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