D). By their attitude, the commissioners during the hearings and in the negative decision somehow separated me
from other members of my family. They almost openly let know that my family suffering and refused the status only
because of my political views. That could provoke Israelis to separate me from my family or even take away our
children (I know several precedents). Rejection of my refugee claim because of my attitude towards the state of Israel
(in other words, my political views) is the main topic of the negative decision. That would encourage Israelis to do just
anything to me (if Canadian court did what it did, why should they wait?): to imprison me, place to a mental hospital, or kill. I am absolutely sure that within days or weeks I could be imprisoned in Israel and, probably, killed in custody not just because of objective factors, but also because of what the commissioners' did.
E). The political situation in Israel has been changed, too, since we left, to the worse. I present documents (see
Supplements, Document # 19), which shows that the present extremist government is not ready to maintain just
any tolerance. This is why the commissioners' actions would lead to more severe consequences if we would be
removed back to Israel. By the time of the hearings these changes already took place, and the commissioners had to
know pretty good about that...
F). Policemen in Israel could still remember my wife's, mother's, and my own complains; I also turned to the Ministry
of Police and Ministry of Internal Affairs. Now, - when in their brief description of my refugee claim members of IRB
severely distorted my claim (see Document #5, page 2, Comments), - how could we turn for defense in Israel any
more? The IRB members' action made us completely insecure and unprotected in Israel (if removed there). [Since
the context of their negative decision is already known to Israeli authorities].
* The negative decision mentioned the paragraph about slavery in my refugee claim (which Mrs. Broder inserted) in ignorance of: 1) my words that the translator distorted my statement, 2) my explanation that this paragraph correspond to a specific tendency in Israel called "kablanut", 3) two newspaper articles, which described "kablanut" and openly denounced it as slavery. (See these articles in Supplements, Doc. #81). An affidavit about the event, on which "my" statement about slavery was based, was given to me in Israel by Lev Ginsburg (see Supplements, Doc.82). We became victims of extreme generalization, when submitted by partial Israelis "affidavits" were respected more then even human life - and thousands of affidavits, articles and other documents provided by another side were totally ignored. Documents, which demonstrated non-competence and partiality and were provided by the members of Israeli government
(Mr. A. Charanski), its institutions (Israeli embassy) or committed to Israeli government fundraisers (Dr. Livny) were presented as only reliable and "independent"!
** After expressed by IRB members' insinuations that I turned to various organizations and institutions in Israel not for protection but to "spread slander" I could have no protection in Israel any more if removed there. IRB's insinuation is a verdict for non-protection in the state of Israel! How could we go back there now?!
CHILDREN.
During our refugee hearings, the commissioners had chances to observe our children.
They could not ignore that the children are deeply suppressed and still not in norm.
Because of abuses and insults, both Ina and Marta had nervous tics and hyper kineses. It stopped only about one
year ago. We possess a videocassette as a proof that during the period of refugee hearings the children still had
impulsive face muscles' contractions and other visual neurological disorders.
We also had a psychological evaluation at this point concerning Ina.
From observing our children, the commissioners could understand that because the children are shy and timid they
could be abused or even killed by Israeli children. That would bring additional danger to their lives. Such children as
ours have always much more chances to be abused or even killed in the countries with the dominated "east temper".
Because in spite of the time, which passed since we came from Israel to Canada, both Ina and Marta visually reacted
to the discussion about their life in Israel with horror and fear, the commissioners had a chance to see how deep the
psychological trauma affected the children and also how easy such children could become targets for abuses in
Israel.
The description of multiple assaults of our children were also ignored by the commissioners. The IBR members also
probably knew that by the time of our hearings Israeli authorities could take children away from Christian, atheist,
mixed, or non-traditional Jewish families...
In the text of their negative decision the IRB members seriously distorted some paragraphs of our refugee claim,
which described multiple abuses against our children.
