"Our Government will...ask Parliament to examine the original gender-neutral English wording of the national anthem." - Speech from the Throne, March 3, 2010.
With their voices still strained from belting out O'Canada a few days before in Olympic gold celebration, many Canadians found it hard to believe that the government would even consider changing the lyrics of the anthem. Especially the Conservatives. I mean they had just come out of the Olympics enjoying a little bit of a bounce, riding the wave of a successful Winter Games and the boost in national pride that went with it.
So why then would they even propose changing the anthem? The suggestion of changing the anthem would seem natural coming from the NDP in the form of a bill that everyone would know, would have no real chance of passing. Some have suggested that the Conservatives proposed the idea to create a smokescreen, to offer them cover for prorogation, the deficit or the Afghanistan detainee issue.
My opinion is that it may in fact be both, a political distraction and an attempt to gain some brownie points with the small minority who would favour the change. The issue has blown up and dominated conversation, the news and social media. And now Harper can say to those in favour that they tried, but people just didn't want it.
Whatever the strategy behind the idea of opening the anthem up for review, it has definitely gotten the attention of Canadians and many have moved the conversation online. I did a quick Facebook search "Canadian nation anthem", and it turned up 276 groups and 6 fan pages (one sporting over 8,000 members). Most of these pages were organized by those against changing the anthem, although there was a sprinkling of those in favour.
The day after the speech from the throne the Conservatives back-pedalled, and said they would not review the lyrics of O'Canada given the backlash the idea generated. So although most online activity regarding this issue will likely trend downwards as things simmer-down, it has made me wonder why certain issues get more play in social media than others.
There's the obvious link that the bigger the political issue in the public at large, the more online attention it will generate. However, there are many other factors that decide whether or not something like a proposed law or a scandal become the subjects of tweets or Facebook status updates.
I believe, that a political issue is more likely to become popular online if it: is important to the younger demographic, is simply understood and leaves little room to sit on the fence, and it is an issue that users know they will easily gain the support of like minded individuals online.
The mainstream social media sites are dominated by people between the ages of 13-34, so when this demographic population identifies with an issue it is likely that they will make it the topic of online communications and voice their opinions. A great example of this was in late 2008 when Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty proposed tougher restrictions for teen drivers. I’m almost certain that he expected to pass the bill with ease. But then, Facebook happened. The strongest opposition to the laws was the Facebook group “Young Drivers Against New Ontario Laws”. According to their page the group had: 200 members within three hours, over 14,000 by its second day and then reached 65,000 and 95,000 members on days three and four. Even though this topic has long since died it still has over 125,000 members! In the end, social media tipped the scales and allowed a group of people (comprised mainly of those who weren’t even old enough to vote) to change a political outcome in their favour.
Up or down, yes or no. When a political debate can be explained easily in a few paragraphs and presents a person with a simple choice between opposing views, it is more likely that the issue will migrate to social media. The O’Canada flap was such an issue. Are you in favour of changing “In all thy sons command” to something gender neutral? Yes or no. Here there is no “only change part” or, “maybe just a little”. It is a simple and clear issue. Explaining it to others and why you support your view point can be reduced to 141 characters or a status update. Had the government not withdrawn their proposal the social media snowball would have grown quickly. All it takes is a few friends asking “Hey, have you heard they want to change the anthem?!”
Although social media users don’t always think twice about what they post online, I believe that comfort in numbers leads them to voice political opinions that they know will resonate with fellow users. Just as people post links to videos or articles that they think their friends will like, they also present opinions that they feel will be reinforced by others. Issues such as O’Canada and young driver regulations make for good social media fodder as the vast majority were on one side of the fence. When it comes to contentious issues such as reproductive rights, capital punishment and others it is less likely that users will post about these issues.
After hearing about the proposal to change O’Canada, I believe most Canadians had a few conversations at work or school and realized that nobody really wanted it. So why not join the mob online? It's easy to do and you probably won’t offend 99 per cent of your contacts by doing so. Finding comfort and acceptance in a group has motivated people throughout history and although social media is a new phenomena it is still shaped by human desires.
In the end I'm glad the government backed away from their proposal to change the national anthem. They were smart to do so, because the world of social media was poised to make this one line from a Throne Speech a very painful mistake.
