Gravely concerning behaviour of Liberal Victorian MLC

Update: I have now received a reply advising that the President is only responsible for behaviour within the Chamber of the Legislative Council, and what happens outside is none of their business. The President cannot make comment on personal opinions of Members of the Chamber expressed outside of the Chamber - not as President, at any rate. 

So if a member wants to support, say, white supremacism outside the Chamber, the President can't comment in their role as President - but no doubt could and would as an individual or possibly even as an MLC.

Frustrating, and comes across poorly in view of yesterday's attempted insurrection in the USA (and the bloody-mindedness I am reading of in Roméo  Dallaire’s “Shake Hands with the Devil”, where nitpicking resulted in the UN effectively enabling the Rwandan genocide), but understandable given the pragmatic realities of trying to manage an institution like Parliament. 

It means I know the limits of that office, and will not seek their support again on matters outside the Chamber (and I know the President manages events in the Chamber correctly and well). 

At least the MLC's colleagues have made their displeasure known.

***

On the day of Trump's attempted insurrection / coup, a Victorian Liberal party member for Western  Metropolitan Region of the Legislative  Council of Victoria, Bernie  Finn, has posted conspiracy fantasy rubbish, showing a belief in the "Deep State" lies, a misguided belief that Trump was somehow "good", and delusions that the violence committed by Trump supporters was the result of leftist infiltration - for details, refer to https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-07/victorian-liberal-bernie-finn-donald-trump-election-posts/13039040 (note the important qualification in that article that there is no suggestion MLC Finn supported the violence). 

Of considerable significance is that the article reports growing irritation amongst his colleagues with MLC Finn, who is currently the opposition deputy whip and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for autism spectrum disorder, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Electoral Integrity and Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Melbourne's West.

Perhaps ... not for much longer? 

He's no stranger to controversy - including (from the Wikipedia link above) returning to vote despite being granted a pair, climate change denial, misogyny, pro-death penalty, and criticism of the BLM protests and protestors. 

In my opinion and words, he is a regressive social dinosaur. 

Now, we have a tradition - but limited laws - on free speech. That does not mean people can say whatever they want. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre is the classic example, but hate speech and incitement are also not covered by legal mores on free speech. 

From Lesson Nine of the Universidad Diego Portales's MOOC Chile course "Introduction to Human Rights" (YouTube; Udemy): 

Hate speech and war propaganda are directly forbidden by international human rights law. Hate speech is the advocacy of national, racial, and religious hatred that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence. For hate speech to be prohibited, it does not suffice [for it to be] a hateful expression. It is also required the advocacy of wrongful actions against a person or a group.

Clearly, based on the events today in the USA, Trump's views, which promote hate towards certain groups of people, lead to violence. Thus I consider advocating any of Trump's nonsense to be outside the category of free speech.

But let's have another look at that. 

From the legally enforceable International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:

Article 19
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Article 20
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Article 19 3(b): For the protection of ... public order ...
Insurrection and mass violence and disorder are not public order. Ergo, promoting such behaviour is not free speech. 

Article 20 2: Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
Promoting xenophobia, racism (including against BLM), and antisemitism (the insurrectionists today were wearing nazi and pro-Holocaust signs and symbols) is not covered by free speech. 

From the article "Social media giants have finally confronted Trump’s lies. But why wait until there was a riot in the Capitol?":

The storming of the Capitol is a logical consequence of what has arguably been a long time coming. 

 ...

In the past, platforms have cited constitutional reasons to justify not censoring politicians. They have claimed a civic duty to give elected officials an unfiltered voice.

This line of argument should have ended with the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville in August 2017, when Trump responded to the killing of an anti-fascism protester by claiming there were “very fine people on both sides”.

My opinion is that MLC Finn's views and posts are not free speech: they are acts of hate and are on the same dangerous fascist path that saw the USA down go from the murder in Charlottesville to today's insurrection / coup. 

As such, they are not appropriate for a Member of the Legislative Council.

In fact, I would go so far as to say they breach Section 13 (1) of the Members of Parliament (Standards) Act 1978:

13 Personal conduct

(1)  A Member must ensure that their conduct as a Member does not bring discredit upon the Parliament.

By promoting absurd and dangerous conspiracy fantasies, I consider MLC Finn has brought discredit upon the Parliament. 

Which is why I emailed the President of the Legislative Council (and the Speaker) asking if it was possible to censure MLC Finn for his conduct.

Dear President and Speaker, 

On the day that the USA fights off a violent coup/insurrection (with at least one fatality so far) incited by their current "president" (Trump), Liberal MLC Bernie Finn appears to have committed a similar act of incitement - certainly he has at the very least sought to undermine the democratic process - by posting conspiracy fantasy lies (see https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01-07/victorian-liberal-bernie-finn-donald-trump-election-posts/13039040). 

The spreading of such blatant lies is one of the key ways Trump and his fanatics have, over the last six years or so, created a situation of gross distrust that enabled today's attempted coup/insurrection in that nation. 

Is it possible for MLC Finn to be censured for his appalling act of irresponsibility?

Yours sincerely 

Should other dangerous acts of irresponsibility be committed by your representatives, please consider a reasonably polite, specific email requesting consideration of some action. 

If I had had more time, my email would have been better written, but I think the above gives you some idea. 

Where you can, it helps to refer to specifics, and it always helps to be polite: you're writing this to get change or action, not to vent, and thus the impact on the thinking of the recipient, not how you feel, is what matters.(I now consider my email slightly too emotional.) 

My next email will be asking The Elders why they have done nothing about Museveni - and I've already had a nonsense reply to one email I've written, but that was before the current egregious, violent repression by Museveni - who clearly thinks there is a possibility he could lose the coming election, and is just as shit-scared as Trump.