61000 dead and 172,000 wounded during WW1.  You know, the ones who demonstrated the "true patriot love".  Recce is absolutely correct, it is one of the lowest actions I have witnessed in a Canadian PM in years and demonstrates a total disregard for Parliament and contempt for the average Canadian citizen who have just had their rights trampled on.




You do understand democracy, and the parliamentarian system right?


----------



## YZT580 (16 Jun 2016)

Enough to know when both have been trampled on.  No debate, no discussion, shutdown of questions and the whips out to ensure mp compliance.  Meanwhile, a cpc motion of censure regarding ISIS, a no-brainer for non-partisan  agreement (other than Elizabeth) is whipped to ensure rejection with the PM unable to agree that these guys are committing crimes against humanity.  That isn't parliamentary democracy its an egotist on a power trip


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jun 2016)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> That isn't parliamentary democracy its an egotist on a power trip


It's awesome is what it is.  More and more ever day I'm finding myself thinking a lot of Canadians deserve Trudeau.


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Jun 2016)

Posted by: YZT580


> Enough to know when both have been trampled on.  No debate, no discussion, shutdown of questions and the whips out to ensure mp compliance.  Meanwhile, a cpc motion of censure regarding ISIS, a no-brainer for non-partisan  agreement (other than Elizabeth) is whipped to ensure rejection with the PM unable to agree that these guys are committing crimes against humanity.  That isn't parliamentary democracy its an egotist on a power trip.



Following the lead from his mentor, President Obama.


----------



## Altair (17 Jun 2016)

John Tescione said:
			
		

> Must....not....post...because....I.....like....recceguy......
> 
> Breathe 1234, exhale 1234....


Everyone seems to get on your case when you blow a gasket but nobody gives you credit when you keep your cool.

Well, good job, hang in there. Let them have their little rant thread here. They need a safe place to vent their frustrations. I've largely left this thread alone for that reason.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Jun 2016)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> ... Meanwhile, a cpc motion of censure regarding ISIS, a no-brainer for non-partisan  agreement (other than Elizabeth) is whipped to ensure rejection with the PM unable to agree that these guys are committing crimes against humanity ...


If that motion was about ANYTHING other than partisan politics & optics, it would have been moved and passed by the guys who want it so badly now when they were at the helm - with a whipped majority.


----------



## YZT580 (17 Jun 2016)

and changing O Canada isn't about politics and optics?  Give me a break


----------

