Страница:
people, based their rejections of refugees' claims on such "mistakes". She used to change voluntarily also the meaning of refugee
claimants' stories and so called pifs' data. She placed a wrong information about our nationalities despite our sincere statements. We came
from a country with another mentality and different culture. If a Canadian would probably check the translation using another translator
help, we didn't. Then, again, Mrs. Broder did a back translation into Russian for us to show that everything was translated correctly, but that
back translation actually is in contradiction with her French version. Another interesting detail is that the most serious mistakes she did in
official documents' translations were related to the people whose hearing were attended by Mr. La Salle, Mrs. Judith Malka and - probably
Mr. Dorion. In other words, were attended by people whose relations to Israel or to Jewish roots are easy to detect. If you need more
detailed and precise proof of Mrs. Broder's sabotage we can give it to you.
Mr. La Salle based his rejection of our claim generally on one thing. He based it not only on Mrs. Broder's sabotage, but on direct lie and
distortion of our words, too. So, he interpret our words that we were persecuted by Israelis because they treated us as "Russians" as if we
said that in our Teudat Zehuts (internal obligatory passports) we were mentioned as Russians, not Jews***. In reality there were no
indication of Teudat Zehuts in our words. It is obvious that the meaning of our words is that Israelis treat fresh Russian-speaking
immigrants as strangers, not like real Jews, and this is the main source of our problems in Israel. (Another reason is that my husband is not
a Jew). But if even there was no distortion of our words: Does Mr. La Salle was legally and morally correct to base his rejection on "Teudat
Zehuts" issue? The indication of nationality in different kinds of ID-s is in deep contradiction with the main moral norms of democracy. No
wonder that no democratic state (we don't speak about Israel now) has such indication. That indication of nationality in passports in
ex-USSR and in South African Republic was accused by the democratic press and by Human Rights organizations****. Canada has no
obligatory indication of nationality in her code. Does it means that Canada doesn't recognizes the obligatory indication of nationality in
passports? If so, and also if we are on Canadian soil, then the investigation about the indication of our nationality in our passports is illegal
(at least, morally illegal as minimum). As a Canadian commissioner Mr. La Salle couldn't make it a key issue in his rejection of our claim. As
an Israeli he couldn't ignore this issue - because in Israeli society it is a key issue! Then, I want to attract your attention by the fact that
there is an obligatory indication of country of origin in Israel, not only of nationality. This is the source of conflicts as well. Since the
commissioners like Mr. La Salle avoid mentioning it - this is one of the evidences of their partiality. Let me point out that there are almost no
paragraphs in our refugee claim declaration where we mention the indication of nationality (Russian) in my husband's passport as the
source of our troubles. In the same time we name other reasons like social, ethnic and religious ground for persecutions and discrimination
in our life in Israel*****. Why then the "Teudat Zehuts" issue dominates in the Immigration and Refugee Board decision in our claim?
Probably, because Mr. La Salle acts in interests of Israel, and Israel wants to justify her obligatory indication of nationality before other
countries. Let me point out also that the "Teudat Zehut" is not an ID. It is actually a passport. Because it's function is different from
Canada's social number or medical insurance card, or any other ID. Social number in Canada is confidential. Then, another ID can be given
to police or to other authorities. In Israel T.Z. is the only ID recognized by the authorities. To present T.Z. just everywhere - from clinic to
school, from employment office to hotel - is an obligatory rule. That fact is also ignored by the commissioners. We can analyze Mr. La Salle's
declaration paragraph by paragraph, but our main point is that the decision in our case was visually based not on the hearing and not on
our refugee declaration, but on the very fact that we came from Israel. We'd only like to give examples of the most ridiculous and
tendentious paragraphs of Mr. La Salle's declaration. This declaration, which is politically and emotionally motivated, has nothing what to do
with juridical documents.
Dear Sirs! You must take into consideration that Mr. La Salle gave identical answers to a number of refugee claimants (to family Z., for
example). 4 from 6 main topics in his answers to us and to family Z. are identical. So, he submits a clichй to all his victims. He also doesn't
care to deny the credibility of the events described in our claim by analyzing them. His attitude can be expressed in 2 sentences: It can not
be; because it couldn't happen in Israel (in such a beautiful Middle East country!). That's why he uses such "evidences" of our "insincerity"
as "very little inter-community tension had been noted" (p.5 of his response to our claim, p.3 of his response to family Z. claim). If even such
"evidences" were truth (we have evidences that even the members of Israeli government claim the opposite******), they are not able to
explain or reject each event, each personal case. But it can be clearly explained by Mr. La Salle's motivations. He unconsciously expresses
his motivations on p.4 of his decision: "Monsieur Nikitin est de nationalitй russe et les deux enfants, comme leur mйre, sont juifs"(p.4). In
other words, he didn't write "were Jewish in Israel", or "were considered as Jewish in Israel", but he wrote "are Jewish"! That means that for
h i m they are Jewish. So, under which laws he considered our claim: Under the laws of Canada - or under the laws of Israel!?******* Then,
on p.5 he wrote that "Mrs. Buganovky {instead of Buganovsky} was hesitated to answer the questions, she avoided to answer them directly,
precisely". We can comment that phrase very "directly and precisely"! This is an old trick used by Mr. La Salle, Mr. Dorion and Mrs. Malka.
They compose a question like "are you sure that you did an attempt to lie?" Then they demand to answer "yes" or "no" only. If you answer
"yes", that means - you're a liar, if you answer "no", it means - "I am not sure" or "may be". In a real situation there are much more versions
of consequences if you answer "yes" or "not" directly. The paragraph #6 on p.5 is absolutely identical to the text of a rejection sent to family
Z. This paragraph doubts about what happened to our daughter in kinder-garden and at school because of the claim that there are " no
inter-communal tensions in Israel" and because "efforts were made to sensitize school officials to the new reality...(etc)". Mr. La Salle took
these "evidences" from s document he mentions as Exhibit A-1. But we'd like to ask Mr. La Salle next questions: 1. How can the same
document be used as a contra-argument in the matter of two different girls, who lived in Israel in different cities and in different time? (We
mean us and family Z.). 2. How can a document, which must be composed before the events described in our refugee declaration took
place, be used as an "evidence"?! Does it have a license for the future? 3. How cans Mr. La Salle to swear that if Israel claims she "made
efforts to sensitize school officials" to discrimination or violence, the efforts were really made, or were properly made? Then, if even "efforts"
were really made (we can swear, they weren't) it doesn't mean that they met a proper reaction of school officials! My husband and me - we
also want to express our deep concern about the credibility of this Exhibit when it speaks about Israel. We know that this document (Exhibit
A-1 (5.4) mentions 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 the Exhibit
A-1 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 Exhibit A-1 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 can present another evidence that Exhibit A-1 is highly contradictory and
strange in itself. On page 6 (p.3 in a response to family Z. claim) Mr. La Salle writes (quoting Exhibit A-1), that 80% of Israel population is
mobilized to welcome new immigrants from the former USSR. It's hard to believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any
juridical document! 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 (Mr. La Salle's intention to choose this particular extract, and not another one, reflects his 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". The suggestion that the Histadrut can not deny an appeal for help just
because it "open" to people from all ethnic groups, also has no logic in it. Histadrut may be "open" but its functionaries may treat
"Russians" not like they treat Israelis. 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 hearing Mr. Sharansky has already became a minister. And
Mr. La Salle knew it. So he presented the view of Israeli government as an "independent" view that time: as in all other occasions. He
clearly exposes the source of all the manipulations with the refugees from Israel in Canada: Israeli government!
