|  | |
Previous | Next
 Brief letters, that include the writer’s name and address, are welcome. The Herald will not publish letters sent anonymously, though we may withhold names at our discretion. Letters may be edited for purposes of length or clarity.
Make a difference
Too often, we watch events in government without doing anything to change what is happening. A court decision in B.C. recently made it legal to possess child pornography. In April 1999, the Canada Family Action Coalition campaigned against this by collecting 140,000 signatures to present to the Federal government.
A group of teenagers in Winnipeg, calling themselves “Youth Making a Difference,” have pledged to collect one million signatures by September. Anyone who is a citizen of Canada can sign these petitions.
I challenge every MB church and youth group throughout Canada to take this opportunity to make a difference in the world. Copies of the petition are available by phone or fax (204) 896-7478 or e-mail (winnipeg@familyaction.org).
Faye Kliewer,
Winnipeg, Man.
Wrong has been done
Manitoba Minister David Newman (Letters, June 11) chides MCC for accepting the claim that the Native bands affected by hydro development on the Nelson River system have been treated unfairly. If one reads the terms of the Northern Flood Agreement and then listens to what both Native leaders and outsiders have said about implementation of the agreement, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that the terms have not been lived up to.
It is true that over the 20 years of the agreement, Manitoba Hydro and the province have paid out $36 million for damages resulting from the project. But that is less than $2 million a year. This, despite the fact that much of the forest had not been cut down in the areas flooded and the resulting underwater debris has caused enormous problems to fishing, boating and recreation.
Though the bands had been promised constant water levels, the fluctuations have been such that ice has often been unsafe to travel on. According to Native claims, 19 deaths have resulted over the years from this and other development related causes. When compensation was sought, families have been subjected to difficult, lengthy negotiations. Because of the fluctuating water levels, the shorelines have been subject to more erosion than had been anticipated, releasing high levels of mercury into the water and making the banks difficult to work from. When the Native band made a proposal to Manitoba Hydro to employ 150 Native workers over five years to work at shoreline stabilization, Hydro returned with a proposal to involve 14 for a season. Fifty ended up working on the project.
Finally, despite the fact that the lands to be transferred to Cross Lake in exchange for those flooded were selected in 1983, the formal transfer has yet to happen.
This minimalist approach of Manitoba Hydro and the provincial government has created a sense of grievance among the people of Cross Lake and the other bands. In frustration, four of the five bands finally accepted a settlement which extinguishes most of the obligations of the Northern Flood Agreement with one large payout. Cross Lake did not, however.
Though Hydro and the governments have tried to overlook it, part of the NFA (Schedule E), foresaw a community development plan which would address “mass poverty and unemployment” and improve “physical, social and economic conditions.” Furthermore, the agreement spoke of “programs and projects” which would “benefit” the communities. In short, it foresaw benefits coming to the people from the hydro projects.
The critical issue that Manitoba Hydro and the province are unwilling to address is this: they have been willing to compensate for the loss which the Native bands have experienced as a result of the development but have never accepted the idea of allowing the bands to enjoy some of the profits from the development. While Manitoba Hydro realized a profit of $110 million in 1998 from the power it produced, the Native groups have only been compensated for damages. Would we be satisfied if that happened to us on property that we possessed? Hardly.
I am convinced that the sense of grievance and perhaps even the ultimate cost would be less if Manitoba Hydro and the governments simply accepted the principle that a royalty from the profits legitimately belongs to the Native communities. This should be paid, and the Native bands should be allowed to administer it to the benefit of their communities. Last year, Manitoba Hydro sold 40% of its power into the northern States. This is clear profit. Why shouldn’t the Native bands enjoy some of that?
Furthermore, this development will have a long lifetime. Why should Hydro have the right to pay off the bands in the short term while it will reap the benefits decades into the future?
MCC chose to speak for Cross Lake because it believed a wrong was being done to these people. As one of those involved in that decision, I continue to believe a wrong has been done.
Harold Jantz,
Winnipeg, Man.
Sex, movies and dating
“Sex is one of the main components in many movies” writes Mark Dobell (“Christians and the Movie Industry,” May 28). Sex is also one of the main components in life. With articles and letters in recent Heralds suggesting that teens not “date,” there seems to be a trend to denying our sexuality. This seems naive and counter-productive.
“Sex entertainment” is pornography. There are also many mainstream movies that have gratuitous sex and nudity, but there are also some excellent, quality films where sexual relationships, or scenes with some nudity, are a natural outflow of the story. Since sex is a part of our lives, I see nothing wrong with watching a quality film that addresses sex in one form or another. Just because I watch a film doesn’t necessarily mean that I agree with the actions or moral decisions of the characters. A film about real people and their relationships is far less convincing and meaningful, though, if the sexual dynamic is removed.
There’s no reason for anyone to “give up” watching movies completely. Christians just need to become more discerning with the movies they choose to see, and more sophisticated in the way they respond to film and sexuality.
W.T. Dale Enns,
Nakatsugawa-shi, Gifu-ken, Japan
What about abusive marriages?
I was saddened, but not surprised by the issue on “The Covenant of Marriage” (July 16). The only reference to abusive relationships was one sentence: “There may be exceptions when it is necessary for health or survival reasons that persons get out of an abusive marriage” (page 7).
Churches have a tendency to overlook the sin of verbal, emotional, physical and sexual abuse because many people do not want to believe that something so ugly could be happening among their fellow church members. But it does happen.
Divorce, for many people, is not a sin but an opportunity to show the strength that only God can give: to take a stand for your faith and to tell your spouse that his behaviour is against what God has commanded. Being married to a dishonest, abusive person for over 12 years, I felt that, since we were one, I was just as responsible for his behaviour as I was for my own. In leaving him, I released myself of that responsibility and allowed God to take control of my life, rather than trying to please a man who did not allow God in his life. I had to choose between my marriage (dysfunctional, abusive and depressing) and God, who could grant me strength and courage for a new life as a sole parent of three children. Which would you choose?
There are only two choices in life: God or the devil. I do not want evil to have control of my life or that of my children. I have a responsibility to teach them the joy of salvation and to share with them the blessings that God bestows upon us. One member of my church told me that the church cannot take sides between a husband and wife in a separation. I told him that that is what the church is required to do: to choose between good and evil. Another member asked me how I would make it right with God that I had left my husband. I told him that it was only through the strength that God has given me that I was able to survive my marriage and gain the courage to leave.
It was by no means an easy decision. My children are required by law to visit their father unsupervised, and I am required, at the risk of losing custody, to send them to a man who did his best for years to ensure that I was in his control, who hurt me on a daily basis and who made me feel that I was worthless and unloved. That is the most difficult challenge I face, but I need to leave it in His hands. I have to have faith that, wherever they are, God is protecting my children, and that God will help me to teach them how to take care of themselves.
I agree that many divorces are for reasons that could have been resolved with the help of God and marriage counsellors. But the church needs to realize that for some people divorce is not lonely or sad or a sin. For some people, divorce is ever so much easier than being in an abusive marriage. It is an opportunity to follow your heart; for if Jesus is in your heart, He will lead you. It is an opportunity to see what God has in store for you, what tasks He has been preparing you for in your misery and pain. Divorce is an opportunity to finally say, with honesty and joy: “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15).
Name withheld
Previous | Next Last modified September 22, 1999.
© 1999 Mennonite Brethren Herald.
Published by the Canadian Conference of MB Churches.
Masthead and usage information.
|
