or false statements, and won a judgment in August of 1970. Irving's lawyers appealed, and lost in March, 1971. The case is revealing because of what it says about Irving's abilities as a historian and his motives as an author. According to the Times of London, Irving showed a copy of the manuscript to Broome before publication. Broome objected to the accuracy of some thirty passages in the book, and threatened to sue for libel if Irving did not make changes. At that point, William Kimbers Ltd., Irving's publisher, notified him that they would not publish the book as it was then written. Later, Irving published the book with another publisher. The court found that Irving "was warned from most responsible quarters that his book contained libels on Captain Broome ... To make [the book] a success he was ready to risk libel actions ... Documentary evidence .... showed that [Irving] had deliberately set out to attack Captain Broome and in spite of the most explicit warnings persisted in his attack because it would help sell the book." The court labeled Irving's conduct as "outrageous and shocking." Irving's misrepresentations did not end with the publication of his book. According to Cesarani, in 1979, a German publisher had to pay compensation to the father of Anne Frank after printing the German edition of Irving's book, Hitler's War. Irving had claimed that Anne Frank's diary was a forgery. Irving claims that according to his "research", the Holocaust is greatly exaggerated. (He was recently quoted in the K-W Record as saying that the number of Jews who died in concentration camps was "of the order of 100,000 or more.") But during the 1988 trial of pro-Nazi publisher Ernst Zundel, he was forced to admit under cross-examination that he hadn't even read all of Eichmann's 1960 trial testimony. (In this testimony, Eichmann admitted that Nazi leaders discussed the so-called "Final Solution to the Jewish problem''-- extermination, in 1942.) In November 1991, a reporter from the Independent showed that Irving omitted crucial lines from a translation of Goebbels' diaries -- lines that would have contradicted his theory that Hitler knew nothing about the extermination of the Jews. Irving's record is clear: he is not an historian, and he has made false statements and been forced to apologize for them. As Andrew Cohen, reporter for the Financial Post, has said, "David Irving should be denied credibility." 4. Eustace Mullins According to analyst Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, Mullins is quite simply, "the most vicious anti-Semite on the face of the planet." Eustace Clarence Mullins, born in 1923, is the author of a biography of Ezra Pound (a copy exists in the University of Waterloo library). But he is also the author of numerous truly bizarre tracts published by small Christian publishers. Some of these, like the excerpt recently posted and then removed by Kitchener store owner Rothe, are critiques of the banking system. Berlet says, "Mullins masks his anti-Semitism with a critique of the [U.S.] Federal Reserve System." In a 1952 book, Mullins wrote a book blaming Paul Warburg, Bernard Baruch, and other U.S. Jews for drowning Americans in debt. According to Mullins, The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 put the nation's banking reserves in the hands of the "Jewish International Bankers" for the purpose of carrying out a plan for world dictatorship. In a 1955 article entitled, "Jews mass poison American children", Mullins claimed that the polio vaccine, invented by Jonas Salk, was a poison because it contains live polio germs. Other books depict Jews as parasites, living off their gentile hosts. In what has to be one of the most bizarre of Mullins' beliefs, it has been reported by L. J. Davis that Mullins has claimed that the phrase "Have a nice day" is a code for Jews to begin killing Christians. Mullins' writings have been adopted wholesale by violent extremists in the US, such as the Posse Comitatus. Should we not be more than a little worried to see those writings appearing in the window of a store in Kitchener? 