n might become one of the main threats to my life if I would be removed to Israel. This confrontation has begun in my native city (see Document #2). In Warsaw it jeopardized (see the same document, p.p. 4, 5). When we were placed in the hotel in Warsaw, our guardians have repeatedly told us that we are going to pay a hard price for inviting our Polish friends to the Central railway station. They accused us that we almost destroyed the whole operation of transporting the Soviet Jews, and that Warsaw was almost closed as a transit point because of us. Later, in airplane, other guardians told us that our flight was postponed for almost two hours (that was true) also because of us. I could not by then and can not now verify if there was any real information behind their words, but I am sure that there were Mossad men, and they were very angry on us. In Ben Gurion airport, in a room, where all fresh arriving males were called, another Mossad man told me that I have to face the full responsibility for what happened in Warsaw, and there would be severe consequences for me. He was also angry because of my refusal to answer his questions. He told me that he knows that I had problems with KGB. He told also that they know from some of my friends (I immediately thought about Rodov) that I used to collect information about KGB. He asked me where I keep this information - in my memory or in writing - and asked me to share it with them. He spoke Russian with Hebrew accent (probably, studied Russian somewhere), and he has a wound, probably, from the battlefield. He was tired and sad, and I felt sympathy to him. But I could not share my observations about KGB with him because I remembered that (according to my conclusions and some books) KGB and Mossad worked together. Because of my sympathy to him and because I was disoriented, desperate and afraid I could not keep silence. I told that the only KGB man I saw in my life close was the chairperson of local KGB in Bobruysk when he came to read a lecture to the Jewish club. He asked me who invited him to the club. I told that the chairman of the club, Rodov, invited him. Or he might order Rodov to invite him...He wasn't satisfied by my answers. He started to speak to me in a sharp manner, even shouted on me. He expressed his anger clear enough and told that because of my refusal to cooperate fully I may be contacted later. During the refugee hearings the board members just did not let me speak about that all... Some of that facts were not described in my refugee claim or during the hearings because of 3 reasons: my lawyer's recomendations(see p.1 of this Document), his translator's sabotage (see Document # 3), or IRB members refusal to let me speak (see Group of Documents # 4, Document #1). My lawyer's recommendations were good until the IRB members started to use "unconventional" methods and aggressive behavior. Analyzing my conversation with Mossad (Shabak) officer at Ben-Gurion airport I came to conclusion that information they could collect some additional information about me from my manuscripts, which were confiscated during (after) our flight Warsaw-Tel-Aviv (Lod). Protesting against confiscation of some of my belongings I turned to Ben-Gurion's airport administration, to other institutions and organizations. You could see a copy of one of my complains composed in 1991: and, if you would doubt that it was composed in 1991, I could give you the original, which could be checked and which age could be determined in one or another way. (See Supplements, Documents # 40, 41, 42). I was contacted by Mossad in Israel after the airport's conversation. Defense, suspension of persecutions, and help in obtaining prosperity were proposed by then in exchange to suspension of my human rights and journalistic activity. To prove that I could present not only a letter from Israel (which was discussed during our last immigration hearing), but also other material proofs like business card with the name and telephone number of the person, who contacted me, and so on. (Supplements, Document # 43). Here are just several examples of how important were the things, which the IRB did not let me to tell. I could give more examples of the most vital for the valuation of my case things, which description was blocked by the IRB. They used aggressive behavior, psychological pressure, administrative orders, and even threats for preventing me from the particular things' description. In the same time, these things might be critical for the question of not just mine, but all family members' life or death! One of the most significant indications that the danger to my life always exists in Israel is that Israeli police abused me. IRB members could speak non-stop about how it was not typical, but they could not deny the fact of abuse itself. In Israel, where tortures by police or army are legal (see Supplements, Documents # 44), army or police could always torture and kill me or any other member of my family. In context of all that I described and explained above police action against me does not looks occasional. To show how police in Israel is dangerous for innocent unprotected people I support this paragraph by several documents (see Documents # 45, 46, 47). Please, believe me that I am not exaggerating the risk to my life. I have enough experience to detect it as real: and it is real! 1.4. Our removal from Canada back to Israel could be an extreme sanction in itself. Because what happened in 1991 was not our freewill immigration to Israel but a forcible deportation to Israel executed by both communist and Israeli authorities (see Document #2). Our removal to a country we do not belong to and which citizenship was thrust on us against our free will is immoral and inhuman. To extradite us to Israel means to return us back to captivity. During more then 3 years I was refused a special permission, which is required for immigrants, to leave Israel (listen to my 1-st hearing's recording). In supported documents I explain why I did not mention that in my refugee claim but only during the hearings (see p.1 of this Document). We quit Israel with such extreme difficulties that we never could leave it any more if removed there, and could not fly persecutions any more. We, adults, and even our children could stay in captivity there to the rest of our lives! If we would be removed back to Israel extreme and most vulnerable sanctions could be adopted against us there. Such sanctions not just highly expected, but are obvious since Israeli authorities already practiced extreme administrative pressure on us in 1991-1994. There were next administrative sanctions. A). a) Refusal to give my wife, and me permission to work in our professions. b) Refusal to give me an employment authorization at all after 1992. 1. We were not given an appropriate language course as all fresh immigrants. 2. The Ministry of Culture and Education refused to make equivalents of my wife's, and mine diplomas, when they had to do that automatically according to Israeli rules. I have already presented all material evidences to the Immigration Board, and the board did not express any doubt in these documents authenticity. That fact was also mentioned during our immigration hearings. 3. Without these equivalents, we were not legitimate for a permission to work in our professions, as well as for the most of the professional courses available. 4. I was legitimate to enter only one course - "Talpiot", - which was denied me. The reason of the denial was not given. My protests and demands to provide me with a reason of the denial were lost without notice. Maitre Stanley Levin, the only Israeli lawyer who agreed to defend me in Israel, composed a letter to the Minister of Culture and Education Mr. Amnon Rubinshtein. Maitre S.Levin's letter and Mr. A. Rubinshtein's response were presented to the IRB (see Documents # 48 in Supplements). That topic was widely discussed during my immigration hearings; the Immigration Board expressed no doubts that this conflict took place in reality. In the same time the commissioners did attempts to misrepresent this event and to place it in dependence of mentioned in my wife's Israeli eternal passport nationality. Maitre Dore, who replaced my main lawyer during the time of the hearings, did a mistake, allowing the commissioners to lead him in that question. In reality, I would reject "Talpiot's" administration demands to show my wife's passport-related nationality even if it was marked as "Jewish": because for the people like me such a demand was disgracing and racist. And I do not think that this little incident was the real reason of the refusal. But I could not name the "reason" because the term "political persecutions" is too abstract for the commissioners. 5. The Ministry's of Labor governmental Labor Exchange refused to register me as unemployed after the first accommodative trial period in Israel. Israeli regulations by then put some restrictions on employers to employ a person who was not registered by the governmental labor exchange. In reality, it was equal to a refusal of an employment authorization. In the same time this refusal prevented us from getting any social assistance, too. (See letter from Maitre S. Levin to the Labor Exchange administration: Supplements, Document # 49). (This also was discussed during the refugee hearings). 6. When - in spite of that - I had found an official job and was employed, and my wife was employed, too, we were paid less then the minimum wage. We had to be paid by the government an additional amount of money till the level of the income security, but were refused. 7. We struggled till our last day in Israel for the right to obtain an official explanation in writing of the refusal to register us at labor exchange, to pay us welfare, and to get an adjustment till the subsisting minimum, which had to be paid us according to the law. We demanded to present us the reasons of all these refusals, but we did not succeed in our demands... 8. We also turned to the Civil Court, and the court recognized me as an unemployed. But the labor's exchange administration refused to register me even then, in spite of the Civil Court's decision. (See this decision in Supplements, Document #50). All these above-mentioned items were mentioned during our refugee hearing but the commissioners avoided evaluating them in context of our refugee claim but transferred the discussions to the demagogical and political spheres. This justify the next question: was it a refugee hearing or it was a political process or a pro-Israeli propaganda forum? 9. My wife, and me - we turned to a number of personalities, organizations and institutions like lawyer Maitre Stanley Levin, Histadrut, Sochnut, Civil Court of Petach-Tikva, Ratz (Movement for Human Rights and Peace), municipality of Petach-Tikva, municipality's legal consultant, and so on, without any result. (See the whole list in Supplements, #8). This topic was one of the most widely discussed during our refugee hearings! 10. The commissioners could easy conclude that this situation removed our legal status in Israel from us. We became people without any legal status because we were socially (and legally) totally deprived. We could not obtain a bank card, credit card, take a loan, be responsible for any business operation, in other words, had no rights of citizens. 11. After my wife was bitten on her job and turned to police, she was not paid her salary. No institution (this event was discussed during our immigration hearings) expressed a will to defend her rights. To examine documents related to this part see our file and also Supplements, Documents #51,52. B). Incredible financial pressure through illegal billing, taxation, or fines. 