Australian opener Usman Khawaja refuses interview with SEN following decision to sack Peter Lalor
Australian opening batter Usman Khawaja has refused an interview with radio broadcaster SEN after Day 1 of the first Test against West Indies.
Khawaja was scheduled to speak to SEN Radio commentators Adam Collins and Bharat Sundaresan on the field at Kensington Oval on Thursday (AEST).
But the 38-year-old reportedly told the pair he would not be speaking to them once he realised it was for SEN.
The Age reports Khawaja's refusal stems from SEN's decision to sack veteran journalist Peter Lalor in February.
Lalor was axed from SEN's coverage midway through Australia's tour of Sri Lanka due to his social media activity around the Israel-Palestine conflict.
At the time, Khawaja was a vocal supporter of Lalor.
'Standing up for the people of Gaza is not antisemitic nor does it have anything to do with my Jewish brothers and sisters in Australia, but everything to do with the Israeli government and their deplorable actions,' Khawaja posted on Instagram in February.
'It has everything to do with justice and human rights. Unfortunately hatred towards the Jewish and Muslim community will always exist. Pete is a good guy with a good heart. He deserves better.'
Lalor, who is in the West Indies covering the series for Cricket Et Al, released a fresh statement supporting Khawaja.
'Usman is a man of principle whose support I valued greatly when I was dismissed and whose ongoing support I appreciate,' he said in a statement to The Age.
Earlier this year, Lalor explained his dismissal from SEN that came on the final day of the first Test in Galle.
'I was asked by station boss Craig Hutchison, who was civil, if I didn't care that my retweeting of events in Gaza made Jewish people in Melbourne feel unsafe,' he said.
'I said I didn't want anyone to feel unsafe. Of course, I care. I have friends who are frightened and have heard the fear in their voices during conversations. It is an awful situation. But so is Gaza. It was a brief and cordial call.
'The following day Hutchison told me that because the 'sound of my voice made people feel unsafe' and that people are 'triggered by my voice', I could not cover the cricket for them any more.'
Khawaja made a hard-fought 47 on a tough opening day in Bridgetown where 14 wickets fell.
The Aussies were dismissed for a disappointing 180 before ripping through West Indies' top order to leave the hosts 5-74 at stumps.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
41 minutes ago
- The Age
He's still alive – seemingly with 400kg of uranium. What will Iran's supreme leader do next?
The second objective – degrading Iran's military – looks to have been a roaring tactical success, although both the Iranians and Israelis will keep the details of the destruction secret. But it is clear Iran's military has taken a mauling. But the first and most important objective – and the only one shared by the United States – is shrouded in uncertainty. No one seems to know how badly the bombing damaged Iran's enrichment and processing facilities. No one seems to know the location of Iran's 400 kilograms of 60 per cent-enriched uranium – enough for almost a dozen bombs. And nor is it clear that all Iran's nuclear facilities were even known to the Israelis. 'I'm sure they have a hidden place somewhere with some hundreds, if not thousands, of centrifuges, and they have material all there in several places all over Iran,' Sima Shine, a former head of Mossad, Israel's overseas intelligence service, told the London Telegraph. 'They cannot do anything now, tomorrow, but in the future, they have all the capabilities [to build a bomb].' More important of all is political calculus. 'I told you so' For years, hardline Iranian commanders have urged Khamenei to stop procrastinating and just build a damned bomb. No other deterrent, they argued, could protect the regime from American or Israeli attack. Until now, Khamenei has resisted those calls, instead hoping that just the ability to build a bomb could provide a deterrent while avoiding the costs of actually doing so. With the 12-day war proving that theory useless, the weaponeers will now feel vindicated and will push their views even harder in Tehran. 'It's exactly the kind of debate that [they will] have at the Supreme National Security Council in Iran, and the supreme leader will have to decide about it,' says Citrinowicz. 'If you had asked me before this, I would say Khamenei will not, during his lifetime, instruct the scientists to build a nuclear bomb because he understands that the price is too grave. But now they have already paid the price. Do they want to continue to pay future prices? They don't want to be exposed to the mercy of the West.' The backlash Loading In Iran, a backlash against nuclear co-operation with the international community is already under way. The Speaker of Iran's parliament, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf announced on Tuesday that MPs were 'seeking to pass a bill that will suspend Iran's co-operation with the [International Atomic Energy] Agency (IAEA) until we receive concrete assurances of its professional conduct as an international organisation'. Previously, such rhetoric might have been seen as largely theatrical, rather than evidence of imminent intent to weaponise. But 'everything we thought we knew about Iran has been changed by this war,' says Citrinowicz. 