practically every day. They were caused by my inability to use to growing demands of ultra-orthodox, by my entire
and psychological incompatibility with the Israeli society, by my softness, which provoked harsh by nature Israelis to
attack (abuse) me. Often conflicts erupted because I did not understand the tough subordination within the Israeli
society or could not use to it. In my refugee claim I described only some events, caused by fully developed incidents.
But there were thousands others, which merely did not developed completely, and if would develop themselves,
could lead to severe consequences, including my death. Since we left Israel political and social situation there
became even tenser. It is more possible now that I would not only face the same incidents and conflicts (if removed to
Israel), as in 1991-94, but more tense, which could soon lead to my death.
Risk to my life would immediately erupt in Israel not only because of above-mentioned reasons. The commissioners
could see from my claim and all documents (if they wanted to see) that in Israel the state of my health in 1991-94
became so bad that it could make me an invalid or cause my death. I possesed multiple medical documents, which
could illustrate that. In Israel I got a hyper-tonic disease (which - I believe - came as a result of a battery; I gave
explanations and necessary proofs already during my immigration hearings), I had multiple infections, flues, terrible
headaches, heart disorders, tics... In 1994 I had such a heart disorder, which was suspected as a minor heart attack. I
suffered severe heart pains and other hard disorders during 2 weeks, and I was sick much longer. In
mentioned-above interview Mr. M. Kotliarski wrote about my infarct (heart attack). (See this article in Supplements;
document # 29). I already presented medical documents to the IRB. I supply you the new copies (Supplements,
documents #35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40) in terms if they somehow disappeared from my file by the time of the hearings
or were not presented to the board.
Danger to my life could be even wider because during our life in Israel there were multiple conflicts with
doctors-Israelis, and they refused to serve members of my family, and me, several times. We were also expelled from
medical center "Ramat Verber" in spite of the money, which we paid for membership. Since we came to Canada my
health improved. But it could not stand stresses of eventual removal and life in a thrusted on me society.
My life would be under an extreme danger in Israel also because my past life there has already shown that no
institution, no organization would defend me. I would have no legal or other defense. IBR members could express
insinuations that I used to turn to many institution and organizations not for protection and help but to "spread
slander," but they did not want to comment (in their negative decision) the fact of refusals or inability of all these
institutions and organizations to help me. In reality this fact is one of the most essential. If I was (and would be)
completely unprotected in Israel - then how would I go back there?
The Immigration Board members also did not let me speak about my confrontation with Mossad. In reality this
confrontation might become one of the main threats to my life if I would be removed to Israel. This confrontation has
begun in my native city (see Document #2). In Warsaw it jeopardized (see the same document, p.p. 4, 5).
When we were placed in the hotel in Warsaw, our guardians have repeatedly told us that we are going to pay a hard
price for inviting our Polish friends to the Central railway station. They accused us that we almost destroyed the whole
operation of transporting the Soviet Jews, and that Warsaw was almost closed as a transit point because of us. Later,
in airplane, other guardians told us that our flight was postponed for almost two hours (that was true) also because of
us. I could not by then and can not now verify if there was any real information behind their words, but I am sure that
there were Mossad men, and they were very angry on us. In Ben Gurion airport, in a room, where all fresh arriving
males were called, another Mossad man told me that I have to face the full responsibility for what happened in
Warsaw, and there would be severe consequences for me. He was also angry because of my refusal to answer his
questions. He told me that he knows that I had problems with KGB. He told also that they know from some of my
friends (I immediately thought about Rodov) that I used to collect information about KGB. He asked me where I keep
this information - in my memory or in writing - and asked me to share it with them. He spoke Russian with Hebrew
accent (probably, studied Russian somewhere), and he has a wound, probably, from the battlefield. He was tired and
sad, and I felt sympathy to him. But I could not share my observations about KGB with him because I remembered
that (according to my conclusions and some books) KGB and Mossad worked together. Because of my sympathy to
him and because I was disoriented, desperate and afraid I could not keep silence. I told that the only KGB man I saw
in my life close was the chairperson of local KGB in Bobruysk when he came to read a lecture to the Jewish club. He
asked me who invited him to the club. I told that the chairman of the club, Rodov, invited him. Or he might order
Rodov to invite him...He wasn't satisfied by my answers. He started to speak to me in a sharp manner, even shouted
on me. He expressed his anger clear enough and told that because of my refusal to cooperate fully I may be
contacted later. During the refugee hearings the board members just did not let me speak about that all...
Some of that facts were not described in my refugee claim or during the hearings because of 3 reasons: my lawyer's
recomendations(see p.1 of this Document), his translator's sabotage (see Document # 3), or IRB members
refusal to let me speak (see Group of Documents # 4, Document #1). My lawyer's recommendations were good
until the IRB members started to use "unconventional" methods and aggressive behavior. Analyzing my conversation
with Mossad (Shabak) officer at Ben-Gurion airport I came to conclusion that information they could collect some
additional information about me from my manuscripts, which were confiscated during (after) our flight
Warsaw-Tel-Aviv (Lod). Protesting against confiscation of some of my belongings I turned to Ben-Gurion's airport
administration, to other institutions and organizations. You could see a copy of one of my complains composed in
1991: and, if you would doubt that it was composed in 1991, I could give you the original, which could be checked
and which age could be determined in one or another way. (See Supplements, Documents # 40, 41, 42).
I was contacted by Mossad in Israel after the airport's conversation. Defense, suspension of persecutions, and help in
obtaining prosperity were proposed by then in exchange to suspension of my human rights and journalistic activity.
To prove that I could present not only a letter from Israel (which was discussed during our last immigration hearing),
but also other material proofs like business card with the name and telephone number of the person, who contacted
me, and so on. (Supplements, Document # 43).
Here are just several examples of how important were the things, which the IRB did not let me to tell. I could give more examples of the most vital for the valuation of my
case things, which description was blocked by the IRB. They used aggressive behavior, psychological pressure, administrative orders, and even threats for
preventing me from the particular things' description. In the same time, these things might be critical for the question of not just mine, but all family members' life or
death!
One of the most significant indications that the danger to my life always exists in Israel is that Israeli police abused me.
IRB members could speak non-stop about how it was not typical, but they could not deny the fact of abuse itself. In
Israel, where tortures by police or army are legal (see Supplements, Documents # 44), army or police could
always torture and kill me or any other member of my family. In context of all that I described and explained above
police action against me does not looks occasional. To show how police in Israel is dangerous for innocent
unprotected people I support this paragraph by several documents (see Documents # 45, 46, 47).
Please, believe me that I am not exaggerating the risk to my life. I have enough experience to detect it as real: and it
is real!
1.4.
Our removal from Canada back to Israel could be an extreme sanction in itself. Because what happened
in 1991 was not our freewill immigration to Israel but a forcible deportation to Israel executed by both
communist and Israeli authorities (see Document #2). Our removal to a country we do not belong to and
which citizenship was thrust on us against our free will is immoral and inhuman. To extradite us to Israel
means to return us back to captivity.
During more then 3 years I was refused a special permission, which is required for immigrants, to leave Israel (listen
to my 1-st hearing's recording). In supported documents I explain why I did not mention that in my refugee claim but
only during the hearings (see p.1 of this Document). We quit Israel with such extreme difficulties that we never
could leave it any more if removed there, and could not fly persecutions any more. We, adults, and even our children
could stay in captivity there to the rest of our lives!
If we would be removed back to Israel extreme and most vulnerable sanctions could be adopted against us there.
Such sanctions not just highly expected, but are obvious since Israeli authorities already practiced extreme
administrative pressure on us in 1991-1994. There were next administrative sanctions.
A). a) Refusal to give my wife, and me permission to work in our professions. b) Refusal to give me an employment
authorization at all after 1992.
1. We were not given an appropriate language course as all fresh immigrants.
2. The Ministry of Culture and Education refused to make equivalents of my wife's, and mine diplomas, when they
had to do that automatically according to Israeli rules. I have already presented all material evidences to the
Immigration Board, and the board did not express any doubt in these documents authenticity. That fact was also
mentioned during our immigration hearings.
3. Without these equivalents, we were not legitimate for a permission to work in our professions, as well as for the
most of the professional courses available.
4. I was legitimate to enter only one course - "Talpiot", - which was denied me. The reason of the denial was not
given.
My protests and demands to provide me with a reason of the denial were lost without notice. Maitre Stanley Levin, the
only Israeli lawyer who agreed to defend me in Israel, composed a letter to the Minister of Culture and Education Mr.
Amnon Rubinshtein. Maitre S.Levin's letter and Mr. A. Rubinshtein's response were presented to the IRB (see
Documents # 48 in Supplements). That topic was widely discussed during my immigration hearings; the
Immigration Board expressed no doubts that this conflict took place in reality. In the same time the commissioners did
attempts to misrepresent this event and to place it in dependence of mentioned in my wife's Israeli eternal passport
nationality. Maitre Dore, who replaced my main lawyer during the time of the hearings, did a mistake, allowing the
commissioners to lead him in that question. In reality, I would reject "Talpiot's" administration demands to show my
wife's passport-related nationality even if it was marked as "Jewish": because for the people like me such a demand
was disgracing and racist. And I do not think that this little incident was the real reason of the refusal. But I could not
name the "reason" because the term "political persecutions" is too abstract for the commissioners.
5. The Ministry's of Labor governmental Labor Exchange refused to register me as unemployed after the first
accommodative trial period in Israel. Israeli regulations by then put some restrictions on employers to employ a
person who was not registered by the governmental labor exchange. In reality, it was equal to a refusal of an
employment authorization. In the same time this refusal prevented us from getting any social assistance, too. (See
letter from Maitre S. Levin to the Labor Exchange administration: Supplements, Document # 49).
(This also was discussed during the refugee hearings).
6. When - in spite of that - I had found an official job and was employed, and my wife was employed, too, we were
paid less then the minimum wage. We had to be paid by the government an additional amount of money till the level
of the income security, but were refused.
7. We struggled till our last day in Israel for the right to obtain an official explanation in writing of the refusal to register
us at labor exchange, to pay us welfare, and to get an adjustment till the subsisting minimum, which had to be paid us
according to the law. We demanded to present us the reasons of all these refusals, but we did not succeed in our
demands...
8. We also turned to the Civil Court, and the court recognized me as an unemployed. But the labor's exchange
administration refused to register me even then, in spite of the Civil Court's decision. (See this decision in
Supplements, Document #50).
All these above-mentioned items were mentioned during our refugee hearing but the commissioners avoided evaluating them in context of
our refugee claim but transferred the discussions to the demagogical and political spheres.
This justify the next question: was it a refugee hearing or it was a political process or a pro-Israeli propaganda forum?
9. My wife, and me - we turned to a number of personalities, organizations and institutions like lawyer Maitre Stanley
Levin, Histadrut, Sochnut, Civil Court of Petach-Tikva, Ratz (Movement for Human Rights and Peace), municipality of
Petach-Tikva, municipality's legal consultant, and so on, without any result. (See the whole list in Supplements, #8).
This topic was one of the most widely discussed during our refugee hearings!
10. The commissioners could easy conclude that this situation removed our legal status in Israel from us. We became
people without any legal status because we were socially (and legally) totally deprived. We could not obtain a bank card,
credit card, take a loan, be responsible for any business operation, in other words, had no rights of citizens.
11. After my wife was bitten on her job and turned to police, she was not paid her salary. No institution (this event was
discussed during our immigration hearings) expressed a will to defend her rights.
To examine documents related to this part see our file and also Supplements, Documents #51,52.
B). Incredible financial pressure through illegal billing, taxation, or fines.
1. Illegal billings. Exaggerated telephone bills, bills for long-distance calls, which we never did, etc., were coming. We had
to pay all of them because it was no place where to turn to dispute them.
2. Taxation. We had to pay taxes for TV, which we did not have by then (in Israel you must pay taxes for radio and TV), for
medicine and medical services (some of them fresh immigrants or - in other cases - people with small income - did not
have to pay). We were also forced to pay municipal tax instead of the owners of the apartment, which we rented. In that
case as new arrivals we were eligible to pay reduced tax for immovable property, but were given this privilege only in 1994,
short time before we left for Canada. In spite of the law that new immigrants do not pay taxes I was forced to pay taxes
from money I earned playing concerts. Ministry of Taxation and Revenues has also submitted us an application form for
paying taxes as if we had an enterprise and refused to pay taxes. This form was submitted to us not from Tel-Aviv, as
normally was practiced, but from Jerusalem - as if I was a special person. There were other examples of such taxation.
(Examples of such bills were presented to the commissioners).
3. We had to pay fines for things we did not do and for violations we never committed.
Supporting documents are enclosed (see Supplements, Documents #53,54).
C). Draft Board has submitted me orders to appear sometimes every several days. I know that the compulsory military
service for people of my age, who never were in the army in any country before, was not practicing. I do not think that they
had intentions to take me to the army anyway. But they called me to appear there so often that it distorted my whole life
and became an obstacle for work or social activity. I had also to spend a lot of money for bus tickets to appear at draft
board, at Tel-ha-Shomer. They also refused to give me a permission to leave the country during more then 3 years.
Supporting documents are enclosed (see Supplements, Documents #55). They were also presented to the
commissioners.
D). I could not say that the whole issue with my wife's eternal passport ("Tehudat Zehut") - during the refugee hearing
was a well-coordinated with the Israeli side provocation (conspiracy) only because I have no material proof. But there are
a lot of coincidences and indications in favor of such a suggestion. When (first I, and later my wife) we were given
"Tehudat Zehuts", clerks told us that this document is the property of Israeli government and do not has to be shown to
any foreigner or taken abroad. I knew many other Russian-speaking people who were told the same. Even Mrs. Malka, the
immigration officer, has to recognize the existence of this regulation (please, listen to immigration hearings tapes, the last
hearing), but she suggested that (as some of Russian speaking people did) we had to violate the law and to bring
(smuggle!) our "Tehudat Zehuts" to Canada illegally!
When the day of our departure from Israel came, we had completely forgotten about this regulation, and our "Tehudat
Zehuts" among other papers were taken to airport. That happened because for us it was a tremendous moment. (Only a
person with sick imagination could suggest that a family like ours could take a hard decision to fly a country where we
(nominally, but...) were citizens and spent more then 3 years just because of economic reasons or "exaggerations"). Car, in
which I was with my friend Igor Puchinsky (my family went to airport in another car before me) was stopped at the military
post by a solder - a Moroccan origin. He told us to get out from the car and to show our identities. I had only my foreign
passport (my "Tehudat Zehut" was with my wife). He began to shout on me and threaten me by an arrest "because I had
no Israeli ID". He claimed that the foreign passport is considered in Israel as a document for departure only and does not
recognized as an ID. He told that a real ID is only "Tehudat Zehut", which is not permitted to be taken abroad. And he
said that he suspect me in an attempt to smuggle my "Tehudat Zehut" abroad. May be my friend Mr. Puchinski's
respectability, may be the intervention of the officer- an European origin, helped, but I was released. This incident
reminded us that we still have "Tehudat Zehuts" with us. From another hand, even if we had an intention to smuggle
them, we were too much afraid, and we destroyed them in airport.
