n), ou un mÊtÊore, ou un vent, ou un tonnerre?
Cependant (indÊpendamment de cette attitude), nous devons accentuer le
fait que de la perspective Canadienne, notre situation devrait Ëtre
inacceptable. Si le tribunal regardait en notre cas par un prisme des normes
Kazakhstaniennes ou IsraÊliennes, alors les conclusions qu`ils faisaient
Êtaient Êvidentes. Une question que nous voulions demander au tribunal Êtait
la suivante: est-ce que nous pourrions Ëtre traitÊs selon des normes
Canadiennes avant de devenir des Canadiens? C'est ce qui nous ennuie. Alors
- le tribunal ne comprenait pas (ou ne voulait pas comprendre) que
l'expression "votre pays" ne correspond pas Á notre situation, surtout Á G.
Il est un rÊfugiÊ de Abkhazia dans la deuxiÉme gÊnÊration (sa famille s`est
enfuie de Abkhasia en rÊsultat du conflit Abkhasian-Georgian, dÊchargeant la
propriÊtÊ entiÉre, maison, tout ) , et perdu tous les liens avec Georgia. Il
n'a pas citoyennetÊ de Georgia, et perdait la citoyennetÊ de Kazakhstan, qui
n'Êtait pas "son pays" n'importe comment.
Le tribunal n`a jamais doutÊ des persÊcutions, discrimination et
assauts, que nous affrontions au Kazakhstan et en Israel. En mËme temps (en
refusant de nous reconnaÏtre comme rÊfugiÊs), le tribunal (ainsi que la cour
FÊdÊrale) a dÊmontrÊ une incapacitÊ Á regarder notre cas par une perspective
non - politisÊe. Autrement dit, aucune solution n'Êtait donnÊe Á nous dans
notre situation extrËme.
Nous pensons que c`est arrivÊ parce qu'ils ne trouvaient aucune
solution de comment classer la pagaille administrative de notre statut, et
notre relation Á l'Êtat d'IraÌl.
Les pratiques internationales d`immigration lÊgale les plus communes
requiÉrent
automatiquement la remise de la citoyennetÊ ou de la rÊsidence
permanente aux immigrants.
Cependant, notre situation le contredisait. Comme nous recevions les
visas IsraÊliens d'immigrants, nous devrions attendre la citoyennetÊ
IsraÊlienne (un statut de rÊsidants permanents n'Êtait pas attendu parce
que: 1) normalement il n'est pas pratiquÊ en IraÌl 2) il est incompatible
aux lois internes IsraÊliennes, qui fait la vie d'un rÊsidant permanent
impossible lÁ).
Cependant, en IsraÌl nous n`avons pas reÚu la citoyennetÊ
automatiquement. Au contraire, nos passeports de Kazakhstan et les autres
documents ont ÊtÊ confisquÊs, et nous Êtions poussÊs par une procÊdure
ridicule de dÊfinition de nationalitÊ, avec notre statut de citoyennetÊ
devenant dÊpendant de ses rÊsultats. Nous avons dÊcouvert que nous n'Êtions
pas administrÊs de Tveria mais de Jerusalem.
Il est important de mentionner qu`en IsraÌl votre vie sans le "teudat
zehut" (il joue un rÆle d'un passeport interne, mais par erreur interprÊtait
souvent comme une " carte ID") est impossible . Sans TZ vous ne pouvez pas
entrer dans aucune institution publique, incluant l'Êcole. Vous pouvez aussi
Ëtre arrËtÊs par la police Á tout moment pour ne pas porter le TZ sur vous
(etc.) Nous Êtions laissÊs sans le TZ depuis Septembre jusqu'Á FÊvrier 1999.
Il est Êvident que le retard Êtait employÊ par Jerusalem pour nous empËcher
de revenir Á Kazakhstan. Ils devaient connaÏtre la loi de citoyennetÊ de
Kazakhstan, et quand aprÉs FÊvrier 1999 nous sommes allÊes au consulat de
Kazakhstan, on nous a dit qu'aprÉs 3 mois sans l'enregistrement nous avons
perdu la citoyennetÊ, et maintenant ne pouvons pas revenir Á Kazakhstan.
Quand nous avons reÚu les TZs, notre nationalitÊ Êtait mentionnÊe comme
"Russe", qui n'est pas une citoyennetÊ pleine: il vous fait un "citoyen" de
seconde - classe. Nous avons dÊcouvert aussi que la citoyennetÊ IsraÊlienne
a ÊtÊ refusÊe Á nos enfants du tout. De la perspective des normes civilisÊes
il semble absolument ridicule: les parents ont reÚu la citoyennetÊ, et les
enfants pas! C'est une division administrative d'une famille. On la divise!
En IraÌl, nous Êtions toujours effrayÊs que nos droits parentaux
pourrait Ëtre pris ainsi que nos enfants. C`est arrivÊ partiellement (nous
signifions la situation de notre fils aÏnÊ). Nous pourrions prouver que le
statut de nos enfants en IsraÌl n'Êtait pas Êgal Á la dÊfinition lÊgale du
statut de rÊsidence permanente des pays occidentaux. Si quelqu'un insiste
que nos enfants avaient un statut de rÊsidence permanente en IsraÌl, nous ne
sommes pas d`accord. Nous pourrions soumettre la preuve entiÉre
ultÊrieurement.
Cependant, seulement un fait doit convaincre chacun: notre fils Êtait
admis Á l`Êquipe nationale de water - polo d'IsraÌl, et devait participer
dans la compÊtition internationale en Hollande, mais on lui a officiellement
(!) refusÊ (par le MinistÉre IsraÊlien d'Affaires Internes) un laisser -
passer "parce qu`il n'Êtait pas un citoyen IsraÊlien"(!).
Nous ne parlons mËme pas du trauma, des persÊcutions et des agressions
(mËme psychologiques). Ils Êtaient Êvidemment programmÊs par notre situation
staturielle et provoquÊs par une propagande IsraÊlienne officielle anti -
ChrÊtienne et raciste. Dans les plupart pays du monde les non - citoyens ne
sont pas pris au service militaire obligatoire. En IsraÌl ils sont pris. En
IsraÌl un rÊsidant permanent (non-citoyen) n'est pas lÊgitime Á ouvrir une
affaire, acheter une maison et / ou un terrain!
á cause que IsraÌl reconnaÏt seulement un mariage religieux Juif, nos
enfants Êtaient considÊrÊs comme "mamzerim" ("b×tards", intouchables) - et
n'avaient pas de droits Á voyager avec nous. Nominalement, ils n'Êtaient pas
traitÊs comme nos enfants du tout. "Les b×tards" ("mamzerim") aussi n'ont
pas de droits en gÊnÊral en IsraÌl: ils ne peuvent pas marier un IsraÊlien,
ils ne peuvent pas travailler dans les institutions d'Êtat, achÉter de la
terre, ouvrir une affaire, etc.
Dans la violation de certains rÉglements internationaux et IsraÊliens,
notre fils aÏnÊ Êtait pris Á l`armÊe IsraÊlienne contre sa volontÊ. Comme
nous (ainsi que nos amis) nous rappelons, dans une des brochures de Sochnut,
il Êtait Êcrit que seulement des volontaires pourraient servir dans l'armÊe
IsraÊlienne sans la citoyennetÊ IsraÊlienne.
Cependant, c`est une norme qu`en IsraÌl il y a toujours plusieurs lois
contredisant les autres. L'IsraÌl n'a aucune constitution et / ou codes
juridiques stables. Il a seulement certains rÉglements communs - gÊnÊraux et
la loi d'un prÊcÊdent. Tel systÉme a ÊtÊ crÊÊ pour concevoir une injustice
totale, et permet (au lieu de justice) le soi-disant " droit de tÊlÊphone",
ou une "loi" de connection-confrÊrie de famille - amitiÊ - raccordements
d'armÊe. Ce systÉme faisait des tortures (la loi de Landau ) et des
persÊcutions aux ChrÊtiens (particuliÉrement le bill 174N~) absolument lÊgal
en IsraÌl. Nous ne donnons pas cette expliquation comme une manifestation
politique, mais juste pour montrer comment compliquÊe est l'affaire. Une
autre loi IsraÊlienne interdit de prendre aux soudures militaires les gens,
dont les parents ne sont pas dans le pays. Notre fils Êtait pris Á l`unitÊ
militaire de bataille "Golani", une formation militaire descente . Pour
IsraÌl, les jeunes hommes comme notre fils sont otages, esclaves, dont le
statut dans l'armÊe IsraÊlienne est Êgal aux esclaves enchaÏnÊs Á bord des
navires militaires anciens. Les tactiques de ne pas leur donner la
citoyennetÊ IsraÊlienne est une mÊthode Á les garder emprisonnÊs Á
l'intÊrieur du pays, ce qui signifie rÊellement - dans l'armÊe. Les
autoritÊs israÊliennes mettent le statut de citoyennetÊ pour tels jeunes
hommes Á la dÊpendance du service militaire, proclamant que "cette question"
pourrait Ëtre ÊvaluÊe seulement aprÉs la fin de celui-ci.
Quand, mËme une catÊgorie de "citoyens" avec les remarques dans le
passeport interne - "Russe" ou "nationalitÊ n'Êtant pas dÊfinie", n'ont pas
de droits ou de protection en IsraÌl, des gens comme notre fils sont
totalement sans droits. Dans l'armÊe, notre fils a dÊjÁ des problÉmes
terribles, mais nous ne pouvons pas les dÊcrire prÊcisÊment - parce qu`en
revanche, notre fils peut Ëtre battu ou mËme tuÊ. Nous considÊrons le fait
que notre fils, pas un citoyen IsraÊlien, a Ête pris au service militaire
obligatoire comme s'il Êtait kidnappÊ et pris loin de ses parents.
L'armÊe israÊlienne est un outil Á convertir les non - Juifs au
judaÐsme par la force. Quand notre fils Êtait oubligÊ de prendre le serment
militaire sur la Tora, il demandait une Bible, mais en rÊponse, il a reÚu de
telles menaces, qu`il devait obÊir - et prendre le serment sur la Tora. Dans
notre dossier humanitaire, nous avons un article par rapport Á l`annonce
d`un gÊnÊral IsraÊlien qui dit que tous les non - Juifs dans l'armÊe
IsraÊlienne devraient Ëtre forcÊs d`aller pour le "giyur".
Nous tournions aux avocats et politiciens IsraÊliens cÊlÉbres, au
Ministre des Affaires Internes et Á d`autres institutions, personnalitÊs et
politiciens. Tous ceux-ci disent qu'IsraÌl est un Êtat anti-non-Juif (anti -
ChrÊtien), et que les non - Juifs ne devraient pas venir lÁ. Ils disaient
que l'Êtat d'IsraÌl a ÊtÊ conÚu si bien que les non - Juifs ne devraient pas
Ëtre capables de travailler, vivre, et mËme exister en IsraÌl. Vous pourriez
apprendre qui et comment dit celÁ dans notre dossier de rÊfugiÊ.
Cependant, - encore - nous ne politiserons pas notre cas par les
Êtiquettes comme "racisme" et "guerre non dÊclarÊe contre les chrÊtiens".
Ils ont leurs traditions et lois propres, que nous pouvons respecter
aussitÆt qu'ils s`appliquent aux gens, qui sont venus en IsraÌl Á cause de
leurs croyances nationalistes ou sont nÊs en IsraÌl. AussitÆt qu'ils
essaient de prolonger ces lois sur des gens comme nous - citoyens Êtrangers,
ChrÊtiens, - nous gardant en IsraÌl comme des prisonniers: seulement alors
c`est inacceptable. Il est clarifiÊ que l'Êtat d'IsraÌl n'accomplit pas des
obligations d'immigration envers nous. En rÊalitÊ, nous n`avons jamais
immigrÊ en IsraÌl et ne pouvons pas Ëtre considÊrÊs comme des citoyens
IsraÌliens.
Nous avons pu partir d`IsraÌl et prendre notre plus jeune fils
en-dehors de ce pays seulement par une voie illÊgale et dangereuse. Cela est
la preuve comment dÊsespÊrÊs nous Êtions et comment sÊrieuse Êtait notre
situation. De plus - le Panneau de IRB Á MontrÊal Êcrivait Á la page 2 de
leur dÊcision le suivant:
'Le tribunal ne doute pas que les non - Juifs puissent Ëtre victimes en
IsraÌl de discrimination, de harcÉlement ou d'agressions, dans certaines
circonstances particuliÉres et dans certains milieux particuliers'.
