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 rйfugiй accusй de partialitй  ", -  by
Franзois 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.
     2) Jews refer  to  non-Jewish  women officially  as  nothing more  than
'unclean meat' - shiska. This observation was cited coming from Jew,
     Professor  Israel Shahak in his  book _Jewish History, Jewish Religion:
The Weight of 3,000 years_[Published by Pluto Press (London 1994)].

     3)  Hassidic  Jews in  New  York  yeshivas  are  among  the  top  money
launderers in the world. They use the cloak of religion to hide their work
     and they use Israel's exclusively Jewish immigration  policy (the  "law
of return") to escape U.S. justice by relocating to Israel. New York's
     47th Street  : Maariv,  September 2, 1994 By  Ben Kaspit, the  New York
correspondent
     4)           American           Civil           Rights           Review
http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/index.html
     5) Multicultural Disasters http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/dv0.html
HUD Disaster Tours of Ruined Urban Areas HUD Has Destroyed
     http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/stlouistour.html        Immigration
Debacle! http://webusers.anet-stl.com/~civil/imfolder.html
     6)"Orthodox Again Battle Police in Jerusalem", by Douglas Jehl for "NEW
YORK TIMES". In "THE GAZETTE". July 21, 1996.
     7)Efraim  Sevela.  "Stop  The  Airplane,  I  Have  To  Get   Out..."  A
documentary, autobiography novel. "STAV". Jerusalem, 1980. (In Russian).
     8) http://www.igc.org/Womensnet/dworkin/IsraelI.html
     9) http://talk.excite.com/go.webx?7@-d^86825@.ee7ba6a/86
     10) http://www.colba.net/~leog/newspaper/araven.html
     11)"By Way of Deception", by Victor  Ostrovsky. St.Martin's  Press. New
York.1990.
     12)Grigory Swirsky. "The Breakthrough". New York. (In Russian).
     13)"The  Bungling  Bank  Robbers  of  Israel",  by  Doug  Struck.  "THE
GAZETTE". August 5,1995.
     14)"Dream  Homes  But No  Buyers", by  Raine Marcus. "CITY  LIGHTS",  a
supplement to "Jerusalem Post", September 11, 1992.

SUPPLEMENT WE  SUBMIT OR ARE  PLANNING TO SUBMIT COPIES  OF THAT APPEAL
TO: 1.UN Human Right Committee in Ottawa.
     2.Amnesty International,  London.  3.Amnesty International Division for
Refugees. 4.Canadian Ministry of Immigration. 5.The Office of Prime
     Minister of Quebec. 6."LA PRESSE" 7."THE GAZETTE". 8."HOUR" 9."MAIL AND
GLOBE" 10."LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE"
     11."WASHINGTON   POST"   12."CHICAGO  TRIBUNE"  13."BERLINER   ZEITUNG"
14."ZYCIE WARSZAWY" 15."TIMES" 16."THE
     GUARDIAN"  17."DOUBLE  STANDARDS"  (AN INTERNET  ON-LINE  EDITION)  18.
"EXCITE TALKS" (INTERNET) TO OTHER PLACES
     AND ORGANIZATIONS



     ДЕЛО МЕТЕЛЬНИЦКИХ:


     FROM FAMILY METELNITSKY. MONTREAL, Desember, 1996.
     To Amnesty International's London Office

     Why WeTurn To Amnesty International?
     1) Because our complains to Amnesty International from Israel played if
not the main,a very important role during all the 2 immigration
     hearings in our  case.  2) Because indirectly or even  directly (from a
particular point of view) they insinuated that we must be punished for our
     contacts with Amnesty International.  3) Because  what  happened during
our immigration hearing here in Montreal (Quebec, Canada) is so
     incredible and  horrible  that will encourage  human  right  violations
everywhere on a wider scale. 4) Because during the hearing the
     immigration  officer falsificated  Amnesty  International's (and  other
human rights organizations') documents and lied about them. 6)
     Because if  a family comes  to a country (which  accepts refugees under
the Geneva Convention act) but faces abuses, ungrounded
     accusations, threats, hatred and  injustice within an immigration court
room - that means a mayhem for the human rights, placing the very
     basis of human rights in jeopardy. 7) Because we are absolutely certain
(and we have presented undenieble evidences to the immigration
     bord) that we are going to be beatten, abused or even killed if we will
be turned back to Israel.

