Форма входа
Читем онлайн ГУЛаг Палестины - Лев Гунин
Шрифт:
-
+
Интервал:
-
+
Закладка:
Сделать
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
На этой странице вы можете бесплатно читать книгу ГУЛаг Палестины - Лев Гунин бесплатно.
Похожие на ГУЛаг Палестины - Лев Гунин книги
- Архипелаг ГУЛАГ. Книга 1 - Александр Солженицын - Русская классическая проза
- Оркестр меньшинств - Чигози Обиома - Русская классическая проза
- Вы, доктор - Лев Гунин - Русская классическая проза
- Княжна Тата - Болеслав Маркевич - Русская классическая проза
- Дао жизни: Мастер-класс от убежденного индивидуалиста - Ирина Мицуовна Хакамада - Русская классическая проза
- Яблоки из сада Шлицбутера - Дина Ильинична Рубина - Русская классическая проза
- Камни поют - Александра Шалашова - Альтернативная история / Русская классическая проза
- Детство - Максим Горький - Русская классическая проза
- Антоновские яблоки - Иван Бунин - Русская классическая проза
- О современном состоянии русского символизма - Александр Блок - Русская классическая проза