The next paragraph looks nice, but somehow avoid quitting. Why? I think, I know, why. I know the document and place in that document the
      last paragraph on page 3 refers to... Let me show you what it about. It declares that 80% of Israel population is mobilized to welcome new
      immigrants from the former USSR. Isn't it sound strange? It's hard to believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any juridical
      document! Let's admit also that this particular fragment is the beloved fragment of Mr. La Salle, a commissioner who was recently accused
      of partiality towards refugee claimants from Israel. He used this paragraph in probably all negative decisions he composed. (He made
      practically no positive decisions in refugees from Israel cases). For example, Mr. La Salle used that "evidence" in his responds to Zilber and
      Buyanovsky's claims. (Page 6 in a response to G. Buyanovsky and p.3 in a response to family Z. claim) Let's to abstract from its complete
      nonsense and suppose it reflects something from Israel's life and reality, and reflects the mentality of Israelis (Mrs. Malka's intention to
      choose this particular extract, and not another one, reflects her national identity as Israeli). If Israel is a country like other countries, like
      Canada, so how it comes that "80% of Israeli population" can be "mobilized" to "welcome new immigrants"? How people can be "mobilized"
      (or, probably, ordered) to "sponsor immigrants" and to help them by "giving money, closes and furniture" (p.3, 5-th line of Mr.La Sall's
      response to family Z. claim). May be something is wrong in a country where population can be "mobilized"? May be, our troubles have been
      erupted exactly because people in such a country have to be "mobilized" to welcome new immigrants?And then - how those figures, 80% of
      Israeli population, can be understood? Were they been called (to a draft board, to Mossad?) to get an order to "welcome new immigrants"
      and were counted one by one? And what about the other 20%? We don't know anything about that "mobilization". But we know that the
      Israeli population (and the Hebrew media employees in particular) was mobilized to abuse, assault, disgrace and to discriminate new
      immigrants from the former USSR. If the Canadian Ministry of Immigration was not on one side it could employ 2-3 translators and send
      them in a library to translate Hebrew newspapers for last 6 years. Thousands of racists, xenophobic articles, which encourage aggressive
      actions against Russian-speaking people and teach to treat them with malicious anger, could be found. That is the real "mobilization". By
      the way, if we began to speak about Mr. La Salle, his personality may be the best illustration of who stands behind the total injustice
      towards us. He is a permanent director of the Informative Committee Canada-Israel, an organization that may be considered as a shadow
      structure of Israeli government. Allegations that Mr. Salle systematically treats the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel with partiality
      were expressed several times. In 1996 Federal Court indirectly recognized that. Despite of that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard - Canadian Minister
      of Immigration - gave Mr. La Salle a new commissioner's mandate (for the next term). 52% of refugee claimants from Israel obtained their
      refugee status in 1994-95.On hearings with Mr. La Salle it is 0(%). In 1997 Mr. Jacques La Salle was accused in partiality towards refugees
      from Israel, and his involvement in their cases was terminated* (see comments). However, his mandate wasn't terminated in general. How
      can it happen in a country, which is not a province of Israel, but an independent state?
      In the first large paragraph on page#4 of the decision the tribunal express recognition that the persecutions we faced in Israel might
      happen to us. But it claims indirectly that we provoked them ourselves by refusing to give up our believes and views. And it claims directly
      that the persecutions were caused by some individuals, not by country's rules, traditions or policy. And it claims also that there no
      persecutions against Russian-speaking people at all. As we can see that paragraph is deeply contradictory in itself. In first 5 lines it
      recognizes the existence of persecutions (calling them "difficulties" but that is not important because it clear explaining what it means). In
      next 5 (!?) lines it says the contrary. We already know (see the reasons expressed above) that there is a bad hidden lie in the referrals
      concerning fascism in this document. So, this lie is exploited in that paragraph, too.