This I told Mrs. Malka during our last immigration hearing.
(Any one, who had a chance to hold in hands an Israeli "internal passport" ("tehudat zehut") had a chance to notice that
there are not one but two nationality-related marks in it: one is the brutal disclosure of the genetically-related information
about a person, another one mentions his country of origin. Even if Mrs. Malka or her parents do not possess one, she
held Israeli passports of refugee claimants in her hands - and knows that. It is also obvious that Israeli regulations oblige
people to carry "tehudat zehuts" everywhere with them. It was understandable from the context of our immigration claim
and even more clear from the context of the discussions during the hearings that not the first (genetically-related) mark in
"tehudat zehuts" but the second one (the country of origin) actually corresponds to the described by us events. Artificially
replacing the first by the second one Mrs. Malka already used a non-conventional, unacceptable "method". But she
committed even more severe violations in this question by other methods - as I explain in next documents).
I do not know if there were precedents of contacts between IRB and the Israeli embassy when the similar issue was
raised, but I could name dozens of examples when this issue was raised during immigration hearings, and no requests
were sent to the Israeli embassy. Anyway, this is such a rare and exceptional measure that only an exceptional need could
justify it. In reality there were no needs in that at all (see Group of Documents #4, Document 3). No event was based on
indication of nationality in my wife's "Tehudat Zehut", no event related to this indication was discussed during our
immigration hearings.
Mrs. Malka based her decision to send a request to Israeli embassy on Mrs. Broder's faken translation of my wife's birth
certificate. Mrs. Broder already distorted or sabotaged translations of all documents of my case: from my refugee claim to
newspapers' articles. This is why there were no doubts that she did it on purpose. There are two logical questions: If it
was not a well-coordinated with Mrs. Malka or the Israeli side provocation, then why Mrs. Broder distorted the translation
of my wife's birth certificate only, but not mine or my mother's, or the shildren's? If it was not a well coordinated with Mrs.
Malka or the Israeli side provocation, then why Mrs. Broder did this translation at all since two official translations of our
birth certificates already existed? I also ask the Federal court to investigate where the original of my wife's birth certificate
translation (that we made in Israel before coming to Canada) is kept now. (We gave the original of my wife's birth
certificate and the original of its translation through Maitre Dore to the IRB in relation with that question. We got my wife's
certificate back only after more then half a year but never got back the translation. The point was that Mrs. Eleonora
Broder had no need to translate my wife's birth certificate at all since a professionally-made and exclusively-looking
official translation already existed and was given to my lawyer before. By suspending this translation, somebody did an
attempt to destroy evidences of Mrs. Broder's sabotage. (See also Maitre Dore's note and a copy of existed before Mrs.
Broder's translation legal translation of my wife's birth certificate: Supplements, Documents #57,58,59 ).
By sending such a request to Israeli embassy Mrs. Malka violated 3 main principles, on which the legal status of refugee
claimants' immigration hearings are based. She:
a) Reported to Israel about our refugee claim in Canada, what is unacceptable and goes in contradiction with the very
essence of International human rights charters and conventions about refugees. b) Used situational blackmail in violation
of the criminal code to extort my wife's signature under a document (authorization of request), which authorization was
against my wife's personal interests and interests of her family because gave Israelis an additional reason to persecute
us and put our lives under an additional danger. c) Violated the principle of neutrality and non-approval of non-democratic,
racist laws, which existed in 2-3 countries in the World, because Israeli passport regulations about the indication of
nationality in eternal passports are in deep conflict with Canadian rules and the principles of Canadian democracy; she
also breached of our confidence to Canadian government abusing our belief that no part of our confidential statements to
Canadian immigration as well as the very fact of our refugee claim in Canada could not be betrayed to Israeli government.
In my opinion Mrs. Malka also abused her power as an immigration officer violating the border of distinctions between the
criminal court and the Immigration Board. As Maitre Dore correctly pointed (see Supplements, Document #57 ), Mrs.
Malka's interpretation of the answer, which was given by Israeli side revealed her clear partiality because she reject in
advance any other versions (interpretations). In her response to Maitre Dore's letter she repeatedly pointed to Israel's
answer as to an absolute. In the same time she could not ignore other eventualities (because they are obvious): that
Israelis could take advantage of giving that answer as a revenge on me, or that the Ministry's of Eternal Affairs record
was different from what was written in my wife's passport, or that it is just a mistake (Israel is well-known as a country,
where bureaucratic mistakes, casualties or disorders became a norm (please, read, for example, Efraim Sivela's book
"Stop the airplane, I have to go out!", "Stav", Jerusalem, 1979). She was not aware even by the fact that the answer from
Israeli embassy was incomplete, and (from some points of view) suspicious. It means that she rejected another main
principle of justice - presumption of innocence, replacing it by presumption of guilt!
E). There were many tiny events of administrative terror against us in Israel like sanctions at school or in kindergarten,
such as these, which described in our refugee claim, illegal and unfair sanctions made by the owners of apartments,
unfair decisions against us made by House Committee, and so on.
The administrative terror, which we faced in Israel, turned our life in Israel into a nightmare. It was unbearable and
tormenting in itself, but we also faced physical abuses, assaults, discrimination, and batteries. This is why the health of all
members of my family was so much affected.
These sanctions would be in force immediately from the very moment of our arrival again if we would be removed back to
Israel. It had to be absolutely clear to the commissioners!
But in case of our arrival we could expect this time more severe sanctions because of the next reasons. 1-st: authorities'
attitude towards us were constantly changing to the worse during our life in Israel, and came to the most dangerous for
us point just to the moment of our departure for Canada. If we would be sent back, this attitude would not start from
"zero" (it was not zero even in 1991!), but would continue the most tense period of 1994. 2-nd: after our refugee claim in
Canada and my complains to the human rights organizations we could not expect that the Israeli authorities would like me
more now. This is why I am so sure about more severe sanctions:
1. Imprisonment within days or weeks since our arrival.
2. Forcible "treatment" inside a special mental hospital, where some political activists are placed. (Rabbi Meshulam,
leader of an upraise in a town Igud, told me over the phone about existence of such hospitals).
3. Imprisonment inside one of Mossad's secret cells.
4. Children's separation from us, parents.
5. Confiscation of our foreign passports, so that we would never been able to leave Israel any more.
1.5. INHUMAN TREATMENT
If we did not face inhuman treatment in Israel we would not come to Canada to claim a refugee status. (As - by the way
thousands of other Russian speaking peoples. Only by the very number of Russian-speaking refugee claimants from
Israel to the Western countries a conclusion could be made that they are not "economic refugees". And the economical
situation in Israel is not so bad, too!). We came not because of the economic reasons. We did not escape from hunger or
from extreme poverty. First two-three months in Israel we were in a shock because of what happened to us and because
of the general social atmosphere in the country. But we could not go back to our native country, and we were ready to
stay in Israel forever. When we discovered that a permission to leave the country is refused for me, we began to try even
harder to accommodate in Israel. We did everything to use to Israeli society, to find our place within it. This was already
discussed during our immigration hearings - when I said that we tried our best in our attempts to live in Israel.
In their negative decision IRB members did not expressed any principle doubt in the events, which we described in our
refugee claim. They even recognized in one sentence that some negative "reactions" causing conflicts could be expected
from ultra-orthodox towards people, who (as mention the IRB members avoiding word "respect" but mentioning it) do not
respect their supervision.
During the immigration hearings the immigration officer spoke about events of inhuman treatment, which we faced in
Israel, in a humiliating manner. The same manner, absolutely identical, presents in the negative decision. Humiliation
appeared because of their attitude towards severe inhuman treatment like assaults and batteries as towards minor
events. They discussed, mentioned, or described inhuman treatment, which we faced in Israel, as well as our reaction to
it, as something humorous. They let us know that we took such events too seriously, and, if we could take them lighter, it
could prevent other similar events. But I am absolutely sure that if the IRB members could find themselves on our place,
their reaction could not be different from our.
After everything that happened to us in Israel, after characteristics, which I got in Israel as an "enemy", after contacts
between Montreal's Immigration Board with Israelis, after their negative decision, which defining me as a dangerous
"exaggerator" and "found me guilty" in "spreading slender" against Israel, what other treatment except of inhuman could
we expect in Israel?
1.6.RESUME
In this document I explained why my family, and me - we would be not like other people if removed to Israel: because my
personal confrontation with Israeli political structures began long before we were taken to Israel, because we did not want
to go to the state of Israel and were taken there against our will, because of the scandal at the Central railway station in
Warsaw, because I refused to cooperate with Mossad, because in Israel I became relatively well-known for my articles
against human rights violation in Israel and was defined by Israeli authorities as an "enemy", because our personalities
are not compatible to Israeli society, because we do not practicing Judaism, and because of a number of other reasons,
which were described in that document.
Our 3 years in Canada proved that I am not a pathological troublemaker. 3 years in Canada could show that we could live
avoiding conflicts, respecting the laws and regulations, and quickly accommodating. My children are good students, they
have a lot of friends, and they are completely suitable to the local society. My older daughter is an advanced piano player,
and she passed exams at McGill University with the best mark. My younger daughter is a talented ballerina, her pictures
are everywhere in Ballet studios, she is an advanced dancer, and she also was chosen to enter the National Ballet School
in Toronto from dozens of other pretendents. Their French is nice and literary, they also advanced in English. And we are
not on welfare any more! We could be peaceful and useful members of the local society if we would be given a chance to
stay here. (Group of documents # 4 in Supplements are corresponding to this paragraph).
THIS IS THE BEST PROOF THAT OUR TROUBLES IN ISRAEL ERUPTED NOT BECAUSE IT WAS OUR FAULT (as the
commissioners tried to show), AND NOT IN RESULT OF OUR "EXAGGERATIONS"! WE FACED PERSECUTIONS IN
ISRAEL BECAUSE OF OBJECTIVE REASONS AND COULD NOT GO BACK BECAUSE OF RISK TO LIFE, EXTREME
SANCTIONS, AND INHUMAN TREATMENT. OUR REMOVAL TO ISRAEL WOULD BRING US TO A TRAGIC END.
Theoretical suggestions if people like us could face a tragic end (without figuring out the impact our personal claim
events: as commissioners did) in Israel are completely useless in our case because our case and our personalities are
unique.
Please, give us a chance to stay here, because if we would be removed back to Israel lives of my children, my wife, my
mother, and my life, would be terminated! Please, do not send us towards tragic end. Try to understand your full
responsibility for what will happen if we would be sent back to Israel.
1.7. MY FINAL STATEMENT
As the most honest people I am not impudently self-confidential. I might be shocked by aggressive and ironical
interrogators (as Mrs. Malka): but this is just one more proof of my honesty and innocence. To support our refugee claim
we presented to the Immigration Board so many documentary proofs as probably no refugee claimants in Canadian
Immigration's history! All of them, including legal, and medical documents, official correspondence and newspapers'
articles, related to me, other documents, were ignored, and only one document was considered as "non-related" without
any reasonable explanations. If the forces, which acted against us, could encourage such an outraged injustice and unfair
treatment of us even here, in Canada, in Israel they could eliminate us for sure. Sending us to Israel you must realize that
you send us to death. Removal to Israel means for us a death penalty. But Canada has no death penalty even in
Canadian criminal code! ! ! Especially, for children! I ask you to think about it while composing you final decision. Please...
Sincerely yours,
Lev Gunin
Next Document
PREVIOUS DOCUMENT: DOCUMENT 1 FROM DOCUMENTS
Four Mrs. Louis-Phillippe SIMARD, Manager, Post Determination Review
FROM Lev GUNIN (FILE Number 2948-6524/ 95/76/23/18
ID: 3082-7125/7174/7220/7231/7317/ )
DOCUMENT NUMBER 2
2.1. I was in grade 9, when voluntarism and vulnerability of my class teacher, PERFILOVA Maria Michajlovna, converted me from a good school pupil and a promising
young musician into a person without future, persecuted by KGB. She was a communist party member and an outraged careerist. She took one of my school essays
and took it to KGB. She also made an open public court over me at the school, not waiting for KGB command. Officially KGB rejected her accusations. They found
nothing, which could be considered as anti-Sovetism, in my composition. But in ex-USSR an obstruction, which Perfilova made me at school, and the very fact that she
was in KGB building to report on me was enough to devastate my whole life and to cause what it caused. It is also possible that rejecting Perfilova (what made her
insane) they secretly put my name on their black list already by then.
2.2. I was prevented from becoming a student of a Music College or university, and later, when I entered music studies by a miracle and graduated, I was prevented
from a good musical carrier. In 1979 I was brutally beaten because of an order from KGB. During many years my social and professional status, my health, my privacy,
my security, even my freedom and my life were every minute under a threat. Nobody knows what I came through -, and did not become an alcoholic, or sadist, and
never violated any criminal rule.
2.3. Because I felt more secure among other persecuted people, I started to cooperate with a number of human rights groups and movements and with some other
groups and organizations. Most of them were non-conformist art and poetry \ prose groups. I formed my own poetry circle where I was a leader. I also organized a
movement in opposition to ideologically motivated demolition or levelation of Bobruysk's 18-19 century architecture, mostly Jewish. I organized mass photographing
of the center of Bobruysk. The local authorities have unofficially forbidden that. "Militia" several times arrested my supporters, and me, our photo films were
confiscated. Only in the end of 1980-s I contacted Mr. V. Senderov, Mr. V. Batcshev, Mrs. Elena Bonner and other world-famous dissidents and human rights activists,
and also correspondents of the west media in Moscow. Only by then I already had permanent contacts with some representatives of foreign parliaments and
embassies, but never with any intelligence. I also maintained close cooperation with two different forces: Frankfurt-based NTS and National Front of Belarus.
2.4. As a person who was deeply involved in the cultural self-determination process of the Soviet Jews I also was the first activist in Belarus, who combined several
goals together. They were: studies of Yiddish and Hebrew languages and the Jewish history, revitalization of Bobruysk's Jewish cultural and historical heritage,
restoration of Jewish religious community, foundation of a Jewish club, newspaper, theatre, and schools. Nobody - except me - believed by then that it might be
possible. My poetry in Yiddish was published in "Sovetisch Hiemland" (Moscow) and "Der Arbeiter Stimme" (Warsaw). I also became a co-editor of one underground
Jewish magazine, based in Minsk. I also became known in cultural circles in Moscow and Leningrad (St.-Petersburg). I maintained contacts with the most famous
personalities like composer D. Shostakovich, poet A. Voznesensky, singers like V. Tolkunova, or L. Leshchenko, and others. In Minsk (where I studied and worked 2
times a week) I maintained almost close relationship with the whole cultural elite: composers (D.Smolski, L. Obeliovich, G. Vagner, U. Semeniako, and others),
historians (Tarasov, Zenon Pozdniak (later leader of the National Front), V. Posse, my relative, A. Gritzkievich, O. Dadiomova), pop-rock musicians, and so on.
