IGLHRC Announces 2008 Felipa de Souza Award Winners

Date: March 4, 2008

For Immediate Release
Contact: Hossein Alizadeh, IGLHRC Communications Coordinator, 212-430-6016
Sarah Tobias, IGLHRC Communications and Research Manager, 212-430-6034

(New York, NY, March 4, 2008) - The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) announced today that it would award its 2008 Felipa de Souza Award to two outstanding nominees—the Iranian Queer Organization (IRQO) and Chilean trans activist Andrés Ignacio Rivera Duarte. IGLHRC’s Felipa Award recognizes the courage and effectiveness of groups or leaders dedicated to improving the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex (LGBTI) and other individuals stigmatized and abused because of their sexuality or HIV status. Each award winner will receive a $5,000 stipend. The awards will be presented at a special ceremony in New York on April 28, 2008.

“We are so honored this year to be able present this award to two extraordinarily powerful voices for LGBTI human rights,” said Paula Ettelbrick, IGLHRC’s executive director. “IRQO provides absolutely vital assistance for lesbian and gay Iranians fleeing the threat of death in their home country, literally helping to save and rebuild countless lives and Andrés Rivera has been an enormously courageous pioneer for the rights of trans people in Chile. It is truly our pleasure to honor all that these remarkable activists have done to promote human rights and dignity for LGBTI people.”

In 2005, Andrés Ignacio Rivera Duarte, a trans man, founded Organización de Transexuales por la Dignidad de la Diversidad, the first NGO in Chile dedicated to fighting for trans people’s rights, which he currently heads. He has worked with government and the local health system to facilitate the evaluation, treatment and surgery of trans people, and organized the first Rancagua debate on the Civil Union Pact. But his work is not just with high-level officials; he also provides direct support to sex workers—visiting them nightly to distribute coffee, food and information about HIV/AIDS. Himself the victim of employment discrimination, he fought a landmark lawsuit, bringing issues of gender identity into the public view, finally winning the right for trans people to legally change their name and sex in 2007.

Founded in 2001 as the Rainbow Group, and known as the Persian Gay and Lesbian Organization until 2006, IRQO serves as the representative of thousands of Iranian queers, giving visibility to a population the Iranian government is aggressively trying to silence. Based in Toronto, Canada, with members working out of Europe and Iran, IRQO has played a key role in documenting LGBT rights violations in Iran and in mobilizing public opinion to pressure Iranian authorities to end the inhumane treatment of sexual minorities. The organization also helps gay and lesbian refugees around the world to fight deportation orders that would return them to Iran—where they could face torture or the death penalty—and helps them obtain asylum in friendly countries. IRQO strives to increase the self-esteem of Iranian queers by offering phone counseling inside Iran and raising awareness of homosexuality in the Persian-speaking media.

“We are thrilled that the international community has come to acknowledge the LGBT rights struggle in Iran,” said Arsham Parsi, IRQO’s executive director. “We can no longer claim that no one cares about our plight. This is not an award just for IRQO. We accept this award on behalf of all Iranian queers who have been long fighting for their basic human rights. The stipend will allow IRQO to continue its campaign for human rights and to challenge homophobia in Iran.”

“I receive this award with humility and honor,” said Andrés Rivera. “On behalf of murdered trans people, of those who fight to build a more egalitarian and fair world, and of those trans people who day-by-day live with the pain of not being considered human beings.”

Nominations for the Felipa Award are solicited each year from activists around the world. Nominees go through a rigorous review by the staff, board and the International Advisory Committee of IGLHRC. The award embodies the spirit of Felipa de Souza, who endured persecution and brutality after proudly declaring her intimacy with a woman during a 16th Century inquisition trial in Brazil.

