In all the Cons' command

I've been having some fun messing with the national anthem, thanks to the Harper government's commitment, announced during yesterday's throne speech, to castrate gender neuter O Canada. 

With a little help from some Facebook and Twitter friends, here's what I have so far:

Oh Canada! Our home on native land.

True hetero love, in all the Cons command.

We stand on gays for thee.

Green Assassin has a real good version here.

Understand that I am not opposed to this move. First because the anthem has been changed many times, and isn't even a good translation of the original French.  Second because women deserve to be acknowledged as well -- especially since there are many serving in Afghanistan where two have already lost their lives.

And that's without making much of our golden girls' performances at the Olympics. How many times did they stand up for Canada while the anthem played?

Although, when you think about it, ''all thy sons' command'' is not inaccurate when you consider the male-female ratio in Parliament, provincial legislatures, corporate boardrooms ...

Anyway.

As others have noted, this sop to women -- oh gee thanks and whoop-de-do -- hardly makes up for the government's disregard for women and families in the federal budget brought forth today. Not only are EI premiums rising while corporate taxes drop, but Harper still has not solved the daycare dilemma.

Today Finance Minister Jim Flaherty tossed a bone to single parent families with this: 

To save on tax on the $100 per month for children under the Universal Child Care Benefit, single parents will be able to report the income on the tax return of a child under the age of 18.

Which will work out great for richer families. Poor families .. not so much.

Meanwhile, there's this:

Split families: Parents who share custody of children more or less equally will now also be eligible to share the Child Tax Benefit, Universal Child Tax Benefit and the GST/HST credit.

Which sounds great in principle. But I've been on this beat long enough to know that, when parents are at each others' throats over custody, child support and property, this could lead to even greater conflict..

On other issues relevant to women, I can't say there's a whole lot. Nor is there anything for seniors on small fixed pensions. Nothing on housing. Nothing on health care.

For this they needed the recalibration vacation? Give me the break they took!

But what really galls is that the anthem change is being blamed on us femi-nazis because, as you know,  women have have been storming Parliament Hill demanding abortion rights be mentioned, along with equal pay, in the song.

We feminists have so much influence on the Harper government. Snerk.

But ... what do you know?

The push came from an openly gay feminist named Nancy Ruth. That's Senator Nancy Ruth. That's Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth -- a woman I have a lot of time for actually.

But the truth is, tossing this into the political mix right now was strictly a Harper decision.

And it was as cynical as anything else he has done.

O CONada!

P.S. Heh.

Comments

[Shell]

Great post, AZ! Checked on the last link - your "Heh". What a "surprise".... wayyy back even then, it was Our fault (our being those crazy "Proud to be Members of that Left-Wing Fringe Group Called Women"! In this aslyum we used to call Canada, I am somehow now surprised. A little disgusted. But not surprised.
Would love to lose the "generic" (as the REALLIES said) "sons" - but some time when it's not a bright shiny thing. (Btw, what IS a generic "son"? I'll have to ask my 3 sons - not generic .... I don't think....??

[martin dufresne]

You are absolutely right, Antonia. This means that from now on, upon separation or divorce, the parent who has done the least caretaking, the one who hasn't bothered to bond with the children and patiently acquire the necessary parenting skills, will accuse the other of trying to gouge him of half of those family benefits if she tries to have a Court acknowledge this parenting pattern.
The Harper governement is attempting to demolish mothers' meagre but hard-won financial entitlements, using the modern myth of universal shared parenting.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

(Btw, what IS a generic "son"? I'll have to ask my 3 sons)

Shell,

In Russian metaphorical "sons" take a different plural ending from biologically related male children.

syn - son

synov'ja - sons (BRMC)
syny -sons (metaphorical, as in Pushkin's Poltava: syny ljubimye pobedy favourite sons of victory)

[Jim M]

O Canada, our sublet Native land. True franchisee love, in KFC's command. With groaning hearts we see thee sold (to) the false north, south of thee.

[PaulR]

It's about time for an anthem change to that line, as well as the removal of "God keep our land". Reasonable requests I think. I just don't think the "feminazis" are really the best people to lead that charge, given that they have spent their credibility - and not only with the Harper government. The dogmatic insistence on complaining that women are being ignored because feminists are being dismissed is not going to do women any service.

[Luna]

Quite seriously, what's wrong with "... in all of our command"? Other than maybe a grammatical issue... :)

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"... in all of our command"

Luna Mo Run

It sounds rather too... er... military.

[PaulR]

Stygian, if "all of our command" sounds too militaristic, wouldn't you want to start first with "We stand on guard for thee?"

The "God" and "sons" lines have always stuck in my craw, partly because the anthem's English version comes so close to an inclusive aspiration (or at least, a non-exclusive one), and partly because the anthem was changed within my lifetime to add religion, within the same general timeframe that I recall that enforced participation in the Lord's Prayer was dropped from Ontario public schools, or at least made non-mandatory.

I feel excluded and even somewhat silly invoking dieties in which I don't believe. I feel uncomfortable explaining the "sons" line to my young daughter. It ends up that I explain what they "mean" when they say sons, which begs the question - if they mean it to be inclusive (this is the defence of the line - that it is "understood" to be inclusive), then why don't they just sing it that way?