COMMENTS
1.See Bibliography
2.We have several examples, including a documentary film, which was shown on CFCF12 the 10-th of March 1997, between 8 and 10 p.m.
3.The Resume of the Committee Decision, p.4, paragraph 4, -second sentence.
4.See Bibliography, - #2.
5. See The Resume of the Committee Decision, p.1, second paragraph, and also - p.p.1,2,3.
6.See Bibliography, - #3.
7.According to Judaism and to Israeli laws (because there is a strange mix of civil and religious rules in Israel's juridical system) the
children's nationality is given after their mother's nationality.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. "Une comissaire du statut de rйfugiй accusй de partialitй ", - by Franзois Berger. "LA PRESSE". Montreal. January 27, 1997.
2. "Off The Record", by Peter Wheeland. "HOUR", Montreal, December 15-21, 1994.
3. "Israeli Immigrants Finding Work", by Jewish Telegraphic Agency. "The Canadian Jewish news", August 17, 1995. And also: "Ethiopian
Jews Riot Over Dumped Blood", by Serge Schmemann from 'NEW YORK TIMES". "THE GAZETTE". Montreal, January 29, 1996. And
also: "Rights of Humans and Refugees", by Eugenia Kravchik. (In Russian). An Interview With Shulamit Aloni. "Okna"("WINDOWS").
August 18, 1994. Tel-Aviv. And also: "A Non-Existent Photo of Shulamit Aloni", by Roman Polonsky. An Interview With Shulamit Aloni.
"WIESTI". December 29, 1994. Tel-Aviv.
4."Ottawa Vows Crackdown On Phony Refugees", by Yvonne Zacharias. "THE GAZETTE", September 7, 1996.
To Support Our Declaration We Are Also Listing Or Submitting You Next Documents:
1)"LE MOND DIPLOMATIQUE". Issue #1, January, 1997. The declaration of Amnesty International about the decision of Israeli
government to legalize tortures by Mossad and Shabbak over the detainees.
2) Jews refer to non-Jewish women officially as nothing more than 'unclean meat' - shiska. This observation was cited coming from Jew,
Professor Israel Shahak in his book _Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3,000 years_[Published by Pluto Press (London 1994)].
3) Hassidic Jews in New York yeshivas are among the top money launderers in the world. They use the cloak of religion to hide their work
and they use Israel's exclusively Jewish immigration policy (the "law of return") to escape U.S. justice by relocating to Israel. New York's
47th Street : Maariv, September 2, 1994 By Ben Kaspit, the New York correspondent
4) American Civil Rights Review http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/index.html
5) Multicultural Disasters http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/dv0.html HUD Disaster Tours of Ruined Urban Areas HUD Has Destroyed
http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/stlouistour.html Immigration Debacle! http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/imfolder.html
6)"Orthodox Again Battle Police in Jerusalem", by Douglas Jehl for "NEW YORK TIMES". In "THE GAZETTE". July 21, 1996.
7)Efraim Sevela. "Stop The Airplane, I Have To Get Out..." A documentary, autobiography novel. "STAV". Jerusalem, 1980. (In Russian).
8) http://www.igc.org/Womensnet/dworkin/IsraelI.html
9) http://talk.excite.com/go.webx?7@-d^86825@.ee7ba6a/86
10) http://www.colba.net/~leog/newspaper/araven.html
11)"By Way of Deception", by Victor Ostrovsky. St.Martin's Press. New York.1990.
12)Grigory Swirsky. "The Breakthrough". New York. (In Russian).
13)"The Bungling Bank Robbers of Israel", by Doug Struck. "THE GAZETTE". August 5,1995.
14)"Dream Homes But No Buyers", by Raine Marcus. "CITY LIGHTS", a supplement to "Jerusalem Post", September 11, 1992.
SUPPLEMENT WE SUBMIT OR ARE PLANNING TO SUBMIT COPIES OF THAT APPEAL TO: 1.UN Human Right Committee in Ottawa.
2.Amnesty International, London. 3.Amnesty International Division for Refugees. 4.Canadian Ministry of Immigration. 5.The Office of Prime
Minister of Quebec. 6."LA PRESSE" 7."THE GAZETTE". 8."HOUR" 9."MAIL AND GLOBE" 10."LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE"
11."WASHINGTON POST" 12."CHICAGO TRIBUNE" 13."BERLINER ZEITUNG" 14."ZYCIE WARSZAWY" 15."TIMES" 16."THE
GUARDIAN" 17."DOUBLE STANDARDS" (AN INTERNET ON-LINE EDITION) 18. "EXCITE TALKS" (INTERNET) TO OTHER PLACES
AND ORGANIZATIONS
ДЕЛО МЕТЕЛЬНИЦКИХ:
FROM FAMILY METELNITSKY. MONTREAL, Desember, 1996.
To Amnesty International's London Office
Why WeTurn To Amnesty International?
1) Because our complains to Amnesty International from Israel played if not the main,a very important role during all the 2 immigration
hearings in our case. 2) Because indirectly or even directly (from a particular point of view) they insinuated that we must be punished for our
contacts with Amnesty International. 3) Because what happened during our immigration hearing here in Montreal (Quebec, Canada) is so
incredible and horrible that will encourage human right violations everywhere on a wider scale. 4) Because during the hearing the
immigration officer falsificated Amnesty International's (and other human rights organizations') documents and lied about them. 6)
Because if a family comes to a country (which accepts refugees under the Geneva Convention act) but faces abuses, ungrounded
accusations, threats, hatred and injustice within an immigration court room - that means a mayhem for the human rights, placing the very
basis of human rights in jeopardy. 7) Because we are absolutely certain (and we have presented undenieble evidences to the immigration
bord) that we are going to be beatten, abused or even killed if we will be turned back to Israel.
We came to Israel in 1990 ; as many other people we had a hope for a better life. As the most of Russian-speaking people we were
"welcomed" by a malicious anger, the state unti-Russian propaganda and the most severe discrimination. Our son was 15 when we came
to Israel. Each of us (including our son) was assaulted, abused, beaten, discriminated against.The ignorance of what is going on in Israel
with the Russian-speaking people can not make what we and our friends suffered from in Israel unreal. Batteries, assaults, abuses were
real and happened to us in real life. If my son could come to school and could hear a discussion about the last article in a Hebrew
newspaper, in which "Russians" were called sons of a bitch, prostitutes, fools and thieves: was it "unreal"? And the computer games in
Hebrew accompanied by songs with words like "Russians, go home":They were as real as the real life. And the social climate in Israel is so
horrible that if a child is beaten at school "because he's Russian" he is forced to feel guilty himself as if he's guilty in not being an Israeli
but being a Russian.
Any person with conciseness (a journalist, an immigration official, a human right organization official) could take a translator from Hebrew,
go to a library or to an archive and find articles in Hebrew newspapers which have highly aggressive untie-Russian contest. And what about
thousands of articles in Russian newspapers published in Israel about what can be called almost a genocide against "Russians"?
When they began to call my son to a draft board (because Israel has a compulsory military service) he asked an alternative military service
each time they called him: because he was afraid of hostility towards "Russians" within the Israeli army and also because of the rule that a
single son can not be taken into the front-line units against his will. They gave him no decision, but kept ordering him to came to the draft
point again and again. One day a new routine order to come to the draft point arrived. My son was ordered to come one day - but the order
have been sent one day later then the date of his appearance. A couple of other days past before he got the order. But as soon as he got
it he immediately went to the draft board.
When he came they have arrested him incriminating him a disobedience to the order to come. No excuse, no explanation were admitted.