2.5. During short periods of time (in 1986-87) it looked like persecutions against me were suspended or lightened. But in the same period of time I started to be
persecuted by another political force - by Israeli missionary stuff in Minsk and Bobruysk. By that time my brother Vitaly - a talented painter and brilliant businessman
organized one of the first free ("capitalist") enterprises in Belarus. I was an administrator of one of its section, which arranged invitation of famous artists for tours in
Minsk and Bobruysk. So, my brother, Mr. Pinchas Plotkin, an Yiddish poet, I, Mr. Marat Kurtzer, and Igor Gorelik - we formed a first circle, which achieved good results in
restoring Jewish life in Bobruysk. A course of Yiddish, a library, a club, and other activities became a reality and refreshed the local Jewish life. This was what Israelis
did not want to allow. They wanted to eliminate the whole Jewish social and cultural life in ex-USSR. They suggested that if life in USSR would become non-attractive
for the Jews, they could more easily leave for Israel. They also did everything to terrify Jewish population by rumors about pogroms, and by other exaggerations.
Missioners like J. EDEL, Arie ROTENBERG, or Dorit HE came to USSR to arrange total control over the local Jewish life and to put down any competitive power. I new
dozens of other missioners who came to Minsk and Bobruysk to devastate local Jewish life and to jeopardize mass migration to Israel. They often expressed their
hatred towards Soviet Jews.
2.6. Israelis started to build their own activist infrastructure, alternative to ours. They attracted young aggressive careerists, convincing them that they are totally
protected, could commit any crimes - and go unpunished. Those boys and girls in their 20-s like Boris Kagan, Dmitry Levin, Vova Kazinetz, Z. Fridburg and others were
nothing without Israeli leadership. Their local leader became Ilia Rodov, my brother's school colleague. Rodov became a known local figure only because my
brother's, and my help. My brother Vitaly helped him in everything during their studies at the Art College, he presented Rodov to prominent and influential people, and
even helped him by giving him money or work at his enterprise. Rodov was a well-known collaborationist: he cooperated with the communist authorities. He also was
considered in intellectual circles as KGB informer and "comsomol" activist. He often accused and "denounced" Jewish "nationalists." But very soon he rapidly
changed his views, expressing interest to Yiddish culture (when the group of Yiddishists was the most powerful in Bobruysk). When the influence of Israelis
increased, he rapidly changed his opinion again "denouncing" Yiddish and calling to "forget Yiddish and study Hebrew." He was supported not only by Israelis, but by
the local communist authorities as well.
2.7. Even by then I already suspected close cooperation between Israelis -and local communist authorities. When Bobruysk was a military zone, and a special
authorization was needed for foreigners to visit that city, Israelis went to Bobruysk easily. They also had free meetings with people, which was impossible for any other
foreigners, for example, for Finish Baptist missioners. They openly called people to emigrate to Israel using lie, deception, threats and profanation. They did
everything to discredit my group, and me. Rodov's group has the full freedom to operate and to work with people. We were stopped by the authorities, disrupted and
persecuted. Supported by the communists Rodov announced himself as a chairman, avoiding open and free elections and his followers formed local "Jewish
council." People - like me - who restored the Jewish life and created the Jewish club, were expelled from that life and from that club.
2.8. As soon as they seized the power, "Rodovers" started to suppress all activities and cultural events in the Jewish society. They ruined everything that we created:
very soon, including Yiddish course and all other courses and activities. They concentrated only on pro-Israeli propaganda and propaganda of immigration to Israel,
Hebrew course and religious propaganda. When religious in Israel became the most influential force in institutions, which maintained work among potential immigrants
in USSR, Rodov supporters converted themselves into ultra-orthodox. (Before that they were fighting atheists). They also used to confiscate the huge wave of help,
gifts, money, which was streaming from the west Jewish communities to Soviet Jews. They have stolen about one thousand valuable gift sets from Baptist community
of Finland to the local Jewish community. That gift was handed over through Iakov Gutman, an independent from Israelis leader of Minsk's Jews, to me. The sets were
given for free delivery. I wanted to deliver them directly from my home to the people in exchange of their signatures in confirmation that they got them free. But Rodov's
group forced me (and Iakov Gutman) to hand them over to the club, using dirty manipulations. Rodov and his group sold the sets as their private property. They openly
violated the criminal code not only by then. They also robbed our Jewish library 2 times, they threaten people by death, they corrupted local officials, and they
demanded money from people for information about Israel and for Israeli visas. They also demanded money for the "club needs", threatening people that - if they
would refuse, they would be punished in Israel. Israelis also paid them for their services. In ex-USSR, where an imported TV with video could be almost as valuable as
an apartment, they got expensive valuable things from Israelis as gifts. I suspect that they were paid by money, too. A special telephone number was given to Rodov,
which enabled him to call Israeli embassy in Moscow and to Israel for free (according to his own words, and I believe that it was true).
2.9. Rodov and co "punished" me in different ways. They spread discreditible rumors against me, they posed intrigues against me at my work, they threaten me, they
did so, that I was not invited any more to play in restaurants, on wedding parties, in dancing clubs, and so on, they tried to confront my wife with me. I am absolutely sure
that Rodov's actions against me were correlated with the persecutions, which I faced from the local authorities. In Minsk I used to visit Mr. Garik Chajtovich, - my friend
and a kind person. He was a Jewish activist and Hebrew teacher. Practically all the Israeli missioners have visited him. I met few high-ranked Israeli representatives
through Garik or in his place several times and spoke to them. I tried to convince them that they should stop supporting odious persons like Rodov and to stop
suppressing the development of Jewish cultural life in USSR. They usually answered that their priority is to convince people to leave for Israel, and they do not care
about anything else. But one time I got an unusual answer. The man who gave it to me was a very important person. I could admit how Garik respect and treat him.
Even Israelis who were with this man obeyed him. He told me that I have to stop talking about such things. He also told me that he has a pity to me because, according
to him, I would pay a high price for my "nihilism" and freethinking, my family, my relatives would suffer, and my life will become miserable...
2.10. Because with time people were convinced that Rodov is a crook, and were too angry on him, I, brothers Strupinsky, Marat Kurtzer and others took the power in our
own hands, discharging Rodov and his company. Only then I understood very soon that the problem was not in Rodov. Without him Israelis have found other ways to
achieve their goals. And very soon my position became as weak as before. Israelis also took revenge in Minsk, displacing Iakov Gutman, the main figure in
opposition to their policy in Belarus.
Now nothing might stop them from forcible (in the deeper sense) transportation of hundred of thousands Jews from Belarus to Israel.
2.11. From 1988 my brother's health became more and more bad. He has a blood cancer, but I was sure that his disease was caused because he was exposed to
radiation. During many month doctors Kustanovich (she died recently in USA from cancer), Cherny and Petrusha did not report Vitaly's bad blood tests. They also
accused him in simulating to "avoid military service" and threaten to kill him. Since he became sick I fought to get his true diagnose and to win an appropriate treatment
for him. In the end of 1987 we understood that for saving my brother's life we have to move to one of the West countries. I tried to get an immigration visa to US, but
America was "closed" very soon because of a treaty, which Israel demanded: about leaving the only one way for Soviet Jews - only to Israel. I also tried to get a visa
in the German embassy, but it was too late. Then we had to request a visa only from Israel. We did all necessary steps to obtain it, but we did not get any visas.
Hundreds of people whom I helped to get visas (I told them that I do not recommend them to go to Israel, but they kept asking me with passion, and I helped them) got
them, but not my brother and me. Even Genady Shulman, one from the Rodov's group, who was kind to us and arranged visas for thousands of people, could not
obtain visas for my brother, and me. I went to Moscow, to Israeli embassy, where they knew me very good as one of the activists and where I always had an access to,
and spoke to Ambassador Mr. Levin, but without any result.
In 1988 Israel have submitted special visas-invitations for Jewish activists for a free trip to Israel. In spite of my detestation of Rodov I phoned him in an attempt to save
my brother's life (because he composed a list of names for these invitations). "What did your brother did for the Jewish movement, for Zionism? - he asked. Avoiding
tensions I did not tell him that my brother did for Rodov more then he deserved and that my brother put his business under a risk organizing Jewish events when the
local authorities did not approve them. I only asked him about compassion. "There are more valuable things then human life, - he responded. Later I had a chance to
see what these things are. Nobody from Rodov's group went to Israel with that free invitation, only Rodov's father went to Israel because he did small speculation trade
under the table, and used that occasion as a shield...
In August, 1989 my brother, and me, we went to Poland, where a blood test, which was made to him, had shown strange processes in his organism. In September I
started a new Jewish magazine "Vos Herzach?" and participated in a current issue of "CONTACT." My brother Vitaly gave his cafй (he was the owner) again for the
Jewish club meeting. In September also came a telephone threat that my brother Vitaly would die. In January 1990 another person called and told the same.
2.12. When in 1989 first letters began to arrive from those who already settled in Israel, their relatives discovered that Russian speaking people are persecuted in
Israel, that Israelis hate us and treat us as second-class people, many of the Jews in Bobruysk cancelled their tickets and visas. It seemed to be a total disaster for
Israeli plan to capture half a million or more Soviet Jews. But they have found a solution very soon. Somebody began to spread rumors about possible pogroms.
Every day brought a "reliable" information that Jews are in danger. Jewish cemeteries were vandalized everywhere. By that time I was a member of a group that
investigated this wave of vandalism. Most active members in that group were Baltic Jews. A small Baptist team and NTS representatives also participated. We
discovered that vandalism started in west regions of USSR and moved chronologically from the Northwest to Southeast. Pogroms in Muslim region were not known. It
was absolutely clear that a team of "vandals" traveled by train from town to town, from city to city, starting from Riga. They had a steady pace, so, Soviet authorities (if
they would want to stop hooligans) could figure out very easy where should be their next stop and next pogrom - and catch them. But the authorities did not want to stop
them. Israelis also used different methods to calm down information about vandalism. I personally (as well as others) took the description of our conclusions about
vandalism to Israeli embassy, but they became furious and refused to send this information to Israeli press. I have submitted the description about vandalism against
Jewish cemeteries (without our conclusion) to Washington Post and Chicago Tribune correspondents in Moscow, as well as to Israeli newspapers (enclosing photos
of vandalized graves), but no newspaper outside USSR published this information. I was sure that Israelis used their influence to prevent newspapers from that
publication. I was even more convinced about Israeli involvement when such a pogrom happened in my native town. Graves that related to non pro-Israeli activists'
were mainly targeted, when pro-Israeli families' graves were not touched. My father's grave was vandalized, the monument was broken.
2.13. I informed US president's special representative, Mr. Nikolai Petro, that Israelis are using illegal methods to force people to leave USSR for Israel. I also
contacted several US diplomats including Mrs. Daria Arturovna Fein. I met Daria Arturovna at hotel "Ukraine" in Moscow. She took a look at the photos and asked if
they are not a fake. I told her that I could give her an original film from which the photos were made. And I gave the film to her. She held the film several minutes in her
hands. I saw that she is trembling. After some hesitation she gave the film and the photos back to me, refusing to admit them and giving no explanations. I told to
prominent personalities in Frankfurt, in Warsaw and in Paris about these acts of vandalism, but they could not organize even a single publication.
2.14. In January-February 1990 I came to Paris hoping to obtain a visa for my brother. I was warmly welcomed by all Jewish organizations in Paris and Lion, which I
visited, and also by Russian immigrants' organizations, including NTS. They gave me money, shelters, they bought me train tickets to Lion several times. My French
friends also helped me a lot. I could not tell Jews that I do not want go to Israel. They supported Israel's plan to get from half to one million people from USSR. To justify
my request for help in obtaining the French visa for my brother I told them that during almost 2 years we could not get an Israeli visa. After that some leaders of the
Jewish organizations in Paris, including M-me Helman from COJASOR, proposed me their mediation in my request for an Israeli visa. They told me that Jewish
communities in France have collected so much money for Israel, that Israelis must listen to them. M-me Helman and others arranged a meeting for me with Israelis in
Israeli embassy. A visa for me and for my brother had to be given for me there. I knew that local AVIR in Bobruysk could not accept a visa, which came not by mail, and
could not give us a permission to leave USSR. But I had no solution. When I came to Israeli embassy, which situated down the Le Sacrй Coeur de Monmartre, they did
not let me in. I called the doorbell, and also phoned them several times with no result.
2.15. My brother Vitaly tragically died in May 1990. Half a year after his death I discovered just occasionally that the Jewish community in Lion have collected money for
his treatment and have submitted a medical treatment visa for him. This visa was confiscated by the Soviet authorities.... After his death I did not need an Israeli visa
any more - because I never wanted to immigrate, and from 1987 I understood very well that my place is not in Israel. Before my brother's death we sold some of our
property and did other steps expecting a visa from Israel, but now we suspended all such steps.
2.16. One day - when Rodov already left for Israel - one former "Rodovetz" called my doorbell when my wife was at work. I opened the door, and then he told me that
he missed my door with somebody else's. In that very moment another person have approached. He asked, "is Gunin lives here?". I recognized him. Living near KGB
building I often saw him entering it. I also saw him at the Jewish club where he was with Mr. Sheremetiev, local UKGB chairman. Ilia Rodov has invited him by then to the
club to read a lecture. Later I saw this man (who came to visit me) with Rodov in Bobruysk as minimum two times. He started to speak to me without entering my
apartment. He told me that I have to quit USSR for Israel within two months. He said that this decision about me is non-reversible and can not be appealed. I was so
terrified that I could not speak. But I only asked him what about Israeli visa. "Visa budet"" ("visa will come"), he told in response. And he also told me that I should go
directly to Israel, without tricks. 2 days after visas started to arrive. All visas - a whole package, - which were suspended before, came in 2 envelopes (see
Supplements, Documents # 20, a,b,c,d,e, etc. - total number is 11).. Where these visas were and who kept them, I do not know, but it convinced me that the
situation is very serious, and I must go. When after two months we did not leave USSR yet, such terrible, even monstrous events occurred that I understood: I must go.
2.17. It did not mean that I agreed to go to Israel. I secretly asked my friends in Poland to meet me at the Central Railway Station in Warsaw. I had to try to visit foreign
embassies in Warsaw, and, if it could give nothing, then we had to go to Germany (my friends had to buy us tickets to Frankfurt). When our train came to Warsaw, and
my Polish friends already approached to the wagon, a group of unknown people surrounded and captured us. One of them, probably chairman, spoke Polish with a
Hebrew accent. It was a big man in his middle ages. Mostly he spoke to me, and also an aggressive woman.
They were ready to take us with them immediately by physical force, but only the presence of my Polish friends made them hesitating. I am sure that they started
negotiations with us only to win the time: they probably used it to find out through Mossad sources who are my friends and what they able to do. They probably also
wanted to find out what consequences Israelis would have in case of an eventual scandal, what tactics to use against us, and what their supervisors recommended.
They disagree immediately to let us go with my friends. Meanwhile my friends called 2 Polish policemen. I told the policemen that I do not want go to Israel, I asked for
their help. The policemen told me that if I was agree to obtain Israeli visa - then I probably must go to Israel. Then I shown them a temporary visa for staying in Poland 3
days, and told them that only after 3 days I might be expelled from Poland, and not by Israelis... The policemen then went to hear what Israelis could say them. I did not
hear what they discussed - because they moved farther from me (my family stayed with the Israelis as hostages while I spoke to policemen), but when they finished
talking, the policemen left. We were taken to a hotel, completely surrounded and guarded by Israelis, from where we could not escape, and then - to the airport.