 

Previous Felipa Award winners include: the Blue Diamond Society (BDS) of Nepal; Rauda Morcos, founder of ASWAT (Voices) the first group for Palestinian lesbians; Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe (GALZ), the first organization to push for the human rights of LGBT people in Zimbabwean society and to provide counseling services and HIV/AIDS prevention campaigns; Simon Tseko Nikoli, the famed LGBT/HIV activist from South Africa; Jamaica Forum for Lesbians, All-Sexuals and Gays, whose leader Brian Williamson was murdered in 2004; Lohana Berkins, a globally recognized transgender activist from Argentina; and Maher Sabry, the Egyptian activist who notified IGLHRC of the arrests of the Cairo 52, a group of 52 men who were arrested by the Egyptian police at a Cairo gay nightclub in 2001.
For more information regarding IGLHRC’s Felipa de Souza Award and its A Celebration of Courage events, visit: www.iglhrc.org

http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/section.php?id=5&detail=835

A Seminar on the Impediments to the Observance and Promotion of Human Rights in Iran

Iranian Society for Human Rights

Peace, Justice and Dignity for All

June 20 – 22, 2008 San Jose, CA, City Hall

Mehrangiz Kar, Dr. Karim Lahiji, Dr. Mansour Farhang, Dr. Reza Afshari, Dr. Ahmad Karimi Hakak, Dr. Nahid Mozafari, Dr. Jale Pirnazar, Elahe Amani, Fariba Davodi Mohajer, Parastu Foruhar, Monire Baradaran, Iraj Mesdaghi, Dr. Hadi Ghaemi, Bahare Monshi Rudsari, Mehdi Kuhestani, Dr. Antoni Chis, Neda Shahid Yazdi, Mohamadreza Moeini, Dr. Alireza Azizi, Dr. Soheila Vahdati, Araz Fani, Arsham Parsi, Hossein Mahutiha, Dr. Kaveh Ehsani.

In the past four decades, dissident Iranians, both inside and outside the country, have exposed violations of human rights in Iran, calling for international attention to the Iranian states’ abuses of power. In recent years, such activities have been expanded and defense of human rights has gained unprecedented urgency among dissident Iranians. While this development is encouraging, the number of Iranians engaged in such activities in a sustained manner remains small and those who are involved rarely go beyond condemning the state authorities for committing illegal and cruel acts. There is an impressive body of scholarly studies about the human rights situation in Iran, but few Diaspora Iranians are familiar with these works or have done much to support or praise their authors. Similarly, the bulk of the documented reports about human rights violations in Iran have been produced by international human rights organizations with little material assistance from Iranians.

Iranian Society for Human Rights in Northern California plans to organize a seminar in order to generate an inclusive and non-partisan discussion among interested Iranians on the problems and challenges facing human rights activists in Iran.

The idea of a non-partisan struggle for human rights or democracy is very new to our political culture. While recognizing that non-partisanship is not opposed to or a substitute for partisanship, the proposed seminar will explain the central role of non-partisan agents and agencies in promoting a culture commensurate with the idea of human rights. It is true of course that there can be no struggle for human rights or democracy in a country without partisan politics or competing social agendas.  It is equally important, at the same time, that non-partisan defense of human rights should transcend all partisanship. Leaders of political groupings or parties can also be non-partisan defenders and promoters of human rights and democracy. An open society needs human and civil rights associations whose goals, strategies and tactics are strictly non-partisan.

The proposed seminar intends to go beyond routine condemnations of the Iranian state and devote some attention to human rights deficits in the context of Iran’s history, culture and society. To be sure, when defending victims of human rights abuses in the political realm, or critiquing prejudicial state policies, our activities must be directed at the institutions of the regime and public officials. But when it comes to promoting a culture of human rights or debunking the traditional taboos and discriminatory practices rooted in the culture, we need to observe and advocate a self-critical approach as well. We need to recognize that cultures embody values of identity and solidarity, as well as practices that perpetuate privilege and exclusion.

We need to take our discourse of human rights beyond concerns about state behavior and begin to view the challenges facing us from cultural and historical perspectives. Failure to appreciate the diversity and pluralism of Iranian society is not limited to holders of political power; it even permeates the discourse and behavior of many dissident elements of our people, and we need to counter this reality in a systematic fashion. It is of course heartening that conversations on human rights have become routine among educated Iranians, even though clerical despotism has made it extremely difficult for them to transform their vision into a sustained project. Diaspora Iranians now have the opportunity to do so and the Internet has made it possible for them to do it in constant contact with like-minded Iranians inside the country.

Iranian Society for Human Rights in Northern California(1) will soon begin a fund raising drive and preparation for the seminar. The seminar will be held on June 20-22, 2008 and it will take place in San Jose, California.

