rsky. 2-F, etc. 7) a) A campaign of lie and slender against me inside Israel coincide with a number of actions against me in Montreal, which source might be the consulate of Israel. If such things are happened - then Israel could eventually influence the immigration board decision in my immigration case, too. b) Then, I know from reliable sources that the immigration officer, the member of the immigration board in my case, is a Jew. I have nothing against her nationality. But, from the other hand, if the immigration officer is a Jew and the patriot of Israel (the last is too clear), what an arbitrary role in our case she should play? She has no moral and - may be - legal rights to judge in refugees' from Israel cases. 2-J, etc. 8)When we came to Montreal we gave my wife's birth certificate and it's legal translation to our lawyer. Dispute the submission of that legal translation Mrs.Broder did her own translation. Now we discovered that she sabotaged ("refused") to translate my wife's parents' nationality. There is a clear connection between that sabotage and the immigration officer's tactics in that issue. CONCLUSIONS: our 3 immigration hearings have nothing in common with any legal procedure. They rather remind of an inquisition court or a secret political tribunal. This tribunal was arranged to punish me for my ideological views - not to decide whether or not our (my family's and mine) claim for a refugee status is justified. It was used for the political purposes: To "show" how just any information about human rights violations in Israel, which not concerns Arabs, can be calmed down - and to express a huge pro-Israel propaganda. They made clear that they treat our escape from Israel as a mutiny and will never admit the very fact that we are in Canada, in Quebec, not in Israel. Their words, their behavior - everything - was meant to show us that we could only deserve to be treated according to the Canadian rules after getting a status in Canada. Before that we don't deserve to be treated by Canadian rules. That's why we were treated according to the rules and norms of Israel!!! It hard to find a more offensive ritual of humiliations over the juridical norms then that... It was absolutely clear for the judges - as well as for ourselves - that we were severely persecuted in Israel, that all members of my family were severely abused and that the definite casualties were inflicted to our health, including the children. It was also absolutely clear to the judges that the deportation back to Israel is a death penalty for all members of our family. The tricky thing is that the immigration board expressed almost no doubt about persecutions we survived in Israel or even recognized the harshness of these persecutions.(2-J-4). But the point is that they claim ... we are guilty in the persecutions ourselves - and therefore they don't worry about our souls and our lives... So, this is not even a tribunal, but a brutal act of a vengeance. SUPPLEMENTS: 1.A LIST OF TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH OR FRENCH ARTICLES. 2.DOCUMENTS. 3.TAPES FROM THE IMMIGRATION HEARINGS. 4.OTHER MATHERIAL PROOFS. 5.OTHER DOCUMENTS. SINCERELY YOURS, Lev GUNIN < e-mail address: leog@total.net GROUP OF DOCUMENTS #4 DOCUMENT number 2 To The Federal Court of Canada from Alla Gunin. FEDERAL COURT Supreme Court Building Ottawa, Ontario Canada K1A 0H9 Alla Gunin 3455 Aylmer St., Apt. 201 Montreal, Quebec, CANADA H2X 2B5 Tel.(514)944-1294 Dear Sirs! This appeal is formal. It composed not by a lawyer but by the refugee claimants themselves. Despite a temptation to treat it as a non-official letter we want an official response. We believe that we are victims of partiality, and our refugee claim has been refused because of extreme generalization and political approach towards our claim. That became possible only because some refugee boards of Canadian Ministry of Immigration are manipulated by a foreign state. This is the main reason why our refugee claim was denied. Our case is extraordinary. My husband was a relatively well - known dissident in the former USSR and was severely persecuted by communist authorities. He was a dissident also in Israel. He was persecuted for his views in Israel as well. The state radio and newspapers called to take the law in own hands and to punish him. We were beaten, assaulted, and disgraced. All members of our family faced constant mockery. Our case is extraordinary also because we presented so many documentary proofs of persecutions as probably nobody else. The documents we presented are absolutely reliable: official, legal, medical, juridical, and others. Even in the tribunal negative decision we can read that the tribunal agree that under certain circumstances persecutions, which we described, "difficulties" (they called persecutions like that)"could take place". We also presented unbeatable evidences that a threat to our lives and to our mental and physical health exist in Israel. Our claim is special also because we did absolutely everything for finding protection in Israel. We turned to police, to the Ministry of Police,to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, to the Minister of Culture, to all human rights organizations, including Amnesty International's headquarters in Tel-Aviv, to famous parliament members, to newspapers and to any other possible sources. We have Amnesty International confirmation in our case, which arrived here in response to