      The next paragraph is based on a sentence in my refugee claim (in my PIF), which did the translator, Mrs. Broder herself, insert. Instead of
      just translating my story about what happened to me during my work on a stadium in Petach-Tikva (August, 1991), she transformed this
      event into a symbolic conclusion-declaration. In the same time this conclusion is correct in general. Because what happened to me then
      may be called a slavery. This event was discussed during the two hearings. I was tested if I tell the truth, and it is clear from the test that I
      told the truth. Besides, I presented an affidavit from Mr. Ginsburg who describes the same event. I also presented an article written by
      Rivka Rabinovich and entitled "Haim #1 and Haim #2", which professionally describes some forms of slavery in Israel. I also explained
      during my hearings that I do not want to make any declaration and that Mrs. Broder just distorted my words. Instead of taking into
      consideration all these facts the tribunal is persisting in its absolutely inadmissible and illegal suggestions. Instead of investigating whether
      or not we were persecuted it accuses us in spreading slander about Israel. It claims like if we would not came to Canada to seek a political
      asylum but to spread the slander about Israel. If we claimed that my wife and me - were beaten during our work: that's because we want
      show Israel as a state of slavery, claims the tribunal. If we describe what happened to our children: that's because we want to draw a
      picture of Israel as a horrible state... And so on. Reading that document you completely forget that it is a decision in refugees' claim. It looks
      like the tribunal misinterpreted its functions and sees itself not as immigration but as a political tribunal. But the main point of this paragraph
      is that we claim we got no help from the state of Israel and will not be defended by it if will be deported back there because we want to
      show Israel as a mayhem. This is the only tribunal's excuse for ignoring all our evidences, all documentary and other material proofs of
      police and other state offices' refusal to defend us. This is the only excuse for ignorance of all the reliable and very serious evidences like
      Amnesty International's confirmation in our case! This is the only excuse for ignorance of intensity and incredible scale of our attempts to
      find protection in Israel!
      The next paragraph continues the allegation that we claim we were denied police protection, multiple organizations' , Knesset members'
      help (and even our layer couldn't do anything) and were forced to turn to Amnesty International only because ("en effet"!) we want to show
      that Israel is a state of injustice.
      The declaration, which the tribunal made in the next paragraph (that Israel is a democratic state, a state like other countries, and so on) has
      nothing what to do with our claim.
      Let us express our father concern about credibility of the documentation the tribunal used as a documentary proof "against us". We know
      that the same document, which mentions the 80% "mobilized" Israelis mentions also a "Department of Integration", which doesn't exist in
      Israel. It's clear that the real name of Israeli Ministry of Absorption ("misrad ha-klita in Hebrew) was replaced by non-existing "Ministry of
      Integration" because it sounds strange for Canadian (or American, European) ears. But the "Ministry of Absorption" is the real name of the
      organization, which "takes care" of new immigrants. And this document changes it to the "Department of Integration"...In reality the Zionist
      ideology is against integration. Look over Ben-Gurion's, Orlosorov's, Bella Katsnelson's, Golda Meir's works and statements! Then you will
      be convinced that the name "Ministry of Absorption" expresses their desires completely well. It means that the document, which was used
      as an "indisputable source of information" replaces actually the truth by the lie, not only a real name by a false name. Then - how can such
      a document be considered as a credible one?
      We also express our deep concern of utilization of Mr. Natan Sharansky's affidavit. As far as we know this affidavit was given through a
      telephone interview what is juridical unacceptable. Especially when the commissioners don't accept copies of articles (even from the most
      famous newspapers), which refugee claimants present, they demand originals! Then - it was well known before Mr. Sharansky became a
      Minister in Israeli government that his "Zionist Forum" is not an independent organization (as well as its chairmen) but an organization
      infiltrated by the government. By the time of our second hearing Mr. Sharansky has already became a minister. And Mr. Malka knew it. So
      he presented the view of Israeli government as an "independent" view that time as well as in all other occasions. She clearly exposes the
      source of all the manipulations with the refugees from Israel in Canada: Israeli government! That paragraph also exploits the topic , which
      was closed by my answer during our first immigration hearing. Mrs. Malka asked me how can I explain the statistic from Israel that no
      Russian-speaking people were regestered complaining against the police. I shown then all the receipts of my appeals I have submitted to
      police, to the Ministry of police, to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and to police headquarters in Tel-Aviv. And I said that this is the
      explanation because my mails were unanswered and my complains were never registered. I also presented an article, which gives
      absolutely precise, reliable and competent information that nothing can be really done against police in Israel. And the story about a
      policeman who get a fine because of his refusal to help an Arab as an "evidence" looks like a clowned.