The general topics to be considered for the seminar’s discussions are the followings:

1-      The concept of non-partisan human rights activism ‎

2-      Socio-cultural impediments to the cultivation of respect for human rights

3-      Women’s struggle for human rights

4-      Torture and capital punishment in Iran’s judicial system

5-      Secular laws, religious values and human rights

6-      Child labor, juvenile execution and human rights

7-      Popular attitudes concerning torture or death penalty for convicted criminals

8-      Rights of citizens and religious, ethnic and sexual minorities

9-      Work, poverty and human rights

10-    Institutionalization of human rights activism

11-    Human rights issues, national foreign policy and international organizations

12-    Environmental politics and human rights

13-    Respect for human rights among opposition groups

14-    Human rights in Persian literature

These topics reflect the general issues and challenges facing Iran’s human rights movement and each one of them can be the basis of some specific questions that concern the activists, scholars or analysts. We invite all individuals interested in participating in this seminar to e-mail us a brief abstract of an issue or question that they wish to address in a 10-15 page essay or research paper. We particularly appeal to those working in social sciences, literature, arts and humanities, as well as activists and journalists to consider our invitation (presenting a paper or participating in panel discussions) and send us their suggestions for elevating the quality of the seminar and making it a learning and inspiring experience for all. In anticipation of such a gathering, we hope to receive encouraging responses from interested Iranians so that we can begin to organize the presentations and panel discussions and establish contact with potential participants.

Please e-mail us at: koshesh@aol.com

---------------------

1- Iranian Society for Human Rights was established in 2003 by a group of Iranians committed to the sanctity and advancement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related United Nations Human Rights Conventions. In the past four years, the Society has been active in defending and promoting human rights principals by organizing lectures, protests, petition drive and appealing to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and other international human rights organizations. The Society has also responded to numerous international calls for action in support of prisoners of conscience and other victims of human rights abuse, as well as the rights of women, workers and ethnic, religious and sexual minorities. Iranian Society for Human Rights is registered as a non-profit organization in the state of California.

Mission:

IS4HR is a non- profit, non- partisan and non-governmental Human Rights group working to promote and provide a better understanding of the rights defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all other international covenants. IS4HR is a network of Iranian-Americans committed to strengthening advocacy on human rights issues in Iran. IS4HR believes that building respect for human rights law will ensure that individuals are treated with dignity and will thus curtail tyranny, extremism, intolerance, and violence. We believe that every individual has the right to live in peace and with justice and dignity. In order to maintain our independence, we accept no government funding.

The issue is torture
When talking about Iranian asylum seekers, activists should be careful not to play the Home Office's game
Scott Long
March 31, 2008

Anyone who has spent, as I have, long hours over two years listening to Iranian tales of torture would know just how the controversy over Mehdi Kazemi's asylum claim misses the point.

George Galloway says gays are not executed in Iran, just rapists. Peter Tatchell says Galloway spouts "Iranian propaganda". Neither gets at the gist of Mehdi's case, or of Britain's broken obligations with regard to torture under international law.

Let's start with the facts.

Homosexual conduct in Iran can get you the death penalty. Penetrative sex acts between men can bring death on the first conviction; non-penetrative activity, up to 100 lashes. Women earn floggings on the first three convictions; four strikes and you die.
Iran's penal code requires four reiterated confessions, or the eyewitness testimony of four "righteous men", to prove lavat, or sodomy. Yet judges are allowed to guess and infer. Moreover, police helpfully provide the witnesses: raiding a party in Isfahan in May 2007, they brought along four men, presumably righteous, to watch.

Torturing and killing gays is legal in Iran: you don't need to view the bodies to prove it. International law bars Britain from returning people to the risk of torture. Britain must give gay Iranians asylum.

Yet despite this clarity, confusion hangs over the situation in Iran. Some activists, trying sincerely to help Mehdi, are helping the British government off the hook.

Peter Tatchell is wrong to assert, without real evidence, that gay men are routinely hanged in public; that mass "pogroms" have led to mass executions in recent years; or that fake rape charges are regularly tacked on to charges of consensual homosexual acts. Nor should anyone's asylum case hinge on such claims. The last documented death sentences for consensual homosexual conduct in Iran were handed down in March 2005. It is not known whether they were carried out. Ramping up the allegations means accepting the government's exaggerated standards of proof. And it can backfire - against people in Iran.