1. Illegal billings. Exaggerated telephone bills, bills for long-distance calls, which we never did, etc., were coming. We had to pay all of them because it was no place where to turn to dispute them. 2. Taxation. We had to pay taxes for TV, which we did not have by then (in Israel you must pay taxes for radio and TV), for medicine and medical services (some of them fresh immigrants or - in other cases - people with small income - did not have to pay). We were also forced to pay municipal tax instead of the owners of the apartment, which we rented. In that case as new arrivals we were eligible to pay reduced tax for immovable property, but were given this privilege only in 1994, short time before we left for Canada. In spite of the law that new immigrants do not pay taxes I was forced to pay taxes from money I earned playing concerts. Ministry of Taxation and Revenues has also submitted us an application form for paying taxes as if we had an enterprise and refused to pay taxes. This form was submitted to us not from Tel-Aviv, as normally was practiced, but from Jerusalem - as if I was a special person. There were other examples of such taxation. (Examples of such bills were presented to the commissioners). 3. We had to pay fines for things we did not do and for violations we never committed. Supporting documents are enclosed (see Supplements, Documents #53,54). C). Draft Board has submitted me orders to appear sometimes every several days. I know that the compulsory military service for people of my age, who never were in the army in any country before, was not practicing. I do not think that they had intentions to take me to the army anyway. But they called me to appear there so often that it distorted my whole life and became an obstacle for work or social activity. I had also to spend a lot of money for bus tickets to appear at draft board, at Tel-ha-Shomer. They also refused to give me a permission to leave the country during more then 3 years. Supporting documents are enclosed (see Supplements, Documents #55). They were also presented to the commissioners. D). I could not say that the whole issue with my wife's eternal passport ("Tehudat Zehut") - during the refugee hearing - was a well-coordinated with the Israeli side provocation (conspiracy) only because I have no material proof. But there are a lot of coincidences and indications in favor of such a suggestion. When (first I, and later my wife) we were given "Tehudat Zehuts", clerks told us that this document is the property of Israeli government and do not has to be shown to any foreigner or taken abroad. I knew many other Russian-speaking people who were told the same. Even Mrs. Malka, the immigration officer, has to recognize the existence of this regulation (please, listen to immigration hearings tapes, the last hearing), but she suggested that (as some of Russian speaking people did) we had to violate the law and to bring (smuggle!) our "Tehudat Zehuts" to Canada illegally! When the day of our departure from Israel came, we had completely forgotten about this regulation, and our "Tehudat Zehuts" among other papers were taken to airport. That happened because for us it was a tremendous moment. (Only a person with sick imagination could suggest that a family like ours could take a hard decision to fly a country where we (nominally, but...) were citizens and spent more then 3 years just because of economic reasons or "exaggerations"). Car, in which I was with my friend Igor Puchinsky (my family went to airport in another car before me) was stopped at the military post by a solder - a Moroccan origin. He told us to get out from the car and to show our identities. I had only my foreign passport (my "Tehudat Zehut" was with my wife). He began to shout on me and threaten me by an arrest "because I had no Israeli ID". He claimed that the foreign passport is considered in Israel as a document for departure only and does not recognized as an ID. He told that a real ID is only "Tehudat Zehut", which is not permitted to be taken abroad. And he said that he suspect me in an attempt to smuggle my "Tehudat Zehut" abroad. May be my friend Mr. Puchinski's respectability, may be the intervention of the officer- an European origin, helped, but I was released. This incident reminded us that we still have "Tehudat Zehuts" with us. From another hand, even if we had an intention to smuggle them, we were too much afraid, and we destroyed them in airport. This I told Mrs. Malka during our last immigration hearing. (Any one, who had a chance to hold in hands an Israeli "internal passport" ("tehudat zehut") had a chance to notice that there are not one but two nationality-related marks in it: one is the brutal disclosure of the genetically-related information about a person, another one mentions his country of origin. Even if Mrs. Malka or her parents do not possess one, she held Israeli passports of refugee claimants in her hands - and knows that. It is also obvious that Israeli regulations oblige people to carry "tehudat zehuts" everywhere with them. It was understandable from the context of our immigration claim - and even more clear from the context of the discussions during the hearings that not the first (genetically-related) mark in "tehudat zehuts" but the second one (the country of origin) actually corresponds to the described by us events. Artificially replacing the first by the second one Mrs. Malka already used a non-conventional, unacceptable "method". But she committed even more severe violations in this question by other methods - as I explain in next documents). I do not know if there were precedents of contacts between IRB and the Israeli embassy when the similar issue was raised, but I could name dozens of examples when this issue was raised during immigration hearings, and no requests were sent to the Israeli embassy. Anyway, this is such a rare and exceptional measure that only an exceptional need could justify it. In reality there were no needs in that at all (see Group of Documents #4, Document 3). No event was based on indication of nationality in my wife's "Tehudat Zehut", no event related to this indication was discussed during our immigration hearings. Mrs. Malka based her decision to send a request to Israeli embassy on Mrs. Broder's faken translation of my wife's birth certificate. Mrs. Broder already distorted or sabotaged translations of all documents of my case: from my refugee claim to newspapers' articles. This is why there were no doubts that she did it on purpose. There are two logical questions: If it was not a well-coordinated with Mrs. Malka or the Israeli side provocation, then why Mrs. Broder distorted the translation of my wife's birth certificate only, but not mine or my mother's, or the shildren's? If it was not a well coordinated with Mrs. Malka or the Israeli side provocation, then why Mrs. Broder did this translation at all since two official translations of our birth certificates already existed? I also ask the Federal court to investigate where the original of my wife's birth certificate translation (that we made in Israel before coming to Canada) is kept now. (We gave the original of my wife's birth certificate and the original of its translation through Maitre Dore to the IRB in relation with that question. We got my wife's certificate back only after more then half a year but never got back the translation. The point was that Mrs. Eleonora Broder had no need to translate my wife's birth certificate at all since a professionally-made and exclusively-looking official translation already existed and was given to my lawyer before. By suspending this translation, somebody did an attempt to destroy evidences of Mrs. Broder's sabotage. (See also Maitre Dore's note and a copy of existed before Mrs. Broder's translation legal translation of my wife's birth certificate: Supplements, Documents #57,58,59 ). By sending such a request to Israeli embassy Mrs. Malka violated 3 main principles, on which the legal status of refugee claimants' immigration hearings are based. She: a) Reported to Israel about our refugee claim in Canada, what is unacceptable and goes in contradiction with the very essence of International human rights charters and conventions about refugees. b) Used situational blackmail in violation of the criminal code to extort my wife's signature under a document (authorization of request), which authorization was against my wife's personal interests and interests of her family - because gave Israelis an additional reason to persecute us and put our lives under an additional danger. c) Violated the principle of neutrality and non-approval of non-democratic, racist laws, which existed in 2-3 countries in the World, because Israeli passport regulations about the indication of nationality in eternal passports are in deep conflict with Canadian rules and the principles of Canadian democracy; she also breached of our confidence to Canadian government abusing our belief that no part of our confidential statements to Canadian immigration as well as the very fact of our refugee claim in Canada could not be betrayed to Israeli government. In my opinion Mrs. Malka also abused her power as an immigration officer violating the border of distinctions between the criminal court and the Immigration Board. As Maitre Dore correctly pointed (see Supplements, Document #57 ), Mrs. Malka's interpretation of the answer, which was given by Israeli side revealed her clear partiality because she reject in advance any other versions (interpretations). In her response to Maitre Dore's letter she repeatedly pointed to Israel's answer as to an absolute. In the same time she could not ignore other eventualities (because they are obvious): that Israelis could take advantage of giving that answer as a revenge on me, or that the Ministry's of Eternal Affairs record was different from what was written in my wife's passport, or that it is just a mistake (Israel is well-known as a country, where bureaucratic mistakes, casualties or disorders became a norm (please, read, for example, Efraim Sivela's book "Stop the airplane, I have to go out!", "Stav", Jerusalem, 1979). She was not aware even by the fact that the answer from Israeli embassy was incomplete, and (from some points of view) suspicious. It means that she rejected another main principle of justice - presumption of innocence, replacing it by presumption of guilt! E). There were many tiny events of administrative terror against us in Israel like sanctions at school or in kindergarten, such as these, which described in our refugee claim, illegal and unfair sanctions made by the owners of apartments, unfair decisions against us made by House Committee, and so on. The administrative terror, which we faced in Israel, turned our life in Israel into a nightmare. It was unbearable and tormenting in itself, but we also faced physical abuses, assaults, discrimination, and batteries. This is why the health of all members of my family was so much affected. These sanctions would be in force immediately from the very moment of our arrival again if we would be removed back to Israel. It had to be absolutely clear to the commissioners! But in case of our arrival we could expect this time more severe sanctions because of the next reasons. 1-st: authorities' attitude towards us were constantly changing to the worse during our life in Israel, and came to the most dangerous for us point just to the moment of our departure for Canada. If we would be sent back, this attitude would not start from "zero" (it was not zero even in 1991!), but would continue the most tense period of 1994. 2-nd: after our refugee claim in Canada and my complains to the human rights organizations we could not expect that the Israeli authorities would like me more now. This is why I am so sure about more severe sanctions: 1. Imprisonment within days or weeks since our arrival. 2. Forcible "treatment" inside a special mental hospital, where some political activists are placed. (Rabbi Meshulam, leader of an upraise in a town Igud, told me over the phone about existence of such hospitals). 