      It was clear for the tribunal that it's impossible to avoid comments about the total ignorance of the whole documentation, which we
      presented. It was clear that something must be said. This is why the next paragraph was composed to say just anything about that and was
      designed to say nothing in particular. The tribunal claims that all our documents were rejected because its members took into consideration
      only "absolutely reliable" documents. And it looks like there were no such documents among these we presented... In reality documents like
      the letter from the Minister of Culture Mr. Amnon Rubinschtein, which shows that persecutions against me weren't just a chain of
      coincidences, Amnesty International's confirmation, Lev Ginsburg's affidavit, receipts of my letters to police and other organizations, other
      official papers can not be considered as "reliable" or "not reliable". Another thing is that their existence may be recognized or not
      recognized. The tribunal chosen the second way: to ignore them. It's your choice now to decide if that happened as the result of the
      tribunal's partiality. But we ask you to read over the paragraph #4 on page 3 of the decision where the tribunal rejects in advance even the
      possibility of existence of such a category of refugees as "refugees from Israel". How could you expect then another attitude to any
      documents from a tribunal, which refuse to recognize refugees from Israel in principle? On the other hand that tribunal's ability to
      distinguish between "reliable" and "non-reliable" documents is reflected in documents they chosen themselves to support their point of
      view: one of them is incompetent when it speaks about Israel , another one has "0" credibility because it was presented during the hearing
      as an independent source, and in reality is the voice of Israeli government (Mr. Charansky's affidavit), and the 3-rd can proof nothing
      because it is a part of the declaration of the state of Israel (the Law of Return), and nothing more.
      The suggestion that my wife refused to collaborate with the tribunal is a pure lie what can be heard on the tapes from the hearings.
      And the ignorance of the medical documents is the thing from the same category.
      Please, believe us that our lives were in a real danger in Israel and that this danger just increased since we came to Canada. We were
      threatened from Israel even here, and we presented the proof. Please, save our souls!
      Lev Gunin
      NEXT DOCUMENT: [[[DOCUMENT NUMBER 5 - CONCLUSIVE DECISION]]]
      Short DESCRIPTION of GUNINS CASE
      PREVIOUES DOCUMENT NEXT DOCUMENT
      From Family Gunin, Montreal, November, 1998
      Dear Friends!
      Please, try to treat this letter as an unusual appeal, not just a desperate cry for help and justice.
      In October 1998, the Federal Court of Canada issued a second decision in family GUNIN's appeal. (The 1-st one was positive). That tragic
      decision resumed our refugee claim, which took 4 years of our lives.
      Let us make a brief description of events, which took place before that sad date.
      The head of the family, Lev GUNIN, as all members of the family, was born in Bobruisk, Belarus, ex-USSR. Senseless, ridiculous
      coincidences in 1971-72 turned him, a secondary school student, young composer, and advance piano player, into a person, persecuted by
      Soviet authorities. They tried to prevent him from entering collegial university studies; however, his persistence and a lucky miracle broke
      that wishes circle, and he received first collegial, and then university degrees in music. In spite of that, L. GUNIN could not build a
      successful composer's carrier because of persecutions. In the same time, he played a specific role in ex-USSR, Belarus, and other
      countries' cultural life. He's the author of novels, stories, poetry, contemporary and electronic music, works in history, essays, musicology,
      music history, philosophy, etc. His articles were published in a number of newspapers all over the world.