Si, mËme IRB dans une voie a reconnu nos Êvidences fidÉles, la rÊalitÊ
est vraiment laide pour des Êtrangers en IsraÌl.
Aussi, parce que nous partions d`IsraÌl en utilisant un autre passeport
pour sortir notre enfant illÊgalement du pays sans le statut, sur le retour
hypothÊtique, il existe un danger que nous devrons affronter
l`emprisonnement pour cela. Qu'est-ce qui arriverait avec notre enfant si
nous Êtions dans la prison juste parce que nous voulions sauver notre enfant
de la manifestation d'hostilitÊ envers lui?
Nous courions pour nos vies. Si maintenant nous Êtions puissamment
obligÊs de retourner en IsraÌl, nous serions punis! Notre plus jeune fils
serait pris loin de nous pour sÙr et serait convertis en judaÐsme. Notre cas
est la derniÉre frontiÉre, derniÉre limite Á dÊfendre la civilisation
ChrÊtienne. Nous croyons que derriÉre les dÊcisions injustes du tribunal de
rÊfugiÊ et de la cour FÊdÊrale Êtaient des tentatives IsraÊliennes Á
reprendre tous les "esclaves fugitifs" (c`est ainsi qu`ils considÉrent des
gens comme nous) vers l`IsraÌl.
Cependant, notre souci majeur dans la situation actuelle est notre fils
aÏnÊ. Il est si terrifiÊ par une revanche Êventuelle que si un reprÊsentant
indÊpendant devrait lui demander s'il sert volontairement dans l'armÊe
IsraÊlienne, il dirait "oui". Jusqu'Á ce qu`il se trouve en IsraÌl il sera
liÊ Á cette rÊponse. Nous pouvons seulement tÊmoigner qu'il Êtait pris Á
l`armÊe IsraÊlienne selon la loi IsraÊlienne du service militaire
obligatoire. Nous avons un des ordres d'armÊe soumis Á notre fils pour le
service militaire obligatoire. Si requis, nous pouvons envoyer une copie et
la traduction de ce document. N'importe comment, administrativement notre
fils a ÊtÊ pris Á l`armÊe IsraÊlienne, et c'est le problÉme principal.
S'il vous plaÏt, conseillez-nous, que faire.
Nous espÊrons que ce document sera gardÊ confidentiel, en-dehors de la
connaissance du brutal rÊgime IsraÊlien.
Salutations distinguÊes, Natalya H.
29.07.2001
ìÅ× çÕÎÉÎ. ðÒÉÌÏÖÅÎÉÑ Ë ÒÁÂÏÔÅ "çõìÁÇ ðÁÌÅÓÔÉÎÙ"
ðòéìïöåîéå ðåò÷ïå
ðòåóôõðìåîéñ éúòáéìøóëïçï òåöéíá
ðòïôé÷ òõóóëïñúùþîùè ìàäåê úá çòáîéãåê
îÁÓÉÌØÓÔ×ÅÎÎÏÊ ÄÏÓÔÁ×ËÏÊ × ÇÏÓÕÄÁÒÓÔ×Ï éÚÒÁÉÌØ É ÐÒÅÓÌÅÄÏ×ÁÎÉÑÍÉ
ÒÕÓÓËÏÑÚÙÞÎÙÈ ÎÁ ÔÅÒÒÉÔÏÒÉÉ éÚÒÁÉÌÑ ÐÒÅÓÔÕÐÌÅÎÉÑ ÉÚÒÁÉÌØÓËÏÇÏ ÒÅÖÉÍÁ ÐÒÏÔÉ×
ÒÕÓÓËÏÑÚÙÞÎÏÇÏ ÍÅÎØÛÉÎÓÔ×Á ÎÅ ÏÇÒÁÎÉÞÉ×ÁÀÔÓÑ. éÚÒÁÉÌØÓËÉÊ ÒÅÖÉÍ ÐÒÏÄÏÌÖÁÅÔ
ÏÈÏÔÉÔÓÑ ÚÁ ÔÅÍÉ, ËÔÏ, ÐÏËÉÎÕ× ÐÒÅÄÅÌÙ ÇÏÓÕÄÁÒÓÔ×Á éÚÒÁÉÌØ, ÐÏÐÒÏÓÉÌ ÓÔÁÔÕÓ
ÂÅÖÅÎÃÁ ÚÁ ÇÒÁÎÉÃÅÊ. éÚÒÁÉÌØÔÑÎÅ ÔÒÁËÔÕÀÔ ÜÔÉÈ ÌÀÄÅÊ ËÁË Ó×ÏÉÈ ÂÅÇÌÙÈ ÒÁÂÏ×
É ÏÈÏÔÑÔÓÑ ÚÁ ÎÉÍÉ ÐÏ ×ÓÅÍÕ ÍÉÒÕ, ÄÏÂÉ×ÁÑÓØ ÉÈ ×ÏÚ×ÒÁÝÅÎÉÑ × éÚÒÁÉÌØ.
ïÓÏÂÅÎÎÏ ÓÔÒÏÐÔÉ×ÙÈ É ÁËÔÉ×ÎÙÈ ÉÚ ÎÉÈ ÉÚÒÁÉÌØÔÑÎÅ ÐÒÅÓÌÅÄÕÀÔ ÄÁÖÅ ÅÝÅ ÂÏÌÅÅ
ÖÅÓÔËÏ, ÄÏ ÐÏÌÎÏÇÏ ÉÈ ÕÎÉÞÔÏÖÅÎÉÑ.
÷ ÓÔÒÁÎÁÈ úÁÐÁÄÁ éÚÒÁÉÌØ ÎÅ ÐÒÁËÔÉËÕÅÔ ÉÚÂÉÅÎÉÑ É ÐÏÈÉÝÅÎÉÑ ÎÅÕÇÏÄÎÙÈ,
ÒÁÚ×Å ÞÔÏ × ÓÌÕÞÁÑÈ, ËÏÇÄÁ ÚÁÔÒÏÎÕÔÙ ÅÇÏ ÐÏÌÉÔÉÞÅÓËÉÅ É ÒÁÚ×ÅÄÙ×ÁÔÅÌØÎÙÅ
ÉÎÔÅÒÅÓÙ. òÕÓÓËÏÑÚÙÞÎÙÈ ÌÀÄÅÊ ÏÔÌÁ×ÌÉ×ÁÀÔ × ÓÔÒÁÎÁÈ úÁÐÁÄÁ É ÄÏÓÔÁ×ÌÑÀÔ
ÎÁÚÁÄ, × ÇÏÓÕÄÁÒÓÔ×Ï éÚÒÁÉÌØ, ÒÕËÁÍÉ ÍÅÓÔÎÙÈ ×ÌÁÓÔÅÊ, ËÏÒÒÕÍÐÉÒÏ×ÁÎÎÙÈ ÉÌÉ
ÚÁÐÕÇÁÎÎÙÈ ÉÚÒÁÉÌØÓËÏÊ ÁÇÅÎÔÕÒÏÊ, ÍÅÓÔÎÙÍÉ ÓÉÏÎÉÓÔÓËÉÍÉ ËÒÕÇÁÍÉ É Å×ÒÅÊÓËÉÍ
ÌÏÂÂÉ × ×ÙÓÛÉÈ ÜÛÅÌÏÎÁÈ ×ÌÁÓÔÉ.
çÌÁ×ÎÙÊ - É ÅÄÉÎÓÔ×ÅÎÎÙÊ - ÓÏÀÚÎÉË éÚÒÁÉÌÑ × ÈÒÉÓÔÉÁÎÓËÉÈ ÓÔÒÁÎÁÈ: ÜÔÏ
÷ÅÌÉËÏÂÒÉÔÁÎÉÑ, Á ÎÅ óûá É ëÁÎÁÄÁ, ËÁË ÍÎÏÇÉÅ ÐÏÌÁÇÁÀÔ. óûá É ëÁÎÁÄÁ - ÜÔÏ
ÐÒÏÓÔÏ ÚÁÈ×ÁÞÅÎÎÙÅ éÚÒÁÉÌÅÍ É ÍÉÒÏ×ÙÍ Å×ÒÅÊÓËÉÍ ÜËÓÔÒÅÍÉÓÔÓËÉÍ Ä×ÉÖÅÎÉÅÍ
ÓÔÒÁÎÙ, ÆÁËÔÉÞÅÓËÉ ÏËËÕÐÉÒÏ×ÁÎÎÙÅ É ÐÒÅ×ÒÁÝÅÎÎÙÅ × ÉÎÓÔÒÕÍÅÎÔÙ ÍÉÒÏ×ÏÇÏ
Å×ÒÅÊÓËÏÇÏ ÇÏÓÐÏÄÓÔ×Á. ëÁË ÌÀÂÁÑ ÏËËÕÐÉÒÏ×ÁÎÎÁÑ ÎÁÃÉÑ, ËÁË ÌÀÂÏÊ ÐÏÒÏÄÉÓÔÙÊ
ÖÅÒÅÂÅÃ, ÏÎÉ ×ÒÅÍÑ ÏÔ ×ÒÅÍÅÎÉ ×ÚÂÒÙËÉ×ÁÀÔÓÑ. áÎÇÌÉÑ ÖÅ - ÅÄÉÎÓÔ×ÅÎÎÙÊ
ÄÏÂÒÏ×ÏÌØÎÙÊ ÓÏÀÚÎÉË éÚÒÁÉÌÑ, É ÎÁ ÜÔÏ ÅÓÔØ ÒÑÄ ÐÒÉÞÉÎ. ëÁË É × éÚÒÁÉÌÅ, ×
÷ÅÌÉËÏÂÒÉÔÁÎÉÉ ÎÅÔ ËÏÎÓÔÉÔÕÃÉÉ, ÜÔÏ ÍÏÎÁÒÈÉÑ. ëÁË É éÚÒÁÉÌØ, ÷ÅÌÉËÏÂÒÉÔÁÎÉÑ
ÎÅ ÏÓÔÁ×ÉÌÁ Ó×ÏÉÈ ÎÅÏ-ËÏÌÏÎÉÁÌØÎÙÈ ÚÁÍÁÛÅË. ëÁË É éÚÒÁÉÌØ, ÷ÅÌÉËÏÂÒÉÔÁÎÉÑ
Ñ×ÌÑÅÔÓÑ ÓËÒÙÔÙÍ ×ÒÁÇÏÍ ÄÅÍÏËÒÁÔÉÉ É Ó×ÏÂÏÄÙ ÓÁÍÏ×ÙÒÁÖÅÎÉÑ. òÕËÁÍÉ ÍÉÒÏ×ÏÇÏ
Å×ÒÅÊÓËÏÇÏ ÜËÓÔÒÅÍÉÚÍÁ ÷ÅÌÉËÏÂÒÉÔÁÎÉÑ ÍÅÞÔÁÅÔ ×ÅÒÎÕÔØ Ó×ÏÅ ËÏÌÏÎÉÁÌØÎÏÅ
ÍÏÇÕÝÅÓÔ×Ï ÎÁ ÁÍÅÒÉËÁÎÓËÏÍ ËÏÎÔÉÎÅÎÔÅ. ÷ ÏÂÍÅÎ ÎÁ ×ÓÅÍÅÒÎÕÀ ÐÏÌÉÔÉÞÅÓËÕÀ
ÐÏÄÄÅÒÖËÕ éÚÒÁÉÌØ ÐÒÅÄÏÓÔÁ×ÌÑÅÔ ÷ÅÌÉËÏÂÒÉÔÁÎÉÉ Ó×ÏÀ ÆÉÎÁÎÓÏ×ÕÀ É
ÐÏÌÉÔÉÞÅÓËÕÀ ÓÅÔØ × ëÁÎÁÄÅ É óûá, ÉÓÐÏÌØÚÕÑ Ó×ÏÅ ÎÅÏÇÒÁÎÉÞÅÎÎÏÅ ×ÌÉÑÎÉÅ ×
óÅ×ÅÒÎÏÊ áÍÅÒÉËÅ ËÁË ÄÌÑ Å×ÒÅÊÓËÉÈ, ÔÁË É ÄÌÑ ÂÒÉÔÁÎÓËÉÈ ÎÕÖÄ.