Europe and the US have seen a public campaign in recent years to identify executions - often random ones - in Iran as killings of gay men. Pictures of the horrific public hanging in Mashhad in 2005 of Ayaz Marhoni and Mahmoud Asgari - convicted, in all likelihood, of the rape of a 13-year-old boy while both were minors - spread virally round the world like a postmodern Pieta. Monstrous, yes: but there is no conclusive evidence that they were gay or that consensual homosexual acts had anything to do with their judicial killing. In the months after that, campaigners in the US and Europe repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that hangings for rape in Iran were actually a "pogrom" against gay men. One US paper claimed four men were hanged for "being gay". They turned out to have been convicted of the rape of a woman and three girls - 10, 7, and 8 years old.

Such mistakes can have dire consequences. In November 2007 in Kermanshah, Makwan Mouloudzadeh, 20, faced the death penalty on false charges of raping several boys seven years before. His accusers retracted their claims. No evidence suggested he had committed any crime under Iranian law.

However, European activists wildly seized on him as another "gay" victim. They organised a mass petition to Ahmadinejad for mercy for "the young Iranian gay". Their pleas sent an inadvertent message: Makwan was innocent of one capital crime, but Europe believed him guilty of another. On December 5, Makwan Mouloudzadeh, probably neither gay nor a rapist, went to the gallows.

Why so much confusion? Why the need to find "gay" victims, even when it endangers a man already on death row?

Emotion makes discussion difficult. People asking what the evidence really is are likely to be called "apologists for Iran". Britain's slammed asylum door indeed breeds desperation. It's crucial to remember, though, that the reason asylum authorities seek pretexts to reject gay Muslims isn't "Iranian propaganda": it's home-grown propaganda stoking fears of Muslim immigration. Activists must combat racism in Britain, not just repression in Iran.

The most cogent answer, though, shows the failure at the heart of Britain's policies on asylum - and torture. Home Office minister Lord West said of Mehdi: "We are not aware of any individual who has been executed in Iran in recent years solely on the grounds of homosexuality. And we don't consider there was systematic persecution of gay men in Iran."

In other words: no execution, no persecution. If you aren't dead, you're OK. This is a disastrous evasion of the UK's responsibilities under international law.

Human Rights Watch has shown how Britain tries to redefine its obligations on torture, so it can send people back to states where they face grave risk. Usually it happens in the context of counterterrorism. But with gay Iranians, too, the government aims to change the rules, denying that legal torture is "persecution".

The UK should recognise - as the Netherlands has done - that with a law prescribing death or torture for gay Iranians, they need not demonstrate the details of past persecution. Lift the burden of proof from Mehdi and his gay compatriots. End the threat of deportation.

Activists, though, must avoid playing the government's torturous game. Don't let the Home Office define torture down till a corpse on a gallows is the only proof that counts. Hold Britain to its real obligations. Otherwise, it will remain complicit in persecution.

Scott Long
Director, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program
Human Rights Watch
Tel +1 212.216.1297
E-mail longs@hrw.org

Private Homes Raided for ‘Immorality’ (March 28, 08)

Human Rights Watch

For Immediate Release
Iran: Private Homes Raided for ‘Immorality’
Authorities Escalate Arbitrary Arrests, Harassment