      In 1979-1986, Lev became an object of wide humiliations. He was beaten by somebody, who has links with militia (police) and KGB. The
      authorities stood up in defense of the attackers. They persecuted L. GUNIN even more for bringing the attacker to trial. In another incident
      he and his brother - they were hunted by two well-coordinated groups: mobsters, and a gang of youngsters. "Hunters" were also leaded by
      militia (police). Later brothers GUNIN were interrogated by police /KGB men. Lev's brother Vitaly became a victim of secret medical
      manipulations.
      L. Gunin has multiple links with the cultural elite, famous personalities and dissidents in Moscow, St. - Peterburg (Leningrad), Vilnius,
      Warsaw, and Belarus. He also has connections with the Western journalists in Moscow, and with representatives of the governments of the
      Western countries.
      1980-s. Because of persecutions L. GUNIN's decided to participate in the dissident movement. There are the main directions of his
      dissident activities:
      1. Participation in Human Rights movement and links with the most famous human rights activists.
      2. Membership in underground literacy circles.
      3. Defense of the Old City of Bobruisk from revelation and demolition.
      4. Journalism and editorial functions for underground magazines.
      5. Cooperation with forbidden (or unwelcomed) in ex-USSR NTS (People's Labor Union) and the National Front of Belarus.
      6. Participation in the Jewish national movement.
      7. Creation of ideologically independent and stylistically controversial music, prose, poetry, philosophy, and historical, political, and other
      works.
      1985-1989. A conflict erupted between leading by L. GUNIN group - and the powerful institution of Israeli emissaries to USSR, and
      controlled by them Jewish political Mafia. (Their goals - devastation of the local Jewish cultural life, confiscation of huge aid from the
      Western Jewish communities, and concentration of the propaganda of immigration to Israel - L. Gunin was fighting). He also confronted
      three important personalities - Kebich, Alimbachkov, and Lukashenko. All of them became top political figures later: first one short before,
      and the two others - after his departure from USSR (The 1-st one became the Prime Minister of Belarus, 2-nd - major of Bobruisk, and the
      3-rd is the present dictator of Belarus).
      .
      His attempts to emigrate to USA or Germany - to save his brother's life - failed. All attempts to obtain an Israeli visa for permanent
      residency have been failed, too. (By then practically everybody could easily get such a visa). Israelis did not want to allow him and his
      brother to immigrate to Israel.
      1991. After his brother's death, Lev started to cancel all steps of immigrating to Israel. He did not want to go there by then. Soon he
      received an order from KGB to leave his native country for Israel. Soviet authorities sent us (family Gunin) all previously suspended visas.
      We could not say "no" to KGB, but planned to escape from Warsaw to Germany. At the Central railway station in Warsaw, in presence of
      L.Gunin's Polish friends, Israelis captured us, and took us to Israel by force. In Israel, Mossad (Shabbak) officers verbally accused Lev in an
      attempt to sabotage the whole operation of bringing the Soviet Jews to Israel. Mossad approached him several times.
      In Israel we faced next persecutions:
      1) Israeli citizenship was thrust on us
      2) Alla, Lev's wife, was abused, attacked, beaten, assaulted, and systematically discriminated against
      3) Elisabeth, his mother, was abused, attacked, and assaulted
      4) Children became victims of systematic humiliations and mockery
      5) Lev himself was deprived in his rights. Israeli authorities denied him:
      a) valid diploma equivalent
      b) professional courses
      c) rights to enter other courses or university
      d) full and valid employment authorization
      e) registration with the State labor exchange
      f) tax exemption as all fresh immigrants were receiving
      g) welfare when he was unemployed
      h) proper and equal medical service
      i) legal, and police defense
      j) reduction of municipal taxes
      k) authorization of departure, which is required in Israel to leave the country
      l) etc.
