Features
New book by former Winnipegger suggests introducing new “rituals” into divorce as a way of easing the pain
“Moving Forward – An Ancient Divorce Ritual for the Modern World”
By Dr. Marilyn Beloff
Available on Amazon Books
Reviewed by RAYMOND HALL
Introduction: Dr. Marilyn Beloff, PhD is a collaborative divorce coach, child specialist, divorce mediator, and marital and family therapist. A native of Winnipeg, she presently lives and works in Vancouver, BC.
Guilt. Shame. Fear. Self-doubt. Self-pity. Denial. Anger. Confusion. Frustration. Aloneness. These are but a few of the emotions that invariably accompany marital breakdown and divorce, an event that is now experienced by almost one in two adults at least once in our lives. These emotions abound regardless of whether that breakdown occurs with the suddenness of a shattering glass, as in the exposure of infidelity, or more slowly from a gradual fading away of romance and mutual commitment, or simply from any number of growing irreconcilable differences.
In contrast to almost all other major life events–childbirth, bris, baptism, birthdays, graduation, marriage, and even death–in which we engage in rituals of either celebration or mourning and in which we mutually express an effusive sharing of human compassion, marital breakdown is almost invariably devoid of ritual, despite being one of life’s most traumatizing events. At the very moment where a susceptible adult most needs friendship, understanding, compassion and support, he or she is left instead with emptiness, or worse, ostracism. The divorce decree arrives in the mail.
In this groundbreaking seminal work, Dr. Beloff, using her extensive practice and experience in Depth Psychology, challenges this gaping hole–the predominant absence of ritual and social convention accompanying marital breakdown. It doesn’t have to be this way, she asserts. There is an effective alternative.
She shows that it is possible for one to find inner peace and needed closure in order to be able to let go, to move forward as a whole person, without being burdened with the emotional baggage of separation and divorce, by fully engaging in an effective ritualistic process. Using the rubric of the Jewish ‘Get,’ the compulsory ritual required prior to re-marriage in the Jewish faith, as a launching point, she posits a better process.
As she demonstrates first by discussing her own painful marital breakdown and then by weaving seven individual ‘tapestries’ (testimonials) into a comprehensive thesis, an effective ritualistic process that addresses the need for closure can also provide an enrichening existential experience.
That experience can evolve both in a spiritual sense and in an integral sense by reconfirming one’s personal dignity and inherent self-worth. An effective ritual, therefore, can not only provide closure but can act as a catalyst to future personal growth. Most importantly, this process need not be limited to orthodox religious practices–rather, it carries with it broad social psychological implications applicable to secular and traditional religious practices as well as to conventional therapy.
The ‘tapestries’ described in Moving Forward document a wide gamut of conflict and general dissatisfaction with the traditional Jewish ‘Get’. As both she and her subjects explain, the Get procedure varies widely by level of orthodoxy, by geography and by local practice. It has both a ‘shadow’ side and a ‘healing’ side. In its more orthodox form it is criticized as being overly structured, one-sided, impersonal and blatantly sexist.
That criticism appears to be well-founded. Words in the required recitation of the ancient Hebrew ritual that say, “I chase you from my house…” obviously do little to provide emotional or intellectual comfort to a woman facing the aloneness of an uncertain future.
In my view, however, the strength of this book lies in the lessons provided from those describing the healing elements of such a ritual, as well as from Dr. Beloff’s reflections on the suggestions made by those who passed through the process–especially the suggestions made with respect to actually creating a ritual that provides a more egalitarian and fulsome experience that enables not only sanctified closure, but also emotional closure that encompasses forgiveness, independence and a rebuilding of dignity and strength, for both spouses.
In my own law practice, I know of very few clients or lawyers involved in family law matters who would describe themselves as being happy with the ultimate resolutions generally provided through the legal system, especially in matters of child custody and access. I have come to assume that in cases involving separation and divorce, there are no winning clients–everyone loses. And losing engenders buckets of long-lasting negative emotions.