5. Fred Leuchter Rothe sells the "Leuchter report" in his store, a book purporting to be an engineer's refutation of the existence of gas chambers in Poland. (David Irving also uses Leuchter's report to support his claims.) What Rothe will not tell you, however, is that Fred Leuchter is not an engineer. Rothe also won't tell you that, according to the Boston Globe, Leuchter admitted to illegally collecting 20 pounds of building and soil samples in Poland, and that Leuchter's ``analysis'' has been thoroughly rebutted in a report by French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac. Pressac "noted that Leuchter never looked at documents in the Auschwitz Museum, and failed to study German blueprints of the gas chambers." Leuchter is a self-described expert in the construction of execution machines. With his false credentials, he convinced authorities in several states in the U.S. to let him construct execution machinery for their prisons. But in 1990, according to the New York Times, his misrepresentations began to unravel. The Attorney General of Alabama questioned his expertise. Illinois terminated his contract after determining that his machine for injecting cyanide would cause prisoners unnecessary pain. Then, in October 1990, Leuchter was charged with fraud in Massachusetts. It was revealed that he had only a bachelor's degree in history, and was not licensed to practice engineering in Massachusetts. In June 1991, to avoid a trial in which he would surely have been convicted, Leuchter admitted that, "I am not and have never been registered as a professional engineer", and that he had falsely represented himself as one. Under the consent agreement, Leuchter agreed to stop "using in any manner whatsoever the title 'engineer'", and to stop distribution of the Leuchter report. Despite the agreement, one can still obtain copies of the report from Rothe's store in Kitchener. According to the Boston Globe, Leuchter was deported from Britain in 1991. Leonard Zakim, a spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, said, "Leuchter's admissions of lying to promote his business in violation of Massachusetts law should serve to discredit Leuchter wherever he travels." **[See comments on Leuchter after this article] 6. Paul Fromm Paul Fromm claims to be the director of a group called "Canadian Association of Free Expression". While the name sounds innocuous, the truth is darker. According to investigative journalist Russ Bellant, Fromm helped found the Canadian neo-Nazi organization Western Guard. In a 1983 interview with a Toronto Star reporter, Fromm was caught dissembling. He said he "never had any connection" with the Western Guard, but the Star account revealed that Fromm himself had had a letter published in the Star in February 1973 that stated "... in May, 1972, many members, myself included, left the Western Guard...". Asked to explain the discrepancy, Fromm said in a Star interview that it was "a matter of semantics". In Julian Sher's 1983 account of the Ku Klux Klan, Fromm is reported as saying that belief of a supreme race "is a good idea." Remarks like this caused him to be kicked out of the federal Progressive Conservative Party. In September 1991, the Star reported that Fromm was ejected from a Toronto meeting on race relations after he blurted out, "Scalp them," while a native Canadian was speaking. In April 1992, the Star reported on Fromm's 1990 speech before the Heritage Front, a neo-Nazi organization advocating white supremacy. According to the Star, Fromm told the neo-Nazi group, "We're all on the same side." Fromm later claimed in a Star article that he hadn't known about the Heritage Front's neo-Nazi views. But Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress disputes this. "He had to know," Farber said. "There was a Nazi flag with swastikas, about 10 feet long and 5 feet tall, just to his right. Furthermore, just a few months after the Star article came out, Fromm spoke again before the same group." 7. Conclusions Although the holocaust "revisionists" and their defenders claim to be in pursuit of the truth, the record says otherwise. Although some claim to be advocates of free speech, their real goal is a regime that would deny free speech, and more, to Jews and other minorities. It is easy to dismiss Rothe, Irving, Leuchter, Mullins, and Fromm as kooks. But according to statistics compiled by the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith, anti-Semitism in Canada is at its highest level in a decade. There were 251 reported incidents of harassment and vandalism against Jews in Canada in 1991, up 42% from two years earlier. The reader may feel that anti-Semitism is only a distant threat. But consider this: many of the sources I sought in preparing this article are listed as ``missing'' in our University library. Some articles had been ripped out of magazines. Others books, though still on the shelves, I found to contain anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi graffiti. To repeat a saying attributed to Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." For Further Reading: Julian Sher, "White Hoods: Canada's Ku Klux Klan", New Star Books, Vancouver, 1983. James Ridgeway, "Blood in the Face", Thunder's Mouth Press, New York, 1991. Russ Bellant, "Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party", South End Press, Boston, 1991. Steve Mertl and John Ward, "Keegstra: The