óÔÒÅÍÑÓØ ÎÁËÁÚÁÔØ Ó×ÏÉÈ ÂÅÇÌÙÈ ÒÕÓÓËÉÈ ÒÁÂÏ× ×ÏÚ×ÒÁÝÅÎÉÅÍ ÉÈ ×
ÇÏÓÕÄÁÒÓÔ×Ï éÚÒÁÉÌØ, ÉÚÒÁÉÌØÓËÉÊ ÒÅÖÉÍ ÈÏÞÅÔ ÏÄÅÒÖÁÔØ × ÜÔÏÍ ÐÒÏÔÉ×ÏÓÔÏÑÎÉÉ
ÍÏÒÁÌØÎÕÀ É ÐÏÌÉÔÉÞÅÓËÕÀ ÐÏÂÅÄÕ. "þÔÏ ÄÒÕÇÉÍ ÎÅÐÏ×ÁÄÎÏ ÂÙÌÏ", "ÞÔÏÂÙ
ÏÓÏÚÎÁÌÉ, ÞÔÏ ÂÅÖÁÔØ ÎÅËÕÄÁ", "ÞÔÏÂÙ ÐÏÎÉÍÁÌÉ, ÞÔÏ éÚÒÁÉÌÀ, Å×ÒÅÑÍ
ÐÒÉÎÁÄÌÅÖÉÔ ×ÅÓØ ÍÉÒ"... ëÁËÉÍ ÏÂÒÁÚÏÍ ÏÓÕÝÅÓÔ×ÌÑÅÔÓÑ ÜÔÏ, ÑÓÎÏ ×ÉÄÎÏ ÎÁ
ÐÒÉÍÅÒÅ ëÁÎÁÄÙ.
éÓÐÏÌØÚÕÑ Ó×ÏÀ ÎÅÏÇÒÁÎÉÞÅÎÎÕÀ ×ÌÁÓÔØ É ×ÌÉÑÎÉÅ × ëÁÎÁÄÅ, éÚÒÁÉÌØ É
Å×ÒÅÊÓËÉÅ ÏÒÇÁÎÉÚÁÃÉÉ × ëÁÎÁÄÅ ÓÎÁÞÁÌÁ ÎÁ×ÏÄÎÉÌÉ íÉÎÉÓÔÅÒÓÔ×Ï éÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÉ
ëÁÎÁÄÙ Ó×ÏÉÍÉ ÌÀÄØÍÉ: ÉÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÏÎÎÙÍÉ ÏÆÉÃÅÒÁÍÉ, ÓÌÕÖÁÝÉÍÉ, ÉÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÏÎÎÙÍÉ
ÓÕÄØÑÍÉ É ÞÉÎÏ×ÎÉËÁÍÉ ÓÒÅÄÎÅÇÏ Ú×ÅÎÁ, ×ÐÌÏÔØ ÄÏ ÍÉÎÉÓÔÒÁ éÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÉ (ìÀÓØÅÎ
òÏÂÉÑÒ). äÅÌÁ ÒÕÓÓËÏÑÚÙÞÎÙÈ ÂÅÖÅÎÃÅ× ÉÚ éÚÒÁÉÌÑ ÒÁÓÓÍÁÔÒÉ×ÁÌÉÓØ ËÏÍÉÓÓÉÑÍÉ
ÐÏÄ ÐÒÅÄÓÅÄÁÔÅÌØÓÔ×ÏÍ ÓÕÄÅÊ Å×ÒÅÊÓËÏÇÏ ÐÒÏÉÓÈÏÖÄÅÎÉÑ, ÚÁÑÄÌÙÈ ÓÉÏÎÉÓÔÏ×,
ÉÎÏÇÄÁ ÄÁÖÅ ÇÒÁÖÄÁÎ éÚÒÁÉÌÑ: âÁÒÂÁÒÏÊ âÅÒÇÅÒ, öÁËÏÍ ìÁÓÓÁÌÅÍ, äÏÒÉÏÎÏÍ, É
ÄÒÕÇÉÍÉ. îÁ ÄÒÕÇÏÍ ÓÔÒÕËÔÕÒÎÏ-ÁÄÍÉÎÉÓÔÒÁÔÉ×ÎÏÍ ÕÒÏ×ÎÅ - ÎÁ ÕÒÏ×ÎÅ
ÉÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÏÎÎÙÈ ÏÆÉÃÅÒÏ× - × ÂÅÖÅÎÓËÉÈ ÓÌÕÛÁÎÉÑÈ ÕÞÁÓÔ×Ï×ÁÌÉ ÉÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÏÎÎÙÅ
ÏÆÉÃÅÒÙ Å×ÒÅÊÓËÏÇÏ ÐÒÏÉÓÈÏÖÄÅÎÉÑ, ÎÅÎÁ×ÉÓÔÎÉËÉ ÒÕÓÓËÉÈ É ÚÁÑÄÌÙÅ ÓÉÏÎÉÓÔÙ -
àÄÉÔ íÁÌËÁ, óÁÒÁ òÏÚÅÎÃ×ÅÊÇ É ÄÒÕÇÉÅ. íÎÏÇÉÅ ÉÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÏÎÎÙÅ ÓÕÄØÉ É
ÉÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÏÎÎÙÅ ÏÆÉÃÅÒÙ × íÏÎÒÅÁÌÅ ÎÁÐÒÑÍÕÀ Ó×ÑÚÁÎÙ Ó ÉÚÒÁÉÌØÓËÉÍ
ËÏÎÓÕÌØÓÔ×ÏÍ: ËÁË, ÎÁÐÒÉÍÅÒ, öÁË ìÁÓÓÁÌØ, ÂÙ×ÛÉÊ ÍÕÖ ÂÙ×ÛÅÊ íÉÎÉÓÔÒÁ
éÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÉ ìÀÓØÅÎ òÏÂÉÑÒ, ÐÒÅÄÓÅÄÁÔÅÌØ ÔÅÎÅ×ÏÊ ÓÔÒÕËÔÕÒÙ ÉÚÒÁÉÌØÓËÏÇÏ
ÐÒÁ×ÉÔÅÌØÓÔ×Á - ÏÒÇÁÎÉÚÁÃÉÉ éÚÒÁÉÌØ-ëÁÎÁÄÁ. þÔÏÂÙ ÎÅ ÄÏÐÕÓÔÉÔØ ÕÓÐÅÈÁ
ÁÐÅÌÌÑÃÉÊ ÎÅÓÞÁÓÔÎÙÈ ÖÅÒÔ× Å×ÒÅÊÓËÏÇÏ ÔÅÒÒÏÒÁ × æÅÄÅÒÁÌØÎÏÍ óÕÄÅ, ÂÙÌÉ
ÚÁÄÅÊÓÔ×Ï×ÁÎÙ ×ÙÓÏËÉÅ ÞÉÎÏ×ÎÉËÉ ÇÏÓÕÄÁÒÓÔ×ÅÎÎÙÈ ÀÒÉÄÉÞÅÓËÉÈ ÏÒÇÁÎÏ× ëÁÎÁÄÙ,
ËÁË, ÎÁÐÒÉÍÅÒ, ÇÏÓÐÏÄÉÎ òÏÚÅÎÂÅÒÇ, ËÁËÉÅ ×ÍÅÛÉ×ÁÌÉÓØ × ÈÏÄ ÒÁÚÂÏÒÁ ×
æÅÄÅÒÁÌØÎÏÍ óÕÄÅ ÖÁÌÏ ÂÅÖÅÎÃÅ× ÉÚ éÚÒÁÉÌÑ ÎÁ ÌÀÂÏÊ ÓÔÁÄÉÉ É × ÌÀÂÏÊ ÆÏÒÍÅ.
÷ ðÁÒÌÁÍÅÎÔÅ ×ÓÀ ÜÔÕ ÔÑÖÅÌÕÀ ÐÉÒÁÍÉÄÕ ÂÅÚÚÁËÏÎÉÊ ÐÏÄÄÅÒÖÉ×ÁÀÔ
ÄÅÐÕÔÁÔÙ-ÓÉÏÎÉÓÔÙ - ìÀÓØÅÎ òÏÂÉÑÒ, öÁË ìÁÓÓÁÌØ, éÒ×ÉÎ ëÏÔÌÅÒ, ìÅÏÎÏÒ ëÁÐÌÁÎ
É ÄÒÕÇÉÅ. ðÏÓÌÅ ìÀÓØÅÎ òÏÂÉÑÒ ÎÁ ÐÏÓÔ íÉÎÉÓÔÒÁ éÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÉ ÓÎÏ×Á ÂÙÌÁ
ÐÏÓÔÁ×ÌÅÎÁ ÏÞÅÒÅÄÎÁÑ Å×ÒÅÊËÁ - ìÅÏÎÏÒ ëÁÐÌÁÎ, ÐÕÓÔØ ÂÏÌÅÅ ÐÏÒÑÄÏÞÎÙÊ
ÞÅÌÏ×ÅË, ÞÅÍ ÁÂÓÏÌÀÔÎÏ ÂÅÓÐÒÉÎÃÉÐÎÁÑ ÓÁÄÉÓÔËÁ òÏÂÉÑÒ, ÎÏ × ÓÉÌÕ Å×ÒÅÊÓËÏÇÏ
ÐÒÏÉÓÈÏÖÄÅÎÉÑ ÎÅ ÉÍÅÀÝÁÑ ×ÏÚÍÏÖÎÏÓÔÉ ÐÒÏÔÉ×ÏÓÔÏÑÔØ Å×ÒÅÊÓËÏÍÕ ÄÁ×ÌÅÎÉÀ É
ÓÌÅÄÏ×ÁÎÉÀ Å×ÒÅÊÓËÉÍ ÉÎÔÅÒÅÓÁÍ.
þÔÏÂÙ ÄÅÊÓÔ×Ï×ÁÔØ ÎÁ×ÅÒÎÑËÁ, Å×ÒÅÊÓËÉÅ ËÒÕÇÉ ÐÒÉ×ÌÅËÌÉ Ë "ÏÈÏÔÅ ÎÁ
ÂÅÇÌÙÈ ÒÁÂÏ×" ÄÁÖÅ ÉÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÏÎÎÙÈ ÁÄ×ÏËÁÔÏ× - ÏÔËÒÙÔÙÈ ÉÌÉ ÓËÒÙÔÙÈ
ÓÉÏÎÉÓÔÏ×, - ÓÔÒÅÍÑÓØ, ÞÔÏÂÙ ÐÏÔÏË ÒÕÓÓËÏÑÚÙÞÎÙÈ ÂÅÖÅÎÃÅ× ÐÏÐÁÄÁÌ ÉÍÅÎÎÏ Ë
ÜÔÉÍ ÁÄ×ÏËÁÔÁÍ. üÔÉ ÁÄ×ÏËÁÔÙ-ÓÉÏÎÉÓÔÙ, ÔÁËÉÅ, ËÁË äÖÅÒÁÌØÄ ðÏÓÔÅÌØÎÉË ÉÌÉ
óÉÌØ×ÉÑ ìÅ×ÅË, ÂÒÁÌÉÓØ ÚÁ ÂÅÖÅÎÓËÉÅ ÄÅÌÁ ÒÕÓÓËÉÈ ÔÏÌØËÏ Ó ÏÄÎÏÊ ÃÅÌØÀ: ÞÔÏÂÙ
ÄÅÌÁ Ó×ÏÉÈ ËÌÉÅÎÔÏ× ÐÒÏ×ÁÌÉÔØ. åÓÌÉ ÄÅÌÏ ÂÙÌÏ ÓÌÉÛËÏÍ ÝÅËÏÔÌÉ×ÏÅ, ÜÔÉ
ÁÄ×ÏËÁÔÙ ÛÌÉ ÎÁ ÐÏÄÌÏÇ, ÎÁ ÏÂÍÁÎ, ÎÁ ÞÔÏ ÕÇÏÄÎÏ --ÔÏÌØËÏ ÂÙ ÔÏÒÐÅÄÉÒÏ×ÁÔØ
ÅÇÏ. ïÎÉ ÚÁÑ×ÌÑÌÉ × ëÏÍÉÓÓÉÀ ÐÏ âÅÖÅÎÃÁÍ, ÞÔÏ ÔÏÞÎÏ ÚÎÁÀÔ, ÞÔÏ ÉÈ ËÌÉÅÎÔ (Ù)
ÐÏËÉÎÕÌ (É) ëÁÎÁÄÕ, É ÂÅÖÅÎÓËÉÊ ÆÁÊÌ ÚÁËÒÙ×ÁÌÉ. óÉÌØ×ÉÑ ìÅ×ÅË É ÄÒÕÇÉÅ
ÁÄ×ÏËÁÔÙ-ÐÒÅÄÁÔÅÌÉ Ñ×ÌÑÌÉÓØ × ëÏÍÉÓÓÉÀ ÐÏ âÅÖÅÎÃÁÍ É ÚÁÑ×ÌÑÌÉ, ÞÔÏ
ÕÂÅÄÉÌÉÓØ, ÞÔÏ ÉÈ ËÌÉÅÎÔ ÐÒÅÄÓÔÁ×ÌÑÅÔ ÓÏÂÏÊ ÏÐÁÓÎÏÓÔØ ÄÌÑ ëÁÎÁÄÙ - É
ÔÒÅÂÏ×ÁÌÉ ÅÇÏ ÄÅÐÏÒÔÁÃÉÉ!!! åÓÌÉ ÎÅ ÕÄÁ×ÁÌÏÓØ ÐÏÌÎÏÓÔØÀ ÐÏÄËÕÐÉÔØ ÉÌÉ
ÚÁÐÕÇÁÔØ ÉÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÏÎÎÏÇÏ ÁÄ×ÏËÁÔÁ, ÉÓÐÏÌØÚÏ×ÁÌÉ ÅÇÏ ÓÅËÒÅÔÁÒÑ, ËÁË ÐÒÁ×ÉÌÏ,
Ó×ÏÅÇÏ ÁÇÅÎÔÁ, ËÏÔÏÒÙÊ (ÁÑ) ÕÎÉÞÔÏÖÁÌ ×ÁÖÎÙÅ ÄÏËÕÍÅÎÔÙ, ÎÅËÏÔÏÒÙÅ ÄÏËÕÍÅÎÔÙ
ÚÁÍÅÎÑÌ ÓÏÂÓÔ×ÅÎÎÏÒÕÞÎÏ ÉÚÇÏÔÏ×ÌÅÎÎÙÍÉ ÆÁÌØÛÉ×ËÁÍÉ, ÉÓËÁÖÁÌ ÓÕÔØ ÓÁÍÙÈ
×ÁÖÎÙÈ ÄÏËÕÍÅÎÔÏ×, ÍÁÔÅÒÉÁÌÏ×, ÐÏËÁÚÁÎÉÊ. üÔÉÍ ÚÁÎÉÍÁÌÁÓØ, ÎÁÐÒÉÍÅÒ,
ÓÅËÒÅÔÁÒÛÁ ÁÄ×ÏËÁÔÁ ìÅ âÒÏÎÁ üÌÅÏÎÏÒÁ âÒÏÄÅÒ, ÉÚÒÁÉÌØÓËÁÑ ÇÒÁÖÄÁÎËÁ.
