Dave Gordon
  Home | About Dave | Written by Dave | Links | Photos | Downloads | Contact Dave

Latest Updates







1 April, 2016
Irwin Cotler honored





View RSS Feed

Trudeau’s flip flop on national anthem


Dave Gordon - Thursday, 16 June, 2016

(1726 views, Comment on this article)

Printer Friendly Version of this Article Email this Article to a Friend

Canada has virtually no problems. No crime, no debt, no wanting of social services, no security worries.

How do I know?

Well, just three years ago, then-candidate for prime minister Justin Trudeau said that changing the national anthem was “not a battle to engage in” because we had “more real issues” to solve.

Everything else would have to be wonderful in Canada before he'd begin to worry about changing the national anthem, he said.

He said at Beth Tikvah Synagogue, Nov. 29, 2013, there was no “political capital” to spare for this stuff, in a Canada with “so many other problems.”

So here we are, after the Liberal government passed Bill C-210, changing “in all thy sons command” to “in all of us command,” in an effort to achieve “gender-neutral” language.

So either Canada has solved its “real issues,” or Justin Trudeau has flip-flopped on changing the national anthem. The obvious need not be stated.

As a note of clarification, in the clip below, Trudeau was answering a woman who felt uncomfortable with mention of the cross in the French version of the national anthem.

Whether “la Croix” or “our sons”, it is the same line of reasoning: our politicians’ energy are better spent on larger, more worthy, problems.

After all, who, exactly, was being harmed by the mere mention of “our sons”?

The National Post’s Andrew Coyne aptly explained that pretty much the only people losing sleep over the word “sons” were parliamentary Liberals, who didn’t quite get the idea that it was not to be taken literally.

Meanwhile, headline writers didn’t fail to tell us that it was a “dying MP’s” bill that was passed.

The CBC, referring to Mauril Belanger’s Lou Gehrig’s disease, didn’t fail to place that very phrase in the lede of the story, too.

“Dying Liberal MP Mauril Belanger’s private member’s bill to make the national anthem more gender neutral… ” The implication is almost that the Liberals voted for the change out of guilt.

One half-expects a future Liberal political campaign to leverage the suggestion that the Conservatives who voted against the bill, were so cold they couldn’t make a dying man’s wish come true, or so sexist they didn’t want women included in the national anthem.

More pertinent to ask: since there are “real issues” to solve, perhaps it would have been more productive for Mauril Belanger to fight for more federal Lou Gehrig’s disease funding, than make the anthem change his legacy?

You know, things that could make a real difference? Things – to borrow a campaign phrase – that would make “real change”?

But rather than produce anything tangible with their political influence, what Mr. Belanger and Mr. Trudeau have shown is that it’s all about words – breaking one’s word, or changing words, at a whim.
National Anthem

 

All Contents © 2017 Dave Gordon | Lichtman Consulting