Trial, The Issues, and The Consequences", Western Producer Prairie Books, Saskatoon, 1985. James Coates, "Armed and Dangerous: The Rise of the Survivalist Right," Hill and Wang, New York, 1987. About the author. Jeffrey Shallit, who is not Jewish, is associate professor in the computer science department at the University of Waterloo. CODOH comments on Shallit's comments about Leuchter: Rothe sells the "Leuchter report" in his store, a book purporting to be an engineer's refutation of the existence of gas chambers in Poland. (David Irving also uses Leuchter's report to support his claims.) What Rothe will not tell you, however, is that Fred Leuchter is not an engineer. Fred Leuchter is self-trained in the extremely arcane field of execution equipment, and before smears such as Mr. Shallit's had their effect he worked for numerous state prison systems in the United States on the repair, upgrading, and replacement of said equipment. He has done work on gallows, electric chairs, gas chambers, and in fact is the inventor and builder of not only the automatic equipment used for lethal injection but also determined the type and sequence of the four drugs used to insure maximum comfort and a certain, painless death when physicians refused to offer any assistance in this area. At the second Zuendel trial in Canada, the judge recognized his expertise, and ruled that he was an engineer by virtue of experience and demonstrated ability, and therefore he would be allowed to testify as an expert witness regarding gas chambers. In some other areas, such as crematories, he was not allowed to testify. Rothe also won't tell you that, according to the Boston Globe, Leuchter admitted to illegally collecting 20 pounds of building and soil samples in Poland, and that Leuchter's "analysis'' has been thoroughly rebutted in a report by French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac. Pressac "noted that Leuchter never looked at documents in the Auschwitz Museum, and failed to study German blueprints of the gas chambers." The legality of the collection process has nothing to do with the validity of the analyses of same. This is but another example of the attempts to heap all possible negatives because of the damage his investigations have done to the accepted myths regarding non-existent gas chambers. His sample analyses have, in fact, been independently verified by the later work of both a Polish government commission, Austrian engineer Walter Leuftl, and the inarguably qualified German chemist, Germar Rudolf. Shallit does not indicate if Pressac indicates what relevance the "documents in the Auschwitz Museum" might have on the matter. Given that much of what is on display at Auschwitz are reproductions with obvious liberties taken to closer match wartime accounts, a fact only admitted in the last few years, one would have to be wary of whatever they purport to claim is documentation. And the plain fact is that no "German blueprints of the gas chambers" exist. What does exist are blueprints of the various Krema (crematoria) which supporters of gas chambers claim were "code worded" to hide the actual use to which they would be put. These blueprints do exist, and nothing on them supports the gas chamber theory--none of the special provisions one would expect, such as sealing, gas introduction equipment, forced air circulation of the closed room(s) or adequate ventilation are indicated. After a particularly traumatic cross-examination by the attorney for Prof. Robert Faurisson, during which Pressac became incoherent to the point of tears on the stand, he has retreated from any active defense of his extremely flawed work, and it is no longer cited by top-level historians. His alleged refutation of challenges to the existence of gas chambers is a huge embarrassment of a book now trotted out only by lay people such as Mr. Shallit, and professional promoters of the gas chamber myths. With his false credentials, he convinced authorities in several states in the U.S. to let him construct execution machinery for their prisons. Leuchter presented no false credentials. It is common for self-trained individuals, particularly in fields for which no academic accreditation exists, to advertise or present themselves as Leuchter did--an "execution engineer." His expertise in that field is amply demonstrated by work experience. Shallit's comments are based on the events following Leuchter's appearance in the Zuendel trial. A New York based group called Holocaust Survivors and Friends in Pursuit of Justice brought action in Massachussets based on an obscure and never tested state law saying that people working in areas involving public safety could not present themselves as engineers unless they were licensed as such by the