ïÄÎÏ×ÒÅÍÅÎÎÏ ÂÙÌÉ ÚÁÄÅÊÓÔ×Ï×ÁÎÙ ÓÏÔÒÕÄÎÉËÉ ÍÅÄÉÃÉÎÓËÏÇÏ ÏÔÄÅÌÁ
éÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÉ É ÁÎÇÁÖÉÒÏ×ÁÎÎÙÅ íÉÎÉÓÔÅÒÓÔ×ÏÍ éÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÉ ×ÒÁÞÉ, ÔÁË ÎÁÚÙ×ÁÅÍÙÅ
ÉÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÏÎÎÙÅ ×ÒÁÞÉ. ôÁËÉÅ ×ÒÁÞÉ, ËÁË, ÎÁÐÒÉÍÅÒ, âÁÒÂÁÒÁ âÖÅÚÉÎÓËÁ (ËÓÔÁÔÉ,
ÒÏÄÓÔ×ÅÎÎÉÃÁ ÂÙ×ÛÅÇÏ ÇÏÓÓÅËÒÅÔÁÒÑ óûá), "ÓÔÁ×ÉÌÉ" ÚÁ×ÅÄÏÍÏ ÌÏÖÎÙÅ ÄÉÁÇÎÏÚÙ,
ÕÍÙÛÌÅÎÎÏ ÐÏÄÒÙ×ÁÌÉ ÚÄÏÒÏ×ØÅ Ó×ÏÉÈ ÐÁÃÉÅÎÔÏ×, ÒÁÂÏÔÁÌÉ × ÕÓÌÏ×ÉÑÈ
ËÏÎÓÐÉÒÁÔÉ×ÎÏÇÏ ÓÇÏ×ÏÒÁ Ó íÉÎÉÓÔÅÒÓÔ×ÏÍ éÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÉ. íÅÄÉÃÉÎÓËÉÊ ÏÔÄÅÌ
éÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÉ - Immigration Medical Services (IMS) - ×ÍÅÓÔÅ Ó ÉÍÍÉÇÒÁÃÉÏÎÎÙÍÉ
×ÒÁÞÁÍÉ ÚÁÎÉÍÁÌÉÓØ (É ÚÁÎÉÍÁÀÔÓÑ) ÐÏÄÌÏÇÏÍ, ÆÁÌØÓÉÆÉËÁÃÉÅÊ ÍÅÄÉÃÉÎÓËÉÈ
ÄÁÎÎÙÈ, ÍÅÄÉÃÉÎÓËÉÍÉ ÒÅÐÒÅÓÓÉÑÍÉ ÐÒÏÔÉ× ÎÅÕÇÏÄÎÙÈ, É ÜÔÏ ÏÓÏÂÅÎÎÏ ÓÔÒÁÛÎÏ É
ÎÅÐÒÉÅÍÌÅÍÏ.
÷ ÐÒÏÔÉ×ÏÓÔÏÑÎÉÉ ÂÅÖÁ×ÛÉÍ ÉÚ éÚÒÁÉÌÑ ÒÕÓÓËÏÑÚÙÞÎÙÍ ÄÉÓÓÉÄÅÎÔÁÍ
ÉÓÐÏÌØÚÏ×ÁÌÉÓØ ÛÐÉÏÎÓËÉÅ ÍÅÔÏÄÙ. îÁ ÂÏÌÅÅ ×ÙÓÏËÏÍ ÕÒÏ×ÎÅ ÂÙÌÉ ÚÁÄÅÊÓÔ×Ï×ÁÎÙ
ÉÚÒÁÉÌØÓËÉÅ ÓÅËÒÅÔÎÙÅ ÓÌÕÖÂÙ. îÁ ÂÏÌÅÅ ÖÅ ÎÉÚËÏÍ ÕÒÏ×ÎÅ ÉÚÒÁÉÌØÓËÏ-Å×ÒÅÊÓËÉÅ
ËÒÕÇÉ, ÐÒÏÔÉ×ÏÓÔÏÑÝÉÅ ÂÅÖÅÎÃÁÍ ÉÚ éÚÒÁÉÌÑ, ÐÏÌØÚÏ×ÁÌÉÓØ ÕÓÌÕÇÁÍÉ
ÍÏÎÒÅÁÌØÓËÏÇÏ ÆÉÌÉÁÌÁ ÉÚÒÁÉÌØÓËÏÊ ×ÏÅÎÉÚÉÒÏ×ÁÎÎÏ-ÏÈÒÁÎÎÏÊ ÓÌÕÖÂÙ Isra Guard.
óÁÍ ÆÁËÔ ÔÏÇÏ, ÞÔÏ ÐÏÄÏÂÎÏÇÏ ÒÏÄÁ ÉÚÒÁÉÌØÓËÁÑ ÓÌÕÖÂÁ ×ÏÏÂÝÅ ÄÅÊÓÔ×ÕÅÔ ×
ëÁÎÁÄÅ - ×ÏÐÉÀÝÉÊ. üÔÏ ÎÁÒÕÛÅÎÉÅ ÓÕ×ÅÒÅÎÉÔÅÔÁ ëÁÎÁÄÙ É ×ÍÅÛÁÔÅÌØÓÔ×Ï × ÅÅ
×ÎÕÔÒÅÎÎÉÅ ÄÅÌÁ. þÕ×ÓÔ×ÉÔÅÌØÎÁÑ, ËÏÎÆÉÄÅÎÃÉÁÌØÎÁÑ ÉÎÆÏÒÍÁÃÉÑ ÐÏÐÁÄÁÅÔ × ÒÕËÉ
ÐÏÌÉÃÅÊÓËÉÏ-×ÏÅÎÎÙÈ É ÐÒÏÞÉÈ ÏÒÇÁÎÏ× ÇÏÓÕÄÁÒÓÔ×Á éÚÒÁÉÌØ - ËÁË ÂÕÄÔÏ ÜÔÏ
ÐÒÏÉÓÈÏÄÉÔ × ×ÎÕÔÒÉ ÓÁÍÏÇÏ éÚÒÁÉÌÑ. éÚÒÁÉÌØ ÐÏÌÕÞÁÅÔ ×ÏÚÍÏÖÎÏÓÔØ
ÍÁÎÉÐÕÌÉÒÏ×ÁÔØ ÓÁÍÙÍÉ ÒÁÎÉÍÙÍÉ É ÄÅÌÉËÁÔÎÙÍÉ ÍÁÔÅÒÉÑÍÉ × ëÁÎÁÄÅ - ËÁË ÂÕÄÔÏ
ëÁÎÁÄÙ ÎÅ ÓÕ×ÅÒÅÎÎÏÅ ÇÏÓÕÄÁÒÓÔ×Ï.
÷ÓÅ ÜÔÉ ÍÅÔÏÄÙ ÈÏÒÏÛÏ ÐÒÏÓÌÅÖÉ×ÁÀÔÓÑ ÎÁ ÐÒÉÍÅÒÅ ÎÅÓËÏÌØËÉÈ ÂÅÖÅÎÓËÉÈ
ÄÅÌ.
÷ÏÔ ÜÔÉ ÄÅÌÁ (ÎÉÖÅ ÓÌÅÄÕÀÔ ÔÅËÓÔÙ ÎÁ ÒÕÓÓËÏÍ, ÁÎÇÌÉÊÓËÏÍ É ÆÒÁÎÃÕÚÓËÏÍ
ÑÚÙËÁÈ):
äÅÌÏ ÓÅÍØÉ âÕÑÎÏ×ÓËÉÈ
To The Federal Court of Canada from Galina Buyanovsky. Montreal, March
20, 1997.
Galina Buyanovsky
175 Sherbrook St.West,
Apt. 98 Montreal, Quebec,
CANADA H2X 1X5
FEDERAL COURT
Supreme Court Building Ottawa,
Ontario K1A 0H9
CANADA
Tel.(514)843-8458 See the list of the places where the copies of that
appeal are submitted below.
Dear Sirs! This appeal is formal. It composed not by a lawyer but by
the refugee claimants themselves. Despite a temptation to treat it as a
non-official letter we want an official response. We claim that a
wide-scaled conspiracy against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel
exists, and that Canadian Ministry of Immigration is manipulated by a
foreign state. This is the main reason why our refugee claim was
denied. The chairman of the immigration committee assigned to our case
was Mr. Jacques La Salle. 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 [ look over her anger
declaration
about the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel: see our BIBLIOGRAPHY
in the end, #4, ] - 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. And this person whose partiality towards the
Russian-speaking people was already recognized is sent now to hear the
cases of Russians who flied from Kazachstan. Russians from
Kazachstan are too often told that they are not eligible for the
political asylum in Canada - because they could go to Israel, not to Canada.
For example, the first hearing of a refugee claimant from Kazachstan
was dedicated to his situation in Kazachstan, when the second - to
his refusal to go to Israel. How can it happen in a country that is not
a province of Israel, but an independent state? Why refugees from
Israel who face deportation and express a will to go to Russia are sent
to Israel anyway**?
Is it true that Mr. La Salle lived in a kibbutz in Israel and holds an
Israeli passport? Is that true that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard is his ex-wife
and
his best friend now? If only one of these questions can be answered
positively - the first paragraph of our message is completely correct!
And the last question about Mr. La Salle. Since he was accused in
partiality - does it means that his decision in our case can still be in
force? We came to Canada as refugee claimants, not to Israel, and it's
obvious that our right is to be heard by an independent
commissioner, not by a person whose whole life and social activity is
devoted to Israel. The translator who worked for our lawyer, Mrs.
Eleonora Broder, has also devoted herself to Israel, but in a different
way. She sabotaged the cases of all her employer's clients, distorting
the translation of the most important documents and statements: Always
in favor of these forces which wants save Israel's face and to
send Russian from Israel back. Being afraid of her angry clients she
flied Montreal and disappeared in an unknown direction. Her most
favorite sabotage action was to distort the real indication of
nationality or another data in her translations of birth certificates,
passports,
and other documents. This trick she used when she "translated"
documents of L.M., K.R., L.G., and other people who turned to our lawyer.
Commissioners like Mr. La Salle, Mr. Dorion, and like the immigration
officer Mrs. Malka, who have visual partiality to Russian-speaking
people, based their rejections of refugees' claims on such "mistakes".