Everything happened so fast that there is no doubt: they were prepared. So, they have submitted this order for him later then the date he
was called to intentionally. He was accused in a refusal to come to the draft board (the ignored his voluntarial arrival) and in avoiding the
military service. They have treated him like if he already was a soldier and flied from a military unit. He was also given a soldier's number as if
he was a soldier when in reality he never entered the army and never wearied a military uniform. When he admitted that he's going to
become mentally ill because of the military prison they refused to give him a Russian-speaking psychologist, and the Hebrew- speaking
psychologist couldn't speak with our son, but wrote a report based on ungrounded insinuations. When later a Russian-speaking
psychologist appeared he translated him that report but told that it is impossible now to dispute what the Israeli wrote.
When our son was in the military prison severe humiliations were committed over him. All the violations of the rules and of the moral norms
in his case were too innumerable to mention them. During his imprisonment our son was transformed from a healthy person to a mentally ill
boy. When he was released from the military prison (he was in the prison more then 3 months; no charges were posed against him, no court
took place) the military medical committee recognized him as a mentally ill person. When he was just imprisoned he was recognized as a
fully healthy person suitable to the military service.He received some treatment here, in Canada, and the immigration board know it. We did
everything we could to release our son from the military prison. But the civil lawyers refused to take his case as soon as they heard about
the conflict with the army. Some of them assaulted us refusing to take the case.We demanded a military lawyer but the military
commandature in Jaffo denied us a military lawyer. We turned to all the possible places like Israel Bar Association, human rights
organizations, Sharansky's Zionist Forum, Israel and foreign media, state officials: nobody couldn't or didn't want to help us. Then we
decided to send a letter to Amnesty International. A friend of us - a dissident and a journalist Lev G. - has contacted Amnesty International
and later submitted several faxes to them. When the authorities realized that we complained to Amnesty International they released our
son from the military prison.
We couldn't live in Israel any more after what happened to us and to our son there, and also because we were afraid that our son can be
arrested again if we will stay in Israel. The only reasonable solution for us was to escape. And the only way to do it was to become refugee
claimants. We flied to Montreal in November, 1994.
We have submitted all the documentary proof we had to support our claim to the immigration board (committee). We also sincerely
described what happened to us in our claim's atory without any distortion or exaggeration. But what happened to us in the immigration
courtroom and between and after our 2 hearings is just incredible...
Why We Think Our Human Rights Were Violated By the Court?
Inside The Courtroom:
1)Some of the main documentary proofs (statements, affidavits, letters, receipts, articles, ect.) were ignored as if they never existed.
2)Other extremely important documents were mentioned but were ignored (if not - they might be an obstacle to what the judges
incriminated us). 3) Other documents (including Amnesty International's confirmation of our complain) 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. 4) The same way our words were ignored, too. For example, I was asked an insinuating question. My answer closed that question
by a clear and unbeatable conterargument. 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. 5)
Too often they questioned us giving us no rights to response. They shuted us down replacing our eventual answer by their own - and later
based their conclusions not on our answers but on their own statement posing it as our - not their - words. 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! 7) Several times the
bord members expressed their dissaproval by the norms of democracy or by my aproval of the democracy laws. 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 Canadien but to Israeli jurisdiction. This position - neither being ordered to the bord or being the product of the board itself - made the
courtroom a part of Israel's territory. 8)The procedure of our immigration hearing wasn't an investigation in our case but a pure pro-Israel's
propaganda. It's 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 bord's point of view was the very fact that we came from Israel. But the only admissible attitude to
refugees is to base the decision on what happened to them personally, not on which country they flied. 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.
10)Sending requests to Israeli embassy and demanding some definite information about us, the immigration officer violated another moral
and judicial principle: Not to announce his claim to the government of a country a refugee claimant escaped from. 11)Reading Amnesty
International's and other reports the immigration officer distorted and sometimes falsified the documents. 12) Documents submitted by the
Israeli government, by it's dependents or by it's embassy were considered as absolutely reliable and were voluntarily represented by the
tribunal as non-debatable. In the same time documents that were represented by our lawyer (or our documents) - newspapers, statements,
declarations, and so on - weren't treated as equal to Israeli propaganda papers. More then that: At least our documents were completely
ignored: As if they never existed. In the same time the documentation presented by Israeli government can't be treated as an arbitrary
source: Because Israel is involved. Meanwhile a number of our documents may be considered as more objective and independent. 13) The
immigration officer used 1) an open lie 2) threats 3) desinformation; 4) expressed an unexplained malicious anger towards us; 5) claimed
one thing to defend her position during our hearing and claimed the contrary during the hearing in G. family case (our cases are related,
and G. was called as a witness to our second hearing); 6) she lied about what I said, about what she previously said , about what was said
about the situation in Israel and so on; 7) her behavier towards us and G. family was so incredibly agressive as if she had a personal reason
to punish us, or to exterminate us. 14) A 'yes" or "no" answer was demanded in situations when it was clear that such an answer is
absolutely impossible. Demanding "yes" or "no" answer only they justified their decision not let us speak. 15) Despite our son's mental
illness and the evidence that he can not be asked the immigration officer asked him various questions in an aggressive manner. We
understood that questions which she asked him were nothing more then a pure humiliation. 16) Requests which the immigration officer has
submitted to Israel weren't justified or necessary.
Outside The Courtroom:
1) Our lawyer's translator did our story translation in an provocative and humiliated manner. She has chosen the declarative style instead of
a description intentionally: to make our story sound ridiculous. She also sabotaged G.'s family story. When they came to Montreal G. put
everything that happened to his family in Israel in writing and gave that piece of paper to the translator. She sabotaged the translation
distorting the sense of his story, inserting her own inventions and sentences which sounded like provocations. He demanded a translation
back to Russian from her French version , and she did it. She wrote it by her own hand. That manuscript is quite different from her French
version. So, she did it to smoothen the distortions and to prevent G. from complaining. We have also other proofs of her sabotage. 2) She
sabotaged the translations of newspaper's articles as well. From one hand she exaggerated a number of descriptions of persecutions
against Russian-speaking people "to do us a favor" (We think her goal was to discredit these articles). But on the other hand she excluded
the most important paragraphs in her translation and gave the opposite meaning to the most important facts and conclusions. 3) The
translator also sabotaged the translation of some official papers and other documents which we and G. prepared to support our claims.
She told us that she has translated some of them and that she would find a translator from Hebrew -but it was a lie. If not our complains to
the lawyer and an alert note we gave to him: No documents were translated. 4)We believe that a conspiracy between the immigration board
and the translator took place. She was given an order to insert some particular phrases in G. story which he didn't want to see there. Later,
in the courtroom, these phrases were used against him. These phrases were taken from articles he wrote before we escaped from Israel.
Among them were the articles which G. hasn't presented to her or to our lawyer when she was doing the translation of his story. The
members of the immigration board have exploited these phrases again and again: What leads to a suggestion that it wasn't
occasionally. 6) There is a visible connection between the immigration officer - and Mr.Mark Kotlarsky, who lives in Israel. This
gentlemen is an informer and a provocateur for Israeli authorities. He wrote an article about G. in 1994, in Israel. This article was written in a
humiliated and sarcastic manner. Mr.Kotlarsky used the information which G. shared with him (as with his close friend ) against him. This
article is outright slander, mystification, false insinuations and lie.. Before G. discovered that Mark Kotlarsky is the government agent he told
him some things which G. never told to any other person. But during our immigration hearing and during the hearing of family G. these
things were used by the immigration officer against us. We have no other explanation but that she's in a contact with Mr.Kotlarsky. 7)
Then, we have a reliable source of information which says that the immigration officer, the member of the immigration board in our cases, is
an Israeli. Because of some reasons we'd like not to present the evidences for that. But this paragraph can play an informative role only.
