Чтение онлайн

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