She used to change voluntarily also the meaning of refugee
claimants' stories and so called pifs' data. She placed a wrong
information about our nationalities despite our sincere statements. We came
from a country with another mentality and different culture. If a
Canadian would probably check the translation using another translator
help, we didn't. Then, again, Mrs. Broder did a back translation into
Russian for us to show that everything was translated correctly, but that
back translation actually is in contradiction with her French version.
Another interesting detail is that the most serious mistakes she did in
official documents' translations were related to the people whose
hearing were attended by Mr. La Salle, Mrs. Judith Malka and - probably -
Mr. Dorion. In other words, were attended by people whose relations to
Israel or to Jewish roots are easy to detect. If you need more
detailed and precise proof of Mrs. Broder's sabotage we can give it to
you.
Mr. La Salle based his rejection of our claim generally on one thing.
He based it not only on Mrs. Broder's sabotage, but on direct lie and
distortion of our words, too. So, he interpret our words that we were
persecuted by Israelis because they treated us as "Russians" as if we
said that in our Teudat Zehuts (internal obligatory passports) we were
mentioned as Russians, not Jews***. In reality there were no
indication of Teudat Zehuts in our words. It is obvious that the
meaning of our words is that Israelis treat fresh Russian-speaking
immigrants as strangers, not like real Jews, and this is the main
source of our problems in Israel. (Another reason is that my husband is not
a Jew). But if even there was no distortion of our words: Does Mr. La
Salle was legally and morally correct to base his rejection on "Teudat
Zehuts" issue? The indication of nationality in different kinds of ID-s
is in deep contradiction with the main moral norms of democracy. No
wonder that no democratic state (we don't speak about Israel now) has
such indication. That indication of nationality in passports in
ex-USSR and in South African Republic was accused by the democratic
press and by Human Rights organizations****. Canada has no
obligatory indication of nationality in her code. Does it means that
Canada doesn't recognizes the obligatory indication of nationality in
passports? If so, and also if we are on Canadian soil, then the
investigation about the indication of our nationality in our passports is
illegal
(at least, morally illegal as minimum). As a Canadian commissioner Mr.
La Salle couldn't make it a key issue in his rejection of our claim. As
an Israeli he couldn't ignore this issue - because in Israeli society
it is a key issue! Then, I want to attract your attention by the fact that
there is an obligatory indication of country of origin in Israel, not
only of nationality. This is the source of conflicts as well. Since the
commissioners like Mr. La Salle avoid mentioning it - this is one of
the evidences of their partiality. Let me point out that there are almost no
paragraphs in our refugee claim declaration where we mention the
indication of nationality (Russian) in my husband's passport as the
source of our troubles. In the same time we name other reasons like
social, ethnic and religious ground for persecutions and discrimination
in our life in Israel*****. Why then the "Teudat Zehuts" issue
dominates in the Immigration and Refugee Board decision in our claim?
Probably, because Mr. La Salle acts in interests of Israel, and Israel
wants to justify her obligatory indication of nationality before other
countries. Let me point out also that the "Teudat Zehut" is not an ID.
It is actually a passport. Because it's function is different from
Canada's social number or medical insurance card, or any other ID.
Social number in Canada is confidential. Then, another ID can be given
to police or to other authorities. In Israel T.Z. is the only ID
recognized by the authorities. To present T.Z. just everywhere - from clinic
to
school, from employment office to hotel - is an obligatory rule. That
fact is also ignored by the commissioners. We can analyze Mr. La Salle's
declaration paragraph by paragraph, but our main point is that the
decision in our case was visually based not on the hearing and not on
our refugee declaration, but on the very fact that we came from Israel.
We'd only like to give examples of the most ridiculous and
tendentious paragraphs of Mr. La Salle's declaration. This declaration,
which is politically and emotionally motivated, has nothing what to do
with juridical documents.
Dear Sirs! You must take into consideration that Mr. La Salle gave
identical answers to a number of refugee claimants (to family Z., for
example). 4 from 6 main topics in his answers to us and to family Z.
are identical. So, he submits a clichÊ to all his victims. He also doesn't
care to deny the credibility of the events described in our claim by
analyzing them. His attitude can be expressed in 2 sentences: It can not
be; because it couldn't happen in Israel (in such a beautiful Middle
East country!). That's why he uses such "evidences" of our "insincerity"
as "very little inter-community tension had been noted" (p.5 of his
response to our claim, p.3 of his response to family Z. claim). If even such
"evidences" were truth (we have evidences that even the members of
Israeli government claim the opposite******), they are not able to
explain or reject each event, each personal case. But it can be clearly
explained by Mr. La Salle's motivations. He unconsciously expresses
his motivations on p.4 of his decision: "Monsieur Nikitin est de
nationalitÊ russe et les deux enfants, comme leur mÊre, sont juifs"(p.4). In
other words, he didn't write "were Jewish in Israel", or "were
considered as Jewish in Israel", but he wrote "are Jewish"! That means that
for
h i m they are Jewish. So, under which laws he considered our claim:
Under the laws of Canada - or under the laws of Israel!?******* Then,
on p.5 he wrote that "Mrs. Buganovky {instead of Buganovsky} was
hesitated to answer the questions, she avoided to answer them directly,
precisely". We can comment that phrase very "directly and precisely"!
This is an old trick used by Mr. La Salle, Mr. Dorion and Mrs. Malka.
They compose a question like "are you sure that you did an attempt to
lie?" Then they demand to answer "yes" or "no" only. If you answer
"yes", that means - you're a liar, if you answer "no", it means - "I am
not sure" or "may be". In a real situation there are much more versions
of consequences if you answer "yes" or "not" directly. The paragraph #6
on p.5 is absolutely identical to the text of a rejection sent to family
Z. This paragraph doubts about what happened to our daughter in
kinder-garden and at school because of the claim that there are " no
inter-communal tensions in Israel" and because "efforts were made to
sensitize school officials to the new reality...(etc)". Mr. La Salle took
these "evidences" from s document he mentions as Exhibit A-1. But we'd
like to ask Mr. La Salle next questions: 1. How can the same
document be used as a contra-argument in the matter of two different
girls, who lived in Israel in different cities and in different time? (We
mean us and family Z.). 2. How can a document, which must be composed
before the events described in our refugee declaration took
place, be used as an "evidence"?! Does it have a license for the
future? 3. How cans Mr. La Salle to swear that if Israel claims she "made
efforts to sensitize school officials" to discrimination or violence,
the efforts were really made, or were properly made? Then, if even "efforts"
were really made (we can swear, they weren't) it doesn't mean that they
met a proper reaction of school officials! My husband and me - we
also want to express our deep concern about the credibility of this
Exhibit when it speaks about Israel. We know that this document (Exhibit
A-1 (5.4) mentions 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 the Exhibit
A-1 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 Exhibit A-1 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 can present
another evidence that Exhibit A-1 is highly contradictory and
strange in itself. On page 6 (p.3 in a response to family Z. claim) Mr.
La Salle writes (quoting Exhibit A-1), that 80% of Israel population is
mobilized to welcome new immigrants from the former USSR. It's hard to
believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any
juridical document! 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 (Mr. La Salle's intention to choose this
particular extract, and not another one, reflects his 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". The
suggestion that the Histadrut can not deny an appeal for help just
because it "open" to people from all ethnic groups, also has no logic
in it. Histadrut may be "open" but its functionaries may treat
"Russians" not like they treat Israelis. 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 hearing Mr. Sharansky has already became a minister. And
Mr. La Salle knew it. So he presented the view of Israeli government as
an "independent" view that time: as in all other occasions. He
clearly exposes the source of all the manipulations with the refugees
from Israel in Canada: Israeli government!
COMMENTS
1.See Bibliography
2.We have several examples, including a documentary film, which was
shown on CFCF12 the 10-th of March 1997, between 8 and 10 p.m.
3.The Resume of the Committee Decision, p.4, paragraph 4, -second
sentence.
4.See Bibliography, - #2.
5. See The Resume of the Committee Decision, p.1, second paragraph, and
also - p.p.1,2,3.
6.See Bibliography, - #3.
7.According to Judaism and to Israeli laws (because there is a strange
mix of civil and religious rules in Israel's juridical system) the
children's nationality is given after their mother's nationality.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. "Une comissaire du statut de rÊfugiÊ accusÊ de partialitÊ ", - by
FranÚois Berger. "LA PRESSE". Montreal. January 27, 1997.
2. "Off The Record", by Peter Wheeland. "HOUR", Montreal, December
15-21, 1994.
3. "Israeli Immigrants Finding Work", by Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
"The Canadian Jewish news", August 17, 1995. And also: "Ethiopian
Jews Riot Over Dumped Blood", by Serge Schmemann from 'NEW YORK TIMES".
"THE GAZETTE". Montreal, January 29, 1996. And
also: "Rights of Humans and Refugees", by Eugenia Kravchik. (In
Russian). An Interview With Shulamit Aloni. "Okna"("WINDOWS").
August 18, 1994. Tel-Aviv. And also: "A Non-Existent Photo of Shulamit
Aloni", by Roman Polonsky. An Interview With Shulamit Aloni.
"WIESTI". December 29, 1994. Tel-Aviv.
4."Ottawa Vows Crackdown On Phony Refugees", by Yvonne Zacharias. "THE
GAZETTE", September 7, 1996.
To Support Our Declaration We Are Also Listing Or Submitting You Next
Documents:
1)"LE MOND DIPLOMATIQUE". Issue #1, January, 1997. The declaration of
Amnesty International about the decision of Israeli
government to legalize tortures by Mossad and Shabbak over the
detainees.
2) Jews refer to non-Jewish women officially as nothing more than
'unclean meat' - shiska. This observation was cited coming from Jew,
Professor Israel Shahak in his book _Jewish History, Jewish Religion:
The Weight of 3,000 years_[Published by Pluto Press (London 1994)].
3) Hassidic Jews in New York yeshivas are among the top money
launderers in the world. They use the cloak of religion to hide their work
and they use Israel's exclusively Jewish immigration policy (the "law
of return") to escape U.S. justice by relocating to Israel. New York's
47th Street : Maariv, September 2, 1994 By Ben Kaspit, the New York
correspondent
4) American Civil Rights Review
http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/index.html
5) Multicultural Disasters http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/dv0.html
HUD Disaster Tours of Ruined Urban Areas HUD Has Destroyed
http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/stlouistour.html Immigration
Debacle! http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/imfolder.html
6)"Orthodox Again Battle Police in Jerusalem", by Douglas Jehl for "NEW
YORK TIMES". In "THE GAZETTE". July 21, 1996.
7)Efraim Sevela. "Stop The Airplane, I Have To Get Out..." A
documentary, autobiography novel. "STAV". Jerusalem, 1980. (In Russian).
8) http://www.igc.org/Womensnet/dworkin/IsraelI.html
9) http://talk.excite.com/go.webx?7@-d^86825@.ee7ba6a/86
10) http://www.colba.net/~leog/newspaper/araven.html
11)"By Way of Deception", by Victor Ostrovsky. St.Martin's Press. New
York.1990.
12)Grigory Swirsky. "The Breakthrough". New York. (In Russian).
13)"The Bungling Bank Robbers of Israel", by Doug Struck. "THE
GAZETTE". August 5,1995.
14)"Dream Homes But No Buyers", by Raine Marcus. "CITY LIGHTS", a
supplement to "Jerusalem Post", September 11, 1992.
SUPPLEMENT WE SUBMIT OR ARE PLANNING TO SUBMIT COPIES OF THAT APPEAL
TO: 1.UN Human Right Committee in Ottawa.
2.Amnesty International, London. 3.Amnesty International Division for
Refugees. 4.Canadian Ministry of Immigration. 5.The Office of Prime
Minister of Quebec. 6."LA PRESSE" 7."THE GAZETTE". 8."HOUR" 9."MAIL AND
GLOBE" 10."LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE"
11."WASHINGTON POST" 12."CHICAGO TRIBUNE" 13."BERLINER ZEITUNG"
14."ZYCIE WARSZAWY" 15."TIMES" 16."THE
GUARDIAN" 17."DOUBLE STANDARDS" (AN INTERNET ON-LINE EDITION) 18.
"EXCITE TALKS" (INTERNET) TO OTHER PLACES
AND ORGANIZATIONS
äåìï íåôåìøîéãëéè:
FROM FAMILY METELNITSKY. MONTREAL, Desember, 1996.
To Amnesty International's London Office
Why WeTurn To Amnesty International?
1) Because our complains to Amnesty International from Israel played if
not the main,a very important role during all the 2 immigration
hearings in our case. 2) Because indirectly or even directly (from a
particular point of view) they insinuated that we must be punished for our
contacts with Amnesty International. 3) Because what happened during
our 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 during the hearing the
immigration officer falsificated 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 under
the Geneva Convention act) 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 we are absolutely certain
(and we have presented undenieble evidences to the immigration
bord) that we are going to be beatten, abused or even killed if we will
be turned back to Israel.
