Лев Гунин - ГУЛаг Палестины

Все эти методы хорошо прослеживаются на примере нескольких беженских дел.

Вот эти дела (ниже следуют тексты на русском, английском и французском языках):

Дело семьи Буяновских

To The Federal Court of Canada from Galina Buyanovsky. Montreal, March 20, 1997.

Galina Buyanovsky

175 Sherbrook St.West,

Apt. 98 Montreal, Quebec,

CANADA H2X 1X5

FEDERAL COURT

Supreme Court Building Ottawa,

Ontario K1A 0H9

CANADA

Tel.(514)843-8458 See the list of the places where the copies of that appeal are submitted below.

Dear Sirs! This appeal is formal. It composed not by a lawyer but by the refugee claimants themselves. Despite a temptation to treat it as a

non-official letter we want an official response. We claim that a wide-scaled conspiracy against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel

exists, and that Canadian Ministry of Immigration is manipulated by a foreign state. This is the main reason why our refugee claim was

denied. The chairman of the immigration committee assigned to our case was Mr. Jacques La Salle. He is a permanent director of the

Informative Committee Canada-Israel, an organization that may be considered as a shadow structure of Israeli government. Allegations

that Mr. Salle systematically treats the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel with partiality were expressed several times. In 1996 Federal

Court indirectly recognized that. Despite of that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard - Canadian Minister of Immigration [ look over her anger declaration

about the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel: see our BIBLIOGRAPHY in the end, #4, ] - gave Mr. La Salle a new commissioner's

mandate (for the next term). 52% of refugee claimants from Israel obtained their refugee status in 1994-95.On hearings with Mr. La Salle it

is 0(%). In 1997 Mr. Jacques La Salle was accused in partiality towards refugees from Israel, and his involvement in their cases was

terminated* (see comments). However, his mandate wasn't terminated in general. And this person whose partiality towards the

Russian-speaking people was already recognized is sent now to hear the cases of Russians who flied from Kazachstan. Russians from

Kazachstan are too often told that they are not eligible for the political asylum in Canada - because they could go to Israel, not to Canada.

For example, the first hearing of a refugee claimant from Kazachstan was dedicated to his situation in Kazachstan, when the second - to

his refusal to go to Israel. How can it happen in a country that is not a province of Israel, but an independent state? Why refugees from

Israel who face deportation and express a will to go to Russia are sent to Israel anyway**?

Is it true that Mr. La Salle lived in a kibbutz in Israel and holds an Israeli passport? Is that true that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard is his ex-wife and

his best friend now? If only one of these questions can be answered positively - the first paragraph of our message is completely correct!

And the last question about Mr. La Salle. Since he was accused in partiality - does it means that his decision in our case can still be in

force? We came to Canada as refugee claimants, not to Israel, and it's obvious that our right is to be heard by an independent

commissioner, not by a person whose whole life and social activity is devoted to Israel. The translator who worked for our lawyer, Mrs.

Eleonora Broder, has also devoted herself to Israel, but in a different way. She sabotaged the cases of all her employer's clients, distorting

the translation of the most important documents and statements: Always in favor of these forces which wants save Israel's face and to

send Russian from Israel back. Being afraid of her angry clients she flied Montreal and disappeared in an unknown direction. Her most

favorite sabotage action was to distort the real indication of nationality or another data in her translations of birth certificates, passports,

and other documents. This trick she used when she "translated" documents of L.M., K.R., L.G., and other people who turned to our lawyer.

Commissioners like Mr. La Salle, Mr. Dorion, and like the immigration officer Mrs. Malka, who have visual partiality to Russian-speaking

people, based their rejections of refugees' claims on such "mistakes". She used to change voluntarily also the meaning of refugee

claimants' stories and so called pifs' data. She placed a wrong information about our nationalities despite our sincere statements. We came

from a country with another mentality and different culture. If a Canadian would probably check the translation using another translator

help, we didn't. Then, again, Mrs. Broder did a back translation into Russian for us to show that everything was translated correctly, but that

back translation actually is in contradiction with her French version. Another interesting detail is that the most serious mistakes she did in

official documents' translations were related to the people whose hearing were attended by Mr. La Salle, Mrs. Judith Malka and - probably

Mr. Dorion. In other words, were attended by people whose relations to Israel or to Jewish roots are easy to detect. If you need more

detailed and precise proof of Mrs. Broder's sabotage we can give it to you.