So, my family, and me, we were taken to Israel by force, against our will, this was a captivity! Israel is not our country. Our native country is Belarus, and we still consider
ourselves as citizens of Belarus. We are not Israeli citizens because that citizenship was thrust on us.
NOTE: I could support this statement by my declarations, which I made, when I lived in ex-USSR and in Israel. You could see obviously that these declarations were
written many years ago or even make a criminological test to define their age. They are: 1) My declaration to the procuratories of the both districts of city Bobruysk
(Lenin and Pervomay), and to the General procuratory of Bobruysk, in which I tried to protest my ultimative deportation to Israel. (1990) 2) My declaration about Israel's
illegal activity in Belarus (1988-89). 3) My declaration to the Israeli authorities (1991-1994). Please, take it into considaration ! ! !
NEXT DOCUMENT: Document Number 3
PREVIOUS DOCUMENT: Document number 2
For Mr. Louis-Phillippe SIMARD, Manager, Post Determination Review
FROM Lev GUNIN
(FILE Number 2948-6524/ 95/76/23/18
ID: 3082-7125/7174/7220/7231/7317/)
DOCUMENT NUMBER 3
TRANSLATOR'S SABOTAGE
3.1.The very first time went to Mr. Le Brune's office when we were in a hotel for refugees (YMCA) yet.
3.2.We also came to Mrs. Broder's apartment to "complete the PIF" and to "compose the story" in November 1994.
3.3.I told Mrs. Broder that I have already composed my refugee claim. And gave her the text of my claim in Russian and in English. I refused
to cooperate with her in "composing the story." She was extremely persistent and ultimate, but also flexible and cunning in achieving her
goals. When she understood that she could not break my will not to participate in "composing the story," she told us to come later. Between
that and the next appointment my wife was worked upon by Lucy (our relative, whose negative attitude towards me in ex-USSR and in
Israel scared me a lot in the past) and by Mrs. Broder. They told her that all direct or indirect criticism of the state of Israel must be excluded
from my statement. They also told that I should not mention Israeli army, censorship in Israel, human rights violations, police brutality, and
provocation against me made by police; my tensions with Mossad and Shabak, or persecutions against me ordered by Israeli authorities.
The psychological pressure on my wife and on me was so strong that it could push us towards a suicide. We also met Mr. Le Brune in that
period of time, and he also suggested that our claim have to be based on everyday occurrences and social conflicts, but not on political
persecutions. When we met Mrs. Eleonora Broder next time I started to fight each sentence, but it was very complicated since my wife had
arguments with me taking Eleonora's side. But I want to make it clear: MY WIFE AND ME - WE NEVER AUTHORIZED MRS. BRODER
TO CHANGE OR MODIFY OUR REFUGEE CLAIM. We only agreed to allow some shortening.
3.4.Very soon Mrs. Broder called us and told us to sign her translation. I asked her to read us the context in Russian, but she refused
motivating her refusal by the lack of time. She also told us that only 5 more days are left (to complete the PIF and submit the claim; and that
the total number of days is 14), and if it would not be submitted, then a deportation order is going to be issued for us. (In reality 20 days or
even more are given, but we did not know about that). Then I told her that I could type my story with her shortenings just in 1 hour in English
myself - and give her or another translator to sign it (because I wanted to control its context, and I was not good enough in French by then).
She told me that in Quebec only French-written claims are accepted. Because of her threats and because my wife was near a hysterics I
was forced to sign it.
3.5.In December 1994 and January 1995 I gave a copy of Mrs. Broder's translation of my refugee claim to several people; they knew
French very well. Using their help I discovered that the context of our refugee claim was seriously distorted and sometimes even converted
by Mrs. Broder. Some details were given in such interpretation (translation) that they contradicted with other details. We also discovered
that the text of her French translation was different from her back translation into Russian made after my request and written by her own
hand. (I wanted to verify her translation). When Lucy's purposes of what she did to us might been explained by various reasons, the
purpose of Mrs. Broder might be only one: to sabotage the translation. I repeat that she distorted the translation not because of
incompetence or unconsciousness mistakes but on purpose. And I have good evidence: she excluded one paragraph from my story
without even discussing it with us. It was a description of humiliation over other Russian-speaking workers and me by employers-Israelis in
August 1991. Instead of typing this paragraph she made a statement in my name not just generalizing the situation, but placing an abstract
declaration about slavery in Israel. When I asked her later why she did it, she answered that immigration commissioners would never believe
that something like this exist in Israel. "They would call it "slavery" - and tell you that slavery doesn't exist in Israel. Why then she inserted
that pure statement about slavery in Israel in my name? If even a description of real events, which could be treated as a denunciation of
slavery is "bad", a pure statement about slavery (without any explanation) is "more worse" then?! I could only explain that by favor, which
Mrs. Broder did to the commissioners (immigration oficer in particular) - because they later used this exactly paragraph (in Mrs. Broder's
translation of my refugee claim) as a key indication of "exaggerations" and based their rejection of our refugee claim mostly on it. Mrs.
Broder also told me that she inserted this paragraph because I mentioned slavery in one of our conversations. I said that it does not mean
that I permitted to insert it.
3.6. I said that I do not remember if I really said that. In response Eleonora said that she secretly recorded all our conversations and now
could prove that I told it. She never agreed to correct her translation. She even threaten me by telling that she is going to present above
mentioned tapes to the immigration tribunal - and she claimed that I spoke enough on these tapes to make a conclusion that I am
dangerous to Israel and "was persecuted correctly".
3.7. The translation of our claim was also made in a sarcastic and humiliating manner as if the translator not just repeated the Russian text
in French, but wrote a humorist story about what was described. 3.8. Lucy constantly threatened us during my dispute with Eleonora, and I
think that her threats came as a reaction on my pretensions to Eleonora. She was threatening us from February till May 1995. She told that
she did a lot for us - but we are not thankful - and we are going to pay for it. She often told us with bravado that she knows everything about
us. She said that some people follow us, that my phone is bugged, and that my mails are searched. And she demonstrated her knowledge
about really discreet information, which should be known only to my lawyer. I asked my lawyer and demanded from Mrs. Broder not to make
publicly known information, which should be discreet, but Lucy demonstrated her access to everything, what took place in my lawyer's office
-from the dates of our appointments with him to the dates of our immigration hearings, and so on. She used to come to the immigration
tribunal each time when our hearings took place - and even appeared in the room where the hearing took place: each time without our
permission.
3.9. One time she told me with the same bravado (it was in February 1995) that a very partial committee is going to be assigned to my file.
She told me that an especially aggressive immigration officer would be called from Toronto "to calm" me down. She was right.
3.10. Later it came out that Mrs. Broder sabotaged not only our immigration claim, but also translations of the articles, of documents, in
other words - everything, what she has to translate. Her distortion of the my wife's birth certificate data enabled immigration officer to
excuse her report made to the Israeli embassy about us.
3.11. Not only Lucy was related to Israel, but also Mrs. E. Broder. Soon after we met she married a businessman from Israel, who
maintained all business contacts in Israel - according to his words. She was born in Odessa, but lived several years in Cuba: it is also an
information to reflect.
3.12. It is too painful for me to believe that my lawyer did not remove two above-mentioned paragraphs that Mrs. Broder inserted without
our permission because he acted on purpose. I still want to trust him, and I prefer to think that he was tired, and this was what caused his
mistake. When he was finishing to fix "mistakes", distortions and non-authorized "adjustments", which Mrs. Broder have did in her
"translation", it was late at night, and both him, and me, especially, my mother, were tired, and I did not check the translation properly. I also
trusted him, and this is why I signed the new version without a proper check. I also prefer to think that he did not let me verify translations of
all the documents in my file before the hearings (I asked him many times to give me documents of my file for a control) because he was
constantly busy, and could not prepare them to me. If he would give me that chance, I could discover before the hearings that Mrs. Broder
falsified the translation not only of our claim, but of all other documents as well (like my wife's certificate). I know that the immigration
committee, which gave no positive decision to "Russians" from Israel at all, would answer "no" even if there were no distortions in
translations at all.
3.13. Some sort of misunderstanding - I believe - happened between my lawyer and me, in result of which the most important remarks
about IRB's negative decision in our case were not submitted with the appeal. This is why I am asking you to take this submission in
consideration when decision in my appeal will be considered.
I submitt examples of Mrs. Broder's sabotage in Supplements, Documents # 92,93, 94, 95, 96, 97.
NEXT DOCUMENT: [[[GROUP OF DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4]]]
PREVIOUS DOCUMENT: [[[DOCUMENT 3 of DOCUMENTS]]]
GROUP OF DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4 APRIL-MAY 1997
DOCUMENT 1 (2-nd version)
(Was submitted to Amnesty International via E-MAIL)
MY COPY OF APPEAL TO AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Why I appeal? 1) Because my complains, which I once submitted to Amnesty International from Israel, played if not the main, a very
important role during all the 3 immigration hearings in our case. 2) Because if not directly, then indirectly (from a particular point of view) IRB
members insinuated that I must be punished for my contacts with Amnesty International. 3) Because what happened during my
immigration hearing here in Montreal (Quebec, Canada) is so incredible and horrible that will encourage human right violations everywhere
on a wider scale. 4) Because in the former USSR as well as in Israel I was a human rights activist and was considered a human rights
activist by the people and press. 5) Because during the hearing the immigration officer falsified Amnesty International's (and other human
rights organizations') documents and lied about them. 6) Because if a family comes to a country (which accepts refugees in general) but
faces abuses, ungrounded accusations, threats, hatred and injustice within an immigration court room - that means a mayhem for the
human rights, placing the very basis of human rights in jeopardy. 7) Because I'm absolutely certain (and I have presented undeniable
evidences to the immigration board) that I'm going to be killed and the members of my family are going to be killed if we will be turned back
to Israel since I could suggest that something like a death penalty was considered there against me for my views.
Why I Appeal Before I Have The Immigration Board's Final Decision In My Case? 1) Because I have to dispute the very procedure of the
hearing in our case, which abused us and placed our lives under the definite danger. 2) Because I know of some examples when a final
negative decision was sent to refugee claimants together with a deportation order without the rights to appeal. 3) Because after what
happened during our immigration hearing I feel insecure even here. 4) Because it looks like they violated some legal and moral norms while
hearing our case not for giving us later a positive decision. 5) Because now, when the information about us was submitted by the
immigration officer to Israel there can be a wave of wider pressure from Israel to turn us back. I was actually expelled from the former
USSR, where I was persecuted for my artistic, philosophical, ideological and political views, where I was beaten, prevented from social and
professional success, watched and threatened. I was deported to Israel. When we moved away from the USSR we tried to escape to a
third country but were captured by Israelis and were taken to Israel by force.
We were systematically assaulted, beaten, disgraced, threatened, discriminated against (persecuted) in Israel. We were denied a
permission to leave the country, and could not go away for 3 1/2 years. We collected thousands of evidences in discrimination and
persecutions. Israeli state radio made a provocation, aiming to eliminate me, Israeli newspapers called to destroy all my works - but for this
immigration board it's still not "enough"...
*Why I Think My Human Rights Were Violated By the Court?
Inside The Courtroom: 1)Some of the main documentary proofs (statements, affidavits, letters, receipts, articles, etc.) have been
disappeared or were ignored as if they were (disappeared).See pages A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5. 1-a)Only my college diploma was mentioned
during immigration hearings, and the commissioners acted as if my university diploma does not exist. In reality I mentioned it during the
hearings and the copy of this diploma also was in my file. 2)Other extremely important documents were mentioned but were ignored (if not
they might be an obstacle to what the judges incriminated me). Pages B-1,B-2,B-3,B-4.B-5. 3) Other documents were mentioned as
incomplete proof of particular events, when in reality they were given to support other events. In the same time documents which relate to
these events were ignored. Pages C-1, C-2. 4) In the same way my words were ignored, too. For example, I was asked an insinuating
question. My answer closed that question by a clear and unbeatable contra-argument. So, what then? Then the same insinuation was
repeated - but this time in an affirmative form: As if I said nothing. The same question could be given 2, 3, 5 times non-stop. If I gave the
same answer again and again they shouted on me, used threats, aggression, incredible accusations to force me to change my answer. It's
clear that such a method violates moral and legal norms - and any hesitation by a refugee claimant under such an illegal psychological
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
telephone interview what is juridical unacceptable. Especially when the commissioners don't accept copies of articles (even from the most
famous newspapers), which refugee claimants present, they demand originals! Then - it was well known before Mr. Sharansky became a
Minister in Israeli government that his "Zionist Forum" is not an independent organization (as well as its chairmen) but an organization
infiltrated by the government. By the time of our second hearing Mr. Sharansky has already became a minister. And Mr. Malka knew it. So
he presented the view of Israeli government as an "independent" view that time as well as in all other occasions. She clearly exposes the
source of all the manipulations with the refugees from Israel in Canada: Israeli government! That paragraph also exploits the topic , which
was closed by my answer during our first immigration hearing. Mrs. Malka asked me how can I explain the statistic from Israel that no
Russian-speaking people were regestered complaining against the police. I shown then all the receipts of my appeals I have submitted to
police, to the Ministry of police, to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and to police headquarters in Tel-Aviv. And I said that this is the
explanation because my mails were unanswered and my complains were never registered. I also presented an article, which gives
absolutely precise, reliable and competent information that nothing can be really done against police in Israel. And the story about a
policeman who get a fine because of his refusal to help an Arab as an "evidence" looks like a clowned.
It was clear for the tribunal that it's impossible to avoid comments about the total ignorance of the whole documentation, which we
presented. It was clear that something must be said. This is why the next paragraph was composed to say just anything about that and was
designed to say nothing in particular. The tribunal claims that all our documents were rejected because its members took into consideration
only "absolutely reliable" documents. And it looks like there were no such documents among these we presented... In reality documents like
the letter from the Minister of Culture Mr. Amnon Rubinschtein, which shows that persecutions against me weren't just a chain of
coincidences, Amnesty International's confirmation, Lev Ginsburg's affidavit, receipts of my letters to police and other organizations, other
official papers can not be considered as "reliable" or "not reliable". Another thing is that their existence may be recognized or not
recognized. The tribunal chosen the second way: to ignore them. It's your choice now to decide if that happened as the result of the
tribunal's partiality. But we ask you to read over the paragraph #4 on page 3 of the decision where the tribunal rejects in advance even the
possibility of existence of such a category of refugees as "refugees from Israel". How could you expect then another attitude to any
documents from a tribunal, which refuse to recognize refugees from Israel in principle? On the other hand that tribunal's ability to
distinguish between "reliable" and "non-reliable" documents is reflected in documents they chosen themselves to support their point of
view: one of them is incompetent when it speaks about Israel , another one has "0" credibility because it was presented during the hearing
as an independent source, and in reality is the voice of Israeli government (Mr. Charansky's affidavit), and the 3-rd can proof nothing
because it is a part of the declaration of the state of Israel (the Law of Return), and nothing more.