We came to Israel in 1990 ; as many other people we had a hope for a
better life. As the most of Russian-speaking people we were
"welcomed" by a malicious anger, the state unti-Russian propaganda and
the most severe discrimination. Our son was 15 when we came
to Israel. Each of us (including our son) was assaulted, abused,
beaten, discriminated against.The ignorance of what is going on in Israel
with the Russian-speaking people can not make what we and our friends
suffered from in Israel unreal. Batteries, assaults, abuses were
real and happened to us in real life. If my son could come to school
and could hear a discussion about the last article in a Hebrew
newspaper, in which "Russians" were called sons of a bitch,
prostitutes, fools and thieves: was it "unreal"? And the computer games in
Hebrew accompanied by songs with words like "Russians, go home":They
were as real as the real life. And the social climate in Israel is so
horrible that if a child is beaten at school "because he's Russian" -
he is forced to feel guilty himself as if he's guilty in not being an
Israeli
but being a Russian.
Any person with conciseness (a journalist, an immigration official, a
human right organization official) could take a translator from Hebrew,
go to a library or to an archive and find articles in Hebrew newspapers
which have highly aggressive untie-Russian contest. And what about
thousands of articles in Russian newspapers published in Israel about
what can be called almost a genocide against "Russians"?
When they began to call my son to a draft board (because Israel has a
compulsory military service) he asked an alternative military service
each time they called him: because he was afraid of hostility towards
"Russians" within the Israeli army and also because of the rule that a
single son can not be taken into the front-line units against his will.
They gave him no decision, but kept ordering him to came to the draft
point again and again. One day a new routine order to come to the draft
point arrived. My son was ordered to come one day - but the order
have been sent one day later then the date of his appearance. A couple
of other days past before he got the order. But as soon as he got
it he immediately went to the draft board.
When he came they have arrested him incriminating him a disobedience to
the order to come. No excuse, no explanation were admitted.
Everything happened so fast that there is no doubt: they were prepared.
So, they have submitted this order for him later then the date he
was called to intentionally. He was accused in a refusal to come to the
draft board (the ignored his voluntarial arrival) and in avoiding the
military service. They have treated him like if he already was a
soldier and flied from a military unit. He was also given a soldier's number
as if
he was a soldier when in reality he never entered the army and never
wearied a military uniform. When he admitted that he's going to
become mentally ill because of the military prison they refused to give
him a Russian-speaking psychologist, and the Hebrew- speaking
psychologist couldn't speak with our son, but wrote a report based on
ungrounded insinuations. When later a Russian-speaking
psychologist appeared he translated him that report but told that it is
impossible now to dispute what the Israeli wrote.
When our son was in the military prison severe humiliations were
committed over him. All the violations of the rules and of the moral norms
in his case were too innumerable to mention them. During his
imprisonment our son was transformed from a healthy person to a mentally ill
boy. When he was released from the military prison (he was in the
prison more then 3 months; no charges were posed against him, no court
took place) the military medical committee recognized him as a mentally
ill person. When he was just imprisoned he was recognized as a
fully healthy person suitable to the military service.He received some
treatment here, in Canada, and the immigration board know it. We did
everything we could to release our son from the military prison. But
the civil lawyers refused to take his case as soon as they heard about
the conflict with the army. Some of them assaulted us refusing to take
the case.We demanded a military lawyer but the military
commandature in Jaffo denied us a military lawyer. We turned to all the
possible places like Israel Bar Association, human rights
organizations, Sharansky's Zionist Forum, Israel and foreign media,
state officials: nobody couldn't or didn't want to help us. Then we
decided to send a letter to Amnesty International. A friend of us - a
dissident and a journalist Lev G. - has contacted Amnesty International
and later submitted several faxes to them. When the authorities
realized that we complained to Amnesty International they released our
son from the military prison.
We couldn't live in Israel any more after what happened to us and to
our son there, and also because we were afraid that our son can be
arrested again if we will stay in Israel. The only reasonable solution
for us was to escape. And the only way to do it was to become refugee
claimants. We flied to Montreal in November, 1994.
We have submitted all the documentary proof we had to support our claim
to the immigration board (committee). We also sincerely
described what happened to us in our claim's atory without any
distortion or exaggeration. But what happened to us in the immigration
courtroom and between and after our 2 hearings is just incredible...
Why We Think Our Human Rights Were Violated By the Court?
Inside The Courtroom:
1)Some of the main documentary proofs (statements, affidavits, letters,
receipts, articles, ect.) were ignored as if they never existed.
2)Other extremely important documents were mentioned but were ignored
(if not - they might be an obstacle to what the judges
incriminated us). 3) Other documents (including Amnesty International's
confirmation of our complain) 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. 4) The same way our words were ignored, too. For example, I
was asked an insinuating question. My answer closed that question
by a clear and unbeatable conterargument. 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. 5)
Too often they questioned us giving us no rights to response. They
shuted us down replacing our eventual answer by their own - and later
based their conclusions not on our answers but on their own statement
posing it as our - not their - words. 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! 7) Several times the
bord members expressed their dissaproval by the norms of democracy or
by my aproval of the democracy laws. 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 Canadien but to Israeli jurisdiction. This position - neither being
ordered to the bord or being the product of the board itself - made the
courtroom a part of Israel's territory. 8)The procedure of our
immigration hearing wasn't an investigation in our case but a pure
pro-Israel's
propaganda. It's 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 bord's point of view was the
very fact that we came from Israel. But the only admissible attitude to
refugees is to base the decision on what happened to them personally,
not on which country they flied. 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.
10)Sending requests to Israeli embassy and demanding some definite
information about us, the immigration officer violated another moral
and judicial principle: Not to announce his claim to the government of
a country a refugee claimant escaped from. 11)Reading Amnesty
International's and other reports the immigration officer distorted and
sometimes falsified the documents. 12) 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 our lawyer (or our 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 our documents
may be considered as more objective and independent. 13) 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 G. family case (our cases are related,
and G. was called as a witness to our second 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 behavier towards us and
G. family was so incredibly agressive as if she had a personal reason
to punish us, or to exterminate us. 14) 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 let us speak. 15) Despite our son's mental
illness and the evidence that he can not be asked the immigration
officer asked him various questions in an aggressive manner. We
understood that questions which she asked him were nothing more then a
pure humiliation. 16) Requests which the immigration officer has
submitted to Israel weren't justified or necessary.
Outside The Courtroom:
1) Our lawyer's translator did our story translation in an provocative
and humiliated manner. She has chosen the declarative style instead of
a description intentionally: to make our story sound ridiculous. She
also sabotaged G.'s family story. When they came to Montreal G. put
everything that happened to his family in Israel in writing and gave
that piece of paper to the translator. She sabotaged the translation
distorting the sense of his story, inserting her own inventions and
sentences which sounded like provocations. He demanded a translation
back to Russian from her French version , 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 G.
from complaining. We have also other proofs of her sabotage. 2) She
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 us a favor" (We 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. 3) The
translator also sabotaged the translation of some official papers and
other documents which we and G. prepared to support our claims.
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: No documents were
translated. 4)We believe that a conspiracy between the immigration board
and the translator took place. She was given an order to insert some
particular phrases in G. story which he didn't want to see there. Later,
in the courtroom, these phrases were used against him. These phrases
were taken from articles he wrote before we escaped from Israel.
Among them were the articles which G. hasn't presented to her or to our
lawyer when she was doing the translation of his story. The
members of the immigration board have exploited these phrases again and
again: What leads to a suggestion that it wasn't
occasionally.
6) There is a visible connection between the
immigration officer - and Mr.Mark Kotlarsky, who lives in Israel. This
gentlemen is an informer and a provocateur for Israeli authorities. He
wrote an article about G. in 1994, in Israel. This article was written in a
humiliated and sarcastic manner. Mr.Kotlarsky used the information
which G. shared with him (as with his close friend ) against him. This
article is outright slander, mystification, false insinuations and
lie.. Before G. discovered that Mark Kotlarsky is the government agent he
told
him some things which G. never told to any other person. But during our
immigration hearing and during the hearing of family G. these
things were used by the immigration officer against us. We have no
other explanation but that she's in a contact with Mr.Kotlarsky.
7)
Then, we have a reliable source of information which says that the
immigration officer, the member of the immigration board in our cases, is
an Israeli. Because of some reasons we'd like not to present the
evidences for that. But this paragraph can play an informative role only.
We have no pretensions to demand you to believe in that. From the other
hand if the immigration officer is an Israeli (it can be confirmed, if
somebody wants to find out) and the patriot of Israel (the last is too
clear), she has no moral and - may be - legal rights to judge in refugees'
from Israel cases.8)When G.'s came to Montreal they gave G.'s wife's
birth certificate and it's legal translation to our lawyer. Dispute the
submission of that legal translation the lawyer's translator did her
own translation. Now we discovered that she sabotaged ("refused") to
translate his wife's parents' nationality. There is a clear connection
between that sabotage and the immigration officer's tactics in that
issue. The immigration court decision came to us at the 14 of December,
1996. The denial of our claim for a refugee status doesn't reflects
what really happened during our immigration hearings and has almost no
connection with our claim. It is a masterpiece of rhetoric and
profanation. This document is a next proof that an only decisive voice
in our case was the voice of the immigration officer. She was a real
judge - and the official judges were just mutes. The text of "their"
negative decision reflects her style and based on her words exclusively:
Her declarations she made during our hearings are reflected in this
document pretty good. But this document ignore our answers
completely: As if we kept silence all the time. When in reality some of
our counterarguments completely discredited her insinuations.
Nothing what the judges said during our immigration hearing is
reflected in the immigration board decision, what means that the decision to
deny our claim was made by the immigration officer only (without the
judges) when according to the rules she has no decisive voice but only
a consultative voice. The denial's text is much the declaration about
Israel then a statement of an immigration committee. It based on an
acsioma that Israel is a democratic state (society). Such a declaration
lays beyond the juridical matter: Because there is not in jurisdiction of
an immigration board to decide which state is a democracy and which is
not. This is a privilege of an academic institution but not of an
executive board. Then it is an act of injustice to declare that Israel
is a democracy in an imperative manner giving the refugee claimants no
possibility to present their view and their counterarguments. It is
clear from what was discussed during our immigration hearings that Israel
has almost nothing in common with democracy. A permission to leave the
country, an indication of nationality and the country of origin in
special enternal passports, a supremacy of the religious laws over the
civil code, a right for a military committee to decide who is a single
son - and who's not, an imprisonment for months without an official
accusation: All these and hundreds of other Israeli laws are suitable
may be for a mental hospital - but not for a "democratic society". An
opinion expressed by the document that we should not escape to
Canada but should seek a help in Israel also has nothing what to do
with the reality. We did everything to defend ourselves in Israel, and G.
as a journalist and the human righta activist did everything that was
possible to help us.He presented tenth of receipts of his complains to
various ministries and organizations including the Ministry of Police,
the Ministry of internal affairs and police, which were unanswered, to
the immigration committee. The sad truth is that the committee just
ignores everything. And recognize only the ungrounded Israel's
declarations. And the immigration officer - a person who sends faxes to
Israeli embassy, obtains documents there;in other words who's in
tight connection with Israelis - is the only person who has a decidable
voice in the refugees from Israel cases... Isn't that sad?!
We can not go back to Israel under no condition, because
1) my husband and my son may be arrested by the militaries and
imprisoned. I expressed my grounded fears about that during the hearings
- and I can widen them now. 2) How can we go back to Israel if the
immigration officer informed the Israelis about our refugee claim? In
Israel where the ideology and the patriotic education play a very
important role we will be considered as "traitors" and will be persecuted
for
that, too. 3) Persecutions against us in Israel were so strong that if
we would be send back to Israel we will die. 4) After receiving so called
"21-st military profile" my son has no future in Israel: Because in
Israel people who are given that "profile" can not study, and nobody will
employ my son with such a "profile". 5) After all the persecutions we
faced in Israel we feel fear - and we are afraid to go back; our fear, our
psychological tremor towards Israel are so strong that there is
impossible for us to live in Israel any more. In the name of God, in the
name
of Justice - HELP US!!!
