ГУЛаг Палестины
Шрифт:
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