We have no pretensions to demand you to believe in that. From the other hand if the immigration officer is an Israeli (it can be confirmed, if
somebody wants to find out) and the patriot of Israel (the last is too clear), she has no moral and - may be - legal rights to judge in refugees'
from Israel cases.8)When G.'s came to Montreal they gave G.'s wife's birth certificate and it's legal translation to our lawyer. Dispute the
submission of that legal translation the lawyer's translator did her own translation. Now we discovered that she sabotaged ("refused") to
translate his wife's parents' nationality. There is a clear connection between that sabotage and the immigration officer's tactics in that
issue. The immigration court decision came to us at the 14 of December, 1996. The denial of our claim for a refugee status doesn't reflects
what really happened during our immigration hearings and has almost no connection with our claim. It is a masterpiece of rhetoric and
profanation. This document is a next proof that an only decisive voice in our case was the voice of the immigration officer. She was a real
judge - and the official judges were just mutes. The text of "their" negative decision reflects her style and based on her words exclusively:
Her declarations she made during our hearings are reflected in this document pretty good. But this document ignore our answers
completely: As if we kept silence all the time. When in reality some of our counterarguments completely discredited her insinuations.
Nothing what the judges said during our immigration hearing is reflected in the immigration board decision, what means that the decision to
deny our claim was made by the immigration officer only (without the judges) when according to the rules she has no decisive voice but only
a consultative voice. The denial's text is much the declaration about Israel then a statement of an immigration committee. It based on an
acsioma that Israel is a democratic state (society). Such a declaration lays beyond the juridical matter: Because there is not in jurisdiction of
an immigration board to decide which state is a democracy and which is not. This is a privilege of an academic institution but not of an
executive board. Then it is an act of injustice to declare that Israel is a democracy in an imperative manner giving the refugee claimants no
possibility to present their view and their counterarguments. It is clear from what was discussed during our immigration hearings that Israel
has almost nothing in common with democracy. A permission to leave the country, an indication of nationality and the country of origin in
special enternal passports, a supremacy of the religious laws over the civil code, a right for a military committee to decide who is a single
son - and who's not, an imprisonment for months without an official accusation: All these and hundreds of other Israeli laws are suitable
may be for a mental hospital - but not for a "democratic society". An opinion expressed by the document that we should not escape to
Canada but should seek a help in Israel also has nothing what to do with the reality. We did everything to defend ourselves in Israel, and G.
as a journalist and the human righta activist did everything that was possible to help us.He presented tenth of receipts of his complains to
various ministries and organizations including the Ministry of Police, the Ministry of internal affairs and police, which were unanswered, to
the immigration committee. The sad truth is that the committee just ignores everything. And recognize only the ungrounded Israel's
declarations. And the immigration officer - a person who sends faxes to Israeli embassy, obtains documents there;in other words who's in
tight connection with Israelis - is the only person who has a decidable voice in the refugees from Israel cases... Isn't that sad?!
We can not go back to Israel under no condition, because
1) my husband and my son may be arrested by the militaries and imprisoned. I expressed my grounded fears about that during the hearings
- and I can widen them now. 2) How can we go back to Israel if the immigration officer informed the Israelis about our refugee claim? In
Israel where the ideology and the patriotic education play a very important role we will be considered as "traitors" and will be persecuted for
that, too. 3) Persecutions against us in Israel were so strong that if we would be send back to Israel we will die. 4) After receiving so called
"21-st military profile" my son has no future in Israel: Because in Israel people who are given that "profile" can not study, and nobody will
employ my son with such a "profile". 5) After all the persecutions we faced in Israel we feel fear - and we are afraid to go back; our fear, our
psychological tremor towards Israel are so strong that there is impossible for us to live in Israel any more. In the name of God, in the name
of Justice - HELP US!!!
CONCLUSIONS: our 2 immigration hearings (as well as hearings in G. case) have nothing in common with any legal procedure. They rather
remine of an incuisition court or a secret political tribunal. This tribunal was arranged to punish us for flieding Israel and G. - for his
ideological views - not to decide whether or not our (ours and G. family's) 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 refugee status. 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 violative ritual of humiliations
over the juridical norms then that... It is absolutely clear for the judges - as well as for ourselves - that we were severely persecuted in Israel,
that all members of our family were severely abused and that the definite casualties were inflicted to our health, including our son. It is 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. 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. sp;* The court's negative decision (resume) was
made and expressed in an inappropriate manner without any clear connection to our real case. The decision was clearly made by the
immigration officer, not by the judges. She is an Israeli patriot and she hates the Russian-speaking people. Everything what is expressed in
the decision document is basicly a lie. The text of that document is politically motivated and juridically illegal. This is just the next stage of
injustice.
SUPPLEMENTS (if required):
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.
6.DETAILED COMMENTARY TO THE HEARINGS.
7.COURT'S RESUME (DECISION).
8.DETAILED COMMENTARY TO THE COURT'S RESUME (DENIAL OF OUR CLAIM).
SINSERELY YOURS, LUDMILA METELNITSKY
telephone number: (514) 845-8216
address: Ludmila Metelnitsky, 3440 Durocher Str., Apt.1602, Montreal, Quebec, H2X 2E2, CANADA
AN ADJUSTMENT
We came to Israel in 1990; as many other people we had a hope for a better life. As the most of Russian-speaking people we were
"welcomed" by a malicious anger, the state unti-Russian propaganda and the most severe discrimination. Our son was 15 when we came to
Israel. Each of us (including our son) was assaulted, abused, beaten, discriminated against. The ignorance of what is going on in Israel with
the Russian-speaking people can not make what our friends and we suffered from in Israel unreal. Batteries, assaults, abuses were real and
happened to us in real life. If my son could come to school and could hear a discussion about the last article in a Hebrew newspaper, in which
"Russians" were called sons of a bitch, prostitutes, fools and thieves: was it "unreal"? And the computer games in Hebrew accompanied by
songs with words like "Russians, go home": They were as real as the real life. And the social climate in Israel is so horrible that if a child is
beaten at school "because he's Russian" - he is forced to feel guilty himself as if he's guilty in not being an Israeli but being a Russian.
Any person with conciseness (a journalist, immigration official, a human right organization official) could take a translator from Hebrew, go to a
library or to an archive and find articles in Hebrew newspapers which have highly aggressive untie-Russian contest. And what about
thousands of articles in Russian newspapers published in Israel about what can be called almost genocide against "Russians"?
When they began to call my son to a draft board (because Israel has a compulsory military service) he asked an alternative military service
each time they called him: because he was afraid of hostility towards "Russians" within the Israeli army and also because of the rule that a
single son can not be taken into the front-line units against his will. They gave him no decision, but kept ordering him to come to the draft point
again and again.
One day a new routine order to come to the draft point arrived. My son was ordered to come one day - but the order has been sent one day
later then the date of his appearance. A couple of other days past before he got the order. But as soon as he got it he immediately went to the
draft board.
When he came they have arrested him incriminating him a disobedience to the order to come. No excuse, no explanation was admitted.