3. Imprisonment inside one of Mossad's secret cells. 4. Children's separation from us, parents. 5. Confiscation of our foreign passports, so that we would never been able to leave Israel any more. 1.5. INHUMAN TREATMENT If we did not face inhuman treatment in Israel we would not come to Canada to claim a refugee status. (As - by the way - thousands of other Russian speaking peoples. Only by the very number of Russian-speaking refugee claimants from Israel to the Western countries a conclusion could be made that they are not "economic refugees". And the economical situation in Israel is not so bad, too!). We came not because of the economic reasons. We did not escape from hunger or from extreme poverty. First two-three months in Israel we were in a shock because of what happened to us and because of the general social atmosphere in the country. But we could not go back to our native country, and we were ready to stay in Israel forever. When we discovered that a permission to leave the country is refused for me, we began to try even harder to accommodate in Israel. We did everything to use to Israeli society, to find our place within it. This was already discussed during our immigration hearings - when I said that we tried our best in our attempts to live in Israel. In their negative decision IRB members did not expressed any principle doubt in the events, which we described in our refugee claim. They even recognized in one sentence that some negative "reactions" causing conflicts could be expected from ultra-orthodox towards people, who (as mention the IRB members avoiding word "respect" but mentioning it) do not respect their supervision. During the immigration hearings the immigration officer spoke about events of inhuman treatment, which we faced in Israel, in a humiliating manner. The same manner, absolutely identical, presents in the negative decision. Humiliation appeared because of their attitude towards severe inhuman treatment like assaults and batteries as towards minor events. They discussed, mentioned, or described inhuman treatment, which we faced in Israel, as well as our reaction to it, as something humorous. They let us know that we took such events too seriously, and, if we could take them lighter, it could prevent other similar events. But I am absolutely sure that if the IRB members could find themselves on our place, their reaction could not be different from our. After everything that happened to us in Israel, after characteristics, which I got in Israel as an "enemy", after contacts between Montreal's Immigration Board with Israelis, after their negative decision, which defining me as a dangerous "exaggerator" and "found me guilty" in "spreading slender" against Israel, what other treatment except of inhuman could we expect in Israel? 1.6.RESUME In this document I explained why my family, and me - we would be not like other people if removed to Israel: because my personal confrontation with Israeli political structures began long before we were taken to Israel, because we did not want to go to the state of Israel and were taken there against our will, because of the scandal at the Central railway station in Warsaw, because I refused to cooperate with Mossad, because in Israel I became relatively well-known for my articles against human rights violation in Israel and was defined by Israeli authorities as an "enemy", because our personalities are not compatible to Israeli society, because we do not practicing Judaism, and because of a number of other reasons, which were described in that document. Our 3 years in Canada proved that I am not a pathological troublemaker. 3 years in Canada could show that we could live avoiding conflicts, respecting the laws and regulations, and quickly accommodating. My children are good students, they have a lot of friends, and they are completely suitable to the local society. My older daughter is an advanced piano player, and she passed exams at McGill University with the best mark. My younger daughter is a talented ballerina, her pictures are everywhere in Ballet studios, she is an advanced dancer, and she also was chosen to enter the National Ballet School in Toronto from dozens of other pretendents. Their French is nice and literary, they also advanced in English. And we are not on welfare any more! We could be peaceful and useful members of the local society if we would be given a chance to stay here. (Group of documents # 4 in Supplements are corresponding to this paragraph). THIS IS THE BEST PROOF THAT OUR TROUBLES IN ISRAEL ERUPTED NOT BECAUSE IT WAS OUR FAULT (as the commissioners tried to show), AND NOT IN RESULT OF OUR "EXAGGERATIONS"! WE FACED PERSECUTIONS IN ISRAEL BECAUSE OF OBJECTIVE REASONS AND COULD NOT GO BACK BECAUSE OF RISK TO LIFE, EXTREME SANCTIONS, AND INHUMAN TREATMENT. OUR REMOVAL TO ISRAEL WOULD BRING US TO A TRAGIC END. Theoretical suggestions if people like us could face a tragic end (without figuring out the impact our personal claim events: as commissioners did) in Israel are completely useless in our case because our case and our personalities are unique. Please, give us a chance to stay here, because if we would be removed back to Israel lives of my children, my wife, my mother, and my life, would be terminated! Please, do not send us towards tragic end. Try to understand your full responsibility for what will happen if we would be sent back to Israel. 1.7. MY FINAL STATEMENT As the most honest people I am not impudently self-confidential. I might be shocked by aggressive and ironical interrogators (as Mrs. Malka): but this is just one more proof of my honesty and innocence. To support our refugee claim we presented to the Immigration Board so many documentary proofs as probably no refugee claimants in Canadian Immigration's history! All of them, including legal, and medical documents, official correspondence and newspapers' articles, related to me, other documents, were ignored, and only one document was considered as "non-related" without any reasonable explanations. If the forces, which acted against us, could encourage such an outraged injustice and unfair treatment of us even here, in Canada, in Israel they could eliminate us for sure. Sending us to Israel you must realize that you send us to death. Removal to Israel means for us a death penalty. But Canada has no death penalty even in Canadian criminal code! ! ! Especially, for children! I ask you to think about it while composing you final decision. Please... Sincerely yours, Lev Gunin Next Document <> PREVIOUS DOCUMENT: DOCUMENT 1 FROM DOCUMENTS Four Mrs. Louis-Phillippe SIMARD, Manager, Post Determination Review FROM Lev GUNIN (FILE Number 2948-6524/ 95/76/23/18 ID: 3082-7125/7174/7220/7231/7317/ ) DOCUMENT NUMBER 2 2.1. I was in grade 9, when voluntarism and vulnerability of my class teacher, PERFILOVA Maria Michajlovna, converted me from a good school pupil and a promising young musician into a person without future, persecuted by KGB. She was a communist party member and an outraged careerist. She took one of my school essays - and took it to KGB. She also made an open public court over me at the school, not waiting for KGB command. Officially KGB rejected her accusations. They found nothing, which could be considered as anti-Sovetism, in my composition. But in ex-USSR an obstruction, which Perfilova made me at school, and the very fact that she was in KGB building to report on me was enough to devastate my whole life and to cause what it caused. It is also possible that rejecting Perfilova (what made her insane) they secretly put my name on their black list already by then. 2.2. I was prevented from becoming a student of a Music College or university, and later, when I entered music studies by a miracle and graduated, I was prevented from a good musical carrier. In 1979 I was brutally beaten because of an order from KGB. During many years my social and professional status, my health, my privacy, my security, even my freedom and my life were every minute under a threat. Nobody knows what I came through -, and did not become an alcoholic, or sadist, and never violated any criminal rule. 2.3. Because I felt more secure among other persecuted people, I started to cooperate with a number of human rights groups and movements and with some other groups and organizations. Most of them were non-conformist art and poetry \ prose groups. I formed my own poetry circle where I was a leader. I also organized a movement in opposition to ideologically motivated demolition or levelation of Bobruysk's 18-19 century architecture, mostly Jewish. I organized mass photographing of the center of Bobruysk. The local authorities have unofficially forbidden that. "Militia" several times arrested my supporters, and me, our photo films were confiscated. Only in the end of 1980-s I contacted Mr. V. Senderov, Mr. V. Batcshev, Mrs. Elena Bonner and other world-famous dissidents and human rights activists, and also correspondents of the west media in Moscow. Only by then I already had permanent contacts with some representatives of foreign parliaments and embassies, but never with any intelligence. I also maintained close cooperation with two different forces: Frankfurt-based NTS and National Front of Belarus. 2.4. As a person who was deeply involved in the cultural self-determination process of the Soviet Jews I also was the first activist in Belarus, who combined several goals together. They were: studies of Yiddish and Hebrew languages and the Jewish history, revitalization of Bobruysk's Jewish cultural and historical heritage, restoration of Jewish religious community, foundation of a Jewish club, newspaper, theatre, and schools. Nobody - except me - believed by then that it might be possible. My poetry in Yiddish was published in "Sovetisch Hiemland" (Moscow) and "Der Arbeiter Stimme" (Warsaw). I also became a co-editor of one underground Jewish magazine, based in Minsk. I also became known in cultural circles in Moscow and Leningrad (St.-Petersburg). I maintained contacts with the most famous personalities like composer D. Shostakovich, poet A. Voznesensky, singers like V. Tolkunova, or L. Leshchenko, and others. In Minsk (where I studied and worked 2 times a week) I maintained almost close relationship with the whole cultural elite: composers (D.Smolski, L. Obeliovich, G. Vagner, U. Semeniako, and others), historians (Tarasov, Zenon Pozdniak (later leader of the National Front), V. Posse, my relative, A. Gritzkievich, O. Dadiomova), pop-rock musicians, and so on. 2.5. During short periods of time (in 1986-87) it looked like persecutions against me were suspended or lightened. But in the same period of time I started to be persecuted by another political force - by Israeli missionary stuff in Minsk and Bobruysk. By that time my brother Vitaly - a talented painter and brilliant businessman - organized one of the first free ("capitalist") enterprises in Belarus. I was an administrator of one of its section, which arranged invitation of famous artists for tours in Minsk and Bobruysk. So, my brother, Mr. Pinchas Plotkin, an Yiddish poet, I, Mr. Marat Kurtzer, and Igor Gorelik - we formed a first circle, which achieved good results in restoring Jewish life in Bobruysk. A course of Yiddish, a library, a club, and other activities became a reality and refreshed the local Jewish life. This was what Israelis did not want to allow. They wanted to eliminate the whole Jewish social and cultural life in ex-USSR. They suggested that if life in USSR would become non-attractive for the Jews, they could more easily leave for Israel. They also did everything to terrify Jewish population by rumors about pogroms, and by other exaggerations. Missioners like J. EDEL, Arie ROTENBERG, or Dorit HE came to USSR to arrange total control over the local Jewish life and to put down any competitive