Oh, Canada, here we go again. The movement to change the supposedly sexist lyrics of O Canada is back. Possibly taking their cue from Quebec鈥檚 farcical saga 鈥� 鈥渨e鈥檒l keep holding referendums until we get the answer we want鈥� 鈥� advocates for getting rid of the anthem鈥檚 phrase 鈥渋n all thy sons command鈥� are stirring the pot anew. They now claim the support of notables such as former prime minister Kim Campbell and writer Margaret Atwood.
I don鈥檛 understand what this name-dropping is supposed to achieve. Just because Atwood and Campbell think the world should be run a certain way doesn鈥檛 mean that it should. It鈥檚 like saying that Campbell and Atwood think everyone should have blueberry muffins for breakfast.
If other people don鈥檛 like blueberry muffins, Campbell and Atwood weighing in on the issue doesn鈥檛 lend it more validity or make muffins more palatable.
Atwood claims half of 91原创s have been excluded because of the word 鈥渟ons.鈥� None of the women I know have said they feel excluded. As 91原创 citizens, we feel included. As for 鈥渟ons,鈥� what is so poisonous about it? Sons. Beautiful word 鈥� especially to those of us who are the mothers of boys.
The group also claims women are increasingly discontented with O Canada鈥檚 words. What women? Nobody I know was polled by this group. I suspect this is just one of those sweeping statements made to shore up a small group鈥檚 position, one that isn鈥檛 backed by hard numbers. After all, when this issue came up three years ago, the Prime Minister鈥檚 Office was literally awash with calls and emails from people who most emphatically did not want the anthem changed, and one survey indicated 75 per cent of 91原创s wanted to keep the anthem as it is.
Women were among those polled and among those who contacted the PMO, and did so with such vehemence that Prime Minister Stephen Harper realized where public sentiment lay, and vetoed any change.
So, given the overwhelming majority who opposed this just three years ago, the number of women who are alleged to be increasingly unhappy must be a pretty small minority. In fact, as of Monday, only six people had signed the petition demanding change. Hopefully, the federal government will put the kibosh on this nonsense fairly quickly again.
When the anthem changers talk of exclusion, I鈥檇 like to know what we women are being excluded from. We are full citizens of this country. We are equal before the law. We serve in the military, we vote, we hold public office, we are scientists, engineers, doctors, lawyers, you name it.
We have more opportunity than we鈥檝e ever had. We have never been more free to follow our hearts, our dreams and our aspirations.
Just what is it that the word 鈥渟ons鈥� 鈥� which is understood in O Canada to refer figuratively to all 91原创s regardless of gender 鈥� excludes us from? The tack the would-be anthem changers are taking this time is that the version they want would be a 鈥渞estoration鈥� to the 1873 lyrics before Robert Stanley Weir altered the contentious line in 1913 to 鈥渋n all thy sons command.鈥� The group wants the anthem restored to 鈥渢hou dost in us command.鈥� Talk about lyrics that don鈥檛 exactly roll easily off the tongue 鈥� which may be why they were changed 100 years ago.
This year marks the centennial of the version with Weir鈥檚 line about 鈥渟ons.鈥� We should honour O Canada鈥檚 100th anniversary by preserving it, not changing it.
鈥淚 think a politician would have to be somewhat addled to refuse this entirely practical request,鈥� Atwood said. I think a politician would have to be greatly addled to approve this entirely unnecessary request.
