Has the national Anthem lost all meaning?

[Machjo]

Who said that it did? The fact that he had death threats against him also doesn't suddenly make OK what he did.

So what would you have advised he'd done in his position? Since the daily singing of the Anthem in the classroom was a choice the school made and not something mandated by the Minsitry of Education (though it did just change that last week and now has mandated it across the province in response to the situation), yet the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do fefend freedom of religion, what legal grounds would he have had to stand on had he pushed the matter with the parents who wanted their children exempted? It's not like he could say at the time that the school was mandated by the province to do this, and it was clearly a decision made by the Principal. That being the case, he would have had no ground to stand on legally and so really had no choice but to roll it back. Or would it have been preferable tohave made a court case out of it and instead maybe have those paents receive the death threats instead of him?

Honestly, I admire his response so far. in the face of all the harassment and threats to his safety, he has always taken the safety of the parents who'd requested the exempltion into account by never revealing their identity, at least in the media, so as to divert the attention from himself. He could easily have deflected the threats from himself to the parents, but chose to do his job instead. Now that's a much more patriotic act than any committed by the pro-Anthem side harassing and threatening him. Taliban=style terrorism in the name of the Anthem is not a patriotic act.

[Machjo]

Sorry, but emailing a death threat is wrong, and anyone guilty should be prosecuted. But I wouldn't call that a "taliban-style" atttack. This is what a taliban-style attack looks like.

Taliban militants arrested in acid attack on Afghan Girls

OK, I'm exaggerating, but the idea still stands. The day we sing the national Anthem out of fear for our safety will be the beginnig of the end of our country as we know it.

[Smallc]

So what would you have advised he'd done in his position? Since the daily singing of the Anthem in the classroom was a choice the school made and not something mandated by the Minsitry of Education (though it did just change that last week and now has mandated it across the province in response to the situation), yet the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do fefend freedom of religion, what legal grounds would he have had to stand on had he pushed the matter with the parents who wanted their children exempted?

He could have ignored the complaints, like most people would. There was no reason to stop the playing. A few complaints aren't enough. Hearing the word god does not infringe on anyone's rights. And again, no one is force to sing the anthem, it's simply played. This is not Taliban style terror, this is a very passionate response that crossed the line in some cases.

You seem to think that anyone who supports the paying of the anthem is threatening and attacking him. That certainly isn't the case.

Edited July 26, 2009 by Smallc

[Machjo]

By the way, on the issue of the seriousness of the harassment and threats, though granted it's not as serious as the taliban, he did have to miss a week of work and had to see a therapist over the constant bombardment from all sides. So whatever happened, it appears the level and intensity fo the threats was quite high.

In fact, he has to leave that elementary school and will work as a high school teacher this coming fall. So it was pretty serious.

The good news of course is that one parents has been charged with six months imprisonment and supposedly more charges are pending. Grranted at least our court system is intact to at least mitigate against the worst.

[Machjo]

He could have ignored the complaints, like most people would. There was no reason to stop the playing. A few complaints aren't enough. Hearing the word god does not infringe on anyone's rights.

It came from religious parents, so I doubt 'God' was the issue, unless my guess that the parents were JWs (though this is only my guess by the sounds of it), then you might be right since some of them take offense at the word 'God' insisting it's Jehovah.

And again, no one is force to sing the anthem, it's simply played.

Now the situation there was a grey area. The Ministry of Education certainly didn't fire him so it would suggest that his response was appropriate, or at least that the Ministry approves it. Of course sometimes there could be wiggle room in the law, and within that space, we should respect whatever decision the principal makes. I think we can all agree that his decision was well within that grey interpretation fo the law, even if a few other interpretations could have been within it too. And again, remember that he was already going above and beyond the call of duty as it was since it was the school and not the Ministry that was mandating daily singing of the Anthem to begin with.

This is not Taliban style terror, this is a very passionate response that crossed the line in some cases.

I was not saying that all supported of the Anthem are like this, but rather ponting out that our country is, generally speaking and exceptions aside, moving increasingly towards a fanatical level of uncritically accepted nationalism.

You seem to think that anyone who supports the paying of the anthem is threatening and attacking him. That certainly isn't the case.