CONCLUSIONS: our 2 immigration hearings (as well as hearings in G.
case) have nothing in common with any legal procedure. They rather
remine of an incuisition court or a secret political tribunal. This
tribunal was arranged to punish us for flieding Israel and G. - for his
ideological views - not to decide whether or not our (ours and G.
family's) 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
refugee status. 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 violative ritual of humiliations
over the juridical norms then that... It is absolutely clear for the
judges - as well as for ourselves - that we were severely persecuted in
Israel,
that all members of our family were severely abused and that the
definite casualties were inflicted to our health, including our son. It is
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. 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. sp; *
The court's negative decision (resume) was
made and expressed in an inappropriate manner without any clear
connection to our real case. The decision was clearly made by the
immigration officer, not by the judges. She is an Israeli patriot and
she hates the Russian-speaking people. Everything what is expressed in
the decision document is basicly a lie. The text of that document is
politically motivated and juridically illegal. This is just the next stage
of
injustice.
SUPPLEMENTS (if required):
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.
6.DETAILED COMMENTARY TO THE HEARINGS.
7.COURT'S RESUME (DECISION).
8.DETAILED COMMENTARY TO THE COURT'S RESUME (DENIAL OF OUR CLAIM).
SINSERELY YOURS, LUDMILA METELNITSKY
telephone number: (514) 845-8216
address: Ludmila Metelnitsky, 3440 Durocher Str., Apt.1602, Montreal,
Quebec, H2X 2E2, CANADA
AN ADJUSTMENT
We came to Israel in 1990; as many other people we had a hope for a
better life. As the most of Russian-speaking people we were
"welcomed" by a malicious anger, the state unti-Russian propaganda and
the most severe discrimination. Our son was 15 when we came to
Israel. Each of us (including our son) was assaulted, abused, beaten,
discriminated against. The ignorance of what is going on in Israel with
the Russian-speaking people can not make what our friends and we
suffered from in Israel unreal. Batteries, assaults, abuses were real and
happened to us in real life. If my son could come to school and could
hear a discussion about the last article in a Hebrew newspaper, in which
"Russians" were called sons of a bitch, prostitutes, fools and thieves:
was it "unreal"? And the computer games in Hebrew accompanied by
songs with words like "Russians, go home": They were as real as the
real life. And the social climate in Israel is so horrible that if a child
is
beaten at school "because he's Russian" - he is forced to feel guilty
himself as if he's guilty in not being an Israeli but being a Russian.
Any person with conciseness (a journalist, immigration official, a
human right organization official) could take a translator from Hebrew, go
to a
library or to an archive and find articles in Hebrew newspapers which
have highly aggressive untie-Russian contest. And what about
thousands of articles in Russian newspapers published in Israel about
what can be called almost genocide against "Russians"?
When they began to call my son to a draft board (because Israel has a
compulsory military service) he asked an alternative military service
each time they called him: because he was afraid of hostility towards
"Russians" within the Israeli army and also because of the rule that a
single son can not be taken into the front-line units against his will.
They gave him no decision, but kept ordering him to come to the draft point
again and again.
One day a new routine order to come to the draft point arrived. My son
was ordered to come one day - but the order has been sent one day
later then the date of his appearance. A couple of other days past
before he got the order. But as soon as he got it he immediately went to the
draft board.
When he came they have arrested him incriminating him a disobedience to
the order to come. No excuse, no explanation was admitted.
Everything happened so fast that there is no doubt: they were prepared.
So, they have submitted this order for him later then the date he was
called to intentionally. He was accused in a refusal to come to the
draft board (they ignored that he arrived voluntarily) and in avoiding the
military service. They have treated him like if he already was a
soldier and flied from a military unit. He was also given a soldier's number
as
if he was a soldier when in reality he never entered the army and never
wearied a military uniform. When he admitted that he's going to
become mentally ill because of the military prison they refused to give
him a Russian-speaking psychologist, and the Hebrew- speaking
psychologist couldn't speak with our son, but wrote a report based on
ungrounded insinuations. When later a Russian-speaking psychologist
appeared he translated him that report but told that it is impossible
now to dispute what the Israeli wrote.
When our son was in the military prison severe humiliations were
committed over him. All the violations of the rules and of the moral norms
in
his case were too innumerable to mention them. During his imprisonment
our son was transformed from a healthy person to a mentally ill boy.
When he was released from the military prison (he was in the prison
more then 3 months; no charges were posed against him, no court took
place) the military medical committee recognized him as a mentally ill
person. When he was just imprisoned he was recognized as a fully
healthy person suitable to the military service. He received some
treatment here, in Canada, and the immigration board knows it. We did
everything we could to release our son from the military prison. But
the civil lawyers refused to take his case as soon as they heard about the
conflict with the army. Some of them assaulted us refusing to take the
case. We demanded a military lawyer but the military commandature in
Jaffo denied us a military lawyer. We turned to all the possible places
like Israel Bar Association,human rights organizations, Sharansky's
Zionist Forum, Israel and foreign media, state officials: nobody
couldn't or didn't want to help us. Then we decided to send a letter to
Amnesty
International. A friend of us - a dissident and a journalist Lev G. -
has contacted Amnesty International and later submitted several faxes to
them. When the authorities realized that we complained to Amnesty
International they released our son from the military prison.
We couldn't live in Israel any more after what happened to us and to
our son there, and also because we were afraid that our son can be
arrested again if we will stay in Israel. The only reasonable solution
for us was to escape. And the only way to do it was to become refugee
claimants. We flied to Montreal in November 1994.
I don't want describe the whole farce of so called "immigration
hearings". There were 2 of them.
Any positive decision couldn't be taken in our case since the
immigration officer assigned to our case is a Jew, probably, an Israeli, and
she
hates the Russian-speaking people. We prove in our later appeal that it
was her who took the decision in our case.
Several months ago when our son was on a party, one gay called him out
and took him to a car.
That gay was drunk. When driving the car he damaged several parked
vehicles. Later we discovered that he took another person's car.
Despite the clear evidences that not my son drove the car police
accused him. We also have an audiotape where that other boy recognizes
that he (not our son) was guilty. There is a recorded telephone
conversation on this tape. Just everything was ignored during the first
criminal
hearing in that case. Of cause it looks as if my son accompanied that
gay - it's enough to accuse him. But you must take into consideration that
he is psychologically, mentally ill after Israeli military prison. A
healthy person could refuse to hear what that gay told him but my son is a
sick
person!
I believe that this was MOSSAD's provocation, and I believe that the
politicians are still behind everything what is going on around us.
If somebody can do something to help us to avoid deportation to Israel,
HELP US!!!
DO SOMETHING!!!
Sincerely yours, Ludmila Metelnitsky
Please, call us to (514)-845-8216. Montreal.
Ludmila Metelnitsky
December 1996 - March 1997
Montreal
äåìï çõîéîùè
FROM FAMILY GUNIN
Folder of Documents about abuse and injustice, partial decisions and
inhuman actions by Canadian Immigration on request of the State of Israel
against a peaceful and talented family
Order of documents:
#1 (this document): To the Federal Court,
# 2: Post Determination Appeal ,
#3: Translator's Sabotage,
#4: Appeal (Alert) to Amnesty International,
#5: IRB's Conclusive Decision,
#6: List of Documents,
#7: BRIEF DESCRIPTION
#8: From Alla GUNIN to the Federal Court,
#9: Appeal to UN Refugee Tribunal,
#10: Humanitarian Appeal (Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds),
#11: To QUEBEC's Children Rights Committee (in French),
#12: From Elisabeth GUNIN - Humanitarian Cases ,
#13: Events in March-August, 1999, in Hebrew, French, English, Russian
and Polish
#14: Declaration
#14-a: The WITNESS (Autobiographical essay)
#15: The Enforcement of Immigration's persecutions against Gunins (list
of 1998-1999 events)
#16: Grigory SVIRSKY: Appeal to Prime Minister of Canada
#17: Another short description of GUNINS case
#18: New Persecutions - April - May, 2000
#17: Leo's Old Mother Is Under Persecutions
#18: Manipulation of medical data and personnel by Immigration
#19 ALARMING SOS: Usage of falsified medical data against GUNINS - last
update December 2000
After been denied the refugee status
and the rights to appeal to the Federal
court, after years of humuliations and
abuse of justice, family Gunin received a
positive decision to their humanitarian
reasons appeal. In spite of granting them
the landed immigrant status Immigration
is trying now to freeze their file to avoid
giving them the permanent residents
papers and continues persecutions.To
punish Lev Gunin they startet to
humiliate over his old mother (check the
link)
Complete update of GUNINS tragedy is
here
Next Document <> Main Page
For The Federal Court, Second-Stage Appeal Procedure
FROM Lev GUNIN (FILE Number 2948-6524/ 95/76/23/18
ID: 3082-7125/7174/7220/7231/7317/ )
FOR THE FEDERAL COURT, AFFIDAVIT February 24, 1998
LIST OF ITEMS
INTRODUCTION: An explanation why some important (from my point of view)
details never appeared in my refugee claim.
(This document).
1. Why the refugee board's decision has formed an additional
risk of return for my family, and me.
(This document).
2. How my lawyer's translator torpedoed my chances to get a positive
decision.
(Document #3).
4. My observations regarding the hearings and the negative decision
(Document # 3).
(Group of Documents #4).
5. My observations regarding the text of the negative decision
("Conclusive Decision").
(Document # 5).
6. My final statement.
(This document, paragraph 1.7.).
In any decision in our case I ask you to take into consideration the
next documents, which I have submitted on November
the 7-th, 1997, for post-determination revue.
7. Adjustment to my refugee claim as an essential explanation of that
risk.
(Document # 2).
8. List of supporting documents.
(Document # 6).
9. Supplements.
(Group of Documents # 7).
10.List of Organizations.
(Document AC)
INTRODUCTION
Introduction.1. There are some important, from my point of view,
details, which never appeared in my refugee claim.
My advisers were strongly opposed to the next passages.
a) Anything that could throw a shadow to the state's of Israel good
image.
b) Statements, which would mention Israeli army.
c) Any claims, which could include politics or politically motivated
persecutions.
Introduction.2. They said (may be, indirectly) that the influence of
Israeli lobby is very strong everywhere. They said
that by mentioning about the violations of Russian speaking people'
human rights in Israel, discrimination of them in
Israeli army, or politics behind persecutions, from which we suffered
in Israel, we could make the commissioners just
furious. They could accuse us in exaggerations (a word, which became
very popular when an excuse must be
found for an inhuman action) and refuse to accept us as refugees.
Introduction.3. These advisors (including my wife) partly convinced me,
partly sounded ultimate. Now I see even
better then before, that they were right, and I must completely
recognize their marvelous competition. Now I could
understand that my lawyer's, maitre's Le Brune, recommendations were
very wise. In the same time my lawyer's
translator inserted 2 statements into my refugee claim, which I never
authorized her to insert and which were in
complete contradiction to my lawyer's recommendations. The 1-st is a
statement that I was a well-known dissident in
ex-USSR. The 2-nd is a declarative passage about slavery. In the
Document #3 you could read more about this.
Introduction.4. Suspending some information from entering my refugee
claim I did it because I was afraid that the IRB members - instead of
defining my chances to be a conventional refugee - would define my "guilt".
Introduction.5. But during our refugee hearings (because of my lawyer's
translator's distortions and because of
commissioners' aggressive behavior) I was forced to mention such
things, which I decided not to mention before.
When it became clear that the commissioners were extremely partial
towards us, and that we had no what to loose,
all three above-mentioned "self-restrictions" became not important any
more.
Introduction.6. In the same time events, which I was afraid to mention
in my refugee claim and my lawyer did not
recommend to mention, were accessible for the Immigration Board as
others (besides my main refugee claim)
documents in my file. I handed them over to my lawyer, and he adjusted
them to my file before or between the
hearings. It means that the information, which I enter now in Document
# 2, is not new, and was in my immigration
file before. In the same time, it was up to my lawyer to share this
information or not. Recently I took all documents,
which were in my file, away from my lawyer, including letters to
Jerusalem Post (see Document # 5 in
Supplements), and others. My lawyer's notes were written on top of
them, what you can see on one of the copies. It
means that I have rights to mention them now because by time of our
refugee hearings they were accessible for the
commissioners because were part of my immigration file.
1
1.1. In this document, I am going to explain, prove and show, why and
how all my family members, and I, would face
risk to life, extreme sanctions and inhuman treatment not just because
of the danger for us in general, but also
because of the refugee board members' actions.
Please, do not make a final decision in my case without studying all
supporting documents, because they content the
main argumentation about this risk.
1.2. This risk of return to Israel has been increased during our
residency in Canada because of the next actions of
IRB members.
