Текст книги "ГУЛаг Палестины"
Автор книги: Лев Гунин
сообщить о нарушении
Текущая страница: 41 (всего у книги 88 страниц)
pressure can not be taken into consideration. D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4. 5) Too often they questioned me giving me no rights to response. They
shouted me down replacing my eventual answer by their own – and later based their conclusions not on my answer but on their own
statement posing it as my – not their – words. E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4. 6) It was repeated again and again that they doubt about our rights to
appeal (for a refugee status) because our actions (when we were in Israel) weren't a good solution. As examples of "good solutions" were
mentioned: A demolition of our family, a criminal offense – and so on! F-1, F-2. 7) Several times the board members expressed their
disapproval by the norms of democracy or by my approval of the democracy laws. G-1, G-2, G-3. It is absolutely clear that our case was
treated not according to Canadians laws but according to the rules and norms of Israel since – in the judges' eyes – we belong not to
Canadian but to Israeli jurisdiction. G-4, G-5, G-6. This position neither being ordered to the board or being the product of the board itself
made the courtroom a part of Israel's territory. G-7, G-8. 8)The procedure of our immigration hearing wasn't an investigation in our case but
a pure pro-Israel's propaganda. Its goal wasn't to detect whether or not our claim for refugee status is justified but to defend the image of
Israel as a "good" country in an imprudent and abusing form. The depersonalization of our claim was done in an extreme form ignoring our
personal history. So the only criteria chosen to support the board's point of view was the very fact that we came from Israel. But the only
admissible attitude to refugees has to base the decision on what happened to them personally, not on which country they flied. H-1, H-2,
H-3. 9)The members of the board expressed their detestation of the human rights defense and verbally denied (directly or indirectly) a
number of recognized human rights.I-1, I-2, etc. 10)They also (indirectly, but clear) expressed a point that if I'll be punished in Israel for my
views – it's justified because I'm "guilty" J-1, J-2, etc. 11)Sending faxes to Israeli embassy and demanding some definite information about
us, the immigration officer violated another moral and judicial principle: Not to announce asylum seekers claim to the government of a
country refugee claimants escaped from .K-1, K-2, etc. 12)Reading Amnesty International's and other reports the immigration officer
distorted and sometimes falsified their meaning.L-1, L-2,ect. 13) Documents submitted by the Israeli government, by it's dependents or by
it's embassy were considered as absolutely reliable and were voluntarily represented by the tribunal as non-debatable. In the same time
documents that were represented by my lawyer (or my documents) newspapers, statements, declarations, and so on – weren't treated as
equal to Israeli propaganda papers. More then that: At least our documents were completely ignored: As if they never existed. In the same
time the documentation presented by Israeli government can't be treated as an arbitrary source: Because Israel is involved. Meanwhile a
number of my documents may be considered as more objective and independent. M-1,M-2, etc. 14) The immigration officer used 1) an
open lie 2) threats 3) desinformation; 4) expressed an unexplained malicious anger towards us; 5) claimed one thing to defend her position
during our hearing and claimed the contrary during the hearing in Metelnitsky family case (our cases are related, and I was called as a
witness to their hearing); 6) she lied about what I said, about what she previously said , about what was said about the situation in Israel
and so on; 7) her behavior towards us and Metelnitsky family was so incredibly aggressive as if she had a personal reason to punish us, or
to exterminate us. N-1,N-2,etc. 15)A "yes" or "no" answer was demanded in situations when it was clear that such an answer is absolutely
impossible. Demanding "yes" or "no" answer only they justified their decision not to let me speak.O-1,O-2, etc.