Everything happened so fast that there is no doubt: they were prepared. So, they have submitted this order for him later then the date he was
called to intentionally. He was accused in a refusal to come to the draft board (they ignored that he arrived voluntarily) and in avoiding the
military service. They have treated him like if he already was a soldier and flied from a military unit. He was also given a soldier's number as
if he was a soldier when in reality he never entered the army and never wearied a military uniform. When he admitted that he's going to
become mentally ill because of the military prison they refused to give him a Russian-speaking psychologist, and the Hebrew- speaking
psychologist couldn't speak with our son, but wrote a report based on ungrounded insinuations. When later a Russian-speaking psychologist
appeared he translated him that report but told that it is impossible now to dispute what the Israeli wrote.
claimants' stories and so called pifs' data. She placed a wrong information about our nationalities despite our sincere statements. We came
from a country with another mentality and different culture. If a Canadian would probably check the translation using another translator
help, we didn't. Then, again, Mrs. Broder did a back translation into Russian for us to show that everything was translated correctly, but that
back translation actually is in contradiction with her French version. Another interesting detail is that the most serious mistakes she did in
official documents' translations were related to the people whose hearing were attended by Mr. La Salle, Mrs. Judith Malka and - probably
Mr. Dorion. In other words, were attended by people whose relations to Israel or to Jewish roots are easy to detect. If you need more
detailed and precise proof of Mrs. Broder's sabotage we can give it to you.
Mr. La Salle based his rejection of our claim generally on one thing. He based it not only on Mrs. Broder's sabotage, but on direct lie and
distortion of our words, too. So, he interpret our words that we were persecuted by Israelis because they treated us as "Russians" as if we
said that in our Teudat Zehuts (internal obligatory passports) we were mentioned as Russians, not Jews***. In reality there were no
indication of Teudat Zehuts in our words. It is obvious that the meaning of our words is that Israelis treat fresh Russian-speaking
immigrants as strangers, not like real Jews, and this is the main source of our problems in Israel. (Another reason is that my husband is not
a Jew). But if even there was no distortion of our words: Does Mr. La Salle was legally and morally correct to base his rejection on "Teudat
Zehuts" issue? The indication of nationality in different kinds of ID-s is in deep contradiction with the main moral norms of democracy. No
wonder that no democratic state (we don't speak about Israel now) has such indication. That indication of nationality in passports in
ex-USSR and in South African Republic was accused by the democratic press and by Human Rights organizations****. Canada has no
obligatory indication of nationality in her code. Does it means that Canada doesn't recognizes the obligatory indication of nationality in
passports? If so, and also if we are on Canadian soil, then the investigation about the indication of our nationality in our passports is illegal
(at least, morally illegal as minimum). As a Canadian commissioner Mr. La Salle couldn't make it a key issue in his rejection of our claim. As
an Israeli he couldn't ignore this issue - because in Israeli society it is a key issue! Then, I want to attract your attention by the fact that
there is an obligatory indication of country of origin in Israel, not only of nationality. This is the source of conflicts as well. Since the
commissioners like Mr. La Salle avoid mentioning it - this is one of the evidences of their partiality. Let me point out that there are almost no
paragraphs in our refugee claim declaration where we mention the indication of nationality (Russian) in my husband's passport as the
source of our troubles. In the same time we name other reasons like social, ethnic and religious ground for persecutions and discrimination
in our life in Israel*****. Why then the "Teudat Zehuts" issue dominates in the Immigration and Refugee Board decision in our claim?
Probably, because Mr. La Salle acts in interests of Israel, and Israel wants to justify her obligatory indication of nationality before other
countries. Let me point out also that the "Teudat Zehut" is not an ID. It is actually a passport. Because it's function is different from
Canada's social number or medical insurance card, or any other ID. Social number in Canada is confidential. Then, another ID can be given
to police or to other authorities. In Israel T.Z. is the only ID recognized by the authorities. To present T.Z. just everywhere - from clinic to
school, from employment office to hotel - is an obligatory rule. That fact is also ignored by the commissioners. We can analyze Mr. La Salle's
declaration paragraph by paragraph, but our main point is that the decision in our case was visually based not on the hearing and not on
our refugee declaration, but on the very fact that we came from Israel. We'd only like to give examples of the most ridiculous and
tendentious paragraphs of Mr. La Salle's declaration. This declaration, which is politically and emotionally motivated, has nothing what to do
with juridical documents.
Dear Sirs! You must take into consideration that Mr. La Salle gave identical answers to a number of refugee claimants (to family Z., for
example). 4 from 6 main topics in his answers to us and to family Z. are identical. So, he submits a clichй to all his victims. He also doesn't
care to deny the credibility of the events described in our claim by analyzing them. His attitude can be expressed in 2 sentences: It can not
be; because it couldn't happen in Israel (in such a beautiful Middle East country!). That's why he uses such "evidences" of our "insincerity"
as "very little inter-community tension had been noted" (p.5 of his response to our claim, p.3 of his response to family Z. claim). If even such
"evidences" were truth (we have evidences that even the members of Israeli government claim the opposite******), they are not able to
explain or reject each event, each personal case. But it can be clearly explained by Mr. La Salle's motivations. He unconsciously expresses
his motivations on p.4 of his decision: "Monsieur Nikitin est de nationalitй russe et les deux enfants, comme leur mйre, sont juifs"(p.4). In
other words, he didn't write "were Jewish in Israel", or "were considered as Jewish in Israel", but he wrote "are Jewish"! That means that for
h i m they are Jewish. So, under which laws he considered our claim: Under the laws of Canada - or under the laws of Israel!?******* Then,
on p.5 he wrote that "Mrs. Buganovky {instead of Buganovsky} was hesitated to answer the questions, she avoided to answer them directly,
precisely". We can comment that phrase very "directly and precisely"! This is an old trick used by Mr. La Salle, Mr. Dorion and Mrs. Malka.
They compose a question like "are you sure that you did an attempt to lie?" Then they demand to answer "yes" or "no" only. If you answer
"yes", that means - you're a liar, if you answer "no", it means - "I am not sure" or "may be". In a real situation there are much more versions
of consequences if you answer "yes" or "not" directly. The paragraph #6 on p.5 is absolutely identical to the text of a rejection sent to family
Z. This paragraph doubts about what happened to our daughter in kinder-garden and at school because of the claim that there are " no
inter-communal tensions in Israel" and because "efforts were made to sensitize school officials to the new reality...(etc)". Mr. La Salle took
these "evidences" from s document he mentions as Exhibit A-1. But we'd like to ask Mr. La Salle next questions: 1. How can the same
document be used as a contra-argument in the matter of two different girls, who lived in Israel in different cities and in different time? (We
mean us and family Z.). 2. How can a document, which must be composed before the events described in our refugee declaration took
place, be used as an "evidence"?! Does it have a license for the future? 3. How cans Mr. La Salle to swear that if Israel claims she "made
efforts to sensitize school officials" to discrimination or violence, the efforts were really made, or were properly made? Then, if even "efforts"
were really made (we can swear, they weren't) it doesn't mean that they met a proper reaction of school officials! My husband and me - we
also want to express our deep concern about the credibility of this Exhibit when it speaks about Israel. We know that this document (Exhibit
A-1 (5.4) mentions 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 the Exhibit
A-1 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 Exhibit A-1 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 can present another evidence that Exhibit A-1 is highly contradictory and
strange in itself. On page 6 (p.3 in a response to family Z. claim) Mr. La Salle writes (quoting Exhibit A-1), that 80% of Israel population is
mobilized to welcome new immigrants from the former USSR. It's hard to believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any
juridical document! 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 (Mr. La Salle's intention to choose this particular extract, and not another one, reflects his 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". The suggestion that the Histadrut can not deny an appeal for help just
because it "open" to people from all ethnic groups, also has no logic in it. Histadrut may be "open" but its functionaries may treat
"Russians" not like they treat Israelis. 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 hearing Mr. Sharansky has already became a minister. And
Mr. La Salle knew it. So he presented the view of Israeli government as an "independent" view that time: as in all other occasions. He
clearly exposes the source of all the manipulations with the refugees from Israel in Canada: Israeli government!
COMMENTS
1.See Bibliography
2.We have several examples, including a documentary film, which was shown on CFCF12 the 10-th of March 1997, between 8 and 10 p.m.