state. Of amusing and revealing relevance is the fact that the charge was brought and supported by a judge that designing execution devices qualifies as working in an area involving "public safety"!! Surely this is close to the height of doublespeak. (See "The Execution Protocol" by Trombley, Crown Publishing 1992) But in 1990, according to the New York Times, his misrepresentations began to unravel. The Attorney General of Alabama questioned his expertise. Illinois terminated his contract after determining that his machine for injecting cyanide would cause prisoners unnecessary pain. The Alabama warden's actions were in response to Leuchter's having testified against the Florida prison system when an inmate brought suit against her electrocution sentence on the basis that the antiquated equipment there constituted cruel and unusual punishment, which it demonstrably did. The Alabama produced letter to other wardens warned them that if Leuchter tried to sell them equipment and they refused to buy, he might wind up testifying against them. This libelous and career threatening action might have brought great financial penalty on him and the state of Alabama were not Leuchter by this time a sufficient pariah who saw no hope of getting a fair shake in court. The comments regarding Illinois describe only an excuse given which has no basis in reality. Then, in October 1990, Leuchter was charged with fraud in Massachusetts. It was revealed that he had only a bachelor's degree in history, and was not licensed to practice engineering in Massachusetts. In June 1991, to avoid a trial in which he would surely have been convicted, Leuchter admitted that, "I am not and have never been registered as a professional engineer", and that he had falsely represented himself as one. Under the consent agreement, Leuchter agreed to stop "using in any manner whatsoever the title 'engineer'", and to stop distribution of the Leuchter report. See comments above about this charge. Leuchter did not at any time advertise himself as a "professional engineer" but only as an "execution engineer." He never "falsely represented himself as one" as Shallit states. It is not even illegal for him to advertise and work as an execution engineer unless one would seriously make the case that this involves public safety. It is not illegal in Massachussets to work and advertise as an engineer in a great many areas. Shallit's comment is based on surmise which is in turn based on ignorance of the terminologies and their meanings. The difference between "professional engineer" and "engineer" is not a trivial distinction. The title "Professional Engineer" (Massachussets equivalent "licensed engineer" in other locations "state certified engineer") is that used to legally certify documents as correct, and the certifier must in many states (but far from all) have certain qualifications (which vary) to do this. Such a certification places all liability on the certifying engineer for any errors, and absolves others of blame for implementing his mistakes--hence the legal importance. In Massachussets, it only applies to projects involving public safety, quite a stretch for Leuchter's expertise, which is directed toward insuring rapid death! Leuchter does not distribute his report, other entities do that. Trombley makes no mention of the report in his account of the case, only the matter of the use of the title engineer, which has nothing to do with the report since the report has nothing to do with work in Massachussets. Leonard Zakim, a spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, said, "Leuchter's admissions of lying to promote his business in violation of Massachusetts law should serve to discredit Leuchter wherever he travels." A typical ADL smear tactic, Leuchter's credibility is in no way discredited by the Massachussets/New York travesty of justice. A biased court surrounded by several hundred screaming demonstrators made a ludicrous interpretation of a law and applied it against an unpopular defendant. None of this has a thing to do with the scientific data contained in that report, data later supported by several other sources whose qualifications no one argues. Leanard Zakim's statement is pure and hateful propaganda intended to silence those who threaten his livelihood. David Thomas, 2/28/97 CODOH can be reached at: Box 439016/P-111 San Diego, CA, USA 92143 Comments from Fred Leuchter Dear David Thomas, Your remarks after the Irving to Shallit letter are not entirely true. The Massachusetts Court refused to interpret the law publicly, although it did privately, and forced both parties..i.e. The Commonwealth and Leuchter into a settlement as a trial would not be beneficial to either. Leuchter entered into an agreement with the