The suggestion that my wife refused to collaborate with the tribunal is a pure lie what can be heard on the tapes from the hearings.
And the ignorance of the medical documents is the thing from the same category.
Please, believe us that our lives were in a real danger in Israel and that this danger just increased since we came to Canada. We were
threatened from Israel even here, and we presented the proof. Please, save our souls!
Lev Gunin
NEXT DOCUMENT: [[[DOCUMENT NUMBER 5 - CONCLUSIVE DECISION]]]
Short DESCRIPTION of GUNINS CASE
PREVIOUES DOCUMENT NEXT DOCUMENT
From Family Gunin, Montreal, November, 1998
Dear Friends!
Please, try to treat this letter as an unusual appeal, not just a desperate cry for help and justice.
In October 1998, the Federal Court of Canada issued a second decision in family GUNIN's appeal. (The 1-st one was positive). That tragic
decision resumed our refugee claim, which took 4 years of our lives.
Let us make a brief description of events, which took place before that sad date.
The head of the family, Lev GUNIN, as all members of the family, was born in Bobruisk, Belarus, ex-USSR. Senseless, ridiculous
coincidences in 1971-72 turned him, a secondary school student, young composer, and advance piano player, into a person, persecuted by
Soviet authorities. They tried to prevent him from entering collegial university studies; however, his persistence and a lucky miracle broke
that wishes circle, and he received first collegial, and then university degrees in music. In spite of that, L. GUNIN could not build a
successful composer's carrier because of persecutions. In the same time, he played a specific role in ex-USSR, Belarus, and other
countries' cultural life. He's the author of novels, stories, poetry, contemporary and electronic music, works in history, essays, musicology,
music history, philosophy, etc. His articles were published in a number of newspapers all over the world.
In 1979-1986, Lev became an object of wide humiliations. He was beaten by somebody, who has links with militia (police) and KGB. The
authorities stood up in defense of the attackers. They persecuted L. GUNIN even more for bringing the attacker to trial. In another incident
he and his brother - they were hunted by two well-coordinated groups: mobsters, and a gang of youngsters. "Hunters" were also leaded by
militia (police). Later brothers GUNIN were interrogated by police /KGB men. Lev's brother Vitaly became a victim of secret medical
manipulations.
L. Gunin has multiple links with the cultural elite, famous personalities and dissidents in Moscow, St. - Peterburg (Leningrad), Vilnius,
Warsaw, and Belarus. He also has connections with the Western journalists in Moscow, and with representatives of the governments of the
Western countries.
1980-s. Because of persecutions L. GUNIN's decided to participate in the dissident movement. There are the main directions of his
dissident activities:
1. Participation in Human Rights movement and links with the most famous human rights activists.
2. Membership in underground literacy circles.
3. Defense of the Old City of Bobruisk from revelation and demolition.
4. Journalism and editorial functions for underground magazines.
5. Cooperation with forbidden (or unwelcomed) in ex-USSR NTS (People's Labor Union) and the National Front of Belarus.
6. Participation in the Jewish national movement.
7. Creation of ideologically independent and stylistically controversial music, prose, poetry, philosophy, and historical, political, and other
works.
1985-1989. A conflict erupted between leading by L. GUNIN group - and the powerful institution of Israeli emissaries to USSR, and
controlled by them Jewish political Mafia. (Their goals - devastation of the local Jewish cultural life, confiscation of huge aid from the
Western Jewish communities, and concentration of the propaganda of immigration to Israel - L. Gunin was fighting). He also confronted
three important personalities - Kebich, Alimbachkov, and Lukashenko. All of them became top political figures later: first one short before,
and the two others - after his departure from USSR (The 1-st one became the Prime Minister of Belarus, 2-nd - major of Bobruisk, and the
3-rd is the present dictator of Belarus).
.
His attempts to emigrate to USA or Germany - to save his brother's life - failed. All attempts to obtain an Israeli visa for permanent
residency have been failed, too. (By then practically everybody could easily get such a visa). Israelis did not want to allow him and his
brother to immigrate to Israel.
1991. After his brother's death, Lev started to cancel all steps of immigrating to Israel. He did not want to go there by then. Soon he
received an order from KGB to leave his native country for Israel. Soviet authorities sent us (family Gunin) all previously suspended visas.
We could not say "no" to KGB, but planned to escape from Warsaw to Germany. At the Central railway station in Warsaw, in presence of
L.Gunin's Polish friends, Israelis captured us, and took us to Israel by force. In Israel, Mossad (Shabbak) officers verbally accused Lev in an
attempt to sabotage the whole operation of bringing the Soviet Jews to Israel. Mossad approached him several times.
In Israel we faced next persecutions:
1) Israeli citizenship was thrust on us
2) Alla, Lev's wife, was abused, attacked, beaten, assaulted, and systematically discriminated against
3) Elisabeth, his mother, was abused, attacked, and assaulted
4) Children became victims of systematic humiliations and mockery
5) Lev himself was deprived in his rights. Israeli authorities denied him:
a) valid diploma equivalent
b) professional courses
c) rights to enter other courses or university
d) full and valid employment authorization
e) registration with the State labor exchange
f) tax exemption as all fresh immigrants were receiving
g) welfare when he was unemployed
h) proper and equal medical service
i) legal, and police defense
j) reduction of municipal taxes
k) authorization of departure, which is required in Israel to leave the country
l) etc.
He was beaten, abused, discriminated against. Israeli state radio called him an enemy. One of the leading Israeli newspapers suggested
that his works (essays, articles, etc.) must be destroyed. Innumerous and systematic draft board's orders to appear affected his normal life
and his (his family) financial situation.
During his life in Israel L. Gunin published a number of articles books in Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Moscow, and Germany, criticizing Israeli
government for human rights violations and fascist tendencies in Israel.
1994-1996. With an indirect Amnesty International's involvement we could come to Canada, and claimed a refugee status. To support our
claim we presented next types of documentary proof:
A. Legal documents
B. Documents, issued by Israeli government
C. Documents, issued by all kinds of Israeli institutions
D. Affidavits
E. Letters
F. Post receipts
G. Medical documents
H. Newspapers
I. Researches made by International committees and human rights organizations
J. Proof that in Israel we turned to innumerous organizations, institutions, police, court, and lawyers for protection
K. Our lawyer's documents
L. Etc.
Practically each statement, described in our refugee claim, was supported by the documentary proof. Only the list of documents' description
consisted of six pages.
1994-1997. In her translations, our lawyer's secretary/translator distorted all documents in our refugee claim. One of our two lawyers
submitted several messages to IRB in protest of some outraged events. He claimed that the IRB members took advantage of the distorted
translations, using them as a tool against us. IRB members used offensive, illegal methods against Lev. They interrogated only him. No
questions were given to other family members. IRB commissioners demonstrated their opinion that Lev GUNIN must be punished for his
ideological (political) views. Two members of IRB, immigration judges, gave the whole initiative to the third member, an immigration officer, a
Jew and - probably - Israeli, who only spoke. During our refugee hearings she manifested an outraged malicious hatred towards us, and
maintained close contacts with the Israeli embassy in writing, in our case. IRB members maintained the atmosphere of hostility and
arbitrary attitude towards us.
Denying our refugee claim, the IRB members not just acted unfair. Their negative decision was not just a refusal to recognize us as
refugees, but a declaration-manifest, which rejected the basic human rights in principle. In form of declaration, they denied in principle rights
to have an independent opinion, practice or not to practice religion, be protected by the state. IRB members claimed that if government
paid for immigrants' transportation, immigrants became the property of that government (a kind of commodity). IRB members also claimed
that police' and other institutions' refusal to give protection was justified if people had an alternative political /ideological opinion (even if that
opinion was not expressed to police). They claimed that we alienated Israelis by keeping controversial opinions, and refusing to change our
views. And so on...
The IRB's negative decision became not just a matter of our personal fate, but also a matter of human rights in general.
1998. In her speech in the Federal Court, Mrs. Murphy, the Minister's of Immigration representative, confirmed the IRB members' negative
attitude towards human rights, and also widened personal accusations against Lev Gunin, turning the question of our refugee status into
the question of his "inadmissible" (by whom?) ideological views. As IRB did before, Mrs. Murphy refused even to mention Alla Gunin,
Elisabeth Epstein (Gunin), and the children.
The Federal Judge, Mr. Dube, just copied Mrs. Murphy's and the IRB statements, refusing to evaluate arguments of the TWO sides. He
claimed that - because in their refusal to recognize us as refugees IRB members used the formula "no minimal credibility", - such cases are
automatically denied by the Federal Court. In reality, his decision was made in contradiction to another Federal Court judge's decision in our
case, and also contradicted the IRB's final (conclusive) decision. In that decision IRB agreed that some persecutions against us (they
called them "difficulties") could take place because we abused the Israelis by refusing to obey their demands to change our views. Mr.
Dube also revealed his partiality by distorting some important events and attacking our lawyer in personal. A person, whose name was also
Dube, was involved into negotiations between the immigration officer, Mrs. Malka, and the General Consul of Israel, in our case. We could
not find that person among the IRB headquarters' staff, or among other immigration divisions. All faxes were submitted to Israeli consulate
from Mrs. Malka, without mentioning any other name (s). However, the responses from the consulate were submitted to Mr. Dube. We feel
that this mysterious Mr. Dube has something what to do with the Federal Judge Mr. Dube.
IRB and Mrs. Murphy's accusations against us were such, which are the prerogative of the criminal court. They accused us so sharp as if
we were killers or terrorists. In reality we are innocent people, never accused in defamation, or fraud. In the same time, the way they acted
might be easily considered as a criminal offence.
We are appealing not just because of incredible injustice, but because the removal back to Israel means DEATH for us. If nobody in the
whole world could prevent it, it would mean that if people are deprived and innocent they might be kidnapped and taken to another country
by force. It would mean that demonstrative humiliations over human rights, such as the IRB members and Mrs. Murphy expressed, are
tolerated. There are rumors among UN staff that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights might be changed soon to fit to the brutal and
ultra-religious regimes' requirements. Please, do something for us before it happened!
The only way to save us is to help us in obtaining the permanent residents status in any civilized country. That could prevent our eventual
removal to Israel.
Please, help!
Family GUNIN:
Alla, Lev, Ina, and Marta GUNIN
Elisabeth EPSTEIN-Gunin
Tel. (514) 499-1294
E-mail: [leog@total.net]
From Lev GUNIN, April, 1999
Dear Friends!
In 1991 I was deported from my native Belarus to Warsaw because of my political opinion.
Together with my family (wife and 2 children) and my mother I wanted to move from Warsaw
to Germany.
On the Central railway station in Warsaw we were captured by Israelis and were taken to Israel
against our will.
We were widely persecuted in Israel and were refused an exit vise during 3 and a half years.
In 1994 we managed to quit Israel and came to Canada seeking a refugee status.
In an outraged manner, openly accenting their rights for injustice, the members of IRB
committee refused us the status.
Deportation to Israel means death for me and members of my family.
The only solution is to start a legal immigration to Canada.
But we need travel documents to afford it because:
1) our Israeli passports have expired and to extend them is not possible
2) I asked the Israeli embassy to cancel my Israeli citizenship
We made an appeal to the Federal Court, but our appeal was automatically rejected
without any analysis of our file, just because of the formula that the Immigration and
Refugee Board used in their conclusive decision. In the Federal Court, the Immigration
Canada representative, Mrs. Murphy, expressed outraged accusations against me,
as if by claiming a refugee status and by criticizing the IRB decision I have committed
the most violent crime or was a terrorist.
Almost 5 years we (my family, and me) live under a threat of deportation,
under the wild persecutions of the Immigration Canada, institution, which
put the equal sign between my peaceful and legal human rights activism
against the former Soviet and Israeli governments' violation of human rights
- and terrorism!!!
Please, help us!
My best wishes,
Lev GUNIN
August, 1997
E-Mail: leog@total.net
PREVIOUES DOCUMENT NEXT DOCUMENT
PEVIOUS DOCUMENT: [[[GROUP of DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4]]]
& DOCUMENT NUMBER 5
From Lev Gunin
File number 3082-7125
CONCLUSIVE DECISION
(Paragraph 69.1 (9) of Immigration Law)
This is the translation in brief
P.1. Paragraph 1. Lev Gunin, Marta and Ina Gunin, Alla Gunin, and Elisabeth Epstein are not recognized as refugees. Paragraphs 4-7. This
is demanders' declaration in brief: They came to Israel in April 1991. When they arrived in Petach-Tikva theirs neighbors, orthodox Jews,
were persistent [and aggressive] in their attempts to convert them [from atheism from one side, and passive Christianity from another side]
to Judaism.
Children, then 5 and 6 years old [*1] - (see commentaries), were abused during a religious celebration at a kinder-garden [*2]. The governor
has found the situation ordinary. Dispute the transfer to another kinder-garden children faced abuses. They were bitten, bite by another
children [*3]. The kinder-garden administration refused to protect them.
Demander was mocked by the employers [*4] and bitten by his colleagues because he is not a true Jew.
P.2. His wife has difficulties in finding a job [*5] , and when she was at least hired she was insulted, bitten and - under certain circumstances
- became a victim of a sexual harassment[*6].
There were multiple insults and abuses from theirs neighbors, who were furious because demanders in their eyes are not true Jews.
They turned to police in innumerous occasions with no results. One time police itself abused and ill-treated the demander under certain
circumstances. His lawyer told him that nothing could be done against police.
They contacted innumerous organizations including Amnesty International. They wrote to members of parliament and contacted a number
of lawyers with no result [*7]. The demander also said that he was persecuted because of denouncing fascism [7-a].
Demander's mother also became a victim of multiple aggressions. She was attacked by a group of youngsters when she went to pick up
the children from school [*8]. Policemen at the police station refused to pay an attention to that incident.
In Nov. 1993 she was attacked by her neighbor; she stroke her by a basket with oranges and cried to her "goy!". It tool place at a market.
In January 1994 in company with her children she went to pick them up from school, when she was attacked by a group of youngsters, who
thrown stones at her and injured her [*9].
One evening in 1994 [*10] youngsters, friends of their neighbor, have thrown a little box at her door [*11]. She composed a letter to police in
that case but police never responded [*12].
P.3. Paragraphs 1-2. In context of that the demander together with his family including his mother came to ask a refugee status in Canada
[*13].
Paragraph 3. After seeing that declaration, studying their lawyer's arguments and other material we came to a conclusion that demanders
are not refugees. We came to that conclusion because of the next reasons:
Paragraphs 4-6. Demanders claim that they flied Israel for seeking an asylum and because of a number of incidents, which victims they
became. But the tribunal is disagree with that because [...] they all came to Israel according to Israeli authorities permission and acceptation,
and also because they took an advantage from benefits of a free transportation to Israel, Israeli citizenship, a certain amount of money for
settlement, a free language course, and other benefits. They also might use other help because we have the documentation indicated that
the population in Israel gives material help to newcomers.
