Страницы: -
1 -
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
8 -
9 -
10 -
11 -
12 -
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 -
20 -
21 -
22 -
23 -
24 -
25 -
26 -
27 -
28 -
29 -
30 -
31 -
32 -
33 -
34 -
35 -
36 -
37 -
38 -
39 -
40 -
41 -
42 -
43 -
44 -
45 -
46 -
47 -
48 -
49 -
50 -
51 -
52 -
53 -
54 -
55 -
56 -
57 -
58 -
59 -
60 -
61 -
62 -
63 -
64 -
65 -
66 -
67 -
68 -
69 -
70 -
71 -
72 -
73 -
74 -
75 -
76 -
77 -
78 -
79 -
80 -
81 -
82 -
83 -
84 -
85 -
86 -
87 -
88 -
deny an appeal for help just
because it "open" to people from all ethnic groups, also has no logic
in it. Histadrut may be "open" but its functionaries may treat
"Russians" not like they treat Israelis. We also express our deep
concern of utilization of Mr. Natan Sharansky's affidavit. As far as we know
this affidavit was given through a telephone interview what is
juridical unacceptable. Especially when the commissioners don't accept
copies
of articles (even from the most famous newspapers), which refugee
claimants present, they demand originals! Then - it was well known
before Mr. Sharansky became a Minister in Israeli government that his
"Zionist Forum" is not an independent organization (as well as its
chairmen) but an organization infiltrated by the government. By the
time of our hearing Mr. Sharansky has already became a minister. And
Mr. La Salle knew it. So he presented the view of Israeli government as
an "independent" view that time: as in all other occasions. He
clearly exposes the source of all the manipulations with the refugees
from Israel in Canada: Israeli government!
COMMENTS
1.See Bibliography
2.We have several examples, including a documentary film, which was
shown on CFCF12 the 10-th of March 1997, between 8 and 10 p.m.
3.The Resume of the Committee Decision, p.4, paragraph 4, -second
sentence.
4.See Bibliography, - #2.
5. See The Resume of the Committee Decision, p.1, second paragraph, and
also - p.p.1,2,3.
6.See Bibliography, - #3.
7.According to Judaism and to Israeli laws (because there is a strange
mix of civil and religious rules in Israel's juridical system) the
children's nationality is given after their mother's nationality.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. "Une comissaire du statut de rйfugiй accusй de partialitй ", - by
Franзois Berger. "LA PRESSE". Montreal. January 27, 1997.
2. "Off The Record", by Peter Wheeland. "HOUR", Montreal, December
15-21, 1994.
3. "Israeli Immigrants Finding Work", by Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
"The Canadian Jewish news", August 17, 1995. And also: "Ethiopian
Jews Riot Over Dumped Blood", by Serge Schmemann from 'NEW YORK TIMES".
"THE GAZETTE". Montreal, January 29, 1996. And
also: "Rights of Humans and Refugees", by Eugenia Kravchik. (In
Russian). An Interview With Shulamit Aloni. "Okna"("WINDOWS").
August 18, 1994. Tel-Aviv. And also: "A Non-Existent Photo of Shulamit
Aloni", by Roman Polonsky. An Interview With Shulamit Aloni.
"WIESTI". December 29, 1994. Tel-Aviv.
4."Ottawa Vows Crackdown On Phony Refugees", by Yvonne Zacharias. "THE
GAZETTE", September 7, 1996.
To Support Our Declaration We Are Also Listing Or Submitting You Next
Documents:
1)"LE MOND DIPLOMATIQUE". Issue #1, January, 1997. The declaration of
Amnesty International about the decision of Israeli
government to legalize tortures by Mossad and Shabbak over the
detainees.
2) Jews refer to non-Jewish women officially as nothing more than
'unclean meat' - shiska. This observation was cited coming from Jew,
Professor Israel Shahak in his book _Jewish History, Jewish Religion:
The Weight of 3,000 years_[Published by Pluto Press (London 1994)].