Outside The Courtroom: 1)When we came to Montreal I put everything that happened to us in Israel in writing and gave that piece of paper
to my first lawyer's translator, Mrs. Eleonora Broder. She sabotaged the translation distorting the sense of my story, inserting her own
inventions and sentences which sounded like provocation. I demanded a translation back to Russian from her, and she did it. She wrote it
by her own hand. That manuscript is quite different from her French version. So, she did it to smoothen the distortions and to prevent me
from complaining. I have also other proofs of her sabotage.2-A, 2-A1, 2-A2, etc. 2) Mrs.Eleonora Broder sabotaged the translations of
newspaper's articles as well. From one hand she exaggerated a number of descriptions of persecutions against Russian-speaking people
"to do me a favor" (I think her goal was to discredit these articles). But on the other hand she excluded the most important paragraphs in
her translation and gave the opposite meaning to the most important facts and conclusions.2-B, etc. 3) Mrs.Eleonora Broder also
sabotaged the translation of some official papers and other documents which I prepared to support my claim. She told us that she has
translated some of them and that she would find a translator from Hebrew – but it was a lie. If not our complains to the lawyer and an alert
note we gave to him: Then no documents were translated. 2-C,ect. 4)Mrs.Eleonora Broder and her assistant organized a psychological
warfare on my wife causing her deep depression, and also provoked us to attempt suicide.2-D,ect. 5) Mrs. Broder inserted some particular
phrases into my refugee claim, which I didn't want to see there. Later, in the courtroom, these phrases were used against me. These
phrases were taken from articles, which I wrote before we escaped from Israel. Among them were the articles, which I hadn't presented to
Mrs.Broder or to my lawyer when she was doing the translation of my refugee claim. The members of the immigration board have exploited
these phrases again and again: What leads to a suggestion that it might not happened occasionally.2-E, etc. 6) There is a visible
connection between the immigration officer – and information, which might possess only Mr.Mark Kotlarsky, who lives in Israel. This
gentlemen acted once as an informer and a provocateur for Israeli authorities. He wrote an article about me in 1994, in Israel. This article
was written in a humiliated and sarcastic manner. Mr.Kotlarsky used the information, which I shared with him (as with a close friend of mine)
against me. This article is outright slander, mystification, false insinuations and lie... Before I discovered that Mark Kotlarsky might act as a
government's agent I told him some things which I never told to any other person. During our immigration hearing and during the hearing of
family Metelnitzky these things were used by the immigration officer (against me). I have no other explanation but that she's might be in a
contact with Mr.Kotlarsky. 2-F, etc. 7) a) A campaign of lie and slender against me inside Israel coincide with a number of actions against
me in Montreal, which source might be the consulate of Israel. If such things are happened – then Israel could eventually influence the
immigration board decision in my immigration case, too. b) Then, I know from reliable sources that the immigration officer, the member of
the immigration board in my case, is a Jew. I have nothing against her nationality. But, from the other hand, if the immigration officer is a
Jew and the patriot of Israel (the last is too clear), what an arbitrary role in our case she should play? She has no moral and – may be legal
rights to judge in refugees' from Israel cases. 2-J, etc. 8)When we came to Montreal we gave my wife's birth certificate and it's legal
translation to our lawyer. Dispute the submission of that legal translation Mrs.Broder did her own translation. Now we discovered that she
sabotaged ("refused") to translate my wife's parents' nationality. There is a clear connection between that sabotage and the immigration
officer's tactics in that issue.
CONCLUSIONS: our 3 immigration hearings have nothing in common with any legal procedure. They rather remind of an inquisition court or
a secret political tribunal. This tribunal was arranged to punish me for my ideological views – not to decide whether or not our (my family's
and mine) claim for a refugee status is justified. It was used for the political purposes: To "show" how just any information about human
rights violations in Israel, which not concerns Arabs, can be calmed down – and to express a huge pro-Israel propaganda. They made clear
that they treat our escape from Israel as a mutiny and will never admit the very fact that we are in Canada, in Quebec, not in Israel. Their
words, their behavior – everything – was meant to show us that we could only deserve to be treated according to the Canadian rules after
getting a status in Canada. Before that we don't deserve to be treated by Canadian rules. That's why we were treated according to the
rules and norms of Israel!!! It hard to find a more offensive ritual of humiliations over the juridical norms then that... It was absolutely clear for
the judges – as well as for ourselves – that we were severely persecuted in Israel, that all members of my family were severely abused and
that the definite casualties were inflicted to our health, including the children. It was also absolutely clear to the judges that the deportation
back to Israel is a death penalty for all members of our family. The tricky thing is that the immigration board expressed almost no doubt
about persecutions we survived in Israel or even recognized the harshness of these persecutions.(2-J-4). But the point is that they claim ...
we are guilty in the persecutions ourselves – and therefore they don't worry about our souls and our lives... So, this is not even a tribunal, but
a brutal act of a vengeance.