tribunal's inquiry. The reason of tribunal's negative decision and our eventual deportation from Canada was expressed by the immigration officer, Mrs. Judith Malka. During our 3-rd immigration hearing (it can be listed as 2-nd by Immigration) she hinted at her desire to send my husband to Israel because he must be punished there for his views. We believe that not the commissioners but she was the only person who made a decision in our case and that she also composed the text of the decision. She and the chairman of the tribunal said us that we may be persecuted in Canada as well, our children may be beaten and we may be also discriminated against. We understood their words as a bad hidden threat. Tribunal's negative decision and Mrs. Malka and Mr. Boisrond's insinuations during the hearings send us the message: We must be punished! But what for? We are innocent people, and we did no crimes, ever! The answer why we have to be punished may be found probably in paragraphs #4 and 5 of the decision's text, which suggests thhat immigrants from ex-USSR in Israel have no rights to claim a status of refugee in Canada because they are property of Israeli government. Israel bought them paying for their transportation to Israel, and for other things for them. So, they belong to Israel forever. And the paragraph 6 suggests that the ordinary Israelis also paid their part to be our masters! This very fact that this suggestion is made indirectly and that the information about the mentioned payments made by Israel and Israelis is incorrect is not really matter. I am absolutely sure that our lives will be in danger in Israel and that my husband will be killed or imprisoned immediately or soon after our arrival to Israel. What will be with us without him, what will be with his mother? Please, take pity on us! Save our souls! Save my children! Sincerely yours, - Alla Gunin GROUP OF DOCUMENTS NUMBER 4 DOCUMENT 3 TO THE FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA From Lev GUNIN Dear Sirs! We came here as thousands of other refugee claimants who flied from their countries to Canada. But our case is special, may be - even unique. In ex-USSR I was a dissident; I was severely persecuted by communist authorities. I was relatively well known in my native republic. Under certain circumstances I refused to declare that I never desired to immigrate to Israel. Now I actually claim that I was deported to Israel from my native Blears because of my political activity. My family and me tried to escape to Germany but were seized in Warsaw by Israelis. They took us to Israel by force, and we have certain evidences. In Israel my family and me, we were severely persecuted. I presented the reasons of these persecutions in my claim, and also during my immigration hearings. I was considered as a dissident in Israel, too. Our case is special also because we presented more documentary proofs of what happened to us then probably no other refugee claimants. Persecutions against us in Israel were massive, systematic and dangerous to us. They caused physical and moral loses to us. Despite clear evidences and undeniable proofs our claim was denied. It happened only because of wide-scaled conspiracy against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel, and because the immigration committee assigned to our case was manipulated by a foreign state. We have several well-grounded reasons: enough to accuse members of the committee in partiality. Almost all basic juridical norms and elements were violated during our 3 immigration hearings (see Document # 1). The basic moral and political norms of Canadian society were replaced acting in Israel. Mrs. Judith Malka, the immigration officer, spoke to us and acted as Israelis normally do. She openly expressed her hatred to us personally - and to Russian speaking people in general. Her manner and her ironical attitude were assaulting. Besides, she openly assaulted us directly several times (see Document #1). Her aggression and threats can be explained only by her partiality. When she couldn't control her emotions of hatred and detestation she left the room of the hearings two times. May be her reaction was so visual because she's a Jew and - it looks like that - an Israeli. Then - why she was sent to such a hearing? We have 7 main points in connection with that: 1. It is absolutely clear that the two commissioners refused to participate in our hearings (in other words, kept them out of the way of the hearing). Mrs. Malka was given an option to speak non-stop during almost all the time excluding rare exceptions. She accused us, shouted on us, declared pure political pro-Israeli propaganda and accused me in acting against Israel without any interruption from the judges. Of course, they can claim that they participated by hearing and analyzing. But then their passivity caused a situation when they had to analyze only what Mrs. Malka gave them to analyze. When Mr. Boisrond spoke he never opened his own topic and used his role for illegal methods of pressure to distort my responses to Mrs. Malka's previous questions. 2. The commissioners refused to sign the decision. There are no their signatures on that document. That's another proof that Mrs. Malka composed that document herself. 