ГУЛаг Палестины - Лев Гунин

and even more clear from the context of the discussions during the hearings that not the first (genetically-related) mark in

"tehudat zehuts" but the second one (the country of origin) actually corresponds to the described by us events. Artificially

replacing the first by the second one Mrs. Malka already used a non-conventional, unacceptable "method". But she

committed even more severe violations in this question by other methods - as I explain in next documents).

I do not know if there were precedents of contacts between IRB and the Israeli embassy when the similar issue was

raised, but I could name dozens of examples when this issue was raised during immigration hearings, and no requests

were sent to the Israeli embassy. Anyway, this is such a rare and exceptional measure that only an exceptional need could

justify it. In reality there were no needs in that at all (see Group of Documents #4, Document 3). No event was based on

indication of nationality in my wife's "Tehudat Zehut", no event related to this indication was discussed during our

immigration hearings.

Mrs. Malka based her decision to send a request to Israeli embassy on Mrs. Broder's faken translation of my wife's birth

certificate. Mrs. Broder already distorted or sabotaged translations of all documents of my case: from my refugee claim to

newspapers' articles. This is why there were no doubts that she did it on purpose. There are two logical questions: If it

was not a well-coordinated with Mrs. Malka or the Israeli side provocation, then why Mrs. Broder distorted the translation

of my wife's birth certificate only, but not mine or my mother's, or the shildren's? If it was not a well coordinated with Mrs.

Malka or the Israeli side provocation, then why Mrs. Broder did this translation at all since two official translations of our

birth certificates already existed? I also ask the Federal court to investigate where the original of my wife's birth certificate

translation (that we made in Israel before coming to Canada) is kept now. (We gave the original of my wife's birth

certificate and the original of its translation through Maitre Dore to the IRB in relation with that question. We got my wife's

certificate back only after more then half a year but never got back the translation. The point was that Mrs. Eleonora

Broder had no need to translate my wife's birth certificate at all since a professionally-made and exclusively-looking

official translation already existed and was given to my lawyer before. By suspending this translation, somebody did an

attempt to destroy evidences of Mrs. Broder's sabotage. (See also Maitre Dore's note and a copy of existed before Mrs.

Broder's translation legal translation of my wife's birth certificate: Supplements, Documents #57,58,59 ).

By sending such a request to Israeli embassy Mrs. Malka violated 3 main principles, on which the legal status of refugee

claimants' immigration hearings are based. She:

a) Reported to Israel about our refugee claim in Canada, what is unacceptable and goes in contradiction with the very

essence of International human rights charters and conventions about refugees. b) Used situational blackmail in violation

of the criminal code to extort my wife's signature under a document (authorization of request), which authorization was

against my wife's personal interests and interests of her family because gave Israelis an additional reason to persecute

us and put our lives under an additional danger. c) Violated the principle of neutrality and non-approval of non-democratic,

racist laws, which existed in 2-3 countries in the World, because Israeli passport regulations about the indication of

nationality in eternal passports are in deep conflict with Canadian rules and the principles of Canadian democracy; she

also breached of our confidence to Canadian government abusing our belief that no part of our confidential statements to

Canadian immigration as well as the very fact of our refugee claim in Canada could not be betrayed to Israeli government.

In my opinion Mrs. Malka also abused her power as an immigration officer violating the border of distinctions between the

criminal court and the Immigration Board. As Maitre Dore correctly pointed (see Supplements, Document #57 ), Mrs.

Malka's interpretation of the answer, which was given by Israeli side revealed her clear partiality because she reject in

advance any other versions (interpretations). In her response to Maitre Dore's letter she repeatedly pointed to Israel's

answer as to an absolute. In the same time she could not ignore other eventualities (because they are obvious): that

Israelis could take advantage of giving that answer as a revenge on me, or that the Ministry's of Eternal Affairs record

was different from what was written in my wife's passport, or that it is just a mistake (Israel is well-known as a country,

where bureaucratic mistakes, casualties or disorders became a norm (please, read, for example, Efraim Sivela's book

"Stop the airplane, I have to go out!", "Stav", Jerusalem, 1979). She was not aware even by the fact that the answer from

Israeli embassy was incomplete, and (from some points of view) suspicious. It means that she rejected another main

principle of justice - presumption of innocence, replacing it by presumption of guilt!

