Лев Гунин - ГУЛаг Палестины

expressed an unexplained malicious anger towards us; 5) claimed one thing to defend her position during our hearing and claimed the contrary during the

hearing in G. family case (our cases are related, and G. was called as a witness to our second hearing); 6) she lied about what I said, about what she

previously said , about what was said about the situation in Israel and so on; 7) her behavier towards us and G. family was so incredibly agressive as if she

had a personal reason to punish us, or to exterminate us. 14) A 'yes" or "no" answer was demanded in situations when it was clear that such an answer is

absolutely impossible. Demanding "yes" or "no" answer only they justified their decision not let us speak. 15) Despite our son's mental illness and the

evidence that he can not be asked the immigration officer asked him various questions in an aggressive manner. We understood that questions which she

asked him were nothing more then a pure humiliation. 16) Requests which the immigration officer has submitted to Israel weren't justified or necessary.

Outside The Courtroom:

1) Our lawyer's translator did our story translation in an provocative and humiliated manner. She has chosen the declarative style instead of a description

intentionally: to make our story sound ridiculous. She also sabotaged G.'s family story. When they came to Montreal G. put everything that happened to his

family in Israel in writing and gave that piece of paper to the translator. She sabotaged the translation distorting the sense of his story, inserting her own

inventions and sentences which sounded like provocations. He demanded a translation back to Russian from her French version , and she did it. She wrote it

by her own hand. That manuscript is quite different from her French version. So, she did it to smoothen the distortions and to prevent G. from complaining.

We have also other proofs of her sabotage. 2) She sabotaged the translations of newspaper's articles as well. From one hand she exaggerated a number of

descriptions of persecutions against Russian-speaking people "to do us a favor" (We think her goal was to discredit these articles). But on the other hand she

excluded the most important paragraphs in her translation and gave the opposite meaning to the most important facts and conclusions. 3) The translator also

sabotaged the translation of some official papers and other documents which we and G. prepared to support our claims. She told us that she has translated

some of them and that she would find a translator from Hebrew -but it was a lie. If not our complains to the lawyer and an alert note we gave to him: No

documents were translated. 4)We believe that a conspiracy between the immigration board and the translator took place. She was given an order to insert

some particular phrases in G. story which he didn't want to see there. Later, in the courtroom, these phrases were used against him. These phrases were

taken from articles he wrote before we escaped from Israel. Among them were the articles which G. hasn't presented to her or to our lawyer when she was

doing the translation of his story. The members of the immigration board have exploited these phrases again and again: What leads to a suggestion that it

wasn't occasionally. 6) There is a visible connection between the immigration officer - and Mr.Mark Kotlarsky, who lives in Israel. This gentlemen is an

informer and a provocateur for Israeli authorities. He wrote an article about G. in 1994, in Israel. This article was written in a humiliated and sarcastic manner.

Mr.Kotlarsky used the information which G. shared with him (as with his close friend ) against him. This article is outright slander, mystification, false

insinuations and lie.. Before G. discovered that Mark Kotlarsky is the government agent he told him some things which G. never told to any other person. But

during our immigration hearing and during the hearing of family G. these things were used by the immigration officer against us. We have no other explanation

but that she's in a contact with Mr.Kotlarsky. 7) Then, we have a reliable source of information which says that the immigration officer, the member of

the immigration board in our cases, is an Israeli. Because of some reasons we'd like not to present the evidences for that. But this paragraph can play an

informative role only. We have no pretensions to demand you to believe in that. From the other hand if the immigration officer is an Israeli (it can be

confirmed, if somebody wants to find out) and the patriot of Israel (the last is too clear), she has no moral and - may be - legal rights to judge in refugees'

from Israel cases.8)When G.'s came to Montreal they gave G.'s wife's birth certificate and it's legal translation to our lawyer. Dispute the submission of that

legal translation the lawyer's translator did her own translation. Now we discovered that she sabotaged ("refused") to translate his wife's parents' nationality.

