Rob Silver quite rightly eviscerates our sexist, racist, militaristic, anti-immigrant, insensitive, evangelical national anthem, and requests that we merely retain the lyrics “O Canada”. The Conservative government is well within its rights to investigate this pressing and, dare we say, critical issue.
It is proposed that we restore the anthem to its original inspiration from a 1908 poem by Stanley Weir:
“O Canada Our home and native land! True patriot love thou dost in us command. We see thee raising fair, dear land, The True North strong and free.”
Although a little more traditionally worded, methinks it doth have merit. Perhaps in this latest semantic contrivance, the Conservatives are merely attempting to restore us to the more pure English vernacular of olde. If so, I durst not protest, for in mine heart doth Middle English rest.
But what is to be done with that other song? If those lyrics aren’t screaming out for a review by a multipartisan parliamentary committee, I don’t know what is.
What the …. ?
R and R,
It’s true though. They really are, in all seriousness, “reviewing” the wording of the national anthem.
I believe you but I am shocked. Perhaps I will write my MP and suggest changing our national anthem to The Maple Leaf Forever… and perhaps suggest withdrawing financial support for the party for thinking of caving in to politically correct bull shit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d45zJSHHwS8&feature=related
This is what pisses me off about the Conservatives. They seem to go out of their way to get their supporters riled.
Just like their stance on global warming. I thought they were against it but now all I hear is how they’re actually true believers.
This isn’t the same party that I voted for in the last election.
I believe it is Rob Silver that has the troops riled, not the Conservatives.
I’m fascinated by the dramatically riled folks these days taking so much out of context, assuming so many things.
When the Liberals are excited and the Liberal newspapers are excited and the pundits are excited, doesn’t someone smell a rat?
Seriously, it’s a bloody study! Wow, just wow!
Neil, what political party is not allowed to have variation of opinion from within the party?
Rob’s just making harmless fun, Bec. So was I. Although I think it’s silly, wasteful, and pointless, I’m not seriously upset about it or anything. If rewording the national anthem was our largest problem, that would be fantabulous.
Why review our anthem when there is no need to fix it? I highly doubt that the vast majority of Canadians would want our national anthem changed.
RandR, There you have it! That is why it’s only intended as a study to look at one phrase,”with all thy Son’s command” but look what has occurred in a few short hours.
Are THEY talking about prorogation, the detainees etc etc? No.
The “study” will flush out the desires of the electorate, be sure and no amount of political opinion will be able to challenge that aspect. It could cause the same level of outrage that the Coalition did or it could prove to be the opposite but it has been placed in the Throne speech for a reason.
From what I can see, that reason has been VERY EFFECTIVE!
Oh, I see. Create a diversion so people will get steamed about changing the anthem and forget about prorogation and detainees.
To be honest, I wasn’t thinking about prorogation and detainees to begin with.
I was thinking about global warming and how this government is not being honest with Canadians (at least that’s what Conservative bloggers/supporters are saying) and is playing to the “masses” to avoid confrontation.
Meanwhile our provincial leaders who ARE sold on global warming are selling our future.
I don’t much like political games and perhaps I’m a tad naive but if a party includes something in a Throne Speech as merely a diversionary tactic then I consider that to be dishonest and I don’t much like it when people are trying to fool me.
Brings to mind the term “Hidden Agenda”.
I am a Conservative and that is my variation of opinion.
I read the Silver’s screed, worthy of being printed in Pravda. What is this obsession with pandering to every collection of whining oddballs out there? Those who want to rename History departments ” Herstory” departments in our universities, those who want “women’s” studies renamed “wimmins” or “womyns”, those who insist on waering a turban rather than a construction hardhat on a construction site, those who insist on attending government funded language instruction classes in veil and burka, or want the men expelled from the classroom in co-educational publicly funded community colleges.
This does go back to
the debate on reasonable accomodation. There are some very silly or unreasonable demands, and the Conservatives will have to learn to add “no” to their vocabulary when confronted with same.
What are we going to do next, reedit all the classics in our libraries to ensure all conform to modern literary standards, and nothing can conceivably offend anyone.
Silver’s screed would be worthy of Pravda. If he weren’t kidding.
What’s all the fuss about, really? Canada has not had an anthem since the first time they changed the words.
Actions speak louder than words (http://www.voxnewsmagazine.com/2010/03/actions-speak-louder-than-words.html), and I have to say that, based on what Harper intends to do and what Ignatieff has said, I think the real conservative of the two is Iggy, not Harper (= former Young Liberal!).