I never said all are like that, but merely that it seems to be moving slowly in that direction. After all, 1000+ e-mails directed towards one person, all either harassing or threatening, along with one parent threatening him in person in his office, shows a serious problem in the direction our society is moving in, and that is definitely something we need to address in our society, making people understand that the Anthem represents a love for our country and its people, not a fanatical hatred for anything perceived to be an enemy. I'm not opposing the singing of the Anthem here, but rather a gross misunderstanding on the part of some nationalists of what it's supposed to stand for.

[Machjo]

He could have ignored the complaints, like most people would.

Are you sure about that? I'd gone to 3 elementary schools in my life (1 Ontario French-Catholic, 1 Ontario French-secular, and 1 BC French secular), and I can't remember listening to the anthem except at Assemblies. So it would seem his school was already more devoted to the Anthem than most.

[Smallc]

In both schools that I have attended and every one that I've ever been to, it's played every morning, as is (as far as I know) the norm now.

[Topaz]

I went to a rural school we sang to the Queen, said pray before lunch and said pray before leaving school. High school, we listened to the anthem and took turns reading the bible over the PA system, but it was a small town Ontario.

[Machjo]

All this has led me to a new question:

Seeing that his school is not unique in this respect, why was he singled out from all Canadian principals for this threatening treatment?

[Radsickle]

It's very hard for me to believe that we can live about 15-20 minutes from each other and you can be so wrong, all the time. Must be something in the water over there in Guelph...You grew up properly in the proper area far away from the urban ghettos where most of these liberals come from yet you espouse liberal, almost communist ideals at every turn. I don't get it.

Strange world, eh? I don't understand how you could spell honour incorrectly but I'm not going to make a soap opera about it, Mr. Halton Hills.

[Dave_ON]

I don't know, but he said many. So I take it it's more than one or two.

To be fair to him though, if it's in his mandate to do whatever he can within the rules to create an inclusive environment for all children, and there is no official rule saying that the children must sing the Anthem every morning in the classroom (meaning he was going above and beyond the call of duty already), then according to the rules he'd be expected to follow, it would make sense that he should bring the Anthem out of the classroom into the Assemblies. Had he not done so, and assuming he were dealing with JWs (which I'm guessing was the case by the sound of it), they'd likely have fought it in court and won on the grounds that no law required the Anthem in the classrooms in the first place, thus costing the taxpayer more money.

So for you to say his decision was stupid is essentially putting him in a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. Not very fair. And to excuse death threats isn't too responsible either.

I understand many of your points Machjo but I think you lack a fundamental context, as do 90% of those posters here, for where this event occurred.

I grew up in New Brunswick and we sang the National Anthem every single day as well as God Save the Queen and that was in the city of Saint John. Martimers are very socially conservative to begin with, and are in general staunch Monarchists. We're talking about rural New Brunswick so these sentiments run even deeper. You're assertion that the principal was attempting to accommodate a multicultural multi-faith environment is somewhat overstated. You have to understand in NB multiculturalism consists of 60% English 40% French and roughly the same proportions of Protestant to Catholic to cover multi-faith. While I can appreciate that he was attempting to accommodate what was likely a few Jehovah’s Witnesses, I feel he too failed to understand the mentality of the community in which he resided.

Loyalty to Queen and Country runs deep in the Maritimes, and frankly it was foolish of the principal not to recognize the cultural context he was trying to apply multicultural ideology. I’m not saying that death threats are at all warranted or the least bit appropriate, but they are certainly understandable given the cultural sentiments of the region. These threats likely came from all over NB as is evidenced by how quickly the NB legislature passed a law mandating the singing of the anthem on a daily basis. Such a law would not pass it was not the general sentiment of the people. Many people perceived this as a threat to their identity and to their way of life and some overreacted and responded in like manner. Some people react violently when they feel threatened. It’s not the majority but it does happen.

I think the response is indicative of how deep patriotism runs in the Atlantic Provinces, and I have to admit when I moved to Ontario I was shocked at how few people actually knew the words to our National Anthem. This to me is a sad testament to state of affairs in our country. All too often the observation that Bush Chaney makes about “Canadians” is proven time and time again here in Ontario, the only identity they have is “we’re not American”. This is not the case in the Maritimes, many of the people there are decedents of Americans fleeing the revolution who wanted to remain loyal to the King, and they actually even founded the city of Saint John, which today is still called “The Loyalist City”. That is our identity and that is why I suppose patriotism runs so deep there. I still carry that with me, and those values instilled are not easily given up nor are they to be trifled with.

