Jew and - probably - Israeli, who only spoke. During our refugee hearings she manifested an outraged malicious hatred towards us, and
maintained close contacts with the Israeli embassy in writing, in our case. IRB members maintained the atmosphere of hostility and
arbitrary attitude towards us.
Denying our refugee claim, the IRB members not just acted unfair. Their negative decision was not just a refusal to recognize us as
refugees, but a declaration-manifest, which rejected the basic human rights in principle. In form of declaration, they denied in principle rights
to have an independent opinion, practice or not to practice religion, be protected by the state. IRB members claimed that if government
paid for immigrants' transportation, immigrants became the property of that government (a kind of commodity). IRB members also claimed
that police' and other institutions' refusal to give protection was justified if people had an alternative political /ideological opinion (even if that
opinion was not expressed to police). They claimed that we alienated Israelis by keeping controversial opinions, and refusing to change our
views. And so on...
The IRB's negative decision became not just a matter of our personal fate, but also a matter of human rights in general.
1998. In her speech in the Federal Court, Mrs. Murphy, the Minister's of Immigration representative, confirmed the IRB members' negative
attitude towards human rights, and also widened personal accusations against Lev Gunin, turning the question of our refugee status into
the question of his "inadmissible" (by whom?) ideological views. As IRB did before, Mrs. Murphy refused even to mention Alla Gunin,
Elisabeth Epstein (Gunin), and the children.
The Federal Judge, Mr. Dube, just copied Mrs. Murphy's and the IRB statements, refusing to evaluate arguments of the TWO sides. He
claimed that - because in their refusal to recognize us as refugees IRB members used the formula "no minimal credibility", - such cases are
automatically denied by the Federal Court. In reality, his decision was made in contradiction to another Federal Court judge's decision in our
case, and also contradicted the IRB's final (conclusive) decision. In that decision IRB agreed that some persecutions against us (they
called them "difficulties") could take place because we abused the Israelis by refusing to obey their demands to change our views. Mr.
Dube also revealed his partiality by distorting some important events and attacking our lawyer in personal. A person, whose name was also
Dube, was involved into negotiations between the immigration officer, Mrs. Malka, and the General Consul of Israel, in our case. We could
not find that person among the IRB headquarters' staff, or among other immigration divisions. All faxes were submitted to Israeli consulate
from Mrs. Malka, without mentioning any other name (s). However, the responses from the consulate were submitted to Mr. Dube. We feel
that this mysterious Mr. Dube has something what to do with the Federal Judge Mr. Dube.
IRB and Mrs. Murphy's accusations against us were such, which are the prerogative of the criminal court. They accused us so sharp as if
we were killers or terrorists. In reality we are innocent people, never accused in defamation, or fraud. In the same time, the way they acted
might be easily considered as a criminal offence.
We are appealing not just because of incredible injustice, but because the removal back to Israel means DEATH for us. If nobody in the
whole world could prevent it, it would mean that if people are deprived and innocent they might be kidnapped and taken to another country
by force. It would mean that demonstrative humiliations over human rights, such as the IRB members and Mrs. Murphy expressed, are
tolerated. There are rumors among UN staff that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights might be changed soon to fit to the brutal and
ultra-religious regimes' requirements. Please, do something for us before it happened!
The only way to save us is to help us in obtaining the permanent residents status in any civilized country. That could prevent our eventual
removal to Israel.
Please, help!
Family GUNIN:
Alla, Lev, Ina
Elisabeth EPSTEIN-Gunin
Tel. (514) 499-1294
E-maiclass="underline" [leog@total.net]
From Lev GUNIN, April, 1999
Dear Friends!
In 1991 I was deported from my native Belarus to Warsaw because of my political opinion.
Together with my family (wife and 2 children) and my mother I wanted to move from Warsaw
to Germany.
On the Central railway station in Warsaw we were captured by Israelis and were taken to Israel
against our will.
We were widely persecuted in Israel and were refused an exit vise during 3 and a half years.
In 1994 we managed to quit Israel and came to Canada seeking a refugee status.
In an outraged manner, openly accenting their rights for injustice, the members of IRB
committee refused us the status.
Deportation to Israel means death for me and members of my family.
The only solution is to start a legal immigration to Canada.