P.4. Paragraphs 2-5. It is possible that during their life in Israel they faced some difficulties because some individual ultra-religious feel that
their rights are violated because of the presence of 2 secular adults who refuse to practice their religion. But there are no evidences that
Russians are persecuted because of their religion, nationality, or because they are mixed couples or because they express anti fascist
views as pretend the demander.
In result we were convinced that the demanders are [dangerous for their state] exaggerators who painted a picture of their state as a state
of slavery, injustice, where Russians are bitten if they do not work quickly enough, where Russian children are victims of mockery
committing by theirs classmates and teachers, and where Russian women are victims of sexual harassment. And that all is going on
without any possibility to obtain a protection from the state.
As a result of that the demanders turned to police in several occasions without success, to innumerous organizations, human rights groups
and to Amnesty International, composed letters to members of parliament and contacted more then one lawyer without getting any
protection from the state.
It is incongruous to that documentation about Israel, which we have chosen. This documentation present Israel as a democratic society,
maintaining a justified juridical system in favor of the citizen. Police never have any discriminatory behavior towards Russian or Arabs.
P..5. Paragraphs 1-5. Multiple human right organizations are also presented in Israel, both local and international.
Documentation, which we present, we consider as completely reliable, when the demanders' documentation we consider as unbelievable.
The tribunal ignored demanders' medical and other certificates and documents because we have found that their documents show nothing
in particular.
COMMENTS 1. Children age is given incorrectly. Probably, because our children were younger, and that could give us more sympathy. 2. It
is false. Our children were abused during the celebration as well as in cause of that celebration (they were not allowed to a "suka" and were
kept in a dark room - because they are "Russians"). It is clear from our declaration. 3. It is false. They presented the event as if our children
were abused not by the teacher but by the children during the celebration, when in reality it is the teacher who abused them. 4. They
combine two different event into one what is juridicaly incorrect. 5. Without a notice that my wife could not find a job because she was
considered as Russian that sentence is incorrect. 6. It is false. She was not sexually abused. But she was beaten because she refused to
obey the sexual pretensions of an Israeli. It is also false because it happened not at her first working place but when she became a cleaner.
7. It is false. Complains to Amnesty International gave a result. In result of them Israeli government let us leave the country. 7-a. It is a
direct distortion. First, the discussion about fascism arose during our immigration hearings but does not reflected in our declaration. On the
other hand, I never claimed that I was persecuted in Israel solemnly because of denouncing fascism. The discussion about fascism was
related to my article and to a commentary to it made by the editors of that newspaper. They wrote that I have to be punished for my views,
that my works have to be destroyed and expressed their aggression towards my poor person. 8. It is false. Two different events, which
happened in different years, are confused together here. They combined the event consciously in a kind of nonsense: to make all our
declaration non-reliable. 9. It is false. It is the second from the above-mentioned events, it mixed with the previous in a strange way. It is
absolutely contradictory with what may be found in the declaration. 10. We gave a precise month. 11. It is false. A huge box, which was
released to hit our front door (to the entrance to our apartment, and not to my mother's door - as the tribunal wrote) from the above flour,
has damaged our door. It was breached through. The tribunal presents the events as if there were no damages. They claim that in a
non-justified wave of panic my mother turned to police, and - naturally - was refused. They try to present us as exaggerators. 12. My mother
did not compose her letter to police herself. Other people assisted her. 13. It is false, because that paragraph may be interpreted as if we
flied Israel because somebody threw a little box in our door direction. In reality from one hand the event with the box was falsified itself, from
another hand, it is clear from the real text of declaration and from immigration hearings that we left Israel in result of systematic
persecutions and because we were afraid under serious circumstances.
Translation from French and comments were made by Lev Gunin
NEXT DOCUMENT: [[[DOCUMENT NUMBER 6]]]
PREVIOUS DOCUMENT: [[[DOCUMENT NUMBER 5]]]
DOCUMENT NUMBER 6
FROM Lev GUNIN
FILE Number 2948-6524/ 95/76/23/18
ID: 3082-7125/7174/7220/7231/7317/
LIST OF SUPPLEMENTS or LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
SUPPLEMENTS
This is the list of Documents, which I have submitted to Immigration
Canada in support to my refugee claim. There were, I think, more then 50 of other Documents, which are not listed
here. I believe that the total number of documents, which supported my claim, was about 180-200, and none of them
was rejected by the Immigration Board as non-reliable...
TO VIEW THE ORDER OF DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON INTERNET FROM THE LIST BELOW, CLICK HERE:
[[[DOCUMENT NUMBER 7]]]
1. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 5-a. 5 pages. Letter to Jerusalem Post. 19 June 1991. Refers to Introduction, page 2, paragraph 4.
2. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 6-a. 3 pages. Fax from Israeli consulate to Mrs. Judith Malka. Refers to Document 1. Paragraph 1.2., point
A).
3. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 7-a. 3 pages. Fax from Maitre Michel Dorи to Maitre Yves Boirond. Refers to Document 1. Paragraph 1.2.,
point A).
4. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 8. 3 pages. List of Organizations, Institutions, Persons and Governmental Boards, Where We turned for
Protection in Israel during 1991-1994. Refers to Document 1, page 3, point C).
5. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 9. 2 pages. Mrs. Marina Heifetz's autograph. Refers to Document 1, page 3, point C).
6. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 10. 2 pages. Postal receipts. Refers to Document 1, page 3, point C).
7. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 11. 2 pages. Fax receipt. (Fax was submitted to Amnesty International in London). Refers to Document 1,
page 3, point C).
8. A room was prepared for a document, which I did not attached.
9. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 13. 2 pages. Medical document from Asharon (or Ha-Sharon) hospital. Refers to Document 1, page 5, line
5.
10. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 14. 2 pages. From medical center "Golda". Refers to Document 1, page 5, line 5.
11.SUPPLEMENTS, Document 15. Medical certificate. Refers to Document 1, page 5, line 5.
12. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 16. Evaluation psychologique. Refers to Document 1, page 5, line 5.
13. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 17. Medical certificate. Refers to Document 1, page 5, line 5.
14. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 18. Medical certificate from Reddy Memorial Hospital. Refers to Document 1, page 5, line 5.
15. SUPPLEMENTS, Documents 19 (number of documents: A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I, J,K, L,M,N,O,P). All of them refer to Document 1, page 3,
point D):
16. Document 19-A.1 page. U.S. Jews hold fire in rift with Netanyahu.
17. Document 19-B.1 page. Arabs seek resumption of U.N. session on Israel.
18. Document 19-C.1 page. Israeli immigrants finding work.
19. Document 19-D.1 page. Ethiopian Jews Riot Over Dumped Blood.
20. Document 19-E. 1 page. A group of children marched along St.-Alexander...
21. Document 19-F. 1 page. A mourner pauses... page 2
22. Document 19-G. 7 pages. We do not need your love, but just stop beating us!
23. Document 19-H. 7 pages. Interview with Jonathan Gefen.
24. Document 19-I. 1 page. The Bungling Bank Robbers of Israel.
25. Document 19-J. 2 pages. Fleeing the Promised Land.
26. Document 19-K. 1 page. Name On the Tombstone.
27. Document 19-L. 3 pages. MAOZ, Messianic Jews Almanac. An urgent call to stop the recent Israeli bill, which could forbade all religions
beside Judaism.
28. Document 19-M. 3 pages. MAOZ, Messianic Jews' Almanac. ONE YEAR IN PRISON FOR POSSESSING A NEW TESTAMENT.
29. Document 19-N. 1 page. MAOZ, Messianic Jews Almanac. AN URGENT CALL FOR PRAYER AND SOLIDARITY: "This bill before the
Knesset would render illegal the possession, production, reproduction, importation and distribution of literature or information, which may
serve to persuade another to change his religious views or affiliations".
30. Document 19-O. 2 pages. MAOZ, Messianic Jews Almanac. A CALL FOR PRAYER AND PROTEST.
31. Document 19-P. 1 page. MAOZ, Messianic Jews Almanac. YOU CAN BE ACTIVE IN THE STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM IN ISRAEL.
32. SUPPLEMENTS, Documents 20: from A to K: Israeli visas. (Total number - 11 documents). Refer to Document number 2 (in
Documents, not in Supplements), paragraph 1.16.
33. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 21.
34. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 22.
35. SUPPLEMENTS, Document 23. TORONTO
From Family Gunin, Montreal, November, 1998
Dear Friends!
Please, try to treat this letter as an unusual appeal, not just a desperate cry for help and justice.
In October 1998, the Federal Court of Canada issued a second decision in family GUNIN's appeal. (The 1-st one was positive). That tragic
decision resumed our refugee claim, which took 4 years of our lives.
Let us make a brief description of events, which took place before that sad date.
The head of the family, Lev GUNIN, as all members of the family, was born in Bobruisk, Belarus, ex-USSR. Senseless, ridiculous
coincidences in 1971-72 turned him, a secondary school student, young composer, and advance piano player, into a person, persecuted by
Soviet authorities. They tried to prevent him from entering collegial university studies; however, his persistence and a lucky miracle broke
that wishes circle, and he received first collegial, and then university degrees in music. In spite of that, L. GUNIN could not build a
successful composer's carrier because of persecutions. In the same time, he played a specific role in ex-USSR, Belarus, and other
countries' cultural life. He's the author of novels, stories, poetry, contemporary and electronic music, works in history, essays, musicology,
music history, philosophy, etc. His articles were published in a number of newspapers all over the world.
In 1979-1986, Lev became an object of wide humiliations. He was beaten by somebody, who has links with militia (police) and KGB. The
authorities stood up in defense of the attackers. They persecuted L. GUNIN even more for bringing the attacker to trial. In another incident
he and his brother - they were hunted by two well-coordinated groups: mobsters, and a gang of youngsters. "Hunters" were also leaded by
militia (police). Later brothers GUNIN were interrogated by police /KGB men. Lev's brother Vitaly became a victim of secret medical
manipulations.
L. Gunin has multiple links with the cultural elite, famous personalities and dissidents in Moscow, St. - Peterburg (Leningrad), Vilnius,
Warsaw, and Belarus. He also has connections with the Western journalists in Moscow, and with representatives of the governments of the
Western countries.
1980-s. Because of persecutions L. GUNIN's decided to participate in the dissident movement. There are the main directions of his
dissident activities:
1. Participation in Human Rights movement and links with the most famous human rights activists.
2. Membership in underground literacy circles.
3. Defense of the Old City of Bobruisk from revelation and demolition.
4. Journalism and editorial functions for underground magazines.
5. Cooperation with forbidden (or unwelcomed) in ex-USSR NTS (People's Labor Union) and the National Front of Belarus.
6. Participation in the Jewish national movement.
7. Creation of ideologically independent and stylistically controversial music, prose, poetry, philosophy, and historical, political, and other
works.
1985-1989. A conflict erupted between leading by L. GUNIN group - and the powerful institution of Israeli emissaries to USSR, and
controlled by them Jewish political Mafia. (Their goals - devastation of the local Jewish cultural life, confiscation of huge aid from the
Western Jewish communities, and concentration of the propaganda of immigration to Israel - L. Gunin was fighting). He also confronted
three important personalities - Kebich, Alimbachkov, and Lukashenko. All of them became top political figures later: first one short before,
and the two others - after his departure from USSR (The 1-st one became the Prime Minister of Belarus, 2-nd - major of Bobruisk, and the
3-rd is the present dictator of Belarus).
.
His attempts to emigrate to USA or Germany - to save his brother's life - failed. All attempts to obtain an Israeli visa for permanent
residency have been failed, too. (By then practically everybody could easily get such a visa). Israelis did not want to allow him and his
brother to immigrate to Israel.
1991. After his brother's death, Lev started to cancel all steps of immigrating to Israel. He did not want to go there by then. Soon he
received an order from KGB to leave his native country for Israel. Soviet authorities sent us (family Gunin) all previously suspended visas.
We could not say "no" to KGB, but planned to escape from Warsaw to Germany. At the Central railway station in Warsaw, in presence of
L.Gunin's Polish friends, Israelis captured us, and took us to Israel by force. In Israel, Mossad (Shabbak) officers verbally accused Lev in an
attempt to sabotage the whole operation of bringing the Soviet Jews to Israel. Mossad approached him several times.
In Israel we faced next persecutions:
1) Israeli citizenship was thrust on us
2) Alla, Lev's wife, was abused, attacked, beaten, assaulted, and systematically discriminated against
3) Elisabeth, his mother, was abused, attacked, and assaulted
4) Children became victims of systematic humiliations and mockery
5) Lev himself was deprived in his rights. Israeli authorities denied him:
a) valid diploma equivalent
b) professional courses
c) rights to enter other courses or university
d) full and valid employment authorization
e) registration with the State labor exchange
f) tax exemption as all fresh immigrants were receiving
g) welfare when he was unemployed
h) proper and equal medical service
i) legal, and police defense
j) reduction of municipal taxes
k) authorization of departure, which is required in Israel to leave the country
l) etc.
He was beaten, abused, discriminated against. Israeli state radio called him an enemy. One of the leading Israeli newspapers suggested
that his works (essays, articles, etc.) must be destroyed. Innumerous and systematic draft board's orders to appear affected his normal life
and his (his family) financial situation.
During his life in Israel L. Gunin published a number of articles books in Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Moscow, and Germany, criticizing Israeli
government for human rights violations and fascist tendencies in Israel.
1994-1996. With an indirect Amnesty International's involvement we could come to Canada, and claimed a refugee status. To support our
claim we presented next types of documentary proof:
A. Legal documents
B. Documents, issued by Israeli government
C. Documents, issued by all kinds of Israeli institutions
D. Affidavits
E. Letters
F. Post receipts
G. Medical documents
H. Newspapers
I. Researches made by International committees and human rights organizations
J. Proof that in Israel we turned to innumerous organizations, institutions, police, court, and lawyers for protection
K. Our lawyer's documents
L. Etc.
Practically each statement, described in our refugee claim, was supported by the documentary proof. Only the list of documents' description
consisted of six pages.
1994-1997. In her translations, our lawyer's secretary/translator distorted all documents in our refugee claim. One of our two lawyers
submitted several messages to IRB in protest of some outraged events. He claimed that the IRB members took advantage of the distorted
translations, using them as a tool against us. IRB members used offensive, illegal methods against Lev. They interrogated only him. No
questions were given to other family members. IRB commissioners demonstrated their opinion that Lev GUNIN must be punished for his
ideological (political) views. Two members of IRB, immigration judges, gave the whole initiative to the third member, an immigration officer, a
Jew and - probably - Israeli, who only spoke. During our refugee hearings she manifested an outraged malicious hatred towards us, and
maintained close contacts with the Israeli embassy in writing, in our case. IRB members maintained the atmosphere of hostility and
arbitrary attitude towards us.
Denying our refugee claim, the IRB members not just acted unfair. Their negative decision was not just a refusal to recognize us as
refugees, but a declaration-manifest, which rejected the basic human rights in principle. In form of declaration, they denied in principle rights
to have an independent opinion, practice or not to practice religion, be protected by the state. IRB members claimed that if government
paid for immigrants' transportation, immigrants became the property of that government (a kind of commodity). IRB members also claimed
that police' and other institutions' refusal to give protection was justified if people had an alternative political /ideological opinion (even if that
opinion was not expressed to police). They claimed that we alienated Israelis by keeping controversial opinions, and refusing to change our
views. And so on...