Further to that end I would doubt you could say that the values held by the folks down East are indicative of the rest of Canada. As you're well aware Canada doesn't really have a National identity, rather it has a number of loosely sewn together regional identities that came together out of necessity. This mosaic of values conflicted back in 1867 and they continue to conflict to this very day.

[Dave_ON]

It came from religious parents, so I doubt 'God' was the issue, unless my guess that the parents were JWs (though this is only my guess by the sounds of it), then you might be right since some of them take offense at the word 'God' insisting its Jehovah.

You are likely correct, there was a Jehovah's Witness in one of my classes growing up; he simply stood in the hall during the singing of the anthem. I see no issue with this. He didn't have to participate and we still got to sing the anthem.

Now the situation there was a grey area. The Ministry of Education certainly didn't fire him so it would suggest that his response was appropriate, or at least that the Ministry approves it. Of course sometimes there could be wiggle room in the law, and within that space, we should respect whatever decision the principal makes. I think we can all agree that his decision was well within that grey interpretation fo the law, even if a few other interpretations could have been within it too. And again, remember that he was already going above and beyond the call of duty as it was since it was the school and not the Ministry that was mandating daily singing of the Anthem to begin with.

I don't think we can assume that at all. He made a unilateral decision without consulting the greater community at large. This consequently caused him to make the wrong decision, based on the greater cultural context. If he had approached the other parents with his concerns rather than unilaterally making the decision for them, I'm certain he would not have been met with such an overreaction.

I was not saying that all supported of the Anthem are like this, but rather ponting out that our country is, generally speaking and exceptions aside, moving increasingly towards a fanatical level of uncritically accepted nationalism.

I disagree; I think you're making a great many assumptions in this statement. This is not new in the Maritimes, this is the norm and its tradition and it's been that way since before confederation. People do not like mandates that force them to give up what they deem important to them. I grew up with the Maple Leaf as my flag, my Mother however, is still quite bitter at Lester B. Pearson for getting rid of the Union Jack. It's not uncommon to see the Union Jack flying in some parts of the Maritimes and you'll see it at most old town halls, theatres and other public facilities.

Again I don't think you can take the cultural traditions of the Maritimes and cite it as a trend in the rest of Canada. This isn't a movement toward something; it's the preservation of tradition. Upper Canadians just don't understand that.

I never said all are like that, but merely that it seems to be moving slowly in that direction. After all, 1000+ e-mails directed towards one person, all either harassing or threatening, along with one parent threatening him in person in his office, shows a serious problem in the direction our society is moving in, and that is definitely something we need to address in our society, making people understand that the Anthem represents a love for our country and its people, not a fanatical hatred for anything perceived to be an enemy. I'm not opposing the singing of the Anthem here, but rather a gross misunderstanding on the part of some nationalists of what it's supposed to stand for.

It's not about fanatical hatred; it's about one principal, who more than likely didn't grow up in the Maritimes, making a unilateral decision without proper consideration of the possible consequences or backlash. Martimers understand all too well, what the anthem, the Union Jack and Maple Leaf stand for, in both WWI and WWII they sent more soldiers per capita than any other region in Canada. They felt that was threatened and some reacted incorrectly, but many reacted correctly with public indignation. They spoke to their MLA's who responded by passing a law. That is democracy at work, that's patriotism at work.

Its unfortunate the principal had to go through this ordeal, but I hope he learned from the experience as well.

[Shady]

It came from religious parents

How does he know what religion the emailers are?

[Machjo]

How does he know what religion the emailers are?

I meant the parents who'd requested their children be exempted. Like I said above, I don't know their religion for sure, but from the information I have gathered from the articles and the TV coverage lead me to believe they may have been JWs.

[Machjo]

Dave ON.

Thanks for the info there.

So I'd be curious then. Had the principal had a discussion with the community as to how to settle the issue with the parents requesting the exemption, how do you think the community would have reacted? Would it have calmly proposed an amicable solution whereby those children only could be exempted and that the school would have to accommodate it? Would they have demanded to know who those parents were? If so and the school refused to divulge that information, then what? Would those parents have been safe? Woud people try to guess who those parents are and react vindictively on their hunch?

I don't know the answer, and that's why I'm asking. I never realised that they were so emotional about it that they woudl literally resort to such threats. I'm just curious.Had there been a open consultation, how do you think it would have turned out?