3.The Resume of the Committee Decision, p.4, paragraph 4, -second sentence.
4.See Bibliography, - #2.
5. See The Resume of the Committee Decision, p.1, second paragraph, and also - p.p.1,2,3.
6.See Bibliography, - #3.
7.According to Judaism and to Israeli laws (because there is a strange mix of civil and religious rules in Israel's juridical system) the
children's nationality is given after their mother's nationality.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. "Une comissaire du statut de rйfugiй accusй de partialitй ", - by Franзois Berger. "LA PRESSE". Montreal. January 27, 1997.
2. "Off The Record", by Peter Wheeland. "HOUR", Montreal, December 15-21, 1994.
3. "Israeli Immigrants Finding Work", by Jewish Telegraphic Agency. "The Canadian Jewish news", August 17, 1995. And also: "Ethiopian
Jews Riot Over Dumped Blood", by Serge Schmemann from 'NEW YORK TIMES". "THE GAZETTE". Montreal, January 29, 1996. And
also: "Rights of Humans and Refugees", by Eugenia Kravchik. (In Russian). An Interview With Shulamit Aloni. "Okna"("WINDOWS").
August 18, 1994. Tel-Aviv. And also: "A Non-Existent Photo of Shulamit Aloni", by Roman Polonsky. An Interview With Shulamit Aloni.
"WIESTI". December 29, 1994. Tel-Aviv.
4."Ottawa Vows Crackdown On Phony Refugees", by Yvonne Zacharias. "THE GAZETTE", September 7, 1996.
To Support Our Declaration We Are Also Listing Or Submitting You Next Documents:
1)"LE MOND DIPLOMATIQUE". Issue #1, January, 1997. The declaration of Amnesty International about the decision of Israeli
government to legalize tortures by Mossad and Shabbak over the detainees.
2) Jews refer to non-Jewish women officially as nothing more than 'unclean meat' - shiska. This observation was cited coming from Jew,
Professor Israel Shahak in his book _Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3,000 years_[Published by Pluto Press (London 1994)].
3) Hassidic Jews in New York yeshivas are among the top money launderers in the world. They use the cloak of religion to hide their work
and they use Israel's exclusively Jewish immigration policy (the "law of return") to escape U.S. justice by relocating to Israel. New York's
47th Street : Maariv, September 2, 1994 By Ben Kaspit, the New York correspondent
4) American Civil Rights Review http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/index.html
5) Multicultural Disasters http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/dv0.html HUD Disaster Tours of Ruined Urban Areas HUD Has Destroyed
http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/stlouistour.html Immigration Debacle! http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/imfolder.html
6)"Orthodox Again Battle Police in Jerusalem", by Douglas Jehl for "NEW YORK TIMES". In "THE GAZETTE". July 21, 1996.
7)Efraim Sevela. "Stop The Airplane, I Have To Get Out..." A documentary, autobiography novel. "STAV". Jerusalem, 1980. (In Russian).
8) http://www.igc.org/Womensnet/dworkin/IsraelI.html
9) http://talk.excite.com/go.webx?7@-d^86825@.ee7ba6a/86
10) http://www.colba.net/~leog/newspaper/araven.html
11)"By Way of Deception", by Victor Ostrovsky. St.Martin's Press. New York.1990.
12)Grigory Swirsky. "The Breakthrough". New York. (In Russian).
13)"The Bungling Bank Robbers of Israel", by Doug Struck. "THE GAZETTE". August 5,1995.
14)"Dream Homes But No Buyers", by Raine Marcus. "CITY LIGHTS", a supplement to "Jerusalem Post", September 11, 1992.
SUPPLEMENT WE SUBMIT OR ARE PLANNING TO SUBMIT COPIES OF THAT APPEAL TO: 1.UN Human Right Committee in Ottawa.
2.Amnesty International, London. 3.Amnesty International Division for Refugees. 4.Canadian Ministry of Immigration. 5.The Office of Prime
Minister of Quebec. 6."LA PRESSE" 7."THE GAZETTE". 8."HOUR" 9."MAIL AND GLOBE" 10."LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE"
11."WASHINGTON POST" 12."CHICAGO TRIBUNE" 13."BERLINER ZEITUNG" 14."ZYCIE WARSZAWY" 15."TIMES" 16."THE
GUARDIAN" 17."DOUBLE STANDARDS" (AN INTERNET ON-LINE EDITION) 18. "EXCITE TALKS" (INTERNET) TO OTHER PLACES
AND ORGANIZATIONS
ДЕЛО МЕТЕЛЬНИЦКИХ:
FROM FAMILY METELNITSKY. MONTREAL, Desember, 1996.
To Amnesty International's London Office
Why WeTurn To Amnesty International?
1) Because our complains to Amnesty International from Israel played if not the main,a very important role during all the 2 immigration
hearings in our case. 2) Because indirectly or even directly (from a particular point of view) they insinuated that we must be punished for our
contacts with Amnesty International. 3) Because what happened during our immigration hearing here in Montreal (Quebec, Canada) is so
incredible and horrible that will encourage human right violations everywhere on a wider scale. 4) Because during the hearing the
immigration officer falsificated Amnesty International's (and other human rights organizations') documents and lied about them. 6)
Because if a family comes to a country (which accepts refugees under the Geneva Convention act) but faces abuses, ungrounded
accusations, threats, hatred and injustice within an immigration court room - that means a mayhem for the human rights, placing the very
basis of human rights in jeopardy. 7) Because we are absolutely certain (and we have presented undenieble evidences to the immigration
bord) that we are going to be beatten, abused or even killed if we will be turned back to Israel.
We came to Israel in 1990 ; as many other people we had a hope for a better life. As the most of Russian-speaking people we were
"welcomed" by a malicious anger, the state unti-Russian propaganda and the most severe discrimination. Our son was 15 when we came
to Israel. Each of us (including our son) was assaulted, abused, beaten, discriminated against.The ignorance of what is going on in Israel
with the Russian-speaking people can not make what we and our friends suffered from in Israel unreal. Batteries, assaults, abuses were
real and happened to us in real life. If my son could come to school and could hear a discussion about the last article in a Hebrew
newspaper, in which "Russians" were called sons of a bitch, prostitutes, fools and thieves: was it "unreal"? And the computer games in
Hebrew accompanied by songs with words like "Russians, go home":They were as real as the real life. And the social climate in Israel is so
horrible that if a child is beaten at school "because he's Russian" he is forced to feel guilty himself as if he's guilty in not being an Israeli
but being a Russian.
Any person with conciseness (a journalist, an immigration official, a human right organization official) could take a translator from Hebrew,
go to a library or to an archive and find articles in Hebrew newspapers which have highly aggressive untie-Russian contest. And what about
thousands of articles in Russian newspapers published in Israel about what can be called almost a genocide against "Russians"?
When they began to call my son to a draft board (because Israel has a compulsory military service) he asked an alternative military service
each time they called him: because he was afraid of hostility towards "Russians" within the Israeli army and also because of the rule that a
single son can not be taken into the front-line units against his will. They gave him no decision, but kept ordering him to came to the draft
point again and again. One day a new routine order to come to the draft point arrived. My son was ordered to come one day - but the order
have been sent one day later then the date of his appearance. A couple of other days past before he got the order. But as soon as he got
it he immediately went to the draft board.
When he came they have arrested him incriminating him a disobedience to the order to come. No excuse, no explanation were admitted.
