On Fox News Sunday Ron Paul upped the ante on his opposition to sexual harassment laws by claiming that there should be no federal laws against sexual harassment.
Here is the video:
WALLACE: Let me just interrupt, I’m sorry but we have limited time and we want to get to the other two candidates as well. I want to ask you about one other thing that you wrote back in your book in 1987 about sexual harassment in the workplace.
You wrote this, “Why don’t” — this is about the victims of sexual harassment. “Why don’t they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously, the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem?”
You said that sexual harassment should not be a violation of someone’s employment rights?
PAUL: Well, the whole thing is, is you have to get a better definition of sexual harassment. If it’s just because somebody told the joke and somebody was offended, they don’t have a right to go to the federal government and have a policeman to come in and put penalties on those individuals. I mean, they have to say, well, maybe this is not a very good environment, and they have the right to work there or not there.
But if sexual harassment involves violence as libertarians, we are very opposed to any violence. So, if there is any violence involved, you still don’t need a federal law against harassment. You just need to call the policeman and say there’s been an assault or there’s been attempted rape or something.
So, you have to separate those two out. But because people are insulted by, you know, rude behavior, I don’t think we should make a federal case out of it. I don’t think we need federal laws to deal with that and people should deal with that at home.
Paul has held these views on sexual harassment laws for decades, but it wasn’t until he went from a fringe player to top tier Iowa candidate that anyone bothered to do even the most basic vetting of this candidate.
What Ron Paul was saying here is that there should not be any federal laws against sexual harassment. There should not be any civil rights protections for women and some men in the workplace. In other words, sexual harassment should be legal. Rep. Paul’s statements today reflect his ideology taken to its logical conclusions. I have praised Ron Paul in the Republican debates for his consistency, but we should not mistake consistency for a rigid ideological inflexibility that promotes a decision making process where details and circumstances don’t matter. In the mind of Ron Paul, the ideology must be adhered to at all times.
There should be no federal laws against sexual harassment. This is what voters are getting if they vote for Ron Paul. Rep. Paul has been moving up in Iowa, because this extremist message appeals to the very very conservative caucus goers. Democrats who are tempted to support Paul need to realize that no matter how tempting his foreign policy is, Ron Paul makes George W. Bush look like an enlightened an open minded thinker.
In a year when many in the Republican base are desperately searching for an extremist candidate, Ron Paul represents a kind of ideological purity and simplicity that for them is as addictive as crack.
Paul’s position on sexual harassment in the work place could also extend to other forms of discrimination. If Paul doesn’t believe in sexual harassment laws, then he probably doesn’t believe in the other civil rights laws that prevent discrimination based on race, color, age, sex, creed, and disability. Ron Paul believes the market should be left alone at all times, and this includes allowing employers to freely discriminate.
A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for sexual harassment. Something tells me this isn’t the kind of bumper sticker that the Republican Party wants to see.
Related posts:
- Is Sexual Harassment Really Just Telling a Joke She Doesn’t Like?
- Mike Huckabee Compares Sexual Harassment To Ordering Chicken At Popeyes
- In GOP Bizarro World: Sexual Harassment Makes Herman Cain More Electable
- Herman Cain Comes Unglued In Crazed Sexual Harassment Email Rant
- Herman Cain Makes Light of Sexual Harassment on Jimmy Kimmel
I urge people to watch this short video clip with Ron Paul answering a question on “why won’t he come out on the truth about 9/11″. It is astonishing and it makes a rational observer conclude that Ron Paul indeed is a truther. Watch for yourselves: http://youtu.be/3u0tgNUfOL8
A 15 sec, shoddy video clip, taken out of context does not lead any rational observer to any conclusions. Nothing is astonishing about that video. 0/10.
Sounds to me like hes saying someone shouldnt get an MMS for a penis joke at work.