Oh, by the way, I know the Anthem in both Official Languages fluently, do consider myself patriotic, yet would still not be that emotional about a parent refusing to sing the Anthem. I'm well aware that more than a few of the more traditional Christian sects would refuse, not to mention the JWs, but would just unemotionally respect their views. Then again, I'm a Franco-Ontarian. Naturally, the French-speaking side has taught me no attachement to the Queen as such, other than a quaint English-Canadian thing. As for the Canadian Anthem, I view it as symbolic of secondary importance to common kindness.

But again, that's from my backgound, and it does seem the Eastern mentality is radically different. I wasn't aware of that, and yes, if it's that different, the Principal should have known and perhaps should have been debriefed about it before taking the position.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

You want religion in a school, then put your kids in a religious school.

[Machjo]

You want religion in a school, then put your kids in a religious school.

"...God keep our land..."?

And that's just for the English version!

[Jerry J. Fortin]

"...God keep our land..."?

And that's just for the English version!

There is no denying the fact that this was a country founded by Christians, and developed by the same.

[Machjo]

There is no denying the fact that this was a country founded by Christians, and developed by the same.

And Christians are among some refusing to sing the Anthem in schools. In fact, though I have heard criticisms from anti-Muslims, I have yet to hear of a solid case of a Muslim refusing to sing the National Anthem. In fact, there is even an Arabic-version of Oh Canada!

Anyway, back on topic, it would seem you're now contradicting yourself, saying that religion should be limited to religious schools, but now saying the Christian Faith is an exception. Last I'd checked, Canada has no Established Church.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

And Christians are among some refusing to sing the Anthem in schools. In fact, though I have heard criticisms from anti-Muslims, I have yet to hear of a solid case of a Muslim refusing to sing the National Anthem. In fact, there is even an Arabic-version of Oh Canada!

Anyway, back on topic, it would seem you're now contradicting yourself, saying that religion should be limited to religious schools, but now saying the Christian Faith is an exception. Last I'd checked, Canada has no Established Church.

Where did I contradict myself? I have never said that any exception should be granted to anyone let alone Christians. What I did say was that Christians settled in Canada and made it into a nation. I do suggest that public schools should not have religion in them. I do think that religion should not be forced upon people, and I do think that religion should be kept away from politics at almost any cost. I do think there have been religious nuts, from all of the faiths or believers, and I think that they have caused harm to people.

[Machjo]

Where did I contradict myself? I have never said that any exception should be granted to anyone let alone Christians. What I did say was that Christians settled in Canada and made it into a nation. I do suggest that public schools should not have religion in them. I do think that religion should not be forced upon people, and I do think that religion should be kept away from politics at almost any cost. I do think there have been religious nuts, from all of the faiths or believers, and I think that they have caused harm to people.

So how does the National Anthem sit with what you just said?

Now I personally have no issue with it per se, but just trying to understand your reasoning. I personally believe in God, so naturally I have no issue with the mention of God in the Anthem. However, as a universalist, I may feel more limited in the Anthem as I'd consider myself more of a world citizen with a wider loyalty and patriotism. But that's another matter.

Now I know that some strict Christian groups insist that there can be but one undivided loyalty, and so though they'd naturally see no issue with reference to God in the Anthem, they would take issue with any nationalist sentiment in it, on religious grounds. I would fall in that category myself, albeit to a more moderate level in that I can still enjoy the sound and the imagery of the Anthem, etc., without necessarily agreeing with every word of it.

Atheists might take a different view, naturally, some suggesting that God should not be referenced in the anthem.

I'm not challenging your views as such, but rather how they fit in the wider picture since you'd suggested quite emotively above that the religius should go to religious schools. Taking that at face value, then you'd be denying the singing of the Anthem in secular schools. I was just wondering how you reconcile these ideas in a logical whole.

[Bonam]

Atheists might take a different view, naturally, some suggesting that God should not be referenced in the anthem.

Only misguided, needlessly confrontational ones. An intelligent individual can appreciate the tradition from which the anthem originates, which includes religion, and enjoy it for what it is. There are benefits to stability, especially when it comes to symbols, such as a national anthem. An atheist, not believing in god, should place no special emphasis on the mention of god in a song, and should not be offended by its use. It is merely another word, another metaphor, that happens to be part of the anthem which is our nation's tradition.

