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 -
n reality they were much younger by
then. Only under a slight view that information is not very important. In
reality the children ages were changed for changing an impression.
Because what is less destructive and traumatic for older children for
younger children may be totally different. In the same paragraph we can
read that the children were denied the participation in the Sukkot
celebration, when in reality in our claim and during the hearings it
was a description of a dark room, in which our children were placed. It
makes a difference! A dispute about that dark room erupted between us -
and Mrs. Broder, who refused to translate the text of my
testimony which I typed and gave her but desired to intervene actively.
Later - when we demanded to change the places distorted by her in
her translation - she threatened to testify against us before the
committee and mentioned that dispute like as we did or said something
wrong. It is clear for me that Mrs. Broder probably was Mrs. Malka's
informer. Anyway, that detail shows once again that Mrs. Malka alone
composed this document. How can this document be considered as a legal
order when even during a pure description it refuses to tell the
truth?
We can find next false statement on page 2, in paragraph # 4 ("the
demander also claim that he was persecuted because he denounced
about the fascism"). In reality I never said like that this happened
because of that, and this happened because of that... The person who
composed that document tries to hide here that the fascism was
mentioned in connection with my article entitled "Why Israel Is Against the
Victory Day?", which was published in Israel in 1994. In his comment to
my article the editor call to take the law into people's own hands
and to make short work of me. As you can see that's also makes a
difference!
Then, the paragraphs #4 and #5 on page 3 deny rights to enter any
country as a refugee to any person if he escaped from Israel. It means
that these paragraphs deny not just my personal right to escape from
Israel (in other words, I must live in Israel forever!), but disputes that
right in principle. Formally speaking about me that paragraph's meaning
is actually depersonalized. It claims that all immigrants from the
former USSR in Israel were bought by Israeli government as any other
property, and now belong to Israel forever. So, can a property
escape? There is no other reasonable explanation of these paragraphs'
sense. ("Demanders declared that they flied from Israel to claim a
refugee status in Canada after a series of incidents, which victims
they were. But the tribunal denies them the credibility [...] because [...]
this
family immigrated to Israel [...] according to the Law of Return" and
because Israel paid for their "free transportation, free medical insurance,
and also gave them a certain amount of money, citizenship and other
benefits"). Anyway, these two paragraphs have nothing what to do
with our claim! Mrs. Malka also mentions the Law of Return here. That
Law of Return is a declaration, which was made when Israel was
founded in 1948. Israelis can call it "the main rule of the country" or
whatever they want but it is what it actually is: Just a proclamation.
Since Israel has no constitution the Law of Return and some other laws
like it are still there to calm down people who demand the creation
of Constitution. But as in former USSR between constitution and real
life there were thousands of executive laws, which could just abolish
what the constitution said. There are customs, official religious code
and thousands of other laws between the Law of Return and the real
life in Israel. And Mrs. Malka knows it! The paragraph #5 on page 3
just shows how far away from the real life is the Law of Return, which
was created almost 50 years ago and named here as an "evidence". Mrs.
Malka gives an extract from that law, which says that the medical
insurance in Israel is free, but that isn't correct! I can show the
receipts for the money that we paid for the medical insurance since our
first
day in Israel, because it isn't free any more! The language course is
not completely free any more! And not the whole way to Israel is free!(I
can show you the tickets). These are not just mistakes. The whole
attitude is wrong (or false, or the first and the second in the same time).
So, how can be reliable a document that contains so many mistakes and
falsifications? Let us point also that these two paragraphs are
absolutely illegal from the juridical point of view. Our material
situation wasn't mentioned nor in our claim, nor during our hearings. We
described persecutions against us, not our financial situation. May be
Mrs. Malka had to compose a report for American Jewish
organizations to show where their money is going. Then this decision is
not about our status, and has no juridical power!
The next paragraph looks nice, but somehow avoid quitting. Why? I
think, I know, why. I know the document and place in that document the
last paragraph on page 3 refers to... Let me show you what it about. It
declares that 80% of Israel population is mobilized to welcome new
immigrants from the former USSR. Isn't it sound strange? It's hard to
believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any juridical
document! Let's admit also that this particular fragment is the beloved
fragment of Mr. La Salle, a commissioner who was recently accused
of partiality towards refugee claimants from Israel. He used this
paragraph in probably all negative decisions he composed. (He made
practically no positive decisions in refugees from Israel cases). For
example, Mr. La Salle used that "evidence" in his responds to Zilber and
Buyanovsky's claims. (Page 6 in a response to G. Buyanovsky and p.3 in
a response to family Z. claim) Let's to abstract from its complete
nonsense and suppose it reflects something from Israel's life and
reality, and reflects the mentality of Israelis (Mrs. Malka's intention to
choose this particular extract, and not another one, reflects her
national identity as Israeli). If Israel is a country like other countries,
like
Canada, so how it comes that "80% of Israeli population" can be
"mobilized" to "welcome new immigrants"? How people can be "mobilized"
(or, probably, ordered) to "sponsor immigrants" and to help them by
"giving money, closes and furniture" (p.3, 5-th line of Mr.La Sall's
response to family Z. claim). May be something is wrong in a country
where population can be "mobilized"? May be, our troubles have been
erupted exactly because people in such a country have to be "mobilized"
to welcome new immigrants?And then - how those figures, 80% of
Israeli population, can be understood? Were they been called (to a
draft board, to Mossad?) to get an order to "welcome new immigrants" -
and were counted one by one? And what about the other 20%? We don't
know anything about that "mobilization". But we know that the
Israeli population (and the Hebrew media employees in particular) was
mobilized to abuse, assault, disgrace and to discriminate new
immigrants from the former USSR. If the Canadian Ministry of
Immigration was not on one side it could employ 2-3 translators and send
them in a library to translate Hebrew newspapers for last 6 years.