(New York, March 28, 2008) – The arrest of more than 30 men attending a party in a private home in the city of Esfahan signals renewed efforts by Iranian authorities to enforce “morality” codes, and highlights the fragility of basic rights in a country where police powers routinely undermine privacy, Human Rights Watch said today.
 It urged Iranian authorities to release the men reportedly arrested in late February, and to drop charges against people accused of consensual homosexual conduct, drinking alcohol, and other related “morals” offenses.
“When police routinely break down doors to enforce a brand of morality, it means a line has been crossed to invade people’s privacy at any time,” said Joe Stork, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Iran’s repressive system of controlling people’s dress, behavior, and personal lives violates fundamental rights.”
Sources inside Iran report to Human Rights Watch that on February 28-29, police in Esfahan raided a private home and arrested 30 or more men attending a party. They have been jailed for almost four weeks without access to lawyers and without charge. Police reportedly referred them to a forensic medical examiner to look for “evidence” that they have engaged in homosexual conduct.
In May 2007, during a nationwide crackdown to enforce dress codes and conduct, police raided another private party in an apartment building in Esfahan. They arrested 87 persons, including four women and at least eight people whom they accused of wearing the clothing of the opposite sex. Victims told Human Rights Watch that police stripped many of them to the waist in the street, and beat them until their backs or faces were bloody. Several reportedly had bones broken.
Of those arrested, 24 men were tried for “facilitating immorality and sexual misconduct,” as well as possessing and drinking alcohol. In June 2007, an Esfahan court found all of them guilty of various combinations of these charges. Most were sentenced to up to 80 lashes and to fines of 10 million to 50 million riyals (US$1,000-5,000). The verdicts are under appeal and have not yet been enforced.
Sources in Iran have told Human Rights Watch that since the May 2007 arrests, police have intensified surveillance, harassment, and abuse against people connected to the 87 arrested men, or otherwise suspected of homosexual conduct. Several described being detained by police and interrogated to reveal contacts.
According to one man’s account, police “poured water over me. … They threatened me, they said ‘cooperate with us.’ … They are after everyone, they said, ‘You are completing your gang, you are creating new members, where do you gather?’” They told me, ‘Go out and meet people.’ In essence, I should spy for them.”
Human Rights Watch learned that in December 2007 at another private gathering in Esfahan, police arrested 16 more people, subjecting them to forensic examinations.  Authorities released them after four days in detention.
Other reports indicate that in March 2008, Esfahan police entrapped several men over the internet by answering personal advertisements, and interrogated them to reveal the names of friends and contacts. Police found erotic pictures of men on another man’s mobile phone after arresting him, and a court reportedly sentenced him to three years of imprisonment.
Iranian law provides punishments up to death for penetrative same-sex sexual activity between men on the first conviction, and punishes non-penetrative activity with up to 100 lashes. Homosexual conduct between women is punishable with death on the fourth conviction. Iran’s Penal Code requires four reiterated confessions, or the testimony of four “righteous men” as eyewitnesses, to prove lavat, or sodomy. However, judges are permitted to accept circumstantial evidence or inference. At the May 2007 raid in Esfahan, police reportedly brought four civilian witnesses to prove that “immorality” was taking place.
The last documented death sentences for consensual homosexual conduct in Iran were handed down in March 2005. It is not known whether they were carried out. In extensive interviews with men and women inside and outside Iran, Human Rights Watch has documented widespread patterns of arbitrary arrest and torture based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Western sources have suggested that charges of consensual homosexual conduct are converted to charges of rape in the Iranian judicial system, but Human Rights Watch has found no evidence of this.
“In Iran, for some people, the spy at the bedroom window or the knock at the door can mean the threat of a death sentence,” said Stork. “Privacy, freedom from arbitrary arrest, and freedom from torture are human rights. Police and judges must respect them.”


For more of Human Rights Watch’s work on Iran, please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=mideast&c=iran
For more information, please contact:
In New York, Scott Long: +1-646-641-5655 (mobile)

Free to Be! 3

Peter Pernier

Same Sex Marriage and Canadian Immigration

Marriage exists in most religions, cultures and countries in the world. There are many different ceremonies, rights and responsibilities, religious or legal restrictions and recognition, etc. around the world. Until fairly recently no country legally recognized marriage between two persons of the same sex. This has changed, starting with the Netherlands. Now there are five countries (and one state in the USA) where same sex marriages are legally valid and offer essentially the same rights and responsibilities as opposite sex marriages.

In Canada marriage is defined by the federal government but administered by the provincial governments. The process toward legal same sex marriages was started by same sex couples who wanted to marry taking provincial governments to court, and winning! The first province to be forced by the Courts to recognize same sex marriages was on June 10 2003 in Ontario where almost 40% of the population of Canada lives. The courts in province after province fell into line until eventually the Federal government passed a new Marriage Act that defined marriage as being between two persons.