Mr. La Salle based his rejection of our claim generally on one thing. He based it not only on Mrs. Broder's sabotage, but on direct lie and

distortion of our words, too. So, he interpret our words that we were persecuted by Israelis because they treated us as "Russians" as if we

said that in our Teudat Zehuts (internal obligatory passports) we were mentioned as Russians, not Jews***. In reality there were no

indication of Teudat Zehuts in our words. It is obvious that the meaning of our words is that Israelis treat fresh Russian-speaking

immigrants as strangers, not like real Jews, and this is the main source of our problems in Israel. (Another reason is that my husband is not

a Jew). But if even there was no distortion of our words: Does Mr. La Salle was legally and morally correct to base his rejection on "Teudat

Zehuts" issue? The indication of nationality in different kinds of ID-s is in deep contradiction with the main moral norms of democracy. No

wonder that no democratic state (we don't speak about Israel now) has such indication. That indication of nationality in passports in

ex-USSR and in South African Republic was accused by the democratic press and by Human Rights organizations****. Canada has no

obligatory indication of nationality in her code. Does it means that Canada doesn't recognizes the obligatory indication of nationality in

passports? If so, and also if we are on Canadian soil, then the investigation about the indication of our nationality in our passports is illegal

(at least, morally illegal as minimum). As a Canadian commissioner Mr. La Salle couldn't make it a key issue in his rejection of our claim. As

an Israeli he couldn't ignore this issue - because in Israeli society it is a key issue! Then, I want to attract your attention by the fact that

there is an obligatory indication of country of origin in Israel, not only of nationality. This is the source of conflicts as well. Since the

commissioners like Mr. La Salle avoid mentioning it - this is one of the evidences of their partiality. Let me point out that there are almost no

paragraphs in our refugee claim declaration where we mention the indication of nationality (Russian) in my husband's passport as the

source of our troubles. In the same time we name other reasons like social, ethnic and religious ground for persecutions and discrimination

in our life in Israel*****. Why then the "Teudat Zehuts" issue dominates in the Immigration and Refugee Board decision in our claim?

Probably, because Mr. La Salle acts in interests of Israel, and Israel wants to justify her obligatory indication of nationality before other

countries. Let me point out also that the "Teudat Zehut" is not an ID. It is actually a passport. Because it's function is different from

Canada's social number or medical insurance card, or any other ID. Social number in Canada is confidential. Then, another ID can be given

to police or to other authorities. In Israel T.Z. is the only ID recognized by the authorities. To present T.Z. just everywhere - from clinic to

school, from employment office to hotel - is an obligatory rule. That fact is also ignored by the commissioners. We can analyze Mr. La Salle's

declaration paragraph by paragraph, but our main point is that the decision in our case was visually based not on the hearing and not on

our refugee declaration, but on the very fact that we came from Israel. We'd only like to give examples of the most ridiculous and

tendentious paragraphs of Mr. La Salle's declaration. This declaration, which is politically and emotionally motivated, has nothing what to do

with juridical documents.

Dear Sirs! You must take into consideration that Mr. La Salle gave identical answers to a number of refugee claimants (to family Z., for

example). 4 from 6 main topics in his answers to us and to family Z. are identical. So, he submits a clichй to all his victims. He also doesn't

care to deny the credibility of the events described in our claim by analyzing them. His attitude can be expressed in 2 sentences: It can not

be; because it couldn't happen in Israel (in such a beautiful Middle East country!). That's why he uses such "evidences" of our "insincerity"

as "very little inter-community tension had been noted" (p.5 of his response to our claim, p.3 of his response to family Z. claim). If even such

"evidences" were truth (we have evidences that even the members of Israeli government claim the opposite******), they are not able to

explain or reject each event, each personal case. But it can be clearly explained by Mr. La Salle's motivations. He unconsciously expresses

his motivations on p.4 of his decision: "Monsieur Nikitin est de nationalitй russe et les deux enfants, comme leur mйre, sont juifs"(p.4). In

other words, he didn't write "were Jewish in Israel", or "were considered as Jewish in Israel", but he wrote "are Jewish"! That means that for

h i m they are Jewish. So, under which laws he considered our claim: Under the laws of Canada - or under the laws of Israel!?******* Then,

on p.5 he wrote that "Mrs. Buganovky {instead of Buganovsky} was hesitated to answer the questions, she avoided to answer them directly,

precisely". We can comment that phrase very "directly and precisely"! This is an old trick used by Mr. La Salle, Mr. Dorion and Mrs. Malka.

They compose a question like "are you sure that you did an attempt to lie?" Then they demand to answer "yes" or "no" only. If you answer

"yes", that means - you're a liar, if you answer "no", it means - "I am not sure" or "may be". In a real situation there are much more versions

of consequences if you answer "yes" or "not" directly. The paragraph #6 on p.5 is absolutely identical to the text of a rejection sent to family

Z. This paragraph doubts about what happened to our daughter in kinder-garden and at school because of the claim that there are " no

inter-communal tensions in Israel" and because "efforts were made to sensitize school officials to the new reality...(etc)". Mr. La Salle took

these "evidences" from s document he mentions as Exhibit A-1. But we'd like to ask Mr. La Salle next questions: 1. How can the same