power. I new dozens of other missioners who came to Minsk and Bobruysk to devastate local Jewish life and to jeopardize mass migration to Israel. They often expressed their hatred towards Soviet Jews. 2.6. Israelis started to build their own activist infrastructure, alternative to ours. They attracted young aggressive careerists, convincing them that they are totally protected, could commit any crimes - and go unpunished. Those boys and girls in their 20-s like Boris Kagan, Dmitry Levin, Vova Kazinetz, Z. Fridburg and others were nothing without Israeli leadership. Their local leader became Ilia Rodov, my brother's school colleague. Rodov became a known local figure only because my brother's, and my help. My brother Vitaly helped him in everything during their studies at the Art College, he presented Rodov to prominent and influential people, and even helped him by giving him money or work at his enterprise. Rodov was a well-known collaborationist: he cooperated with the communist authorities. He also was considered in intellectual circles as KGB informer and "comsomol" activist. He often accused and "denounced" Jewish "nationalists." But very soon he rapidly changed his views, expressing interest to Yiddish culture (when the group of Yiddishists was the most powerful in Bobruysk). When the influence of Israelis increased, he rapidly changed his opinion again "denouncing" Yiddish and calling to "forget Yiddish and study Hebrew." He was supported not only by Israelis, but by the local communist authorities as well. 2.7. Even by then I already suspected close cooperation between Israelis -and local communist authorities. When Bobruysk was a military zone, and a special authorization was needed for foreigners to visit that city, Israelis went to Bobruysk easily. They also had free meetings with people, which was impossible for any other foreigners, for example, for Finish Baptist missioners. They openly called people to emigrate to Israel using lie, deception, threats and profanation. They did everything to discredit my group, and me. Rodov's group has the full freedom to operate and to work with people. We were stopped by the authorities, disrupted and persecuted. Supported by the communists Rodov announced himself as a chairman, avoiding open and free elections and his followers formed local "Jewish council." People - like me - who restored the Jewish life and created the Jewish club, were expelled from that life and from that club. 2.8. As soon as they seized the power, "Rodovers" started to suppress all activities and cultural events in the Jewish society. They ruined everything that we created: very soon, including Yiddish course and all other courses and activities. They concentrated only on pro-Israeli propaganda and propaganda of immigration to Israel, Hebrew course and religious propaganda. When religious in Israel became the most influential force in institutions, which maintained work among potential immigrants in USSR, Rodov supporters converted themselves into ultra-orthodox. (Before that they were fighting atheists). They also used to confiscate the huge wave of help, gifts, money, which was streaming from the west Jewish communities to Soviet Jews. They have stolen about one thousand valuable gift sets from Baptist community of Finland to the local Jewish community. That gift was handed over through Iakov Gutman, an independent from Israelis leader of Minsk's Jews, to me. The sets were given for free delivery. I wanted to deliver them directly from my home to the people in exchange of their signatures in confirmation that they got them free. But Rodov's group forced me (and Iakov Gutman) to hand them over to the club, using dirty manipulations. Rodov and his group sold the sets as their private property. They openly violated the criminal code not only by then. They also robbed our Jewish library 2 times, they threaten people by death, they corrupted local officials, and they demanded money from people for information about Israel and for Israeli visas. They also demanded money for the "club needs", threatening people that - if they would refuse, they would be punished in Israel. Israelis also paid them for their services. In ex-USSR, where an imported TV with video could be almost as valuable as an apartment, they got expensive valuable things from Israelis as gifts. I suspect that they were paid by money, too. A special telephone number was given to Rodov, which enabled him to call Israeli embassy in Moscow and to Israel for free (according to his own words, and I believe that it was true). 2.9. Rodov and co "punished" me in different ways. They spread discreditible rumors against me, they posed intrigues against me at my work, they threaten me, they did so, that I was not invited any more to play in restaurants, on wedding parties, in dancing clubs, and so on, they tried to confront my wife with me. I am absolutely sure that Rodov's actions against me were correlated with the persecutions, which I faced from the local authorities. In Minsk I used to visit Mr. Garik Chajtovich, - my friend and a kind person. He was a Jewish activist and Hebrew teacher. Practically all the Israeli missioners have visited him. I met few high-ranked Israeli representatives through Garik or in his place several times and spoke to them. I tried to convince them that they should stop supporting odious persons like Rodov and to stop suppressing the development of Jewish cultural life in USSR. They usually answered that their priority is to convince people to leave for Israel, and they do not care about anything else. But one time I got an unusual answer. The man who gave it to me was a very important person. I could admit how Garik respect and treat him. Even Israelis who were with this man obeyed him. He told me that I have to stop talking about such things. He also told me that he has a pity to me because, according to him, I would pay a high price for my "nihilism" and freethinking, my family, my relatives would suffer, and my life will become miserable... 2.10. Because with time people were convinced that Rodov is a crook, and were too angry on him, I, brothers Strupinsky, Marat Kurtzer and others took the power in our own hands, discharging Rodov and his company. Only then I understood very soon that the problem was not in Rodov. Without him Israelis have found other ways to achieve their goals. And very soon my position became as weak as before. Israelis also took revenge in Minsk, displacing Iakov Gutman, the main figure in opposition to their policy in Belarus. Now nothing might stop them from forcible (in the deeper sense) transportation of hundred of thousands Jews from Belarus to Israel. 2.11. From 1988 my brother's health became more and more bad. He has a blood cancer, but I was sure that his disease was caused because he was exposed to radiation. During many month doctors Kustanovich (she died recently in USA from cancer), Cherny and Petrusha did not report Vitaly's bad blood tests. They also accused him in simulating to "avoid military service" and threaten to kill him. Since he became sick I fought to get his true diagnose and to win an appropriate treatment for him. In the end of 1987 we understood that for saving my brother's life we have to move to one of the West countries. I tried to get an immigration visa to US, but America was "closed" very soon because of a treaty, which Israel demanded: about leaving the only one way for Soviet Jews - only to Israel. I also tried to get a visa in the German embassy, but it was too late. Then we had to request a visa only from Israel. We did all necessary steps to obtain it, but we did not get any visas. Hundreds of people whom I helped to get visas (I told them that I do not recommend them to go to Israel, but they kept asking me with passion, and I helped them) got them, but not my brother and me. Even Genady Shulman, one from the Rodov's group, who was kind to us and arranged visas for thousands of people, could not obtain visas for my brother, and me. I went to Moscow, to Israeli embassy, where they knew me very good as one of the activists and where I always had an access to, and spoke to Ambassador Mr. Levin, but without any result. In 1988 Israel have submitted special visas-invitations for Jewish activists for a free trip to Israel. In spite of my detestation of Rodov I phoned him in an attempt to save my brother's life (because he composed a list of names for these invitations). "What did your brother did for the Jewish movement, for Zionism? - he asked. Avoiding tensions I did not tell him that my brother did for Rodov more then he deserved and that my brother put his business under a risk organizing Jewish events when the local authorities did not approve them. I only asked him about compassion. "There are more valuable things then human life, - he responded. Later I had a chance to see what these things are. Nobody from Rodov's group went to Israel with that free invitation, only Rodov's father went to Israel because he did small speculation trade under the table, and used that occasion as a shield... In August, 1989 my brother, and me, we went to Poland, where a blood test, which was made to him, had shown strange processes in his organism. In September I started a new Jewish magazine "Vos Herzach?" and participated in a current issue of "CONTACT." My brother Vitaly gave his cafÊ (he was the owner) again for the Jewish club meeting. In September also came a telephone threat that my brother Vitaly would die. In January 1990 another person called and told the same. 2.12. When in 1989 first letters began to arrive from those who already settled in Israel, their relatives discovered that Russian speaking people are persecuted in Israel, that Israelis hate us and treat us as second-class people, many of the Jews in Bobruysk cancelled their tickets and visas. It seemed to be a total disaster for Israeli plan to capture half a million or more Soviet Jews. But they have found a solution very soon. Somebody began to spread rumors about possible pogroms. Every day brought a "reliable" information that Jews are in danger. Jewish cemeteries were vandalized everywhere. By that time I was a member of a group that investigated this wave of vandalism. Most active members in that group were Baltic Jews. A small Baptist team and NTS representatives also participated. We discovered that vandalism started in west regions of USSR and moved chronologically from the Northwest to Southeast. Pogroms in Muslim region were not known. It was absolutely clear that a team of "vandals" traveled by train from town to town, from city to city, starting from Riga. They had a steady pace, so, Soviet authorities (if they would want to stop hooligans) could figure out very easy where should be their next stop and next pogrom - and catch them. But the authorities did not want to stop them. Israelis also used different methods to calm down information about vandalism. I personally (as well as others) took the description of our conclusions about vandalism to Israeli embassy, but they became furious and refused to send this information to Israeli press. I have submitted the description about vandalism against Jewish cemeteries (without our conclusion) to Washington Post and Chicago Tribune correspondents in Moscow, as well as to Israeli newspapers (enclosing photos of vandalized graves), but no newspaper outside USSR published this information. I was sure that Israelis used their influence to prevent newspapers from that publication. I was even more convinced about Israeli involvement when such a pogrom happened in my native town. Graves that related to non pro-Israeli activists' were mainly targeted, when pro-Israeli families' graves were not touched. My father's grave was vandalized, the monument was broken. 