3) Hassidic Jews in New York yeshivas are among the top money
launderers in the world. They use the cloak of religion to hide their work
and they use Israel's exclusively Jewish immigration policy (the "law
of return") to escape U.S. justice by relocating to Israel. New York's
47th Street : Maariv, September 2, 1994 By Ben Kaspit, the New York
correspondent
4) American Civil Rights Review
http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/index.html
5) Multicultural Disasters http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/dv0.html
HUD Disaster Tours of Ruined Urban Areas HUD Has Destroyed
http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/stlouistour.html Immigration
Debacle! http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/imfolder.html
6)"Orthodox Again Battle Police in Jerusalem", by Douglas Jehl for "NEW
YORK TIMES". In "THE GAZETTE". July 21, 1996.
7)Efraim Sevela. "Stop The Airplane, I Have To Get Out..." A
documentary, autobiography novel. "STAV". Jerusalem, 1980. (In Russian).
8) http://www.igc.org/Womensnet/dworkin/IsraelI.html
9) http://talk.excite.com/go.webx?7@-d^86825@.ee7ba6a/86
10) http://www.colba.net/~leog/newspaper/araven.html
11)"By Way of Deception", by Victor Ostrovsky. St.Martin's Press. New
York.1990.
12)Grigory Swirsky. "The Breakthrough". New York. (In Russian).
13)"The Bungling Bank Robbers of Israel", by Doug Struck. "THE
GAZETTE". August 5,1995.
14)"Dream Homes But No Buyers", by Raine Marcus. "CITY LIGHTS", a
supplement to "Jerusalem Post", September 11, 1992.
SUPPLEMENT WE SUBMIT OR ARE PLANNING TO SUBMIT COPIES OF THAT APPEAL
TO: 1.UN Human Right Committee in Ottawa.
2.Amnesty International, London. 3.Amnesty International Division for
Refugees. 4.Canadian Ministry of Immigration. 5.The Office of Prime
Minister of Quebec. 6."LA PRESSE" 7."THE GAZETTE". 8."HOUR" 9."MAIL AND
GLOBE" 10."LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE"
11."WASHINGTON POST" 12."CHICAGO TRIBUNE" 13."BERLINER ZEITUNG"
14."ZYCIE WARSZAWY" 15."TIMES" 16."THE
GUARDIAN" 17."DOUBLE STANDARDS" (AN INTERNET ON-LINE EDITION) 18.
"EXCITE TALKS" (INTERNET) TO OTHER PLACES
AND ORGANIZATIONS
ДЕЛО МЕТЕЛЬНИЦКИХ:
FROM FAMILY METELNITSKY. MONTREAL, Desember, 1996.
To Amnesty International's London Office
Why WeTurn To Amnesty International?
1) Because our complains to Amnesty International from Israel played if
not the main,a very important role during all the 2 immigration
hearings in our case. 2) Because indirectly or even directly (from a
particular point of view) they insinuated that we must be punished for our
contacts with Amnesty International. 3) Because what happened during
our immigration hearing here in Montreal (Quebec, Canada) is so
incredible and horrible that will encourage human right violations
everywhere on a wider scale. 4) Because during the hearing the
immigration officer falsificated Amnesty International's (and other
human rights organizations') documents and lied about them. 6)
Because if a family comes to a country (which accepts refugees under
the Geneva Convention act) but faces abuses, ungrounded
accusations, threats, hatred and injustice within an immigration court
room - that means a mayhem for the human rights, placing the very
basis of human rights in jeopardy. 7) Because we are absolutely certain
(and we have presented undenieble evidences to the immigration
bord) that we are going to be beatten, abused or even killed if we will
be turned back to Israel.
We came to Israel in 1990 ; as many other people we had a hope for a
better life. As the most of Russian-speaking people we were
"welcomed" by a malicious anger, the state unti-Russian propaganda and
the most severe discrimination. Our son was 15 when we came
to Israel. Each of us (including our son) was assaulted, abused,
beaten, discriminated against.The ignorance of what is going on in Israel
with the Russian-speaking people can not make what we and our friends
suffered from in Israel unreal. Batteries, assaults, abuses were
real and happened to us in real life. If my son could come to school
and could hear a discussion about the last article in a Hebrew
newspaper, in which "Russians" were called sons of a bitch,
prostitutes, fools and thieves: was it "unreal"? And the computer games in
Hebrew accompanied by songs with words like "Russians, go home":They
were as real as the real life. And the social climate in Israel is so
horrible that if a child is beaten at school "because he's Russian" -
he is forced to feel guilty himself as if he's guilty in not being an
Israeli
but being a Russian.