SUPPLEMENTS:
1.A LIST OF TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH OR FRENCH ARTICLES. 2.DOCUMENTS. 3.TAPES FROM THE IMMIGRATION
HEARINGS. 4.OTHER MATHERIAL PROOFS. 5.OTHER DOCUMENTS. SINCERELY YOURS, Lev GUNIN
GROUP OF DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4
DOCUMENT 3
TO THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
From Lev GUNIN
Dear Sirs! We came here as thousands of other refugee claimants who flied from their countries to Canada. But our case is special, may be
– even unique. In ex-USSR I was a dissident; I was severely persecuted by communist authorities. I was relatively well known in my native
republic. Under certain circumstances I refused to declare that I never desired to immigrate to Israel. Now I actually claim that I was
deported to Israel from my native Blears because of my political activity. My family and me tried to escape to Germany but were seized in
Warsaw by Israelis. They took us to Israel by force, and we have certain evidences. In Israel my family and me, we were severely
persecuted. I presented the reasons of these persecutions in my claim, and also during my immigration hearings. I was considered as a
dissident in Israel, too. Our case is special also because we presented more documentary proofs of what happened to us then probably no
other refugee claimants. Persecutions against us in Israel were massive, systematic and dangerous to us. They caused physical and moral
loses to us. Despite clear evidences and undeniable proofs our claim was denied. It happened only because of wide-scaled conspiracy
against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel, and because the immigration committee assigned to our case was manipulated by a
foreign state.
We have several well-grounded reasons: enough to accuse members of the committee in partiality. Almost all basic juridical norms and
elements were violated during our 3 immigration hearings (see Document # 1). The basic moral and political norms of Canadian society
were replaced acting in Israel. Mrs. Judith Malka, the immigration officer, spoke to us and acted as Israelis normally do. She openly
expressed her hatred to us personally – and to Russian speaking people in general. Her manner and her ironical attitude were assaulting.
Besides, she openly assaulted us directly several times (see Document #1). Her aggression and threats can be explained only by her
partiality. When she couldn't control her emotions of hatred and detestation she left the room of the hearings two times. May be her
reaction was so visual because she's a Jew and – it looks like that an Israeli. Then – why she was sent to such a hearing? We have 7 main
points in connection with that: 1. It is absolutely clear that the two commissioners refused to participate in our hearings (in other words, kept
them out of the way of the hearing). Mrs. Malka was given an option to speak non-stop during almost all the time excluding rare exceptions.
She accused us, shouted on us, declared pure political pro-Israeli propaganda and accused me in acting against Israel without any
interruption from the judges. Of course, they can claim that they participated by hearing and analyzing. But then their passivity caused a
situation when they had to analyze only what Mrs. Malka gave them to analyze. When Mr. Boisrond spoke he never opened his own topic
and used his role for illegal methods of pressure to distort my responses to Mrs. Malka's previous questions. 2. The commissioners refused
to sign the decision. There are no their signatures on that document. That's another proof that Mrs. Malka composed that document
herself. 3. The committee decision is based on her statements, insinuations, accusations and declarations only. If something correspond to
what Mr. Boisrond said – he just repeated what Mrs. Malka already said before. The stylistics of the text and the essence of it is deeply differ
from Mr. Boisrond's and Mrs. Madelenine Marien-Roy's, who completely kept her aloof from the hearing (except of few formal words). In the
same time that stylistics fits to Mrs. Malka's manner. These two suggestions allow us to detect her as the only author of the decision, what
is the severe violation of the law. 4. This committee gives no positive decisions in refugees' from Israel cases. When in 1994-95 about 52%
of refugees from Israel were recognized as Convention refugees, with this committee it is "0" (or almost "0"?). 5. She's refusing to give her
motivations behind that decision. But to explain such a decision is a juridical norm. She replaced any explanations by a pure political rhetoric
and pro-Israeli propaganda, which has nothing what to do with our claim. She is also a person who contacted Israeli embassy for
explanations (instructions?) in our case. 6. The committee decision ignores all documents we presented as if there were no documents at
all. In the same time to support its statements the committee used documents, which credibility is "0", and that's obvious not just towards
our case but in general sense. But most of the document used in the decision have no relationship to our case and were given just
because something had to be given. 7. By denying our claim the Immigration committed one of the most inhuman and cruel actions in its
history. I am may be just one of few people in the world who suffered so much for expressing their opinions. I am still living only because of a
miracle, which saved me in ex-USSR, and from angry "patriots"-Israelis. We had so many documentary proof of our refugee claim as
nobody else. We had testimonies, certificates, and articles, which I wrote for various newspapers. We had Amnesty International
confirmation in my case... My children, wives, mother's suffering was just rejected by commissioners. They acted against us as if we were
solders of an enemy army, not innocent people. My family and my lives are in a real danger now. 8. The decision is partially based on
distortions Mrs. Eleonora Broder did when she translated our claim and our documents.