The IRB's negative decision became not just a matter of our personal fate, but also a matter of human rights in general.
1998. In her speech in the Federal Court, Mrs. Murphy, the Minister's of Immigration representative, confirmed the IRB members' negative
attitude towards human rights, and also widened personal accusations against Lev Gunin, turning the question of our refugee status into
the question of his "inadmissible" (by whom?) ideological views. As IRB did before, Mrs. Murphy refused even to mention Alla Gunin,
Elisabeth Epstein (Gunin), and the children.
The Federal Judge, Mr. Dube, just copied Mrs. Murphy's and the IRB statements, refusing to evaluate arguments of the TWO sides. He
claimed that - because in their refusal to recognize us as refugees IRB members used the formula "no minimal credibility", - such cases are
automatically denied by the Federal Court. In reality, his decision was made in contradiction to another Federal Court judge's decision in our
case, and also contradicted the IRB's final (conclusive) decision. In that decision IRB agreed that some persecutions against us (they
called them "difficulties") could take place because we abused the Israelis by refusing to obey their demands to change our views. Mr.
Dube also revealed his partiality by distorting some important events and attacking our lawyer in personal. A person, whose name was also
Dube, was involved into negotiations between the immigration officer, Mrs. Malka, and the General Consul of Israel, in our case. We could
not find that person among the IRB headquarters' staff, or among other immigration divisions. All faxes were submitted to Israeli consulate
from Mrs. Malka, without mentioning any other name (s). However, the responses from the consulate were submitted to Mr. Dube. We feel
that this mysterious Mr. Dube has something what to do with the Federal Judge Mr. Dube.
IRB and Mrs. Murphy's accusations against us were such, which are the prerogative of the criminal court. They accused us so sharp as if
we were killers or terrorists. In reality we are innocent people, never accused in defamation, or fraud. In the same time, the way they acted
might be easily considered as a criminal offence.
We are appealing not just because of incredible injustice, but because the removal back to Israel means DEATH for us. If nobody in the
whole world could prevent it, it would mean that if people are deprived and innocent they might be kidnapped and taken to another country
by force. It would mean that demonstrative humiliations over human rights, such as the IRB members and Mrs. Murphy expressed, are
tolerated. There are rumors among UN staff that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights might be changed soon to fit to the brutal and
ultra-religious regimes' requirements. Please, do something for us before it happened!
The only way to save us is to help us in obtaining the permanent residents status in any civilized country. That could prevent our eventual
removal to Israel.
Please, help!
Family GUNIN:
Alla, Lev, Ina, and Marta GUNIN
Elisabeth EPSTEIN-Gunin
Tel. (514) 499-1294
E-mail: [leog@total.net]
Web Page, dedicated to our case:
www.total.net/~mioara/witness.htm
Григорию СВИРСКОМУ
от Льва ГУНИНА
& КРАТКОЕ ОПИСАНИЕ НАШЕГО ИММИГРАЦИОННОГО ДЕЛА ПО-РУССКИ
Сначала напишу несколько слов о себе, как Вы просили. Я родился в Бобруйске, сейчас мне 43 года. Моя жена
- Алла - родилась в Бобруйске, ей 40 лет. У меня высшее музыкальное образование, у моей жены - среднее
техническое. Она была начальницей Центрвывоза в Бобруйске. У нас две дочери - Ина и Марта, 12 и 11 лет.
Ина успешно учится музыке, сдает экзамены в университете МакГил, получая каждый раз самые лучшие баллы.
Она играет на пианино и на флейте, а также участвует в лучшем детском хоре в Монреале под управлением
Айвона Эдвардса. Она также пишет рассказы и сказки по-французски. Она может читать и писать по-русски
тоже (я ее научил), но так как ни в русский детский сад, ни в русскую школу она никогда не ходила, для нее
так же, как и для Марты, французский язык - это тот язык, которым она лучше всего владеет. Они неплохо
говорят и по-английски, читают и пишут. Они также понимают идиш и польский. Иврит забыт полностью,
видимо, подсознательно подавлен пережитыми в Израиле стрессами. Марта талантливая юная балерина. Она
была выбрана из многих детей Национальным Балетом Канады, но мы не смогли отправить ее в Торонто на
учебу (Роза знает подробности) - и все опять из-за отсутствия статуса. Марта участвовала во многих спектаклях
и представлениях. Ее "послужной список" уже более длинный, чем у многих взрослых балерин.
И я, и моя жена обладали далеко не богатырским здоровьем уже тогда, когда в 1991 году навсегда покидали
СССР. В Израиле наше состояние сначала улучшилось, особенно в тот период, когда у нас появились какие-то
надежды несмотря на то, что нас привезли в Израиль силой, (pазрешения на выезд мне все равно не давали)
как-то наладить там жизнь. Потом, когда никаких надежд больше не осталось, a я уже получил сотрясение
мозга, и жена несколько травм, когда непосильный труд ни к чему не приводил, и у нас не было никаких
перспектив в жизни, и я, и моя жена - мы почувствовали себя намного хуже. Тут, в Монреале, страх
депортации в Израиль парализует все наши жизненные силы, наше здоровье ухудшается неуклонно и быстро.
Не буду описывать проблемы со здоровьем жены, их у нее десятки. Я еще в Израиле получил страшную
гипертонию, хроническое растяжение связок (с регулярностью в два - три месяца я просто почти не могу
ходить), там у меня начались серьезные проблемы с сердцем, было подозрение на инфаркт. Боюсь, что, даже
если хоть какой-то шанс получить статус у нас есть, мы помрем до того.
Не знаю, с кем и с чем нас сравнить, но, думаю, таких непрактичных, неприспособленных к материальной
жизни людей, как мы, очень мало. Ни в Израиле, ни в Канаде мы не собрали ничего, никаких денег. На жизнь
нам везде хватало, это да. Но не более того. Ни на счету в банке, ни в "чулке" у нас нет и семиста долларов.
Может быть, мы и смогли бы что-то собрать, если бы не расходы на иммиграционные программы. Но мы
потратили астрономическую для людей нашего склада и нашего положения сумму. И теперь у нас нет
практически ничего. Иногда мы сидим вообще без денег, и только чудо каждый раз спасает нас. Я знаю, что в
это трудно поверить, кроме того, есть люди, которые рисуются, заявляя, что у них не на что жить. Но в нашем
случае это не то. Моя жена работает на тяжелой работе, непосильной для нее. Эта работа медленно убивает ее.
Но никакой другой работы ни она для себя, ни я для нее не смогли найти. Я работаю ночью
портье-администратором в гостинице, a с 12-ти часов (неофициально поэтому попрошу об этом не
распространяться) компьютерным инженером, а позже - с 3-х обычно (полуофициально, так что об этой моей
работе тоже не надо никому говорить) - пианистом-аккомпониатором в балете. Кроме того, у меня есть
небольшое дело, которое доходов не приносит, только расходы, но я не закрываю его, так как это надо для
некоторых иммиграционных дел (например, в период, когда я пару м-цев не работал, под него я получил
разрешение на работу, иначе бы не дали). Везде получаю не более 12-ти долларов в час (от 9-ти до 12-ти). И
плачу огромные налоги. Такой режим при моем здоровье - медленная смерть. Иммиграционные власти нашим
плохим здоровьем не разжалобишь, наоборот, больных тут не оставляют. Поэтому о плохом здоровье надо
молчать. Все это я пишу только для Вас - чтобы Вы заранее простили мне вероятную медлительность,
неисполнительность или неадекватную реакцию. Я хочу, чтобы Вы представили мое положение. Работа по 18
часов в сутки, хроническое недосыпание, материальная нужда, страшные головные боли и боли в сердце - все
это мешает мыслить практично и добиваться поставленных целей.
Если бы нас - не дай Б-г - вдруг депортировали в Израиль, у нас нет денег ни на то, чтобы снять там квартиру,
ни на покупку предметов первой необходимости, - ни на что. Мы бы оказались на улице, без средств к
существованию, и погибли бы даже без специальных преследований! Ну, допустим, нас доставили в аэропорт
Бен-Гурион, и мы находимся в зале ожидания. Дальше что? Нам некуда ехать, и не за что. Мы бы уселись на
полу в аэропорту - вот вся жизнь и закончилась. А Роза еще говорит, что нечего вбивать в голову глупые
мысли о самоубийстве. Она никогда, думаю, не была в нашем положении, Саша Орловский никогда не был в
нашем положении, он хитрее. Y других людей есть какая-то здоровая и положительная энергия агрессивности,
даже у очень хороших, и они могут заставить важных людей понять, что им надо помочь. Мы в гораздо более
трагичной ситуации, чем все, кого мы знаем, и мы подвергались гораздо большим преследованиям в Израиле,
и на иммиграционных слушаниях, и в отрицательном ответе комиссии наши права были нарушены больше,
чем права многих других, но мы не обладаем ни силой убеждения, ни способностью манипулировать людьми,
чтобы добиться своего.
А теперь попробую описать то, что произошло вокруг нашей просьбы о статусе так, как Вы просили, хотя и не
уверен, что смог до конца понять и выполнить именно то, что Вы хотели бы увидеть.
Пункт Первыый: СУДЬИ ФАКТИЧЕСКИ УКЛОНИЛИСЬ ОТ СЛУШАНИЙ, ПЕРЕДАВ ВСЮ ИНИЦИАТИВУ
ИММИГРАЦИОННОМУ ОФИЦЕРУ
Это видно из того, что они сказали всего лишь 3-4 фразы за все 3 многочасовых слушания. Доказательство
кассеты со слушания.
Пункт Второй: КОМИССИЯ ОТРИЦАЛА ПРАВО ЛЮДЕЙ НА СОБСТВЕННЫЕ УБЕЖДЕНИЯ, НА ПРАВО
ВЫСКАЗЫВАТЬ СВОЕ МНЕНИЕ Комиссия очень много и подробно расспрашивала меня о моих убеждениях.
Ее члены также просили меня комментировать цитаты, какие они читали из разных папок, например,
заключение неизвестной мне группы по наблюдению за полицией. Из моих слов можно было понять, что я
приверженец соблюдения прав человека, демократических норм, свободы слова, разрешения на любую
религию или на атеизм, защиты прав работающих.
Комиссары написали в их негативном решении (посмотрите его, я его прислал на английском языке), а также
говорили на слушаниях, что мои убеждения, якобы, следующие. 1. Я, будто бы, убежден, что в Израиле
существует рабство и что русские там превращены в рабов (на самом деле это я имел в виду такое явление, как
квиют, и предоставил много материалов, касавшихся квиюта, это имело отношение к тому, что произошло
лично со мной). 2. Я будто бы убежден, что Израиль - фашистское государство (на самом деле речь шла о моей
статье ПОЧЕМУ ИЗРАИЛЬ ПРОТИВ ДНЯ ПОбЕДЫ, вернее, о комментарии к ней, в котором редакция газеты
заявила, что от моих сочинений надо не оставить камня на камне). 3. Я будто бы обращался в Израиле с
жалобами и просьбами о защите в разные организации, а также подал в Канаде просьбу о статусе беженца
только для того, чтобы получить возможность опорочить и оклеветать государство Израиль. На самом деле я
говорил только о том, что происходило в Израиле СО МНОЙ, И С ЧЛЕНАМИ МОЕЙ СЕМЬИ лично! То есть,
члены комиссии откровенно врали о том, что я пришел на беженские слушания только для того, чтобы, якобы,
заявить - Израиль плохая страна.
О моих жене и матери, о том, что это не я один, а мы вместе обратились с просьбой о статусе, а также о том,
что и моя мать, и жена обращались в Израиле в разные инстанции и без меня, со своими личными жалобами,
комиссия не сказала ни слова (это все есть на кассетах и в тексте негативного решения, который теперь у Вас
есть).
В этом контексте судья Буарон, председатель комиссии, сказал две замечательные фразы (это почти все, что он
на слушаниях сказал): "Так Вы, значит, в бывшем Союзе были бунтовщиком против законной власти, против
правительства?" И дальше, обращаясь ко мне: "А Вы что, считаете, что Вы имеете право на собственное
мнение?" Обе этих фразы были сказаны в контексте допроса, который вела иммиграционный офицер Малка. И
сказаны они были в ответ на мои прямые и косвенные утверждения о том, что мы не могли находиться в
Израиле и не можем туда возвратиться из-за того, что подвергались и будем подвергаться преследованиям за
свои убеждения.
Пункт Третий: СЕКРЕТАРЬ-ПЕРЕВОДЧИЦА НАШЕГО АДВОКАТА УМЫШЛЕННО ИСКАЗИЛА ПЕРЕВОДЫ
ДОКУМЕНТОВ В ПОЛЬЗУ НЕГАТИВНОГО РЕШЕНИЯ БЕЖЕНСКОЙ КОМИССИИ
По этому поводу имеются документальные подтверждения
Пункт Четвертый: КОМИССАРЫ УТВЕРЖДАЮТ, ЧТО Я И МОИ бЛИЗКИЕ - МЫ ЗАСЛУЖИЛИ
ПРЕСЛЕДОВАНИЯ (члены комиссии называют их "трудностями") ЗА НЕЖЕЛАНИЕ ИЗМЕНИТЬ СВОИ
ВЗГЛЯДЫ, УБЕЖДЕНИЯ И РЕЛИГИОЗНУЮ ОРИЕНТАЦИЮ
В своем отказе признать нас беженцами члены комиссии написали (цитирую дословно): "Вполне может быть,
что, живя в Израиле, Гунины сталкивались с определенными трудностями. Это была естесственная реакция
ультра-религиозных индивидумов на то, что присутсвие двух нерелигиозных взрослых людей, отказывавшихся
практиковать еврейскую религию, ущемляло права ультра-ортодоксов". Тут я цитирую с французского
варианта, так что возможны незначительные расхождения с английским переводом.
В другом месте члены комиссии написали: "Мы убеждены, что Гунины опасные клеветники, которые
обрисовали свою страну как страну рабства и беззакония, где русских людей избивают, если они работают
недостаточно быстро, где русские дети являются жертвами издевательств учителей и учеников, где русские
женщины становятся жертвами сексуального насилия, и где государство не желает защищать их. Именно в
результате своей клеветнической позиции они и столкнулись с тем, что ни полиция, ни члены парламента, к
которым они писали, ни многочисленные организации, ни правозащитные группы, ни государство, ни
адвокаты не пожелали их защищать". Это есть в тексте отрицательного ответа, который я Вам прислал.
Пункт Пятый КОМИССАРЫ УТВЕРЖДАЮТ, ЧТО РУССКИЕ ИММИГРАНТЫ ИЗ ИЗРАИЛЯ НЕ ИМЕЮТ
ПРАВА НА СТАТУС БЕЖЕНЦЕВ В КАНАДЕ, ТАК КАК ЯВЛЯЮТСЯ СОБСТВЕННОСТЬЮ ГОСУДАРСТВА
ИЗРАИЛЬ
Снова цитирую строки из негативного решения: "Мы утверждаем, что претензии Гуниных на статус беженцев
не имеют даже минимума доверия потому ... что государство Израиль оплатило транспортировку иммигрантов
из бывшего СССР, а также предоставило им бесплатные курсы и мед. помощь".