'Until the current war, Iran preferred to do everything by its own capabilities,' he says. 'But if they understand that they need something quick, they might change their nuclear strategy regarding that, and prefer to buy a bomb. For example, from North Korea.' The North Korean model North Korea may provide inspiration in other ways. After the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Iran shelved its nuclear weapons programme to avoid a similar fate. Libya's Muammar Gaddafi did the same. But North Korea, the third member of George W. Bush's 'axis of evil' after Iran and Iraq, instead doubled down, and in 2006, tested its first nuclear weapon. The subsequent fates of those regimes have been very different. Gaddafi was killed by an uprising backed by NATO in 2011. Iran has just been bombed comprehensively by Israel and America. From the point of view of regime survival, perhaps Kim Jong-il and his son Kim Jong-un made the right choice. But can Iran replicate its nuclear dash? In many ways, Iran is – or was – well ahead of the North Korean starting point. It has already mastered domestic uranium enrichment and has studied weaponisation. It has a large domestic resource of scientists trained in nuclear physics. And it already has a chunk of highly enriched material to start working with. The North Koreans, by contrast, began by building a plutonium bomb with material bred in an ordinary nuclear reactor – a technology they learnt from the Soviets. That is a complicated, painstaking process that limited them to building one bomb a year. It was only later, with information bought from a corrupt Pakistani scientist, that they mastered uranium enrichment and were able to churn out simpler and quicker to build uranium-based bombs. If Sima Shine is right that the Iranians have managed to preserve some centrifuges, they could spin up their 400 kilograms of 60 per cent enriched material to weapons-grade 90 per cent in just a couple of days. The tricky bit is moulding the fissile material into the right shape and fitting it with an explosive charge and a neutron initiator designed to provoke a chain reaction at just the right moment. Once the mechanism is built, it must be fitted onto a warhead and mounted on a delivery system – in Iran's case, a Shahab-3 liquid-fuelled ballistic missile. Those are fiddly engineering problems, but ones that Iran is known to have already made progress on, says David Albright, a former weapons inspector. 'They have some challenges in finishing up the design and other development steps. So I think six months is what they would need from start to finish' to make the actual weapon, and maybe 'several more months' to mount it on a missile, he told The Telegraph before the American attack on Fordow. 'The weapon-grade uranium part could be done very quickly and probably would be done toward the end of that six months,' he adds. There is another lesson from North Korea, he says. 'The Iranians designed their bomb so that it wouldn't need a nuclear test in order to have assurance it would work. But they may indeed test one if they wanted to assert their nuclear status. Loading 'North Korea did that same kind of programme, and it fired at one-tenth of the expected yield. So you can make a mistake. In the North Korean case, they then saw their mistake and corrected it. The same thing could happen to Iran. That's why I think it takes longer than a couple of months from start to finish on the design. I mean, they have to be careful because things can misfire.' Iran's missile forces have also been decimated by Israeli strikes, so it is unclear how many Shahab missiles they still have, or how quickly they could build more. Israeli officials have claimed the bombing raids set the Iranian nuclear program back by up to two years. But can Khamenei wait that long? North Korea is believed to have sold nuclear weapons technology in the past. Specifically, it provided the technology for the Syrian reactor at Al Kibar that Israel destroyed in 2007. It is the only country known to have done so, says Citrinowicz, making it the logical candidate for the Iranians to approach, especially given both countries' alliance with Russia in Ukraine. Rule nothing out But there is a big problem. All of this would depend on the Iranian nuclear programme remaining so secret that neither Israel nor America could discover it and destroy it. Given the level of intelligence penetration Iran suffered over the past two weeks, there is no guarantee of that. Loading 'I'm not saying this is going to happen, but I'm saying that we have to look outside the box. We have to be ready for the unexpected,' says Citrinowicz. 'Everything that we knew about Iran changed dramatically after our attack. In this situation right now, we cannot rule out anything.' The Telegraph, London