I believe the writer of this spot should go back and re-read the comments that were made on the report. I am not a specific Ron Paul fan, However, from what I read,
Ron Paul said nothing about taking away civil rights. What he simply said was, the laws are way to touchy on just items such as jokes, which people do not have to listen too, and that the laws stated were actually repeat9ing laws already in effect. If there is an advance on people of the opposite sex, gender, however you like, that is physical, they have a right to object. If it is a forceful move, or violent, it is already against the law in the state itself. More than likely, also in the city the work place is in. When you get too many laws, overlapping, they confuse the issue. It simply takes a report to the proper authorities for law enforcement. As long as people allow someone to harass them, especially women, then they are looking for it. Look as these things in a logical manner. I would not work for anyone who harassed me, even after once or twice. So, why hang around somewhere that has this type profile? Do the women actually like it, if they get something from it? Or, why would they put up with it?
“As long as people allow someone to harass them, especially women, then they are looking for it.”
I hope you don’t post that where there are a lot of women. Thats horrendously ignorant.
Russ, I suggest you stay away from women the rest of your life
I would not work for anyone who harassed me, even after once or twice.
I take it you either are extremely secure in your ability to find alternate employment immediately, or somehow do not require employment to live.
This is a ridiculously hyperbolic assessment of Paul’s position. I am a gay white man who has an often raunchy sense of humour but am not myself a mysoginist, racist, or creep. Many of these issues can be circumstancial and intent is key. People who are way too easily offended are idiots and probably assholes. I’m not a huge fan of Paul, but I am a huge fan of being realistic and thinking about what he MEANS when he says something, not exaggerating his or anyone’s position to this farcical conclusion.
So words don’t count for sexual harassment. So when your master instruct to bend over the desk and drop your draws and take one to keep your job, that’s OK, after all it is only words.
So what if you get fired the next day, under Libertarian rule masters ‘er’ employers have the right to fire servants ‘er’ employees for any reason they choose, so in this case simply performance failure is OK, whether it is you or your children.
After all it’s not rape when they agree to keep their job, health benefits and make house payments.
Robert – You sound ridiculous. It’s people like you who muddy up actual adult discussion with nonsense. “…Take one to keep your job.” What are you even talking about? You make it sound like we all work in brothels under the whips of ruthless pimps.
Paul’s message is simple. If you are under attack in the work place, call the police. If you are sensitive to jokes, walk away. I have the two legs and the personal agency to live my life the way I see fit.
Get a grip.
and you also have no idea what sexual harassment is. Paul’s message is simple all right but unfortunately unworkable. I am sorry if you are against sexual harassment laws. But if I was a woman I certainly wouldn’t want a policeman deciding whether or not I was being sexually harassed. And I certainly wouldn’t want you for a lawyer
Key word: “Federal”. States already have laws in place prohibiting sexual harassment. There’s no reason for the Fed to be in the same business.
It all makes sense when a company receives funds via federal grants and contracts, as in construction companies, auto dealerships,law enforcement, local government, medical, etc.
Wow, talk about taking things out of context, this is a perfect example. Is this site owned by FOX news by any chance ? What he said was, “But because people are insulted by, you know, rude behavior, I don’t think we should make a federal case out of it. I don’t think we need federal laws to deal with that and people should deal with that at home”. How does that get turned into Civil rights ?
If you have to ask that question you will never understand the answer.
Well then. If Paul feels there should be no law to protect victims, give a ton of harassment day in/day out.
Maybe if all he hears is derogatory sexual harassment references to himself/family non-stop, maybe he will start feeling otherwise.
Give ‘em hell!
JMO…
[...] but I do believe that many racists are attracted to his candidacy. His minorities should have no federal civil rights position appeals to racists near and [...]
[...] http://www.politicususa.com/en/ron-paul-sexual-harassment [...]
[...] PoliticusUSA | Ron Paul Ups The Ante And Claims Sexual Harassment Shouldn’t Be Illegal What Ron Paul was saying here is that there should not be any federal laws against sexual harassment. There should not be any civil rights protections for women and some men in the workplace. In other words, sexual harassment should be legal. [...]