Thousands of racists, xenophobic articles, which encourage aggressive
actions against Russian-speaking people and teach to treat them with
malicious anger, could be found. That is the real "mobilization". By
the way, if we began to speak about Mr. La Salle, his personality may
be the best illustration of who stands behind the total injustice
towards us. He is a permanent director of the Informative Committee
Canada-Israel, an organization that may be considered as a shadow
structure of Israeli government. Allegations that Mr. Salle
systematically treats the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel with
partiality
were expressed several times. In 1996 Federal Court indirectly
recognized that. Despite of that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard - Canadian Minister
of Immigration - gave Mr. La Salle a new commissioner's mandate (for
the next term). 52% of refugee claimants from Israel obtained their
refugee status in 1994-95.On hearings with Mr. La Salle it is 0(%). In
1997 Mr. Jacques La Salle was accused in partiality towards refugees
from Israel, and his involvement in their cases was terminated* (see
comments). However, his mandate wasn't terminated in general. How
can it happen in a country, which is not a province of Israel, but an
independent state?
In the first large paragraph on page#4 of the decision the tribunal
express recognition that the persecutions we faced in Israel might
happen to us. But it claims indirectly that we provoked them ourselves
by refusing to give up our believes and views. And it claims directly
that the persecutions were caused by some individuals, not by country's
rules, traditions or policy. And it claims also that there no
persecutions against Russian-speaking people at all. As we can see that
paragraph is deeply contradictory in itself. In first 5 lines it
recognizes the existence of persecutions (calling them "difficulties"
but that is not important because it clear explaining what it means). In
next 5 (!?) lines it says the contrary. We already know (see the
reasons expressed above) that there is a bad hidden lie in the referrals
concerning fascism in this document. So, this lie is exploited in that
paragraph, too.
The next paragraph is based on a sentence in my refugee claim (in my
PIF), which did the translator, Mrs. Broder herself, insert. Instead of
just translating my story about what happened to me during my work on a
stadium in Petach-Tikva (August, 1991), she transformed this
event into a symbolic conclusion-declaration. In the same time this
conclusion is correct in general. Because what happened to me then
may be called a slavery. This event was discussed during the two
hearings. I was tested if I tell the truth, and it is clear from the test
that I
told the truth. Besides, I presented an affidavit from Mr. Ginsburg who
describes the same event. I also presented an article written by
Rivka Rabinovich and entitled "Haim #1 and Haim #2", which
professionally describes some forms of slavery in Israel. I also explained
during my hearings that I do not want to make any declaration and that
Mrs. Broder just distorted my words. Instead of taking into
consideration all these facts the tribunal is persisting in its
absolutely inadmissible and illegal suggestions. Instead of investigating
whether
or not we were persecuted it accuses us in spreading slander about
Israel. It claims like if we would not came to Canada to seek a political
asylum but to spread the slander about Israel. If we claimed that my
wife and me - were beaten during our work: that's because we want
show Israel as a state of slavery, claims the tribunal. If we describe
what happened to our children: that's because we want to draw a
picture of Israel as a horrible state... And so on. Reading that
document you completely forget that it is a decision in refugees' claim. It
looks
like the tribunal misinterpreted its functions and sees itself not as
immigration but as a political tribunal. But the main point of this
paragraph
is that we claim we got no help from the state of Israel and will not
be defended by it if will be deported back there because we want to
show Israel as a mayhem. This is the only tribunal's excuse for
ignoring all our evidences, all documentary and other material proofs of
police and other state offices' refusal to defend us. This is the only
excuse for ignorance of all the reliable and very serious evidences like
Amnesty International's confirmation in our case! This is the only
excuse for ignorance of intensity and incredible scale of our attempts to
find protection in Israel!
The next paragraph continues the allegation that we claim we were
denied police protection, multiple organizations' , Knesset members'
help (and even our layer couldn't do anything) and were forced to turn
to Amnesty International only because ("en effet"!) we want to show
that Israel is a state of injustice.
The declaration, which the tribunal made in the next paragraph (that
Israel is a democratic state, a state like other countries, and so on) has
nothing what to do with our claim.