Any person with conciseness (a journalist, an immigration official, a
human right organization official) could take a translator from Hebrew,
go to a library or to an archive and find articles in Hebrew newspapers
which have highly aggressive untie-Russian contest. And what about
thousands of articles in Russian newspapers published in Israel about
what can be called almost a genocide against "Russians"?
When they began to call my son to a draft board (because Israel has a
compulsory military service) he asked an alternative military service
each time they called him: because he was afraid of hostility towards
"Russians" within the Israeli army and also because of the rule that a
single son can not be taken into the front-line units against his will.
They gave him no decision, but kept ordering him to came to the draft
point again and again. One day a new routine order to come to the draft
point arrived. My son was ordered to come one day - but the order
have been sent one day later then the date of his appearance. A couple
of other days past before he got the order. But as soon as he got
it he immediately went to the draft board.
When he came they have arrested him incriminating him a disobedience to
the order to come. No excuse, no explanation were admitted.
Everything happened so fast that there is no doubt: they were prepared.
So, they have submitted this order for him later then the date he
was called to intentionally. He was accused in a refusal to come to the
draft board (the ignored his voluntarial arrival) and in avoiding the
military service. They have treated him like if he already was a
soldier and flied from a military unit. He was also given a soldier's number
as if
he was a soldier when in reality he never entered the army and never
wearied a military uniform. When he admitted that he's going to
become mentally ill because of the military prison they refused to give
him a Russian-speaking psychologist, and the Hebrew- speaking
psychologist couldn't speak with our son, but wrote a report based on
ungrounded insinuations. When later a Russian-speaking
psychologist appeared he translated him that report but told that it is
impossible now to dispute what the Israeli wrote.
When our son was in the military prison severe humiliations were
committed over him. All the violations of the rules and of the moral norms
in his case were too innumerable to mention them. During his
imprisonment our son was transformed from a healthy person to a mentally ill
boy. When he was released from the military prison (he was in the
prison more then 3 months; no charges were posed against him, no court
took place) the military medical committee recognized him as a mentally
ill person. When he was just imprisoned he was recognized as a
fully healthy person suitable to the military service.He received some
treatment here, in Canada, and the immigration board know it. We did
everything we could to release our son from the military prison. But
the civil lawyers refused to take his case as soon as they heard about
the conflict with the army. Some of them assaulted us refusing to take
the case.We demanded a military lawyer but the military
commandature in Jaffo denied us a military lawyer. We turned to all the
possible places like Israel Bar Association, human rights
organizations, Sharansky's Zionist Forum, Israel and foreign media,
state officials: nobody couldn't or didn't want to help us. Then we
decided to send a letter to Amnesty International. A friend of us - a
dissident and a journalist Lev G. - has contacted Amnesty International
and later submitted several faxes to them. When the authorities
realized that we complained to Amnesty International they released our
son from the military prison.
We couldn't live in Israel any more after what happened to us and to
our son there, and also because we were afraid that our son can be
arrested again if we will stay in Israel. The only reasonable solution
for us was to escape. And the only way to do it was to become refugee
claimants. We flied to Montreal in November, 1994.
We have submitted all the documentary proof we had to support our claim
to the immigration board (committee). We also sincerely
described what happened to us in our claim's atory without any
distortion or exaggeration. But what happened to us in the immigration
courtroom and between and after our 2 hearings is just incredible...
Why We Think Our Human Rights Were Violated By the Court?
Inside The Courtroom:
1)Some of the main documentary proofs (statements, affidavits, letters,
receipts, articles, ect.) were ignored as if they never existed.
