ГУЛаг Палестины - Лев Гунин

December 1996 - March 1997

Montreal

ДЕЛО ГУНИНЫХ

FROM FAMILY GUNIN

Folder of Documents about abuse and injustice, partial decisions and inhuman actions by Canadian Immigration on request of the State of Israel against a peaceful and talented family

Order of documents:

#1 (this document): To the Federal Court,

# 2: Post Determination Appeal ,

#3: Translator's Sabotage,

#4: Appeal (Alert) to Amnesty International,

#5: IRB's Conclusive Decision,

#6: List of Documents,

#7: BRIEF DESCRIPTION

#8: From Alla GUNIN to the Federal Court,

#9: Appeal to UN Refugee Tribunal,

#10: Humanitarian Appeal (Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds),

#11: To QUEBEC's Children Rights Committee (in French),

#12: From Elisabeth GUNIN - Humanitarian Cases ,

#13: Events in March-August, 1999, in Hebrew, French, English, Russian and Polish

#14: Declaration

#14-a: The WITNESS (Autobiographical essay)

#15: The Enforcement of Immigration's persecutions against Gunins (list of 1998-1999 events)

#16: Grigory SVIRSKY: Appeal to Prime Minister of Canada

#17: Another short description of GUNINS case

#18: New Persecutions - April - May, 2000

#17: Leo's Old Mother Is Under Persecutions

#18: Manipulation of medical data and personnel by Immigration

#19 ALARMING SOS: Usage of falsified medical data against GUNINS - last update December 2000

After been denied the refugee status

and the rights to appeal to the Federal

court, after years of humuliations and

abuse of justice, family Gunin received a

positive decision to their humanitarian

reasons appeal. In spite of granting them

the landed immigrant status Immigration

is trying now to freeze their file to avoid

giving them the permanent residents

papers and continues persecutions.To

punish Lev Gunin they startet to

humiliate over his old mother (check the

link)

Complete update of GUNINS tragedy is

here

Next Document Main Page

For The Federal Court, Second-Stage Appeal Procedure

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

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

FOR THE FEDERAL COURT, AFFIDAVIT February 24, 1998

LIST OF ITEMS

INTRODUCTION: An explanation why some important (from my point of view) details never appeared in my refugee claim.

(This document).

1. Why the refugee board's decision has formed an additional

risk of return for my family, and me.

(This document).

2. How my lawyer's translator torpedoed my chances to get a positive decision.

(Document #3).

4. My observations regarding the hearings and the negative decision (Document # 3).

(Group of Documents #4).

5. My observations regarding the text of the negative decision ("Conclusive Decision").

(Document # 5).

6. My final statement.

(This document, paragraph 1.7.).

In any decision in our case I ask you to take into consideration the next documents, which I have submitted on November

the 7-th, 1997, for post-determination revue.

7. Adjustment to my refugee claim as an essential explanation of that risk.

(Document # 2).

8. List of supporting documents.

(Document # 6).

9. Supplements.

(Group of Documents # 7).

10.List of Organizations.

(Document AC)

INTRODUCTION

Introduction.1. There are some important, from my point of view, details, which never appeared in my refugee claim.

My advisers were strongly opposed to the next passages.

a) Anything that could throw a shadow to the state's of Israel good image.

b) Statements, which would mention Israeli army.

c) Any claims, which could include politics or politically motivated persecutions.

Introduction.2. They said (may be, indirectly) that the influence of Israeli lobby is very strong everywhere. They said

that by mentioning about the violations of Russian speaking people' human rights in Israel, discrimination of them in

Israeli army, or politics behind persecutions, from which we suffered in Israel, we could make the commissioners just

furious. They could accuse us in exaggerations (a word, which became very popular when an excuse must be

found for an inhuman action) and refuse to accept us as refugees.