Everything happened so fast that there is no doubt: they were prepared. So, they have submitted this order for him later then the date he
was called to intentionally. He was accused in a refusal to come to the draft board (the ignored his voluntarial arrival) and in avoiding the
military service. They have treated him like if he already was a soldier and flied from a military unit. He was also given a soldier's number as if
he was a soldier when in reality he never entered the army and never wearied a military uniform. When he admitted that he's going to
become mentally ill because of the military prison they refused to give him a Russian-speaking psychologist, and the Hebrew- speaking
psychologist couldn't speak with our son, but wrote a report based on ungrounded insinuations. When later a Russian-speaking
psychologist appeared he translated him that report but told that it is impossible now to dispute what the Israeli wrote.
When our son was in the military prison severe humiliations were committed over him. All the violations of the rules and of the moral norms
in his case were too innumerable to mention them. During his imprisonment our son was transformed from a healthy person to a mentally ill
boy. When he was released from the military prison (he was in the prison more then 3 months; no charges were posed against him, no court
took place) the military medical committee recognized him as a mentally ill person. When he was just imprisoned he was recognized as a
fully healthy person suitable to the military service.He received some treatment here, in Canada, and the immigration board know it. We did
everything we could to release our son from the military prison. But the civil lawyers refused to take his case as soon as they heard about
the conflict with the army. Some of them assaulted us refusing to take the case.We demanded a military lawyer but the military
commandature in Jaffo denied us a military lawyer. We turned to all the possible places like Israel Bar Association, human rights
organizations, Sharansky's Zionist Forum, Israel and foreign media, state officials: nobody couldn't or didn't want to help us. Then we
decided to send a letter to Amnesty International. A friend of us - a dissident and a journalist Lev G. - has contacted Amnesty International
and later submitted several faxes to them. When the authorities realized that we complained to Amnesty International they released our
son from the military prison.
We couldn't live in Israel any more after what happened to us and to our son there, and also because we were afraid that our son can be
arrested again if we will stay in Israel. The only reasonable solution for us was to escape. And the only way to do it was to become refugee
claimants. We flied to Montreal in November, 1994.
We have submitted all the documentary proof we had to support our claim to the immigration board (committee). We also sincerely
described what happened to us in our claim's atory without any distortion or exaggeration. But what happened to us in the immigration
courtroom and between and after our 2 hearings is just incredible...
Why We Think Our Human Rights Were Violated By the Court?
Inside The Courtroom:
1)Some of the main documentary proofs (statements, affidavits, letters, receipts, articles, ect.) were ignored as if they never existed.
2)Other extremely important documents were mentioned but were ignored (if not - they might be an obstacle to what the judges
incriminated us). 3) Other documents (including Amnesty International's confirmation of our complain) 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. 4) The same way our words were ignored, too. For example, I was asked an insinuating question. My answer closed that question
by a clear and unbeatable conterargument. 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. 5)
Too often they questioned us giving us no rights to response. They shuted us down replacing our eventual answer by their own - and later
based their conclusions not on our answers but on their own statement posing it as our - not their - words. 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! 7) Several times the
bord members expressed their dissaproval by the norms of democracy or by my aproval of the democracy laws. 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 Canadien but to Israeli jurisdiction. This position - neither being ordered to the bord or being the product of the board itself - made the
courtroom a part of Israel's territory. 8)The procedure of our immigration hearing wasn't an investigation in our case but a pure pro-Israel's
propaganda. It's 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 bord's point of view was the very fact that we came from Israel. But the only admissible attitude to
refugees is to base the decision on what happened to them personally, not on which country they flied. 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.
10)Sending requests to Israeli embassy and demanding some definite information about us, the immigration officer violated another moral
and judicial principle: Not to announce his claim to the government of a country a refugee claimant escaped from. 11)Reading Amnesty
International's and other reports the immigration officer distorted and sometimes falsified the documents. 12) Documents submitted by the
Israeli government, by it's dependents or by it's embassy were considered as absolutely reliable and were voluntarily represented by the
tribunal as non-debatable. In the same time documents that were represented by our lawyer (or our documents) - newspapers, statements,
declarations, and so on - weren't treated as equal to Israeli propaganda papers. More then that: At least our documents were completely
ignored: As if they never existed. In the same time the documentation presented by Israeli government can't be treated as an arbitrary
source: Because Israel is involved. Meanwhile a number of our documents may be considered as more objective and independent. 13) The
immigration officer used 1) an open lie 2) threats 3) desinformation; 4) expressed an unexplained malicious anger towards us; 5) claimed
one thing to defend her position during our hearing and claimed the contrary during the hearing in G. family case (our cases are related,
and G. was called as a witness to our second hearing); 6) she lied about what I said, about what she previously said , about what was said
about the situation in Israel and so on; 7) her behavier towards us and G. family was so incredibly agressive as if she had a personal reason
to punish us, or to exterminate us. 14) A 'yes" or "no" answer was demanded in situations when it was clear that such an answer is
absolutely impossible. Demanding "yes" or "no" answer only they justified their decision not let us speak. 15) Despite our son's mental
illness and the evidence that he can not be asked the immigration officer asked him various questions in an aggressive manner. We
understood that questions which she asked him were nothing more then a pure humiliation. 16) Requests which the immigration officer has
submitted to Israel weren't justified or necessary.
Outside The Courtroom:
1) Our lawyer's translator did our story translation in an provocative and humiliated manner. She has chosen the declarative style instead of
a description intentionally: to make our story sound ridiculous. She also sabotaged G.'s family story. When they came to Montreal G. put
everything that happened to his family in Israel in writing and gave that piece of paper to the translator. She sabotaged the translation
distorting the sense of his story, inserting her own inventions and sentences which sounded like provocations. He demanded a translation
back to Russian from her French version , and she did it. She wrote it by her own hand. That manuscript is quite different from her French
version. So, she did it to smoothen the distortions and to prevent G. from complaining. We have also other proofs of her sabotage. 2) She
sabotaged the translations of newspaper's articles as well. From one hand she exaggerated a number of descriptions of persecutions
against Russian-speaking people "to do us a favor" (We think her goal was to discredit these articles). But on the other hand she excluded
the most important paragraphs in her translation and gave the opposite meaning to the most important facts and conclusions. 3) The
translator also sabotaged the translation of some official papers and other documents which we and G. prepared to support our claims.
She told us that she has translated some of them and that she would find a translator from Hebrew -but it was a lie. If not our complains to
the lawyer and an alert note we gave to him: No documents were translated. 4)We believe that a conspiracy between the immigration board
and the translator took place. She was given an order to insert some particular phrases in G. story which he didn't want to see there. Later,
in the courtroom, these phrases were used against him. These phrases were taken from articles he wrote before we escaped from Israel.
Among them were the articles which G. hasn't presented to her or to our lawyer when she was doing the translation of his story. The
members of the immigration board have exploited these phrases again and again: What leads to a suggestion that it wasn't
occasionally. 6) There is a visible connection between the immigration officer - and Mr.Mark Kotlarsky, who lives in Israel. This
gentlemen is an informer and a provocateur for Israeli authorities. He wrote an article about G. in 1994, in Israel. This article was written in a
humiliated and sarcastic manner. Mr.Kotlarsky used the information which G. shared with him (as with his close friend ) against him. This
article is outright slander, mystification, false insinuations and lie.. Before G. discovered that Mark Kotlarsky is the government agent he told
him some things which G. never told to any other person. But during our immigration hearing and during the hearing of family G. these
things were used by the immigration officer against us. We have no other explanation but that she's in a contact with Mr.Kotlarsky. 7)
Then, we have a reliable source of information which says that the immigration officer, the member of the immigration board in our cases, is
an Israeli. Because of some reasons we'd like not to present the evidences for that. But this paragraph can play an informative role only.