2.13. I informed US president's special representative, Mr. Nikolai Petro, that Israelis are using illegal methods to force people to leave USSR for Israel. I also contacted several US diplomats including Mrs. Daria Arturovna Fein. I met Daria Arturovna at hotel "Ukraine" in Moscow. She took a look at the photos and asked if they are not a fake. I told her that I could give her an original film from which the photos were made. And I gave the film to her. She held the film several minutes in her hands. I saw that she is trembling. After some hesitation she gave the film and the photos back to me, refusing to admit them and giving no explanations. I told to prominent personalities in Frankfurt, in Warsaw and in Paris about these acts of vandalism, but they could not organize even a single publication. 2.14. In January-February 1990 I came to Paris hoping to obtain a visa for my brother. I was warmly welcomed by all Jewish organizations in Paris and Lion, which I visited, and also by Russian immigrants' organizations, including NTS. They gave me money, shelters, they bought me train tickets to Lion several times. My French friends also helped me a lot. I could not tell Jews that I do not want go to Israel. They supported Israel's plan to get from half to one million people from USSR. To justify my request for help in obtaining the French visa for my brother I told them that during almost 2 years we could not get an Israeli visa. After that some leaders of the Jewish organizations in Paris, including M-me Helman from COJASOR, proposed me their mediation in my request for an Israeli visa. They told me that Jewish communities in France have collected so much money for Israel, that Israelis must listen to them. M-me Helman and others arranged a meeting for me with Israelis in Israeli embassy. A visa for me and for my brother had to be given for me there. I knew that local AVIR in Bobruysk could not accept a visa, which came not by mail, and could not give us a permission to leave USSR. But I had no solution. When I came to Israeli embassy, which situated down the Le SacrÊ Coeur de Monmartre, they did not let me in. I called the doorbell, and also phoned them several times with no result. 2.15. My brother Vitaly tragically died in May 1990. Half a year after his death I discovered just occasionally that the Jewish community in Lion have collected money for his treatment and have submitted a medical treatment visa for him. This visa was confiscated by the Soviet authorities.... After his death I did not need an Israeli visa any more - because I never wanted to immigrate, and from 1987 I understood very well that my place is not in Israel. Before my brother's death we sold some of our property and did other steps expecting a visa from Israel, but now we suspended all such steps. 2.16. One day - when Rodov already left for Israel - one former "Rodovetz" called my doorbell when my wife was at work. I opened the door, and then he told me that he missed my door with somebody else's. In that very moment another person have approached. He asked, "is Gunin lives here?". I recognized him. Living near KGB building I often saw him entering it. I also saw him at the Jewish club where he was with Mr. Sheremetiev, local UKGB chairman. Ilia Rodov has invited him by then to the club to read a lecture. Later I saw this man (who came to visit me) with Rodov in Bobruysk as minimum two times. He started to speak to me without entering my apartment. He told me that I have to quit USSR for Israel within two months. He said that this decision about me is non-reversible and can not be appealed. I was so terrified that I could not speak. But I only asked him what about Israeli visa. "Visa budet"" ("visa will come"), he told in response. And he also told me that I should go directly to Israel, without tricks. 2 days after visas started to arrive. All visas - a whole package, - which were suspended before, came in 2 envelopes (see Supplements, Documents # 20, a,b,c,d,e, etc. - total number is 11).. Where these visas were and who kept them, I do not know, but it convinced me that the situation is very serious, and I must go. When after two months we did not leave USSR yet, such terrible, even monstrous events occurred that I understood: I must go. 2.17. It did not mean that I agreed to go to Israel. I secretly asked my friends in Poland to meet me at the Central Railway Station in Warsaw. I had to try to visit foreign embassies in Warsaw, and, if it could give nothing, then we had to go to Germany (my friends had to buy us tickets to Frankfurt). When our train came to Warsaw, and my Polish friends already approached to the wagon, a group of unknown people surrounded and captured us. One of them, probably chairman, spoke Polish with a Hebrew accent. It was a big man in his middle ages. Mostly he spoke to me, and also an aggressive woman. They were ready to take us with them immediately by physical force, but only the presence of my Polish friends made them hesitating. I am sure that they started negotiations with us only to win the time: they probably used it to find out through Mossad sources who are my friends and what they able to do. They probably also wanted to find out what consequences Israelis would have in case of an eventual scandal, what tactics to use against us, and what their supervisors recommended. They disagree immediately to let us go with my friends. Meanwhile my friends called 2 Polish policemen. I told the policemen that I do not want go to Israel, I asked for their help. The policemen told me that if I was agree to obtain Israeli visa - then I probably must go to Israel. Then I shown them a temporary visa for staying in Poland 3 days, and told them that only after 3 days I might be expelled from Poland, and not by Israelis... The policemen then went to hear what Israelis could say them. I did not hear what they discussed - because they moved farther from me (my family stayed with the Israelis as hostages while I spoke to policemen), but when they finished talking, the policemen left. We were taken to a hotel, completely surrounded and guarded by Israelis, from where we could not escape, and then - to the airport. So, my family, and me, we were taken to Israel by force, against our will, this was a captivity! Israel is not our country. Our native country is Belarus, and we still consider ourselves as citizens of Belarus. We are not Israeli citizens because that citizenship was thrust on us. NOTE: I could support this statement by my declarations, which I made, when I lived in ex-USSR and in Israel. You could see obviously that these declarations were written many years ago or even make a criminological test to define their age. They are: 1) My declaration to the procuratories of the both districts of city Bobruysk (Lenin and Pervomay), and to the General procuratory of Bobruysk, in which I tried to protest my ultimative deportation to Israel. (1990) 2) My declaration about Israel's illegal activity in Belarus (1988-89). 3) My declaration to the Israeli authorities (1991-1994). Please, take it into considaration ! ! ! NEXT DOCUMENT: Document Number 3 PREVIOUS DOCUMENT: Document number 2 For Mr. Louis-Phillippe SIMARD, Manager, Post Determination Review FROM Lev GUNIN (FILE Number 2948-6524/ 95/76/23/18 ID: 3082-7125/7174/7220/7231/7317/) DOCUMENT NUMBER 3 TRANSLATOR'S SABOTAGE 3.1.The very first time went to Mr. Le Brune's office when we were in a hotel for refugees (YMCA) yet. 3.2.We also came to Mrs. Broder's apartment to "complete the PIF" and to "compose the story" in November 1994. 3.3.I told Mrs. Broder that I have already composed my refugee claim. And gave her the text of my claim in Russian and in English. I refused to cooperate with her in "composing the story." She was extremely persistent and ultimate, but also flexible and cunning in achieving her goals. When she understood that she could not break my will not to participate in "composing the story," she told us to come later. Between that and the next appointment my wife was worked upon by Lucy (our relative, whose negative attitude towards me in ex-USSR and in Israel scared me a lot in the past) and by Mrs. Broder. They told her that all direct or indirect criticism of the state of Israel must be excluded from my statement. They also told that I should not mention Israeli army, censorship in Israel, human rights violations, police brutality, and provocation against me made by police; my tensions with Mossad and Shabak, or persecutions against me ordered by Israeli authorities. The psychological pressure on my wife and on me was so strong that it could push us towards a suicide. We also met Mr. Le Brune in that period of time, and he also suggested that our claim have to be based on everyday occurrences and social conflicts, but not on political persecutions. When we met Mrs. Eleonora Broder next time I started to fight each sentence, but it was very complicated since my wife had arguments with me taking Eleonora's side. But I want to make it clear: MY WIFE AND ME - WE NEVER AUTHORIZED MRS. BRODER TO CHANGE OR MODIFY OUR REFUGEE CLAIM. We only agreed to allow some shortening. 3.4.Very soon Mrs. Broder called us and told us to sign her translation. I asked her to read us the context in Russian, but she refused motivating her refusal by the lack of time. She also told us that only 5 more days are left (to complete the PIF and submit the claim; and that the total number of days is 14), and if it would not be submitted, then a deportation order is going to be issued for us. (In reality 20 days or even more are given, but we did not know about that). Then I told her that I could type my story with her shortenings just in 1 hour in English myself - and give her or another translator to sign it (because I wanted to control its context, and I was not good enough in French by then). She told me that in Quebec only French-written claims are accepted. Because of her threats and because my wife was near a hysterics I was forced to sign it. 3.5.In December 1994 and January 1995 I gave a copy of Mrs. Broder's translation of my refugee claim to several people; they knew French very well. Using their help I discovered that the context of our refugee claim was seriously distorted and sometimes even converted by Mrs. Broder. Some details were given in such interpretation (translation) that they contradicted with other details. We also discovered that the text of her French translation was different from her back translation into Russian made after my request and written by her own hand. (I wanted to verify her translation). When Lucy's purposes of what she did to us might been explained by various reasons, the purpose of Mrs. Broder might be only one: to sabotage the translation. I repeat that she distorted the translation not because of incompetence or unconsciousness mistakes but on purpose. And I have good evidence: she excluded one paragraph from my story without even discussing it with us. It was a description of humiliation over other Russian-speaking workers and me by employers-Israelis in August 1991. Instead of typing this paragraph she made a statement in my name not just generalizing the situation, but placing an abstract declaration about slavery in Israel. When I asked her later why she did it, she answered that immigration commissioners would never believe that something like this exist in Israel. "They would call it "slavery" - and tell you that slavery doesn't exist in Israel. Why then she inserted that pure statement about slavery in Israel in my name? If even a description of real events, which could be treated as a denunciation of slavery is "bad", a pure statement about slavery (without any explanation) is "more worse" then?! I could only explain that by favor, which Mrs. Broder did to the commissioners (immigration oficer in particular) - because they later used this exactly paragraph (in Mrs. Broder's translation of my refugee claim) as a key indication of "exaggerations" and based their rejection of our refugee claim mostly on it. Mrs. Broder also told me that she inserted this paragraph because I mentioned slavery in one of our conversations. I said that it does not mean that I permitted to insert it. 3.6. I said that I do not remember if I really said that. In response Eleonora said that she secretly recorded all our conversations and now could prove that I told it. She never agreed to correct her translation. She even threaten me by telling that she is going to present above mentioned tapes to the immigration tribunal - and she claimed that I spoke enough on these tapes to make a conclusion that I am dangerous to Israel and "was persecuted correctly". 