Introduction.3. These advisors (including my wife) partly convinced me, partly sounded ultimate. Now I see even

better then before, that they were right, and I must completely recognize their marvelous competition. Now I could

understand that my lawyer's, maitre's Le Brune, recommendations were very wise. In the same time my lawyer's

translator inserted 2 statements into my refugee claim, which I never authorized her to insert and which were in

complete contradiction to my lawyer's recommendations. The 1-st is a statement that I was a well-known dissident in

ex-USSR. The 2-nd is a declarative passage about slavery. In the Document #3 you could read more about this.

Introduction.4. Suspending some information from entering my refugee claim I did it because I was afraid that the IRB members - instead of defining my chances to be a conventional refugee - would define my "guilt".

Introduction.5. But during our refugee hearings (because of my lawyer's translator's distortions and because of

commissioners' aggressive behavior) I was forced to mention such things, which I decided not to mention before.

When it became clear that the commissioners were extremely partial towards us, and that we had no what to loose,

all three above-mentioned "self-restrictions" became not important any more.

Introduction.6. In the same time events, which I was afraid to mention in my refugee claim and my lawyer did not

recommend to mention, were accessible for the Immigration Board as others (besides my main refugee claim)

documents in my file. I handed them over to my lawyer, and he adjusted them to my file before or between the

hearings. It means that the information, which I enter now in Document # 2, is not new, and was in my immigration

file before. In the same time, it was up to my lawyer to share this information or not. Recently I took all documents,

which were in my file, away from my lawyer, including letters to Jerusalem Post (see Document # 5 in

Supplements), and others. My lawyer's notes were written on top of them, what you can see on one of the copies. It

means that I have rights to mention them now because by time of our refugee hearings they were accessible for the

commissioners because were part of my immigration file.

1

1.1. In this document, I am going to explain, prove and show, why and how all my family members, and I, would face

risk to life, extreme sanctions and inhuman treatment not just because of the danger for us in general, but also

because of the refugee board members' actions.

Please, do not make a final decision in my case without studying all supporting documents, because they content the

main argumentation about this risk.

1.2. This risk of return to Israel has been increased during our residency in Canada because of the next actions of

IRB members.

A). IRB, assigned to our file, contacted Israel and informed Israelis about our refugee claim in Canada (see Group of

documents # 4, Document # 3, p.p. 1,2,3; Document # 1, page 1, paragraph # 3, point 5), also p.2, point

11), also p.3, point 8); and also Supplements, Documents # 6, 7). That would increase the possibility of

vengeance to us from Israeli authorities.

B). Even if a definite information - that the embassy of Israel in Canada could already know about the content of our

immigration file - is wrong, sooner or later they would know it. Trying to find defense and justice, I have submitted a

short description of our immigration hearings and of the final IRB' negative decision to hundreds of human rights

organizations and to thousands of other destinations. I made them available on Internet for the same purposes. So,

Israelis know them, too, anyway.

C). In the same time the IRB commissioners and the immigration officer instead of defining whether or not we could

face persecutions in Israel (as we claimed), concentrated on accusing us as if it was a criminal court. They

characterized me as an exaggerator and defamator, dangerous (they do not use this word but it is the only

characteristic of what they meant) to the state of Israel* (see commentaries in the end of this part). Their insinuations that I turned to innumerous places in Israel, including human rights organizations, MP's, police, Amnesty International (see the list of them in Supplements, Document # 8; see also copies of documentary proof of my appeals to

various organizations in Supplements, Documents # 9,10,11,12) not because I looked for protection but to

"spread slender about Israel"** (see comments 2 at the end of that part), seem absurd and outraged only in Canada, but not in Israel! Even here (in Canada) they were used as an excuse to deny our refugee claim, and the negative decision

was logically presented as a "punishment" for "slander" and "exaggerations" (see Document #5, p. 1; 2 last

paragraphs on the bottom of the page, p.2, paragraphs 1, 2). Israeli authorities would consider Montreal's

"immigration court's" (IRB) decision to define us as enemies of Israel and dangerous exaggerators, as a leading

order (not just an excuse) to persecute us. As a Jew and, probably, an Israeli, the immigration officer, Mrs. Malka,

expressed her almost open hatred and partiality towards my personality in such tones and colors, which could

perfectly correspond to the manners and mentality of Israelis. Their most sensitive feelings would be touched by her

words, and that would make my destiny even more miserable if I would be removed to Israel (please, read the

whole Group of Documents #4, and Document # 5). She also expressed open threats, including a threat to

open a criminal procedure against me... (see Group of Documents # 4).