The Age
41 minutes ago
- The Age
Labor's Left backed Trump's strikes on Iran. It's not the only issue they've shifted on
The first Australian minister to endorse US President Donald Trump's decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities over the weekend wasn't the prime minister or foreign minister. It was Social Services Minister Tanya Plibersek, who happened to have the 6.45am breakfast TV slot on Monday. 'We do support the strikes and I know the foreign minister [Penny Wong] is going to be on your program later this morning to go into more detail,' Plibersek said dutifully. The prominent member of Labor's Left was then joined by two of her factional colleagues, Penny Wong and Anthony Albanese, who reinforced the government's decision. It was a far cry from two decades ago, when all three MPs signed a letter to George W. Bush, protesting against the war in Iraq. 'The ALP firmly believes that international conflict should, wherever possible, be dealt with peacefully and through international co-operation under the auspices of the United Nations,' reads the letter, which Plibersek delivered personally to Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, during the president's visit to Australia in 2004. 'When all attempts for a peaceful resolution have been exhausted, United Nations sanction is vital if force is to be used. 'What is to prevent other countries from following the example of our attack on Iraq, and arguing the right to preventive self-defence? Why shouldn't North and South Korea attack each other using the template we developed in Iraq? Or India and Pakistan? 'The precedent we have set is a very dangerous one, and there is every indication that the world will become less safe, not more, because of our actions.' Yet when Albanese endorsed Trump's strike on Iran, without ever saying that the country was on the cusp of producing a nuclear weapon, no one in his parliamentary party publicly complained. Some Left faction MPs contacted by this masthead even refused to grouse privately.
Sydney Morning Herald
41 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
He's still alive – seemingly with 400kg of uranium. What will Iran's supreme leader do next?
The second objective – degrading Iran's military – looks to have been a roaring tactical success, although both the Iranians and Israelis will keep the details of the destruction secret. But it is clear Iran's military has taken a mauling. But the first and most important objective – and the only one shared by the United States – is shrouded in uncertainty. No one seems to know how badly the bombing damaged Iran's enrichment and processing facilities. No one seems to know the location of Iran's 400 kilograms of 60 per cent-enriched uranium – enough for almost a dozen bombs. And nor is it clear that all Iran's nuclear facilities were even known to the Israelis. 'I'm sure they have a hidden place somewhere with some hundreds, if not thousands, of centrifuges, and they have material all there in several places all over Iran,' Sima Shine, a former head of Mossad, Israel's overseas intelligence service, told the London Telegraph. 'They cannot do anything now, tomorrow, but in the future, they have all the capabilities [to build a bomb].' More important of all is political calculus. 'I told you so' For years, hardline Iranian commanders have urged Khamenei to stop procrastinating and just build a damned bomb. No other deterrent, they argued, could protect the regime from American or Israeli attack. Until now, Khamenei has resisted those calls, instead hoping that just the ability to build a bomb could provide a deterrent while avoiding the costs of actually doing so. With the 12-day war proving that theory useless, the weaponeers will now feel vindicated and will push their views even harder in Tehran. 'It's exactly the kind of debate that [they will] have at the Supreme National Security Council in Iran, and the supreme leader will have to decide about it,' says Citrinowicz. 'If you had asked me before this, I would say Khamenei will not, during his lifetime, instruct the scientists to build a nuclear bomb because he understands that the price is too grave. But now they have already paid the price. Do they want to continue to pay future prices? They don't want to be exposed to the mercy of the West.' The backlash Loading In Iran, a backlash against nuclear co-operation with the international community is already under way. The Speaker of Iran's parliament, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf announced on Tuesday that MPs were 'seeking to pass a bill that will suspend Iran's co-operation with the [International Atomic Energy] Agency (IAEA) until we receive concrete assurances of its professional conduct as an international organisation'. Previously, such rhetoric might have been seen as largely theatrical, rather than evidence of imminent intent to weaponise. But 'everything we thought we knew about Iran has been changed by this war,' says Citrinowicz. 