3. The committee decision is based on her statements, insinuations, accusations and declarations only. If something correspond to what Mr. Boisrond said - he just repeated what Mrs. Malka already said before. The stylistics of the text and the essence of it is deeply differ from Mr. Boisrond's and Mrs. Madelenine Marien-Roy's, who completely kept her aloof from the hearing (except of few formal words). In the same time that stylistics fits to Mrs. Malka's manner. These two suggestions allow us to detect her as the only author of the decision, what is the severe violation of the law. 4. This committee gives no positive decisions in refugees' from Israel cases. When in 1994-95 about 52% of refugees from Israel were recognized as Convention refugees, with this committee it is "0" (or almost "0"?). 5. She's refusing to give her motivations behind that decision. But to explain such a decision is a juridical norm. She replaced any explanations by a pure political rhetoric and pro-Israeli propaganda, which has nothing what to do with our claim. She is also a person who contacted Israeli embassy for explanations (instructions?) in our case. 6. The committee decision ignores all documents we presented as if there were no documents at all. In the same time to support its statements the committee used documents, which credibility is "0", and that's obvious not just towards our case but in general sense. But most of the document used in the decision have no relationship to our case and were given just because something had to be given. 7. By denying our claim the Immigration committed one of the most inhuman and cruel actions in its history. I am may be just one of few people in the world who suffered so much for expressing their opinions. I am still living only because of a miracle, which saved me in ex-USSR, and from angry "patriots"-Israelis. We had so many documentary proof of our refugee claim as nobody else. We had testimonies, certificates, and articles, which I wrote for various newspapers. We had Amnesty International confirmation in my case... My children, wives, mother's suffering was just rejected by commissioners. They acted against us as if we were solders of an enemy army, not innocent people. My family and my lives are in a real danger now. 8. The decision is partially based on distortions Mrs. Eleonora Broder did when she translated our claim and our documents. I can support these points by analyzing the text of the decision and by other supporting material. First of all let's analyze the decision - paragraph after paragraph. Let us point that this document replaces some well-known facts and even data by false facts, events and data. The information from our PIF, our claim, hearings and even passports this document describes with distortions. For example, on page #1 (par.6) the children ages are indicated as 5 and 6 when in reality they were much younger by then. Only under a slight view that information is not very important. In reality the children ages were changed for changing an impression. Because what is less destructive and traumatic for older children for younger children may be totally different. In the same paragraph we can read that the children were denied the participation in the Sukkot celebration, when in reality in our claim and during the hearings it was a description of a dark room, in which our children were placed. It makes a difference! A dispute about that dark room erupted between us - and Mrs. Broder, who refused to translate the text of my testimony which I typed and gave her but desired to intervene actively. Later - when we demanded to change the places distorted by her in her translation - she threatened to testify against us before the committee and mentioned that dispute like as we did or said something wrong. It is clear for me that Mrs. Broder probably was Mrs. Malka's informer. Anyway, that detail shows once again that Mrs. Malka alone composed this document. How can this document be considered as a legal order when even during a pure description it refuses to tell the truth? We can find next false statement on page 2, in paragraph # 4 ("the demander also claim that he was persecuted because he denounced about the fascism"). In reality I never said like that this happened because of that, and this happened because of that... The person who composed that document tries to hide here that the fascism was mentioned in connection with my article entitled "Why Israel Is Against the Victory Day?", which was published in Israel in 1994. In his comment to my article the editor call to take the law into people's own hands and to make short work of me. As you can see that's also makes a difference! Then, the paragraphs #4 and #5 on page 3 deny rights to enter any country as a refugee to any person if he escaped from Israel. It means that these paragraphs deny not just my personal right to escape from Israel (in other words, I must live in Israel forever!), but disputes that right in principle. Formally speaking about me that paragraph's meaning is actually depersonalized. It claims that all immigrants from the former USSR in Israel were bought by Israeli government as any other property, and now belong to Israel forever. So, can a property escape? There is no other reasonable explanation of these paragraphs' sense. ("Demanders declared that they flied from Israel to claim a refugee status in Canada after a series of incidents, which victims they were. But the tribunal denies them the credibility [...] because [...] this family immigrated to Israel [...] according to the Law of Return" and because Israel paid for their "free transportation, free medical