Let us express our father concern about credibility of the
documentation the tribunal used as a documentary proof "against us". We know
that the same document, which mentions the 80% "mobilized" Israelis
mentions also a "Department of Integration", which doesn't exist in
Israel. It's clear that the real name of Israeli Ministry of Absorption
("misrad ha-klita in Hebrew) was replaced by non-existing "Ministry of
Integration" because it sounds strange for Canadian (or American,
European) ears. But the "Ministry of Absorption" is the real name of the
organization, which "takes care" of new immigrants. And this document
changes it to the "Department of Integration"...In reality the Zionist
ideology is against integration. Look over Ben-Gurion's, Orlosorov's,
Bella Katsnelson's, Golda Meir's works and statements! Then you will
be convinced that the name "Ministry of Absorption" expresses their
desires completely well. It means that the document, which was used
as an "indisputable source of information" replaces actually the truth
by the lie, not only a real name by a false name. Then - how can such
a document be considered as a credible one?
We also express our deep concern of utilization of Mr. Natan
Sharansky's affidavit. As far as we know this affidavit was given through a
telephone interview what is juridical unacceptable. Especially when the
commissioners don't accept copies of articles (even from the most
famous newspapers), which refugee claimants present, they demand
originals! Then - it was well known before Mr. Sharansky became a
Minister in Israeli government that his "Zionist Forum" is not an
independent organization (as well as its chairmen) but an organization
infiltrated by the government. By the time of our second hearing Mr.
Sharansky has already became a minister. And Mr. Malka knew it. So
he presented the view of Israeli government as an "independent" view
that time as well as in all other occasions. She clearly exposes the
source of all the manipulations with the refugees from Israel in
Canada: Israeli government! That paragraph also exploits the topic , which
was closed by my answer during our first immigration hearing. Mrs.
Malka asked me how can I explain the statistic from Israel that no
Russian-speaking people were regestered complaining against the police.
I shown then all the receipts of my appeals I have submitted to
police, to the Ministry of police, to the Ministry of Internal Affairs
and to police headquarters in Tel-Aviv. And I said that this is the
explanation because my mails were unanswered and my complains were
never registered. I also presented an article, which gives
absolutely precise, reliable and competent information that nothing can
be really done against police in Israel. And the story about a
policeman who get a fine because of his refusal to help an Arab as an
"evidence" looks like a clowned.
It was clear for the tribunal that it's impossible to avoid comments
about the total ignorance of the whole documentation, which we
presented. It was clear that something must be said. This is why the
next paragraph was composed to say just anything about that and was
designed to say nothing in particular. The tribunal claims that all our
documents were rejected because its members took into consideration
only "absolutely reliable" documents. And it looks like there were no
such documents among these we presented... In reality documents like
the letter from the Minister of Culture Mr. Amnon Rubinschtein, which
shows that persecutions against me weren't just a chain of
coincidences, Amnesty International's confirmation, Lev Ginsburg's
affidavit, receipts of my letters to police and other organizations, other
official papers can not be considered as "reliable" or "not reliable".
Another thing is that their existence may be recognized or not
recognized. The tribunal chosen the second way: to ignore them. It's
your choice now to decide if that happened as the result of the
tribunal's partiality. But we ask you to read over the paragraph #4 on
page 3 of the decision where the tribunal rejects in advance even the
possibility of existence of such a category of refugees as "refugees
from Israel". How could you expect then another attitude to any
documents from a tribunal, which refuse to recognize refugees from
Israel in principle? On the other hand that tribunal's ability to
distinguish between "reliable" and "non-reliable" documents is
reflected in documents they chosen themselves to support their point of
view: one of them is incompetent when it speaks about Israel , another
one has "0" credibility because it was presented during the hearing
as an independent source, and in reality is the voice of Israeli
government (Mr. Charansky's affidavit), and the 3-rd can proof nothing
because it is a part of the declaration of the state of Israel (the Law
of Return), and nothing more.
The suggestion that my wife refused to collaborate with the tribunal is
a pure lie what can be heard on the tapes from the hearings.
And the ignorance of the medical documents is the thing from the same
category.
Please, believe us that our lives were in a real danger in Israel and
that this danger just increased since we came to Canada. We were
threatened from Israel even here, and we presented the proof. Please,
save our souls!
Lev Gunin
NEXT DOCUMENT: [[[DOCUMENT NUMBER 5 - CONCLUSIVE DECISION]]]
Short DESCRIPTION of GUNINS CASE
PREVIOUES DOCUMENT NEXT DOCUMENT
From Family Gunin, Montreal, November, 1998
Dear Friends!
Please, try to treat this letter as an unusual appeal, not just a
desperate cry for help and justice.
In October 1998, the Federal Court of Canada issued a second decision
in family GUNIN's appeal. (The 1-st one was positive). That tragic
decision resumed our refugee claim, which took 4 years of our lives.
Let us make a brief description of events, which took place before that
sad date.
The head of the family, Lev GUNIN, as all members of the family, was
born in Bobruisk, Belarus, ex-USSR. Senseless, ridiculous
coincidences in 1971-72 turned him, a secondary school student, young
compose