ГУЛаг Палестины
Шрифт:
that his works (essays, articles, etc.) must be destroyed. Innumerous and systematic draft board's orders to appear affected his normal life
and his (his family) financial situation.
During his life in Israel L. Gunin published a number of articles books in Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Moscow, and Germany, criticizing Israeli
government for human rights violations and fascist tendencies in Israel.
1994-1996. With an indirect Amnesty International's involvement we could come to Canada, and claimed a refugee status. To support our
claim we presented next types of documentary proof:
A. Legal documents
B. Documents, issued by Israeli government
C. Documents, issued by all kinds of Israeli institutions
D. Affidavits
E. Letters
F. Post receipts
G. Medical documents
H. Newspapers
I. Researches made by International committees and human rights organizations
J. Proof that in Israel we turned to innumerous organizations, institutions, police, court, and lawyers for protection
K. Our lawyer's documents
L. Etc.
Practically each statement, described in our refugee claim, was supported by the documentary proof. Only the list of documents' description
consisted of six pages.
1994-1997. In her translations, our lawyer's secretary/translator distorted all documents in our refugee claim. One of our two lawyers
submitted several messages to IRB in protest of some outraged events. He claimed that the IRB members took advantage of the distorted
translations, using them as a tool against us. IRB members used offensive, illegal methods against Lev. They interrogated only him. No
questions were given to other family members. IRB commissioners demonstrated their opinion that Lev GUNIN must be punished for his
ideological (political) views. Two members of IRB, immigration judges, gave the whole initiative to the third member, an immigration officer, a
Jew and - probably - Israeli, who only spoke. During our refugee hearings she manifested an outraged malicious hatred towards us, and
maintained close contacts with the Israeli embassy in writing, in our case. IRB members maintained the atmosphere of hostility and
arbitrary attitude towards us.
Denying our refugee claim, the IRB members not just acted unfair. Their negative decision was not just a refusal to recognize us as
refugees, but a declaration-manifest, which rejected the basic human rights in principle. In form of declaration, they denied in principle rights
to have an independent opinion, practice or not to practice religion, be protected by the state. IRB members claimed that if government
paid for immigrants' transportation, immigrants became the property of that government (a kind of commodity). IRB members also claimed
that police' and other institutions' refusal to give protection was justified if people had an alternative political /ideological opinion (even if that
opinion was not expressed to police). They claimed that we alienated Israelis by keeping controversial opinions, and refusing to change our
views. And so on...
The IRB's negative decision became not just a matter of our personal fate, but also a matter of human rights in general.
1998. In her speech in the Federal Court, Mrs. Murphy, the Minister's of Immigration representative, confirmed the IRB members' negative
attitude towards human rights, and also widened personal accusations against Lev Gunin, turning the question of our refugee status into
the question of his "inadmissible" (by whom?) ideological views. As IRB did before, Mrs. Murphy refused even to mention Alla Gunin,
Elisabeth Epstein (Gunin), and the children.
The Federal Judge, Mr. Dube, just copied Mrs. Murphy's and the IRB statements, refusing to evaluate arguments of the TWO sides. He
claimed that - because in their refusal to recognize us as refugees IRB members used the formula "no minimal credibility", - such cases are
automatically denied by the Federal Court. In reality, his decision was made in contradiction to another Federal Court judge's decision in our
case, and also contradicted the IRB's final (conclusive) decision. In that decision IRB agreed that some persecutions against us (they
called them "difficulties") could take place because we abused the Israelis by refusing to obey their demands to change our views. Mr.
Dube also revealed his partiality by distorting some important events and attacking our lawyer in personal. A person, whose name was also
Dube, was involved into negotiations between the immigration officer, Mrs. Malka, and the General Consul of Israel, in our case. We could
not find that person among the IRB headquarters' staff, or among other immigration divisions. All faxes were submitted to Israeli consulate
from Mrs. Malka, without mentioning any other name (s). However, the responses from the consulate were submitted to Mr. Dube. We feel
that this mysterious Mr. Dube has something what to do with the Federal Judge Mr. Dube.
IRB and Mrs. Murphy's accusations against us were such, which are the prerogative of the criminal court. They accused us so sharp as if
we were killers or terrorists. In reality we are innocent people, never accused in defamation, or fraud. In the same time, the way they acted
might be easily considered as a criminal offence.
We are appealing not just because of incredible injustice, but because the removal back to Israel means DEATH for us. If nobody in the