Страница 333 из 340
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 a
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 ma
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 ma
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 co
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 ma
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.