I can support these points by analyzing the text of the decision and by other supporting material. First of all let's analyze the decision
paragraph after paragraph.
Let us point that this document replaces some well-known facts and even data by false facts, events and data. The information from our
PIF, our claim, hearings and even passports this document describes with distortions. For example, on page #1 (par.6) the children ages
are indicated as 5 and 6 when in reality they were much younger by then. Only under a slight view that information is not very important. In
reality the children ages were changed for changing an impression. Because what is less destructive and traumatic for older children for
younger children may be totally different. In the same paragraph we can read that the children were denied the participation in the Sukkot
celebration, when in reality in our claim and during the hearings it was a description of a dark room, in which our children were placed. It
makes a difference! A dispute about that dark room erupted between us and Mrs. Broder, who refused to translate the text of my
testimony which I typed and gave her but desired to intervene actively. Later – when we demanded to change the places distorted by her in
her translation – she threatened to testify against us before the committee and mentioned that dispute like as we did or said something
wrong. It is clear for me that Mrs. Broder probably was Mrs. Malka's informer. Anyway, that detail shows once again that Mrs. Malka alone
composed this document. How can this document be considered as a legal order when even during a pure description it refuses to tell the
truth?
We can find next false statement on page 2, in paragraph # 4 ("the demander also claim that he was persecuted because he denounced
about the fascism"). In reality I never said like that this happened because of that, and this happened because of that... The person who
composed that document tries to hide here that the fascism was mentioned in connection with my article entitled "Why Israel Is Against the
Victory Day?", which was published in Israel in 1994. In his comment to my article the editor call to take the law into people's own hands
and to make short work of me. As you can see that's also makes a difference!
Then, the paragraphs #4 and #5 on page 3 deny rights to enter any country as a refugee to any person if he escaped from Israel. It means
that these paragraphs deny not just my personal right to escape from Israel (in other words, I must live in Israel forever!), but disputes that
right in principle. Formally speaking about me that paragraph's meaning is actually depersonalized. It claims that all immigrants from the
former USSR in Israel were bought by Israeli government as any other property, and now belong to Israel forever. So, can a property
escape? There is no other reasonable explanation of these paragraphs' sense. ("Demanders declared that they flied from Israel to claim a
refugee status in Canada after a series of incidents, which victims they were. But the tribunal denies them the credibility [...] because [...] this
family immigrated to Israel [...] according to the Law of Return" and because Israel paid for their "free transportation, free medical insurance,
and also gave them a certain amount of money, citizenship and other benefits"). Anyway, these two paragraphs have nothing what to do
with our claim! Mrs. Malka also mentions the Law of Return here. That Law of Return is a declaration, which was made when Israel was
founded in 1948. Israelis can call it "the main rule of the country" or whatever they want but it is what it actually is: Just a proclamation.