Я бы сравнил это с тем, как если бы кто-то говорил, что узники фашистких лагерей смерти не имеют права на
сострадание потому, что Германия оплатила их провоз в лагеря, а также еду, которую они получали в лагерях.
Пункт Шестой КОМИССИЯ НА СЛУШАНИЯХ ИСКАЖАЛА МОИ СЛОВА, ДЕЛАЛА НЕДОПУСТИМЫЕ
МАНИПУЛЯЦИИ
Пример 1
Г-н Ив Буарон (комиссар): почему в истории написано: "израильтяне нас трактуют как рабов, эксплуатируют
нас, издеваются над нами, а, если мы не хотим работать так, как они того желают, они избивают нас"?
Я: г-н Буарон, вы умышленно исказили одну из фраз этого пассажа, там не написано "не хотим работать так, как
они того желают"; там написано "не работаем так, как они того желают"! Теперь я должем заметить, что эта
фраза не касается всех израильтян, а относится к совершенно определенному случаю, описанному в моем
заявлении о просьбе беженства. А именно - относится к такому явлению как "кабланут". Термин и явление
"кабланут" исчерпывающе описан в двух статьях талантливых журналисток, переводы которых я Вам
предоставил. Слова об избиении касаются того, что один из русских рабочих, вместе со мной находившихся на
стадионе (смотрите мою историю), был избит надсмотрщиком-израильтянином, который обвинял "русского" в
том, что тот умышленно медленно работает, в то время как "русский" уже был на грани обморока от
непосильного труда и невыносимой жары, к которой был непривычен. Израильтянин сказал тогда: "Тут вам не
Россия, тут надо работать, а не отдыхать!" Когда "русский" на минуту замешкался, один из израильтян,
наблюдавших за нашей работой, подошел к нему и ударил его по лицу. Когда тот был в шоке, растерявшись от
удара, израильтянин с силой пнул его ногой, и тот упал... Если Вы хотите дать оценку сказанному мной, Вы
обязательно должны дать оценку такому израильскому явлению, как кабланут.
Пример 2
Г-жа Малка: Я прочитала вашу заметку, и у меня есть определенные замечания, которые я хочу сообщить. Вы
говорите о многих инцедентах, когда полиция с вами была очень жестока, очень часто отказывалась вам
помочь. Это вступает в противоречие с теми документами, которые у нас имеются об израильской полиции.
Например, документ номер 19 на второй странице, в параграфе 4, указывает на интервью с директором группы
наблюдения за полицией, ассоциации гражданских прав в Израиле. Это интервью имело место 11 апреля 1995
года, при этом указывается, что обычной формой поведения офицера полиции в Израиле является оказывание
помощи всем, без различия их происхождения, и указывают на случай, когда полицейский отказался оказать
такие услуги палестинцу, и этот полицейский оказался перед дисциплинарной комиссией полиции.
Следующий, вернее, тот же параграф, говорит, что они не знают ни одного случая, когда бы новый иммигрант
нееврейского происхождения пожаловался на израильских полицейских за отказ помочь. В то же время
указывается, что эта организация получает примерно 100 жалоб в год. Это документ А-19, параграф 5. Я бы
хотела ваши комментарии, по поводу этого документа, если они у вас есть.
Я: Начну с того, что этот пример формально не подходит к морему случаю, потому что описывается 1995 год, а
я уехал из Израиля еще в 1994. Кроме того, там говорится о лицах нееврейского происхождения, а я лицо
еврейского происхождения. И еще одно - Вы говорите, что офицер израильской полиции оказался перед
дисциплинарной комиссией. Но что решила эта комиссия? Может быть, она решила, что офицер был прав и
поблагодарила его за неоказывание помощи палестинцу? Но главное даже не в этом. Отсутствие сведений о
жалобах может объясняться очень просто. я обращался с жалобами в письменной форме в Мин. Полиции, в
Мин. Внутренних дел, в полицию ( я предоставил вам квитанции всех заказных писем, отправленных мной в
такие учреждения, и, если вы сомневаетесь в подлинности квитанций, могу дать подлинники на экспертизу).
Иммиграционный офицер (мадам Малка) снова перебивает, не давая мне продолжить, она переходит на крик:
это не ответ на мой вопрос!!!
Теперь уже я перебиваю ее: дайте же мне ответить на ваш собственный вопрос! Не перебивайте меня! - Я не
получил никакого ответа на мои письма. Кроме того, я приходил в Тель-Авиве в специальную организацию,
которая рассматривает жалобы на полицейских, и эта организация также не отреагировала на мои жалобы. я
думаю, что все жалобы от русскоязычных остаются не принятыми и даже не зарегистрированными.
Иммиграционный офицер (мадам Малка) снова перебивает: "Вот что надо было вам сделать!"
Пункт Седьмой - КОМИССАРЫ ПРОВЕЛИ СРАВНИТЕЛЬНЫЙ АНАЛИЗ КАНАДЫ И ИЗРАИЛЯ, ИЗ
КОТОРОГО КАНАДА ПРЕДСТАЛА ОТТАЛКИВАЮЩЕ, А ИЗРАИЛЬ ОНИ ОПИСАЛИ КАК
ПОКАЗАТЕЛЬНОЕ, ОБРАЗЦОВОЕ, ИДЕАЛЬНОЕ ГОСУДАРСТВО
Так, комментируя мои рассказы об издевательствах, которым подвергались наши дети в детском саду и в школе
в Израиле, об издевательствах полиции, г-н Буарон сказал:: "А что, в Канаде, где вы просите убежища, лучше,
что ли? Мы не можем знать всех случаев, не можем утверждать, что в Канаде полиция не издевается над
представителями меньшинств. Наоборот, в Канаде полиция жестока, и зверски издевается. А в школах! Тут в
школах каждый день происходят кровавые побоища между англофонами и франкофонами. То, что вы описали,
скорей, похоже на Канаду, а не на Израиль".
Я отвечаю: "Господин судья, меня не интересует общая политическая обстановка в Канаде. Мы прибыли сюда
не потому, что выбрали Канаду из всех стран, а потому что не могли оставаться дальше в Израиле. И для нас
главное, что именно нас тут никто не избивает, именно над нашими детьми тут никто не издевается
изощренными способами, как это имело место в Израиле. И потом - я не верю, что в монреальских школах
происходят кровавые побоища между англофонами и франкофонами. Мои дети тоже учатся в школе, у нас есть
много знакомых, дети которых участся в десятках школ города, и ни от кого мы подобных вещей никогда не
слышали".
Г-н Буарон - "У вас плохая информированность".
А теперь сравним эти высказывания о Канаде с высказываниями комиссаров об Израиле (цитирую текст
негативного решения)
Страница 4, параграфы 2-5: "Израиль имеет самое демократическое общество, справедливые юридические
законы и охраняет права своих граждан. Полиция никогда не дискриминирует русских или арабов". Страница
5: "В Израиле существует множество организаций, занимающихся правами человека".
Насчет того, как полиция НИКОГДА не дискриминирует арабов, есть сотни тысяч документов ООН, Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch и других наиболее уважаемых в мире организаций с описаниями зверских
пыток, беззаконий, издевательств и насилия. А насчет русских есть тысячи газетных статей.
Но для комиссаров - Канада - плохая страна, а Израиль хорошая.
Пункт Восьмой - КОМИССАРЫ ПРОВОКАЦИОННО ЗАЯВИЛИ, ЧТО ИГНОРИРУЮТ ВСЕ НАШИ
ДОКУМЕНТЫ, ТАК КАК ЭТИ ДОКУМЕНТЫ НЕ ПРЕДСТАВЛЯюТ СОбОЙ НИЧЕГО ОСОБЕННОГО
В негативном решении нагло написано: "Трибунал игнорирует медицинские, юридические и другие документы
просителей статуса".
А между тем документы, представленные нами, доказывали систематическую дискриминацию, избиения,
преследования, издевательства. Комиссары написали, что наши документы не показывают ничего в
особенности. А ведь среди них были такие, как переписка моего адвоката с Министром образования и
культуры Израиля г-ном А. Рубинштейном, из которой выясняется, что мне отказывали в положенных всем
новым иммигрантам курсах, или как переписка моего адвоката с Государственной Биржей Труда, фактически
отказавшей мне, человеку с израильским паспортом, в полноценном разрешении на работу, с Институтом
Национального Страхования, отказавшимся выплачивать мне пособие, когда я был без работы. Среди них
были еще, например, анкеты из Налогового Управления в Иерусалиме, с требованием заплатить налоги за
какой-то мифический бизнес, которого у нас и в помине не было, в то время как в первые три года все
новоприбывшие освобождаются от налогов, или переписка с Начальником Управления Делами Культуры
Тель-Авивского Округа всвязи с отказом мне в эквиваленте диплома, или переписка с администрацией
университета Бар-Илан всвязи с отказом мне в анкетах на поступление на факультет музыкологии, а потом
всвязи с отказом принять заполненные анкеты, а также всвязи с отказом принять меня на факультет языка
идиш, или статьи обо мне в израильских газетах, доказывающие то, что я не придумал свою беженскую
историю после приезда в Канаду, а жаловался и боролся за свои права еще в Израиле, переписка с полицией и
квитанции об отправке жалоб в Министерство Полиции и Министерство Внутренних Дел Израиля,
доказывающая, что свои жалобы в полицию я не придумал, медицинские документы, подтверждающие
получение травм в результате избиения, и многое другое.
Пункт Девятый - МОИ АДВОКАТЫ МЭТР ЛЕ БРОН, МЭТР ДОРЕ, МЭТР БУШМЕН, А ТАКЖЕ ЧЕТЫРЕ
МОИХ КОНСУЛЬТАНТА ИЗУЧИЛИ ДОКУМЕНТЫ, КОТОРЫЕ ЦИТИРОВАЛИ КОМИССАРЫ ВО ВРЕМЯ
СЛУШАНИЙ, И ПРИШЛИ К ВЫВОДУ, ЧТО ЧЛЕНЫ КOМИССИИ НЕДОБРОСОВЕСТНО ЦИТИРОВАЛИ ИХ
Комиссары пропускали одни слова и вставляли другие, выпускали строки, критикующие Израиль за нарушения
прав человека, а читали только такие строки, какие были им выгодно читать, и так далее. Все это было сказано
Мэтром Бушменом в его речи в Федеральном Суде.
СЛУШАНИЕ
Всего у нас было три слушания, но я даю материалы пока только первого. Если Вы решите, что целесообразно
дать материалы остальных, я это сделаю также.
Как обычно, перед слушанием - вступительное слово членов комиссии, объяснения и пояснения адвоката.
Выясняется между прочим, что анкета номер "си" не была подписана переводчиком; начинается выяснение
этого происшествия. На вопрос, согласен ли я с переводом текста моего заявления о просьбе убежища, я
отвечаю: язык перевода издевательски-ироничный по отношению к переводимому материалу, с этим я не
согласен; кроме того, несмотря на то, что господин Ле Бр?н, мой основной адвокат (господин Доре мой
адвокат для слушания только), исправил то, что я считаю умышленными искажениями, осуществленными
г-жой Элеонорой Бродер, отдельные фразы и места перевода все еще несут отпечаток этих искажений. Кроме
того, я обращался в Израиле в намного большее число инстанций и организаций, а она [переводчица] этого не
указала.
Г-н Буарон, коммиссар: К этому мы еще вернемся! Но это было обратно переведено?
Я: Я не хотел бы, чтобы из-за этого вопроса откладывалось или переносилось слушание, поэтому заявляю, что
я сам прочел и в общих чертах согласен с окончательным вариантом перевода.
Г-жа Малка (иммиграционный офицер): Так была или нет переведена история официально на язык, понятный
для Вас?
Я неопределенно покачал головой и буркнул что-то.
Буарон: Да. Я думаю, да... Обращается ко мне: здесь подпись переводчицы и ее клятва в том, что она перевела
ее французский вариант на русский язык, и Вы поняли, и Вы согласны.
Я молчу.
Следует выяснение списка документов, дежурные фразы, обмен документами между комиссией и моим
адвокатом (мэтром Доре).
Г-жа Малка: Я хочу вам задать вопрос по параграфу 17 (истории). Это касается инцедента, имевшего место в
августе 1991 г. Вы тогда были на работе, и полицейские пришли за Вами и за другим человеком, я хотела бы,
чтобы вы мне рассказали подробней об этом событии. Короче, сколько полицейских пришло за вами?
Я: ва полицейских пришли за мной, третий сидел в машине. Они взяли меня и одного из рабочих-арабов и
посадили нас в машину. Они привезли нас к дому недалеко от улицы Орлов. Там, на земле, лежали связки
очень тяжелых напольных плиток. - Перебивает иммиграционный офицер.
Г-жа Малка: Когда офицеры пришли за вами, где находился Лев Гинзбург?
Я: ?н находился на стадионе, где он работал (в тот момент начался перерыв, но Гинзбург еще что-то делал).
Г-жа Малка: И что он точно видел?
Я: он должен был видеть в проем ворот стадиона, как подъехала полицейская машина, как полицейские вышли
из машины и позвали меня и одного из рабочих-арабов, когда нас привезли назад; он также видел как нас
привезли и как нас выпустили.
Г-жа Малка: В вашей истории вы говорите что 2 полицейских появились: "они заставили меня и одного араба
сесть в машину и привезли нас к одному дому недалеко от улицы Орлов". Так вот, я везде усиленно ищу - и не
могу найти даже слабого упоминания о третьем полицейском. Есть ли какая-то причина, по которой вы не
упомянули о третьем полицейском?
Я собираюсь отвечать, и даже выговорил уже первое слово, но меня перебили г-н Буарон и г-жа Малка
одновременно, но г-н Буарон повысил голос, и перекрыл голос г-жи Малки: А афидевит говорит "два
полицейских"!
Г-н Мишель Доре, адвокат: Свидетельство моего клиент? согласно закону намного важнее афидевита, так дайте
ему сказать, послушайте, как он сам это объяснит, не перебивайте его!
Иммиграционный офицер (г-жа Малка) снова перебивает, не дает говорить ни адвокату, ни мне, заглушая
своим теперь уже поднявшимся до пронзительности криком наши голоса.
ТЕЛЕГРАМКанал с обзорами, анонсами новинок и книжными подборками
Книжный Вестник
Бот для удобного поиска книг (если не нашлось на сайте)
Поиск книг
Свежие любовные романы в удобных форматах
Любовные романы
Детективы и триллеры, все новинки
Детективы
Фантастика и фэнтези, все новинки
Фантастика
Отборные классические книги
Классика
ВКОНТАКТЕБиблиотека с любовными романами, которая наверняка придётся по вкусу женской части аудитории
Любовные романы
Библиотека с фантастикой и фэнтези, а также смежных жанров
Фантастика
Самые популярные книги в формате фб2
Топ фб2
книги