ГУЛаг Палестины

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.