Since Israel has no constitution the Law of Return and some other laws like it are still there to calm down people who demand the creation
of Constitution. But as in former USSR between constitution and real life there were thousands of executive laws, which could just abolish
what the constitution said. There are customs, official religious code and thousands of other laws between the Law of Return and the real
life in Israel. And Mrs. Malka knows it! The paragraph #5 on page 3 just shows how far away from the real life is the Law of Return, which
was created almost 50 years ago and named here as an "evidence". Mrs. Malka gives an extract from that law, which says that the medical
insurance in Israel is free, but that isn't correct! I can show the receipts for the money that we paid for the medical insurance since our first
day in Israel, because it isn't free any more! The language course is not completely free any more! And not the whole way to Israel is free!(I
can show you the tickets). These are not just mistakes. The whole attitude is wrong (or false, or the first and the second in the same time).
So, how can be reliable a document that contains so many mistakes and falsifications? Let us point also that these two paragraphs are
absolutely illegal from the juridical point of view. Our material situation wasn't mentioned nor in our claim, nor during our hearings. We
described persecutions against us, not our financial situation. May be Mrs. Malka had to compose a report for American Jewish
organizations to show where their money is going. Then this decision is not about our status, and has no juridical power!
The next paragraph looks nice, but somehow avoid quitting. Why? I think, I know, why. I know the document and place in that document the
last paragraph on page 3 refers to... Let me show you what it about. It declares that 80% of Israel population is mobilized to welcome new
immigrants from the former USSR. Isn't it sound strange? It's hard to believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any juridical
document! Let's admit also that this particular fragment is the beloved fragment of Mr. La Salle, a commissioner who was recently accused
of partiality towards refugee claimants from Israel. He used this paragraph in probably all negative decisions he composed. (He made
practically no positive decisions in refugees from Israel cases). For example, Mr. La Salle used that "evidence" in his responds to Zilber and
Buyanovsky's claims. (Page 6 in a response to G. Buyanovsky and p.3 in a response to family Z. claim) Let's to abstract from its complete
nonsense and suppose it reflects something from Israel's life and reality, and reflects the mentality of Israelis (Mrs. Malka's intention to
choose this particular extract, and not another one, reflects her national identity as Israeli). If Israel is a country like other countries, like
Canada, so how it comes that "80% of Israeli population" can be "mobilized" to "welcome new immigrants"? How people can be "mobilized"
(or, probably, ordered) to "sponsor immigrants" and to help them by "giving money, closes and furniture" (p.3, 5-th line of Mr.La Sall's
response to family Z. claim). May be something is wrong in a country where population can be "mobilized"? May be, our troubles have been
erupted exactly because people in such a country have to be "mobilized" to welcome new immigrants?And then – how those figures, 80% of
Israeli population, can be understood? Were they been called (to a draft board, to Mossad?) to get an order to "welcome new immigrants"
and were counted one by one? And what about the other 20%? We don't know anything about that "mobilization". But we know that the
Israeli population (and the Hebrew media employees in particular) was mobilized to abuse, assault, disgrace and to discriminate new
immigrants from the former USSR. If the Canadian Ministry of Immigration was not on one side it could employ 2-3 translators and send
them in a library to translate Hebrew newspapers for last 6 years. Thousands of racists, xenophobic articles, which encourage aggressive
actions against Russian-speaking people and teach to treat them with malicious anger, could be found. That is the real "mobilization". By
the way, if we began to speak about Mr. La Salle, his personality may be the best illustration of who stands behind the total injustice
towards us. He is a permanent director of the Informative Committee Canada-Israel, an organization that may be considered as a shadow
structure of Israeli government. Allegations that Mr. Salle systematically treats the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel with partiality
were expressed several times. In 1996 Federal Court indirectly recognized that. Despite of that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard – Canadian Minister
of Immigration – gave Mr. La Salle a new commissioner's mandate (for the next term). 52% of refugee claimants from Israel obtained their
refugee status in 1994-95.On hearings with Mr. La Salle it is 0(%). In 1997 Mr. Jacques La Salle was accused in partiality towards refugees
from Israel, and his involvement in their cases was terminated* (see comments). However, his mandate wasn't terminated in general. How
can it happen in a country, which is not a province of Israel, but an independent state?