     We came to  Israel in 1990 ; as many other  people we  had a hope for a
better life. As the most of Russian-speaking people we were
     "welcomed" by a malicious anger, the state  unti-Russian propaganda and
the most severe discrimination. Our son was 15 when we came
     to Israel.  Each  of us  (including  our son)  was  assaulted,  abused,
beaten, discriminated against.The ignorance of what is going on in Israel
     with the Russian-speaking people  can not make  what we and our friends
suffered from in Israel unreal. Batteries, assaults, abuses were
     real and  happened to us in real life. If my son  could  come to school
and could hear a discussion about the last article in a Hebrew
     newspaper,  in  which  "Russians"  were   called   sons   of  a  bitch,
prostitutes, fools and thieves: was it "unreal"? And the computer games in
     Hebrew accompanied by songs with words  like "Russians,  go  home":They
were as real as the real life. And the social climate in Israel is so
     horrible that if a child is  beaten at school  "because he's Russian" -
he is  forced to  feel  guilty himself  as if he's  guilty  in not being  an
Israeli
     but being a Russian.

     Any  person with conciseness (a journalist, an immigration  official, a
human right organization official) could take a translator from Hebrew,
     go to a library or to an archive and find articles in Hebrew newspapers
which have highly aggressive untie-Russian contest. And what about
     thousands  of articles in Russian newspapers published in  Israel about
what can be called almost a genocide against "Russians"?

     When  they began to call my son to a draft board (because  Israel has a
compulsory military service) he asked an alternative military service
     each time they called him:  because he  was afraid of hostility towards
"Russians" within the Israeli army and also because of the rule that a
     single son can not be taken into the front-line units against his will.
They gave him no decision, but kept ordering him to came to the draft
     point again and again. One day a new routine order to come to the draft
point arrived. My son was ordered to come one day - but the order
     have been  sent one day later then the date of his appearance. A couple
of other days past before he got the order. But as soon as he got
     it he immediately went to the draft board.

     When he came they have arrested him incriminating him a disobedience to
the order to come. No excuse, no explanation were admitted.
     Everything happened so fast that there is no doubt: they were prepared.
So, they have submitted this order for him later then the date he
     was called to intentionally. He was accused in a refusal to come to the
draft board (the ignored his voluntarial arrival) and in avoiding the
     military  service.  They have treated  him like if  he  already  was  a
soldier and flied from a military unit. He was also given a soldier's number
as if
     he was a soldier when  in reality  he never entered the army and  never
wearied a military uniform. When he admitted that he's going to
     become mentally ill because of the military prison they refused to give
him a Russian-speaking psychologist, and the Hebrew- speaking
     psychologist  couldn't speak with our son, but wrote  a report based on
ungrounded insinuations. When later a Russian-speaking
     psychologist appeared he translated him that report but told that it is
impossible now to dispute what the Israeli wrote.

     When  our son was  in  the military  prison  severe  humiliations  were
committed over him. All the violations of the rules and of the moral norms
     in  his  case  were  too  innumerable  to   mention  them.  During  his
imprisonment our son was transformed from a healthy person to a mentally ill
     boy. When  he  was  released from  the  military prison  (he was in the
prison more then 3 months; no charges were posed against him, no court
     took place) the military medical committee recognized him as a mentally
ill person. When he was just imprisoned he was recognized as a
     fully healthy person  suitable to the military service.He received some
treatment here, in Canada, and the immigration board know it. We did
     everything we could  to release our son from the  military prison.  But
the civil lawyers refused to take his case as soon as they heard about
     the conflict with the army. Some  of them assaulted us refusing to take
the case.We demanded a military lawyer but the military
     commandature in Jaffo denied us a military lawyer. We turned to all the
possible places like Israel Bar Association, human rights
     organizations, Sharansky's  Zionist Forum,  Israel and  foreign  media,
state officials: nobody couldn't or didn't want to help us. Then we
     decided to send a letter  to Amnesty International. A  friend of us - a
dissident and a journalist Lev G. - has contacted Amnesty International
     and  later  submitted  several  faxes  to  them.  When  the authorities
realized that we complained to Amnesty International they released our
     son from the military prison.

     We couldn't  live in Israel any more after what  happened to us  and to
our son there, and also because we were afraid that our son can be
     arrested again if we will stay  in Israel. The only reasonable solution
for us was to escape. And the only way to do it was to become refugee
     claimants. We flied to Montreal in November, 1994.

     We have submitted all the documentary proof we had to support our claim
to the immigration board (committee). We also sincerely
     described  what  happened  to  us  in our  claim's  atory  without  any
distortion or exaggeration. But what happened to us in the immigration
     courtroom and between and after our 2 hearings is just incredible...

     Why We Think Our Human Rights Were Violated By the Court?