But we need travel documents to afford it because:
1) our Israeli passports have expired and to extend them is not possible
2) I asked the Israeli embassy to cancel my Israeli citizenship
We made an appeal to the Federal Court, but our appeal was automatically rejected
without any analysis of our file, just because of the formula that the Immigration and
Refugee Board used in their conclusive decision. In the Federal Court, the Immigration
Canada representative, Mrs. Murphy, expressed outraged accusations against me,
as if by claiming a refugee status and by criticizing the IRB decision I have committed
the most violent crime or was a terrorist.
Almost 5 years we (my family, and me) live under a threat of deportation,
under the wild persecutions of the Immigration Canada, institution, which
put the equal sign between my peaceful and legal human rights activism
against the former Soviet and Israeli governments' violation of human rights
- and terrorism!!!
Please, help us!
My best wishes,
Lev GUNIN
August, 1997
E-Maiclass="underline" leog@total.net
PREVIOUES DOCUMENT NEXT DOCUMENT
PEVIOUS DOCUMENT: [[[GROUP of DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4]]]
DOCUMENT NUMBER 5
From Lev Gunin
File number 3082-7125
CONCLUSIVE DECISION
(Paragraph 69.1 (9) of Immigration Law)
This is the translation in brief
P.1. Paragraph 1. Lev Gunin and Ina Gunin, Alla Gunin, and Elisabeth Epstein are not recognized as refugees. Paragraphs 4-7. This
is demanders' declaration in brief: They came to Israel in April 1991. When they arrived in Petach-Tikva theirs neighbors, orthodox Jews,
were persistent [and aggressive] in their attempts to convert them [from atheism from one side, and passive Christianity from another side]
to Judaism.
Children, then 5 and 6 years old [*1] - (see commentaries), were abused during a religious celebration at a kinder-garden [*2]. The governor
has found the situation ordinary. Dispute the transfer to another kinder-garden children faced abuses. They were bitten, bite by another
children [*3]. The kinder-garden administration refused to protect them.
Demander was mocked by the employers [*4] and bitten by his colleagues because he is not a true Jew.
P.2. His wife has difficulties in finding a job [*5] , and when she was at least hired she was insulted, bitten and - under certain circumstances
- became a victim of a sexual harassment[*6].
There were multiple insults and abuses from theirs neighbors, who were furious because demanders in their eyes are not true Jews.
They turned to police in innumerous occasions with no results. One time police itself abused and ill-treated the demander under certain
circumstances. His lawyer told him that nothing could be done against police.
They contacted innumerous organizations including Amnesty International. They wrote to members of parliament and contacted a number
of lawyers with no result [*7]. The demander also said that he was persecuted because of denouncing fascism [7-a].
Demander's mother also became a victim of multiple aggressions. She was attacked by a group of youngsters when she went to pick up
the children from school [*8]. Policemen at the police station refused to pay an attention to that incident.
In Nov. 1993 she was attacked by her neighbor; she stroke her by a basket with oranges and cried to her "goy!". It tool place at a market.
In January 1994 in company with her children she went to pick them up from school, when she was attacked by a group of youngsters, who
thrown stones at her and injured her [*9].
One evening in 1994 [*10] youngsters, friends of their neighbor, have thrown a little box at her door [*11]. She composed a letter to police in
that case but police never responded [*12].
P.3. Paragraphs 1-2. In context of that the demander together with his family including his mother came to ask a refugee status in Canada
[*13].
Paragraph 3. After seeing that declaration, studying their lawyer's arguments and other material we came to a conclusion that demanders
are not refugees. We came to that conclusion because of the next reasons:
Paragraphs 4-6. Demanders claim that they flied Israel for seeking an asylum and because of a number of incidents, which victims they
became. But the tribunal is disagree with that because [...] they all came to Israel according to Israeli authorities permission and acceptation,
and also because they took an advantage from benefits of a free transportation to Israel, Israeli citizenship, a certain amount of money for
settlement, a free language course, and other benefits. They also might use other help because we have the documentation indicated that
the population in Israel gives material help to newcomers.
P.4. Paragraphs 2-5. It is possible that during their life in Israel they faced some difficulties because some individual ultra-religious feel that
their rights are violated because of the presence of 2 secular adults who refuse to practice their religion. But there are no evidences that
Russians are persecuted because of their religion, nationality, or because they are mixed couples or because they express anti fascist
views as pretend the demander.
In result we were convinced that the demanders are [dangerous for their state] exaggerators who painted a picture of their state as a state
of slavery, injustice, where Russians are bitten if they do not work quickly enough, where Russian children are victims of mockery