Although alternative dispute resolution processes such as mediation and arbitration can provide effective alternatives to expensive, protracted court proceedings, they are still adversarial in nature. Consequently, they often do little to minimize the significant adverse emotions engendered in both parties to a marital breakdown–emotions that invariably are carried forward long after the legal process has ended.
Those adverse emotions obviously impose constraints on one’s success in moving forward. As a result, any process that facilitates emotional closure and personal reconciliation could be of immense assistance, especially if that process is spiritually based, if for no other reason than that it is undertaken willingly by both parties with the objective of attaining personal emotional and spiritual peace.
What do these ‘tapestries’ instruct? What lessons can be learned?
First, on marital breakdown, legal processes alone are wholly insufficient to provide critical emotional closure to those who, regardless of whether they realize it or not, could use help. There often is a fundamental need for emotional support and encouragement for both parties to the breakdown, regardless of the cause of the breakdown.
Second, traditional spiritual services, where they exist, can be helpful but their effectiveness in providing healing is often short-circuited by the application of unquestioned rote protocol, impersonal attention by strangers to the participants, and dicta suffused with gender inequality.
Third, there is no “one process fits all” solution to what individuals truly need to begin the healing process. But therein lies the key. The most striking examples of successful transformation cited in these ‘tapestries’ occurred in individuals who took an active and creative role in designing and executing their own ritual of liberation: choosing trusted witnesses, and, for example, having those witnesses symbolically tie and untie knots. But above all, carefully drafting one’s own recitations to either supplement or to supplant the existing ritual processes.
Direct personal involvement in constructing and executing an appropriate ritual dialogue bridges many of the inadequacies in effecting a healthful transformation. The more that the individual embraces the kavannah, the intention or sincere commitment of the heart to letting go, the easier and more effective the resulting transformation. The more that the individual involves close personal friends in the ritual, the greater the comfort moving forward.
Moving Forward, an appropriately-titled contribution to social psychology, is essentially about helping separated individuals successfully achieve a critical, deep personal life-changing transformation that will assist them to pursue a future that is largely unencumbered by remorse, antipathy and illusions of fantasy at a critical stage in their lives.
Dr. Beloff has opened a vital door to that healing. But as always, it will be up to individuals to actually walk through that door, in their own way.
Raymond Hall was called to the Bar by the Law Society of Manitoba in 1988 and is now a practising member of the Law Society of B.C.
Features
Susan Silverman: diversification personified
By GERRY POSNER I recently had the good fortune to meet, by accident, a woman I knew from my past, that is my ancient past. Her name is Susan Silverman. Reconnecting with her was a real treat. The treat became even better when I was able to learn about her life story.
From the south end of Winnipeg beginning on Ash Street and later to 616 Waverley Street – I can still picture the house in my mind – and then onward and upwards, Susan has had quite a life. The middle daughter (sisters Adrienne and Jo-Anne) of Bernie Silverman and Celia (Goldstein), Susan was a student at River Heights, Montrose and then Kelvin High School. She had the good fortune to be exposed to music early in her life as her father was (aside from being a well known businessman) – an accomplished jazz pianist. He often hosted jam sessions with talented Black musicians. As well, Susan could relate to the visual arts as her mother became a sculptor and later, a painter.
When Susan was seven, she (and a class of 20 others), did three grades in two years. The result was that that she entered the University of Manitoba at the tender age of 16 – something that could not happen today. What she gained the most, as she looks back on those years, were the connections she made and friendships formed, many of which survive and thrive to this day. She was a part of the era of fraternity formals, guys in tuxedos and gals in fancy “ cocktail dresses,” adorned with bouffant hair-dos and wrist corsages.