insurance, and also gave them a certain amount of money, citizenship and other benefits"). Anyway, these two paragraphs have nothing what to do with our claim! Mrs. Malka also mentions the Law of Return here. That Law of Return is a declaration, which was made when Israel was founded in 1948. Israelis can call it "the main rule of the country" or whatever they want but it is what it actually is: Just a proclamation. Since Israel has no constitution the Law of Return and some other laws like it are still there to calm down people who demand the creation of Constitution. But as in former USSR between constitution and real life there were thousands of executive laws, which could just abolish what the constitution said. There are customs, official religious code and thousands of other laws between the Law of Return and the real life in Israel. And Mrs. Malka knows it! The paragraph #5 on page 3 just shows how far away from the real life is the Law of Return, which was created almost 50 years ago and named here as an "evidence". Mrs. Malka gives an extract from that law, which says that the medical insurance in Israel is free, but that isn't correct! I can show the receipts for the money that we paid for the medical insurance since our first day in Israel, because it isn't free any more! The language course is not completely free any more! And not the whole way to Israel is free!(I can show you the tickets). These are not just mistakes. The whole attitude is wrong (or false, or the first and the second in the same time). So, how can be reliable a document that contains so many mistakes and falsifications? Let us point also that these two paragraphs are absolutely illegal from the juridical point of view. Our material situation wasn't mentioned nor in our claim, nor during our hearings. We described persecutions against us, not our financial situation. May be Mrs. Malka had to compose a report for American Jewish organizations to show where their money is going. Then this decision is not about our status, and has no juridical power! The next paragraph looks nice, but somehow avoid quitting. Why? I think, I know, why. I know the document and place in that document the last paragraph on page 3 refers to... Let me show you what it about. It declares that 80% of Israel population is mobilized to welcome new immigrants from the former USSR. Isn't it sound strange? It's hard to believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any juridical document! Let's admit also that this particular fragment is the beloved fragment of Mr. La Salle, a commissioner who was recently accused of partiality towards refugee claimants from Israel. He used this paragraph in probably all negative decisions he composed. (He made practically no positive decisions in refugees from Israel cases). For example, Mr. La Salle used that "evidence" in his responds to Zilber and Buyanovsky's claims. (Page 6 in a response to G. Buyanovsky and p.3 in a response to family Z. claim) Let's to abstract from its complete nonsense and suppose it reflects something from Israel's life and reality, and reflects the mentality of Israelis (Mrs. Malka's intention to choose this particular extract, and not another one, reflects her national identity as Israeli). If Israel is a country like other countries, like Canada, so how it comes that "80% of Israeli population" can be "mobilized" to "welcome new immigrants"? How people can be "mobilized" (or, probably, ordered) to "sponsor immigrants" and to help them by "giving money, closes and furniture" (p.3, 5-th line of Mr.La Sall's response to family Z. claim). May be something is wrong in a country where population can be "mobilized"? May be, our troubles have been erupted exactly because people in such a country have to be "mobilized" to welcome new immigrants?And then - how those figures, 80% of Israeli population, can be understood? Were they been called (to a draft board, to Mossad?) to get an order to "welcome new immigrants" - and were counted one by one? And what about the other 20%? We don't know anything about that "mobilization". But we know that the Israeli population (and the Hebrew media employees in particular) was mobilized to abuse, assault, disgrace and to discriminate new immigrants from the former USSR. If the Canadian Ministry of Immigration was not on one side it could employ 2-3 translators and send them in a library to translate Hebrew newspapers for last 6 years. Thousands of racists, xenophobic articles, which encourage aggressive actions against Russian-speaking people and teach to treat them with malicious anger, could be found. That is the real "mobilization". By the way, if we began to speak about Mr. La Salle, his personality may be the best illustration of who stands behind the total injustice towards us. He is a permanent director of the Informative Committee Canada-Israel, an organization that may be considered as a shadow structure of Israeli government. Allegations that Mr. Salle systematically treats the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel with partiality were expressed several times. In 1996 Federal Court indirectly recognized that. Despite of that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard - Canadian Minister of Immigration - gave Mr. La Salle a new commissioner's mandate (for the next term). 