Hezbollah Lawyers’ Association Expresses Concern Over Decision Regarding Offensive “LBC” Segment
By Staff
Statement issued by the Hezbollah Lawyers’ Association regarding the decision of the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation concerning the segment aired by LBCI deemed offensive to Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem:
The Hezbollah Lawyers’ Association expresses surprise at the decision issued by the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation, which described the resistance’s weapons as “uncontrolled weapons” in violation of a Cabinet decision that stripped them of their legitimacy and legality.
The association stresses that resistance against occupation is a natural right guaranteed by international conventions and norms, and is enshrined in the Lebanese Constitution, which supersedes legislation and government decisions.
How could the judge overlook legal texts of constitutional value that legitimize the resistance and its weapons in confronting occupation- foremost among them Paragraph (B) of the Constitution’s preamble, which refers to the Arab League charters, including Article 2 of the 1998 Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism, which states that “all forms of struggle, including armed struggle against foreign occupation and aggression for the sake of liberation and self-determination, shall not be considered crimes,” as well as Article 2 of the 2004 Arab Charter on Human Rights, which states that Zionism constitutes a challenge to human dignity and that peoples have the right to resist it and resist occupation?
How could the judge disregard the legal hierarchy principle, under which the Constitution and international legal charters take precedence over any legislation or government decision?
The Public Prosecutor had rushed to issue his decision based on political reasoning that reflected his own personal alignment with the political authorities, rather than adherence to the Constitution and the law, thereby putting his impartiality into question on the very first day of carrying out his new duties.
The Lawyers’ Association also confirms that a government which negotiates with its enemy while that enemy is committing crimes against its people amounting to genocide, and simultaneously attempts to strip the people of their right to resist, is itself the one losing its legitimacy and legal standing. This could also apply to state institutions if they allow themselves to become tools against their own people instead of protecting them from abuse.
The association also expresses surprise at the decision to dismiss the case against LBCI, which classified the offensive video as falling under freedom of opinion and expression, describing the justification as lacking objectivity.
Article 6 of the Lebanese Code of Criminal Procedure clearly states that the Public Prosecution represents the public interest case and cannot waive it. Therefore, the Public Prosecution’s role is not to issue judicial rulings in place of investigative judges or trial courts.
Hate speech and incitement cannot be measured according to a judge’s personal feelings or opinions, but rather according to the clear intent to offend shown by the party that published the video—particularly by dressing birds in clerical attire—as well as by the actual consequences that followed in the form of reactions and counter-reactions, which intensified again after the Public Prosecutor’s decision to close the file.
Following the Public Prosecutor’s line of reasoning would mean that dressing any animal symbolizing loyalty, for example, in the attire of clerics, judges, or lawyers would not be considered insulting if the intention were to emphasize loyalty. Such logic could open the door to escalating mutual insults that spare no religious, judicial, or professional symbol, potentially fueling internal strife, undermining national unity, and serving the enemy’s objectives.
In addition, applying double standards compromises neutrality, undermines judicial independence, and constitutes dangerous conduct harmful to the judiciary’s reputation.
We call on the Higher Judicial Council and the Judicial Inspection Authority to uphold their national responsibilities in preserving civil peace and coexistence, and to safeguard the independence of the judiciary from political interference or political subservience.