Upon graduation, Susan’s wanderlust took her to London, England. That move ignited in her a love of travel – which remains to this day. But that first foray into international travel lasted a short time and soon she was back in Winnipeg working for the Children’s Aid Society. That job allowed her to save some money and soon she was off to Montreal. It was there, along with her roommate, the former Diane Unrode, that she enjoyed a busy social life and a place for her to take up skiing. She had the good fortune of landing a significant job as an executive with an international chemical company that allowed her to travel the world as in Japan, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Australia, Mexico, the Netherlands and even the USA. Not a bad gig.
In 1983, her company relocated to Toronto. She ended up working for companies in the forest products industry as well the construction technology industry. After a long stint in the corporate world, Susan began her own company called “The Resourceful Group,” providing human resource and management consulting services to smaller enterprises. Along the way, she served on a variety of boards of directors for both profit and non-profit sectors.
Even with all that, Susan was really just beginning. Upon her retirement in 2006, she began a life of volunteering. That role included many areas, from mentoring new Canadians in English conversation through JIAS (Jewish Immigrant Aid Services) to visiting patients at a Toronto rehabilitation hospital, to conducting minyan and shiva services. Few people volunteer in such diverse ways. She is even a frequent contributor to the National Post Letters section, usually with respect to the defence of Israel
and Jewish causes.
The stars aligned on New Year’s Eve, 1986, when she met her soon to be husband, Murray Leiter, an ex- Montrealer. Now married for 36 plus years, they have been blessed with a love of travel and adventure. In the early 1990s they moved to Oakville and joined the Temple Shaarei Beth -El Congregation. They soon were involved in synagogue life, making life long friends there. Susan and Murray joined the choir, then Susan took the next step and became a Bat Mitzvah. Too bad there is no recording of that moment. Later, when they returned to Toronto, they joined Temple Emanu-el and soon sang in that choir as well.
What has inspired both Susan and Murray to this day is the concept of Tikkun Olam. Serving as faith visitors at North York General Hospital and St. John’s Rehab respectively is just one of the many volunteer activities that has enriched both of their lives and indeed the lives of the people they have assisted and continue to assist.
Another integral aspect of Susan’s life has been her annual returns to Winnipeg. She makes certain to visit her parents, grandparents, and other family members at the Shaarey Zedek Cemetery. She also gets to spend time with her cousins, Hilllaine and Richard Kroft and friends, Michie end Billy Silverberg, Roz and Mickey Rosenberg, as well as her former brother-in-law Hy Dashevsky and his wife Esther. She says about her time with her friends: “how lucky we are to experience the extraordinary Winnipeg hospitality.”
Her Winnipeg time always includes requisite stops at the Pancake House, Tre Visi Cafe and Assiniboine Park. Even 60 plus years away from the “‘peg,” Susan feels privileged to have grown up in such a vibrant Jewish community. The city will always have a special place in her heart. Moreover, she seems to have made a Winnipegger out of her husband. That would be a new definition of Grow Winnipeg.
Features
Beneath the Prairie Calm: Manitoba’s Growing Vulnerability to Influence Networks
By MARTIN ZEILIG After reading Who’s Behind the Hard Right in Canada? A Reference Guide to Canada’s Disinformation Network — a report published by the Canadian AntiHate Network that maps the organizations, influencers, and funding pipelines driving coordinated right wing disinformation across the country — I’m left with a blunt conclusion: Canada is losing control of its political story, and Manitoba is far more exposed than we like to admit.
We often imagine ourselves as observers of political upheaval elsewhere — the U.S., Europe, even Alberta.
But the document lays out a sprawling, coordinated ecosystem of think tanks, influencers, strategists, and international organizations that is already shaping political attitudes across the Prairies. Manitoba is not an exception. In many ways, we’re a prime target.
The report describes a pipeline of influence that begins with global organizations like the International Democracy Union and the Atlas Network. These groups are not fringe. They are well funded, deeply connected, and explicitly designed to shape political outcomes across borders. Their Canadian partners translate global ideological projects into local messaging, policy proposals, and campaign strategies.