Engineering Board to do none of the things that he never did in the first place and not to recant or change anything he ever did or said, in return for the board's dropping of the complaint. Leuchter agreed in a pretrial mutual promise with the Commonwealth that in return for the Commonwealth dropping its illegal prosecution of him he would not break the law by saying things or doing things he had never done or said in the first place. Leuchter never admitted to any wrong doing or ever did any wrong. He simply agreed to be a law abiding citizen (which he had been all his life) for 2 years more. Even after the 2 years he still has not broken the law. Please consider this and restate your description. I am sick of people misunderstanding what took place in Cambridge Court. Fred Leuchter 4/5/99 To The Federal Court of Canada from Galina Buyanovsky. Montreal, March 20, 1997. Galina Buyanovsky 175 Sherbrook St.West, Apt. 98 Montreal, Quebec, CANADA H2X 1X5 FEDERAL COURT Supreme Court Building Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H9 CANADA Tel.(514)843-8458 See the list of the places where the copies of that appeal are submitted below. 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 claim that a wide-scaled conspiracy against Russian-speaking refugees from Israel exists, and that Canadian Ministry of Immigration is manipulated by a foreign state. This is the main reason why our refugee claim was denied. The chairman of the immigration committee assigned to our case was Mr. Jacques La Salle. 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 [ look over her anger declaration about the Russian-speaking refugees from Israel: see our BIBLIOGRAPHY in the end, #4, ] - 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. And this person whose partiality towards the Russian-speaking people was already recognized is sent now to hear the cases of Russians who flied from Kazachstan. Russians from Kazachstan are too often told that they are not eligible for the political asylum in Canada - because they could go to Israel, not to Canada. For example, the first hearing of a refugee claimant from Kazachstan was dedicated to his situation in Kazachstan, when the second - to his refusal to go to Israel. How can it happen in a country that is not a province of Israel, but an independent state? Why refugees from Israel who face deportation and express a will to go to Russia are sent to Israel anyway**? Is it true that Mr. La Salle lived in a kibbutz in Israel and holds an Israeli passport? Is that true that Mrs. Lucienne Robillard is his ex-wife and his best friend now? If only one of these questions can be answered positively - the first paragraph of our message is completely correct! And the last question about Mr. La Salle. Since he was accused in partiality - does it means that his decision in our case can still be in force? We came to Canada as refugee claimants, not to Israel, and it's obvious that our right is to be heard by an independent commissioner, not by a person whose whole life and social activity is devoted to Israel. The translator who worked for our lawyer, Mrs. Eleonora Broder, has also devoted herself to Israel, but in a different way. She sabotaged the cases of all her employer's clients, distorting the translation of the most important documents and statements: Always in favor of these forces which wants save Israel's face and to send Russian from Israel back. Being afraid of her angry clients she flied Montreal and disappeared in an unknown direction. Her most favorite sabotage action was to distort the real indication of nationality or another data in her translations of birth certificates, passports, and other documents. This trick she used when she "translated" documents of L.M., K.R., L.G., and other people who turned to our lawyer. Commissioners like Mr. La Salle, Mr. Dorion, and like the immigration officer Mrs. Malka, who have visual partiality to Russian-speaking people, based their rejections of refugees' claims on such "mistakes". She used to change voluntarily also the meaning of refugee claimants' stories and so called pifs' data. She placed a wrong information about our nationalities despite our sincere statements. We came from a country with another mentality and different culture. If a Canadian would probably check the translation using another translator help, we didn't. Then, again, Mrs. Broder did a back translation into Russian for us to show that everything was translated correctly, but that back translation actually is in contradiction with her French version. Another interesting detail is that the most serious mistakes she did in official documents' translations were related to the people whose hearing were attended by Mr. La Salle, Mrs. Judith Malka and - probably - Mr. Dorion. In other words, were attended by people whose relations to Israel or to Jewish roots are easy to detect. If you need more detailed and precise proof of Mrs. Broder's sabotage we can give it to you. 