SYDNEY: Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong said on Saturday the long-running case of imprisoned Wikileaks founder Julian Assange had gone on too long and needs to be completed.
Assange, an Australian citizen being held in Britain, is battling extradition to the United States, where he is wanted on 18 charges over the release of confidential US military records and diplomatic cables in 2010.
At a press conference in Brisbane after an Australia-US meeting, Wong said Canberra had made it clear that “Mr. Assange’s case has dragged for too long, and our desire that it be brought to a conclusion.”
Speaking alongside Defense Minister Richard Marles, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, said representations had been made on behalf of Assange in public and private but there were limits on what could be done until his legal proceedings concluded.
“I understand that Mr. Assange has filed a renewal of appeal application in the UK. The Australian government is not party to these legal proceedings, nor can we intervene,” she said.
Blinken confirmed that Assange’s case had been raised in the bilateral talks, saying he understood the views of Australians on the sensitive issue. “Mr. Assange was charged with very serious criminal conduct in the United States in connection with his alleged role in one of the largest compromises of classified information in the history of our country,” Blinken told the press conference.
“The actions that he has alleged to have committed risk very serious harm to our national security.”
Australia is backing a drive for Assange’s release ahead of his possible extradition to the US. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in May he was “frustrated” over the ongoing detention.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s case has ‘dragged on for too long’, Australia’s Wong says
https://arab.news/p5te2
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s case has ‘dragged on for too long’, Australia’s Wong says
- Wikileaks founder is battling extradition to the US where he is wanted on 18 charges over the release of confidential US military records and diplomatic cables in 2010
Lebanon’s official media scale back Hezbollah coverage after Cabinet ban
- Information Minister Paul Morcos instructs outlets to comply with government decision
- Journalists, social media urged to avoid content that could provoke hate speech, incitement
BEIRUT: Lebanon has begun implementing a Cabinet decision taken earlier this month to ban Hezbollah’s security and military activities by scaling back coverage of the group on official media platforms.
The measure, which was described in political circles as a significant and bold step, came after decades during which news about the party and the speeches of its leaders were published verbatim and broadcast live through official media outlets, like the state-run National News Agency, TV station Tele Liban and Radio Lebanon.
“No one is imposing censorship,” an official source told Arab News.
“Rather, there is a commitment to the decisions of the state. It is no longer possible for a speech that attacks the Lebanese government and the state to be published through its official media outlets.”
Information Minister Paul Morcos issued a circular instructing directors of official media outlets to comply with the government’s decision to ban the broadcast of speeches or statements by Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem and statements issued by the group’s armed wing, particularly when they contain criticism of the state.
Morcos also ordered that Hezbollah statements be handled in the same manner as those issued by other political parties, meaning they should not be published verbatim. He further instructed media outlets to avoid using the term “Islamic resistance,” except when it appears directly within Hezbollah statements.
The first manifestations of the decision were Tele Liban’s abstention from live broadcasting a speech by Qassem and a statement made on Tuesday by lawmaker Mohammed Raad, who heads the Hezbollah parliamentary bloc.
The group’s supporters described the move as an attempt “to restrict the resistance, Hezbollah and its leadership in the official media.”
Some argued on social media that preventing the use of terms like “resistance” or “holy warriors (Mujahedin)” and replacing them with expressions such as “Hezbollah” and “fighters” was “aimed at brainwashing and stripping the party of its resistance identity.”
During a Cabinet session on Thursday, Morcos raised the issue of content circulating on social media that incites murder and sectarian strife. This comes against the backdrop of the war that Hezbollah waged from Lebanon against Israel on March 2, without state approval, which led to a sharp division in Lebanese public opinion.
Morcos, who is also Cabinet spokesperson, said after the session that what was being published “exceeds the bounds of freedom of opinion, the press and expression.”
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam considered it to fall under the penal code, specifically regarding crimes that harm national unity, he said, and that “we are against strife in all its forms.”
Morcos also urged journalists, influencers and social media users to remain aware of the sensitivity of the current situation and to avoid content that could provoke strife, hate speech or incitement.
He acknowledged, however, that, according to a legal study, he has no authority over social media, even on media-related matters.
“The Ministry of Information does not exercise a guardianship role and lacks judicial police powers,” he said.
“These authorities rest with the public prosecution offices, which are overseen by the minister of justice and fall within the domain of criminal law and criminal prosecution.”
The ban was agreed during a Cabinet session on March 2, after Hezbollah launched six rockets from Lebanese territory toward northern Israel, the first such attack since the November 2024 ceasefire, prompting retaliatory strikes.
The Cabinet reaffirmed that “the decision of war and peace rests exclusively with the Lebanese state and its constitutional institutions,” and called on Hezbollah to hand over its weapons to the state while limiting its role to political activity within the legal and constitutional framework.