But the most concerning part isn’t the international influence — it’s the domestic machinery built to amplify it.
The Canada Strong and Free Network acts as a central hub linking donors, strategists, and political operatives. Around it sits a constellation of digital media outlets and influencer accounts that specialize in outrage driven content. They take think tank talking points, strip out nuance, and convert them into viral narratives designed to provoke anger rather than understanding.
CAHN’s analysis reinforces this point. The report describes Canada’s far right ecosystem as “coordinated and emboldened,” with actors who deliberately craft emotionally charged narratives meant to overwhelm rather than inform. They operate what the report characterizes as an “outrage feedback loop,” where sensational claims spread faster than journalists or researchers can contextualize them. The goal is not persuasion through evidence, but domination through repetition.
This is not healthy democratic debate.
It is a parallel information system engineered to overwhelm journalism, distort public perception, and create the illusion of widespread grassroots demand. And because these groups operate outside formal political structures, they face far fewer transparency requirements. Manitobans have no clear way of knowing who funds them, who directs them, or what their longterm objectives are.
If this feels abstract, look closer to home.
Manitoba has become fertile ground for these networks. Our province has a long history of political moderation, but also deep economic anxieties — especially in rural communities, resource dependent regions, and areas hit hard by demographic change. These are precisely the conditions that make disinformation ecosystems effective.
When people feel unheard, the loudest voices win.
We saw hints of this during the pandemic, when convoy aligned groups found strong support in parts of Manitoba. We see it now in the rise of local influencers who echo national talking points almost in real time. And we see it in the growing hostility toward institutions — from public health to the CBC — that once formed the backbone of civic trust in this province.
CAHN’s research also shows how quickly these networks can grow. Some nationalist groups have seen membership spikes of more than 60 percent in short periods, driven by targeted digital campaigns that exploit economic uncertainty and cultural anxiety. These surges are not organic. They are engineered.
The document also highlights the rise of explicitly exclusionary nationalist groups promoting ideas like “remigration,” a euphemism for mass deportation of nonEuropean immigrants. These groups remain small, but Manitoba’s demographic reality — a province where immigration is essential to economic survival — makes their presence especially dangerous. When extremist ideas begin to circulate within mainstream political networks, they gain a legitimacy they have not earned.
Even more troubling is how these ideas migrate.
CAHN warns that concepts once confined to fringe spaces are now being repackaged in sanitized language and pushed through influencers, think tanks, and political operatives seeking legitimacy. When these narratives appear alongside conventional policy debates, they gain a veneer of normalcy that obscures their origins.
None of this means Manitoba is on the brink of political collapse.
Our institutions remain resilient, and our political culture is still fundamentally moderate. But sovereignty is not just about borders or military power. It is also about information — who controls it, who manipulates it, and who benefits from its distortion. When opaque networks shape public opinion through coordinated disinformation, that sovereignty erodes.
CAHN’s broader warning is that trust itself is under attack. Farright networks intentionally target public institutions — media, universities, public health agencies, cultural organizations — because weakening trust creates a vacuum they can fill with their own narratives. A democracy becomes vulnerable when people no longer share a common set of facts.
The danger is not that Manitoba will suddenly adopt the politics of another country. The danger is that we will drift into a political environment shaped by forces we don’t see, don’t understand, and cannot hold accountable. A democracy cannot function if its information ecosystem is captured by actors who thrive on outrage, opacity, and division.
The solution is not censorship. It is transparency. It is rebuilding trust in journalism. It is demanding higher standards from the organizations that shape our political discourse. Manitobans deserve to know who is influencing their democracy and why.
We are not immune.
And believing we are immune is the most dangerous illusion of all.
Features
Israel Has Always Been Treated Differently
By HENRY SREBRNIK We think of the period between 1948 and 1967 as one where Israel was largely accepted by the international community and world opinion, in large part due to revulsion over the Nazi Holocaust. Whereas the Arabs in the former British Mandate of Palestine were, we are told, largely forgotten.