'Until the current war, Iran preferred to do everything by its own capabilities,' he says. 'But if they understand that they need something quick, they might change their nuclear strategy regarding that, and prefer to buy a bomb. For example, from North Korea.' The North Korean model North Korea may provide inspiration in other ways. After the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, Iran shelved its nuclear weapons programme to avoid a similar fate. Libya's Muammar Gaddafi did the same. But North Korea, the third member of George W. Bush's 'axis of evil' after Iran and Iraq, instead doubled down, and in 2006, tested its first nuclear weapon. The subsequent fates of those regimes have been very different. Gaddafi was killed by an uprising backed by NATO in 2011. Iran has just been bombed comprehensively by Israel and America. From the point of view of regime survival, perhaps Kim Jong-il and his son Kim Jong-un made the right choice. But can Iran replicate its nuclear dash? In many ways, Iran is – or was – well ahead of the North Korean starting point. It has already mastered domestic uranium enrichment and has studied weaponisation. It has a large domestic resource of scientists trained in nuclear physics. And it already has a chunk of highly enriched material to start working with. The North Koreans, by contrast, began by building a plutonium bomb with material bred in an ordinary nuclear reactor – a technology they learnt from the Soviets. That is a complicated, painstaking process that limited them to building one bomb a year. It was only later, with information bought from a corrupt Pakistani scientist, that they mastered uranium enrichment and were able to churn out simpler and quicker to build uranium-based bombs. If Sima Shine is right that the Iranians have managed to preserve some centrifuges, they could spin up their 400 kilograms of 60 per cent enriched material to weapons-grade 90 per cent in just a couple of days. The tricky bit is moulding the fissile material into the right shape and fitting it with an explosive charge and a neutron initiator designed to provoke a chain reaction at just the right moment. Once the mechanism is built, it must be fitted onto a warhead and mounted on a delivery system – in Iran's case, a Shahab-3 liquid-fuelled ballistic missile. Those are fiddly engineering problems, but ones that Iran is known to have already made progress on, says David Albright, a former weapons inspector. 'They have some challenges in finishing up the design and other development steps. So I think six months is what they would need from start to finish' to make the actual weapon, and maybe 'several more months' to mount it on a missile, he told The Telegraph before the American attack on Fordow. 'The weapon-grade uranium part could be done very quickly and probably would be done toward the end of that six months,' he adds. There is another lesson from North Korea, he says. 'The Iranians designed their bomb so that it wouldn't need a nuclear test in order to have assurance it would work. But they may indeed test one if they wanted to assert their nuclear status. Loading 'North Korea did that same kind of programme, and it fired at one-tenth of the expected yield. So you can make a mistake. In the North Korean case, they then saw their mistake and corrected it. The same thing could happen to Iran. That's why I think it takes longer than a couple of months from start to finish on the design. I mean, they have to be careful because things can misfire.' Iran's missile forces have also been decimated by Israeli strikes, so it is unclear how many Shahab missiles they still have, or how quickly they could build more. Israeli officials have claimed the bombing raids set the Iranian nuclear program back by up to two years. But can Khamenei wait that long? North Korea is believed to have sold nuclear weapons technology in the past. Specifically, it provided the technology for the Syrian reactor at Al Kibar that Israel destroyed in 2007. It is the only country known to have done so, says Citrinowicz, making it the logical candidate for the Iranians to approach, especially given both countries' alliance with Russia in Ukraine. Rule nothing out But there is a big problem. All of this would depend on the Iranian nuclear programme remaining so secret that neither Israel nor America could discover it and destroy it. Given the level of intelligence penetration Iran suffered over the past two weeks, there is no guarantee of that. Loading 'I'm not saying this is going to happen, but I'm saying that we have to look outside the box. We have to be ready for the unexpected,' says Citrinowicz. 'Everything that we knew about Iran changed dramatically after our attack. In this situation right now, we cannot rule out anything.' The Telegraph, London