There is a clear connection between that sabotage and the immigration officer's tactics in that issue. The immigration court decision came to us at the 14 of

December, 1996. The denial of our claim for a refugee status doesn't reflects what really happened during our immigration hearings and has almost no

connection with our claim. It is a masterpiece of rhetoric and profanation. This document is a next proof that an only decisive voice in our case was the voice

of the immigration officer. She was a real judge - and the official judges were just mutes. The text of "their" negative decision reflects her style and based on

her words exclusively: Her declarations she made during our hearings are reflected in this document pretty good. But this document ignore our answers

completely: As if we kept silence all the time. When in reality some of our counterarguments completely discredited her insinuations. Nothing what the judges

said during our immigration hearing is reflected in the immigration board decision, what means that the decision to deny our claim was made by the

immigration officer only (without the judges) when according to the rules she has no decisive voice but only a consultative voice. The denial's text is much the

declaration about Israel then a statement of an immigration committee. It based on an acsioma that Israel is a democratic state (society). Such a declaration

lays beyond the juridical matter: Because there is not in jurisdiction of an immigration board to decide which state is a democracy and which is not. This is a

privilege of an academic institution but not of an executive board. Then it is an act of injustice to declare that Israel is a democracy in an imperative manner

giving the refugee claimants no possibility to present their view and their counterarguments. It is clear from what was discussed during our immigration

hearings that Israel has almost nothing in common with democracy. A permission to leave the country, an indication of nationality and the country of origin in

special enternal passports, a supremacy of the religious laws over the civil code, a right for a military committee to decide who is a single son and who's not,

an imprisonment for months without an official accusation: All these and hundreds of other Israeli laws are suitable may be for a mental hospital - but not for a

"democratic society". An opinion expressed by the document that we should not escape to Canada but should seek a help in Israel also has nothing what to

do with the reality. We did everything to defend ourselves in Israel, and G. as a journalist and the human righta activist did everything that was possible to

help us.He presented tenth of receipts of his complains to various ministries and organizations including the Ministry of Police, the Ministry of internal affairs

and police, which were unanswered, to the immigration committee. The sad truth is that the committee just ignores everything. And recognize only the

ungrounded Israel's declarations. And the immigration officer - a person who sends faxes to Israeli embassy, obtains documents there;in other words who's

in tight connection with Israelis - is the only person who has a decidable voice in the refugees from Israel cases... Isn't that sad?!

We can not go back to Israel under no condition, because

1) my husband and my son may be arrested by the militaries and imprisoned. I expressed my grounded fears about that during the hearings and I can widen

them now. 2) How can we go back to Israel if the immigration officer informed the Israelis about our refugee claim? In Israel where the ideology and the

patriotic education play a very important role we will be considered as "traitors" and will be persecuted for that, too. 3) Persecutions against us in Israel were

so strong that if we would be send back to Israel we will die. 4) After receiving so called "21-st military profile" my son has no future in Israel: Because in

Israel people who are given that "profile" can not study, and nobody will employ my son with such a "profile". 5) After all the persecutions we faced in Israel

we feel fear - and we are afraid to go back; our fear, our psychological tremor towards Israel are so strong that there is impossible for us to live in Israel any

more. In the name of God, in the name of Justice - HELP US!!!

CONCLUSIONS: our 2 immigration hearings (as well as hearings in G. case) have nothing in common with any legal procedure. They rather remine of an

incuisition court or a secret political tribunal. This tribunal was arranged to punish us for flieding Israel and G. - for his ideological views - not to decide

whether or not our (ours and G. family's) claim for a refugee status is justified. It was used for the political purposes: To "show" how just any information

about human rights violations in Israel which not concerns Arabs can be calmed down - and to express a huge pro-Israel propaganda. They made clear that

they treat our escape from Israel as a mutiny and will never admit the very fact that we are in Canada, in Quebec, not in Israel. Their words, their behavior

everything - was meant to show us that we could only deserve to be treated according to the Canadian rules after getting a refugee status. Before that we

don't deserve to be treated by Canadian rules. That's why we were treated according to the rules and norms of Israel!!! It hard to find a more violative ritual

of humiliations over the juridical norms then that... It is absolutely clear for the judges - as well as for ourselves - that we were severely persecuted in Israel,

that all members of our family were severely abused and that the definite casualties were inflicted to our health, including our son. It is also absolutely clear to

the judges that the deportation back to Israel is a death penalty for all members of our family. The tricky thing is that the immigration board expressed almost

no doubt about persecutions we survived in Israel or even recognized the harshness of these persecutions. But the point is that they claim ... we are guilty in

the persecutions ourselves - and therefore they don't worry about our souls and our lives... So, this is not even a tribunal, but a brutal act of a vengeance.

sp;* The court's negative decision (resume) was made and expressed in an inappropriate manner without any clear connection to our real case.

The decision was clearly made by the immigration officer, not by the judges. She is an Israeli patriot and she hates the Russian-speaking people. Everything

what is expressed in the decision document is basicly a lie. The text of that document is politically motivated and juridically illegal. This is just the next stage of