2)Other extremely important documents were mentioned but were ignored
(if not - they might be an obstacle to what the judges
incriminated us). 3) Other documents (including Amnesty International's
confirmation of our complain) were mentioned as incomplete proof
of particular events, when in reality they were given to support other
events. In the same time documents which relate to these events were
ignored. 4) The same way our words were ignored, too. For example, I
was asked an insinuating question. My answer closed that question
by a clear and unbeatable conterargument. So, what then? Then the same
insinuation was repeated - but this time in an affirmative form:
As if I said nothing. The same question could be given 2, 3, 5 times
non-stop. If I gave the same answer again and again they shouted on
me, used threats, aggression, incredible accusations to force me to
change my answer. It's clear that such a method violates moral and
legal norms - and any hesitation by a refugee claimant under such an
illegal psychological pressure can not be taken into consideration. 5)
Too often they questioned us giving us no rights to response. They
shuted us down replacing our eventual answer by their own - and later
based their conclusions not on our answers but on their own statement
posing it as our - not their - words. 6) It was repeated again and
again that they doubt about our rights to appeal (for a refugee status)
because our actions (when we were in Israel) weren't a good
solution. As examples of "good solutions" were mentioned: A demolition
of our family, a criminal offense - and so on! 7) Several times the
bord members expressed their dissaproval by the norms of democracy or
by my aproval of the democracy laws. It is absolutely clear that our
case was treated not according to Canadians laws but according to the
rules and norms of Israel since - in the judges' eyes - we belong not
to Canadien but to Israeli jurisdiction. This position - neither being
ordered to the bord or being the product of the board itself - made the
courtroom a part of Israel's territory. 8)The procedure of our
immigration hearing wasn't an investigation in our case but a pure
pro-Israel's
propaganda. It's goal wasn't to detect whether or not our claim for
refugee status is justified but to defend the image of Israel as a "good"
country in an imprudent and abusing form. The depersonalization of our
claim was done in an extreme form ignoring our personal history.
So the only criteria chosen to support the bord's point of view was the
very fact that we came from Israel. But the only admissible attitude to
refugees is to base the decision on what happened to them personally,
not on which country they flied. 9)The members of the board
expressed their detestation of the human rights defense and verbally
denied (directly or indirectly) a number of recognized human rights.
10)Sending requests to Israeli embassy and demanding some definite
information about us, the immigration officer violated another moral
and judicial principle: Not to announce his claim to the government of
a country a refugee claimant escaped from. 11)Reading Amnesty
International's and other reports the immigration officer distorted and
sometimes falsified the documents. 12) Documents submitted by the
Israeli government, by it's dependents or by it's embassy were
considered as absolutely reliable and were voluntarily represented by the
tribunal as non-debatable. In the same time documents that were
represented by our lawyer (or our documents) - newspapers, statements,
declarations, and so on - weren't treated as equal to Israeli
propaganda papers. More then that: At least our documents were completely
ignored: As if they never existed. In the same time the documentation
presented by Israeli government can't be treated as an arbitrary
source: Because Israel is involved. Meanwhile a number of our documents
may be considered as more objective and independent. 13) The
immigration officer used 1) an open lie 2) threats 3) desinformation;
4) expressed an unexplained malicious anger towards us; 5) claimed
one thing to defend her position during our hearing and claimed the
contrary during the hearing in G. family case (our cases are related,
and G. was called as a witness to our second hearing); 6) she lied
about what I said, about what she previously said , about what was said
about the situation in Israel and so on; 7) her behavier towards us and
G. family was so incredibly agressive as if she had a personal reason
to punish us, or to exterminate us. 14) A 'yes" or "no" answer was
demanded in situations when it was clear that such an answer is
absolutely impossible. Demanding "yes" or "no" answer only they
justified their decision not let us speak. 15) Despite our son's mental
illness and the evidence that he can not be asked the immigration
officer asked him various questions in an aggressive manner. We
understood that questions which she asked him were nothing more then a
pure humiliation. 16) Requests which the immigration officer has
submitted to Israel weren't justified or necessary.
Outside The Courtroom:
1) Our lawyer's translator did our story translation in an provocative
and humiliated manner. She has chosen the declarative style instead of
a description intentionally: to make our story sound ridiculous. She
also sabotaged G.'s family story. When they came to Montreal G. put
everything that happened to his family in Israel in writing and gave
that piece of paper to the translator. She sabotaged the translation
distorting the sense of his story, inserting her own inventions and
sentences which sounded like provocations. He demanded a translation
back to Russian from her French version , and she did it. She wrote it
by her own hand. That manuscript is quite different from her French
version. So, she did it to smoothen the distortions and to prevent G.
from complaining. We have also other proofs of her sabotage. 2) She
sabotaged the translations of newspaper's articles as well. From one
hand she exaggerated a number of descriptions of persecutions
against Russian-speaking people "to do us a favor" (We think her goal
was to discredit these ar