But that’s actually not true. Israel declared its independence on May 14,1948 and fought for its survival in a war lasting almost a year into 1949. A consequence was the expulsion and/or flight of most of the Arab population. In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, millions of other people across the world were also driven from their homes, and boundaries were redrawn in Europe and Asia that benefited the victorious states, to the detriment of the defeated countries. That is indeed forgotten.
Israel was not admitted to the United Nations until May 11, 1949. Admission was contingent on Israel accepting and fulfilling the obligations of the UN Charter, including elements from previous resolutions like the November 29, 1947 General Assembly Resolution 181, the Partition Plan to create Arab and Jewish states in Palestine. This became a dead letter after Israel’s War of Independence. The victorious Jewish state gained more territory, while an Arab state never emerged. Those parts of Palestine that remained outside Israel ended up with Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (the Old City of Jerusalem and the West Bank). They were occupied by Israel in 1967, after another defensive war against Arab states.
And even at that, we should recall, UN support for the 1947 partition plan came from a body at that time dominated by Western Europe and Latin American states, along with a Communist bloc temporarily in favour of a Jewish entity, at a time when colonial powers were in charge of much of Asia and Africa. Today, such a plan would have had zero chance of adoption.
After all, on November 10, 1975, the General Assembly, by a vote of 72 in favour, 35 against, with 32 abstentions, passed Resolution 3379, which declared Zionism “a form of racism.” Resolution 3379 officially condemned the national ideology of the Jewish state. Though it was rescinded on December 16, 1991, most of the governments and populations in these countries continue to support that view.
As for the Palestinian Arabs, were they forgotten before 1967? Not at all. The United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 194 on December 11, 1948, stating that “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.” This is the so-called right of return demanded by Israel’s enemies.
As well, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) was established Dec. 8, 1949. UNRWA’s mandate encompasses Palestinians who fled or were expelled during the 1948 war and subsequent conflicts, as well as their descendants, including legally adopted children. More than 5.6 million Palestinians are registered with UNRWA as refugees. It is the only UN agency dealing with a specific group of refugees. The millions of all other displaced peoples from all other wars come under the auspices of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Yet UNRWA has more staff than the UNHRC.
But the difference goes beyond the anomaly of two structures and two bureaucracies. In fact, they have two strikingly different mandates. UNHCR seeks to resettle refugees; UNRWA does not. When, in 1951, John Blanford, UNRWA’s then-director, proposed resettling up to 250,000 refugees in nearby Arab countries, those countries reacted with rage and refused, leading to his departure. The message got through. No UN official since has pushed for resettlement.
Moreover, the UNRWA and UNHCR definitions of a refugee differ markedly. Whereas the UNHCR services only those who’ve actually fled their homelands, the UNRWA definition covers “the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948,” without any generational limitations.
Israel is the only country that’s the continuous target of three standing UN bodies established and staffed solely for the purpose of advancing the Palestinian cause and bashing Israel — the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People; the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People; and the Division for Palestinian Rights in the UN’s Department of Political Affairs.
Israel is also the only state whose capital city, Jerusalem, with which the Jewish people have been umbilically linked for more than 3,000 years, is not recognized by almost all other countries.
So from its very inception until today, Israel has been treated differently than all other states, even those, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, and Sudan, immersed in brutal civil wars from their very inception. Newscasts, when reporting about the West Bank, use the term Occupied Palestinian Territories, though there are countless such areas elsewhere on the globe.
Even though Israel left Gaza in September 2005 and is no longer in occupation of the strip (leading to its takeover by Hamas, as we know), this has been contested by the UN, which though not declaring Gaza “occupied” under the legal definition, has referred to Gaza under the nomenclature of “Occupied Palestinian Territories.” It seems Israel, no matter what it does, can’t win. For much of the world, it is seen as an “outlaw” state.
Henry Srebrnik is a professor of political science at the University of Prince Edward Island.