MPs are debating a divisive bill that would make the words of O Canada gender neutral. The lyric “in all thy sons command” would change to “in all of us command.”
Many argue the move is just political correctness gone too far, but Canada is one of few countries left in the world with gendered language in its anthem. Austria changed two lines of its anthem in 2012 to gender-neutral language. It’s time we, too, make the switch.
Changing the lyrics “will cost taxpayers nothing, but signals to women and girls across Canada that they’re valued every bit as much as their brothers, fathers and sons,” former Prime Minister Kim Campbell, Green Party leader Elizabeth May, Mylène Freeman, Liberal MP Carolyn Bennet and Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth argued in a Hill Times opinion piece late February.
Equal representation matters in the arts.
This is true of movies, television shows and popular music – so why wouldn’t it be true of a national anthem, something that’s so symbolic of what a country and its government value?
But, during the first round of debate on the bill, five Conservative MPs voiced their disapproval and many are now predicting the bill won’t pass. The MPs argued the anthem, as it is, is part of our national identity and is a legacy passed down from our ancestors.
O Canada has been altered a number of times since Robert Stanley Weir wrote the original in 1903. The original version was actually gender neutral, with “thou dost in us command,” but Weir added “in all thy sons” in 1913, a reference to Canadian soldiers who were fighting in the First World War. Some argue that to change these lyrics would be disrespectful to veterans.
But to imply that Canada’s “sons” were the only ones to help the war effort is even more disrespectful.
More than 3,000 women enlisted as nurses in the Canadian Army Medical Corps, and about 6,000 women worked in munitions. At home, women volunteered their time to send food and supplies overseas. And this is not even to mention the women who filled men’s roles in the workforce while they were away.
Yes, the Canadian national anthem has a certain degree of legacy attached to it.
But if it’s a legacy that excludes half our country’s population, is it a legacy we want to uphold?
Cultural symbols such as anthems are not necessarily static; they can, and should, keep up with modern values.
If we so rigidly hold onto archaic versions of Canadian history that don’t include women, simply because that’s the way it’s always been, we’re missing an opportunity to accurately represent modern Canadian values of gender equality.
As a bonus, as Campbell and her co-authors point out, the change would cost taxpayers absolutely nothing, which almost begs the question: why not?
The only place where there might be some confusion or inconvenience could be in the classroom, where students who have sung the anthem every day for years would have to adjust.
But that’s not really an inconvenience so much as a teaching opportunity. Teachers could use the change to start a classroom discussion on gender equality and why equal representation in cultural media matters.
The change would inspire conversation not only in schools, but throughout the country, too.
In many ways, an honest conversation about gender equality has already begun.
It’s time our national anthem reflects that.