E). There were many tiny events of administrative terror against us in Israel like sanctions at school or in kindergarten,

such as these, which described in our refugee claim, illegal and unfair sanctions made by the owners of apartments,

unfair decisions against us made by House Committee, and so on.

The administrative terror, which we faced in Israel, turned our life in Israel into a nightmare. It was unbearable and

tormenting in itself, but we also faced physical abuses, assaults, discrimination, and batteries. This is why the health of all

members of my family was so much affected.

These sanctions would be in force immediately from the very moment of our arrival again if we would be removed back to

Israel. It had to be absolutely clear to the commissioners!

But in case of our arrival we could expect this time more severe sanctions because of the next reasons. 1-st: authorities'

attitude towards us were constantly changing to the worse during our life in Israel, and came to the most dangerous for

us point just to the moment of our departure for Canada. If we would be sent back, this attitude would not start from

"zero" (it was not zero even in 1991!), but would continue the most tense period of 1994. 2-nd: after our refugee claim in

Canada and my complains to the human rights organizations we could not expect that the Israeli authorities would like me

more now. This is why I am so sure about more severe sanctions:

1. Imprisonment within days or weeks since our arrival.

2. Forcible "treatment" inside a special mental hospital, where some political activists are placed. (Rabbi Meshulam,

leader of an upraise in a town Igud, told me over the phone about existence of such hospitals).

3. Imprisonment inside one of Mossad's secret cells.

4. Children's separation from us, parents.

5. Confiscation of our foreign passports, so that we would never been able to leave Israel any more.

1.5. INHUMAN TREATMENT

If we did not face inhuman treatment in Israel we would not come to Canada to claim a refugee status. (As - by the way

thousands of other Russian speaking peoples. Only by the very number of Russian-speaking refugee claimants from

Israel to the Western countries a conclusion could be made that they are not "economic refugees". And the economical

situation in Israel is not so bad, too!). We came not because of the economic reasons. We did not escape from hunger or

from extreme poverty. First two-three months in Israel we were in a shock because of what happened to us and because

of the general social atmosphere in the country. But we could not go back to our native country, and we were ready to

stay in Israel forever. When we discovered that a permission to leave the country is refused for me, we began to try even

harder to accommodate in Israel. We did everything to use to Israeli society, to find our place within it. This was already

discussed during our immigration hearings - when I said that we tried our best in our attempts to live in Israel.

In their negative decision IRB members did not expressed any principle doubt in the events, which we described in our

refugee claim. They even recognized in one sentence that some negative "reactions" causing conflicts could be expected

from ultra-orthodox towards people, who (as mention the IRB members avoiding word "respect" but mentioning it) do not

respect their supervision.

During the immigration hearings the immigration officer spoke about events of inhuman treatment, which we faced in

Israel, in a humiliating manner. The same manner, absolutely identical, presents in the negative decision. Humiliation

appeared because of their attitude towards severe inhuman treatment like assaults and batteries as towards minor

events. They discussed, mentioned, or described inhuman treatment, which we faced in Israel, as well as our reaction to

it, as something humorous. They let us know that we took such events too seriously, and, if we could take them lighter, it

could prevent other similar events. But I am absolutely sure that if the IRB members could find themselves on our place,

their reaction could not be different from our.

After everything that happened to us in Israel, after characteristics, which I got in Israel as an "enemy", after contacts

between Montreal's Immigration Board with Israelis, after their negative decision, which defining me as a dangerous

"exaggerator" and "found me guilty" in "spreading slender" against Israel, what other treatment except of inhuman could

we expect in Israel?