In the first large paragraph on page#4 of the decision the tribunal express recognition that the persecutions we faced in Israel might
happen to us. But it claims indirectly that we provoked them ourselves by refusing to give up our believes and views. And it claims directly
that the persecutions were caused by some individuals, not by country's rules, traditions or policy. And it claims also that there no
persecutions against Russian-speaking people at all. As we can see that paragraph is deeply contradictory in itself. In first 5 lines it
recognizes the existence of persecutions (calling them "difficulties" but that is not important because it clear explaining what it means). In
next 5 (!?) lines it says the contrary. We already know (see the reasons expressed above) that there is a bad hidden lie in the referrals
concerning fascism in this document. So, this lie is exploited in that paragraph, too.
The next paragraph is based on a sentence in my refugee claim (in my PIF), which did the translator, Mrs. Broder herself, insert. Instead of
just translating my story about what happened to me during my work on a stadium in Petach-Tikva (August, 1991), she transformed this
event into a symbolic conclusion-declaration. In the same time this conclusion is correct in general. Because what happened to me then
may be called a slavery. This event was discussed during the two hearings. I was tested if I tell the truth, and it is clear from the test that I
told the truth. Besides, I presented an affidavit from Mr. Ginsburg who describes the same event. I also presented an article written by
Rivka Rabinovich and entitled "Haim #1 and Haim #2", which professionally describes some forms of slavery in Israel. I also explained
during my hearings that I do not want to make any declaration and that Mrs. Broder just distorted my words. Instead of taking into
consideration all these facts the tribunal is persisting in its absolutely inadmissible and illegal suggestions. Instead of investigating whether
or not we were persecuted it accuses us in spreading slander about Israel. It claims like if we would not came to Canada to seek a political
asylum but to spread the slander about Israel. If we claimed that my wife and me – were beaten during our work: that's because we want
show Israel as a state of slavery, claims the tribunal. If we describe what happened to our children: that's because we want to draw a
picture of Israel as a horrible state... And so on. Reading that document you completely forget that it is a decision in refugees' claim. It looks
like the tribunal misinterpreted its functions and sees itself not as immigration but as a political tribunal. But the main point of this paragraph
is that we claim we got no help from the state of Israel and will not be defended by it if will be deported back there because we want to
show Israel as a mayhem. This is the only tribunal's excuse for ignoring all our evidences, all documentary and other material proofs of
police and other state offices' refusal to defend us. This is the only excuse for ignorance of all the reliable and very serious evidences like
Amnesty International's confirmation in our case! This is the only excuse for ignorance of intensity and incredible scale of our attempts to
find protection in Israel!
The next paragraph continues the allegation that we claim we were denied police protection, multiple organizations' , Knesset members'
help (and even our layer couldn't do anything) and were forced to turn to Amnesty International only because ("en effet"!) we want to show
that Israel is a state of injustice.
The declaration, which the tribunal made in the next paragraph (that Israel is a democratic state, a state like other countries, and so on) has
nothing what to do with our claim.
Let us express our father concern about credibility of the documentation the tribunal used as a documentary proof "against us". We know
that the same document, which mentions the 80% "mobilized" Israelis mentions also a "Department of Integration", which doesn't exist in
Israel. It's clear that the real name of Israeli Ministry of Absorption ("misrad ha-klita in Hebrew) was replaced by non-existing "Ministry of
Integration" because it sounds strange for Canadian (or American, European) ears. But the "Ministry of Absorption" is the real name of the
organization, which "takes care" of new immigrants. And this document changes it to the "Department of Integration"...In reality the Zionist
ideology is against integration. Look over Ben-Gurion's, Orlosorov's, Bella Katsnelson's, Golda Meir's works and statements! Then you will
be convinced that the name "Ministry of Absorption" expresses their desires completely well. It means that the document, which was used
as an "indisputable source of information" replaces actually the truth by the lie, not only a real name by a false name. Then – how can such
a document be considered as a credible one?
We also express our deep concern of utilization of Mr. Natan Sharansky's affidavit. As far as we know this affidavit was given through a