     Inside The Courtroom:

     1)Some of the main documentary proofs (statements, affidavits, letters,
receipts, articles, ect.) were ignored as if they never existed.
     2)Other extremely important documents  were mentioned but  were ignored
(if not - they might be an obstacle to what the judges
     incriminated us). 3) Other documents (including Amnesty International's
confirmation of our complain) were mentioned as incomplete proof
     of particular events, when in reality they  were given to support other
events. In the same time documents which relate to these events were
     ignored. 4) The same  way our words were ignored,  too.  For example, I
was asked an insinuating question. My answer closed that question
     by a clear and unbeatable conterargument. So, what then? Then  the same
insinuation was repeated - but this time in an affirmative form:
     As  if I said nothing. The same question  could be given  2, 3, 5 times
non-stop. If I gave the same answer again and again they shouted on
     me, used threats,  aggression, incredible accusations to  force  me  to
change my answer. It's clear that such a method violates moral and
     legal  norms - and any hesitation by a refugee  claimant  under such an
illegal psychological pressure can not be taken into consideration. 5)
     Too often  they  questioned us  giving  us no rights  to response. They
shuted us down replacing our eventual answer by their own - and later
     based their conclusions not on our  answers  but on their own statement
posing it as our - not their - words. 6) It was repeated again and
     again that they doubt about our rights to appeal (for a refugee status)
because our actions (when we were in Israel) weren't a good
     solution. As examples of "good solutions" were mentioned:  A demolition
of our family, a criminal offense - and so on! 7) Several times the
     bord  members  expressed their dissaproval by the norms of democracy or
by my aproval of the democracy laws. It is absolutely clear that our
     case was treated  not  according to Canadians laws but according to the
rules and norms of Israel since - in the judges' eyes - we belong not
     to Canadien but to Israeli jurisdiction. This position -  neither being
ordered to the bord or being the product of the board itself - made the
     courtroom  a  part  of  Israel's  territory.  8)The  procedure  of  our
immigration  hearing  wasn't  an  investigation  in  our  case  but  a  pure
pro-Israel's
     propaganda. It's goal wasn't to  detect whether  or not  our claim  for
refugee status is justified but to defend the image of Israel as a "good"
     country in an imprudent and  abusing form. The depersonalization of our
claim was done in an extreme form ignoring our personal history.
     So the only criteria chosen to support the bord's point of view was the
very fact that we came from Israel. But the only admissible attitude to
     refugees is to base the  decision  on what happened to them personally,
not on which country they flied. 9)The members of the board
     expressed  their detestation of the human rights  defense  and verbally
denied (directly or indirectly) a number of recognized human rights.
     10)Sending  requests to  Israeli  embassy and demanding  some  definite
information about us, the immigration officer violated another moral
     and judicial principle:  Not to announce his claim to the government of
a country a refugee claimant escaped from. 11)Reading Amnesty
     International's and other reports the immigration officer distorted and
sometimes falsified the documents. 12) Documents submitted by the
     Israeli  government,  by  it's  dependents  or  by  it's  embassy  were
considered as absolutely reliable and were voluntarily represented by the
     tribunal  as  non-debatable.  In  the  same  time  documents that  were
represented by our lawyer (or our documents) - newspapers, statements,
     declarations,  and  so  on  -  weren't  treated  as  equal  to  Israeli
propaganda papers. More then that: At least our documents were completely
     ignored: As if they never  existed. In the  same time the documentation
presented by Israeli government can't be treated as an arbitrary
     source: Because Israel is involved. Meanwhile a number of our documents
may be considered as more objective and independent. 13) The
     immigration officer used 1) an open lie  2) threats  3) desinformation;
4) expressed an unexplained malicious anger towards us; 5) claimed
     one  thing  to defend her position  during our hearing and claimed  the
contrary during the hearing in G. family case (our cases are related,
     and G.  was called as a witness  to  our second  hearing); 6) she  lied
about what I said, about what she previously said , about what was said
     about the situation in Israel and so on; 7) her behavier towards us and
G. family was so incredibly agressive as if she had a personal reason
     to punish  us,  or to exterminate us.  14) A  'yes" or  "no" answer was
demanded in situations when it was clear that such an answer is
     absolutely  impossible.  Demanding  "yes"  or  "no"  answer  only  they
justified their decision not let us speak. 15) Despite our son's mental
     illness  and  the  evidence  that he  can not be  asked the immigration
officer asked him various questions in an aggressive manner. We
     understood that questions which she  asked him were nothing more then a
pure humiliation. 16) Requests which the immigration officer has
     submitted to Israel weren't justified or necessary.

     Outside The Courtroom:
     1) Our lawyer's translator did our  story translation in an provocative
and humiliated manner. She has chosen the declarative style instead of
     a  description  intentionally: to make  our story sound ridiculous. She
also sabotaged G.'s family story. When they came to Montreal G. put
     everything  that  happened to his family in  Israel in writing and gave
that piece of paper to the translator. She sabotaged the translation
     distorting the sense of  his story,  inserting her  own  inventions and
sentences which sounded like provocations. He demanded a translation
     back to Russian from her French version , and she did it. She wrote  it
by her own hand. That manuscript is quite different from her French
     version. So, she did it to smoothen the distortions  and to prevent  G.
from complaining. We have also other proofs of her sabotage. 2) She
     sabotaged the translations of newspaper's  articles as  well. From  one
hand she exaggerated a number of descriptions of persecutions
     against  Russian-speaking people "to do us  a favor" (We think her goal
was to discredit these ar