The current immigration law and regulations, though written before these changes to marriage in Canada, were written to be gender neutral. There are no references to husband, wife, male, female, etc. It is not stated, but understood, that immigration recognizes legal Canadian marriages; for non-Canadian marriages the immigration regulations state: “’Marriage’, in respect of a marriage that took place outside of Canada, means a marriage that is valid both under the laws of the jurisdiction where it took place and under Canadian law.” As you note there is no mention of sex at all in this definition.

However, in the policy manuals they did talk about opposite sex only. This was reasonable while Canada did not have legal same sex marriage. When same sex marriage started to be recognized in province after province it took almost a year before CIC (Citizenship and Immigration Canada) added an “Interim Policy” to the manual on sponsoring spouses that recognized legal Canadian same sex marriages for Family Class purposes only. This meant that even legal Canadian same sex marriages were not recognized in Economic Class applications, for refugee claimants and all other areas of immigration. I spoke to several successive Directors of Social Policy (the section responsible for this) and was given several dubious explanations of the reasons why they could not recognize these legal Canadian marriages or legal foreign same sex marriages.

You would think that this would be solved when the Federal government of Canada finally enacted a marriage law that equalized opposite sex and same sex marriage for all of Canada on July 19 2005. You would be wrong. They kept the same “Interim Policy” in place. It was only December 18^th 2006 that the Director of Social Policy issued a directive that stated all legally valid same sex marriages, currently meaning those performed in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa and the State of Massachusetts USA, would be recognized for all Canadian immigration purposes. Unfortunately the “Interim Policy” in the manual has not been changed as of December 2007. This means that some visa officers will still enforce it if they are unaware of the

Dec 18^th 2006 directive.

Just as an aside, in late November 2006, I was at an immigration conference seated at a VIP table next to the Director of Social Policy and over the afternoon I questioned him and complained about this violation of the law and discrimination on same sex marriages. That the directive was issued about three weeks later may be coincidence as I know others were also complaining about this, but I like to think I had some influence.

So now all legally vali same sex marriages are recognized by Canadian immigration. We have to go back to the definition for a moment. The marriage must be valid where it occurred; this means both partners must meet all restrictions and requirements of the country where the marriage was performed. For instance many countries where same sex marriages are performed have residency requirements. The marriage is not valid if you do not meet these requirements. The other half of the definition requires that the marriage would be valid if it occurred in Canada. For instance siblings by adoption cannot get married in Canada, though there may be some countries where they can.

point that may be of interest to those who have had gender reassignment surgery is that immigration looks only at your birth sex when considering the validity of a marriage. They do not consider subsequent changes made to legal documents.

Beyond the countries I mentioned earlier there are many that have some form of legal recognition of same sex relationships such as Germany and Britain. People often refer to these civil unions as “marriage”. They are not recognized as marriage by Canada as they are not the same as opposite sex marriages in these countries.

A question I often hear is “can we get married at a Canadian Embassy?” The answer, unfortunately, is usually no. The reason is that marriages performed at a Canadian Embassy or High Commission are performed under the laws of the country where the Embassy or High Commission is located, not Canadian law.

Canadian immigration recognizes all legally valid same sex marriages for all Canadian immigration purposes. It does not matter if the country of your nationality or the one you are living in does or does not recognize your same sex marriage, you MUST declare and include your same sex spouse in any Canadian immigration application you make. It is not an option, it is an absolute requirement.

If you wish, you can look at the policy manuals that visa officers use to process applications at http://cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/index.asp. The particular one that covers marriage is at http://cic.gc.ca/english/resources/manuals/op/op02e.pdf. The pertinent sections on marriages are 5.27 to 5.32 and 5.40 and 5.41.

I look forward to your suggestions for column topics; please let me know what topics you need to hear about in a future column. You can send suggestions to me at Cheraq@gayimmigration.ca. Next month the topic of my column is an overview of common-law relationships in Canadian immigration. You may find that you qualify as a

CIC recently updated their information on verifying that a particular person can represent you on your immigration application. The page is at http://cic.gc.ca/english/information/representative/verify-rep.asp. Remember that if you pay someone to assist you on your application and/or represent you to CIC they must be a Canadian lawyer or member of CSIC.  You may deal with the local agent of one of these accredited people but remember that the agent is not permitted to advise you. See: http://cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/notices/notice-reps.asp

مطالب چراغ را همراه با اسم چراغ بازچاپ کنید.