D). By their attitude, the commissioners during the hearings and in the negative decision somehow separated me

from other members of my family. They almost openly let know that my family suffering and refused the status only

because of my political views. That could provoke Israelis to separate me from my family or even take away our

children (I know several precedents). Rejection of my refugee claim because of my attitude towards the state of Israel

(in other words, my political views) is the main topic of the negative decision. That would encourage Israelis to do just

anything to me (if Canadian court did what it did, why should they wait?): to imprison me, place to a mental hospital, or kill. I am absolutely sure that within days or weeks I could be imprisoned in Israel and, probably, killed in custody not just because of objective factors, but also because of what the commissioners' did.

E). The political situation in Israel has been changed, too, since we left, to the worse. I present documents (see

Supplements, Document # 19), which shows that the present extremist government is not ready to maintain just

any tolerance. This is why the commissioners' actions would lead to more severe consequences if we would be

removed back to Israel. By the time of the hearings these changes already took place, and the commissioners had to

know pretty good about that...

F). Policemen in Israel could still remember my wife's, mother's, and my own complains; I also turned to the Ministry

of Police and Ministry of Internal Affairs. Now, - when in their brief description of my refugee claim members of IRB

severely distorted my claim (see Document #5, page 2, Comments), - how could we turn for defense in Israel any

more? The IRB members' action made us completely insecure and unprotected in Israel (if removed there). [Since

the context of their negative decision is already known to Israeli authorities].

* The negative decision mentioned the paragraph about slavery in my refugee claim (which Mrs. Broder inserted) in ignorance of: 1) my words that the translator distorted my statement, 2) my explanation that this paragraph correspond to a specific tendency in Israel called "kablanut", 3) two newspaper articles, which described "kablanut" and openly denounced it as slavery. (See these articles in Supplements, Doc. #81). An affidavit about the event, on which "my" statement about slavery was based, was given to me in Israel by Lev Ginsburg (see Supplements, Doc.82). We became victims of extreme generalization, when submitted by partial Israelis "affidavits" were respected more then even human life - and thousands of affidavits, articles and other documents provided by another side were totally ignored. Documents, which demonstrated non-competence and partiality and were provided by the members of Israeli government

(Mr. A. Charanski), its institutions (Israeli embassy) or committed to Israeli government fundraisers (Dr. Livny) were presented as only reliable and "independent"!

** After expressed by IRB members' insinuations that I turned to various organizations and institutions in Israel not for protection but to "spread slander" I could have no protection in Israel any more if removed there. IRB's insinuation is a verdict for non-protection in the state of Israel! How could we go back there now?!

CHILDREN.

During our refugee hearings, the commissioners had chances to observe our children.

They could not ignore that the children are deeply suppressed and still not in norm.

Because of abuses and insults, both Ina and Marta had nervous tics and hyper kineses. It stopped only about one

year ago. We possess a videocassette as a proof that during the period of refugee hearings the children still had

impulsive face muscles' contractions and other visual neurological disorders.

We also had a psychological evaluation at this point concerning Ina.

From observing our children, the commissioners could understand that because the children are shy and timid they

could be abused or even killed by Israeli children. That would bring additional danger to their lives. Such children as

ours have always much more chances to be abused or even killed in the countries with the dominated "east temper".

Because in spite of the time, which passed since we came from Israel to Canada, both Ina and Marta visually reacted

to the discussion about their life in Israel with horror and fear, the commissioners had a chance to see how deep the