[Machjo]

Only misguided, needlessly confrontational ones. An intelligent individual can appreciate the tradition from which the anthem originates, which includes religion, and enjoy it for what it is. There are benefits to stability, especially when it comes to symbols, such as a national anthem. An atheist, not believing in god, should place no special emphasis on the mention of god in a song, and should not be offended by its use. It is merely another word, another metaphor, that happens to be part of the anthem which is our nation's tradition.

When I was an atheist (or hovering somewhere between that and agnosticism anyway), I did take issue with the mention of God in the Anthem, though I was also less universalist too, which made up for it a little. After believeing in God, that part didn't bother me too much, though my belief in God made me even more universalist than before, viewing myself even more of a world citizen.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the Anthem in school, but merely that we should not react too harshly when a person may oppose singing it. After all, there are various phylosophical views that go through even a young person's head as he tries to make sense of the world around him, the concept of the nation-state in the world, etc. It's not an intent to offend, but a genuine desire to understand that world around him. To intimidate a person into submission would simply lead to an empty parrotting of the Anthem. Personally, I'd rather people sing it with their whole heart, mind and soul behid it or not at all, than to have them just parrotting it out because they know what's good for them.

If a puritan Christian, JW, or atheist should refuse to sing the Anthem for whatever reason, it's not necessarily out of intentional disrespect, but rather out of sincere belief. So are we to beat him into submission, or just respect his wishes... or his parents', whichever is the case?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The national anthem, is what it is, which is a song. Does it stir my heart? No, because it isn't even close to the truth. It is a dream in a nation that is afraid to dream. It is a riddle wrapped in an enigma and does little to represent this nation at all.

[Dave_ON]

Dave ON.

Thanks for the info there.

So I'd be curious then. Had the principal had a discussion with the community as to how to settle the issue with the parents requesting the exemption, how do you think the community would have reacted? Would it have calmly proposed an amicable solution whereby those children only could be exempted and that the school would have to accommodate it? Would they have demanded to know who those parents were? If so and the school refused to divulge that information, then what? Would those parents have been safe? Woud people try to guess who those parents are and react vindictively on their hunch?

I don't know the answer, and that's why I'm asking. I never realised that they were so emotional about it that they woudl literally resort to such threats. I'm just curious.Had there been a open consultation, how do you think it would have turned out?

Oh, by the way, I know the Anthem in both Official Languages fluently, do consider myself patriotic, yet would still not be that emotional about a parent refusing to sing the Anthem. I'm well aware that more than a few of the more traditional Christian sects would refuse, not to mention the JWs, but would just unemotionally respect their views. Then again, I'm a Franco-Ontarian. Naturally, the French-speaking side has taught me no attachement to the Queen as such, other than a quaint English-Canadian thing. As for the Canadian Anthem, I view it as symbolic of secondary importance to common kindness.

But again, that's from my backgound, and it does seem the Eastern mentality is radically different. I wasn't aware of that, and yes, if it's that different, the Principal should have known and perhaps should have been debriefed about it before taking the position.

In all honesty I think the discussion would have gone a lot better had the others community members been involved. Maritimers are definitely a shoot from the hip culture, pragmatism is not a word in their vocabulary, and most are honest to a fault. Would it have been violent? I highly doubt it but it certainly wouldn't have been candy coated either. The discussion would be frank and I'm certain their response would have been similar to what Jerry had stated. "This is the way it is around here and if they want to go to a school where the anthem isn't sung they can, but that school isn't the one in our community." This level of bluntness rubs some people the wrong way, and it can be hard to swallow sometime, but one thing I miss about living out there is you always know where a person stands, and where you stand with them.

There's very much a live and let live mentality there, they have not interest in restricting the rights of others, but they also don't want theirs taken away especially without consultation. The people there are some of the friendliest and most hospitable people I have ever known. Everyone is treated like family, especially in the rural communities. But if you threaten their way of life, they don't take kindly to that and they won't be afraid to let you know. The Principal crossed a line, one he obviously didn't realize existed, and I actually feel pretty bad for him.

As I said earlier there were those who would "stand out" for the singing of the national anthem when I was growing up, and there wasn't a problem with this on either side. I guess I'm uncertain as to why this solution was suddenly unacceptable to the parents and subsequently the principal.

As a side note I was implying that you didn't know the words to the national anthem Machjo, I was merely observing how there are many here in Ontario who do not. It was quite a culture shock when I moved to Ontario from New Brunswick 10 years ago, the people; their attitudes and beliefs are completely different. It was almost as if I had moved to another country.