52% of refugee claimants from Israel obtained their refugee status in 1994-95.On hearings with Mr. La Salle it is 0(%). In 1997 Mr. Jacques La Salle was accused in partiality towards refugees from Israel, and his involvement in their cases was terminated* (see comments). However, his mandate wasn't terminated in general. How can it happen in a country, which is not a province of Israel, but an independent state? In the first large paragraph on page#4 of the decision the tribunal express recognition that the persecutions we faced in Israel might happen to us. But it claims indirectly that we provoked them ourselves by refusing to give up our believes and views. And it claims directly that the persecutions were caused by some individuals, not by country's rules, traditions or policy. And it claims also that there no persecutions against Russian-speaking people at all. As we can see that paragraph is deeply contradictory in itself. In first 5 lines it recognizes the existence of persecutions (calling them "difficulties" but that is not important because it clear explaining what it means). In next 5 (!?) lines it says the contrary. We already know (see the reasons expressed above) that there is a bad hidden lie in the referrals concerning fascism in this document. So, this lie is exploited in that paragraph, too. The next paragraph is based on a sentence in my refugee claim (in my PIF), which did the translator, Mrs. Broder herself, insert. Instead of just translating my story about what happened to me during my work on a stadium in Petach-Tikva (August, 1991), she transformed this event into a symbolic conclusion-declaration. In the same time this conclusion is correct in general. Because what happened to me then may be called a slavery. This event was discussed during the two hearings. I was tested if I tell the truth, and it is clear from the test that I told the truth. Besides, I presented an affidavit from Mr. Ginsburg who describes the same event. I also presented an article written by Rivka Rabinovich and entitled "Haim #1 and Haim #2", which professionally describes some forms of slavery in Israel. I also explained during my hearings that I do not want to make any declaration and that Mrs. Broder just distorted my words. Instead of taking into consideration all these facts the tribunal is persisting in its absolutely inadmissible and illegal suggestions. Instead of investigating whether or not we were persecuted it accuses us in spreading slander about Israel. It claims like if we would not came to Canada to seek a political asylum but to spread the slander about Israel. If we claimed that my wife and me - were beaten during our work: that's because we want show Israel as a state of slavery, claims the tribunal. If we describe what happened to our children: that's because we want to draw a picture of Israel as a horrible state... And so on. Reading that document you completely forget that it is a decision in refugees' claim. It looks like the tribunal misinterpreted its functions and sees itself not as immigration but as a political tribunal. But the main point of this paragraph is that we claim we got no help from the state of Israel and will not be defended by it if will be deported back there because we want to show Israel as a mayhem. This is the only tribunal's excuse for ignoring all our evidences, all documentary and other material proofs of police and other state offices' refusal to defend us. This is the only excuse for ignorance of all the reliable and very serious evidences like Amnesty International's confirmation in our case! This is the only excuse for ignorance of intensity and incredible scale of our attempts to find protection in Israel! The next paragraph continues the allegation that we claim we were denied police protection, multiple organizations' , Knesset members' help (and even our layer couldn't do anything) and were forced to turn to Amnesty International only because ("en effet"!) we want to show that Israel is a state of injustice. The declaration, which the tribunal made in the next paragraph (that Israel is a democratic state, a state like other countries, and so on) has nothing what to do with our claim. Let us express our father concern about credibility of the documentation the tribunal used as a documentary proof "against us". We know that the same document, which mentions the 80% "mobilized" Israelis mentions also a "Department of Integration", which doesn't exist in Israel. It's clear that the real name of Israeli Ministry of Absorption ("misrad ha-klita in Hebrew) was replaced by non-existing "Ministry of Integration" because it sounds strange for Canadian (or American, European) ears. But the "Ministry of Absorption" is the real name of the organization, which "takes care" of new immigrants. And this document changes it to the "Department of Integration"...In reality the Zionist ideology is against integration. Look over Ben-Gurion's, Orlosorov's, Bella Katsnelson's, Golda Meir's works and statements! Then you will be convinced that the name "Ministry of Absorption" expresses their desires completely well. It means that the document, which was used as an "indisputable source of information" replaces actually the truth by the lie, not only a real name by a false name. Then - how can such a document be considered as a credible one? We also express our deep concern of utilization of Mr. Natan Sharansky's affidavit. As far as we know this affidavit was given through a telephone interview what is juridical unacceptable. Especially when the commissioners don't accept copies