[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Jacob]

The more interesting story that's going on is Trudeau's unintended consequences in the Senate.

If you'll remember Trudeau kicked all senators out of his caucus, making them all independents.  He's also promising a new appointment process where senators will be independent of the party process.

Now the senate has always been undemocratic and illegitimate, and Senators knew it.  As a result they never stood up to the sittign government.  But now with so many independents running around, it shouldn't come as a surprise when they're acting independently.  The government is butting heads with the Senate now over assisted dying, and may as well over the anthem.

What do you guys think?

It was a waste of political capital on Trudeau's part, and he's reaping the consequences. Too bad. I'd rather have seen the "we're going to do things differently" energy spent on election reform than on senate reform.

[Barrister]

The more interesting story that's going on is Trudeau's unintended consequences in the Senate.

If you'll remember Trudeau kicked all senators out of his caucus, making them all independents.  He's also promising a new appointment process where senators will be independent of the party process.

Now the senate has always been undemocratic and illegitimate, and Senators knew it.  As a result they never stood up to the sittign government.  But now with so many independents running around, it shouldn't come as a surprise when they're acting independently.  The government is butting heads with the Senate now over assisted dying, and may as well over the anthem.

What do you guys think?

It was a waste of political capital on Trudeau's part, and he's reaping the consequences. Too bad. I'd rather have seen the "we're going to do things differently" energy spent on election reform than on senate reform.

"Firing" the Liberal cabinet was a cheap pre-election stunt, and now it's coming back to bite him.

Personally, I don't want a whole bunch of lifetime appointments standing up to government on a regular basis, even when it's a Liberal government.

[Grey Fox]

It was stupid, it did nothing for him in the public opinion forum either.

[Ancient Demon]

Personally, I don't want a whole bunch of lifetime appointments standing up to government on a regular basis, even when it's a Liberal government.

We sort of already have that with the Supreme Court.

[Neil]

Personally, I don't want a whole bunch of lifetime appointments standing up to government on a regular basis, even when it's a Liberal government.

What about hereditary peers?

[Monoriu]

Liberals pushing ahead changes to the Anthem:

"In all thy sons command" is to become "In all of us command".

No sir, I don't like it.

What is the difference?  Are they simply using more modern words or are they changing the meaning? 

[Jacob]

Liberals pushing ahead changes to the Anthem:

"In all thy sons command" is to become "In all of us command".

No sir, I don't like it.

What is the difference?  Are they simply using more modern words or are they changing the meaning? 

They're changing the meaning. Now women are included too.

Of course, changing the meaning is causing concerns amongst traditionalists, since the previous version of the lyrics date back all the way to 1980.

[Monoriu]

They're changing the meaning. Now women are included too.

Of course, changing the meaning is causing concerns amongst traditionalists, since the previous version of the lyrics date back all the way to 1980.

Ahh, I see.  Well, I suppose the proposed version is more politically correct.  I don't think it is that big of a deal and I question if it is worth the time and effort to change it.  There has got to be more important things to do.  Though I understand why some people may not like the current version. 

[Barrister]

Liberals pushing ahead changes to the Anthem:

"In all thy sons command" is to become "In all of us command".

No sir, I don't like it.

What is the difference?  Are they simply using more modern words or are they changing the meaning? 

They're changing the meaning. Now women are included too.

Of course, changing the meaning is causing concerns amongst traditionalists, since the previous version of the lyrics date back all the way to 1980.

"In all of us command" doesn't make any sense though.

"thy" is a pretty archaic word, so from the context you could tell the reference to "sons" meant everybody, and not just men.

[Valmy]

Thy sons is certainly more poetic. 'All of us' seems lame but it is hard to get something better to fit.

[Malthus]

Personally, I don't want a whole bunch of lifetime appointments standing up to government on a regular basis, even when it's a Liberal government.

What about hereditary peers?

I suppose urine flow problems are partly hereditary, but not sure what that has to do with anything.

[Malthus]

Liberals pushing ahead changes to the Anthem:

"In all thy sons command" is to become "In all of us command".

No sir, I don't like it.

What is the difference?  Are they simply using more modern words or are they changing the meaning? 

They're changing the meaning. Now women are included too.

Of course, changing the meaning is causing concerns amongst traditionalists, since the previous version of the lyrics date back all the way to 1980.

They should have changed it back to ""thou dost in us command", which was the lyric until 1914: the "sons" was a wartime addition, to give it a more military flavour.

The version they chose loses the deliberate archaism and also the poetry. 

[Valmy]

I did not know that Malthus. Yes they should do it that way. 'In all of us command' is like changing the Gettysburg Address from 'four score and seven years ago' to 'eighty seven years ago'

'All those British attacks let me know the fort still hadn't surrendered' in our national anthem just wouldn't work.

[Malthus]

I did not know that Malthus. Yes they should do it that way. 'In all of us command' is like changing the Gettysburg Address from 'four score and seven years ago' to 'eighty seven years ago'

'All those British attacks let me know the fort still hadn't surrendered' in our national anthem just wouldn't work.

Yup. Progressives are going to label the inevitable backlash as anti-feminist ranting from a bunch of backwards traditionalists, when much if not most of it will be simply aesthetic: the new version sounds bad. Like a lyric composed by a committee whose mandate was to not offend. Which is probably not far from the truth.  It is, in more than one sense, "tone deaf". Though no doubt the response would be Trudeau's "It's 2016!". 

It is sad, when there was an already existing lyric that (a) did the same job the modernizers want to do - that is, be gender-neutral; (b) was more traditional than the one being replaced (and so could undercut traditionalist objections); and (c) keeps similar deliberately archaic language.

[Malthus]

Alternatively, we can re-write the anthem, removing all deliberate archaisms, militarism, references to God, etc. An anthem for "2016!". 

Canada!
Our home and native land!
True citizen's love in all of us command.
With glowing hearts we see you rise,
The True North strong and new!
From far and wide,
Canada, we stand ready for you.
Keep our land glorious and new!
Canada, we stand ready for you
Canada, we stand ready for you.

Not sure what to do about the French version, though, which is pretty straightforwardly militant Catholic. 

Ô Canada!
Terre de nos aïeux,
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!
Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
Il sait porter la croix!
Ton histoire est une épopée
Des plus brillants exploits.
Et ta valeur, de foi trempée,
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.
Protégera nos foyers et nos droits.

Wielding the sword and the cross? Tisk.