      He was beaten, abused, discriminated against. Israeli state radio called him an enemy. One of the leading Israeli newspapers suggested
      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
      whole world could prevent it, it would mean that if people are deprived and innocent they might be kidnapped and taken to another country
      by force. It would mean that demonstrative humiliations over human rights, such as the IRB members and Mrs. Murphy expressed, are
      tolerated. There are rumors among UN staff that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights might be changed soon to fit to the brutal and
      ultra-religious regimes' requirements. Please, do something for us before it happened!
      The only way to save us is to help us in obtaining the permanent residents status in any civilized country. That could prevent our eventual
      removal to Israel.
      Please, help!
      Family GUNIN:
      Alla, Lev, Ina, and Marta GUNIN
      Elisabeth EPSTEIN-Gunin
      Tel. (514) 499-1294
      E-mail: [leog@total.net]
      From Lev GUNIN, April, 1999
      Dear Friends!
      In 1991 I was deported from my native Belarus to Warsaw because of my political opinion.
      Together with my family (wife and 2 children) and my mother I wanted to move from Warsaw
      to Germany.
      On the Central railway station in Warsaw we were captured by Israelis and were taken to Israel
      against our will.
      We were widely persecuted in Israel and were refused an exit vise during 3 and a half years.
      In 1994 we managed to quit Israel and came to Canada seeking a refugee status.
      In an outraged manner, openly accenting their rights for injustice, the members of IRB
      committee refused us the status.
      Deportation to Israel means death for me and members of my family.
      The only solution is to start a legal immigration to Canada.
      But we need travel documents to afford it because:
      1) our Israeli passports have expired and to extend them is not possible
      2) I asked the Israeli embassy to cancel my Israeli citizenship
      We made an appeal to the Federal Court, but our appeal was automatically rejected
      without any analysis of our file, just because of the formula that the Immigration and
      Refugee Board used in their conclusive decision. In the Federal Court, the Immigration
      Canada representative, Mrs. Murphy, expressed outraged accusations against me,
      as if by claiming a refugee status and by criticizing the IRB decision I have committed
      the most violent crime or was a terrorist.
      Almost 5 years we (my family, and me) live under a threat of deportation,
      under the wild persecutions of the Immigration Canada, institution, which
      put the equal sign between my peaceful and legal human rights activism
      against the former Soviet and Israeli governments' violation of human rights
      - and terrorism!!!
      Please, help us!
      My best wishes,
      Lev GUNIN
      August, 1997
      E-Mail: leog@total.net
      PREVIOUES DOCUMENT NEXT DOCUMENT
      PEVIOUS DOCUMENT: [[[GROUP of DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4]]]
      & DOCUMENT NUMBER 5
      From Lev Gunin
      File number 3082-7125
      CONCLUSIVE DECISION
      (Paragraph 69.1 (9) of Immigration Law)
      This is the translation in brief
      P.1. Paragraph 1. Lev Gunin, Marta and Ina Gunin, Alla Gunin, and Elisabeth Epstein are not recognized as refugees. Paragraphs 4-7. This
      is demanders' declaration in brief: They came to Israel in April 1991. When they arrived in Petach-Tikva theirs neighbors, orthodox Jews,
      were persistent [and aggressive] in their attempts to convert them [from atheism from one side, and passive Christianity from another side]
      to Judaism.
      Children, then 5 and 6 years old [*1] - (see commentaries), were abused during a religious celebration at a kinder-garden [*2]. The governor
      has found the situation ordinary. Dispute the transfer to another kinder-garden children faced abuses. They were bitten, bite by another
      children [*3]. The kinder-garden administration refused to protect them.
      Demander was mocked by the employers [*4] and bitten by his colleagues because he is not a true Jew.
      P.2. His wife has difficulties in finding a job [*5] , and when she was at least hired she was insulted, bitten and - under certain circumstances
      - became a victim of a sexual harassment[*6].
      There were multiple insults and abuses from theirs neighbors, who were furious because demanders in their eyes are not true Jews.
      They turned to police in innumerous occasions with no results. One time police itself abused and ill-treated the demander under certain
      circumstances. His lawyer told him that nothing could be done against police.