of articles (even from the most famous newspapers), which refugee claimants present, they demand originals! Then - it was well known before Mr. Sharansky became a Minister in Israeli government that his "Zionist Forum" is not an independent organization (as well as its chairmen) but an organization infiltrated by the government. By the time of our second hearing Mr. Sharansky has already became a minister. And Mr. Malka knew it. So he presented the view of Israeli government as an "independent" view that time as well as in all other occasions. She clearly exposes the source of all the manipulations with the refugees from Israel in Canada: Israeli government! That paragraph also exploits the topic , which was closed by my answer during our first immigration hearing. Mrs. Malka asked me how can I explain the statistic from Israel that no Russian-speaking people were regestered complaining against the police. I shown then all the receipts of my appeals I have submitted to police, to the Ministry of police, to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and to police headquarters in Tel-Aviv. And I said that this is the explanation because my mails were unanswered and my complains were never registered. I also presented an article, which gives absolutely precise, reliable and competent information that nothing can be really done against police in Israel. And the story about a policeman who get a fine because of his refusal to help an Arab as an "evidence" looks like a clowned. It was clear for the tribunal that it's impossible to avoid comments about the total ignorance of the whole documentation, which we presented. It was clear that something must be said. This is why the next paragraph was composed to say just anything about that and was designed to say nothing in particular. The tribunal claims that all our documents were rejected because its members took into consideration only "absolutely reliable" documents. And it looks like there were no such documents among these we presented... In reality documents like the letter from the Minister of Culture Mr. Amnon Rubinschtein, which shows that persecutions against me weren't just a chain of coincidences, Amnesty International's confirmation, Lev Ginsburg's affidavit, receipts of my letters to police and other organizations, other official papers can not be considered as "reliable" or "not reliable". Another thing is that their existence may be recognized or not recognized. The tribunal chosen the second way: to ignore them. It's your choice now to decide if that happened as the result of the tribunal's partiality. But we ask you to read over the paragraph #4 on page 3 of the decision where the tribunal rejects in advance even the possibility of existence of such a category of refugees as "refugees from Israel". How could you expect then another attitude to any documents from a tribunal, which refuse to recognize refugees from Israel in principle? On the other hand that tribunal's ability to distinguish between "reliable" and "non-reliable" documents is reflected in documents they chosen themselves to support their point of view: one of them is incompetent when it speaks about Israel , another one has "0" credibility because it was presented during the hearing as an independent source, and in reality is the voice of Israeli government (Mr. Charansky's affidavit), and the 3-rd can proof nothing because it is a part of the declaration of the state of Israel (the Law of Return), and nothing more. The suggestion that my wife refused to collaborate with the tribunal is a pure lie what can be heard on the tapes from the hearings. And the ignorance of the medical documents is the thing from the same category. Please, believe us that our lives were in a real danger in Israel and that this danger just increased since we came to Canada. We were threatened from Israel even here, and we presented the proof. Please, save our souls! Lev Gunin NEXT DOCUMENT: [[[DOCUMENT NUMBER 5 - CONCLUSIVE DECISION]]] Short DESCRIPTION of GUNINS CASE PREVIOUES DOCUMENT <> NEXT DOCUMENT From Family Gunin, Montreal, November, 1998 Dear Friends! Please, try to treat this letter as an unusual appeal, not just a desperate cry for help and justice. In October 1998, the Federal Court of Canada issued a second decision in family GUNIN's appeal. (The 1-st one was positive). That tragic decision resumed our refugee claim, which took 4 years of our lives. Let us make a brief description of events, which took place before that sad date. The head of the family, Lev GUNIN, as all members of the family, was born in Bobruisk, Belarus, ex-USSR. Senseless, ridiculous coincidences in 1971-72 turned him, a secondary school student, young composer, and advance piano player, into a person, persecuted by Soviet authorities. They tried to prevent him from entering collegial - university studies; however, his persistence and a lucky miracle broke that wishes circle, and he received first collegial, and then university degrees in music. In spite of that, L. GUNIN could not build a successful composer's carrier because of persecutions. In the same time, he played a specific role in ex-USSR, Belarus, and other countries' cultural life. He's the author of novels, stories, poetry, contemporary and electronic music, works in history, essays, musicology, music history, philosophy, etc. His articles were published in a number of newspapers all over the world. In 1979-1986, Lev became an object of wide humiliations. He was beaten by somebody, who has links with militia (police) and KGB. The authorities stood up in defense of the attackers. They persecuted L. GUNIN even more for bringing the attacker to trial. In another incident he and his brother - they were hunted by two well-coordinated groups: mobsters, and a gang of youngsters. "Hunters" were also leaded by militia (police). Later brothers GUNIN were interrogated by police /KGB men. Lev's brother Vitaly became a victim of secret medical manipulations. L. Gunin has multiple links with the cultural elite, famous personalities and dissidents in Moscow, St. - Peterburg (Leningrad), Vilnius, Warsaw, and Belarus. He also has connections with the Western journalists in Moscow, and with representatives of the governments of the Western countries. 