Trudeau’s flip flop on national anthem
Dave Gordon - Thursday, 16 June, 2016
virtually no problems. No crime, no debt, no wanting of social services, no
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
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
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”?
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
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.