3.7. The translation of our claim was also made in a sarcastic and humiliating manner as if the translator not just repeated the Russian text in French, but wrote a humorist story about what was described. 3.8. Lucy constantly threatened us during my dispute with Eleonora, and I think that her threats came as a reaction on my pretensions to Eleonora. She was threatening us from February till May 1995. She told that she did a lot for us - but we are not thankful - and we are going to pay for it. She often told us with bravado that she knows everything about us. She said that some people follow us, that my phone is bugged, and that my mails are searched. And she demonstrated her knowledge about really discreet information, which should be known only to my lawyer. I asked my lawyer and demanded from Mrs. Broder not to make publicly known information, which should be discreet, but Lucy demonstrated her access to everything, what took place in my lawyer's office -from the dates of our appointments with him to the dates of our immigration hearings, and so on. She used to come to the immigration tribunal each time when our hearings took place - and even appeared in the room where the hearing took place: each time without our permission. 3.9. One time she told me with the same bravado (it was in February 1995) that a very partial committee is going to be assigned to my file. She told me that an especially aggressive immigration officer would be called from Toronto "to calm" me down. She was right. 3.10. Later it came out that Mrs. Broder sabotaged not only our immigration claim, but also translations of the articles, of documents, in other words - everything, what she has to translate. Her distortion of the my wife's birth certificate data enabled immigration officer to excuse her report made to the Israeli embassy about us. 3.11. Not only Lucy was related to Israel, but also Mrs. E. Broder. Soon after we met she married a businessman from Israel, who maintained all business contacts in Israel - according to his words. She was born in Odessa, but lived several years in Cuba: it is also an information to reflect. 3.12. It is too painful for me to believe that my lawyer did not remove two above-mentioned paragraphs that Mrs. Broder inserted without our permission because he acted on purpose. I still want to trust him, and I prefer to think that he was tired, and this was what caused his mistake. When he was finishing to fix "mistakes", distortions and non-authorized "adjustments", which Mrs. Broder have did in her "translation", it was late at night, and both him, and me, especially, my mother, were tired, and I did not check the translation properly. I also trusted him, and this is why I signed the new version without a proper check. I also prefer to think that he did not let me verify translations of all the documents in my file before the hearings (I asked him many times to give me documents of my file for a control) because he was constantly busy, and could not prepare them to me. If he would give me that chance, I could discover before the hearings that Mrs. Broder falsified the translation not only of our claim, but of all other documents as well (like my wife's certificate). I know that the immigration committee, which gave no positive decision to "Russians" from Israel at all, would answer "no" even if there were no distortions in translations at all. 3.13. Some sort of misunderstanding - I believe - happened between my lawyer and me, in result of which the most important remarks about IRB's negative decision in our case were not submitted with the appeal. This is why I am asking you to take this submission in consideration when decision in my appeal will be considered. I submitt examples of Mrs. Broder's sabotage in Supplements, Documents # 92,93, 94, 95, 96, 97. NEXT DOCUMENT: [[[GROUP OF DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4]]] PREVIOUS DOCUMENT: [[[DOCUMENT 3 of DOCUMENTS]]] GROUP OF DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4 APRIL-MAY 1997 DOCUMENT 1 (2-nd version) (Was submitted to Amnesty International via E-MAIL) MY COPY OF APPEAL TO AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL Why I appeal? 1) Because my complains, which I once submitted to Amnesty International from Israel, played if not the main, a very important role during all the 3 immigration hearings in our case. 2) Because if not directly, then indirectly (from a particular point of view) IRB members insinuated that I must be punished for my contacts with Amnesty International. 3) Because what happened during my immigration hearing here in Montreal (Quebec, Canada) is so incredible and horrible that will encourage human right violations everywhere on a wider scale. 4) Because in the former USSR as well as in Israel I was a human rights activist and was considered a human rights activist by the people and press. 5) Because during the hearing the immigration officer falsified Amnesty International's (and other human rights organizations') documents and lied about them. 6) Because if a family comes to a country (which accepts refugees in general) but faces abuses, ungrounded accusations, threats, hatred and injustice within an immigration court room - that means a mayhem for the human rights, placing the very basis of human rights in jeopardy. 7) Because I'm absolutely certain (and I have presented undeniable evidences to the immigration board) that I'm going to be killed and the members of my family are going to be killed if we will be turned back to Israel since I could suggest that something like a death penalty was considered there against me for my views. Why I Appeal Before I Have The Immigration Board's Final Decision In My Case? 1) Because I have to dispute the very procedure of the hearing in our case, which abused us and placed our lives under the definite danger. 2) Because I know of some examples when a final negative decision was sent to refugee claimants together with a deportation order without the rights to appeal. 3) Because after what happened during our immigration hearing I feel insecure even here. 4) Because it looks like they violated some legal and moral norms while hearing our case not for giving us later a positive decision. 5) Because now, when the information about us was submitted by the immigration officer to Israel there can be a wave of wider pressure from Israel to turn us back. I was actually expelled from the former USSR, where I was persecuted for my artistic, philosophical, ideological and political views, where I was beaten, prevented from social and professional success, watched and threatened. I was deported to Israel. When we moved away from the USSR we tried to escape to a third country but were captured by Israelis and were taken to Israel by force. We were systematically assaulted, beaten, disgraced, threatened, discriminated against (persecuted) in Israel. We were denied a permission to leave the country, and could not go away for 3 1/2 years. We collected thousands of evidences in discrimination and persecutions. Israeli state radio made a provocation, aiming to eliminate me, Israeli newspapers called to destroy all my works - but for this immigration board it's still not "enough"... *Why I Think My Human Rights Were Violated By the Court? Inside The Courtroom: 1)Some of the main documentary proofs (statements, affidavits, letters, receipts, articles, etc.) have been disappeared or were ignored as if they were (disappeared).See pages A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5. 1-a)Only my college diploma was mentioned during immigration hearings, and the commissioners acted as if my university diploma does not exist. In reality I mentioned it during the hearings and the copy of this diploma also was in my file. 2)Other extremely important documents were mentioned but were ignored (if not - they might be an obstacle to what the judges incriminated me). Pages B-1,B-2,B-3,B-4.B-5. 3) Other documents were mentioned as incomplete proof of particular events, when in reality they were given to support other events. In the same time documents which relate to these events were ignored. Pages C-1, C-2. 4) In the same way my words were ignored, too. For example, I was asked an insinuating question. My answer closed that question by a clear and unbeatable contra-argument. So, what then? Then the same insinuation was repeated - but this time in an affirmative form: As if I said nothing. The same question could be given 2, 3, 5 times non-stop. If I gave the same answer again and again they shouted on me, used threats, aggression, incredible accusations to force me to change my answer. It's clear that such a method violates moral and legal norms - and any hesitation by a refugee claimant under such an illegal psychological pressure can not be taken into consideration. D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4. 5) Too often they questioned me giving me no rights to response. They shouted me down replacing my eventual answer by their own - and later based their conclusions not on my answer but on their own statement posing it as my - not their - words. E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4. 6) It was repeated again and again that they doubt about our rights to appeal (for a refugee status) because our actions (when we were in Israel) weren't a good solution. As examples of "good solutions" were mentioned: A demolition of our family, a criminal offense - and so on! F-1, F-2. 7) Several times the board members expressed their disapproval by the norms of democracy or by my approval of the democracy laws. G-1, G-2, G-3. It is absolutely clear that our case was treated not according to Canadians laws but according to the rules and norms of Israel since - in the judges' eyes - we belong not to Canadian but to Israeli jurisdiction. G-4, G-5, G-6. This position - neither being ordered to the board or being the product of the board itself - made the courtroom a part of Israel's territory. G-7, G-8. 8)The procedure of our immigration hearing wasn't an investigation in our case but a pure pro-Israel's propaganda. Its goal wasn't to detect whether or not our claim for refugee status is justified but to defend the image of Israel as a "good" country in an imprudent and abusing form. The depersonalization of our claim was done in an extreme form ignoring our personal history. So the only criteria chosen to support the board's point of view was the very fact that we came from Israel. But the only admissible attitude to refugees has to base the decision on what happened to them personally, not on which country they flied. H-1, H-2, H-3. 