We have no pretensions to demand you to believe in that. From the other hand if the immigration officer is an Israeli (it can be confirmed, if
somebody wants to find out) and the patriot of Israel (the last is too clear), she has no moral and - may be - legal rights to judge in refugees'
from Israel cases.8)When G.'s came to Montreal they gave G.'s wife's birth certificate and it's legal translation to our lawyer. Dispute the
submission of that legal translation the lawyer's translator did her own translation. Now we discovered that she sabotaged ("refused") to
translate his wife's parents' nationality. There is a clear connection between that sabotage and the immigration officer's tactics in that
issue. The immigration court decision came to us at the 14 of December, 1996. The denial of our claim for a refugee status doesn't reflects
what really happened during our immigration hearings and has almost no connection with our claim. It is a masterpiece of rhetoric and
profanation. This document is a next proof that an only decisive voice in our case was the voice of the immigration officer. She was a real
judge - and the official judges were just mutes. The text of "their" negative decision reflects her style and based on her words exclusively:
Her declarations she made during our hearings are reflected in this document pretty good. But this document ignore our answers
completely: As if we kept silence all the time. When in reality some of our counterarguments completely discredited her insinuations.
Nothing what the judges said during our immigration hearing is reflected in the immigration board decision, what means that the decision to
deny our claim was made by the immigration officer only (without the judges) when according to the rules she has no decisive voice but only
a consultative voice. The denial's text is much the declaration about Israel then a statement of an immigration committee. It based on an
acsioma that Israel is a democratic state (society). Such a declaration lays beyond the juridical matter: Because there is not in jurisdiction of
an immigration board to decide which state is a democracy and which is not. This is a privilege of an academic institution but not of an
executive board. Then it is an act of injustice to declare that Israel is a democracy in an imperative manner giving the refugee claimants no
possibility to present their view and their counterarguments. It is clear from what was discussed during our immigration hearings that Israel
has almost nothing in common with democracy. A permission to leave the country, an indication of nationality and the country of origin in
special enternal passports, a supremacy of the religious laws over the civil code, a right for a military committee to decide who is a single
son - and who's not, an imprisonment for months without an official accusation: All these and hundreds of other Israeli laws are suitable
may be for a mental hospital - but not for a "democratic society". An opinion expressed by the document that we should not escape to
Canada but should seek a help in Israel also has nothing what to do with the reality. We did everything to defend ourselves in Israel, and G.
as a journalist and the human righta activist did everything that was possible to help us.He presented tenth of receipts of his complains to
various ministries and organizations including the Ministry of Police, the Ministry of internal affairs and police, which were unanswered, to
the immigration committee. The sad truth is that the committee just ignores everything. And recognize only the ungrounded Israel's
declarations. And the immigration officer - a person who sends faxes to Israeli embassy, obtains documents there;in other words who's in
tight connection with Israelis - is the only person who has a decidable voice in the refugees from Israel cases... Isn't that sad?!
We can not go back to Israel under no condition, because
1) my husband and my son may be arrested by the militaries and imprisoned. I expressed my grounded fears about that during the hearings
- and I can widen them now. 2) How can we go back to Israel if the immigration officer informed the Israelis about our refugee claim? In
Israel where the ideology and the patriotic education play a very important role we will be considered as "traitors" and will be persecuted for
that, too. 3) Persecutions against us in Israel were so strong that if we would be send back to Israel we will die. 4) After receiving so called
"21-st military profile" my son has no future in Israel: Because in Israel people who are given that "profile" can not study, and nobody will
employ my son with such a "profile". 5) After all the persecutions we faced in Israel we feel fear - and we are afraid to go back; our fear, our
psychological tremor towards Israel are so strong that there is impossible for us to live in Israel any more. In the name of God, in the name
of Justice - HELP US!!!
CONCLUSIONS: our 2 immigration hearings (as well as hearings in G. case) have nothing in common with any legal procedure. They rather
remine of an incuisition court or a secret political tribunal. This tribunal was arranged to punish us for flieding Israel and G. - for his
ideological views - not to decide whether or not our (ours and G. family's) 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 refugee status. 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 violative ritual of humiliations
over the juridical norms then that... It is absolutely clear for the judges - as well as for ourselves - that we were severely persecuted in Israel,
that all members of our family were severely abused and that the definite casualties were inflicted to our health, including our son. It is 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. 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. sp;* The court's negative decision (resume) was
made and expressed in an inappropriate manner without any clear connection to our real case. The decision was clearly made by the
immigration officer, not by the judges. She is an Israeli patriot and she hates the Russian-speaking people. Everything what is expressed in
the decision document is basicly a lie. The text of that document is politically motivated and juridically illegal. This is just the next stage of
injustice.
SUPPLEMENTS (if required):
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.
6.DETAILED COMMENTARY TO THE HEARINGS.
7.COURT'S RESUME (DECISION).
8.DETAILED COMMENTARY TO THE COURT'S RESUME (DENIAL OF OUR CLAIM).
SINSERELY YOURS, LUDMILA METELNITSKY
telephone number: (514) 845-8216
address: Ludmila Metelnitsky, 3440 Durocher Str., Apt.1602, Montreal, Quebec, H2X 2E2, CANADA
AN ADJUSTMENT
We came to Israel in 1990; as many other people we had a hope for a better life. As the most of Russian-speaking people we were
"welcomed" by a malicious anger, the state unti-Russian propaganda and the most severe discrimination. Our son was 15 when we came to
Israel. Each of us (including our son) was assaulted, abused, beaten, discriminated against. The ignorance of what is going on in Israel with
the Russian-speaking people can not make what our friends and we suffered from in Israel unreal. Batteries, assaults, abuses were real and
happened to us in real life. If my son could come to school and could hear a discussion about the last article in a Hebrew newspaper, in which
"Russians" were called sons of a bitch, prostitutes, fools and thieves: was it "unreal"? And the computer games in Hebrew accompanied by
songs with words like "Russians, go home": They were as real as the real life. And the social climate in Israel is so horrible that if a child is
beaten at school "because he's Russian" - he is forced to feel guilty himself as if he's guilty in not being an Israeli but being a Russian.
Any person with conciseness (a journalist, immigration official, a human right organization official) could take a translator from Hebrew, go to a
library or to an archive and find articles in Hebrew newspapers which have highly aggressive untie-Russian contest. And what about
thousands of articles in Russian newspapers published in Israel about what can be called almost genocide against "Russians"?
When they began to call my son to a draft board (because Israel has a compulsory military service) he asked an alternative military service
each time they called him: because he was afraid of hostility towards "Russians" within the Israeli army and also because of the rule that a
single son can not be taken into the front-line units against his will. They gave him no decision, but kept ordering him to come to the draft point
again and again.
One day a new routine order to come to the draft point arrived. My son was ordered to come one day - but the order has been sent one day
later then the date of his appearance. A couple of other days past before he got the order. But as soon as he got it he immediately went to the
draft board.
When he came they have arrested him incriminating him a disobedience to the order to come. No excuse, no explanation was admitted.
Everything happened so fast that there is no doubt: they were prepared. So, they have submitted this order for him later then the date he was
called to intentionally. He was accused in a refusal to come to the draft board (they ignored that he arrived voluntarily) and in avoiding the
military service. They have treated him like if he already was a soldier and flied from a military unit. He was also given a soldier's number as
if he was a soldier when in reality he never entered the army and never wearied a military uniform. When he admitted that he's going to
become mentally ill because of the military prison they refused to give him a Russian-speaking psychologist, and the Hebrew- speaking
psychologist couldn't speak with our son, but wrote a report based on ungrounded insinuations. When later a Russian-speaking psychologist
appeared he translated him that report but told that it is impossible now to dispute what the Israeli wrote.