Форма входа
Читем онлайн ГУЛаг Палестины - Лев Гунин
Шрифт:
-
+
Интервал:
-
+
Закладка:
Сделать
connection between the immigration officer - and information, which might possess only Mr.Mark Kotlarsky, who lives in Israel. This
gentlemen acted once as an informer and a provocateur for Israeli authorities. He wrote an article about me in 1994, in Israel. This article
was written in a humiliated and sarcastic manner. Mr.Kotlarsky used the information, which I shared with him (as with a close friend of mine)
against me. This article is outright slander, mystification, false insinuations and lie... Before I discovered that Mark Kotlarsky might act as a
government's agent I told him some things which I never told to any other person. During our immigration hearing and during the hearing of
family Metelnitzky these things were used by the immigration officer (against me). I have no other explanation but that she's might be in a
contact with Mr.Kotlarsky. 2-F, etc. 7) a) A campaign of lie and slender against me inside Israel coincide with a number of actions against
me in Montreal, which source might be the consulate of Israel. If such things are happened - then Israel could eventually influence the
immigration board decision in my immigration case, too. b) Then, I know from reliable sources that the immigration officer, the member of
the immigration board in my case, is a Jew. I have nothing against her nationality. But, from the other hand, if the immigration officer is a
Jew and the patriot of Israel (the last is too clear), what an arbitrary role in our case she should play? She has no moral and - may be legal
rights to judge in refugees' from Israel cases. 2-J, etc. 8)When we came to Montreal we gave my wife's birth certificate and it's legal
translation to our lawyer. Dispute the submission of that legal translation Mrs.Broder did her own translation. Now we discovered that she
sabotaged ("refused") to translate my wife's parents' nationality. There is a clear connection between that sabotage and the immigration
officer's tactics in that issue.
CONCLUSIONS: our 3 immigration hearings have nothing in common with any legal procedure. They rather remind of an inquisition court or
a secret political tribunal. This tribunal was arranged to punish me for my ideological views - not to decide whether or not our (my family's
and mine) 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 status in Canada. 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 offensive ritual of humiliations over the juridical norms then that... It was absolutely clear for
the judges - as well as for ourselves - that we were severely persecuted in Israel, that all members of my family were severely abused and
that the definite casualties were inflicted to our health, including the children. It was 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.(2-J-4). 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.
SUPPLEMENTS:
1.A LIST OF TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH OR FRENCH ARTICLES. 2.DOCUMENTS. 3.TAPES FROM THE IMMIGRATION
HEARINGS. 4.OTHER MATHERIAL PROOFS. 5.OTHER DOCUMENTS. SINCERELY YOURS, Lev GUNIN
GROUP OF DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4
DOCUMENT 3
TO THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
From Lev GUNIN
Dear Sirs! We came here as thousands of other refugee claimants who flied from their countries to Canada. But our case is special, may be
- even unique. In ex-USSR I was a dissident; I was severely persecuted by communist authorities. I was relatively well known in my native
republic. Under certain circumstances I refused to declare that I never desired to immigrate to Israel. Now I actually claim that I was
deported to Israel from my native Blears because of my political activity. My family and me tried to escape to Germany but were seized in
Warsaw by Israelis. They took us to Israel by force, and we have certain evidences. In Israel my family and me, we were severely
persecuted. I presented the reasons of these persecutions in my claim, and also during my immigration hearings. I was considered as a
dissident in Israel, too. Our case is special also because we presented more documentary proofs of what happened to us then probably no
other refugee claimants. Persecutions against us in Israel were massive, systematic and dangerous to us. They caused physical and moral
loses to us. Despite clear evidences and undeniable proofs our claim was denied. It happened only because of wide-scaled conspiracy
against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel, and because the immigration committee assigned to our case was manipulated by a
foreign state.
We have several well-grounded reasons: enough to accuse members of the committee in partiality. Almost all basic juridical norms and
elements were violated during our 3 immigration hearings (see Document # 1). The basic moral and political norms of Canadian society
were replaced acting in Israel. Mrs. Judith Malka, the immigration officer, spoke to us and acted as Israelis normally do. She openly
expressed her hatred to us personally - and to Russian speaking people in general. Her manner and her ironical attitude were assaulting.
Besides, she openly assaulted us directly several times (see Document #1). Her aggression and threats can be explained only by her
partiality. When she couldn't control her emotions of hatred and detestation she left the room of the hearings two times. May be her
reaction was so visual because she's a Jew and - it looks like that an Israeli. Then - why she was sent to such a hearing? We have 7 main
points in connection with that: 1. It is absolutely clear that the two commissioners refused to participate in our hearings (in other words, kept
them out of the way of the hearing). Mrs. Malka was given an option to speak non-stop during almost all the time excluding rare exceptions.
She accused us, shouted on us, declared pure political pro-Israeli propaganda and accused me in acting against Israel without any
interruption from the judges. Of course, they can claim that they participated by hearing and analyzing. But then their passivity caused a
situation when they had to analyze only what Mrs. Malka gave them to analyze. When Mr. Boisrond spoke he never opened his own topic
and used his role for illegal methods of pressure to distort my responses to Mrs. Malka's previous questions. 2. The commissioners refused
to sign the decision. There are no their signatures on that document. That's another proof that Mrs. Malka composed that document
herself. 3. The committee decision is based on her statements, insinuations, accusations and declarations only. If something correspond to
what Mr. Boisrond said - he just repeated what Mrs. Malka already said before. The stylistics of the text and the essence of it is deeply differ
from Mr. Boisrond's and Mrs. Madelenine Marien-Roy's, who completely kept her aloof from the hearing (except of few formal words). In the
same time that stylistics fits to Mrs. Malka's manner. These two suggestions allow us to detect her as the only author of the decision, what
is the severe violation of the law. 4. This committee gives no positive decisions in refugees' from Israel cases. When in 1994-95 about 52%
of refugees from Israel were recognized as Convention refugees, with this committee it is "0" (or almost "0"?). 5. She's refusing to give her
motivations behind that decision. But to explain such a decision is a juridical norm. She replaced any explanations by a pure political rhetoric
and pro-Israeli propaganda, which has nothing what to do with our claim. She is also a person who contacted Israeli embassy for
explanations (instructions?) in our case. 6. The committee decision ignores all documents we presented as if there were no documents at
all. In the same time to support its statements the committee used documents, which credibility is "0", and that's obvious not just towards
our case but in general sense. But most of the document used in the decision have no relationship to our case and were given just
because something had to be given. 7. By denying our claim the Immigration committed one of the most inhuman and cruel actions in its
history. I am may be just one of few people in the world who suffered so much for expressing their opinions. I am still living only because of a
miracle, which saved me in ex-USSR, and from angry "patriots"-Israelis. We had so many documentary proof of our refugee claim as
nobody else. We had testimonies, certificates, and articles, which I wrote for various newspapers. We had Amnesty International
confirmation in my case... My children, wives, mother's suffering was just rejected by commissioners. They acted against us as if we were
solders of an enemy army, not innocent people. My family and my lives are in a real danger now. 8. The decision is partially based on
distortions Mrs. Eleonora Broder did when she translated our claim and our documents.
I can support these points by analyzing the text of the decision and by other supporting material. First of all let's analyze the decision
paragraph after paragraph.
Let us point that this document replaces some well-known facts and even data by false facts, events and data. The information from our
PIF, our claim, hearings and even passports this document describes with distortions. For example, on page #1 (par.6) the children ages
are indicated as 5 and 6 when in 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
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