9)The members of the board expressed their detestation of the human rights defense and verbally denied (directly or indirectly) a number of recognized human rights.I-1, I-2, etc. 10)They also (indirectly, but clear) expressed a point that if I'll be punished in Israel for my views - it's justified because I'm "guilty" J-1, J-2, etc. 11)Sending faxes to Israeli embassy and demanding some definite information about us, the immigration officer violated another moral and judicial principle: Not to announce asylum seekers claim to the government of a country refugee claimants escaped from .K-1, K-2, etc. 12)Reading Amnesty International's and other reports the immigration officer distorted and sometimes falsified their meaning.L-1, L-2,ect. 13) Documents submitted by the Israeli government, by it's dependents or by it's embassy were considered as absolutely reliable and were voluntarily represented by the tribunal as non-debatable. In the same time documents that were represented by my lawyer (or my documents) - newspapers, statements, declarations, and so on - weren't treated as equal to Israeli propaganda papers. More then that: At least our documents were completely ignored: As if they never existed. In the same time the documentation presented by Israeli government can't be treated as an arbitrary source: Because Israel is involved. Meanwhile a number of my documents may be considered as more objective and independent. M-1,M-2, etc. 14) The immigration officer used 1) an open lie 2) threats 3) desinformation; 4) expressed an unexplained malicious anger towards us; 5) claimed one thing to defend her position during our hearing and claimed the contrary during the hearing in Metelnitsky family case (our cases are related, and I was called as a witness to their hearing); 6) she lied about what I said, about what she previously said , about what was said about the situation in Israel and so on; 7) her behavior towards us and Metelnitsky family was so incredibly aggressive as if she had a personal reason to punish us, or to exterminate us. N-1,N-2,etc. 15)A "yes" or "no" answer was demanded in situations when it was clear that such an answer is absolutely impossible. Demanding "yes" or "no" answer only they justified their decision not to let me speak.O-1,O-2, etc. Outside The Courtroom: 1)When we came to Montreal I put everything that happened to us in Israel in writing and gave that piece of paper to my first lawyer's translator, Mrs. Eleonora Broder. She sabotaged the translation distorting the sense of my story, inserting her own inventions and sentences which sounded like provocation. I demanded a translation back to Russian from her, and she did it. She wrote it by her own hand. That manuscript is quite different from her French version. So, she did it to smoothen the distortions and to prevent me from complaining. I have also other proofs of her sabotage.2-A, 2-A1, 2-A2, etc. 2) Mrs.Eleonora Broder sabotaged the translations of newspaper's articles as well. From one hand she exaggerated a number of descriptions of persecutions against Russian-speaking people "to do me a favor" (I think her goal was to discredit these articles). But on the other hand she excluded the most important paragraphs in her translation and gave the opposite meaning to the most important facts and conclusions.2-B, etc. 3) Mrs.Eleonora Broder also sabotaged the translation of some official papers and other documents which I prepared to support my claim. She told us that she has translated some of them and that she would find a translator from Hebrew - but it was a lie. If not our complains to the lawyer and an alert note we gave to him: Then no documents were translated. 2-C,ect. 4)Mrs.Eleonora Broder and her assistant organized a psychological warfare on my wife causing her deep depression, and also provoked us to attempt suicide.2-D,ect. 5) Mrs. Broder inserted some particular phrases into my refugee claim, which I didn't want to see there. Later, in the courtroom, these phrases were used against me. These phrases were taken from articles, which I wrote before we escaped from Israel. Among them were the articles, which I hadn't presented to Mrs.Broder or to my lawyer when she was doing the translation of my refugee claim. The members of the immigration board have exploited these phrases again and again: What leads to a suggestion that it might not happened occasionally.2-E, etc. 6) There is a visible connection between the immigration officer - and information, which might possess only Mr.Mark Kotlarsky, who lives in Israel. This gentlemen acted once as an informer and a provocateur for Israeli authorities. He wrote an article about me in 1994, in Israel. This article was written in a humiliated and sarcastic manner. Mr.Kotlarsky used the information, which I shared with him (as with a close friend of mine) against me. This article is outright slander, mystification, false insinuations and lie... Before I discovered that Mark Kotlarsky might act as a government's agent I told him some things which I never told to any other person. During our immigration hearing and during the hearing of family Metelnitzky these things were used by the immigration officer (against me). I have no other explanation but that she's might be in a contact with Mr.Kotlarsky. 2-F, etc. 7) a) A campaign of lie and slender against me inside Israel coincide with a number of actions against me in Montreal, which source might be the consulate of Israel. If such things are happened - then Israel could eventually influence the immigration board decision in my immigration case, too. b) Then, I know from reliable sources that the immigration officer, the member of the immigration board in my case, is a Jew. I have nothing against her nationality. But, from the other hand, if the immigration officer is a Jew and the patriot of Israel (the last is too clear), what an arbitrary role in our case she should play? She has no moral and - may be - legal rights to judge in refugees' from Israel cases. 2-J, etc. 8)When we came to Montreal we gave my wife's birth certificate and it's legal translation to our lawyer. Dispute the submission of that legal translation Mrs.Broder did her own translation. Now we discovered that she sabotaged ("refused") to translate my wife's parents' nationality. There is a clear connection between that sabotage and the immigration officer's tactics in that issue. CONCLUSIONS: our 3 immigration hearings have nothing in common with any legal procedure. They rather remind of an inquisition court or a secret political tribunal. This tribunal was arranged to punish me for my ideological views - not to decide whether or not our (my family's and mine) claim for a refugee status is justified. It was used for the political purposes: To "show" how just any information about human rights violations in Israel, which not concerns Arabs, can be calmed down - and to express a huge pro-Israel propaganda. They made clear that they treat our escape from Israel as a mutiny and will never admit the very fact that we are in Canada, in Quebec, not in Israel. Their words, their behavior - everything - was meant to show us that we could only deserve to be treated according to the Canadian rules after getting a status in Canada. Before that we don't deserve to be treated by Canadian rules. That's why we were treated according to the rules and norms of Israel!!! It hard to find a more offensive ritual of humiliations over the juridical norms then that... It was absolutely clear for the judges - as well as for ourselves - that we were severely persecuted in Israel, that all members of my family were severely abused and that the definite casualties were inflicted to our health, including the children. It was also absolutely clear to the judges that the deportation back to Israel is a death penalty for all members of our family. The tricky thing is that the immigration board expressed almost no doubt about persecutions we survived in Israel or even recognized the harshness of these persecutions.(2-J-4). But the point is that they claim ... we are guilty in the persecutions ourselves - and therefore they don't worry about our souls and our lives... So, this is not even a tribunal, but a brutal act of a vengeance. SUPPLEMENTS: 1.A LIST OF TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH OR FRENCH ARTICLES. 2.DOCUMENTS. 3.TAPES FROM THE IMMIGRATION HEARINGS. 4.OTHER MATHERIAL PROOFS. 5.OTHER DOCUMENTS. SINCERELY YOURS, Lev GUNIN < e-mail address: leog@total.net GROUP OF DOCUMENTS #4 DOCUMENT number 2 To The Federal Court of Canada from Alla Gunin. FEDERAL COURT Supreme Court Building Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0H9 Alla Gunin 3455 Aylmer St., Apt. 201 Montreal, Quebec, CANADA H2X 2B5 Tel.(514)944-1294 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 believe that we are victims of partiality, and our refugee claim has been refused because of extreme generalization and political approach towards our claim. That became possible only because some refugee boards of Canadian Ministry of Immigration are manipulated by a foreign state. This is the main reason why our refugee claim was denied. Our case is extraordinary. My husband was a relatively well - known dissident in the former USSR and was severely persecuted by communist authorities. He was a dissident also in Israel. He was persecuted for his views in Israel as well. The state radio and newspapers called to take the law in own hands and to punish him. We were beaten, assaulted, and disgraced. All members of our family faced constant mockery. Our case is extraordinary also because we presented so many documentary proofs of persecutions as probably nobody else. The documents we presented are absolutely reliable: official, legal, medical, juridical, and others. Even in the tribunal negative decision we can read that the tribunal agree that under certain circumstances persecutions, which we described, "difficulties" (they called persecutions like that)"could take place". We also presented unbeatable evidences that a threat to our lives and to our mental and physical health exist in Israel. Our claim is special also because we did absolutely everything for finding protection in Israel. We turned to police, to the Ministry of Police,to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, to the Minister of Culture, to all human rights organizations, including Amnesty International's headquarters in Tel-Aviv, to famous parliament members, to newspapers and to any other possible sources. We have Amnesty International confirmation in our case, which arrived here in response to tribunal's inquiry. The reason of tribunal's negative decision and our eventual deportation from Canada was expressed by the immigration officer, Mrs. Judith Malka. During our 3-rd immigration hearing (it can be listed as 2-nd by Immigration) she hinted at her desire to send my husband to Israel because he must be punished there for his views. We believe that not the commissioners but she was the only person who made a decision in our case and that she also composed the text of the decision. She and the chairman of the tribunal said us that we may be persecuted in Canada as well, our children may be beaten and we may be also discriminated against. We understood their words as a bad hidden threat. Tribunal's negative decision and Mrs. Malka and Mr. Boisrond's insinuations during the hearings send us the message: We must be punished! But what for? We are innocent people, and we did no crimes, ever! The answer why we have to be punished may be found probably in paragraphs #4 and 5 of the decision's text, which suggests thhat immigrants from ex-USSR in Israel have no rights to claim a status of refugee in Canada because they are property of Israeli government. Israel bought them paying for their transportation to Israel, and for other things for them. So, they belong to Israel forever. And the paragraph 6 suggests that the ordinary Israelis also paid their part to be our masters! This very fact that this suggestion is made indirectly and that the information about the mentioned payments made by Israel and Israelis is incorrect is not really matter. I am absolutely sure that our lives will be in danger in Israel and that my husband will be killed or imprisoned immediately or soon after our arrival to Israel. What will be with us without him, what will be with his mother? Please, take pity on us! Save our souls! Save my children! Sincerely yours, - Alla Gunin