1980-s. Because of persecutions L. GUNIN's decided to participate in the dissident movement. There are the main directions of his dissident activities: 1. Participation in Human Rights movement and links with the most famous human rights activists. 2. Membership in underground literacy circles. 3. Defense of the Old City of Bobruisk from revelation and demolition. 4. Journalism and editorial functions for underground magazines. 5. Cooperation with forbidden (or unwelcomed) in ex-USSR NTS (People's Labor Union) and the National Front of Belarus. 6. Participation in the Jewish national movement. 7. Creation of ideologically independent and stylistically controversial music, prose, poetry, philosophy, and historical, political, and other works. 1985-1989. A conflict erupted between leading by L. GUNIN group - and the powerful institution of Israeli emissaries to USSR, and controlled by them Jewish political Mafia. (Their goals - devastation of the local Jewish cultural life, confiscation of huge aid from the Western Jewish communities, and concentration of the propaganda of immigration to Israel - L. Gunin was fighting). He also confronted three important personalities - Kebich, Alimbachkov, and Lukashenko. All of them became top political figures later: first one short before, and the two others - after his departure from USSR (The 1-st one became the Prime Minister of Belarus, 2-nd - major of Bobruisk, and the 3-rd is the present dictator of Belarus). . His attempts to emigrate to USA or Germany - to save his brother's life - failed. All attempts to obtain an Israeli visa for permanent residency have been failed, too. (By then practically everybody could easily get such a visa). Israelis did not want to allow him and his brother to immigrate to Israel. 1991. After his brother's death, Lev started to cancel all steps of immigrating to Israel. He did not want to go there by then. Soon he received an order from KGB to leave his native country for Israel. Soviet authorities sent us (family Gunin) all previously suspended visas. We could not say "no" to KGB, but planned to escape from Warsaw to Germany. At the Central railway station in Warsaw, in presence of L.Gunin's Polish friends, Israelis captured us, and took us to Israel by force. In Israel, Mossad (Shabbak) officers verbally accused Lev in an attempt to sabotage the whole operation of bringing the Soviet Jews to Israel. Mossad approached him several times. In Israel we faced next persecutions: 1) Israeli citizenship was thrust on us 2) Alla, Lev's wife, was abused, attacked, beaten, assaulted, and systematically discriminated against 3) Elisabeth, his mother, was abused, attacked, and assaulted 4) Children became victims of systematic humiliations and mockery 5) Lev himself was deprived in his rights. Israeli authorities denied him: a) valid diploma equivalent b) professional courses c) rights to enter other courses or university d) full and valid employment authorization e) registration with the State labor exchange f) tax exemption as all fresh immigrants were receiving g) welfare when he was unemployed h) proper and equal medical service i) legal, and police defense j) reduction of municipal taxes k) authorization of departure, which is required in Israel to leave the country l) etc. He was beaten, abused, discriminated against. Israeli state radio called him an enemy. One of the leading Israeli newspapers suggested that his works (essays, articles, etc.) must be destroyed. Innumerous and systematic draft board's orders to appear affected his normal life and his (his family) financial situation. During his life in Israel L. Gunin published a number of articles & books in Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Moscow, and Germany, criticizing Israeli government for human rights violations and fascist tendencies in Israel. 1994-1996. With an indirect Amnesty International's involvement we could come to Canada, and claimed a refugee status. To support our claim we presented next types of documentary proof: A. Legal documents B. Documents, issued by Israeli government C. Documents, issued by all kinds of Israeli institutions D. Affidavits E. Letters F. Post receipts G. Medical documents H. Newspapers I. Researches made by International committees and human rights organizations J. Proof that in Israel we turned to innumerous organizations, institutions, police, court, and lawyers for protection K. Our lawyer's documents L. Etc. Practically each statement, described in our refugee claim, was supported by the documentary proof. Only the list of documents' description consisted of six pages. 1994-1997. In her translations,