A). IRB, assigned to our file, contacted Israel and informed Israelis
about our refugee claim in Canada (see Group of
documents # 4, Document # 3, p.p. 1,2,3; Document # 1, page 1,
paragraph # 3, point 5), also p.2, point
11), also p.3, point 8); and also Supplements, Documents # 6, 7). That
would increase the possibility of
vengeance to us from Israeli authorities.
B). Even if a definite information - that the embassy of Israel in
Canada could already know about the content of our
immigration file - is wrong, sooner or later they would know it. Trying
to find defense and justice, I have submitted a
short description of our immigration hearings and of the final IRB'
negative decision to hundreds of human rights
organizations and to thousands of other destinations. I made them
available on Internet for the same purposes. So,
Israelis know them, too, anyway.
C). In the same time the IRB commissioners and the immigration officer
instead of defining whether or not we could
face persecutions in Israel (as we claimed), concentrated on accusing
us as if it was a criminal court. They
characterized me as an exaggerator and defamator, dangerous (they do
not use this word but it is the only
characteristic of what they meant) to the state of Israel* (see
commentaries in the end of this part). Their insinuations that I turned to
innumerous places in Israel, including human rights organizations, MP's,
police, Amnesty International (see the list of them in Supplements, Document
# 8; see also copies of documentary proof of my appeals to
various organizations in Supplements, Documents # 9,10,11,12) not
because I looked for protection but to
"spread slender about Israel"** (see comments 2 at the end of that
part), seem absurd and outraged only in Canada, but not in Israel! Even here
(in Canada) they were used as an excuse to deny our refugee claim, and the
negative decision
was logically presented as a "punishment" for "slander" and
"exaggerations" (see Document #5, p. 1; 2 last
paragraphs on the bottom of the page, p.2, paragraphs 1, 2). Israeli
authorities would consider Montreal's
"immigration court's" (IRB) decision to define us as enemies of Israel
and dangerous exaggerators, as a leading
order (not just an excuse) to persecute us. As a Jew and, probably, an
Israeli, the immigration officer, Mrs. Malka,
expressed her almost open hatred and partiality towards my personality
in such tones and colors, which could
perfectly correspond to the manners and mentality of Israelis. Their
most sensitive feelings would be touched by her
words, and that would make my destiny even more miserable if I would be
removed to Israel (please, read the
whole Group of Documents #4, and Document # 5). She also expressed open
threats, including a threat to
open a criminal procedure against me... (see Group of Documents # 4).
D). By their attitude, the commissioners during the hearings and in the
negative decision somehow separated me
from other members of my family. They almost openly let know that my
family suffering and refused the status only
because of my political views. That could provoke Israelis to separate
me from my family or even take away our
children (I know several precedents). Rejection of my refugee claim
because of my attitude towards the state of Israel
(in other words, my political views) is the main topic of the negative
decision. That would encourage Israelis to do just
anything to me (if Canadian court did what it did, why should they
wait?): to imprison me, place to a mental hospital, or kill. I am absolutely
sure that within days or weeks I could be imprisoned in Israel and,
probably, killed in custody not just because of objective factors, but also
because of what the commissioners' did.
E). The political situation in Israel has been changed, too, since we
left, to the worse. I present documents (see
Supplements, Document # 19), which shows that the present extremist
government is not ready to maintain just
any tolerance. This is why the commissioners' actions would lead to
more severe consequences if we would be
removed back to Israel. By the time of the hearings these changes
already took place, and the commissioners had to
know pretty good about that...
F). Policemen in Israel could still remember my wife's, mother's, and
my own complains; I also turned to the Ministry
of Police and Ministry of Internal Affairs. Now, - when in their brief
description of my refugee claim members of IRB
severely distorted my claim (see Document #5, page 2, Comments), - how
could we turn for defense in Israel any
more? The IRB members' action made us completely insecure and
unprotected in Israel (if removed there). [Since
the context of their negative decision is already known to Israeli
authorities].
* The negative decision mentioned the paragraph about slavery in my
refugee claim (which Mrs. Broder inserted) in ignorance of: 1) my words that
the translator distorted my statement, 2) my explanation that this paragraph
correspond to a specific tendency in Israel called "kablanut", 3) two
newspaper articles, which described "kablanut" and openly denounced it as
slavery. (See these articles in Supplements, Doc. #81). An affidavit about
the event, on which "my" statement about slavery was based, was given to me
in Israel by Lev Ginsburg (see Supplements, Doc.82). We became victims of
extreme generalization, when submitted by partial Israelis "affidavits" were
respected more then even human life - and thousands of affidavits, articles
and other documents provided by another side were totally ignored.
Documents, which demonstrated non-competence and partiality and were
provided by the members of Israeli government
(Mr. A. Charanski), its institutions (Israeli embassy) or committed to
Israeli government fundraisers (Dr. Livny) were presented as only reliable
and "independent"!
** After expressed by IRB members' insinuations that I turned to
various organizations and institutions in Israel not for protection but to
"spread slander" I could have no protection in Israel any more if removed
there. IRB's insinuation is a verdict for non-protection in the state of
Israel! How could we go back there now?!
CHILDREN.
During our refugee hearings, the commissioners had chances to observe
our children.
They could not ignore that the children are deeply suppressed and still
not in norm.
Because of abuses and insults, both Ina and Marta had nervous tics and
hyper kineses. It stopped only about one
year ago. We possess a videocassette as a proof that during the period
of refugee hearings the children still had
impulsive face muscles' contractions and other visual neurological
disorders.
We also had a psychological evaluation at this point concerning Ina.
From observing our children, the commissioners could understand that
because the children are shy and timid they
could be abused or even killed by Israeli children. That would bring
additional danger to their lives. Such children as
ours have always much more chances to be abused or even killed in the
countries with the dominated "east temper".
Because in spite of the time, which passed since we came from Israel to
Canada, both Ina and Marta visually reacted
to the discussion about their life in Israel with horror and fear, the
commissioners had a chance to see how deep the
psychological trauma affected the children and also how easy such
children could become targets for abuses in
Israel.
The description of multiple assaults of our children were also ignored
by the commissioners. The IBR members also
probably knew that by the time of our hearings Israeli authorities
could take children away from Christian, atheist,
mixed, or non-traditional Jewish families...
In the text of their negative decision the IRB members seriously
distorted some paragraphs of our refugee claim,
which described multiple abuses against our children.
Through all mentioned above (active or passive) actions, the IRB
members had shown themselves as people with no
mercy, open to cruelty and ready to commit abuses themselves. If they
had no attention or mercy even towards the
children, who then they are and how could such people make a decision
in our case?!
WIFE.
The commissioners had also a chance to observe my wife.
My wife Alla (look over our refugee claim) suffered very much from
multiple abuses, batteries, insults, and
discrimination in Israel. That all caused already serious damage to her
mental and physical health. During first two
years in Canada, she suffered from the consequences of that damage. (A
surgery was done to her in relation with
what happened to her in Israel; she often cute her hands, stroke
herself not on purpose because of her mental
disorder; once she spent several days in an emergency; by then a danger
has threaten her life).
A psychologist found her mental disorders serious enough. He told us
that they came in result of her previous life
period, what means in result of our life in Israel. (See her medical
reports: Supplements, Documents #13, 14,
15, 16, 17, 18).
Only about a year and a half ago her mental and physical wounds started
to heal, and she came almost completely
back to norm. But even now more time is needed and the danger of
deportation back to Israel has to be liquidated for
complete improvement of her health.
During our refugee hearings, the IBR members had to see that she was
paralyzed by fear and horror so much that
hardly could speak. They could see that she was near an emotional
collapse, and they had to understand that it must
be connected with what happened to us in Israel.
By observing us, by listening to my wife's, and my, replies IBR members
could easy understand that we belong to a
rare type of people, for whom any suppression of their own pride is
unbearable. We could become refugee
claimants and agreed for all the degrading procedures only because of a
threat to our lives, only! We care about our
children lives, and we know that they need us. Otherwise, we would
never let a person like Mrs. Judith Malka
humiliating over us! It was absolutely clear that something really
serious (like a threat to our lives) had to happen to
force people like us to become refugee claimants.
To ignore their observations the IRB members had not to care about our
fate at all. Their indifference demonstrated
that they came with prepared in advance negative attitude towards all
Russian speaking refugees from Israel in
general. Nothing could change this attitude, no matter who is sitting
in front of them... It was visually clear that such a
partial attitude could not be affected by their emotions, by
compassion; or they rather had no emotions, no
compassion at all...
Please, read my wife's statement in Group of Documents # 4, Document #
2.
MY MOTHER.
Everything that corresponds to my children and my wife corresponds to
my mother as well. If the commissioners had
no mercy towards the children and towards the woman, who suffered so
much, then may be they expressed
compassion towards an old mother who might loose her single son (she
told them that her younger son died) if we
would be removed to Israel? No, they had no shame before an old mother
to use their unfair methods and
demonstrate no sign of a mercy!
ME
I am the very person, whom Israelis persecuted long before then I was
taken to Israel (see Document #2). I was
taken to Israel by force, against my will (see Document #2, page 4,
paragraphs 2.16., 2.17., and the NOTE).
When I was in Israel, Israeli State radio (RADIO RECA) called me in one
of its auditions (3 December 1993, around
noon) "a racist." The radio correspondent Daniela Linor gave an
opposite meaning to one of my articles (see
Supplements, Document # 27). In that article ("Israeli (Jewish)
Apartheid") I denounced the discriminatory practice
of Israeli authorities against some of the ethnic minorities, including
Buchara origins. If not my good relations with
some of the Buchara people and my attempts to help some of them to
fight discrimination, I could be in a serious
danger. The community of Buchara is one of the most sensitive and
united communities in Israel. This event was
already discussed during my immigration hearings, but the IRB committee
did no comments. One newspaper
("Vremja", 5 September 1994, page 18), which published my article "Why
Israel is against the Victory Day?", in its
comment called the public to destroy all my works and presented me as
traitor and enemy. It was very well known
that this newspaper was by then close to the right opposition led by
Mr. Netanyagu, and expressed its opinions (see
the original and its translation in Supplements, Document #28). IRB
members did no comments to that, too.
The same newspaper ("Vremja", 1 August 1994, Supplements, Document #
29) placed an interview with me,
distorting my words and trying to discredit me. The interviewer, Mr.
Mark Kotlarsky, was my friend, and I trusted him.
But he composed that interview in a humiliating manner, portraying me
as a traitor, pathologically tiresome and stupid
person. Pretending to be half serious - half joking he told about me
things, which he never discussed with me and
which could turn the whole anger of Israeli ultra-patriots against me.
He had no personal reasons for that provocation
and it could be explained only by the involvement of the authorities.
(This interview and circumstances, which
surrounded it, were discussed during my immigration hearings). During
one of our immigration hearings Mrs.
J. Malka, the immigration officer, used non-conventional methods to
distort the reason, why I presented this article,
and did not let me speak. In the same time, she used some information,
which I shared with Mr. Mark Kotlarsky only.
In 1993, I was attacked in Tel-Aviv after my conversation with "MAARIV"
and "Yidiot Achronot" correspondent,
Avraham Pelet. (See my refugee claim). Mrs. J. Malka's attitude towards
this event and her "evaluation" of it was the
same: not to let me speak! Multiple attempts by the governmental
structures to confront me with anger of the most
sensitive and dangerous in anger social and ethnic groups could lead to
my death and were equal to assassination
attempts. Even here, in Montreal, Israelis threaten me through people,
whom I knew in Israel (listen to the tapes of
my last immigration hearing), or via E-mails, or by telephone calls
(see Document #30 of Supplements). I also
presented a letter from Israel to the Immigration Board. This letter
also informed about such threats (see my file).
These threats are not jokes! To send such a person (who was considered
by such a sensitive - towards ideological
opponent - state as Israel as an enemy) backmeans to sign him (me) a
death penalty. Know that by sending me back
to Israel you would kill me! I am writing this just to remind you what
you might be responsible for.
But Mrs. Malka several times threatened me directly during the
hearings, one time even suggested that she will start a
legal procedure against me in civil (or - may be in criminal?) court.
But if even a politically motivated threat to my life could not exist,
even then risk to my life could always exist in Israel
because a person like me could never accommodate in strictly regulated
- ideologically, religiously, ethnically,
socially, politically, and military - society as Israeli. And it had to
be evidently clear to the board! It clearly evaluated
from the refugee hearing procedures! I had innumerous incidents in
Israel, which were already described in my
refugee claim. It had to be evidently clear to the IRB members (from
the background of our conversation) that I could
add a description of others less or more serious incidents and
conflicts, which used to happen to me in Israel
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
confrontatio