GROUP OF DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4 DOCUMENT 3 TO THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA From Lev GUNIN Dear Sirs! We came here as thousands of other refugee claimants who flied from their countries to Canada. But our case is special, may be - even unique. In ex-USSR I was a dissident; I was severely persecuted by communist authorities. I was relatively well known in my native republic. Under certain circumstances I refused to declare that I never desired to immigrate to Israel. Now I actually claim that I was deported to Israel from my native Blears because of my political activity. My family and me tried to escape to Germany but were seized in Warsaw by Israelis. They took us to Israel by force, and we have certain evidences. In Israel my family and me, we were severely persecuted. I presented the reasons of these persecutions in my claim, and also during my immigration hearings. I was considered as a dissident in Israel, too. Our case is special also because we presented more documentary proofs of what happened to us then probably no other refugee claimants. Persecutions against us in Israel were massive, systematic and dangerous to us. They caused physical and moral loses to us. Despite clear evidences and undeniable proofs our claim was denied. It happened only because of wide-scaled conspiracy against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel, and because the immigration committee assigned to our case was manipulated by a foreign state. We have several well-grounded reasons: enough to accuse members of the committee in partiality. Almost all basic juridical norms and elements were violated during our 3 immigration hearings (see Document # 1). The basic moral and political norms of Canadian society were replaced acting in Israel. Mrs. Judith Malka, the immigration officer, spoke to us and acted as Israelis normally do. She openly expressed her hatred to us personally - and to Russian speaking people in general. Her manner and her ironical attitude were assaulting. Besides, she openly assaulted us directly several times (see Document #1). Her aggression and threats can be explained only by her partiality. When she couldn't control her emotions of hatred and detestation she left the room of the hearings two times. May be her reaction was so visual because she's a Jew and - it looks like that - an Israeli. Then - why she was sent to such a hearing? We have 7 main points in connection with that: 1. It is absolutely clear that the two commissioners refused to participate in our hearings (in other words, kept them out of the way of the hearing). Mrs. Malka was given an option to speak non-stop during almost all the time excluding rare exceptions. She accused us, shouted on us, declared pure political pro-Israeli propaganda and accused me in acting against Israel without any interruption from the judges. Of course, they can claim that they participated by hearing and analyzing. But then their passivity caused a situation when they had to analyze only what Mrs. Malka gave them to analyze. When Mr. Boisrond spoke he never opened his own topic and used his role for illegal methods of pressure to distort my responses to Mrs. Malka's previous questions. 2. The commissioners refused to sign the decision. There are no their signatures on that document. That's another proof that Mrs. Malka composed that document herself. 3. The committee decision is based on her statements, insinuations, accusations and declarations only. If something correspond to what Mr. Boisrond said - he just repeated what Mrs. Malka already said before. The stylistics of the text and the essence of it is deeply differ from Mr. Boisrond's and Mrs. Madelenine Marien-Roy's, who completely kept her aloof from the hearing (except of few formal words). In the same time that stylistics fits to Mrs. Malka's manner. These two suggestions allow us to detect her as the only author of the decision, what is the severe violation of the law. 4. This committee gives no positive decisions in refugees' from Israel cases. When in 1994-95 about 52% of refugees from Israel were recognized as Convention refugees, with this committee it is "0" (or almost "0"?). 5. She's refusing to give her motivations behind that decision. But to explain such a decision is a juridical norm. She replaced any explanations by a pure political rhetoric and pro-Israeli propaganda, which has nothing what to do with our claim. She is also a person who contacted Israeli embassy for explanations (instructions?) in our case. 6. The committee decision ignores all documents we presented as if there were no documents at all. In the same time to support its statements the committee used documents, which credibility is "0", and that's obvious not just towards our case but in general sense. But most of the document used in the decision have no relationship to our case and were given just because something had to be given. 7. By denying our claim the Immigration committed one of the most inhuman and cruel actions in its history. I am may be just one of few people in the world who suffered so much for expressing their opinions. I am still living only because of a miracle, which saved me in ex-USSR, and from angry "patriots"-Israelis. We had so many documentary proof of our refugee claim as nobody else. We had testimonies, certificates, and articles, which I wrote for various newspapers. We had Amnesty International confirmation in my case... My children, wives, mother's suffering was just rejected by commissioners. They acted against us as if we were solders of an enemy army, not innocent people. My family and my lives are in a real danger now. 8. The decision is partially based on distortions Mrs. Eleonora Broder did when she translated our claim and our documents. I can support these points by analyzing the text of the decision and by other supporting material. First of all let's analyze the decision - paragraph after paragraph. Let us point that this document replaces some well-known facts and even data by false facts, events and data. The information from our PIF, our claim, hearings and even passports this document describes with distortions. For example, on page #1 (par.6) the children ages are indicated as 5 and 6 when in reality they were much younger by then. Only under a slight view that information is not very important. In reality the children ages were changed for changing an impression. Because what is less destructive and traumatic for older children for younger children may be totally different. In the same paragraph we can read that the children were denied the participation in the Sukkot celebration, when in reality in our claim and during the hearings it was a description of a dark room, in which our children were placed. It makes a difference! A dispute about that dark room erupted between us - and Mrs. Broder, who refused to translate the text of my testimony which I typed and gave her but desired to intervene actively. Later - when we demanded to change the places distorted by her in her translation - she threatened to testify against us before the committee and mentioned that dispute like as we did or said something wrong. It is clear for me that Mrs. Broder probably was Mrs. Malka's informer. Anyway, that detail shows once again that Mrs. Malka alone composed this document. How can this document be considered as a legal order when even during a pure description it refuses to tell the truth? We can find next false statement on page 2, in paragraph # 4 ("the demander also claim that he was persecuted because he denounced about the fascism"). In reality I never said like that this happened because of that, and this happened because of that... The person who composed that document tries to hide here that the fascism was mentioned in connection with my article entitled "Why Israel Is Against the Victory Day?", which was published in Israel in 1994. In his comment to my article the editor call to take the law into people's own hands and to make short work of me. As you can see that's also makes a difference! Then, the paragraphs #4 and #5 on page 3 deny rights to enter any country as a refugee to any person if he escaped from Israel. It means that these paragraphs deny not just my personal right to escape from Israel (in other words, I must live in Israel forever!), but disputes that right in principle. Formally speaking about me that paragraph's meaning is actually depersonalized. It claims that all immigrants from the former USSR in Israel were bought by Israeli government as any other property, and now belong to Israel forever. So, can a property escape? There is no other reasonable explanation of these paragraphs' sense. ("Demanders declared that they flied from Israel to claim a refugee status in Canada after a series of incidents, which victims they were. But the tribunal denies them the credibility [...] because [...] this family immigrated to Israel [...] according to the Law of Return" and because Israel paid for their "free transportation, free medical insurance, and also gave them a certain amount of money, citizenship and other benefits"). Anyway, these two paragraphs have nothing what to do with our claim! Mrs. Malka also mentions the Law of Return here. That Law of Return is a declaration, which was made when Israel was founded in 1948. Israelis can call it "the main rule of the country" or whatever they want but it is what it actually is: Just a proclamation. Since Israel has no constitution the Law of Return and some other laws like it are still there to calm down people who demand the creation of Constitution. But as in former USSR between constitution and real life there were thousands of executive laws, which could just abolish what the constitution said. There are customs, official religious code and thousands of other laws between the Law of Return and the real life in Israel. And Mrs. Malka knows it! The paragraph #5 on page 3 just shows how far away from the real life is the Law of Return, which was created almost 50 years ago and named here as an "evidence". Mrs. Malka gives an extract from that law, which says that the medical insurance in Israel is free, but that isn't correct! I can show the receipts for the money that we paid for the medical insurance since our first day in Israel, because it isn't free any more! The language course is not completely free any more! And not the whole way to Israel is free!(I can show you the tickets). These are not just mistakes. The whole attitude is wrong (or false, or the first and the second in the same time). So, how can be reliable a document that contains so many mistakes and falsifications? Let us point also that these two paragraphs are absolutely illegal from the juridical point of view. Our material situation wasn't mentioned nor in our claim, nor during our hearings. We described persecutions against us, not our financial situation. May be Mrs. Malka had to compose a report for American Jewish organizations to show where their money is going. Then this decision is not about our status, and has no juridical power! The next paragraph looks nice, but somehow avoid quitting. Why? I think, I know, why. I know the document and place in that document the last paragraph on page 3 refers to... Let me show you what it about. It declares that 80% of Israel population is mobilized to welcome new immigrants from the former USSR. Isn't it sound strange? It's hard to believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any juridical document! Let's admit also that this particular fragment is the beloved fragment of Mr. La Salle, a commissioner who was recently accused of partiality towards refugee claimants from Israel. He used this paragraph in probably all negative decisions he composed. (He made practically no positive decisions in refugees from Israel cases). For example, Mr. La Salle us