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 clichj 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 nationalitj russe et les deux enfants, comme leur mjre, 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 kinder-garden and at school because of the claim that there are " no inter-communal tensions in Israel" and because "efforts were made to sensitize school officials to the new reality...(etc)". Mr. La Salle took these "evidences" from s document he mentions as Exhibit A-1. But we'd like to ask Mr. La Salle next questions: 1. How can the same document be used as a contra-argument in the matter of two different girls, who lived in Israel in different cities and in different time? (We mean us and family Z.). 2. How can a document, which must be composed before the events described in our refugee declaration took place, be used as an "evidence"?! Does it have a license for the future? 3. How cans Mr. La Salle to swear that if Israel claims she "made efforts to sensitize school officials" to discrimination or violence, the efforts were really made, or were properly made? Then, if even "efforts" were really made (we can swear, they weren't) it doesn't mean that they met a proper reaction of school officials! My husband and me - we also want to express our deep concern about the credibility of this Exhibit when it speaks about Israel. We know that this document (Exhibit A-1 (5.4) mentions 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 the Exhibit A-1 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 Exhibit A-1 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 can present another evidence that Exhibit A-1 is highly contradictory and strange in itself. On page 6 (p.3 in a response to family Z. claim) Mr. La Salle writes (quoting Exhibit A-1), that 80% of Israel population is mobilized to welcome new immigrants from the former USSR. It's hard to believe that such a ridiculous sentence can be a part of any juridical document! 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 (Mr. La Salle's intention to choose this particular extract, and not another one, reflects his 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". The suggestion that the Histadrut can not deny an appeal for help just because it "open" to people from all ethnic groups, also has no logic in it. Histadrut may be "open" but its functionaries may treat "Russians" not like they treat Israelis. 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 hearing Mr. Sharansky has already became a minister. And Mr. La Salle knew it. So he presented the view of Israeli government as an "independent" view that time: as in all other occasions. He clearly exposes the source of all the manipulations with the refugees from Israel in Canada: Israeli government! COMMENTS 1.See Bibliography 2.We have several examples, including a documentary film, which was shown on CFCF12 the 10-th of March 1997, between 8 and 10 p.m. 3.The Resume of the Committee Decision, p.4, paragraph 4, -second sentence. 4.See Bibliography, - #2. 5. See The Resume of the Committee Decision, p.1, second paragraph, and also - p.p.1,2,3. 6.See Bibliography, - #3. 7.According to Judaism and to Israeli laws (because there is a strange mix of civil and religious rules in Israel's juridical system) the children's nationality is given after their mother's nationality. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. "Une comissaire du statut de rjfugij accusj de partialitj ", - by Franzois Berger. "LA PRESSE". Montreal. January 27, 1997. 2. "Off The Record", by Peter Wheeland. "HOUR", Montreal, December 15-21, 1994. 3. "Israeli Immigrants Finding Work", by Jewish Telegraphic Agency. "The Canadian Jewish news", August 17, 1995. And also: "Ethiopian Jews Riot Over Dumped Blood", by Serge Schmemann from 'NEW YORK TIMES". "THE GAZETTE". Montreal, January 29, 1996. And also: "Rights of Humans and Refugees", by Eugenia Kravchik. (In Russian). An Interview With Shulamit Aloni. "Okna"("WINDOWS"). August 18, 1994. Tel-Aviv. And also: "A Non-Existent Photo of Shulamit Aloni", by Roman Polonsky. An Interview With Shulamit Aloni. "WIESTI". December 29, 1994. Tel-Aviv. 4."Ottawa Vows Crackdown On Phony Refugees", by Yvonne Zacharias. "THE GAZETTE", September 7, 1996. To Support Our Declaration We Are Also Listing Or Submitting You Next Documents: 1)"LE MOND DIPLOMATIQUE". Issue #1, January, 1997. The declaration of Amnesty International about the decision of Israeli government to legalize tortures by Mossad and Shabbak over the detainees.