1.6.RESUME

In this document I explained why my family, and me - we would be not like other people if removed to Israel: because my

personal confrontation with Israeli political structures began long before we were taken to Israel, because we did not want

to go to the state of Israel and were taken there against our will, because of the scandal at the Central railway station in

Warsaw, because I refused to cooperate with Mossad, because in Israel I became relatively well-known for my articles

against human rights violation in Israel and was defined by Israeli authorities as an "enemy", because our personalities

are not compatible to Israeli society, because we do not practicing Judaism, and because of a number of other reasons,

which were described in that document.

Our 3 years in Canada proved that I am not a pathological troublemaker. 3 years in Canada could show that we could live

avoiding conflicts, respecting the laws and regulations, and quickly accommodating. My children are good students, they

have a lot of friends, and they are completely suitable to the local society. My older daughter is an advanced piano player,

and she passed exams at McGill University with the best mark. My younger daughter is a talented ballerina, her pictures

are everywhere in Ballet studios, she is an advanced dancer, and she also was chosen to enter the National Ballet School

in Toronto from dozens of other pretendents. Their French is nice and literary, they also advanced in English. And we are

not on welfare any more! We could be peaceful and useful members of the local society if we would be given a chance to

stay here. (Group of documents # 4 in Supplements are corresponding to this paragraph).

THIS IS THE BEST PROOF THAT OUR TROUBLES IN ISRAEL ERUPTED NOT BECAUSE IT WAS OUR FAULT (as the

commissioners tried to show), AND NOT IN RESULT OF OUR "EXAGGERATIONS"! WE FACED PERSECUTIONS IN

ISRAEL BECAUSE OF OBJECTIVE REASONS AND COULD NOT GO BACK BECAUSE OF RISK TO LIFE, EXTREME

SANCTIONS, AND INHUMAN TREATMENT. OUR REMOVAL TO ISRAEL WOULD BRING US TO A TRAGIC END.

Theoretical suggestions if people like us could face a tragic end (without figuring out the impact our personal claim

events: as commissioners did) in Israel are completely useless in our case because our case and our personalities are

unique.

Please, give us a chance to stay here, because if we would be removed back to Israel lives of my children, my wife, my

mother, and my life, would be terminated! Please, do not send us towards tragic end. Try to understand your full

responsibility for what will happen if we would be sent back to Israel.

1.7. MY FINAL STATEMENT

As the most honest people I am not impudently self-confidential. I might be shocked by aggressive and ironical

interrogators (as Mrs. Malka): but this is just one more proof of my honesty and innocence. To support our refugee claim

we presented to the Immigration Board so many documentary proofs as probably no refugee claimants in Canadian

Immigration's history! All of them, including legal, and medical documents, official correspondence and newspapers'

articles, related to me, other documents, were ignored, and only one document was considered as "non-related" without

any reasonable explanations. If the forces, which acted against us, could encourage such an outraged injustice and unfair

treatment of us even here, in Canada, in Israel they could eliminate us for sure. Sending us to Israel you must realize that

you send us to death. Removal to Israel means for us a death penalty. But Canada has no death penalty even in

Canadian criminal code! ! ! Especially, for children! I ask you to think about it while composing you final decision. Please...

Sincerely yours,

Lev Gunin

Next Document

PREVIOUS DOCUMENT: DOCUMENT 1 FROM DOCUMENTS

Four Mrs. Louis-Phillippe SIMARD, Manager, Post Determination Review

FROM Lev GUNIN (FILE Number 2948-6524/ 95/76/23/18

ID: 3082-7125/7174/7220/7231/7317/ )

DOCUMENT NUMBER 2

2.1. I was in grade 9, when voluntarism and vulnerability of my class teacher, PERFILOVA Maria Michajlovna, converted me from a good school pupil and a promising

young musician into a person without future, persecuted by KGB. She was a communist party member and an outraged careerist. She took one of my school essays

and took it to KGB. She also made an open public court over me at the school, not waiting for KGB command. Officially KGB rejected her accusations. They found

nothing, which could be considered as anti-Sovetism, in my composition. But in ex-USSR an obstruction, which Perfilova made me at school, and the very fact that she